![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Live free while we may"
Jan. 3rd, 2006 12:16 pmThis is from that same thread at Sucher's City Comforts. I'm copying it over to here, mostly because I want some of the concepts under my own roof, rather than squirelled away someplace else. You're lacking some contaxt reading this directly, but hey, that's why I just gave you the link for the context, right? ;)
*^*^*^*^*
We cannot be in a "war" against "terrorism." There are two reasons for this, one narrow, one broader.
The narrow reason is, wars are only conducted between nation-states. To say we're in a "war" against "terrorism" -- or even, more specifically, against al Qaeda -- is to elevate al Qaeda and terrorists to the level and prestige of nation-states.
The broader reason is quite practical, and Brian hints at it: Who surrenders on behalf of "terrorism"? This is another variant of, how do we know the war is over?, but it's quite specific. Otherwise, we're just trying to justify an Orwellian war without end.
Going to Mr. Rockford's linked article, I note he talks about the diffculty of processing "a hundred" FISA warrants. Yet, strangely, DoJ, in the report I linked to above (NOTE: points to an Acrobat document), managed to do over 1700 in 2004 alone.
But, more than that... the implication is, if we're just willing to trade away some liberty, "victory" can be had. The trouble with that, of course, is there is no instance where that's been known to work. Israel, Russia, China, Iraq itself... the list of places which have far fewer freedoms yet far more terrorism goes on and on.
Mr. Rockford says, "I know what MY RISK PROFILE IS. Perhaps you'd trade 1.6 million people for civil liberties absolutism. Not I." I suppose I'm showing my age when I say, at least now we know what Mr. Rockford's price is. Thank God it was Jack Kennedy facing down Khrushchev over the Cuban missiles, and not Mr. Rockford, since it seems the mere threat of losing a single American city in a nation of 300 million would be enough for Mr. Rockford to trade his birthright for some pottage.
When it comes to shooting down bin Laden -- even Saddam Hussein has managed to find himself in court, despite being protected by what his minions told him was a decent army. We didn't seem to have siginificant troubles in prosecuting Timothy McVeigh (and the sheer numeric odds are that the "next attack" will be internally from McVeigh's end of the spectrum). If this adminstration genuinely cared about "fighting terror" on behalf of Americans, it would be bin Laden in court, and Hussein on the loose, rather than the other way around.
When it comes to the Constitution not being a suicide pact, that only works if one believes "terrorism" is a credible threat to the survival of the Republic itself -- more so than the Cold War, WWII, and the Civil War. This is simply not credible.
Lincoln once said, "...Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. "
"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
Maybe the "second attack" when it comes -- not if -- will lead to the chaos you describe, Lutas. But, if it does, that chaos will come whether we protect our liberties or not. How much better then to live free while we may, than to be attacked by our enemies while living as self-imposed slaves whom our enemies could never think of successfully enshackling.
*^*^*^*^*
We cannot be in a "war" against "terrorism." There are two reasons for this, one narrow, one broader.
The narrow reason is, wars are only conducted between nation-states. To say we're in a "war" against "terrorism" -- or even, more specifically, against al Qaeda -- is to elevate al Qaeda and terrorists to the level and prestige of nation-states.
The broader reason is quite practical, and Brian hints at it: Who surrenders on behalf of "terrorism"? This is another variant of, how do we know the war is over?, but it's quite specific. Otherwise, we're just trying to justify an Orwellian war without end.
Going to Mr. Rockford's linked article, I note he talks about the diffculty of processing "a hundred" FISA warrants. Yet, strangely, DoJ, in the report I linked to above (NOTE: points to an Acrobat document), managed to do over 1700 in 2004 alone.
But, more than that... the implication is, if we're just willing to trade away some liberty, "victory" can be had. The trouble with that, of course, is there is no instance where that's been known to work. Israel, Russia, China, Iraq itself... the list of places which have far fewer freedoms yet far more terrorism goes on and on.
Mr. Rockford says, "I know what MY RISK PROFILE IS. Perhaps you'd trade 1.6 million people for civil liberties absolutism. Not I." I suppose I'm showing my age when I say, at least now we know what Mr. Rockford's price is. Thank God it was Jack Kennedy facing down Khrushchev over the Cuban missiles, and not Mr. Rockford, since it seems the mere threat of losing a single American city in a nation of 300 million would be enough for Mr. Rockford to trade his birthright for some pottage.
When it comes to shooting down bin Laden -- even Saddam Hussein has managed to find himself in court, despite being protected by what his minions told him was a decent army. We didn't seem to have siginificant troubles in prosecuting Timothy McVeigh (and the sheer numeric odds are that the "next attack" will be internally from McVeigh's end of the spectrum). If this adminstration genuinely cared about "fighting terror" on behalf of Americans, it would be bin Laden in court, and Hussein on the loose, rather than the other way around.
When it comes to the Constitution not being a suicide pact, that only works if one believes "terrorism" is a credible threat to the survival of the Republic itself -- more so than the Cold War, WWII, and the Civil War. This is simply not credible.
Lincoln once said, "...Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. "
"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
Maybe the "second attack" when it comes -- not if -- will lead to the chaos you describe, Lutas. But, if it does, that chaos will come whether we protect our liberties or not. How much better then to live free while we may, than to be attacked by our enemies while living as self-imposed slaves whom our enemies could never think of successfully enshackling.
