>
> Under the Social Contract theory of governance, the primary obligation
> of government is to provide for the security and protection of its
> people. Thus, the US government has abrogated its social contract
> twice in less than a year: first by disenfranchising a majority of its
> voters, and second by failing to protect and secure people under its
> governance from massive and grievous harm. Soon, if the government can
> manage it, it will add to this list by denying people under its
> protection some measure of their civil rights, due process, and habeas
> corpus in the name of protection which it has shown itself to be
> incapable of providing.
>
...and this describes my sentiments towards the current regime perfectly. It also raises a point for both those who are concerned about justice for the victims of 9/11 and those who want to persuade people who identify the concern for justice with the current military action: can we realistically expect an illegitimate administration, one that took office through a great show of contempt for the populace, to care about justice for that populace? The answer seems clear to me, and I think it means that the current bombing isn't even crude vengence, but a piece of cynical manipulation. If someone doesn't care about you, that person is not going to fight on your behalf. But if that same someone wants your support, that person will cater to you in base, facile ways.
-- Curtiss