The thing that always amuses me (wrong verb, but it will have to do) about the people who are so strongly for Gitmo, black sites, extraordinary rendition, "enhanced interrogation", ad naseum, is that they always say, in high dudgeon, "We do NOT torture." And then go on to say how the "terrorists" deserve torture anyway, so even though we don't torture, if we do torture it just shows how manly we are and it's the most AMAZING CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS ever!!!! so we HAVE to torture. But we don't torture.

Should I be surprised that this makes no sense?

Svensker, you make a great point. I would add to it saying that when it turns out that, yes indeed, we do torture (see Abu Ghraib), the point then becomes WE do not torture, but a few "bad apples" do. Then they find the nearest enlisted man with a rank below sergeant, throw the book at him (or her), and call the matter closed. Until the next time.

Clucky1...If you read what I wrote, I said that he would be a liberal in the classic sense; which today is called libertarian because of the socialists that came to dominate the group we moderns call 'liberal'.

Bawk! Bawk! Bawk! Commie pinkos! Bawk! Bawk! Bawk!

WT: "... Bucky1, if I may address you directly, when you say that on occasion, the government abuses its monopoly on legal force and violence, I would agree. When you say that it must do so, is compelled by its very nature to do so, I would definitely disagree. ...As I see it, getting rid of GWB might spare us the horrors of Guantánamo; getting rid of government most certainly would not."

---

I understand your confusion.

You say that you do not believe that governments will abuse the power it has. That is an extraordinary claim and I have heard people say that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Do you have some modern nation-state in mind that never abused some of its people? Take your time, I am going to leave shortly and read about things other than politics.

Ask anything you care to, and I will try to answer; but please thoughtfully consider my question.

Leonard Liggio

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leonard_Liggio

I'll take John Dewey any day.

Keep the headless chicken busy, the magpies are trying to steal shit again.

You say that you do not believe that governments will abuse the power it has. -- bucky1

That's not what I said. What's more, I believe you know that it's not. To assert that it was seems just the teeniest bit self-serving, don't you think?

There's definitely a tendency on the part of certain kinds of people to seek power for reasons which have nothing to do with forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, or securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It's also true that people who are in positions of power have a well-documented tendency to view their own convenience with more solicitude than that of others.

Which is, as better minds than mine have put it, why governments are instituted among men, and why the principle of powers which are both complimentary and countervailing were enshrined in our Constitution.

To prevent that Constitution or any similar political constitution from being usurped requires that succeeding generations understand it, value it, and are willing to expend some effort to see that its provisions are honored not in the breach, but in the observance.

In this or that way, we've been remiss from the very beginning, as you take such pleasure in pointing out. That doesn't absolve you from describing -- at least in broad strokes -- what mechanism you believe might better serve us, not if you want to have a real debate, that is.

"You say that you do not believe that governments will abuse the power it has. That is an extraordinary claim..."

Except that isn't what he claimed. You probably know that. But if not, go back and read it again. Maybe you'll have a better understanding next time.

Didn't see your comment, william, as I was typing mine. I see that you and I agree that Bucky was almost certainly being dishonest rather than dense. Too bad about that dishonest streak.

the government abuses its monopoly on legal force and violence, I would agree. When you say that it must do so, is compelled by its very nature to do so, I would definitely disagree.

I always find it useful to remeber that the word "goverment" itself is an abstraction instituted by men. Interestingly enough ours was designed specifically so that it wouldn't have a monopoly on the use of force. Needless to say the second amendment is poorly understood nowadays; a well armed citizenry and a lack of a standing army have all gone the way of the buggy whip. As has bucky1's vision of a minimalist state.

As you so often do in these discussions, you've hit the nail on the head. Much has gone the way of the buggy whip in the intervening two hundred-plus years, not just the idea of a citizen militia as our defense against invasion.

Which is why phenomena like the Emancipation Proclamation, women's suffrage, the expanded interpretation of the commerce clause, the Fair Labor Standards and Civil Rights Acts, etc. should be seen not as usurpations, but as adaptations to changed circumstance, and entirely in the spirit of the Constitution -- something which American liberals have always argued.

Interesting that the right rejects that understanding as far-left judicial activism, but accepts the present perverted understanding of the Second Amendment as gospel, entirely consistent with the intent of the framers.

I think Paul R. is right that in order to fight back effectively, we have to attack such assertions of the right as the ahistorical nonsense which they in fact are.

