John Yoo et alia in the Justice Department (and isn't that second only in hilarious euphemism to the Department of Defense?) spent years crafting a legal theory in which all law is provisional, at least insofar as the Executive Branch of the Federal Government is concerned. Their principle aim was to free the agents of the executive from the generally assented-to if not often practiced international norms of behavior vis-à-vis foreigners and prisoners of war. The notion that harsh interrogation techniques, i.e. torture, began under Bush is Progressive-factional naïveté, but I will certainly grant that we became more enthusiastic and certainly less judicious users of the thumbscrews and other such under our Dallas Dauphin. Yet I differ with my friends who believe that the solution lies in the unswerving application of the law, that a partial cure for our violent societal ailment lies in bringing our governors back within the circumscribed norms of legal behavior that are supposed to define life and culture in our modern state.
Rather than dispatch armies of attorneys to argue futilely that the government must give back the latitude it has siezed for itself, we should seek instead to expand the argument about the provisionality of law. Let's instead argue for the totally voluntary nature of compliance. Let each man determine on the basis of his own conscience what he will or will not do at any given time. The President wants to torture Pakistani cab drivers? Very well. I want to fuck one sixteen-year-old while blowing coke off another's smooth ass in my front yard while surrounded by burning American flags and campaign posters in violation of municipal size and date regulations. The President wishes to launch wars of aggression without Congressional declaration? Fine. I want to burn trash, discharge unlicensed firearms, and raise small livestock within the city limits. The President wants to direct his former staff memebers to ignore Congressional subpoenae? Hey, I don't pay my parking tickets either.
Many Americans are beginning to sense that there are cracks in the dam, and the more agitated seem very often to be on the verge of panic, but we are neither the concrete nor the downstream bystanders about to be swallowed up in the flood. We're the water behind the motherfucker. To free ourselves we need only follow the tug of gravity where it leads.
67 comments:
I'm out of superlatives.
Sounds to me like you really are a law and order kinda guy.
Can we go back to the driving-slow-in-the-fast-lane concours de pissoir, IOZ? Can we huh?
The whole dinosaur-rape one is played out by now, I think.
You had me until the "small livestock" bit. I demand to know, are your purposes honorable or dishonorable with said livestock? We in Philadelphia are still traumatized by Gerbil Gerry, now of Hollywood fame.
ash,
man, you really don't read for comprehension, do you dude or dudette?
I am so parking in that personal handicapped spot a block up the next time I'm out. I've seen that asshole walking - he may have a cane but he's pretty spry.
i attached a 'signing statement' to my mortgage papers, though i haven't tested it out yet.
Nothing is stopping you from participating in the activities you describe. However, the moment you dis the state you will be tazed\shot\burned alive\run over by a tank. The state loves to make examples of such people who have the timerity to transgress its edicts.
The state loves to make examples of such people who have the temerity to transgress its edicts without bothering to turn an immense profit from it.
the dam metaphor is so good. troublesome, in that once "the water behind the motherfucker" unleashed, it's going to wreak havoc on every downstream benefit that the dam provided...but good nonetheless.
I think I agree somewhat with jyd. I don't see myself as the liberated rush of water but the cottage washed away by the flood. I guess I am not worthy of the libertarian dream.
My next post should be on the uses of metaphor, evidently. Me oh my.
oh look, brian's still a fucking moron too!
ioz - reading this kind of makes me sick to my stomach . . . it's abundantly obvious you don't have children or care about anyone but yourself
alas, only kind of.
Dallas Dauphin ain't bad I like Waco Whacko myself
I thought that was Janet Reno.
and here's erin4iraq to complete the Dumbshit Triumrative! Fantastico!
oh noes! the children!
I was a child once. and I dare say, who dare let me live? my parents were retarded!
