Oh how I wish I could use this opportunity to spin, but I’ve become so much more sober and pessimistic recently. I would love to say, “This election was a defeat for Big Government Conservatism.” Then, I would promote a return to basic conservative principles. I would shout that we already won, and our voters threw out a perversion of those principles. We’re poised for victory in ’08 with real conservatism, or we will fight for our candidates in ’08 against the evil big government wing of the party. Alas, if it were only so!

This election wasn’t a rejection or approval of any set of principles. This election was a rejection of incompetence. The people were angry at Bush. He had failed with Katrina and failed with Iraq. The Republican party was corrupt, as evidenced symbolically by the Foley scandal. It wasn’t a rejection of any of the principles of family values, etc — it was the corruption of the principles. The Big Government Conservatives didn’t lose. Some of them were pissed off at the party as we (Limited Government Conservatives) were. Or rather, the Dems gained a good amount of the evangelical vote who cited “corruption” as an issue they cared about. We didn’t vote Republican because of high spending. Moderates and us voted Democrat because of the screw-ups in Iraq. Moderates hated not the corruption of certain principles, but actual monetary corruption — a part of a general theme of incompetence. Democrats, well, they were probably going to vote Democrat anyway.

My point is that none of us changed our ideology even though we may have voted a different way. I don’t like saying that there are “real” reasons for things. This is not so in human minds (uh oh, this could open a whole nother can of worms, so I won’t elaborate), but especially not so in a collective body — each person votes for different reasons. Attempts to find a real ulterior motive will fail because we all voted for different reasons. Still, I think there can be big contributing factors, and we can all find reasons that aren’t justified. If you want to know why Republicans lost, look at Bush’s low approval ratings. Why are Bush’s approval ratings low? He’s incompetent.

So, what does all this mean in the battle of ideas? Not so much, I guess. This election was a peculiarity, as all elections are. Greater historical meaning will be assigned in retrospect.

There’s a huge difficulty in assigning reasons to this loss. People tend to think that most people agree with them. Thus, I’ll tend to say that my reasons for not voting Republican were the reasons everyone voted Republican.

The Republicans lost votes from their base and lost big among independents. Why? I don’t think it was ideology. I don’t know if they are against the War in Iraq, per se. Mostly, they’re angry at the incompetent way it’s been handled. (Or at least, I am, haha.) The Republicans have bungled their rule for whatever reasons. People will assign whatever reasons they think that the Republicans were incompetent, but those reasons will vary. The fact is that the Republicans were incompetent in their governance. It made them unpopular. That’s the basic reason for losing.

But why oh why were we incompetent?

I just don’t think there’s a simple answer. The election itself doesn’t prove things one way or another. Still, I think we can eventually isolate certain elements.

Lloyd replies:

You’re absolutely right… in national politics, the answers aren’t so simple. But in very general terms, I’d say “overconfidence leading to hubris” is a good wrap. Add that to the old saw about absolute power absolutely corrupting, and I think that pretty much covers the philosophical bases. I’m quite sure it’s hard to consider first principles when you’ve got absolute power in hand. It’s so easy to say … “so freaking what.”

While I’ve said that I’m wandering the political wilderness, I have not yet cut off all my ties. I still belong to the College Republicans at JHU, some of whom appreciated my Why I’m Voting Republican piece. Since I still have some connection to the Republican party, the elections weren’t all dandy for me. I’m still a partisan, I guess.

The closest analogy I can make is that the elections were like pouring alcohol on a wound. It hurt, but it was necessary. I can already begin to feel the relief since I learned of Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. His resignation will also hopefully weaken Cheney’s influence.

What’s next? I’m not sure. I’d like to see bloody civil war between various factions of the Republican party. I’m guessing it’s going to be business as usual, instead of some serious soul-searching. I mean, all-out warfare between the factions is very, very, very unlikely. Meanwhile, the Democrats may stop being so idiotic, and then we’ll really have a long way to catch up if we don’t figure out that something is seriously flawed with Bushism.

If it comes to warring, then I’ll fight, and if my side loses, I’ll probably jump ship. But again, I don’t think it will come to that.

I still can’t shake this idea of a Realignment (yes, with a capital R). I just don’t feel like the current coalitions can hold. New issues will break us apart.

All in all, I feel as lost as I did before.

Dobson issues a statement worth quoting good amounts from:

Conservative Christian leader James Dobson accused the Republican Party of abandoning values voters in the midterm elections – and paying the price by losing control of Congress. “What did they do with their power?” Dobson said in a statement. “Very little that values voters care about.”

[…snip…]

“They consistently ignored the constituency that put them in power until it was late in the game, and then frantically tried to catch up at the last minute,” said Dobson, who argued that religious conservatives ensured GOP wins in 2004.

Dobson also criticized other conservatives, including former Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas – an architect of the 1994 GOP House takeover – for complaining recently that the religious right was “too involved” with the party.

“Without the support of that specific constituency, John Kerry would be president and the Republicans would have fallen into a black hole in ’04,” Dobson said. “In fact, that is where they are headed if they continue to abandon their pro-moral, pro-family and pro-life base. The big tent will turn into a three-ring circus.”

[…snip…]

“Sadly for conservatives, that in large measure explains what happened on Tuesday night,” he said. “Many of the values voters of ’04 simply stayed at home this year.”

[…snip…]

More than four in 10 evangelicals said corruption and scandals were extremely important, and those who felt that way were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than other evangelicals. About a third who were most concerned about corruption cast their votes for Democrats, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and the networks.

Hey Dobson, if it wasn’t for people like Dick Armey, there wouldn’t have been a Republican majority in the House to lose. (Contrary to Dobson, I believe the limited government base of the Republican party needs to assert its supremacy.)

