Not to mention the wars on Poverty and Disease!
1 Like
Childish, yes, but itâs lifted straight from Machiavelliâs playbook.
Keep 'em afraid, and theyâll suck up anything you throw at 'em.
5 Likes
At this point, all I can think is:
âMakes me wanna holler and throw up both my hands.â â Al Green
or maybe its a sign that the future will know us by the name: 'The Worst Generation".
Well if you see any internationals around here you be sure and tell them about your very important law.
The very important law is that only Congress can make a declaration of war. Its in the Constitution of the United States. For the executive to declare that âweâ are at war with a bunch of groups of people turns legal and diplomatic language into meaningless gibberish. So the US government gets to have all the democracy-destroying prerogatives of being âat warâ without Congress having to declare war (and thus take the heat for acting against the interests of the American people). Not to mention I donât think its actually legally possible to be at war with a non-state actor. Fighting a small terrorist group is known as enforcing the law against acts of terrorism, and is a policing and prosecutorial issue. But hey, since weâre mangling everything else about the Constitution and our system of laws why the hell not!
1 Like
The problem is that youâre still attempting to draw a veil of reason over the rambling and doddering chaos of the real.
What you say may, in fact, be codified into very important legal documents, considered sacrosanct and inviolate by the mighty and just.
Those same mighty just folks have also ratified secret and arcane laws of which ye may nae ken.
Occult law is your new forefather.
Arguments to reason rattle in his hollow ear.
Whatever. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If you want to pretend those laws are not ârealâ we donât have much to discuss. The following of laws in an egalitarian manner is an ideal that can never be fully met. However, that doesnât mean we should thus give up on the effort. And its not the âmighty and justâ who consider the law inviolate, and not all laws are just. But the axioms that rule our nation are written into the Constitution and provide a foundation for our culture. The fact that the current government does not feel constrained to abide by the constitution is actually a massive aberration, and history will not look kindly on them. Denying the reality of constitutional law denies the reality of the government itself, which is constituted specifically to defend and manifest the constitution. They even take oaths to that effect. There have been other eras when men have placed themselves above the law, and their efforts were eventually nullified and they live in historic disgrace. If you deny the law is a concrete thing you also deny the future its ability to reinstate that law.
1 Like
I think you might be on to something there.
But enough lambastery, I absolutely agree with you.
There is no law other than that which people are willing to stand up for. Other wise it is merely language, written down, spoken out loud and perhaps more importantly, memorised. Internalised.
When that internal environment no longer reflects the external environment, when the laws you actually live by are unknown and secret, all of those thousands of years of legal exegesis and development are worse than useless.
Perhaps what Iâm attempting to get at is that this is a brand new environment.
Global totality seems not just inevitable but currently instantiated.
The thought that some good people will come along later after itâs all died down, or that any collection of individuals can make meaningful change from within the system, seems more like a fantasy to me.
So, unfortunately, again I must iterate; the only sane reaction to this cloistered and fuckwitted preponderance of carpet-bagging shills and murderers is total and unwavering contempt.
But yâknow, fingers crossed to be proven wrong.
: )
3 Likes
So, hm, if I publish anything that a terrorist might possibly use anywhere that a terrorist might possibly see it, then thatâs treason. Since I donât know who the terrorists are, I canât know what they might find useful or where they might stumble across it. What does that not eliminate?
3 Likes
ââŚcough⌠Eurasia⌠We have always been at war with Eurasia!â
If the wars weâre in were actually wars then our leaders would be being tried for war crimes.
Thatâs some catch, that Catch-22.
At least until enough of Us get mad. The verdict on Zimmerman brought out enough public outrage that Iâm pretty sure itâs why Holder moved to react federally. I think we could learn a lot from the Egyptians in regards to Power of the People. We seem to have forgottenâŚ
1 Like
And with that the Military/Industrial complex got to move unabated for decades over wars that could be claimed to have victories, have setbacks, etc. Gods, Orwell was right. I only wonder how we get to enjoy the Two Minutes of Hate when We canât know who the enemy is?
1 Like
Well it raises the question: Who are we at war with when we know who we are at war with? To wit, if we at war with France, we are as a practical matter at war with a variety of generals and soldiers who no one except the military command knows anything about anyway. Having the label of âFranceâ or âal Qaeidaâ is important (I think) but there is at least a sense in which it is itself an obfuscation of the real actors who are the focus of our hostility, and who remain hidden from debate and view. Not justifying here, just thinking about it.
This is just Washington-speak for âWe just donât want to tell you.â
I voted for Obama. I remember one of his promises in regards to having the government be more transparent. I doubt it is Obama willfully breaking his promise (and other promises). It should be crystal clear to everyone that the president is not in charge of this country. He is powerless. It is the military, giant corporations and the three-letter agencies that are in chargeâŚno, the EPA is not included in that.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