Howard Dean ran for president in 2003 and some of 2004 on a platform that was self-consciously (though only partially) about "Restoration" -- of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and of the Rule of Law itself.

He was widely hailed throughout the Big Media, he raised lots and lots of money from small donors through the internet, he drew huge crowds to his stump speeches, he had armies of volunteers, a lousy advertising agency, and was expected to do well in the primaries.

He did not. In fact, he never got above the low double digits in the early primaries and caucuses (*except for home state Vermont), and soon enough, the Dean campaign folded.

The ideas, the energy and the man himself did not go away, far from it. Howard Dean is now the chair of the Democratic National Committee, and his grassroots campaign organization has been transformed into grassroots political action all across the country, with the not so surprising objective of restoring the Constitution and the Rule of Law -- and ending the various wars and curbing the rampant imperialism of the Bush Regime.

But it's as much of an uphill struggle now as it ever was, perhaps more so, because so much energy was expended getting Democrats elected in the last cycle, too many of whom turned out to have little interest in restoring the Constitution and the Rule of Law, let alone ending the wars and curbing the imperialism of the Bush Regime.

As many have pointed out -- including Chris Floyd, to whom Glenn links in a previous post -- the 2006-2008 period is literally the last chance we have to restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law, start winding down the wars, and curb the imperialism of the Bush Regime. While the Democratic led Congress has interest in exposing the depredations the Constitution and the very concept of "law" have suffered under the current regime, they show little interest in doing anything about those depredations, little interest in restoring the Constitution, or the Rule of Law, or in making more than token efforts to end the wars and curb the imperialism of the Bush Regime.

Under the circumstances, it's fair to describe the Congress as a "failed institution." Democrats are not solely responsible for the failure; Republicans share much of the responsibility. But the failure of the Democrats to use the abundance of Dry Powder they've been storing up to make major efforts to right the ship of state is on their shoulders.

Many have tried to rationalize or excuse the present institutional failure by claiming that the Democrats are "afraid," "spineless," "lacking in will," or what have you. Others claim that they haven't had enough time, they have only been in power for a few months (despite the fact that many have been in office for decades), and that too many "activists" want things to happen "overnight," and Congress doesn't work that way.

All of these rationalizations and excuses (and more) are worthy of dispute if not outright contempt. The Democrats may have only recently regained the majorities of the House and Senate, but even in the minority (as we are seeing the Republicans do every day) they could have used their positions to promote policies and programs -- even if they didn't win -- and coordinate their messages so that when they regained power they would be able to act on the will of the People, a will they had shaped during their time in the minority. They didn't do it, instead they often were pushing one another out of the way to get on camera to denounce President Clinton or one or another or whole groups of their colleagues.

They certainly weren't afraid or spineless about that. And they are utterly fearless in swatting away the plaints of the "liberal anti-war base," of the "liberal blogosphere," and so on.

No, they are not suffering from spinelessness at all. The problem, in too many cases, is that they agree with the currently popular practice (inside the Beltway) of subverting the Constitution, ignoring the Rule of Law, continuing wars of aggression and expanding imperialist conquests.

The voters probably did not know that when they elected the current crop, but maybe they did, I don't know. Nevertheless, huge majorities of the People are deeply disappointed in the Congress and its accumulation of failures. And they are saying so, in no uncertain terms.

The question is whether the People will do anything about their disappointment before the next election cycle rolls around.

We've seen that an organized protest by right wing radio listeners can bring a screeching halt to consideration of a poorly understood immigration reform measure that was negotiated in private between the White House and some Senators -- and perhaps others unknown. And we also have seen that massive protest by hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans might have no effect on Congress whatsoever. It all depends, apparently, on who is protesting and what's in their craw. But it has little or nothing to do with their numbers, organization, or energy.

Much of the lefty blogosphere dismisses public protest action as next to useless or worse for the "cause," and promotes the methods of calling congressional offices, writing letters and emails to congressmembers and newspapers, and posting on blogs -- methods which were utilized very effectively by right wing radio to derail the immigration bill -- but so far, nearly all attempts to influence public policy undertaken by the lefty side of the dial have failed. That doesn't mean they can't work -- we see that they do, depending on who is engaging in them. It simply means that the liberal agenda (whatever that means) is not a priority within the Palace these days.

A liberal agenda that includes the basics such as respect for the Constitution.

We may not be able to salvage the republic when it comes down to it.

And yet... there is always hope.