TheAgitator.com
Holy Crap
Friday, January 23rd, 2009President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.
Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.
It’s worth emphasizing again here these steps Obama’s taking effectively limit his own power. That’s extraordinary.
I suspect that not everything John Yoo & Co. wrote was flat-out nuts. Some of the legal opinions issued over the last seven-plus years may come back in some form. This move looks like Obama wanting to send a very clear message that the executive branch will be returning to some semblance of the rule of law, and not governance by executive fiat.
In that regard, if I may borrow a phrase: mission accomplished.
“This move looks like Obama wanting to send a very clear message that the executive branch will be returning to some semblance of the rule of law, and not governance by executive fiat.”
The “rule of law” IS governance by executive fiat, with the exception that the person calling it “rule of law” agrees with the executive fiat.
“The Myth of the Rule of Law” by John Hasnas
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
That is the sexiest thing I have read in a long time. I was worried many of Obama’s promised changes were mere rhetoric. Well, if actions speak louder than words, then Obama’s actions are shouting at the top of their lungs.
Also, you missed a /b tag. ;)
Holy Crap!
Again, I’m pleasantly surprised by Obama. I’m used to being disappointed by politicians, so this is something new to me.
Maybe I’ll go out and have a few beers in Obama’s name this weekend. Woo Hoo!
Keep it coming, Mr. President.
Keep up the good work. I could live with 8 years of this sort of thing.
I’m sure all you neg karma freaks have read the Hasnas article.
Denying reality does not make it go away.
It’s more that the Hasnas article is about the fundamental conflict between the public expectation for “common-sense” judgment and reason in the enforcement of laws and how it conflicts with the idea that you can run a country by impartially enforcing clearly written statutes. A fine point, but not at issue here. What we have here is a change from the executive openly saying “to hell with the laws, I’ll do what I want” to the conflict that Hasnas described, which, while imperfect as all hell, at least involves following an interpretation of the rules. That’s “some semblance of the rule of law,” as Radley put it, which beats none at all.
I am also happy with Obama’s recent actions (though he’d better do something goddamned quickly about medical marijuana raids and say something beyond the childish tripe he’s offered on the massacres in Gaza), but the article that Cynical links to is essential reading for anyone truly interested in the role of government and practical limitations of law-making. You can disagree with Hasnas, but you’ll have to think really hard to do it. And thinking is good!
Fair treatment, David. Thanks.
The problem with that theory is that there is nothing to prevent Obama from re-initiating any program that he cancels by executive fiat at some future date if he decides he needs to.
Politically, it’s brilliant. Obama looks like he is rolling back executive authority that the Bush administration claimed, but as a practical matter, the authority is still available to him unless Congress prohibits it.
We will really know his mettle when something happens that would tempt him to re-start any of these programs. If that happens and he doesn’t re-exert the authority, then I’ll be impressed. I hope it happens, but my advanced cynicism makes me doubt it.
@Les: You know what Obama should say about the events in Gaza? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Not our problem. Not now, not ever.
[...] today: Rock ‘n’ [...]
Again I say temper your praise and jubilation. It has been 3 days since Obama was sworn in. All of these actions aren’t quantifiable in changing anything yet. Give it the 100 days before being excited about anything. Our country is so far off track, and has been for over 100 years, that it will take many decades of actions to get things back on track.
When liberty gets new life, when our economy begins to grow and our taxes begin to shrink, when you are left alone by the micromanagement of government at all levels (the definition of liberty), THEN maybe it’s time to be a bit excited. Until then, the extreme skepticism should remain because it’s healthy and necessary for a citizenry to combat the insatiable hunger of power in the form of government. You have to admit that this country is in a really deep shithole, and it’s going to take a lot to move things in the right direction YEAR after YEAR after YEAR.
Now, how about a constitutional amendment to make this permanent?
John, you’re so right! He could turn into a completely different person, or even a newt or a frog! Thanks, I was totally counting my chickens before they hatched before you showed me the light.
