Comfortable advocating mass murder with that creepy smile under both Bush and Obama, in light of the Fort Hood massacre, Lieberman seems to be primarily concerned not with PTSD and mental health issues in the armed forces in general, not with internecine abuse in Army ranks, not with whether or not the military should let go of conscientious objectors before they literally go ballistic, but whether or not Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s crazed actions could be technically classified as (Islamic) terrorism. Muslims in the military are rightly on edge.

As Maj. Hasan’s beliefs likely influenced, in part, his actions, so do Sen. Lieberman’s. Watch out Nidal, the senator from Connecticut has his own jihad, and his Gitmo finger is itchy.

In the years since I abandoned my status as a typical neoconservative chicken hawk and adopted Old Right non-interventionism, I’ve been somewhat uneasy with much of the movement’s rhetoric. Specifically, I often find much of the anti-war Right a little too reminiscent of the anti-war Left. That is, many anti-war conservatives and libertarians expend a great number of keystrokes lamenting the American war machine’s innocent foreign victims (see Chronicles
or LewRockwell.com just about any day of the week for examples). This is often my own preferred argument. My concern is that this kind of rhetoric does little to grow the non-interventionist movement’s ranks. …

Although their message is utterly vacuous, the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Levins know exactly how to frame their arguments in a way that appeals to the GOP base. It’s time for more doves on the Right to learn to do the same.

But, of course, we do make coldly consequentialist, self-interested arguments
against militarism, war, and empire. We also make arguments on moral grounds, from a number of different starting points (including conservative Christianity, which I hear this GOP base is really into). Why make this an either/or matter? Why should we drop half (or more) of our arguments when they don’t conflict with the other half? (There are various types of “humanitarianism” that do conflict with non-interventionism, but we avoid those, so no problem there.)

As for learning from Limbaugh and Levin, please. I know their audience. I was born into it. If I ever write a political memoir, I’ll name it Up From Hannity. There is a Reasonable Right worth reaching out to, but it ain’t in talk radio. These people “think very little about foreign policy,” as Hawley puts it, not out of apathy, but on principle, because thinking leads to questioning, and questioning is a mere Bic flick away from flag-burning, bin Laden, buggery, and Buddhism. The funny thing is, the warbots are not allergic to “humanitarian, we-are-the-world gobbledygook” – in fact, they devour it when it’s in the service of American imperialism. Anyone who watches Fox News knows how quickly right-wingers can pivot from “kill ‘em all” to “aww, purple fingers!” The problem is not that peaceniks have tried the wrong arguments on them; they will accept any argument, no matter how heterodox it appears on its face, so long as it reaches the correct conclusion, roughly summarized here. But any argument that reaches a different conclusion, no matter how consonant it is with “conservative values” such as traditionalism, small government, fiscal responsibility, or national sovereignty, doesn’t stand a chance with that crowd.

Lamenting the suffering created by harsh economic sanctions and bombing campaigns is a good way for non-interventionist right-wingers to suck up to their leftist friends and colleagues, but so what? The people moved by such arguments are already anti-war. Building a powerful anti-war coalition on the Right will require an entirely different rhetoric. At all costs it must avoid sounding like Code Pink.

This ignores the salvageable, non-Rush Right, whom we do address, and it seems a little confused about the purposes of advocacy. Not all arguments are about convincing someone to switch sides. Often, it’s more important to get those who agree with you on an issue to care more about that issue, in both absolute and relative terms. For instance, much of our commentary since January has been aimed at convincing our lefty readers that they shouldn’t surrender peace and civil liberties for the various goodies Obama has promised them. We’re always trying to make people rethink their priorities, or merely come out of the closet. Even after a majority of Americans soured on the Iraq war, most remained sheepish, even silent, in their opposition, revealing it only to pollsters. Part of our job is to get people fired up, to translate their dissatisfaction into action of some sort. And you know what? Moral arguments are often good motivators, even for people whose default modes of analysis are amoral.