Rove’s strategy of courting you is bunkum. The Christianist darling Santorum went down in flames. Meanwhile, Arnold Schwarzenegger managed to crush clearly liberal Phil Angelides in a clearly liberal state. Within a year, after special election defeats, he turned himself around from being finished to handily winning reelection. Yet, supposed genius Rove didn’t even get Bush the popular vote in 2000. Under Rove’s great guidance, Bush’s approval ratings are in the toilet.

So put those two paragraphs in your pipe and smoke it. And that’s just off the top of my head.

If you want to criticize Dick Armey, be my guest. This current big tent is dead. Let the finger-pointing begin. It’s time for bloody civil war.

(Of course, as time goes by, my position will become much more nuanced.)

Start quacking, Bush. You’re about to lose the Senate too.

(More brilliant analysis later today. I’m trying to figure out the best spin.)

EDIT: On second thought, I take that back. We might see a “comprehensive” immigration plan, yet. Rinse, repeat in 20 years. (We learned nothing from 1986.)

Goddamn. Yes, I know, I wanted to the Republicans to lose the House this time around. But Speaker Pelosi?? BAH! A pox on both parties!

My only hope is that the Democrats launch an investigation that disgraces Rumsfeld and forces him out.

EDIT: The day before elections, my guess was 50/50 Senate and +20 for Dems. The second prediction is way off. The first might be wrong too. Webb is ahead slightly in VA. It looks like Missouri or Montana may go to the Dems. The Republicans might lose the Senate too.

EDIT: Missouri is called for Dems. Webb extends his lead in Virginia, but we’ll probably have a recount, especially since it decides control of the Senate. Burns is catching up in Montana, but still behind by 4 points.

EDIT: Schwarzenegger wins big in CA. Hooray bipartisanship!

My latest piece for The Carrollton Record:

Why I’m Voting Republican This November

Do you really need a reason to vote Republican this November? Ever since the Democrats came to power (about) 6 years ago, taking control of the executive and legislative branches, we’ve had a mess. I’ve hardly enough space to adequately cover this travesty, but I figure quick hits on big issues will be enough.

Spending

Under the current administration, we have seen the largest increase of the welfare state since Mr. Great Society himself, Lyndon B. Johnson. These stats make me want to puke:

• Department of Education budget (since No Child Left Behind): up 51%
• Department of Agriculture subsidies: up 40%
• Medicare prescription drug benefit cost: $534 billion
• 2005 Transportation Act: $286 billion

The highway bill is a joke, laden with $24 billion of pork.₁ Unfortunately, the president has never heard of a veto, never seen a spending bill he didn’t like. A Republican president would’ve stopped the nonsense.

War

The current president is the (un)intellectual heir of Woodrow Wilson. We’ve seen the worst case of moralistic military adventurism in history with the unjust invasion of Iraq in the name of “democracy” and unfound WMDs. Principled conservatives rightly objected to the war all along. Stability comes before democracy. Conservatives know that it is impossible to throw away the traditions of a country and expect democracy to magically appear. That’s Edmund Burke 101. George W. Bush explained it well during one of the debates in 2000: “Somalia started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it’s in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise.” Alas, if only George W. Bush had won in 2000!

Civil Liberties

It is the goal of the conservative to protect the traditions which are the rightful foundations of our liberty, like habeas corpus. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, recently passed by the Democratic Congress, gives undue power to the executive, allowing him to indefinitely detain legal aliens on US soil, without a writ of habeas corpus. Do you trust the president to do this? I wouldn’t even trust a Republican president with that kind of power.

Time and time again, the president has subverted the law. He unlawfully authorized wiretaps when he easily could have gone to Congress to amend FISA. He held detainees in Guantanamo Bay without trial. The rule of law is fundamental, yet this president doesn’t care.

Immediately after 9/11, he hammered through the Patriot Act. It is the conservative’s duty to shout “Halt!” when someone tries to enact sweeping reforms with little forethought. Consistently, the president and Congress throw caution to the wind with our civil liberties, all while pretending to make us safer.

Moral Values

This latest page scandal really shows the true colors of the Democrats. Their champion of protecting children, chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, was caught sending explicit instant messages to underage teens. Talk about hypocrisy!

And still, the Speaker of the House refuses to step down. If this had happened to the Republicans, we wouldn’t point fingers and obfuscate. We would take responsibility. The Democrats continually show that they don’t care about principles; they only care about maintaining and aggrandizing their power.

Conclusion

The Democrats, whilst in control of Congress, have presided over obscene increases in spending and the size of government has ballooned. The president combines all the worst aspects of LBJ and Woodrow Wilson. Congress has done nothing but increase the power of this runaway executive, upsetting the checks and balances between the branches and running afoul of civil liberties. They throw away moral values, all concepts of tradition, and the rule of law in their pursuit of power.

It’s time for a change! Send a message to the president! Send a message to Congress! This November, we need to put the Republicans in charge… huh, what? What are you telling me? Wait a second, you mean, the Democrats haven’t been in power for the last six years?

Shit.

₁All of these statistics come from my Intro to American Politics book, American Government, which in turn took these stats from George F. Will in the Newsweek article, “The Last Word.” They’re also a year old, so I expect the estimates look worse today.

I just sat there. During the College Dems vs. College Republicans debate, I just sat there as my fellow Republican defended torture, saying it was okay to make terrorists feel a little uncomfortable. I had a chance. I had a chance to take the question instead of him. I had the chance to say, “I’m not only dismayed, but disgusted at President Bush and the Congressmen who voted for his bill. I’m ashamed of America for endorsing torture. It’s strange that a party could filibuster reasonable judicial nominees, but couldn’t muster up the force to save habeas corpus. But more so, I’m ashamed of the Republican party for its role in torture. This isn’t a partisan issue. Torture is unequivocably wrong.” Instead, I just sat there, staring at my pen, doing my best not to shout out. I just sat there.

