Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Democratic totalitarianism

By Hume's Ghost

"... there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods ... These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists." - George Orwell, The Freedom of the Press

The strength and importance of How Would A Patriot Act? as a polemic is that it lays out a clear and easy to follow case that the Bush administration, acting on radical legal theory developed by John Yoo, has claimed for itself unlimited executive power to prosecute an indefinite "war on terror." Glenn develops this central premise by going through various administration scandals - the use of torture, imprisonment of US citizens without due process, NSA domestic surveillance in violation of the law, etc - and relating how they follow logically from John Yoo's belief that nothing, not Congress, nor the Courts, can limit the president's power to act in the name of national security.

Yet, despite this being, frankly, clear as day, there are still many who just don't see a problem with it. These are the people who believe in democracy in principle, but in practice, not so much. They are able to rationalize the administration's totalitarian methods of prosecuting the "war on terror" for two reasons: 1) they lack sympathy for anyone designated a terrorist target and 2) they fail to see the use of totalitarian tactics as a threat to themselves, they see it as a kind of benign, virtuous act necessary to defend democracy.

There are no doubt other factors, but I believe these two can for a large part account for why so many people seem so ambivalent about the use of totalitarian methods. They view complaints of violated civil liberties as hysterics, as worries of "phantom liberties" being lost because they don't perceive having lost any liberty themself. They are incredulous that the Bush administration could abuse such methods, the "noble motives" defense one might call this, and as an example of this defense I refer you to this entry where I respond to David Limbaugh's call for honest debate about the NSA surveillance program. Notice that by "honest debate" Limbaugh meant dismissing criticism of the program a priori on the grounds that the President couldn't possibly have any unpatriotic motives in authorizing the NSA surveillance.

This is something that has appeared obvious to me, but I find myself lacking the words to articulate a better response than the Orwell quote above. Which is why I would like to direct your attention to an article in the current issue of Free Inquiry entitled "Bush's Totalitarian Logic" in which the author, Lissa Skitolsky, has hit this proverbial nail on the head. She begins

There has been much outrcy from both the Left and the Right over the use of totalitarian tactics to fight the way against terror. However, these charges often sound hysterical and superficial; after all, we do not live under constant threat of imprisonment or death.
Skitolsky then makes the point that comparing specific measures taken after 9/11 to totalitarianism is the wrong comparison, one should be comparing the logic that justifies such actions to see the true similarities between these acts and totalitarianism.

The underlying logic of the Bush administration, says Skitolsky, is that "we must respond to threats before they emerge and so attain greater control over our security in an uncertain world." She borrows from Hannah Arendt to identifiy this as the idea that "all is possible." The description of this logic will sound immediately familiar

A government that operates accourding to the view that "all is possible" does not distinguish between an idea of what is or what may occur and the reality of what is ocurring, and so the validity of an idea is not tested by empirical evidence that could serve to verify or refute the idea in question. Rather, as Arendt explains, such a view embraces a flawed logic whereby an idea is proven true by the events that occur as a result of acting on that idea.
As I said, this is familiar. Recall reporter Ron Suskind's account of a conversation with a senior Bush advisor

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Skitolsky writes that we see this logic at play in the invasion of Iraq, where the idea of Iraq as the central front in fighting terrorism was "proved" by the invasion itself. This logic is immune from criticism or rational consideration. Reality is what the state's actions define it to be.

[E]very new "fact" - whether the establishment of secret prisons or the endless violence and senseless deaths in Iraq - only serves to provide evidence for the validity of our policies and actions. If we are not attacked, then our policies are "proved" to be working and if we are attacked, then our policies are "proved" to be necessary.
The use of signing statements to usurp the legislative branch's power, Skitolsky says, "indicates that the word of the president now determines the meaning of and binding force of the law." This is a particularly devastating critique considering that earlier in the passage she had noted that a fundamental feature of the Nazi regime was that the word of the Fuhrer was law.

The next point is one that has been discussed here at length, and which has been fully exploited by people like Senator Pat "you don't have civil liberties if you're dead" Roberts.

That our national "security" is always invoked as the ultimate justification for every extra-legal measure only obscures the fact that we are, in fact, much less secure than before the war in Iraq and the pasasage of the PATRIOT Act. That so many Americans affirm the right of the president to suspend civil liberties for the sake of this much needed and elusive "security" only confirms that our values have changed; no longer willing to die for the sake of our democratic ideals, we are now willing to indefinitely suspend those ideals in order to avoid an unexpected death."
Speaking about the warrantless NSA surveillance program Skitolsky explains how Vice President Cheney's contention that the program helps "prevent possible terrorist attacks" is circular totalitarian logic that justifies the program on the grounds that it might prevent a possible attack. She also notes that "in a world where 'all is possible,' facts take a backseat to possibilities, and, since every citizen is a possible terrorist, then every citizen is a possible threat and so also a possible detainee."

The possibility than any citizen might be a terrorist provides the rationale for making every citizen the target of surveillance. And since the world is full of possible, if not actual, threats, preemptive war threatens to turn into perpetual war, perpetually justifying the police state powers claimed by the administration.

The article is worth reading if you can get your hands on a copy.

58 comments:

  1. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

    While I vehemntly disagree with the attitude that prompted this statement, I must concede that it contains the seeds of truth. This post, this blog, and the left blogosphere in general have studied this administration's malfeasance ad nauseum. Where is the all-important call to action?
    One of the ubiquitous complaints about government is that they have a tendency when faced with crisis to form an inappropriately named 'action committee' whose purpose is to debate the problem while it gets worse. Can't we do better than that?
    Obviously the task of ameliorating the harm done by BushCo™ will be long and difficult, but first steps must be made soon. I would suggest a massive effort to be made towards organizing a country-wide protest well ahead of the upcoming elections. The purpose would be to send a message to all Americans that something is wrong with this country, and that something needs to be done. The problem, as I see it, can only be confronted if that segment of the population now relying on the efforts of the useless efforts of the mainstream press is shaken into awareness well BEFORE THE NOVEMBER MIDTERMS.
    How about July 4? Besides the patriotic symbolism the idea of people taking time away from the barbeque or cottage to save their country could have some impact. I envision thousands in the streets of Washington, D.C. (But in front of every courthouse and townhall in wherever you live, too), all flying upside-down flags to signal the crisis that now approaches calamity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think any phrase illustrates Orwell's doublethink and Arendt's "all is possible" than this: "No Longer Enemy Combatant. We detained them, therefore they are enemy combatants by definition because the government does not make mistakes and our actions prove our theory correct. If, for political reasons, they later have to release the detainees, they cannot admit that they were detained for no reason (or that they're releasing "the worst of the worst" of the terrorists). To Bush, They should have been detained because they were "enemy combatants," but it's safe to release them now because they are "enemy combatants" "no longer." And that's what totalitarianism requires. "For," as Orwell told us in 1984, "the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one's own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes." This sense that the government is infallible and that enemies are expendable is really the essence of totalitarianism, and it's been perfected under Rumsfeld.

    ------

    Again, June is Torture Awareness Month. Please take some time today to read about (and possibly blog about) the effects of what this country is doing. It's not just "lost civil liberties. It's lost people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:49 AM

    This post, this blog, and the left blogosphere in general have studied this administration's malfeasance ad nauseum. Where is the all-important call to action?

