Ah, that next chapter has finally arrived

[solarbird]

We appear to have the next chapter in the exciting conspiracy theory novel that has become Republican politics; in the latest plot twist, the neoconservative movement appears to be outright declaring itself an absolutist movement. A monarchist movement, if you will; a dictatorship movement, perhaps; not quite fascist, because it's missing key elements of that particular form of absolutism - but perhaps they're just still looking for their Francisco Franco.

Here's the Wall Street Journal editorial section (the OpinionJournal) running an op-ed condemning the rule of law and endorsing - no, demanding - a "strong president" that is specifically above said rule of law and calling outright for one-man rule in the form of a "prince":

Now the rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule. The first is that law is always imperfect by being universal, thus an average solution even in the best case, that is inferior to the living intelligence of a wise man on the spot, who can judge particular circumstances...

The other defect is that the law does not know how to make itself obeyed. Law assumes obedience, and as such seems oblivious to resistance to the law by the "governed," as if it were enough to require criminals to turn themselves in. No, the law must be "enforced," as we say. There must be police, and the rulers over the police must use energy (Alexander Hamilton's term) in addition to reason. It is a delusion to believe that governments can have energy without ever resorting to the use of force.

The best source of energy turns out to be the same as the best source of reason--one man. One man, or, to use Machiavelli's expression, uno solo, will be the greatest source of energy if he regards it as necessary to maintaining his own rule. Such a person will have the greatest incentive to be watchful, and to be both cruel and merciful in correct contrast and proportion. We are talking about Machiavelli's prince, the man whom in apparently unguarded moments he called a tyrant.

Meanwhile, here's Thomas Sewell at National Review Online pining away for a military coup d'etat in the United States:

Our education system, our media, and our intelligentsia have all been unrelentingly undermining the values, the traditions, and the unity of this country for generations and, at the same time, portraying as “understandable” all kinds of deviance, from prostitution to drugs to riots.

[...]

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.

Here's townhall.com blogger Dean Barnett dropping the bullshit and saying outright that he's pro-torture. The thing about torture is that it's no damn good at all at getting the truth; it's good at getting people to say what you want to hear. That's not the truth; it's the enemy of the truth. At least his explicit support for torture, while not sane, is now honestly stated, if not honestly supported:

The anti-torture argument sits on a fragile branch of moral vanity. The torture opponents’ entire premise rests on the erroneous notion that one can successfully wage war without cruelty and savagery. I wish they were right. But they’re not.

And here's a YouTube link to Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA), in the House of Representatives, endorsing torture, and, more specifically, the idea that arresting, detaining, and torturing even innocent people is okay because we Just Can't Risk The Alternative. No quote, since it's a video; you can watch it yourself.

How appalling a place these people would lead us. How pathetic and sad, this weak revival of the old, failed, absolutist vision. Go on, you wretched pukes; if you want to be fascists, then just go ahead and be fascists. Ignore every lesson of history. Pretend the cycle of history will stop with you.

Personally, I'll enjoy your screams on the way back down.

Comments

[archanglrobriel.livejournal.com]

Seriously, don't you have to quell the urge to yell at them "Read to the END of the book!!" This doesn't end well, guys. Ever. Second verse, same as the first. Killing yourself, in a ditch, covered in petrol. Hanged. Beheaded. Shot in the face. Execution by mob. I mean, seriously...which vision do you want to re-enact here?
Wretched pukes. Yes. That's the perfect description of them.

[solarbird]

It doesn't quite, though. Franco and Tito, just to name two.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

To paraphrase several of the founding fathers, there can be no kings in the United States.

The rule of law is _supposed_ to be a leveling mechanism. Because every legal privilege granted a member of an elite group weakens the protections provided to all other citizens.

[frobzwiththingz.livejournal.com]

I dont relish the thought of a military coup, but i *can* envision Our FearlessBrainless Leader telling our military to go invade *yet another* middle eastern rathole, and the generals finally getting a clue and saying "Um, i don't think so." They don't have to go as far as surrounding the White House with tanks and marching the bastard off to Gitmo (though i can fantasize, can't i?), But they can certainly send back their orders from the CommanderIdiot In Chief complete with their own "signing statement" that tells him "We've received your orders. We are interpreting your directive to invade Iran to mean "Sit on our butts until January 2009. Have a Nice Day."

[solarbird]

Mmmm, mutiny! That's not actually better; one would not particularly hope for such a thing. One could instead only hope that it would be refused as an illegal order - which is both legal and a specific duty - and that Congress would then act accordingly.

[banner.livejournal.com]

The thing is, you are so quick to label anything that you don't like as torture. Yes the old what used to be know as torture, where you eventually kill the person, and maime and disfigure them, yeah thats wrong. But interrogating them? Waterboarding? Cold cells? Sleep deprevation? Loud music? I have no problems with that when you're dealing with vicious and violent terrorists who murder innocents. Not because I want any kind of revenge, but because it works. And that's been proven time and time again.

