Letters to the Editor
-
Couldn't close all those tags...
Dem partisanship is the only thing that kills the GOP beast. Green party only lets it live longer.
-
Thanks For The Clarification, Glenn!
I think I owe one in return.
What I'm trying to get at is that from my POV the more important distinction is between those who are OTROWISTS (OTROW: "One True Right And Only Way") and those who are not, rather than between systemic critics and those who are not.
Whether one thinks that ONLY revolutionary change or ONLY incrimental change will do the trick, the result is a narrowed outlook that suffers from automatically rejecting alternatives that are valuable simply to contemplate and be challenged by, even if one ends up rejecting them for other options.
Personally, I'm a believer in the need for revolutionary change via evolutionary methods--sort of the way that scientific revolutions actually occur. One needs to lay a great deal of groundwork in order for large-scale change to have a firm footing. Otherwise, well, we've seen what usually happens with revolutions in relative vacuums.
At the same time, the best crafters of incrimental change are often those most tuned in to the largest scale of systemic cause and effect.
-
@L.W.M.
Dem partisanship is the only thing that kills the GOP beast. Green party only lets it live longer.
I came to that realization shortly after the 2000 election. I voted Green, and shortly thereafter became a Democrat once I saw the pointlessness of my "protest vote." Granted, I was not living in a swing state, and would not have voted how I did had I been living in a swing state, but I did a stupid thing nevertheless.
-
Just a thought...
I make it a habit now to look at a new commenter's *cough*(Ironclad)*cough* other letters. It saves time in crafting your response, or even bothering with one.
-
@orbitboy
I think if the American people actually understood what habeas corpus meant, they never would have let that bill go through. But the American people certainly can't care about something they don't understand.
You may well be right about this, but I think it isn't really the issue. I think the issue is, WHY didn't the American people understand what rights the MCA was throwing away? Because the MSM--which should be explaining things like "habeus corpus" and reporting on monumental facts (like its impending doom) to the American people--and our Congressional representatives--who should have squawked up a storm and made sure We the People understood the ramifications of this travesty--failed to do their jobs.
-
No magic.....
A majority of Congress -- though not necessarily a majority of both Parties -- has gone along with or has actively enabled the consolidation of this Autocracy, once they agreed to its imposition in the first place.
It's helpful to remember (though I do so at my peril) that all our institutions are made up of individuals who are operating out of their own self-interest with perhaps a nod or two to some guiding principles. If you approached a Congresscritter with your theory of Autocracy, they might look at you oddly, but it would never even occur to them to understand what your talking about.
Where the poison comes in, is when our guiding MEDIA lights consider themselves members of the club. As long as they're providing sufficient bread and circuses (can anyone say Anna Nichole?) then the kleptocracy can continue apace.
-
Orbitboy
I am an economic lefty and a little to the right of the Green party, on defense. I like the Green party. I think Clinton was the best "Reuplican" president since Eisenhower. If the Democratic party was back to Ike on national security and Henry Wallace on domestic policy, I'd be happy. It would be close to the major planks of the Green party.
-
Hey...
If I were president, I'd suspend habeas too, if warranted, in the case of armed insurrection or threat of invasion. Those cases don't exist today.
-
No Faith in this Blog either
Wow - getting a rebuttal by the blogmaster himself! Imagine the nerve of actually having a different idea here and opening a debate.
How does one even start? First, WWII was the last major declared war the US fought - everything else has been "police" actions - but with authorizations by Congress (except perhaps Kosovo?) Whether Congress authorizes "force" or a legal state of war - the effect for the last 60 years has been pretty much the same.
I believe I stated that the situation that we have now is "grey" because we have a non-governmental entity (Al-Qaida, Salafism, Jihadism or whatever you want to call it) that effectively has developed the ability to wage war on selected targets with military level force. I am really not aware when an ideology has been coupled with such lethal military capacity and is willing and ready to die to effect it. These people are not "soldiers" but I consider them more than just criminals too. The phrase "enemy combatant" may be repugnant to you, but it straddles the middle pretty well.
I mentioned the Zakarias Mousawi trial because it was a circus that lasted something like 3 or 4 years? You want to put some hundred people on trial with the same duration - and supply resources for each? There are not an infinite level of resources in the court system for that = so I do not think that it is an unfair or misinformed speculation. Again - I did never implied that these people should rot in a cell either - but I do not think that justice would be served in the normal court system.
And the point of witnesses being killed - well, in the Middle East the family connections are usually so strong that any informer usually is from within the kinship group (or else the relatives of a witness can be reached). My point is that to have a normal trial with discovery rules in place - well, that would lead to the elimination of a lot of potential witnesses (through murder or intimidation) This is not speculation - I just read the paper from the middle east and observe how common this is in this part of the world.
In the Mousawi trial much of the time was spent trying to conceal the sources of the evidence for exactly the reasons I noted above - as well as to conceal some of other methods used to obtain it. In the cold war, there were rarely spy trials for the same reason - too much was revealed in order to obtain a conviction.
For those that pointed out that there was an insurrection when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus - I agree, but it was targeted as much against dissenters (the Copperheads) as those actively supporting the South. I just wanted to make that point since I don't see MAC being used for those aims quite yet. (again - not in any way supporting that (mis)use of Presidential power here, folks!)
I really have no idea why you imply that I would support rounding up people willy nilly without warrants - but as I have noted in many of your columns, you always seem to take an idea and distort it to make your point. I thought the point of this column was an argument if Habeas Corpus has situations where it could be suspended. But then when people make "stupid arguments" it is your job to call that "wretched cliche". Kind of like a left wing Rush Limbaugh would, I suppose. After all, it's all just entertainment here!