It's All Very Simple, Really

My vastly-more-productive fellow local blogger Jeff Pruitt was very, very angry this past Friday:

It isn’t everyday you can vote to expand the President’s warrantless wiretapping program AND give immunity to companies that have admittedly violated the US Constitution.

I can’t say much about this right now because I’m simply too pissed off. I just want to say thanks to all the House Democrats who sold out their party and their country today by caving to the criminal Bush cabal and passing the draconian FISA amendment bill. Thanks for weakening the 4th amendment, expanding presidential power and granting amnesty to all the telecom companies that knowingly and willingly violated our constitutional rights by illegally spying on American citizens.

Congratulations for passing a bill the Republican controlled congress couldn’t get through. And you should all be very proud that Republicans actually have a higher favorable rating of you than Democrats. Awful jackasses.

Jeff, allow me to suggest a few things.

(1) There's no important difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

(2) The House Democrats didn't "sell out their party." They served their party's interests (more on that below). As for "selling out their country," well, guilty as charged. How does that differentiate them from their Republican counterparts? See item (1), above.

(3) The Bushies presumably promised the telecoms that, if they played ball, no harm could come to them. This promise was no doubt presented as binding on successor Administrations. Suppose the Democrats (who will occupy the Oval Office soon enough) had canceled the deal. Don't you suppose the Democrats will also have uses for everyone's emails and phone calls? See item (1), above. They, too, will need the telecoms, which aren't likely to be so cooperative next time unless the gentlemen's agreement is honored.

The constitutional republic -- to whatever extent it ever actually existed -- is dead. It can't be revived by voting within the context of a completely-rigged system. Perhaps it can't be revived at all.

Libertarians: Non-Alternative

The Libertarian Party is the great small-government alternative, right? Isn't the LP the natural home of all the "true conservatives" who've been used by the GOP as a combination urinal and spittoon since the end of the Golden Age? (Notice that I don't say just when that "Golden Age" might have taken place, since I don't have that first clue about its dates, nor even any evidence that there ever really was such a time.) In truth, I don't think that anyone who's smart enough to use the internets for anything beyond surfing porn has any illusions on this score, so this isn't intended as a "wake up libertarians!" post. Rather, it's just that I derive some sort of perverted amusement from LP wrongheadedness ... particularly the LP as personified by those who write for Reason. Check out Mr. Chapman's explanation of why Terror Warriors shouldn't be wetting their pants over the Supreme Court's alleged "stinging rebuke" to the Emperor. (Of course, that's "stinging rebuke," as in: How many divisions does your stinging rebuke have?)

All this outrage builds on the dissent registered by Justice Antonin Scalia. The court's decision "will make the war harder on us," he thundered. "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Well, it won't have that effect unless it leads to inmates being released—which it has not, will not anytime soon, and may not ever. If and when it does, he may have a point, though not necessarily a powerful one.

Anytime you let someone out of prison, even if he's innocent, you create the possibility that he will someday kill someone. Scalia makes much of the supposed fact that 30 of the detainees freed from Guantanamo "have returned to the battlefield." Just because they were later captured or killed, however, doesn't mean they "returned" to the war.

Some of them may have been victims of mistaken identity, which could explain why those softhearted folks at the Pentagon let them go. But stick a blameless unfortunate in a cage for six years, abusing him in the process, and when he comes out, he may seek revenge. The only way to eliminate the risk is to keep all the detainees locked up forever.

Even the Bush administration has not gone that far. It was happy to free more than 500 inmates over the years. When it did, by the way, nobody accused the president of causing more Americans to be killed.

Besides, any releases are only speculative right now. To have a chance at freedom, a prisoner will have to make a plausible case that he's innocent. The administration had already planned to try 80 of the detainees before military commissions, which suggests it has abundant evidence of guilt.

[ ... ]

Let's suppose there's an inmate whom the Pentagon thinks was fighting for al-Qaida but lacks any supporting evidence it can use in court. Does he now have a get-out-of-Gitmo-free card? Not necessarily.

In that case, says Northwestern University law professor Ronald Allen, the government could classify him as a prisoner of war— who, like POWs in previous wars, may be held until the hostilities cease. The trouble, from the administration's point of view, is that he would then be entitled to standard POW protections, such as being treated humanely and not being punished for refusing to answer questions. But at this point, that's a small price to pay.

"Abundant evidence of guilt," eh? What are these prisoners of the Empire supposed to be guilty of? Doesn't criminal "guilt" require a law to have been violated? Whose law are we talking about? Surely we don't think foreigners are obliged to obey U.S. law; and if we're talking about some Iraqi or Afghan law, where did Americans get the authority to administer other people's laws? The basic paradigm under which the Imperial States of America has been operating -- that we're definitive of good, and that any opposition to us is implicitly criminal -- isn't even questioned here.

Look at what seems to be Mr. Chapman's real objection to keeping all these prisoners locked up and abusing them. "(S)tick a blameless unfortunate in a cage for six years, abusing him in the process, and when he comes out, he may seek revenge." Not "it's morally unacceptable to imprison and torture a blameless unfortunate," which in itself would be far short of "it's morally unacceptable to imprison and torture a man who was seeking to defend his country against an unprovoked invader" (that is, us). So, what's the alternative? "The only way to eliminate the risk is to keep all the detainees locked up forever." Admittedly, he's not suggesting their perpetual imprisonment, as he's not claiming that the "risk" can or should be "eliminated;" but he doesn't mention the other way in which that particular risk could have been eliminated: don't invade the other peoples' countries in the first place. That's one of the possibilities that doesn't occur to us, once we've bought into the war paradigm.