    There is some action being taken on this issue. There's a diary by a Congressional candidate over at dKos who's trying to take on this issue. As implied in the post here, a big problem with the Democratic response has been the timid legalese of the rhetoric. People just aren't moved when one side says, "We're not sure if this program follows the law, we need to know more." The diary over there (full disclosure: I volunteer for that candidate) takes a different tack, including an ad that just tries to introduce the issue by playing on its basic creepiness. When we pick up the phone, who's listening?

    This program does impact almost everyone, and that's what Democrats should be focused on rhetorically. There are so many jokes I've seen based on the wiretapping ... it's in the zeitgeist that it's a little spooky. Democrats need to take advantage of that.

    BriVT

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous10:04 AM

    If we are not attacked, then our policies are "proved" to be working and if we are attacked, then our policies are "proved" to be necessary.

    No doubt Bush believes this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. People tend to trust Bush because over time he has demonstrated the welfare of the nation as his first concern

    Fortunatly you provided a quote which was appropriate to what I was going to say anyway. Anyone willing to defend the Yoo theory of Presidential supremacy has to be reminded that Bush will not always be the President.

    You may be pefectly comfortable with him exercising these unprecidented powers but what if were some "bleeding heart" gets elected who suddenly decides that it's gun owners who represent a grave threat to this country?

    Who'll be defending our Liberties then?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Disenchanted Dave:

    Again, June is Torture Awareness Month.

    Yes, I'd be glad to help. Perhaps an updated version of my "Torture can be just the ticket, just keep it illegal, please?" article? (for those skimming, the title is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek response to "24" aficionados and others of the opinion that we wouldn't manage "everything possible" without torture and other "streamlining" of the law, and that such in the hands of good-intentioned and capable men is a "good thing").

    Any suggestions for improvements or additions would be welcomed.

    Also, if anyone has an idea how I can add links to a "standard cookie-cutter" Blogger blog page, please point me the right direction, and I'll put in some links.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous11:04 AM

    shooter242: I am confused about two of your concerns:

    livelihood (The government is set to forcibly take more of my earnings)

    Then why would you ever support the Republican party which, since gaining power, has set records for deficit spending and larger, more intrusive government, despite their promises to do the exact opposite?

    It is plain as day that the Republican party does not make fiscal responsibility a priority.

    With the budget an unprecedented mess, with underfunded armed forces, what do they do?

    They give themselves raises.

    democracy (The fight against requiring a photo ID to vote threatens the validity of the process.) right here at home.

    If you are genuinely concerned about the voting process's integrity, are you pushing for a verifiable paper trail in our voting process? Inherently insecure electronic voting machines are a far greater threat to our vote. Yet I see no Republicans taking the issue seriously.


    Are you a real conservative, or just a good Republican party member?

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is no reason for "call to massive protest" the issue is best handled on the intellectual or ethical level.

    One of the most effective Republican tactics of late has been to take some of the sillier progressives, draw up caricatures of them and then try to tar the entire movement with the resultant "point and laugh" reaction that it draws.

    I think that supporting organizations like the EFF and ACLU is probably more effective than "taking it the streets" ever could be.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous11:39 AM

    shooter242: Do you understand that the deficit represents, not the rate at which we are borrowing money, but the rate at which we are failing to cover the interest payments on the national debt?

    This "increased revenue" means that we are only going about 1 billion further into debt per day, rather than 2 billion per day.

    The debt continues to grow. The Republicans will not fix our economy and have driven us to the brink of a depression. The Republicans are the ones who promised us to change the situation, but have exacerbated it beyond anyone's expectations.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "the major" said:

    Well as always you just dont get it....

    We're of the opinion that you "just don't get it". There, we're even, right?

    ... I'm getting kind of tired of posting here because I try to explain evertyhing and nobody listens to me and then they just call me names instread of arguing me on the merits.

    Ahhh, feel the depth of conviction here, folks! Just a FYI, "Major": If people aren't "getting" it and don't listen to whatever it is you're saying, maybe time to take a step back and reflect yourself: "How can I make my argument more presuasive? Are there holes in my logic that seem tobe stumbling blocks for toher? Have I addressed the objections and counter-points of my opponents, or do I just keep saying the same thing?"

    But i'll try it one more time.

    Do read what I said above, and think about it as we go through this:

    Pat Roberts said you dont't have any civil liberties if your dead.

    And did others respond to this simplistic "sound bite"? Did you consider the reply? Say, did you know that you don't have any property if you're dead? So what say we take your property in an effort to let you keep living? Fair 'nuff? It's "for the greater good", you know. Plus, that war over there's getting damn expensive....

    ... How can you argue with that. You die and thats it you can't vote or anything at all...

    A bit of the "fallacy of bifurcation". You're assuming the only choices we have are to lose our civil liberties or die. But then again, IIRC, some people here came back with one of the most stirring sentiments of one of the founding generation of America: "Give me liberty or give me death!" And what, pray tell, did you respond to that? Was Patrick Henry wrong? C'mon, are you a man or a mouse? Out with it....

    ... I guess you all just want this freat country to be taken down by a bunch of crazy terroristic arabs....

    Ummm, as many have pointed out, the "death" of the United States as a "freat" ("great"? "free"? A portmanteau word? If so, I'll have to give you some credit for originality) country is far more likely from the actions of those that would tear down our essential liberties voluntarily from within, than it is from the threats from terrorists overseas.

    ... I think that's wrong and traitorous Sometimes you have to give up some rights so you can survive that's life get used to it liberals.

    No thank you. And fortunately, for the time being, I still have that freedom. You've surrendered it already (and for the price not of a bowl of pottage, but the cost of duct tape and plastic). Wimp.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  12. shooter242:

    By the way, is anyone here going to issue an apology to Karl Rove for the assumption that he was guily of some heinous crime?

    It's already generally acknowlegded that Rove changed his "story" after Cooper started co-operating. His excuse: "Oh, I forgot about telling Cooper about Plame! My, my, how silly of me?" So he's already an acknowledged liar, and he has admitted to outing Plame. But in a maladministration that considers felony convictions (not to mention substantial contributions to the Republican party) to be a high-light of the resume, that just endears him to the Republicans. "He's one of us!!!"

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous12:19 PM

    Nero fiddled while Rome burned. In similar fashion Shooter 'hehs' as the richest nation on earth buries itself in debt.

    I ask myself 'What would the Leader do'? and I think he'd sound just like Shooter.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous12:29 PM

    shooter242: What has 9/11 to do with spending? You will note that the majority of Republican spending increases are NOT related to the war on terror. Who are you trying to kid?

    As for a depression scare, you're a little late for that one. Currently we are in an inflation scare.

    This makes no sense at all. Price inflation and depressions are intrinsically linked. Perhaps you were thinking of "deflation"?

    as a percentage of GDP (table 2) it's smaller than most of Clinton's term

    That's very intersting that you bring this up. Take a look at this graph. The decrease in this metric in the later Clinton years was not due to a tax cut (taxes actually continued to increase, when adjusting for inflation), but rather to Clinton cooking the books and re-classifying large portions of our debt.

    Bush has not reversed this policy, but his own spending has outpaced the tricks Clinton used to hide his spending. No accounting tricks can hide the dire situation of our country's finances anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous12:54 PM

    Trust me, I am all over the gold. Commodities in general, actually.