And I often wonder if that's why so many people oppose it, because it does work, and they don't want it too. They want us to lose this war and could care less how many amercians and others are murdered by our enemies in the process, all so Bush looks bad.

I remember discussions we had about Bill Clinton way back years ago. You thought I was far too worried and reaching on several subjects. Well you're reaching a lot further now than I ever did. To be honest I'm starting to wonder if you've gone off the deep end with some of these posts you're making.

[solarbird]

The thing is, you are so quick to label anything that you don't like as torture.
No. I'm using the same definitions that were used throughout the 20th century. I'm condemning as torture the same sorts of things that the United States condemned as torture when the Vietnamese and Cambodians and Baathists did it (Waterboarding, "physical interrogation"), when the Koreans did it (Cold cells, physical interrogation, water tortures, etc), when the Nazis did it (cold cells, sleep deprivation, etc) and so on. All of these "enhansed interrogation techniques" are things that the United States government called torture, but now declares aren't actually torture when the current administration decides it wants to use them. I have no interest in supporting this redefinition. I do not swim in that depth of hypocrisy.

Not because I want any kind of revenge, but because it works. And that's been proven time and time again.
What's been proven is that torture - and let's stop playing redefinition games, okay? I'm real tired of that; if it's torture when someone else does it, it's torture when we do it, I don't do duckspeak - is great at getting people to say whatever the hell you want them to say. Note that this is not at all the same thing as "the truth." It can be the truth. It can also be just whatever somebody with a waterboard and small supporting cast wants to hear. "What somebody wants to hear" and "the truth" are orthogonal, and substituting the two as equals is the essence of corruption.

And I often wonder if that's why so many people oppose it, because it does work, and they don't want it too. They want us to lose this war and could care less how many amercians and others are murdered by our enemies in the process, all so Bush looks bad.
I don't think you just wonder that, I think you're pretty much convinced of that. That's why you've gotten to the point of routinely calling for the arrest of political opponents and charging them with treason.

I remember discussions we had about Bill Clinton way back years ago. You thought I was far too worried and reaching on several subjects.
Did Mr. Clinton declare martial law and refuse to leave office? Apparently not. Has it turned out that Mr. McCain is a Manchurian candidate programmed by the North Vietnamese? Not as far as I can tell. Accordingly, I suggest that you were reaching. A lot.

To be honest I'm starting to wonder if you've gone off the deep end with some of these posts you're making.
If I were alleging these people were stating these things and they weren't, then you would be right! I would be reaching and would perhaps have gone off the deep end. But that's not the case. I'm quoting them. I'm also providing linkbacks to full original source. I'm saying that they're making these arguments because they are, not because I've gotten the idea that they're secretly thinking these things and not saying them. The text and the video sources are right there.

Quoting someone saying things and saying, "Holy crap, look at what these people are saying!" is not going off the deep end. It's just quoting them, and getting people to pay attention. Any "deep end" you see being gone past is in the original text - not in my quoting.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Again, I disagree. I think interrogating people who are violent terrorists killing innocent people is fine. I notice that A LOT of your examples did not deal with those people. Your examples dealt with soldiers. With people who the geneva conventions protected. Also some of the things you used as examples killed people, maimed people, seriously injured people. The methods our people are using do none of that.

No I don't call for the arrest of political opponents. I call for the arrest of people who are breaking the laws and committing blatent treason. When Pelosi went and met with Syria, that was breaking the law. When Reid stood up and said we have lost, that was treason. That wasn't politics as usual, and you can't say that either one of them was not doing just that: Breaking the law, and committing treason. It wasn't dissent, it went far beyond dissent.

Notice that you routinely call for the impeachment of Bush, but he hasn't committed any crimes. That's a very political action. So don't claim any high ground here.

I never claimed McCain was a manchurian candidate, that must have been someone else. I was worred about Clinton when he suspended posse comitatus (spell) with his stationing America troops in the US and talking about using them to support the police. Thankfully those in Congress shot it down.

But I am constantly seeing you talking about Bush declaring martial law (Congress has to do that BTW, and I don't see a Democratic Congress handing a Republican those reigns), and you've been going on about this whole 'Bush is going to overthrow the government and make himself king' stuff for over a year now. I don't see it getting any closer and I don't see people like Pelosi, who he never stands up to, allowing it.

And you're not just 'quoting' them, you're re-interpreting them! You seem to be completely lacking in the detection of Sarcasm, among other things. I don't see you quoting any of the stuff Pelosi says that's way out there. Or Reid, or Feinstein, or Sharpton, or Obama, or Schumer, or any of a dozen Democratic Senators and Congressmen, who control a very large amount of power themselves.