Very, very true. While almost all Yoo wrote was fascist or unbalanced, two exceptions stand out:
and
Cynical in CA, I have read Hasnas’ article, and I don’t think he says “the rule of law is governance by executive fiat.” As I recall, he says the stability of legal outcomes comes not so much from the law itself (which does not and cannot articulate a complete, consistent, and desirable legal order) as from the shared cultural understanding of lawyers, judges, and other legal decision-makers. He also says the way to defuse political battles over the understanding of law is not to try to uncover the supposed true meaning of the law, but to change the culture and the incentives of lawmakers by ending the government’s monopoly on law.
Anyway, it is a very interesting article, and I do recommend people read it.
Radley,
To quote Winston Wolf from Pulp Fiction “Let’s not start sucking each others dicks just yet, gentlemen.”
As long as he is still for a “bail-out” in any form, as long as he is still for Universal Healthcare, as long as he is still for “progressive” taxation. He is not my friend.
Are these social issue changes good? Most likely.
Let’s see him back it up with less government intervention in the economy too.
You know what Obama should say about the events in Gaza? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Not our problem. Not now, not ever.
John, it’s our problem so long as the weapons that are burning school children alive and blowing them to bits are supplied and/or paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Sorry in advance for the threadjack!
“In that regard, if I may borrow a phrase: mission accomplished.”
I almost missed this one. Have you really thought this thru and youre positive that this is the phrase you want to borrow? The last guy that used it…
I’ll believe it when I see different actions instead of words.
For example, he also signed an order banning lobbyists from White House positions — and then gave himself a waiver to hire two lobbyists to White House positions. He also left himself a waiver in his torture ban.
He’s all bark and no bite. The War on Terror will go on, but it will be called the Rainbow of Unicorns instead.
It’s a good start. No more, no less.
@NutellaonToast (#13): I didn’t realize that we knew all that much about what kind of person President Obama was. I mean, it’s not like President George W. Bush originally ran on a platform that invoked limited government or anything, so I could not imagine the current President doing anything inconsistent with his past actions or past statements in the future, could you?
So when does the Patriot act get the boot?
Actions? We still got nothing more that words from polititions. The order closing gitmo just says the prisoners must go somewhere else. Politics as usual, folks.
“Cynical in CA, I have read Hasnas’ article, and I don’t think he says “the rule of law is governance by executive fiat.”
Sorry, I didn’t mean to conflate my own thoughts precisely with Hasnas’. It is my belief that “rule of law” in its common usage today is synonymous with executive fiat (extending “executive” to include the legislative, judicial and bureaucratic branches of government).
My preference is a common, or anarchic, law.
“Obama looks like he is rolling back executive authority that the Bush administration claimed, but as a practical matter, the authority is still available to him unless Congress prohibits it.”
And the laws passed by Congress stopped Bush?
“My preference is a common, or anarchic, law.”
Good luck with that. When are you moving to Somalia?
Hooray! Obama just made America less safe. I hope we don’t get attacked again. I hope one of those Gitmo clowns doesn’t resurface. Obama’s first few days in office have to be every Americans worst nightmare. He has looked shaky and unsure of himself.
This doesn’t have much to do with this topic but, found this quote hysterical in that 5th grade humor sort of way:
“How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” Boehner asked. “How does that stimulate the economy?”
Boehner said congressional Republicans are also concerned about the size of the package. ”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html
John H 28,
‘Good luck with that. When are you moving to Somalia?’ Not meaning to answer for anybody, but there are plenty of better examples, including:
Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner. This society persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until
its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a “primitive” society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice… There was no trace of State-administered justice.”
I get overturning the legal orders, but how exactly do you nullify an opinion?
I gotta say–on the issues which I based my decision to vote for him, Mr. Obama has exceeded my expectations in the first 3.5 days. I honestly don’t know how to react to that.
I’m sure he’ll piss me off plenty, but I’m going to enjoy this while it lasts.
This is a huge part of the problem that the US government causes the problem, and then is expected to be the solution, for Cause/Issue X. The only way this makes sense is if the solution is TO STOP ILLEGALLY GIVING US TAX MONEY FOR FOREIGN AID and/or SUPPLYING STUFF TO OTHER COUNTRIES.