    I can't understand how anyone can favor a party that breaks so many promises and acts so irresponsibly.

    The Republican party we once knew is gone.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Military Tribunals To Begin at US Guantanamo Concentration Camp

    According to Editors and Publishers:

    J.D. Gordon, the Pentagon press officer, told E&P that these two reporters had been invited to come to Guantanamo last weekend for the start of tribunals. Mike Gordon and Observer photographer Todd Sumlin arrived to produce a profile of the camp commander, who hails from North Carolina. The suicides of the three detainees happened to occur in this time period and the tribunals were cancelled.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous1:51 PM

    Yeah, exactly what are conservatives supposed to like about Bush that didn't apply to Clinton?

    It makes me mad that the last Democratic administration was more conservative in the real sense than the current Republican administration.

    All those years I thought it would be the Democrats who foisted a police state on us, but Republicans decided to join 'em, not beat 'em.

    Bush Jr. looks more like Clinton Jr. from the conservative perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  18. shooter242 is a "True Believer" (doubt he knows where that's from):

    3) People tend to trust Bush because over time he has demonstrated the welfare of the nation as his first concern.

    Ummm, like playing the guitar and cutting cake at Republican party functions while Katrina was bearing down on NOLA? Like running like a scared rabbit all across the country on 9/11? Like hiring the most imcompetent bunch of party hacks and/or thieves to fill the gummint? Like using "terror alerts" for political purposes? Like doing photo-ops on the coffins of thousands of dead (and U.S. soldiers even) in political grand-standing for partisan advantage?

    Really.... What has Dubya done that has ever demonstrated any concern except for his moneybags supporters and corporations?

    But there is another reason why we don't go ballistic as you and Glenn would like because we are battling our own domestic totalitarianism here, from your side of the aisle.

    Projection, eh?

    I'm not going to worry about terrorist's comfort, or the debate around whether Zarqawi should be taken alive ...

    Ignoring the fact that many of those held have been released because they weren't the "big, bad terra-ists" that got your panties all wet.... Yeah, you won't worry if some folks skulls need to be crushed; a dictatorship needs some "efficiencies", and hell, they'll never come for you, will they? "Niemoller".

    ... when I have these threats to my .....
    * livelihood (The government is set to forcibly take more of my earnings)


    Why should your children finance you profligacy, eh? If you're serious about "what's mine is mine", then how can you justify spending the money of our descendants on you?

    * home (The Supreme Court has enabled towns to take one's home without public cause.)

    This is a victory for the corporations that are running the Republican party. Hell, Dubya got his stadium through "eminent domain", and they used it to build a shopping mall.

    I'm in favour of "eminent domain", btu I think it should be used wisely. I don't think that Kelo was such a case, although it was hardly "cut and dry". Doesn't make me a "conservative", and it hardly makes me a Dubya supporter; hell, I haven't heard a word from Dubya about it.

    * religion (One may not wear religious symbols in certain locations.)

    Lie. Remember your Ninth Commandment.

    * democracy (The fight against requiring a photo ID to vote threatens the validity of the process.)
    right here at home.


    "The fight against literacy tests and poll taxes threatens the validity of the process. How can we let those that can't afford to buy their democracy and those that can't read have a voice in our political process?"

    We are in the odious situation where liberals want to beat us up at home,...

    Ummm, you know, they have drugs nowadays that will mitigate the more debilitating effects of paranoia.

    while making life better for those that would kill us.

    Huh?

    I bet several will call this observation "beside the point", "hysteria", or some such, but do so at your own peril. Every voter has a calculus weighing what is most important at any given moment.

    I'd call it RW screeching (or "fomaing"). Typical Limbaughesque fact-free and thought-free rant.

    Which is more important to me? My house being taken away or the monitoring of an overseas call.

    What makes you think that those that can take one away can't just as easily take the other away onder the same "justification"? In fact, that's in part what Glenn's book is about; you ought to read it.

    Not to mention, a bit of "fallacy of bifurcation" here.

    ... You can debate the abstract unfairness of it all day, but in the end it has to be measured against real issues.

    Oh, really? Let me know when you do that, 'kay?

    ...

    [phd9]: You may be pefectly comfortable with him exercising these unprecidented powers but what if were some "bleeding heart" gets elected who suddenly decides that it's gun owners who represent a grave threat to this country? Who'll be defending our Liberties then?

    First of all these are not unprecedented powers. Clinton had his own versions of them internally (Carnivore)...

    Lie.

    and Internationally (eschalon).

    Not illegal. "Echelon", BTW.

    ... In addition at least one president had all telegrams intercepted at the borders....

    Yeah, more than one. Read James Bamford's books for more on this. In fact, when it was revealed that the cable companies had been doign this for decades, an uproar was raised, and this was part of the reasons FISA was passed. But you want to turn FISA into a nullity again....

    [snip irrelevancy]

    Clinton had almost a thousand FBI files,...

    Lies.

    ... used the IRS on his enemies list,...

    Lies. That was Nixon.

    ... got fellow dems to redact 100 pages of report on that activity,...

    Lies.

    ... got campaign money from the Chinese communists and gave them Loral in return,...

    Lies.

    ... sold the Lincoln bedroom,...

    Not quite true. Reagan, Bush I, and Dubya have done the same damn thing.

    ... was charged with rape,...

    And so here if I accuse you of being an axe-murdering pederast, we can refer to you henceforth as "Shooter, that accused axe-murdering pederast", eh?

    ... caught with an intern,...

    Whoopdedoo.

    ... etc etc etc and for all that had the best poll numbers around.

    Burns that your slimes didn't work, eh?

    Well, Dubya's in the tank because he's the most incompetent and venal preznit ever.

    The lesson here is that if it's a liberal in office, anything goes - and no matter what, you still be more popular than Bush.

    Problem is, with Dubya in office, there's those, such as you, that would defend him right up to the point where he raped a dead Boy Scout on the Rose Garden lawn in front of television cameras ... and even then, perhaps make excuses that he was driven to do it by the exigencies of fighting the Great Wah On Terrah and that it was necessary to keep you from wetting your pants....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous2:41 PM

    Democratic totalitarianism
    By Hume's Ghost

    The strength and importance of How Would A Patriot Act? as a polemic...

    I'm glad you recognize Glenn's book as a political polemic. It surely is not a legal argument.

    ...is that it lays out a clear and easy to follow case that the Bush administration, acting on radical legal theory developed by John Yoo, has claimed for itself unlimited executive power to prosecute an indefinite "war on terror." ...Yet, despite this being, frankly, clear as day, there are still many who just don't see a problem with it. These are the people who believe in democracy in principle, but in practice, not so much.

    How exactly is the issue of which branch of government gets to exercise the constitutional foreign policy and war powers have anything to do with democracy?

    This tiff over whether the President or Congress or both may exercise these constitutional powers does not implicate democracy because both the President and Congress are equally elected. The only possible anti democratic element here might be Congress' attempt to delegate its oversight power to the unelected FISA court.

    They are able to rationalize the administration's totalitarian methods of prosecuting the "war on terror" for two reasons: 1) they lack sympathy for anyone designated a terrorist target and 2) they fail to see the use of totalitarian tactics as a threat to themselves, they see it as a kind of benign, virtuous act necessary to defend democracy...