Something has been bothering me for the past few days — something I couldn’t quite identify it. I don’t know if this is what it was, but at the very least, it’s really bothering me right now. I know the audience was small, but I’m ashamed at myself for sitting there and doing nothing.

And right now, instead of… of speaking out against this evil, I’m ruminating on race. Granted, race is an important topic and shouldn’t be ignored, but the very fabric of the Republic isn’t at risk of being torn asunder on account of race.

Andrew Sullivan made the most powerful image yet, regarding Iraq. Iraq is the foreign policy equivalent of Katrina. [Note to self: Put YouTube video in this entry.]

I can no longer sit quietly in my corner. I wrote my four-comic series, but why am I not pimping them at every opportunity! I am too quiet.

Thus, I will continue my ruminations on race, but not at the expense of averting my gaze from very important events in American history. I will begin composing my “Dialogues on Torture” and figure out how to start making that Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong movie. I will keep writing about politics up until, through, and after Election Day.

As I wander the political wilderness, I find that I am not alone.

That second link there expresses a lot of what I’m feeling.

I know I said I’d avoid politics this week, but I felt this important to note. I wonder how many more of us are out there.

Who’s that smart, astute reader whose e-mail Andrew Sullivan recently posted? You know, the one who wrote about Edmund Burke and balance?

Ah yes, that would be me.

As a principled conservative, I am abstaining from voting in this election.

If you want more details, check out my recent series of Chalkboard Manifesto comics.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4 will be up this Sunday.

You know what, I’ll be honest, I had no clue this was still going on: “The figures are stark. An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France so far this year and there have been 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services. Nearly 3,000 police officers have been injured in clashes this year. Officers have been badly injured in four ambushes in the Paris outskirts since September. Some police talk of open war with youths who are bent on more than vandalism” (Why 112 cars are burning every day).

In thinking about the recent Military Commissions Act, I’ve been banging my head against the wall, trying to come up with a plan of action.

I considered protest, massive student protests, but they’re anathema to my character as a conservative and I wondered if they’d really have an effect. As I write more for Principles of Agitation, I realize that real, concrete actions have to be taken, and a light must be shone so people know that there are real problems.

Civil disobedience is out of the picture, however, unless you want to try to plot a terrorist attack and bring up a case before the Supreme Court. Alternatively, see how popular you are when you try to defend the rights of a terrorist.

No, I’ve finally realized a better plan. First, however, I must explain a hypothetical I like to call, “The Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong.”

In the Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong scenario, we open with the typical Ticking Time Bomb scenario. A bomb of some sort is about to go off somewhere. We have a someone we suspect has information about this bomb. The characters in the scenario decide to torture this person to get information. Whilst they go about the torture, the real culprit goes free, unnoticed, except by one plucky investigator. To make the scenario even better, make sure the tortured person is a horrible person, maybe even involved in the plot, but does not know where the bomb is located. The information they get from torture leads them to the wrong place, and/or the wrong person. Meanwhile, the plucky investigator is trying to get their attention about who the real person is, but they don’t listen because they think the information they got from torture is right. The bomb goes off, and there are massive casualties. The authorities have failed because they relied on torture.

If my scenario sounds highly improbable and kind of like a movie or TV plot, you’re exactly right. That’s the point.

My plan involves getting the media to buy into this story. To make this scenario the subject of a TV show. To get a movie to use this story. To convince people that torture doesn’t work.

Or maybe, with our savvy youth media skills, make this catch fire on YouTube or MySpace videos. To make this the subject of a rap song. Essays. Stories. Novels. Newspaper articles. Weblog entries. Anything and everything.

The power of the Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong scenario is that it goes one step further than saying torture is merely ineffective, it says that torture actually weakens our ability to fight terror. It does so in a simplistic fashion that most people can understand. I’m sure it has the emotional power to convince people. It is an effective counter to the torture-apologists’ propaganda, especially in its ability to reach the common person.

Will it motivate them to action? Maybe not. But this is but the first step, and I think an important one. Torture only has this strut to stand upon. If we take it away, support will wither, and we can mount an organized attack.

For now, I throw these thoughts out into the void, but I will expand the Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong plot, maybe even write up a script, or find someone to write a script. I will try to find my own crew to make a short film, or I will try to find connections to someone, anyone to do it. I will try to find a way to publicize this story.

Maybe I can hold a competition of some sort, with monetary compensation for the winner.

Are there any people out there willing to turn the Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong into a film (or other type of) reality?

Lloyd, surely you know some creative minds out there.

EDIT: An interesting plot twist could be to have the real perpetrators be Sunni and the tortured ones be Shiite, or vice versa. Of course, the torturers have no idea what the difference between the two groups are.

EDIT: As always, critiques of my plan are welcomed. However, if you’re here to criticize the Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong scenario, stop. It’s just as improbable as the Ticking Time Bomb scenario itself, but unfortunately, most people don’t realize that.

Touchy feely liberal Thomas Hobbes on torture:

“Also accusations upon torture are not to be reputed as testimonies. For torture is to be used but as a means of conjecture and light in the further examination and search of truth; and what is in that case confessed tendeth to the ease of him that is tortured, not to the informing of the torturers, and therefore ought not to have the credit of a sufficient testimony; for whether he deliver himself by true or false accusation, he does it by the right of preserving his own life.” — Leviathan [emphasis mine]

For those unfamiliar with Thomas Hobbes, he’s not a touchy-feely liberal. He’s a 17th century philosopher with a rather bleak view of human nature.