I don’t say this country as I believe if the citizens are informed, we’d all pretty much be against the heinous acts.
The banking families and industries have been doing this for centuries: play both sides of a war, you always come out the winner.
@Marty (#31): The problem isn’t that you can’t find examples where some society was able to operate without government, but rather that condition does not always, or even most of the time, obtain.
@Stormy Dragon (#32): The President can issue an executive order barring those serving in the executive branch from relying on any previously promulgated opinion in determining whether a course of conduct is permissible, in effect, nullifying the opinion, which is what President Obama did here (look at § 3(c)). Since the opinions in question authorized a broader range of conduct than President Obama’s order permits, the order is presumptively valid (even if the government has a power, it need not exercise that power to its limits).
I am not sure what effect any order would have that purported to broaden the range of conduct beyond that permitted by a previously promulgated opinion. An OLC opinion is not binding on federal courts (though they may give great deference to the opinion), so doing something prohibited by an opinion isn’t necessarily breaking the law, and an agent of the executive branch who acted in good faith on an executive order by the president declaring that an OLC order was incorrect would probably have a decent argument if the agent’s activities were not blatant violations of existing law.
Re Somalia, a think a few points are worth making:
1. Being an anarchist libertarian doesn’t commit you to upholding all stateless legal systems–only some. If you believe a state is necessary, does that mean you like North Korea?
2. A legal system is only one aspect of society. A society with a good legal system might, for cultural, historical, or other reasons, suck in general.
3. If you think Somalia is bad now, you should have seen it when it had a state.
William Lynn, anyone?
I’m a huge Obama supporter…but incredibly displeased by this.
Good sign sure, but don’t get cocky.
He supported FISA and telecom immunity so I am not sold on the guy.
I couldn’t disagree more. Every bit of this comes with the caveat “unless we reaaaaaallly need too” which is almost exactly the same policy as our former “torturer-in-chief”, as a lot of people here like to call him.
Not only was every interrogation technique and “secret” prison were carried out with the knowledge and approval of the legislative branches, waterboarding was used a grand total of 3 times and hasn’t been used since 2003. What happened to the “zomg! Bush and the imperial presidency!!!!” Are we all suggesting the legislative branches don’t get any say in how the detainees are detained and treated? The CIA works for Obama, and he just gets to decide all this on his own? That’s odd, because that isn’t what most of you were screaming over the last 4-5 years. What happened to all the “ZOMG! Bush and the imperial presidency!!!!”
As for closing Gitmo, he’s already said there is going to be a problem. There are people there they KNOW they cannot release or put on trial due to a variety of reasons and something is going to have to be done with those people. Basically, he’s going to have to hold them somewhere, just not in cuba. Is that changey enough for ya?
Nobody at all found it ironic that last week we get a story in the press how at least 61 of the released detainees have gone right back on the battlefied and today, a front page NY Times story, about how one detainee that was released is now the head of the Al-Queda-Yemen local branch. No one else detects a whiff of the press trying to lay down a little cover when the 245 people currently held in Guantanamo are still being held years from now, somewhere?
I’m glad to say you guys are right things are all changey, based on all this our torturer in chief is now named hussein instead of walker.
btw, see what happens when you don’t have a preview before posting a comment?
http://www.thepaincomics.com/
…waterboarding was used a grand total of 3 times and hasn’t been used since 2003.
And we know this how?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what? Executive power is vested in the President. The President ordered the people who work for him that they cannot do something. I suppose if Congress had enacted a statute that prescribed whatever course of action that the President prohibited, you might have an issue. But absent those conditions, what’s the problem here? Has anyone ever seriously argued that the CIA does not work for the President or that the President cannot limit the actions the CIA takes? It seems to me the argument has been the opposite, that the President cannot unfetter the CIA when Congress has placed limits on the CIA. Those are completely separate arguments and not inconsistent at all.