Luckily, we already have a pretty good format that has worked pretty well in America’s Red regions, and can be applied to the cause of peace. There is a certain ethos that characterizes a great number of ordinary Republicans – or at least the ordinary Republicans with whom I prefer to spend my time. For the lack of a better term, I will call this frame of mind, “Who-Gives-a-Damn? Conservatism.” This is the type of thinking that leads to support for standard GOP policies, but not for particularly-sophisticated reasons. I have no doubt that a great number of grassroots Republicans oppose ideas like universal health care and more federal spending on public schools because they understand, and find compelling, conservative and libertarian arguments about the utility of such policies. I suspect much of the opposition to these schemes, however, is based on a more primal emotion. That is, a lot of people don’t like Big Government because they don’t want to pay for it and don’t really care about the people it is supposed to help.

If you think most self-described conservatives really hate Big Government,
then you stopped paying attention sometime around, oh, the Nixon administration. Good God, man, if they hated Big Government, wouldn’t they at least dislike the most wasteful and intrusive government programs of them all, from the War on Terror to the War on Drugs? No, they love Big Government, from its big, fat boots to its big, fat head. Oh, they’re angry that some of the loot falls on the, um… undeserving, but that won’t stop them from sucking the teats of Social Security and Medicare to the shape and texture of a deflated football. They won’t abide tax increases, but they see no connection between those and deficit spending. And why should they? Just keep those F-22s coming, barkeep! The grandkids are buying!

I do agree with this part completely:

The neocons’ democratist ideology should be treated as just another example of fuzzy-headed utopianism. Bringing “liberal democracy” and “democratic capitalism” to the entire world should be added to the category of ridiculous, never-going-to-happen ideas. The best argument against the neocons is that they are delusional. They are the eggheads dreaming up sentimental, utopian schemes, not us.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Nonetheless, we will gain nothing from adopting the language and posture of the neocons and their fellow travelers. Non-interventionism’s only “tough-guy problem” is the widespread attachment to a mindset derived entirely from dumbass action flicks, which are about as useful a guide for foreign policy as romantic comedies are for romance.

Jon Stokes, the author, correctly notes how government organizations are doing a disservice to tax payers for two reasons.

First, there is little empirical data to suggest that the NSA’s current data mining system has been effective at stopping terrorism whereas there is a lot of evidence that it violates individual privacy.

Second, in the age of cloud computing, the scramble for ideal data center locations is limited by a number of constraints (including uninterrupted power supply and environmental temperature). Because the NSA can use its deep taxpayer-funded pockets, it can outbid rivals such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon — companies that actually create utility for mankind — for prime locations.

Be sure to check out the comments of the story and see how these observations are greeted. Hint: he is unsurprisingly slimed.

To be fair, that is literally progressive.

The sooner we stop pretending there is a “rule of law” which binds the power of our government, the better off we’ll all be.

The hearing is open to the public. For details, check out Neil’s blog.

Worried that the US may not find any war(s) big enough to do the trick again?

Well turn that frown upside down because I have good news and great news!

First, the good news. There are still several active wars and armed conflicts across the globe. War torn regions need rebuilding. Rebuilding creates jobs. Jobs need funding. Funding requires spending. Which brings us to…

The great news! Secretary Gates is asking for an additional $83 billion to fund these stimulating wars through 2009. This is on top of the $612 billion defense spending for 2009.

Heroic. Stimulative!

Economist Paul Krugman was disappointed that the ARRA was a mindlessly frugal $787 billion, so with any luck, more wealth creating police actions will take place in the coming months.

And by hook or crook, we’ll ultimately be able to surpass that lofty WW II mark sooner rather than later.

It doesn’t involve eleventy trillion dollars. It doesn’t involve hydrogen filled zeppelins. And it doesn’t involve nuclear-powered rail-guns or telekinetic dolphins. At least not yet.

Give up?

It’s reinstating the draft.

Ah, but you’re opposed to shooting at men with funny sounding names and cartoon hairdos? No problem, you can work in the Peace Corps for a couple years.

And fear not, this will not be your father’s hippy-happy-hemp war. No. This is version 2.0, powered by AJAX and Ajax. It will be filled with dynamic personalities drawn from every quarter and educational background — possibly even reality TV show contestants.