    What "totalitarian" tactics are those?

    Imprisoning enemy combatants in a war without recourse to lawyers and a civil criminal trial?

    Spying in the enemy during a war without warrants?

    Color me underwhelmed. Every democracy in the history of the world has done this as a matter of course.

    The only incident about which there is an argument is whether a US citizen acting as an enemy combatant during a time of war should be treated as a civilian traitor or a military prisoner.

    The underlying logic of the Bush administration, says Skitolsky, is that "we must respond to threats before they emerge and so attain greater control over our security in an uncertain world."

    Huh?

    We are in an active shooting war in which the enemy has attacked our homeland and our interests around the world and in so doing has murdered nearly 4000 of our citizens. The threat from that enemy is clear and present, not hypothetical.

    The theory of preemptive action is that you identify enemy plans to launch attacks before they happen and move to block those attacks.

    This is hardly a "totalitarian" tactic. It is common sense.

    The possibility than any citizen might be a terrorist provides the rationale for making every citizen the target of surveillance.

    This might be disturbing if you had any evidence whatsoever that the government is "making every citizen the target of surveillance." Since you do not, your hypothesis is based on a fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous3:16 PM

    To Bart -

    "It surely is not a legal argument."

    I don't recall Glenn never billed it as such.

    Your 'objections' (I use the term loosely) to the post's points show no grasp of the issues under discussion nor what it fundamentally at stake. I'm no longer sure if this is a willful blindness or if you simply aren't capable of understanding.

    Put simply, both the Administration's and your own interpretations of Article I versus Article II of the Constitution, and the authority granted by each to their respective Branches, has neither been legally tested nor withstand even casual scrutiny. The fact ever-expanding parameters of the President's powers are being sought, increasingly without even clear justification about why such expansions are necessary, is alone reason for concern.

    You're explanations that we are in a 'shooting war' fails on practical grounds; you and the Administration have yet to clearly identify who the enemy is and by what metric we can measure 'victory'. I suspect this is no more an accident than Trotsky was misquoted when he's said to have sought "permanent revolution".

    Ultimately, the Administration's behavior is proving increasingly counter to both the rule of law ("signing statements" notwithstanding) and simple common sense. I'd advise you to put yourself on the other side of the argument to get some perspective, but I already suspect your shirt is brown and its unlikely you could entertain such notions even if you wanted.

    Good luck to you anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Only in pure logic and mathematics, not in human affairs, can one demonstrate that something is strictly impossible. Because something is logically possible, it is not therefore probable. "It is not impossible" is a preface to an irrelevant statement about human affairs. The question is always one of the balance of probabilities. And the evidence for probabilities must include more than abstract possibilities. - Sidney Hooke

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous3:25 PM

    I'd say a big part of why people so readily surrender their rights is that they have been thoroughly conditioned to do so. They expect that any supreme authority figure will have supreme power, and that failure to submit will be taken as defiance and dealt with severely. This is the lesson taught at school, at work, and in church.

    ReplyDelete
  23. HWSNBN sez:

    I'm glad you recognize Glenn's book as a political polemic. It surely is not a legal argument.

    How would HWSNBN know? The guy who miscites cases and law, and can't tell dicta from a holding is hardly an authority on what a "legal argument" is....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  24. HWSNBN hasn't read The Federalist:

    How exactly is [sic] the issue of which branch of government gets to exercise the constitutional foreign policy and war powers have anything to do with democracy?

    I'm not going to attempt to clue him in. Such efforts have been shown to be akin to trying to teach pigs to sing.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  25. HWSNBN thinks for some unfathomable reason that judges shouldn't be issuing warrants:

    The only possible anti democratic element here might be Congress' attempt to delegate its oversight power to the unelected FISA court.

    The refutation is obvious. No need to even cite it, much less quote it.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  26. HWSNBN's spell-checker is on the fritz:

    Imprisoning enemy combatants in a war without recourse to lawyers and a civil criminal trial?

    Spying in the enemy during a war without warrants?

    It missed "alleged enemy combatants", "contary to the Geneva Conventions", "Spying on U.S. persons" and "undeclared war which state the AG has confirmed."

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous4:05 PM

    Senator Pat "you don't have civil liberties if you're dead" Roberts.

    it was actually John Cornyn that said this, to which Feingold replied, "Give me liberty or give me death."

    Too good, almost as if it was scripted, but I doubt Cornyn would want to be upstaged like that.

    ReplyDelete
  28. HWSNBN sez:

    The only incident about which there is an argument is whether a US citizen acting as an enemy combatant during a time of war should be treated as a civilian traitor or a military prisoner.

    But, in the words of Woody Guthrie's son, "there was a third possibility that we hadn't even counted upon, and we was both immediately arrested...."

    ... and imprisoned without charges, lawyer, trial, sentence, or bail.

    Which is the option that Dubya pursued. Dem's da facts. That's HWSNBN's hero, Dubya.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cornyn and Roberts have both made similar comments about not having civil liberties if you're dead.

    ReplyDelete
  30. HWSNBN:

    The theory of preemptive action is that you identify enemy plans to launch attacks before they happen and move to block those attacks.

    And to make an omelette, you need to break a few eggs. So what if the likes of el-Masri are "inconvenienced" a little in the name of "efficiency". Hell, he's got an Ayrab sounding name anyways....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  31. HWSNBN chooses ignorance:

    This might be disturbing if you had any evidence whatsoever that the government is "making every citizen the target of surveillance." Since you do not, your hypothesis is based on a fiction.

    HWSNBN doesn't want to know. To him, quaking in his bunny-loafers, "Trust me, I'm from the gummint" makes perfect sense.

    The DSM-IV will ahve a name for this soon enough, if they don't have it already.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous4:18 PM

    Hume,

    You NAILED it. Particularly the first few paragraphs. I have been trying to make this point repeatedly, and it is just not getting across.

    I think people have somewhat forgotten what democracy really is, what basic prinicples it relies upon,and more importantly, WHY those principles matter. (A very short piece that gives an example with respect to the Constitution).
    (two examples of the issue in contravention of the rhetoric, and an example of why in a democracy the process is more important than the stated intent.)

    I think it is not getting across because not enough people are making the point, and the MEDIA has done such an extremely poor job of covering issues related to this, since they now think that covering news means to "give the spin of each side and pay attention to the underlying facts only if it won't get us accused of being liberal or partisan."

    I also think that not enough effort, and not enough of the right kind of effort is made to "bridge the gap."

    By bridging the gap, I do not mean changing policy positions or altering principles, I mean effectively communicating to a large part of the populace that has perhaps had these issues misconstrued to them (through poor information, and, far more often, through misleading rhetoric).

    On the daily kos, for example, individuals frequently ask " how can we broaden this message," but the answers are usually given in terms of policy. Meanwhile, on the approach, it often stays contentious.

    I would start with some synonym to "I think perhaps what is being missed is, or perhaps you misconstrue the issue"....[[fill in facts here, not negative adjectives]] and end with "Again, just consider."

    I think a LOT more effort needs to be made to bridge this gap and reach out to those individuals who do not on their own already self select excellent sites such as Unclaimed Territory. And to communicate the related facts, and the need to properly and continually present them, to the Media.