I don’t want to pass as someone who’s never satisfied, but I have a problem with this sentence (broadly speaking):
“It’s worth emphasizing again here these steps Obama’s taking effectively limit his own power. That’s extraordinary. ”
Is this something we really want? Doesn’t this transfer more power to the Congress? i.e. to people that are driven by emotional opinion polling at best? Just wondering.
Who needs Gitmo?
Back in the old days, suspects were picked up, taken to Gitmo or some secret prison, tortured until they confessed, and then subjected to a bogus trial (or let go when evidence was so sketchy that further confinement couldn’t be justified).
Now, under the new Obama Regime, suspects are just executed – eliminating the need for costly detention centers, water boarders, etc.
Obama just ordered missile strikes in Pakistan on suspects, killing 18 people. Certainly more efficient than rounding them up and sending them to Gitmo or Bagram. Perhaps Obama can rationalize this as simply being killed is more humane than being tortured for 5 years if you are an innocent “suspect”. Maybe we could save a lot of loot here in the USA by merely executing suspects and avoiding the expense of courts and prisons. Oh wait, BART cops are already doing that.
SEE:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike
Gobama!
Reading this week’s articles and 90% of the comments, I’m picturing a 30 gallon trash can filled with Kool-Aid, while John McCain, Larry King, and Christopher Hitches take turns stirring it with an oar. Ashton and Demi stand on a nearby corner twirling signs to get passers by to go drink.
How can people who purportedly stand for liberty find any solace in being tossed a few crumbs? As far as liberty in America goes, things are going to get real bad, real soon. You’re all crazy for being happy right now. Stark raving nuts.
#28 | Jon H | January 23rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
“My preference is a common, or anarchic, law.” Cyn. in CA
“Good luck with that. When are you moving to Somalia?” Jon H.
At first I thought this was the standard, “Love it or leave it” argument.
Then it struck me how glib this comment was.
Somalia was a FUNCTIONING anarchy before the U.S. and its Ethiopian proxy army completely destroyed the fabric of society in a very poorly publicized extension of the “War on Terror.”
Chris Floyd is one of the very few journalists covering this atrocity:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1619-silent-surge-bipartisan-terror-war-intensifies-in-somalia.html
The Islamic Courts Union may not have been an ideal form of anarchy (according to whom?), but it is the closest thing to self-rule that the Somalis have experienced in years and it provided a peaceful existence for its citizens.
Next to anarchism itself, the whole Somalia episode is one of the most misunderstood historical events. You’d do well to educate yourself before descending into such callousness, Jon.
Elliot, you want to know why people are happy? It’s because in the real world where we realize that utopia won’t emerge overnight, we’ve just changed from a president whose administration believed that it had the supreme authority unchecked from the will of the legislature or the opinions of the judiciary to do whatever the heck it wanted in terms of fighting the abstract concept of “terrorism.”
Is Obama going to be perfect? Absolutely not. He is, however, on the record of saying that the last guys were way overstepping their bounds, and absent the actuality of true liberty as a scion of our ideals and implementation of government, accountability by the people and for the people might at least help restore some power to the people in case their representatives continue to fail to do their job of oversight and restraint like they did during the Bush administration. When you’re dying of thirst and dehydration in the desert, don’t be pissed off that all you get at first is a glass of water when you’ve been thinking about swimming pools.
Obama is bitch-slapping GWBush and his cronies. NICE!
Close Gitmo, close CIA black prisons, declassify docs and honor Freedom of Info Act (creates opportunity for others to go after Bush), end “war on terror” chant, and “END” TORTURE.
Slappity slap slap slap. As impressive a first few days as any president I’ve seen and I LOVE that he made these his focus as priority #1.
You’re all crazy for being happy right now.
Just the fact that McCain and Palin weren’t inaugurated this week is worthy of celebration.
@Cynical
Are you familiar with the racism bingo card? http://tinyurl.com/66jwbk …or Google “racism bingo card”. I’m making one for Austrian School eco and one for libertarianism (”You guys never get anyone elected, therefore…”).
You could use one for anarchism…as the responses are always predictable. “Move to fill-in-blank-with-3rd-world-country” would be a center square.