I thought the part I highlighted was interesting. Take it for what you will.

This midterm election, Republicans will be voting with their asses. The GOP’s control of Congress depends on whether people get out and vote, or sit at home, with potato chips, watching Maury. Splendidly entertaining imagery aside, this election will be decided by the success or failure of the Republican “Get Out the Vote” (GOTV) effort.

There are plenty of reasons for Republicans not to vote Republican. I don’t see them jumping out of their seats to vote Democrat (thus, I doubt there will be a Democratic wave akin to 1994), but I do see them perfectly content to sit in those seats and not provide support to the corrupt Republicans. The feature story, Time For Us To Go, of the Washington Monthly openly expresses a sentiment I’m sure is shared by many Republicans. In fact, one I’ve heard expressed by die-hard Republicans on campus. We’re tired about spending and illegal immigration (although my line has considerably softened on immigration). We don’t think we’re winning the war. Not all of us drink the party Kool-Aid.

They keep trying to scare us with “Speaker Pelosi.” Yet, there’s an inherent flaw with that strategy. The reason Bush didn’t lose the election was because Kerry and the Democrats weren’t able to articulate a positive alternative. Yes, the Republicans have a platform, but they’ve dissolved that platform via rampant hypocrisy. Some of us have had it. We’ve come to the conclusion that the Republicans really aren’t any better than the Democrats anymore. You’ve lost your ability to articulate a positive vision.

And so, I will sit home this election day, refusing to vote for you.

It’ll be hard for the Democrats to gain control, though. According to Rasmussen’s Senate Balance of Power, “Democrats have to win all five races leaning their way plus all three Toss-Ups to regain control of the Senate.” Meanwhile, only one seat is listed as “Lean Republican.” Slate’s Election Scorecard shows similar results. It’ll be only slightly less than surprising if the Democrats take control, as opposed to a few months ago, when I would’ve said that there’s no way in hell the Democrats will take the Senate. Still, it’s a tall order. I’ll be not surprised at all if Republicans retain control or if it goes 50/50 (in which case Republicans still retain control because Dick Cheney casts deciding votes). Yes, we’re ranking the election on “How Surprised Will Shawn Be.” It’s a very accurate, scientifically tested scale. In any case, there’s no doubts whatsoever that the Republicans will lose seats.

As for the House, I’m unsure. Again, Republicans will lose seats. It’s just a question of “How many?” And that “how many” has drastically increased since my last musings on these elections. Democrats could take control of the House. However, I think it’s more likely that Republicans will retain control by just a sliver.

Undoubtedly, momentum has shifted away from the Republicans, but we’ve still got a few weeks left yet. Does Rove have anything up his sleeve? There’s still time for momentum to shift back, as shown in this particular race from the Rasmussen article linked above: “In Tennessee, Harold Ford, Jr. (D) overcame a large summer deficit to pull into a five-point lead last month. Republican Bob Corker (R) then fired his campaign manager, brought in a new team, and has pulled to within a couple of points.”

In any case, don’t expect Republicans to massively switch over to the Democratic camp. Democrats still don’t represent their best interests. This election won’t be decided by donkeys, it’ll be decided by Republican asses.

Why am I getting this deep sense of foreboding… as if we’re about to replace the corrupt Fatah party with Hamas…

North Korea tests a nuke. Will the Republicans beat the war drums loudly enough to drown out the Foley scandal?

Will they place the blame squarely on Clinton?

Are we safer now than we were 6 years ago?

What is Rove’s October Surprise?

Tune in this month for the answer to these questions and more on…

Ah shit, this is fucking real life…

Today, I’m doing what I said I’d do yesterday. I’m defending my position against The Apologist. I will go through his comment paragraph by paragraph.

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.

Timothy McVeigh committed an act of terror. Let’s say McVeigh did what he did today. According to you, terrorism is now an act of war. Thus, McVeigh committed an act of war against the US. He must now be considered a combatant. He must be tried in a military tribunal, no?

Yet, habeas corpus should still apply. He’s a citizen. If you believe that the MCA doesn’t strip citizens of the right to habeas corpus, we have reached a dilemma.

The situation is not as clear-cut as you would have us think. You cannot treat every act of terror as if it was purely an act of war.

A problem I didn’t address in my original entry was the fact that to be declared an unlawful combatant, you need not commit a terrorist act. All you have to do is provide material aid to a terrorist organization, which further blurs the term, “act of war.”

There exist gray areas. The solution is not to let the executive decide who’s a combatant and who’s not. The terrorist exists in a vacuum when it comes to international law. The solution isn’t ceding more power to the executive, to let him decide which legal residents, on US soil, should be detained or not detained. Where there is too much gray, it is better to extend the rule of law, than to expand the prerogative of the executive. We must outlaw terrorism under international law. Read: The Dread Pirate Bin Laden. Doing this will do more to reduce terrorist acts than to allow the executive to prosecute a forever-war against small, disparate bands of extremists.

The next paragraph I have to split into two parts.

Your objections remind me of the infamous “Gorelick wall” between the CIA and the FBI. You cannot prosecute a war in court.

Ah yes, because I think it unusual for the writ of habeas to be suspended for legal residents on US soil, I must have a pre-9/11 mindset, n’est-ce pas? To say that we are either at war or must treat terrorists solely as pre-9/11 criminals is to introduce a false dichotomy. “You cannot prosecute a war in court” sounds very convincing on paper, but how does this work in real life? Since terror as a tactic will never be fully extinguished, you’ve now given the executive permanent war-time powers. Bravo. Instead of giving the president more discretion, we could extend the law so that we can treat terrorists differently than other criminals.

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.