    I hope you have an opportuntiy to consider these points.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous4:22 PM

    And he did this while actually preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the US.

    Let's not get carried away with over-praising Clinton for his dedication to Constitutional principles. Check out the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1995 sometime (eagerly signed by Clinton), and note how much the anti-terrorism sections foreshadowed the worst elements of the Patriot Act, while the Death Penalty provisions stripped the federal courts of much of their ability to correct egregious Constitutional violations by state courts.

    That Clinton looks like the reincarnation of Montesquieu in comparison with Bush shouldn't disguise the sad fact that he was quite willing to damage the Constitution when it was to his political advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  34. sean nyc/aa:

    Senator Pat "you don't have civil liberties if you're dead" Roberts.

    it was actually John Cornyn that said this, to which Feingold replied, "Give me liberty or give me death."


    AFAIK, they've both conveyed the same sentiment. See here and here. Must have been in the RNC "talking points" memo.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous4:32 PM

    yankeependragon said...

    To Bart - "It surely is not a legal argument."

    I don't recall Glenn never billed it as such.


    Polemics work just fine when you are arguing policy. However, the theme of Glenn's book is the rampant "law breaking" of the Bush Administration. That requires a legal argument to support.

    Your 'objections' (I use the term loosely) to the post's points show no grasp of the issues under discussion nor what it fundamentally at stake. I'm no longer sure if this is a willful blindness or if you simply aren't capable of understanding.

    :::yawn:::

    Enlighten me.

    Put simply, both the Administration's and your own interpretations of Article I versus Article II of the Constitution, and the authority granted by each to their respective Branches, has neither been legally tested nor withstand even casual scrutiny. The fact ever-expanding parameters of the President's powers are being sought, increasingly without even clear justification about why such expansions are necessary, is alone reason for concern.

    OK, what does this have to do with either democracy or totalitarianism, which was HG's theme?

    Unlike HG, you are making a separation of powers argument.

    You're explanations that we are in a 'shooting war' fails on practical grounds; you and the Administration have yet to clearly identify who the enemy is and by what metric we can measure 'victory'.

    The enemy is Islamic fascism. The AUMF declared war on al Qaeda and its allied groups, which is the same thing. The so called "war on terror" is a rhetorical device.

    The enemy shares a common goal of waging holy war on western civilization as well as the people around the world who practice it. In particular, al Qaeda posted a written declaration of war against us back in 1998. We largely ignored it until 9/11.

    Given that the enemy is a transnational movement without territory or a single leadership, we have achieved victory when the enemy stops attacking us. There will be no conquest of territory or peace treaty.

    If you can come up with better definitions, that would be an interesting conversation.

    I'd advise you to put yourself on the other side of the argument to get some perspective, but I already suspect your shirt is brown and its unlikely you could entertain such notions even if you wanted.

    I am on both sides of this argument.

    I oppose indefinite detention of US citizens like Padilla who are acting as enemy combatants. They need to be tried under the Constitution.

    I oppose actual torture as defined by our amendment to the Torture Conventions.

    I oppose the non-definition of inhumane treatment under the McCain statute. If it is to be a crime, torture must be precisely defined.

    However, coercive treatment of an illegal enemy combatant is not torture and does not violate any law.

    Because I oppose actual torture, I also oppose rendition to a third country to allow them to perform torture. We can break the worst of these scum in short order by means less than torture.

    On the other hand, I support warrantless intelligence gathering targeting the enemy as has been the practice since the dawn of the Republic.

    I support detention of enemy combatants after a status hearing for the duration of hostilities. If the prisoner's jihadi comrades drag this war out past the detainees' lifetimes, tough luck. The only other alternative is executing them.

    I oppose providing foreign enemy combatants with lawyers and civilian criminal trials. They are military prisoners, not US civilians. If we provide them with trials for violations of international law, a military tribunal is more than enough due process considering they are due none under the Geneva Conventions as illegal combatants.

    I support finding then killing or capturing the scum before they can launch more mass murder attacks against our citizens and others.

    On the other hand, you folks have short circuited your reasoning. Under your approach, if Mr. Bush supports it, you are against it. Bush hatred saves you an awful lot of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous4:38 PM

    arne's pathological fixation with me continues apace.

    No less than 7 posts in response to my one.

    Get treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous4:39 PM

    But you still support waterboarding, right bart?

    The legal argument against Bush's wiretapping is plain as day and has been discussed with you many times before.

    You just choose to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. HWSNBN says cluelessly:

    No less than 7 posts in response to my one.

    If HWSNBN bothered to actually listen to what others are saying, he'd have seen that I've covered this previously: If he's so bothered that I post several replies to his one post, he ought to start limiting himself to just a single bit of outrageous nonsense in each of his posts.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  39. Someone said…
     “you don't have civil liberties if you're dead”


    You can also be quite alive and still be without civil liberties. You only can't fight to get them back once you're dead.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Accommodating HWSNBN's pet peeves:

    I am on both sides of this argument.

    I oppose indefinite detention of US citizens like Padilla who are acting as enemy combatants. They need to be tried under the Constitution.

    So Dubya was wrong then, and in a "power grab" in asserting the ability to hold him indefinitely without charges? Progress of a sort. I'd note that it wasn't Dubya that reined in his own behaviour, but a threat of court proceedings (which Dubya had originally sought to avoid on a procedural basis) that forced his hand. Dubya folded, rather than allowing an adverse decision on the merits.

    I oppose actual torture as defined by our amendment to the Torture Conventions.

    Our "amendment to the Torture Conventions"? Not sure why HWSNBN thinks that the U.S. can unilaterally "amend" treaties (if that's what he's suggesting). Maybe for the same reason he thinks that dicta are binding law.... As is usual, HWSNBN provides no cites (or links) to that which he says he agrees with.

    I oppose the non-definition of inhumane treatment under the McCain statute. If it is to be a crime, torture must be precisely defined.

    HWSNBN doesn't bother to define what it is about the McCain amendment that he finds so vague. I suspect he read this "talking point" off some RW site and just parroted it like a good Ditto-Bot. FWIW, the McCain amendment does define what torture is (and references the U.N. Convention Against Torture).

    Nor does HWSNBN define what it is that would constitute "torture" in his mind. Hardly a point for starting a discussion ... but HWSNBN is not one for "discussions".

    However, coercive treatment of an illegal enemy combatant is not torture and does not violate any law.

    Well, that is if you disregard the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Convention Agaist Torture, and such.

    Note the weasel words: "coercive treatment". It is true that "coercive treatment" per se is not prohibited (except for POWs under the Third Geneva Convention [see Article 17]), but some forms of coercion are prohibited, and that's what the Torture Amendment is all about.

    Because I oppose actual torture, I also oppose rendition to a third country to allow them to perform torture. We can break the worst of these scum in short order by means less than torture.

    HWSNBN's true feelings come out. Wonder how he feels about el-Masri or Arar. Then there's the case of the "information" we got from al-Libi ... that worked liek a charm.

    On the other hand, I support warrantless intelligence gathering targeting the enemy as has been the practice since the dawn of the Republic.

    Which is unremarkable. But HWSNBN also supports the warrantless wiretapping of U.S. persons in contravention of the FISA laws, as well as the collection of call data records from a wide swath of the U.S. public contrary to U.S. law.