I can't wait to fuck up my own kids. I'm really looking forward to that.
the metaphor is terribly apt. when I learned how to design dams in the college, you first must conceptualize what we engineers call a flownet. and then you calculate it. (it's kind of tedious) a dam can only stem the flow. and what the flownet tells you is whether the mass of the dam is enough to keep it from floating away. there is pressure not only from 'cracks,' but also from flow beneath (and around) the dam.
we can't stop the flow.
we're not that good, thankfully.
I see Msr. IOZ has been reading his Spooner!
Actually, we're the rocks under the water, on the downgrade.
Where they've removed outmoded dams up here in frozen-tundra land, the original habitats and fisheries have returned in tune with Natural law.
All this talk of water is making me need to go to the loo.
That okay with you mr.fundamental?
Mike
apparently, according to erin, having children (or even simply caring about others) is supposed to confer greater sanity. therefore, others should shut up.
meanwhile, her concern for others led her to support a war that has brought little more than misery to those in situ.
color me confounded.
Come on, puppylander, liberation bullets don't hurt kids. Liberation bullets only kill terrorists, and dictators' family members. There are never any pictures of dead Iraqi kids on CNN! Explain that away, you weak-kneed, terrorist-loving liberals!
I do wish IOZ would think more of the children. I mean, the world's children have it so easy right now. It'd be a shame to mess up that sweet gig. Who wouldn't trade places with those lucky little tykes in Sadr City -- or Compton?
Guys, I think I've seen all of Erin's posts since she showed up, and I don't recall her ever taking a pro-Iraq war stance. Maybe I missed it. I remember her asking a straightforward question about whether IOZ thinks there is ever a good reason for using military force, and I know, I know, there ain't nothing more that gets the regulars here all atwitter than an earnest question that gives them the chance to show how, like, totally above it all they are, man, unlike all youse squares, man, so maybe that was her crime. I mean, "erin4iraq" as a handle doesn't tell me much about her political views, but then again, I'm not a mindreader.
Sorry to inject a bit of sincerity - please do return to your post-ironic "look at what badass revolutionaries we are, except we're actually a bunch of tame Office Space drones" circle jerk, and don't mind me.
i never demanded that anyone shut up, just comprehend the ramifications of their philosophy. kids need stability and safety, not to be fucked at sixteen by some middle-aged narcissist. ick
kids need stability and safety, not to be fucked at sixteen by some middle-aged narcissist.
Exactly. This is why the Catholic Church is so important. The kids get broken in earlier and the person doing the fucking will not be a narcissistic atheist but a good upright Christian who cares deeply about their well-being. Still middle-aged, but you can't have everything.
stillnotking - touche' but it's you, not me, who is advocating lawlessness. I can fairly respond that both kinds of conduct are an outrage. according to your philosophy both are acceptable.
hulaballoo, i'm not sure how much self-admission i can handle. first, erin states that she regrets having supported the war in the first place. now, you're here to admit that you're not qualified to comment but you comment anyway.
erin, based on your reply, i suppose i've credited you too much so far as reading for comprehension is concerned. i assumed you understood that, wrapped in the outrageousness of the language used, is an implicit recognition of its own outrageousness--after all, it's the outrageousness itself that makes the point.
If you haven't done so already today, avail yourselves of the link IOZ has provided and read your DENNIS PERRIN.
I promise, you won't be disappointed.
TT
Wait, I was not responding to you but to the notking guy. I just ignored you.
And, speaking of outrageousness....
I'm all for the kids.
Afterall, they are our future.
However, I do believe that there should be course requirements for parents - and their surrogates - similar to what is at least required to obtain a driver's license in this country.
I think the Supremes, judging by the action they took today on the Indiana voting law - which was instituted as just another way to punish us Dems - would agree with licensing requirements for all future first-time parents.
Oh, and spanking should be outlawed. (For children.)
Period.
FOD (Friend of Digby)
comment still applicable.
Hee hee, FOD keeps getting better and better. Mmmm, that's good satire!