Nope, Pelosi goes and gives aid and comfort to one of the biggest terrorist supporters in the middle east, a country that assassinated the President of Lebanon, and you just look right past it.

There are things Bush does that drive me up the wall, because he's too much of a moderate, and tries to hard to work with scumbags like Kennedy and Pelosi. But at least I sit back and try to see the whole picture. But you've got rather extreme tunnel vision of late. You focus solely on the fanatics and you think everyone is like that now. You're like the nurse in the emergency room who only see's the bad and therefore focuses on the bad. You've got tunnel vision.

To put it bluntly, Bush hasn't got the balls to make himself King. He's never taken on a political enemy on a level that would even hint at it. If he'd had Carter arrested for his actions, and some other members of Congress, if the Republican's as a whole had gone after that guy from New Orleans who they caught red handed. If they were playing the same kind of hard ball that the Democrats have been playing, maybe I'd give you some possible credence. But he hasn't, and he never will. He's too modest and self effacing a politicain to do that kind of thing.

You need to stop focusing on that small group of wacko's you're always tracking in your cultural warfare updates and realize that a small number of fringe radicals, (to whom people are only being polite to before they walk away snickering), have no power. And they aren't running anything. And they don't signify anything.

[solarbird]

I notice that A LOT of your examples did not deal with those people. Your examples dealt with soldiers.
I don't care.

Also some of the things you used as examples killed people, maimed people, seriously injured people. The methods our people are using do none of that.
Many people have died in US custody. Torture does not have to kill you to be called torture. It didn't stop us from calling it torture when other countries were doing it; the rules don't change because it's our government doing it now.

No I don't call for the arrest of political opponents. I call for the arrest of people who are breaking the laws and committing blatent treason.
Right, you take political opponents, declare that they've broken the law and/or committed treason, and call for their immediate arrest and imprisonment, in some cases by the office of the President directly.

Notice that you routinely call for the impeachment of Bush, but he hasn't committed any crimes.
I won't even try to address this; if the domestic wiretapping programme that the administration itself described as operating in violation of existing Federal law - and then justified it by declaring that the law didn't apply to them - doesn't count, nothing will.

But I am constantly seeing you talking about Bush declaring martial law
No; I protested Congress and the White House making it easier to declare martial law, and opposed it for all kinds of reasons. Regardless of who is president.

And you're not just 'quoting' them, you're re-interpreting them!
All those indented blocks? Verbatim quotes.

Nope, Pelosi goes and gives aid and comfort to one of the biggest terrorist supporters in the middle east, a country that assassinated the President of Lebanon, and you just look right past it.
Syria is a nasty piece of business. And things are so fucked up that we're going to have to try to do business with that nasty piece of business. Or is Secretary Rice also violating the law and committing treason by saying the same thing?

To put it bluntly, Bush hasn't got the balls to make himself King.
Mr. Bush will be done with by the end of his term. After all, he has embarrassed and failed the movement. (You should see what they're saying on Free Republic if you think I'm over the top.) The movement behind Mr. Bush, however, will continue. And that movement includes people like these, who are explicitly calling, in their words, for one-man above-the-law rule, and speaking fondly of a (dreamt up, to my mind) possible military coup d'etat.

Also, I noticed your poll. I hope that you will note the difference between what I've said, and what the poll you have put up says.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Or is Secretary Rice also violating the law and committing treason by saying the same thing?
Secretary Rice is there as an envoy of the President, which is legal. Pelosi was there as an envoy of either her self, or The Congress, either of which is illegal.

As for the wiretapping, sorry. There was nothing illegal about it. Period. I know you want to say there is, but there isn't. It's been done for ages. Actually the way they used to do it (and how it was done to me, because yes, this is the law under which the Clinton Administration tapped -my- phone) was once you made a call outside of the country, they could tap and monitor ALL of your calls, domestic and foreign, for the purposes of intelligence gathering as well as investigating your breaking of import laws, etc. Under the recent plan they were only tapping calls to known or suspected foreign operatives for the purpose of intelligence gathering. If they took a citizen to court with it, yes then it violated the 4th amendment, but as long as it was used to gather foreign intelligence it's legal, and has been legal since the constitution was signed.

And again, if you can't see Sowell's comment on a military coup as sarcasm, sorry, you've missed the point.

As for 'Men behind Bush', the Republicans aren't that organized, they don't have people like Soros who pour in hundreds of millions of dollars to dozens of groups and who organizes special 'planning' sessions for party leaders. That's why they're called the 'stupid' party after all. Republican 'conspiracies' never last more than a week before the newspapers are printing them on the front page.

Do you really think a party that won't prosecute the printing of national security secrets during a war can keep a secret?