    I support detention of enemy combatants after a status hearing for the duration of hostilities. If the prisoner's jihadi comrades drag this war out past the detainees' lifetimes, tough luck. The only other alternative is executing them.

    HWSNBN's humanity shies through once again.

    I'd point out that the Dubya maladministration initially declined to even hold the required hearings, and started doing so only late and under pressure from rights groups and others. I'd note also that the U.S. has released many prisoners after long captivity, something inexplicable other than by cocedign that they were wrongly held to begin with.

    I note also HWSNBN's lack of outrage and protest against the unlawful and inhumane practises of the maladministration. HWSNBN's "concern" here for formalities is a fraud and affectation.

    I oppose providing foreign enemy combatants with lawyers and civilian criminal trials. They are military prisoners, not US civilians....

    If they're military prisoners, they're entitled to the same procedures as U.S. military personnal for any charges leveled against them. This includes lawyers.

    ... If we provide them with trials for violations of international law, a military tribunal is more than enough due process considering they are due none under the Geneva Conventions as illegal combatants.

    Nonsense. The law is the law. They're either POWs or civilians. In either case, if they've broken any laws (including the "laws of war"), they're entitled to a trial and due process. Andything less is simply not a "trial" -- it's a mockery suitable of the old Soviet Union....

    I support finding then killing or capturing the scum before they can launch more mass murder attacks against our citizens and others.

    HWSNBN seems to drop the "alleged: bit a lot.... Wonder if he does that for his DUI customers.

    On the other hand, you folks have short circuited your reasoning. Under your approach, if Mr. Bush supports it, you are against it. Bush hatred saves you an awful lot of thinking.

    Nonsense. We oppose all of Dubya's illegalities and incompetence. Unfortunately, that leaves very little left ... perhaps, best as I can remeber, say, an Easter Egg hunt or a "first pitch" or two....

    But I'd note that HWSNBN is nominally opposed to Dubya's lawlessness here ... yet he's Dubya's biggest cheerleader. Go figure....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  41. whig:

    Glenn if you're reading this I bet Arne would write a fantastic article for Unclaimed Territory.

    Thanks for the vote of confidence. I volunteered (quite late, so that he already had plenty of offers and help lined up) to assist in whatever way I could with his book. But he has my addy (and it's hardly a secret to any enterprising snoop) if he'd like me to chip in on occasion. And I'd be glad to do a column or two; perhaps I'd get in to some of my more esoteric (read "theoretical") commentary on law, civil liberties, and gummint.

    I was a bit appalled by the lack of rationality in the body of the law as I was studying it; it's a bit different from the sciences and from computers, where there are indeed pretty good "ultimate answers" and some predictability. In law, you're working with people, and an amazingly elastic language, which can be pulled all kinds of ways; sometimes beyond recognition. This has to be, to some extent, but I think that judges don't always write as clearly as they could, or in a manner conducive to easy divination of what it is they're saying (to be sure, read 19th century opinions, or those of British courts, and you'll find the colloquy even more opaque to the reasoning; more like stream of consciousness or thinking out loud). This gives wiggle room for lawyers to argue (and parenthetically keeps them gainfully employed and a closed professional "guild"), but it also provides for our humanity and decency to emerge sometimes from the hard strictures of the law (consider, e.g. the "U.S. Sentencing Guidlines"; something opposed by many jurists).

    Once again, thanks for your kind words.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  43. armagednoutahere:

    America is full of such people now. They watch American Idol and eat at McDonalds and get their news from FOX and want to be kept safe most of all....

    Well, for me, it's a whole-wheat sandwich or ramen noodles, I guess, and Jon Stewart's Comedy Central ... even though I am on the road this week and have an excuse for fast food.

    Never seen American Idol, not that Kelly whatzername.

    And planning to take one more continent and a couple more countries off the "to-do" list this year (after starting it out by scouting the cradle of civilisation out for Billmon, even though I'm not sure he got my e-mail with advice beforehand, as some of his peradventures [i.e. the ATM card fiasco] would seem to indicate).

    Here's to life! If we want "safety", we may as well put one foot in the grave.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous8:33 PM

    To Bart -

    I'll concede right now I can't rebut or engage your argument as you've presented it, primarily because it rests on a chain of reasoning that simply defies both logic and engagement. You're the first clear example I've seen of someone operating in their *own* reality.

    That said, I'll present my argument as simply as possible:

    The Bush Administration is inching its way towards totalitarianism by (a) advocating and persuing an interpretation of the Constitution that is both radical and dangerous, (b) the current leadership running Congress has proven reticent in challenging this interpretation while continuing to keep the minority party effectively powerless, (c) there has been no substantive challenge to this new doctrine heard in the Courts as yet, and (d) the Administration has skillfully spun public support for its actions through a combination of fear-mongering and limiting serious scrutiny of its actions and policies.

    Taking these four points together, particularly the systematic negation of the separation of powers at the expense of Congress and the Courts to further empower the Executive Branch (specifically the Administration and its fellows), the very real danger exists that this state of affairs will both persist and even expand after President Bush leaves office in 2009 regardless of which party or candidate wins the next election.

    With the poor prescedents set by this Administration and its frankly laughable assertions of not being bound by either US Statutes nor international treaty, any and all future Presidents will feel increasingly less and less restrained by US or international laws in both their foreign and domestic activities.

    That this is all happening within the context of an irresponsible rhetorical construct like 'the Global War on Terror' when we are under no greater threat than during the depths of the Cold War only further damages our system of government. Indeed, the notion of 'Islamic fascism' (as much an oxymoron as 'compassionate conservativism') as an explanation never mind an enemy only ensures this 'war' and its effects will continue.

    In which case there will be little incentive on the part of either this Administration or its successors to curtail or reverse the Executive's expanded authority and the limits placed on both dissent and accountability.

    In sum, this is as much a crisis of separation of powers between the branches of our government as it is the Administration's radical legal theories, rhetorical irresponsibility, and blinkered ideology. The damage to our nation's system of governance and our standing and authority in the world can be laid expressly at the door of the Oval Office.

    Sure you want to hang your hat with that crowd, Bart?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Another comment on HWSNBN's curious new-found disapprobation for Dubya's lawlessness:

    Late to the party and you don't get to drink ....

    That said, I'm not sure I trust the troll, for other reasons.

    First, Glenn's book is about more that just the illegal NSA program, and as Glenn has explained, he first took alarum at the case of Padilla. Now HWSNBN thinks that Dubya was wrong on Padilla:

    I oppose indefinite detention of US citizens like Padilla who are acting as enemy combatants. They need to be tried under the Constitution.

    But:

    The very rationale that Dubya's using for the NSA wiretapping is the same as he advanced for his authority to detain Padilla indefinitely.

    And:

    HWSNBN himself seems to think the government won a "great decision" in Padilla. His own words:

    "The government won a great decision at the 4th Circuit level, but risked a reversal at the Supreme Court level because Padilla was captured in the United States rather on a foreign battlefield like Hamdi."

    And he cites Luttig without complaint or even comment:

    "Luttig wrote the very favorable ruling in favor of detaining Padilla as an enemy combatant and was very likely insulted that the government appeared to have doubts that that ruling would survive Supreme Court scrutiny. Luttig hardly supports your position."