Here, you completely mischaracterize my argument. I specifically say that those wild-eyed speculations don’t matter, using “It doesn’t matter” multiple times in the same paragraph. I was engaging in something called abstract reasoning. “This is a real war” is hardly an argument for cavalierly dismissing the entirety of philosophical enterprise. Just because there’s a war going on, doesn’t mean you give up the right to question the actions of your government. Just because people are dying, doesn’t mean you don’t try to consider the consequences of your government’s actions. As a conservative, it is my duty to put out my hand and say, “Stop!” It is my duty to call for prudence. You give a president power today, and you don’t know what the president 20 years from now will do with it. Humans beings are imperfect and it is inevitable that we will occasionally elect truly corrupt individuals. The Constitution is not created to guarantee that the best person will get the job, but so the tyrannical man cannot screw things up too much. I’m saying that we’re treading down a dangerous road, giving the executive power that has the potential for abuse.

And to throw in a cheap shot, maybe Bush and Rumsfeld should’ve done some thought-experiments about the aftermath of Iraq.

The Constitution remains what it has always been. No one has c[e]ded 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 [its] 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.

Let’s not be clinical when we talk about the circumstances in which Congress may decide to repeal the law. “If it proves too broad or leads to abuse” means innocent people shoved in jail forever and not given a lawyer. Like I said before, as a conservative, it’s my job to call for prudence. Maybe we should try not passing laws that could lead to broad abuse. Maybe we should exercise caution instead of saying, “Yeah, let’s give the President the power to indefinitely detain legal residents and we’ll think about repealing it if too many people wind up in prisons.”

I do agree that the President doesn’t have Supreme Executive Power. Luckily, we still have the courts. But the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to convene and strike down a law. The trial process takes a long time. Congress doesn’t appear to be growing a backbone anytime soon. In the interim, we have too much potential for abuse.

Does this automatically preclude military action? No. The war in Afghanistan was just. However, there is a vast world of difference when you declare the entire world, including the US, to be a battlefield. The point is that the situation isn’t merely a decision between war and treating them as pre-9/11 criminals. There are many additional factors to take into account.

In conclusion, it doesn’t mean I have a pre-9/11 mindset if I engage in abstract reasoning. It doesn’t mean I have a pre-9/11 mindset if I have a respect for the rule of law, which is essential for liberty. When it comes to acts of terror, it is nonsensical to treat all of them purely as acts of war. Instead of letting the president indefinitely detain legal residents to fight a forever-war, we should figure out how we need to change the law to effectively reduce and punish terrorism.

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.

You can create a lot of problems (centuries’ worth) by framing a problem incorrectly.

In Disney’s Robin Hood the villain is Prince John, the “phony king of England.” While his brother King Richard is off fighting in the Crusades, he becomes a tyrant. He taxes the people, and when Robin Hood embarrasses him, he decides to tax the people more. He taxes the heart and soul out of the people, eventually throwing almost everyone in jail. The Sheriff of Nottingham even takes money from the clergy, and shoves Friar Tuck in jail.

Does anyone remember the resolution to this problem? Think past Robin Hood breaking everyone out of jail… Think further…

The movie resolves when King Richard comes back from the Crusades. He punishes Prince John and crew. It explicitly shows that all is well once the good king returns.

The problem, however, was not Prince John. There’s a villain much more nefarious that is not shown in the film. The problem was giving absolute power to the sovereign. You put the sovereign in position where he merely has the ability to tax the heart and soul out of the people by decree.

The problem doesn’t go away when you switch to a new king because at any moment, he could decide to change his mind. Or, you could get a new king who’s not so nice. The problem isn’t ever the disposition of the king. The problem is putting yourself under the arbitrary will of any king.

The solution is not getting a new king because the problem can always arise again. The solution is creating laws such that any king cannot tax the hell out of the people. This is why we live under laws, and why no one should be above the law.

Otherwise, you put yourself under the arbitrary will of an individual (or group of individuals). Even if you think they will never act as tyrants, you cannot give them the ability to abuse you if they wanted to. That’s why the president is bound by laws. Because even if you believe one president may not cause harm, what happens with the next president? You’re never guaranteed safety unless you live under the rule of law.

Thus, if you grant the sovereign too much prerogative, you live no longer under laws, but under his arbitrary will. It matters not what his actions are. It matters not if he is a good king, or a bad king: He is still a king! You do not live free!

And now, we turn to the current suspension of writ of habeas corpus for legal aliens — legal residents, your neighbors and my neighbors, your friends and my friends. Or perhaps, yourself.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t listen to any of the shrill cries. It doesn’t matter if you think no one will be whisked away in the dead of night and indefinitely detained. It doesn’t matter if you think Bush will never abuse his power. It doesn’t matter if you think we will be so careful that only the guilty will be captured. It doesn’t matter if you think occasionally capturing innocents is worth it in order to protect the homeland.

What matters is only the fact that the executive branch now has the power to indefinitely detain legal residents, without having to give a reason. The writ of habeas corpus has been suspended for legal aliens. Sure, they may be subjected to military tribunal at some point, but this tribunal is also created at the discretion of the executive. He makes the rules, not the people. Remember, there’s a reason why the Founders separated the government into separate branches.

It matters not if he is a good executive or bad executive. It doesn’t matter if he does anything or not; it only matters that he can. Legal residents of the US have been placed under his arbitrary will. No one should ever have that power.

Good king or bad king… He is still a king.

The Courts still exist, still function. We are under no threat of invasion or rebellion. There is no reason to give that much prerogative to the executive.

And of course, the objection will arise that we are fighting a new type of war against a new type of enemy. Yet, surely, you don’t think you’re safe if you place yourself under the arbitrary will of another man? The shield of law protects everyone with much more strength than an over-zealous executive. If you relinquish this shield, what will happen when the enemy has been vanquished, and the conquerer turns around and looks at you.

