THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 661, March 11, 2012
A great artificial hysterical fuss.
Send Letters to email@example.com
A Minor Observation
Mal Reynolds: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me, and you'll be armed.Firefly
Eric Holder and his boss do not share this philosophy. They reserve the right to assassinate anyone anywhere as part of the "war on terror."
Among other problems is that they've defined most of the readership of TLE as potential terrorists.
To be honest I do not think they'll bother with me or most of you reading this. However, I also am not happy about being under the power of people to whom dissent and terrorism and war are all one thing.
Was that worth reading?
A Minor Observation II
I could be mistaken,but it is not the Attorney General's job to discuss how his boss (The President) conducts a war. How the President prosecutes a war is for the Secretary of Defense to comment upon. This makes Mr. Holder's recent comments on whether or not it is proper for President Obama to execute American citizens without a fair trial as part of the "War on Terror" totally inappropriate. He should have referred it to Leon Panetta, our secretary of war.
The correct answer is that it is almost never proper, morally or legally, to execute people without giving them their day in court. It is legal to kill enemy soldiers while carry out a war (whether or not it is moral you may discuss among yourself another time) however this is not extrajudicial execution. Yet this is the exact power Mr. Holder claims for the President. Not the duty to kill enemy soldiers, but to execute persons without trial.
So I believe in the Constitution and the right to bear arms. I consider abortion morally objectionable (though I admit there is no Constitutionally acceptable way to act to prevent it.). I understand that makes me a potential terrorist. So according to John McCain this means I can be locked up indefinitely, and according to Eric Holder I can be bombed with drones without a trial. As I've said before, I'm not worth the effort, so I'm not particularly worried either will happen. Still that's what those spavined culls claim.
And every Republican Candidate for President except Ron Paul agrees with them.
To which Richard D. Bartucci commented:
Does a state of war exist?
What we have in the present yet-another-friggin'-Progressive "moral equivalent of war" isn't really a war at all, in the sense of condition of formal conflict among sovereign polities. Even the campaigns conducted by the governments of the European colonies and the American states against the various indigenous tribes and confederations on this continent from the earliest years of settlement could reasonably be called "wars."
But a "war" upon something so inchoate as "terror"? Impossible. Too much like all the Progressive bullshit that's been foisted upon us since the earliest days of the 20th Century, ever since those meddling scum saw how wonderfully the declaration of war against the Central Powers enabled the suppression of dissent and the engagement of patriotic "we're all in his together" fervor back in 1917.
Look up the expression "the moral equivalent of war" in order to get an idea of how the government-gone-juramentado types treasure the understanding that "war is the health of the state."
Now, were there to be declared a war against Islamic terrorwhich amounts to war against the ummah itself (which is how the Islamic whackjobs have always viewed the very existence of us un-dhimmi'd infidels)to include blowing that hunk of meteoric rock in downtown Mecca back up into extraterrestrial space, followed by subjecting all those of the Muslim faith surviving to the same treatment that Muslim polities have subjected the followers of Zorastrianism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Ba'hai....
That, of course, isn't libertarian in any sense. But it is warfare as one correctly defines the practice.
There's much truth in your observation about what is (and is not) the proper job of the U.S. Attorney General. He isand has always beennothing more than the President's attack dog, wonderfully epitomized by Saint Woodrow Wilson's Alexander Michell Palmer, about whom none of those reading here learned anything in any government school anywhere in these United States, except to the extent you've caught references to the expression "Palmer Raids" in the writings of aggrieved elderly parlor pinkos.
But insofar as we're discussing a "war" in consideration of the so-called "war on terror," you're acidically way off-base. Ain't no such thing happening, and therefore to the extent that we can speak (without succumbing to hysterical laughter) about which of Barry Soebarkah's co-conspirators on the federal payroll have "legitimacy" in running this yet-another-friggin'-Progressive spurious "war," the U.S. Attorney General is precisely as appropriate as is his Sotocapo of Aggression, Leon Panetta.
Extending into trivia, the extent to which it is "...proper, morally [and] legally, to execute people without giving them their day in court..." in a condition of war are dictated under practices almost universally recognized among the nations participant in modern diplomatic relations, and they're a helluva lot broader than you seem to appreciate, up to and including situations in which taking prisoners can be construed even potentially to imperil the fulfillment of an individual combatant or commander's mission.
This is why it's long been recognized as wonderfully stupid for a soldier to surrender to an enemy armored unit. Tank-heavy troops simply don't have the manpower to detach prisoner-chasers, and the practices of either taking no prisoners or machine-gunning them en masse (Malmedy-style) are considered regrettable necessities in the maintenance of operational tempo.
Ever heard that old Latin expression "inter arma enim silent leges"?
Richard D. Bartucci