Having studied Int'l law back in ye ole law school, I'm very confident in saying that Int'l legal norms (and even the ICJ interpretation of the UN Charter, including Article 2(4) on the use of force) are basically irrelevant in the face of the US/Chinese/Russian/UK/French action. So yeah, the "law" (Int'l law and oh, yeah, most definitely US domestic law) is easily manipulated bullshit when confronted with state power. But what AMUSES me, is when people talk legit shit about the state's lawlessness and pontificate about their proposed defiance thereof but then promptly do ... nothing.
Well played sir. Well played.
Having studied Int'l law back in ye ole law school, I'm very confident in saying that Int'l legal norms (and even the ICJ interpretation of the UN Charter, including Article 2(4) on the use of force) are basically irrelevant in the face of the US/Chinese/Russian/UK/French action. So yeah, the "law" (Int'l law and oh, yeah, most definitely US domestic law) is easily manipulated bullshit when confronted with state power. But what AMUSES me, is when people talk legit shit about the state's lawlessness and pontificate about their proposed defiance thereof but then promptly do ... nothing.
Well played sir. Well played.
stillnotking - touche' but it's you, not me, who is advocating lawlessness. I can fairly respond that both kinds of conduct are an outrage. according to your philosophy both are acceptable.
I realize I tend to be obscure, but no, I wasn't advocating anything. I was pointing out that submission to authority has caused so much more human suffering than all the IOZes who have ever lived that the equation can't even be written, much less balanced.
Another way to put this is that I'd trust IOZ with my kids before I'd trust Father Sarducci with 'em, and I'd trust IOZ with foreign policy before I'd trust any of the crypto-fascists aspiring to the position of Supreme Leader. But IOZ wouldn't want my kids, nor would he want to be President, so I don't need to worry about him at all.
but ioz! what should we doooooooooooo?!
I love being randomly insulted by anonimi who themselves probably contribute nothing, even amusement value, to the debate. You go, anonymous 3:23. Ad hominem attacks on other posters are so valuable, man.
I do understand the use of metaphor. heck, I was trying, feebly, to use metaphor myself. I do not claim the wonderous abilities of our host, but my comment still contributes more than "Hur hur...youz all morons hur hur."
Needless to say, Mr. Yoo would be appalled by these suggestions.
I would dearly like to hear his explanation of why the President, and only the President, should be am anarchist.
And, for that matter, why the President's ability to disregard any law or behavioral norm at will, without being attacked by the state, doesn't make him an anarchist.
Working under the assumption that having children results in superior judgment, I propose that we defer to the elders of the FLDS.
Hur hur...youz all morons hur hur.
When ioz juxtaposes the behavior he would "like" to engage in on his front lawn with what our ruling class actually does engage in, he is making a not-so-subtle point about law and how it is used by elites to get away with whatever they wish to get away with. The law is not some handed down set of rules from above that we all must follow, president and plebe alike. If you can legalize torture and aggressive warfare with a few strokes of the pen... then what else?
I am always astounded at how easily some folks miss the not so subtle point in favor of knee-jerk outrage.
If our president can gin up a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands and displaces millions, then I should be able to indulge my own perverse tastes, which pale in comparison.
What is the point of this post? And why cant i maximize this comments window? jesus christ.
I'm going to church now.
Wait a minute, are we saying that submitting to the rule of law is a bad thing? That we are only truly free when we do whatever we please, without regard to what the rules or regulations are?
What is ioz to do then when the teenagers we're all so concerned about decide to start talking about whatever it is that teenagers talk about. You know, myspacebook and twitter and that noise they call music.
If only ioz was selfless enough to engage in his perverse behaviour on MY lawn. So I could yell "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!"
Middle-aged? I am in the flower of my youth!
Justin, I get it. The US gov is not perfect and its representatives sometimes act egregiously. But the answer is unbiased application of the rule of law (which yeah yeah I know to which we are wrongfully presumed to have given our consent....), not everyone doing as s/he pleases, and that's ioz's prescription.
but obviously the narcissist label applies
Anarchy! Blawg!
erin4iraq,
because his pistol gleamed in the sun. isn't that enough?