[foibos.livejournal.com]

To me, the funniest part is that you probably know, deep inside, that your protestations amount to no more than a load of irrelevant crap. I guess you're just to far in to extract yourself at this point.

I really wouldn't want to be you today. Every one of your desperate attempts to spin this, every embarrassing assertion that you attempt, will be archived on the net for a long time as the stellar magnitude of the Bush fiasco slowly becomes clear to the American public. A lot of people will be able to say that they never trusted Bush, or that they realized years ago what a disaster for the USA his administration was, but you won't.

On the bright side, you might be immortalized by this. In the future, if people talk about someone who is a willing dupe of ridiculous proportions, they might call him a "banner". E.g. "By March 1865, only the worst banners believed that the Confederacy would prevail"; "Even to this day, some banners refuse to accept the heliocentric view of the Solar system".

[risu.livejournal.com]

It's not any different, really, if it's done by an abuser or a decadent aristocrat or a government.

It's easy to believe that techniques that break people break evil people and in a way that makes the world better.

Abusers teach that.

Seriously! They do.

They don't want to admit that they're looking to silence; to hurt; to make suffering and fear. So they tell everyone, "No, I'm a righteous person and doing this helps keep the unrighteous in line."

Sometimes people pick up on this---I mean, people who aren't abusers.

Abusers have friendly faces. They're good with people. They're good at being leaders and friends and the kinds of people you trust. That's their job, really, to keep the rest of society looking away while they hurt people that they can.

They tell this lie, that torture is reformative, that torture is good for eliciting honesty, that torture can stop bad things from happening, and because these are shiny people who are self-evidently of good character; and because their victims are weak and poor or fearsome outsiders or otherwise not revered as having lived well; people believe.

It's a sickness.

I wish that I had no experience with abuse and could imagine that maybe it creates honesty. I wish that I didn't know it well enough to think that it makes people safe. I wish that I could believe the lie.

But it's not *for* honesty or safety. That's not how abuse works, and it's not how torture works, and it's not how trying to break people works. It's not for getting anything real.

It's only for making us---we, the masses, including you and me---feel like the people doing the hurting are better than the people that it hurts. Whether they are or not, whether the people receiving it are terrorists or not, even if we have the saints of service hurting the scum of the earth, it's not for truth or safety. It's just to teach us who's better and who's not, so that we let suffering go on.

We have to keep that in mind---that that's what it's for, that that's what it does, that that's *all* it ever does---or someday we'll lose every moral center we have.

[risu.livejournal.com]

And,

by the way,

I don't think that President Bush is particularly unusual for having a military that uses torture.

I don't know why.

But he's not; and if someone told me, "it's not conservative or liberal; it's equally bad across the spectrum; heck, *peacekeeping forces* run by *pacifists* use torture," I would hope it was false but I wouldn't be surprised.

It's not that I think our President invented torture, or that it makes him stand out for privately thinking it has its uses or standing by soldiers making what he considers reasonable decisions. Powerful people, they're in a place where it's much easier to believe the lie and it's harder to get by without it. If I were President, I'd have nightmares every night because of the things I couldn't figure out how to get out of doing, and I'd be ineffectual because the system's set up for people willing to swim in the mindset of the powerful.

Torturing doesn't make President Bush stand out from the list of historical Presidents. I wish it did.

In terms of purchasing power with the coin of human suffering, we could argue all day about who does more of that, but they all do it.

The thing that I'm really scared by is that people are starting to argue that it's *okay*. That the lie is spreading. That people are starting to preach that we must lose our moral center if we are to remain Americans. That suddenly it's working. That suddenly we're discussing siding with the devil because he's firm and strong and gets things done---the devil not being President Bush or Vice-Preisdent Cheney, but the voice in society and in each of us that tells us to look away from the suffering and adore the torturers; the voice that tells us that power is for using; the voice that tells us that torture is self-demonstrating, that the victims are worthy of being tortured because they are being tortured, and the torturers are better people because they're willing to do it.

[arthur-denger.livejournal.com]

Torture and interrogation are not necessarily synonymous. To begin to condone and then tolerate the use of torture, as defined by the Geneva and Hague Conventions, is to take a stand on a slippery, slippery slope. It is a short hop from state sanctioned torture to dissident disappearances and death squads. One needn't even read 20th Century history texts: this is happening now, all over the world. It's current events.

Despotic regimes do not endure. Gandhi and Mandela (among others) knew that; their lives are testaments to that fact. Torture tactics, of dubious intelligence value in the near term, will be damning in the long term to those who employ them. I don't care how many episodes of 24 you've watched.

[solarbird]

Torture and interrogation are not necessarily synonymous.
In case it's not clear; I did not say or intend to imply that they were.

[arthur-denger.livejournal.com]

Duly noted. :)