@ I heart Max #29,
Maxie, one of the Gitmo clowns WILL resurface. But that is a problem with the “war on terror”, US foreign policy, and Gitmo…not closing Gitmo.
You don’t get to slaughter hundreds of thousands and then blame repurcusions on someone who closed your immoral prisons. C’mon…my 6 year old knows better.
Somalia was a FUNCTIONING anarchy before the U.S. and its Ethiopian proxy army completely destroyed the fabric of society in a very poorly publicized extension of the “War on Terror.”
Somalia, a functioning anarchy pre Ethiopian invasion? The various sections of Somalia are either defacto independant, with functioning (albeit weak) governments, while other areas have shifted violently between various factions which have imposed their own laws and rules on the people there. While this does indeed fit my definition of anarchy, it doesn’t really seem to jive with definitions you’ve given in the past. It seems more like chaos. I may agree that outside intervention just made things worse, but I’m going to need more explanation on how it was a “functioning anarchy”.
Obama does this stuff yet we find in the foreign media that he ordered a drone to attack houses in Pakistan JUST like Bush. It seems Obama merely wants to be a “soft” version of Bush.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece
“Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed.
Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven “foreigners” – a term that usually means al-Qaeda – but locals also said that three children lost their lives.”
Hooray Obama! Now I can call my terrorist friends in Syria without worrying about Obama listening in without a warrant. By the time he gets his warrant, my mission will be accomplished.
You can Neg karma me all you want, but it’s hard to get happy about Gitmo closing when the people released from there have been repeatedly seen again later on the battlefield or in Al Qaeda videos:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q
Hooray Obama! Now I can call my terrorist friends in Syria without worrying about Obama listening in without a warrant. By the time he gets his warrant, my mission will be accomplished.
Jason is too cool to care about the 4th amendment. Or maybe he’s just too scared. Either way, Jason, thanks for the most un-American sentiment expressed on the board today!
By the way, your deep, child-like fear has made you forget that the government never needed to wait for eavesdropping to get a warrant under FISA, as they could be issued retroactively. This fact makes your post, incredibly, even dumber.
You can Neg karma me all you want, but it’s hard to get happy about Gitmo closing when the people released from there have been repeatedly seen again later on the battlefield or in Al Qaeda videos
A small fraction of them. There’s zero evidence that most of the people released from there were guilty of anything but bad luck.
Why? McCain, Obama, and Bush all signed TARP, so they are all as equally culpable in the massive theft of our money to accomplish a huge leap toward socialism in this country. McCain is also a RINO, as evidenced by his admonishment of Republicans who made objections to Obama’s economic plans, plans which ought to horrify anyone with a semblance of respect for individual rights.
If McCain were sworn in, he’d be chastising Republicans for standing in the way of the Democrats’ plans for unilaterally putting more of the economy under the government umbrella.
Bush was horrible. McCain would have been horrible. Obama will be horrible.
Anyone who is happy about any of this is completely ignorant of history (cult of personality, socialism, New Deal prolonging the Great Depression, etc.), and a functional moron for being unable to logically follow the consequences of the new economic policies. Start with TARP, which is creating disincentives for banks to give credit or for investors to buy stocks (the government’s bailout money gives them preferred status, thus reducing the benefit of additional investors). Then there is socialized medicine, which will be catastrophic for individual rights, not to mention an economic disaster. And, to top it off, the climate change fraud will be worse than the War on Drugs as an excuse for the government to get into every corner of your personal life and to arbitrarily destroy your ability to be productive.
Celebrate this insanity, this wholesale destruction of that which made this, the “Land of the Free”, special among all nations? Why?
I know damned well why people are happy now. They are blithering idiots with no knowledge of history and no clue what freedom means.
Why are we dying of thirst? Follow the arc of history: watch the expansion of government and the corresponding suppression of individual rights. Bush and Obama are symptoms of this decline. There is no swimming pool in the future. Things are going to get much worse, and soon.
Anyone who is happy about any of this is completely ignorant of history (cult of personality, socialism, New Deal prolonging the Great Depression, etc.), and a functional moron for being unable to logically follow the consequences of the new economic policies.