Ya, sure, but WHAT kinds of animals?
...and didn't Dostoevsky (man on dog novelist) have something to say about this?
Oh Jesus, you couldn't miss the point anymore if it was attached to Haley's Comet, erin.
RAWWRRR RULE OF LAW RAAAWWRRR.
Honestly, don't you know by now that the "rule of law" is as imaginary as leprechauns and Al Roker (yep, CGI)? If it exists at all, it does so through the whims of the elite class that rules us. It's applied how they wish to apply it. If your precious rule of law were real, you great feeb, our President, and the one before him and the one before him and so on and so on would be in fucking CHAINS right now, singing Swing Low Sweet Chariot. If the rule of law had even the most passing resemblance to "justice", we'd be digging up JFK to shoot the motherfucker again.
Anon - And yet if I tried that argument in court tomorrow, I am pretty sure I'd get laughed out of the courtroom. Seriously, I understand that you all are REALLY FRUSTRATED about the war and the current government and jeez just about everything as far as I can tell. But why don't you all stop for a reality check every once in a while and realize that you have it pretty good here in this life. And you don't really want anarchy because it would take away many things you hold dear - like, for instance, a functioning internet.
Calmer than you are.
erin4iraq = ioz
You know its true...
erin, you can't logically posit the reasonableness of the courts when the courts are part of the system under critique.
i don't think anyone here feels they don't have a reasonably nice life. i'm certain that i do. but my comfort should give me pause if the cost of obtaining and securing it entails the infliction of pain and suffering on others. or do you disagree?
to the extent that american bliss is built upon the backs of others, there's a self-loathing that's due. i mean, reframe iraq. what, i wonder, would be the response of americans if the proposed bargain was cast thusly: "i can guarantee you dollar a gallon oil in exchange for granting me a dictatorship far away and free of your intrusions"?
To paraphrase an old Steve Martin routine, you just have to remember five simple words: "I'm doing it for America." Hey, they work for the President, they oughta work for the hoi polloi.
So when you're screwing that sixteen year old, or taking some really fine shrooms, when the police come with their inquiries, you look them right in the eye and say "I'm doing it for America." (Put emphasis on "America".) It probably won't work when they don't notice a multi-million dollar mansion or corporate tower, but it will be funny to watch their eyes roll in the back of their head for a few seconds when the cognitive dissonance hits them. (And you might be able to make an escape in that time.)
What was it Will wrote?
First, kill all the lawyers?
Anyone got a "Bartlett's" handy?
grumpy gus
heck, everyone games the law, from the proverbial rolling stop at a stop sign to calling the fabulous Korean adventure a police action. There is always the risk of losing in the game and many are behind bars for their folly. The man at the top in the US, appears to have less risk then most of failing in the law game, but the POTUS also plays a more complicated and risky game. Not all games are equivalent and not all players are equal.
"really fine shrooms" = hmmmmmmmmmm
...and morality is a whole different ball of wax.
I saw Maria Shriver on Colbert last night on the internet...I couldn't help but think: Atia?
the internet is anarchy.
Heck...is this the new talking point-that our murderous invasion and occupation of Iraq so a few well-connected cronies can make hundreds of billions of dollars is now the MORAL EQUIVALENT of a rolling stop at a traffic signal?
So, Ioz...your driving slow in the fast lane is the same as Hiroshima! Think of that, you war criminal.
and my cousin behind bars for driving without a license after being stopped for having a tail-light out?
. . . and let me point out Dude that pacifism is not . . .
Come on, Donny, they were threatening castration!
Are we gonna split hairs here?
8-year-olds, Dude.
I actually defended rule of law against Keith Preston here.
as for the fornication amidst flaming flags, i enjoy your skillful hyperbole.
Post a Comment