Into the Wilderness

I’d like to thank The Apologist for this comment:

Shawn, detainees are found to be unlawful combatants, or not, under the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ. You don’t try combatants, lawful or unlawful, in federal court. You never have and you never will. There is only one thing which has changed since 9-11. Terrorism is now considered an act of war, not simply a criminal act.

Your objections remind me of the infamous “Gorelick wall” between the CIA and the FBI. You cannot prosecute a war in court. Wild eyed speculations and farcical morality tales about random people being disappeared by the Stasi are unserious. This is a real war. Real people are dying every day all over the world at the hands of Jihadi terror. You are treating it like a poli-sci thought experiment.

The Constitution remains what it has always been. No one has ceeded Supreme Executive Power to the President. Congress can always repeal the law or amend it if it proves too broad or leads to abuse. Congress retains all it’s powers of oversight. The Executive is still subject to Congress and the Courts. Congress has an inherent power to determine the Court’s jurisdiction. It has done so. It can undo so if it sees fit.

Don’t be an Andy Sullivan. The man has lost his mind. Don’t wander too far off into the Libertarian wilderness. We need smart young republicans and conservatives. Try breathing into a paper bag for a couple of seconds.

I’m going to write a detailed defense of my position tomorrow.

For now, I just wanted to reply to this part: “Don’t be an Andy Sullivan. The man has lost his mind. Don’t wander too far off into the Libertarian wilderness. We need smart young republicans and conservatives. Try breathing into a paper bag for a couple of seconds.”

It’s going to take more than breathing into a paper bag for a couple of seconds. You may need me, but do I need you? Why do I need a party that spends so much and proclaims to be in favor of fiscal responsibility? Why do I need a party that tramples all over the states and then claims it is in favor of less government? Why do I need a party that doesn’t let two people who love each other marry and then claims it is in favor of family values? Why do I need a party that haphazardly launched us into a war without adequately preparing for the consequences (thus, setting us up for possible defeat) and then claims it is in favor of strong defense?

No, I think it’s too late to convince me to come back. I must wander the wilderness for a time. Maybe I will find my way back into the Republican fold eventually, but for now, I’m coming to the conclusion that I can no longer in good faith call myself a Republican. Specifically, give me a call when these two things happen: 1) When the Republicans stop bashing gays 2) When the Republicans get serious about security instead of using it as a political bludgeon.

Perhaps what I’m about to do is stupid, but I will be more disappointed with myself if I sit by and accept the status quo.

0 thoughts on “Into the Wilderness”

  2. Lloyd Nebres

    Ah, yes. That little dig about being “unserious,” slyly inserted. A hoary attack on liberal sensibilities. Largely untrue, but never mind.

    If the Bush Administration truly had a serious plan about prosecuting the “war on terror,” they would not have invaded Iraq so precipitately and without much of a plan for the aftermath of battle/occupation. But again, never mind.

    I think the larger philosophical AND practical problem, which Apologist actually posits, is the whole idea of terrorism being considered an act of war. An act of war by whom? Certainly not statist actors.

    As such, the entire landscape and meaning of war is changed and it is now presumed to be PERMANENT. This is simply because, to my mind, “terrorism” per se can never be defeated. As long as there exist small bands of fanatics anywhere, terrorist mthods will be a tool to promote their aims and ideologies. Note, emphasis is on: small.

    And as long as religious and political dogma exist, there will be such fringe elements.

    How to defeat such enemies? Certainly not by engaging them in war as as been known, but with the force of ideas and the spread of culture and values that marginalize them. And most certainly not by lowering ourselves to their barbaric level by ourselves using tools such as torture, and the scrapping of long-held attributes of the legal system.