[An objection I haven’t fully addressed is the issue of the fairness of the military tribunals. I welcome comments of that topic that will further enlighten me. I will also attempt some of my own research. However, I felt it necessary to get this message out now. Mainly because I felt it was certain that the writ of habeas corpus was stripped, I believed that I had enough ground to stand on to make my arguments.]

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

Read: What A Terrorist Incident in Ancient Rome Can Teach Us

But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.

Read: ‘The More Subtle Kind of Torment’

The prisoner’s environment must be manipulated to produce a “regression of the personality to whatever earlier and weaker level is required for the dissolution of resistance.” This usually doesn’t take much. “Relatively small degrees of homeostatic derangement, fatigue, pain, sleep loss, or anxiety” are generally sufficient.

It doesn’t require “real” torture to produce disastrously unreliable information.

Read: Lloyd’s on dehumanization.

History clearly shows that the use of torture moves quickly from an interrogational method to elicit vital information to a device that wrings a confession from an individual. This distinction is critical to understand.

From the great Machiavelli, in his Discourses on Livy:

“…Caesar, as their head, could so blind the multitude that it did not recognize the yoke that it was putting on its own neck.”

The Republican party has been blinded by its devotion to Bush.

I hope that the American people have not become so corrupt that we can no longer live free.

I’ve been looking up a few more things, but I haven’t read the actual bill itself (which I suppose I should do). It appears as if the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens, and not citizens. I’m still not fully convinced that there isn’t any weaselly language in there that makes it possible for Bush and Rumsfeld to declare a citizen an enemy combatant. After all, the bill lets Bush define torture, but allows him to keep all the techniques secret. It’s not encouraging at the very least.

Although I’ve introduced that, do not view this as a retreat of any sort. The republic is still in grave danger when the executive branch can whisk away legal residents in America and detain them indefinitely.

Don’t let the term alien mislead you. These are your neighbors. These are your friends.

Don’t think it won’t happen?

Let me take you off on a tangent. Read this from the Washington Post, Why I’m Banned in the USA, by Tariq Ramadan. He’s not a terrorist nor has he aided the terrorists. Yet, the professor’s visa was denied. His offence?

The letter from the U.S. Embassy informed me that my visa application had been denied, and it put an end to the rumors that had circulated since my original visa was revoked. After a lengthy investigation, the State Department cited no evidence of suspicious relationships, no meetings with terrorists, no encouraging or advocacy of terrorism. Instead, the department cited my donation of $940 to two humanitarian organizations (a French group and its Swiss chapter) serving the Palestinian people. I should note that the investigation did not reveal these contributions. As the department acknowledges, I had brought this information to their attention myself, two years earlier, when I had reapplied for a visa.

In its letter, the U.S. Embassy claims that I “reasonably should have known” that the charities in question provided money to Hamas. But my donations were made between December 1998 and July 2002, and the United States did not blacklist the charities until 2003. How should I reasonably have known of their activities before the U.S. government itself knew? I donated to these organizations for the same reason that countless Europeans — and Americans, for that matter — donate to Palestinian causes: not to help fund terrorism, but because I wanted to provide humanitarian aid to people who desperately need it. Yet after two years of investigation, this was the only explanation offered for the denial of my visa. I still find it hard to believe.

But he has criticized some of the Bush administration’s policies, and Mr. Ramadan is becoming “increasingly convinced that the Bush administration has barred [him] for a much simpler reason: It doesn’t care for [his] political views.”

So, what does this have to do with what I said before? If indeed Mr. Ramadan’s views are being repressed, how long does it take before the views of legal residents are repressed based on bogus charges of having donated to a charity that “aids terror”?

Or let’s say that this was an error… Then, how do we know that other errors will not be committed in the name of defending the homeland. Can people be jailed for donating to a charity?

No, of course not, you will say. But then why should Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush be given discretion? They can lock them up indefinitely such that you won’t know whether or not this person is held on a bogus claim because the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended. The Bush Administration doesn’t need a reason to detain legal residents.

Furthermore, mistakes will happen. And a mistake only gives incentive to hold someone indefinitely. Why? To cover-up mistakes. No one will know you’ve made a mistake if the person is languishing in jail and never given a fair trial.

Given Bush’s previous ability to admit to mistakes… I’m not optimistic.

Chilling words from President Bush, in his recent press conference with Karzai: “But I will comment on this — that we’re on the offense against an enemy that wants to do us harm. And we must have the tools necessary to protect our country. On the one hand, if al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates are calling somebody in the country, we need to know why. And so Congress needs to pass that piece of legislation. If somebody has got information about a potential attack, we need to be able to ask that person some questions. And so Congress has got to pass that piece of legislation.” [emphasis mine]

The words I chose to emphasize represent a very egregious case of doublespeak. It purposely glosses over very important things. Firstly, he doesn’t even say “coercive interrogation” or said that he has “to update our methods of interrogating terrorist detainees” (as the I found out the Traditional Values Coalition said). He doesn’t even allude to physically and psychologically abusing prisoners of war. Stripping someone naked and spraying him with cold water in a cold room in order to induce hypothermia becomes merely asking a person some questions. We’ve gone beyond euphemism into purposeful denial.

But it gets worse. Let’s examine this new detainee bill. According to a Washington Post article, Detainee Measure to Have Fewer Restrictions, the bill will allow anyone who “has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States” to be detained indefinitely, including legal aliens and citizens. Now, anyone can be detained indefinitely, without being able to challenge their detention in court, at the President’s discretion. The writ of habeas corpus, “a writ issued in order to bring somebody who has been detained into court, usually for a decision on whether the detention is lawful” (according to Encarta), has been suspended. Furthermore, the president can not only detain anyone, but he can do this anywhere. If you don’t find this strange, you do not understand what it means to live in a democratic republic.