    Can't you just smell the disapprobation?

    Then there's this:

    I oppose actual torture as defined by our amendment to the Torture Conventions.

    Which is apparently just short-hand for saying that he agrees with the maladministration's and Yoo's strained interpretation of this never-adopted "reservation" to the Convention Against Torture (and as pointed out previously, we cannot "amend" treaties unilaterally).

    Then there's this:

    Because I oppose actual torture, I also oppose rendition to a third country to allow them to perform torture. We can break the worst of these scum in short order by means less than torture.

    Yet, HWSNBN stands silently while el-Masri and Arar are denied their day in court. And these were innocents! So much for the faux concern for the practise of rendition.

    HWSNBN is a disingenuous and dishonest shill for the maladministration. For all his 'grand sentiments' here, he's a full-time Dubya flack.

    In another note, I'd point out (for the Nth time) that all the surveillance that Dubya wants to do can be done under FISA (assuming arguendo that the surveillances are as HWSNBN keeps insisting sans actual knowledge that they are). The only thing that Glenn asks for (as do most of the posters here) is that Dubya get a freakin' warrant ... or if the requirements are too burdensome, change the law. You know, follow the law? But HWSNBN is of the opinion that the preznit gets to make his own law answerable to no one, in the case of detentions, torture, and wiretapping ... as long as the preznit is fulfilling his "Constitutional duty" to "protect and defend" the United States untrammelled by any restraint in these so-parlous times.... That is the nub, the core, of what HWSNBN continues to argue. And before that, even a law prohibiting torture must bow (which is what Dubya did with his signing statements, another abuse that gets nary a squeak from HWSNBN....)

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  46. "The Major" sez:

    I will fight to the death for my country if they asked me. How about you.

    You know, if you asked just right, I'm sure you could be accomodated. We'll even spring for the uniform. You know, regardless of your own abilities (or lack thereof), they could use a few "staked goats" over in Eyrack.

    Pussy.

    Just a FWIW though: Getting yoursle4f killed for Dubya's tiny penis and Rove's political ambitions is hardly "fight[ing] for [your] country". HTH.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous10:29 PM

    America is full of such people now. They watch American Idol and eat at McDonalds and get their news from FOX and want to be kept safe most of all.

    Americans, and in particular those like major and bart, are not remotely similar to Zarathustra's audience of 'last men'.

    First of all, you can't seriously reconcile conscious and unconscious American attitude with...
    "One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome."
    ...or...
    "they have a regard for health."
    ...or...
    "One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth..."
    ...or especially...
    "We have discovered happiness"



    C'mon.

    The vast corporations that directly and indirectly produce American Idol, Fox News and McDonald's cheeseburgers (among all the others) are not kept humming along by "work [that] is a pastime." Nor is anyone therein involved emphatetically and extra-litigationally concerned with careful work "lest the pastime should hurt one"

    Furthermore, "major" and "bart" (and far too many others) have clearly demonstrated themselves to have absolutely no interest in asking, "What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?".

    In the now hallowed pursuit of material gain genuine inquisitiveness does not generally permeate much of America at all, let alone the ideoloques mind. Such an attitude is a LIBERAL disposition, and stacked against most industrialized nations America is socio-politically far and getting farther from liberal.

    And perhaps most tellingly, it's not that "bart" and those like him "can no longer despise [one]self", it's that they will not despise oneself. Bart, shooter, notherbob2, major and a long string of anons have proven beyond a doubt their capacity to despise.

    Their despicability arises from believing "one must still have chaos in one", that we must "launch the arrow of [ones] longing", that we can (perhaps even GOD-like) "give birth to a dancing star" and callously disregard the few eggs that must be broke to make the omelette of "happiness".

    Because, unlike the last men, bart, shooter, major, Zaraphustra et al. have not "discovered happiness" at all, and are in fact doing their damndest with the tool of fear ("Still is his soil rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon.") to ensure "all the world [is] insane"


    For awhile I've tried to come up with an all-encompassing, non-biased and non-ad hominemistic tag for the forces of insanity that are at work in the world today. Crypticality be damned, thanks armageddinoutahere (and Nietzsche, obviously) for supplying it.

    Zarathustrian. I like it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "The Major" bloviates:

    I cant take up ams as I'd ;ike just now. I have too many obligations i have her at home and I can offer valueble services in other ways to our country at this point in time from stateside.

    Fighting 101st Keyboarder from the 82nd Chairborne, IC. Yeah, I've seen your type waaayyyyyy too often on the Web and elsewhere. Kind of like pussy Dubya ducking into the TANG so he could get drunk and come in at noon and regale the professional campaign staff in Texas with his drinking feats. Or Cheney's "I had other priorities". Or Limbaugh's boil on his a$$. Or this brave lad. Or these fine healthy specimens.

    Here's the lowdown on a good number of these brave folks.

    Razzies to you, "Major".

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Major":

    But you would never volunteeer to fight for our great country under any circumstances so dont critisize me

    Funny thing: Fighting an illegal war to prop up Dubya's maladministration and political ambitions ain't my idea of "fight[ing] for our great country." But you're of an different opinion as to the war, so I would assume you'd put your voluminous posterior where your mouth is (providing you haven't done so already).

    Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up to fight yourself before you call mea pussy.

    I've already explained: Fighting an illegal war is not only not mandated as a patriotic duty; it is in fact downright immoral. No thanks; I'll pass. If there actually is some serious threat to the United States, I'll have time to think about what the appropriate course should be.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous1:37 AM

    How many times is arne going to
    lie about the U.S. and the Geneva Conventions?

    The U.S. did not ratify two protocols in 1977 and does not consider them to be applicable to international law despite what bleeding heart groups like Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross want the world to believe.

    Your enemy combatant statements are just outright lies.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "The 'Major'":

    I should of known you'd have some lame excuse for why ou don't help our troops.

    What's yours, pussy? To you, it's the highest duty. Gotta evening planned trimming your toe-nails that's getting in the way? Go on, got over there, you can do that while you're pulling "staked goat" duty....

    You disgust me. I support the troops. I want them home ASAP. Alive. Now.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous3:34 AM

    And the "Major" says; "I eat paste and love the taste!"

    Iraq is an immoral war. If the US really gave a damn about evil dictator. The US president would not talk walks through the rose garden holding hands with a member of the house of Saud.

    Or have the Secretary of State deliver a speech standing next to one of the most flagarant despots in Africa.

    Lets look at your last comment "Major". "I don't need an excuse" you manfully orate, thumping your chest. Then you give an excuse. "I do more good here". Cute.

    What about the sacrifice of the Iraqi's. Your country has sacrificed their infrastructure, their nation and their futures, their children and their lifes.


    Of course "America" has also sacrificed. Your country has sacrificed its own future (hello massive debt) its own children (26,000 casualties) and its refusal to fund the veteran administration.

    Why, because Saddam was disrespectful to Bush's daddy. Cry me a river.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The brave "anonymous" sez:

    How many times is arne going to
    lie about the U.S. and the Geneva Conventions?


    The U.S. did not ratify two protocols in 1977 and does not consider them to be applicable to international law despite what bleeding heart groups like Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross want the world to believe.

    Your enemy combatant statements are just outright lies.