Mr. Chapman offers one of those lesser-of-two-evils alternatives whereby the government could deal with its prisoners: declare them prisoners of war, which would afford them the protection of the Geneva Convention against torture and other abuse. (Of course, that's "protection of the Geneva Convention" as in: How many divisions does the Geneva Convention have?) The trouble is, that allows them to be imprisoned, as Mr. Chapman says, "until the hostilities cease." What hostilities is he talking about? If he means guerilla resistance to occupation: well, that will never end. If he means "the Iraq war:" that's something that never was (under the Constitution, a "war" is something declared by the Congress, which hasn't happened since 1941), or it ended in 2003, pretty much when Supreme Commander Mission Accomplished said it did -- when there certainly was no functioning Iraqi regime (except for our puppets), and there was no organized military resistance (and, really, there never was any of that, to speak of). If he means "the Global War on Terror" ... awwww, what the hell, words fail me. Maybe he's thinking of the War on Drugs. I hope so; that seems to be the only war that the LP types generally and consistently oppose. And rightly so -- it's just a shame that they can't see the parallels with all the other wars.

To paraphrase Paul Simon: Any way you look at it, we're screwed.

Your Tax Dollars (and Mine) at Work

Our Glorious Wartime President has already said it, more than once: "We do not torture." So what's up with these doctors? Didn't they get the memo?

The first extensive medical examinations of former detainees in U.S. military jails offer corroboration for prisoners' claims of physical and psychological abuse at the hands of their American captors, a Boston-based human rights group said in a report released yesterday.

The assessments of 11 men formerly held in U.S. detention camps overseas revealed scars and other injuries consistent with their accounts of beatings, electric shocks, shackling and, in at least one case, sodomy, according to the report by Physicians for Human Rights. Most also had symptoms of long-term psychological damage, including post-traumatic stress disorder, the group said.

Well, you know, it's important to keep these things in perspective. Only one out of eleven had actually been sodomized -- we think. And, you know (wink, wink!), he probably really liked it, the swarthy little devil.

Welcome to the New America.

"As the Iraqis Stand Up, We'll ...

... 'splain to 'em how it is:

President Bush said Wednesday he is confident the United States would reach an agreement on the role of U.S. forces in Iraq, calling opposition to a U.S. proposal part of the "noise" of a freer Iraqi society.

"There's all kinds of noise in their system and our system," Bush said. ". . . I think we'll get the agreement done."

Top Iraqi officials are calling for a dramatic reduction of the U.S. role in Iraq after the United Nations mandate for the U.S. military presence in the country expires later this year. Iraqi critics complain that the agreement proposed by the United States would turn Iraq into a virtual colony and allow the United States to maintain nearly 60 bases in their country indefinitely.

Bush administration officials say a deal is necessary to preserve order in the battered country, and that a new agreement "will not involve permanent bases, nor will it bind any future president to troop levels."

I don't suppose there's anyone left, outside of the 40% 30% 20% BushBase, who still entertains the quaint notion that the Mesopotamian venture has the slightest connection with Iraqi Freedom™. Surely, anyone who's awake understood this news story. For those who were snoozing, here's a quick recap.

Iraqi Collaborators: We're standing up now, El Supremo, so you-all can stand down pretty much any time!

The Wee Emperor: We'll tell you when you're standing up. Until such time as you've been told ... button it!

Remember: Iraq is not an Imperial colony, and anyone who says otherwise hates Uh-mur'ka.

Kiss the Ring, Barry

Looking forward to some Change We Can Believe In™? If you're holding your breath, I hope you can go on doing so 'til 2012. As soon as he more or less officially became the Jackass candidate for World Executive Manager, Senator Obama delivered himself of a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Wait a minute -- what did I write, "speech?" More like a hybrid of homage and prayer, really:

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

"Preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state?" Wow. Try using that formulation with anything but The Precious. Any agreement with the black African people must preserve South Africa's identity as a white state. Any agreement with the Kosovar people must preserve Serbia's identity as a Christian state. Any agreement with the Kurdish people must preserve Turkey's identity as a Muslim state. Any agreement with the African-American people must preserve Mississippi's identity as a white state. Hard to imagine, no? Still, Senator Obama is entitled to a presumption of sincerity and truthfulness; so, for the foreseeable future, one form of apartheid will be accepted gladly in the imperial palace.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead. ... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

I think it is likely that Senator Obama will be elected in the fall. So, I guess the Israelis can hope he's telling the truth ... and I can hope he's not. My hope is a pretty forlorn one, though. Some things aren't going to Change, and that We Can Believe In.

Attitude is Everything

You know, it isn't so much what they say or think. It's the attitude:

Just a reminder to The Journal Gazette and its readers: Memorial Day “is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation’s service,” not a day to remember every Tom, Dick and Mary.

In his original General Orders Number 11, on May 5, 1868, Commander-in-Chief John A. Logan stated, “The 30th day of May is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country.”

The Journal Gazette’s Memorial Day Remembrance page was an insult to those for whom the day was established. I guess Memorial Day has become like the Constitution of the United States – it is open to everyone’s own interpretation.


GREGORY J. CUMMINGS Fort Wayne

Hey, I'll be "Tom" -- who do you want to be, "Dick" or "Mary?"

In any case, Mr. Cummings didn't need to get his knickers in such a twist -- I'm sure the day that the J-G desecrated with its insulting "Remembrance" page was either last Sunday, the 25th, or the "observed" "holiday:" Monday, the 26th. So, he and Commander-in-Chief John A. Logan had the 30th all to themselves.

So, just who was this Logan guy, anyway, talking about "comrades?" Sounds like some kind of Communus to me.