This precious right, the writ of habeas corpus, extends back hundreds of years. Anyone who is a true conservative cannot say that this right which has stood the test of time, for nearly a millenium, should be suspended in the face of the current terrorist threat. The blanket statement “9/11 changed everything” is fundamentally opposed to the Burkean conception of conservatism. It cannot change everything. It cannot change our long tradition of human rights. It cannot change our Constitution.

It’s right here in Article 1, Section 9: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Of course, I’ve glossed over the actions of Lincoln during the Civil War and FDR during WWII, but surely you can see the difference between their actions and Bush’s? We have entered an undefined, forever-war against terror. There is no time when these rights can be returned to the citizens. Where is the invasion? Where is the rebellion?

Congress swore to uphold the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They are supposed to uphold our rights. They are supposed to serve as a check against the excesses of the executive. In my estimation, Congress has abdicated its duty. They’ve given the executive discretion to detain anyone, anywhere, without having to give a reason.

Congress has failed the American people.

Luckily, we have three branches of government. We have the extremely undemocratic institution of the Supreme Court, which will hopefully strike down this law. It was created to protect us from the passions of the majority. If this line of defense fails, we may have the states to depend on. And if that fails…

”Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.” — John Locke, Second Treatise.

Lest you think I advocate overthrow of the government, I give you this, which is also from John Locke: “Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty, will be born by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected…”

For now, this is a great mistake in the ruling part, and we must fight to have the mistake rectified. Hopefully, it will never get to this point, but if they start knocking on doors and legal residents and citizens begin disappearing in good numbers, then we must invoke our final line of defense. For now, we have only taken the first steps on a long march towards tyranny. We must pray that our other lines of defense do not fail.

Some food for thought: For Iran, A Policy Of Patience, by Fareed Zakaria.

Always keep in mind our history. Zakaria reminds us that China was very aggressive during the 50s and 60s, but we did not need to preemptively invade.

Iran is aggressive, yes, but I’m not sure if the situation is exactly analogous. I’m unconvinced that the US faces an existential threat, but Israel? Was China preaching an apocalyptic message, as Iranian President Ahmadinejad is?

Still, I’m convinced that the best way to “win” is to outmanuever Iran diplomatically, instead of continuing on this course of bullying and intimidation, which obviously isn’t getting us anywhere, and instead of sounding the drumbeats of war. We still have time before Iran develops a nuclear weapon.

Not all diplomatic avenues are appeasement. If we let Iran develop nuclear energy, but closely monitor what they’re doing, it will be a small victory. It will allow us to get our tentacles in Iran… maybe even some human intelligence. Maybe if we have scientists working with their scientists, some of their scientists may spy for us? I still believe that this is the best course of action.

I think the history lesson from Zakaria is good to keep this situation in perspective.

Here’s a link to Lloyd: the enemy in our midst.

I’m just linking right now because I don’t really have answers yet. I’m beginning to wonder if the Republican Party can be salvaged. (Fiscal conservatives will know what I’m talking about. Burkean conservatives will know what I’m talking about.)

I’m also wondering if big tectonic shifts are to come in party make-up. Immigration produces strange bedfellows… it’s a big issue and could be potentially disruptive. The labor unions have steadily been losing power. How long can the Dems count on them? New ethnic groups will be holding more sway. Latinos, Asian-Americans… I’m sure there are many other things I’m missing, but I’m just throwing my thoughts out right now, instead of in a more substantial entry that I thought I was planning for a later date.

I’m not saying that there’s going to be some grand third party coming into play. That’s highly unlikely. But it’s also highly unlikely that the status quo will hold over the course of my lifetime. (I’m only 19.) Political parties are coalitions of factions with competing interests. Some factions lose power. Some factions gain power. Sometimes a political figure can be polarizing. Like how there were Whigs who were really Democrats, but they just hated Andrew Jackson’s guts. (Do I have my history right?) You can’t expect a coalition to really be stable when the environment is so dynamic. Something’s gotta give sooner or later.

Thus, there is no question that there will be changes. The questions are: To what extent? (Will the changes be small?) And: How soon?

And if this happens: On which side of the divide will I fall? Should I actively try to trigger this “Realignment”?

Ah yes, and I missed one question: Who? Who will be on which side?

I’m going to take a break tomorrow from all this and do something I was planning a while back: Write about religion. I think it will help put me on the path to answering these new questions.

Check out this I excerpted from a supposedly humorous weblog entry, Secret CIA interrogation techniques revealed!:

The Grauniad blows the lid off the mother:

Details emerged yesterday about the seven interrogation techniques the CIA is seeking to be allowed to apply to terror suspects… The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called “the attention grab” where a suspect’s shirt is forcefully seized; the “attention slap” or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the “belly slap”; and sound and light manipulation.

All you want to do is blow up some infidels for Allah, but these pigs won’t let you sit down or take a nap or put on a sweater. If the blasphemers are feeling particularly American, they might even wrinkle your outfit. Or give you a pinkbelly! AAAAIIIEEEEEEEE!!!

[emphasis mine]

Oh yeah, hypothermia… ha ha ha ha, what a great laugh.

Yes, inducing hypothermia is akin to not letting someone put on a sweater. We Americans don’t torture, it’s only coercive interrogation.

(Hm, now I think I got an idea for satire of my own…)

[Just to be clear, I am being completely sarcastic when I say that hypothermia is funny.]

The most dangerous man is he who is unjust but has deceived everyone into thinking that he is just.

“Anyone who is caught should be thought inept, for the extreme of injustice is to be believed to be just without being just. And our completely unjust person must be given complete injustice; nothing may be subtracted from it. We must allow that, while doing the greatest injustice, he has nonetheless provided himself with the greatest reputation for justice. If he happens to make a slip, he must be able to put it right. If any of his unjust activities should be discovered, he must be able to speak persuasively or to use force. And if force is needed, he must have the help of courage and strength and of the substantial wealth and friends with which he has provided himself.” — Glaucon in Plato’s Republic.

It’s not torture. It’s “coercive interrogation.”

It’s doublespeak.

The lesson that I want you to take away is that injustice is nearly always perpetrated behind the mask of justice. (Injustice for injustice’s sake is easily countered.)

Look behind the words.

Look behind Bush’s rhetoric about freedom and look at his actions in Iraq.

I know I’m not being a good Republican, but I can’t help it. I must look at the situation objectively.

Of course, he hasn’t convinced everyone, but I do not think that all who oppose him oppose him for good reasons. The strange thing is I think that Bush has deceived himself into thinking he is just.

Our greatest weapon is our American ideology — of freedom, justice, and self-determination.

The most dangerous ones are those who loudly proclaim that they are doing things in the name of freedom, and convince everyone that this is so, yet actively work to undermine that freedom.

[Sorry to be all vague and not talk about things in concrete terms, but this is my personal weblog and I have the right to experiment.]

Are there any other Republicans out there who find this debate about torture surreal? I haven’t listened to talk radio since I got back to JHU, but I’m sure the right-wing is furious at how the Left and Powell and McCain and more are “terrorist-sympathizers.” I just can’t imagine how we got to the point where my party would endorse torture. But I will fight, for the soul of the nation, and the soul of my party.

I tend to see the world in less shades of gray than many other people. I’m not so naive to see the world in black and white, but now you know a little more about my worldview. Torture is wrong. We don’t torture child-rapists and serial killers. We shouldn’t torture this other brand of killer, especially not if they’re US citizens or residents.

I’m just surprised that the group that tends to see things more black and white — that at times actively criticizes those who don’t see things in black and white — can only see shades of gray when it comes to torture. Like I said, it’s surreal.

At this time, I think the pragmatic front is the best to fight on. Convince people that torture will not prevent another 9/11, their fear will disappear, and then they won’t let it cloud their moral judgment. However, I will also be making a moral argument in the coming days.

I’m behind schedule on the College Republicans web site. I wonder what they’ll think if I finally get the blog up and running, and I start it off criticizing torture… Would they attempt to run me out?

Finally, Congress starts to grow a spine, with a some Senators standing up to the Bush administration’s underhanded attempts to make torture the law of the land.

I’ve been waiting a while for Congress to deal a good defeat to the executive branch.

Not that I wanted Bush in particular to be slapped, just to see the executive branch have its power curbed.

And this couldn’t be a better issue.

We’re fighting a multiple-front war. Certain people get enraged that we’re losing the propaganda war, but then they endorse torture. Even the most heinous serial killers, rapists, and the like, are subject to the 8th amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment.

I know terrorists are disgusting people, but we must prove that we are better than them. We don’t need to endorse torture to stop another 9/11. Because that goes right into the recruiting handbooks of al-Qaeda. Torturing an innocent Muslim moderate (and if you think everyone in Guantanamo is guilty, then you’re vastly mistaken) is a great propaganda tool for al-Qaeda. It makes it harder to win the War on Terror.

The so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a joke. It only happens in the movies. The terrorists are maniacs. They don’t care about blowing themselves up. Do you honestly think in the ticking time bomb scenario, they will crack before the bomb blows up? Isn’t it easy for them to give you the wrong information? By the time you check, the bomb has already gone off somewhere else.

The advocates of torture paint a false dilemma. Either we torture, or 9/11 will happen again. It’s not so.

We can make it vastly harder for terrorists to succeed without resorting to torture. Doesn’t it make sense to secure leftover nuclear material before it gets into enemy hands instead of torturing someone who already set a bomb? Because that guy probably won’t tell you where the bomb is.

Analyze the trade-offs. We need other countries’ cooperation in order to find terrorists. The more we abandon our moral principles, the more we lose the propaganda front in the war, the less those countries cooperate with us. We need those countries to cooperate with us in securing nuclear materials. Thus, it becomes more likely that we will be attacked again.

Analyze the trade-offs. If you give the president discretion on who to torture and who to not torture, how do you know when his high-level detainees aren’t so high-level? Well, you can’t, since it’s a secret. What happens when a different president is in office and he starts shipping off American citizens for secret interrogations on charges of “terror”? Don’t think it can happen? Law enforcement agencies are already using the Patriot Act for things unrelated to terror. You don’t think once you give the executive branch the leeway to torture, it won’t be used on non-terrorists? The slope is more slippery than you think.

Analyze the trade-offs. In fact, a lot of times, torture doesn’t work at all. You get a lot of wrong information. The time we spend analyzing those false leads could be spent better elsewhere. We miss opportunities to nab real terrorists. The nation becomes less safe.

Moreover, some of this information we already got without torturing anyone. From the Slate article Tainted Fruit, “There is already evidence that President Bush either exaggerated or misspoke with respect to that torture evidence. He claimed that harsh interrogation of one of the CIA’s detainees led to the identification and capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in part by revealing that his nickname was ‘Mukhtar.’ But according to intelligence officials, the government paid an informant $25 million for the tip that led to Mohammed’s arrest, and the CIA knew Mohammed’s nickname even before 9/11.”

The threats to our own freedom and our moral standing in the world are not worth the trade-off for a highly unlikely hypothetical ticking time-bomb scenario. I’d rather take real, concrete steps towards security.