Of course, it’s obvious (to those who aren’t so angry that they can’t see the obvious) that many people who actually are “happy about any of this” ALSO oppose the “new economic policies.”
Also, if you’re suggesting that folks like Radley, or, say, Will Willkinson are
…”completely ignorant of history (cult of personality, socialism, New Deal prolonging the Great Depression, etc.)”
…well, just so you know, that would be a pretty fucking stupid thing to suggest.
Calling people names (especially people you don’t know anything about) isn’t the best way to be taken seriously.
They shouldn’t be ignorant of it. In fact, Balko has made a passing mention to the cult of personality, for one thing. The problem is that these pragmatists’ principles run shallow–they give lip service to individualism, but won’t follow the basic principles to their logical conclusion.
Take the War on Drugs, for example. We’ve all seen the endless stories of how it has corrupted LEOs, bureaucrats, and politicians. It has ruined countless lives and wasted billions (or trillions) in taxpayer money and private property. Civilians have been made numb to the infringement on their rights, used to the ideas that their lives are not their own, that the special people have a justified power to stomp on those who have hurt no one else, and that they (civilians) have a duty to pay for it and to keep giving their imprimatur (vote) every two or four years to the people perpetuating this evil on their fellow Americans. Balko has a lot of criticism for the WoD, but he stops short of facing the underlying truth: you have exclusive ownership of your life and you have the absolute right to do whatever you want to your own body, so long as you are not harming anyone else. Anyone who sticks a gun in your face, handcuffs you, locks you up, and takes your property because you have some dried plants is violating your rights and should be held accountable. Those who empower them should also be held accountable. I realize that isn’t going to happen, given the amount of power the government wields. And yet, isn’t cheering on one party or another, despite this evil (as well as many others), basically the Stockholm syndrome?
To argue that this party or that party is improving things by being more open is to give this evil a pass. It’s moral cowardice to accept it for pragmatic reasons, hoping in vain that we could work the very system that created such evil in the first place to stop itself.
Obama is taking steps to effectively limit his own power? Um, yeah, RIGHT!
President Barack Obama is taking far-reaching steps to centralize decision-making inside the White House, surrounding himself with influential counselors, overseas envoys and policy “czars” that shift power from traditional Cabinet posts.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17908.html
#63: Snore.
Tell you what, when you’re ready to take up arms against the government, you can call me a moral coward.
I’ve actually achieved some results with what I’m doing. Have you? Exactly how is taking to the comments section of blogs to question the principles and courage of someone who agrees with you 90 percent of the time advancing your anti-state cause? Working out well for you?
You anarchists are boring.
Not to say that the closing of Guantanamo won’t present some serious problems with where to put some of those who are currently imprisoned there, but I do think that the phrase “returned to the battlefield” needs some parsing. How sure are we that some of these people were on the “battlefield” in the first place? There seems to be some truth to the idea that some of the people we’ve detained were turned in by their neighbors for a bounty, with little or no proof that they had been engaged in terrorist or insurgent activity. Now, as much as I may aspire to turn the other cheek, if that happened to me, I would be very strongly tempted to try and do harm to those who falsely imprisoned me.
Might it be that some of those who “returned to the battlefield” were never there in the first place, and would not be there today but for their mistreatment at our hands?
False dilemma. I don’t have the power to do such a thing and would not want to risk innocent casualties, anyway. I’d rather employ civil disobedience, given the chance.
For one thing, I don’t vote. Never will again. That’s just feeding the beast.
Whether I bore you or not doesn’t change the facts. I’ll be boring as all hell if it means I’m not aiding what I clearly see as evil. Yawn yawn yawn. Yep, government is still evil. Snore. Still evil. But, you’re clever and funny, and make things interesting.
I very much appreciate when you expose government corruption, which journalists aren’t doing, for the most part. I just can’t stand when you waste your time on elections and minor executive decisions. But it’s your blog and you do what you want with it.
[...] If they were right, it would seem that we should experience some number of attacks over the next three years now that some of these tools would have otherwise prevented. [...]