Still opposed? Well, need I remind you that “[i]t is unacceptable that less than 1 percent of the country’s eligible population serves in the armed forces, with almost no war-relevant sacrifice being asked from the rest of society. It ought to be axiomatic that the hardships and dangers of military service be more widely shared.”

QED. Enlist today, so you can stop Imperial Dirka Dirkastan from sailing its aircraft carriers into the Potomac.

Via Karen De Coster.

Why?

Perhaps this explains it:

So, while a few die hard “24″ fans — and Alberto Gonzales, and Michael Mukasey — might still claim confusion about waterboarding being torture, nearly everyone else would agree that having your penis sliced with razors once a month IS torture.

According to the close-the-barn-door-late theory, should official confirmation of this behavior escape the U.S. establishment cone of silence, it would be a PR disaster. That, not the perennial whine of “National Security,” is the source of the pressure the British Judges felt.

There is a lot of smoke around the L.A. Times article suggesting Barak Obama’s Executive Order ending extraordinary renditions was bogus.

But even if Mr. Obama did end the extraordinary brand of renditions, according to a Democracy Now! interview with Michael Rattner of The Center for Constitutional Rights, there is still a hole big enough to drive tour busses full of victims into the Gulag.

Will this be another big disappointment like Mr. Obama’s plans to double the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan — and his authorization of Predator drone strikes on the tribal people of Pakistan? And will we meet other Binyam Mohameds in the future, this time created by the Obama Administration?

Eric brought this news item to my attention and asked if I wanted to blog about it.

“Not really. What should I add?”

“Add your outrage.”

I paused and thought about it. “But I’m not outraged right now.”

And that got me to thinking — why AREN’T I outraged? Is it that I am so used to this Administration jailing people for absurd and frivolous reasons? Am I now merely bored by the thought of the government spying on American citizens on the basis of nebulous and unlikely threats of terror? Has it become so “whatever” to hear of someone denied an explicit constitutional right because it might help the propaganda arm of an organization our government has declared a terrorist organization but which is not by all legitimate and objective standards a terrorist organization?

The last time I checked, the only time Hezbollah lifted a finger to physically harm Americans was when the latter were occupying Lebanon — and even then, it’s not proven. Israel might consider Hezbollah to be terrorists for daring to challenge the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, but as I live in the United States, I don’t care much to live by the warped standards of Israeli justice.

This was not shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Al-Manar may broadcast distasteful programs, but it doesn’t incite its viewers to commit violence. This case IS an outrage and should outrage anyone who prefers liberty over security — not that anyone is more secure by Iqbal’s certain conviction.

Broadcasting Al-Manar should not be considered a crime in the United States, where the law of the land explicitly declares that it is the exact opposite: the protected activity of expression.

Oh wait, no, that didn’t happen.

In a case of the pot calling the kettle black, the US NCIX told Americans traveling abroad that their electronic devices (such as laptops and cell phones) could be compromised by foreign spies.

Curiously, there was no mention of the domestic spying conducted every day by a plethora of US intelligence agencies.

And while the PRC may indeed be tracking your movements and attempting to spy on your online activity, the current US administration has no moral high ground to stand on, as it has:

- created a militarized cyber command to conduct covert espionage on digital properties, both foreign and potentially domestic
- used the NSA and other intelligence agencies to intercept all electronic communication
- enacted dozens of anti-privacy statutes including the PATRIOT Act and REAL ID
- amended FISA to immunize companies that operate wiretapping stations and retroactively legalize any potential illegalities
- compiled an ever increasing dragnet dubiously called the “No Fly List” which has more than a million suspects
- continued to operate and upgrade ECHELON listening stations domestically and overseas

Last year Judge Napolitano discussed these intrusions in length at the summer FFF convention, noting then that the NSA is also provided a backdoor to track and monitor all cellular devices.

And not content with strip searching you in public a new Homeland Security policy allows the US government to confiscate (indefinitely) and search any electronic device at any port of entry.

Thus, ignoring star chambers, detention camps, extraordinary rendition, and PLA torture techniques, no amount of foreign borrowing could prop up the insolvent nature of the US administrations moral bankruptcy and brazen disregard for individual privacy.

Via Kathryn Muratore

See also: The Fear Factory
Professional Protestors and the Political Class