    Here:

    "The treatment of detainees in an armed conflict is governed by international humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war. Most relevant are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which most states, including the United States and Afghanistan, are party. (Two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1977, have not been ratified by the United States, but many of their provisions are considered to be indicative of customary international law.) The Geneva Conventions set out a comprehensive legal framework aimed at protecting captured combatants and civilians during armed conflict."

    The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions were ratified by the Unites States and are binding on the U.S.

    Nothing I have said relies on these two 1977 additions [here and here]. Neither the Third Convention nor the Fourth Convention create any such separate category as Dubya's "enemy combatant". The brave "anonymous" doesn't (and can't) show anything I have said to be a lie.

    While the two 1977 protocols expand on some rights of detainees and expand coverage to other types of conflicts, they make it explicitly clear that there are not other groups of people other than combatants and civilians, but that was always the case, even back in 1949. See, e.g., the Commentaries to the Fourth Convetion, comments on Paragraph 4:

    "The definition of protected persons in paragraph 1 is a very broad one which includes members of the armed forces -- fit for service, wounded, sick or shipwrecked -- who fall into enemy hands. The treatment which such persons are to receive is laid down in special Conventions to which the provision refers. They must be treated as prescribed in the texts which concern them. But if, for some reason, prisoner of war status -- to take one example -- were denied to them, they would become protected persons under the present Convention. There are certain cases about which some hesitation may be felt. We may mention, first, the case of partisans, to which Article 4, A (2), of the Third Convention refers. Members of resistance movements must fulfil certain stated conditions before they can be regarded as prisoners of war. If members of a resistance movement who have fallen in to enemy hands do not fulfil those conditions, they must be considered to be protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention. That does not mean that they cannot be punished for their acts, but the trial and sentence must take place in accordance with the provisions of Article 64 and the Articles which follow it."

    So I'll give you a choice, "anonymous": Are you a liar or just an uninformed bigmouth?

    ...

    That the brave "anonymous" considers the International Red Cross to be a "bleeding heart group" just goes to show the debasement of the political discourse in the United States.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  54. "The 'Major'" hasn't ever heard the phrase "throwing good money after bad":

    And if we bring them home all oour sacrifice over there is wasted.

    By that I assuredly mean no disrespect for the troops that have died. The phrase itself means rather the throwing away of more money, fungible money of no intrinsic "good" or "evil", in a benighted effort to effort to save a bad initial investment. But you literate folks knew that already, didntcha?

    "The 'Major'" would find that he's quite welcome in Vegas, sad to say.

    I don't need any exuse and besides I gave it already. I can do more for our country amd the troops here.

    It's the people like you who doen't care about our troops who need one.

    As pointed out before, I can't consider it my patriotic duty to be the "last one to die for a mistake", or worse yet, a travesty. No "excuse" is necessary; that is sufficient reason. And I can't figure out how trimming toe-nails is helping the troops one bit from being killed. But I'm still of the opinion that "The 'Major'" sounds like he'd make a good "staked goat". He ought to volunteer.

    At the very least, he ought to read the next thread above carefully, and then go pick up Stephen Kinzer's book "Overthrow". And read it. Again and again. Until he gets it through his thick skull that such wars are not only sanguinary, immoral, and illegal, but also ultimately unwise and not in the interests of the United States. Then he can act as a patriot.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous5:08 AM

    The Major says. "My fingers are in my ears I cannot hear you"

    Great countries don't occupy third world countries on spurious reasons for which they have to manufacture evidence (WMD)

    I think the Iraqis have been taught that the United States is irrational.

    Saudi Arabians belonging to an organisation based largely in Afghanistan attack the US.

    The US responds by invading Afghanistan (sensible) and Iraq (nonsenical).

    IRAQ has done nothing against the US. Not a single fucking thing.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous10:23 AM

    heathen terrorists

    This is interesting. Do you consider yourself a Christian, major?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous11:39 AM

    Armagedoutahere,
    Except for "God is dead" I hadn't read anything of Nietzsche before. However I still don't understand your repeated invocation of American Idol as being some kind of pathway to the allegedly loathesome doom of the "last men".

    It does not compel a viewer towards wealth parity, nor towards any form of social or political egalitarianism, nor towards any history absorption, nor any form of love to one's neighbour - all of which are very specific characteristics of these "last men".

    My point about the unrealistic production of American Idol and other corporate offerings through carefully harmless "pastime" intensity-level work still stands as well. More than that considering Idol motivates more voting than political elections it's hard to label it as a "little pleasure for the day" or "night".

    But I do get where Nietzsche is coming from now that I've skimmed a little on him. I have the same difficulty with him as I do with John Stuart Mill. He's the one who declares in On Liberty that there are experiments in (presumably "barbaric") living that have been tested and failed, and should be tossed aside on the say-so of the "civilized" (he also argues in favour of despotism as a civilizing force - a fine cognitive dissonance if ever there was one for someone so interested in Liberty). Appointing oneself (and Zarathustra IS Nietzsche) or others of some usually unquantifiable, if not indefinable ethos and declaring superior adjudication power because of it is anti-liberal to say the least.

    Frankly I have no reason to believe anyone who figures they can tell me what the concepts of "love", "creation", or "longing" mean, definitively or otherwise, nor trust "the happiness [I]'ve supposedly found is false". Why should I expect any different of the so-called "last men"? More importantly, how does not knowing what these concepts mean, or maintaining a self-defined version of happiness, become somehow loathesome? It's little more than arrogance, just like your attitude towards those who enjoy American Idol I'm afraid.

    You characterize the lives of these "last men" as "living death", but frankly those who work while avoiding harm, enjoy simple little pleasures, reconcile differences swiftly, love and rub their neighbours and, more than anything else, ignore the fearmongerers (i.e. Zarathustra) are very far from "living death" in my estimation. I'd be happy beyond words to know they will be the "last men".

    ReplyDelete
  58. "The 'Major'":

    It's not an immoral war....

    A unilateral unprovoked war of aggression is an immoral war.

    ... We gave them democracy...

    At the point of a gun, too. Read Kinzer's book, willya?

    But FWIW, that might explain what happened to ours. We use to have one here.... ;-)

    ... and all they want to do is kill our troops.

    The ungrateful wretches. We'll teach them to refuse democracy....

    If you cared about our troops youd want them to stay and get the job done so they dont have to waste heir sacrifice.

    Sorry, man. Dubya's already wasted it. Can't put the air back into the baloon, and those soldiers will still be dead.

    And we need to teach those iraqi's that they can't mess with the America.

    Yes, yes, fealty to the Inventor of Constitutions and Patentee of Democracy is not only expected but required. And we'll kill them if they don't kiss our a$$. You're ready for a guest schtick on the Colbert Report.

    If we just cut and run like kerry wanted to we wouldn't be a great country great countrys dont just give up to heathen terrorists, [sic]

    "Major", we've had "mission accomplished" for over three years, "turned the corner" enough times to make us dizzy, killed Osama's #3 man some six or seven times already, and the Eeyrackis are running out of fingers to dye purple. We have an "elected" PM (acceptable to us, of course), we've "trained" more Eeyracki troops than we have stationed ourselves there, and the infrastructure has never been better. Haven't you been listenting to our Fueh-- ... ummm, "Great Decider"??? Sometimes you just need to quit while you're ahead. Right?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete