The Surveilance/Torture state.

April 2, 2008

With the brouhaha over the Yoo torture memos, I feel like saying a few thing.

First of all, if a government relies on the the fear of the people to expand its power, it will try and keep the people afraid. If the only time the people are willing to tolerate arbitrary executive power is when they are afraid, then the executive is going to keep the people afraid. Really goddamn obvious. Basic economics, you get what you incentivize, we have incentivized a fearful populace. Regardless, lets pretend that handing the executive unchecked power to ignore Habeas, spy on everyone, and torture whenever they feel like it actually prevents, rather than encourages, terror attacks.

Lets say I hand you 17 coins, you have to flip them all, and if they all land heads up (1 in 131072 chance), you will die in a terrorist attack. Unless, that is, you allow the state to have virtually unlimited powers of surveilance, the power to disappear people at will, completely disregard the Constitution and rule of law, torture, etc. Give the state that power and you don’t have to flip those coins. How about it? Undermine hundreds and hundreds of years of liberty’s progress to avoid a .001% chance of dieing in a terrorist attack. You have to abandon the bloody MAGNA CARTA, but those 17 coins might land heads up. Do we have a deal?

If so, get the hell out of my country. If you are such a coward that a .001% chance of death from a terrorist is worse than tyranny, leave here. If you would rather your child spend a lifetime being endlessly watched, at danger from being disappeared and tortured, than have a .001% or whatever chance to die from a terror attack, then you are unfit to be a parent. This means you, Senator Roberts, leave here, you are not enough of a grown-up to handle living in America. All you “conservatives” who ignore the wisdom of Lord Action, Ben Franklin and Patrick Henry, go live elsewhere, I’m sure the Chinese Communist Party needs some more English speakers to help maintain the Great Firewall of China. Freedom is rare enough in the world, you can find somewhere else to live. And when you die of a heart attack after hearing a noise underneath your bed, I hope you go to heaven just long enough for Washington to spit on you through his false teeth.

Clinton Impeachment

February 22, 2008

This is a decidely left-of-center blog (or it will be when I get some more content written) but, when it comes to the Clinton years, I wasn’t a big fan. He did a nice bit of Wag the Dog-esque bombing, to the detriment of those who recognized that Iraq wasn’t a threat, and paving the way for his successor’s invasion.

More importantly: His impeachment was justified. Claiming in a sworn deposition that he didn’t have “sexual relationship” with Miss Lewinsky came close enough to perjury that he should have been put on trial for it. He was aquited, which was also, in my mind, the right outcome, since “sexual relationship” is such a nebulous term.

Yes, there was a massive amount of media BS, yes the right wing was on a witch-hunt, yes, it was none of Ken Starr’s business, but the fact remains, he received Teh Oral Secks from an intern, then swore that he didn’t have a sexual relationship with her. That’s close enough to perjury to warrant a trial. The correct response would have been something closer to the truth, or “none of your damn business, you panty-sniffing freak” or anything that wasn’t so close to a lie.

Bush should be on trial in the Hague for crimes against peace.

Clinton was right to be put on trial for perjury.

These two statements are not in any way in opposition to one another.

In Soviet Russia, the Party can always find YOU!!!

February 22, 2008

Ok, so for my first substancial post, I’m going into hard-core conspiracy mode. Might as well start out crazy.

Why is the Bush Regime so insistent on including Telecom Amnesty in the Protect America Act renewal? They have been willing to throw people under the bus before, why not now? Perhaps because the left blogosphere really wants Telecom amnesty stopped, or they really want corporations to think that there is no possible downside to breaking laws when the Bush admin demands it.

My theory: If the Telecos don’t get immunity, when the inevitable civil suits come arround, it will come up that the DOJ made it clear that refusal to cooperate would lead to jail time for the CEOs. Correlation isn’t causation, I know, but Qwest didn’t cooperate with the DOJ’s illegal requests, and look what happened to them. Nacchio is almost undoubtedly a crook, but to my cynical mind, the odds are against major Teleco execs not being crooks.

For this to be plausible the DOJ would have to be infested with Bush hacks, who think that answering to Rove is more important that dispensing justice. Not that the entire DOJ would have to be this way, much of it could still go about business as normal, investigating supremely corrupt congressmen regardless of party. Certain party hacks, however, would be devoted to prosecuting those in Rove’s sights, and if they didn’t, well USDAs serve at the pleasure of the President.

Summary: The DOJ is using selective prosecution of crimes to persuade companies, specifically, Telecoms, to violate the law if the executive branch demands it. Furthermore, the reason Telecom amnsesty is being pushed so hard is that if civil suits procedes, the fact that a notable fraction of the DOJ is inarguably working as Rove’s henchmen will come to light. Justice is relative, the real crime is to oppose the Party. Hell, it’s not like the Bush admin cares about fairness.

Unfortunately, what should be a wacko conspiracy theory is really goddamn plausible.

F1RST P0ST

February 21, 2008

the “o” is a zero, by the way