W said. . . . >
>Autre temps, autre moeurs. These were the times when the left had some
>meaningful support in the mainstream politics. ... >But today? The left is
>a purring kitten, not a lion it used to be.
Oh, yeah, it was such a lion in 1952. At any rate, i shall feel somuch better when I am arraigned for aiding terrorism, like Guild lawyer Lynn Stewart, to know that I am not at risk because my cause is powerless. I will be sure to explain it to the US Attorney.
>Today's true radicals are the bomb throwing, plane hijacking variety - the
>McVeighs, the Attas, the suicide bombers. However, having to choose
>between them and GOP's "law and order" I opt for the latter - at least
>they are publicly accountable.
Sounds like you have made up your mind. You trsut Ashcrodt, think he;s publically accountable. I guess your original question wasn't really a question at all.
>The point I was making. however, is that there are limits to that
>exclusion. You may want to suppress dissent, but you cannot run an
>organization with an iron-fist military style dictatorship.
That would be a surprise to a lot of military-style dictatorships, not leasr the military itself.
Most of
>today's jobs require a high level of self-direction and independence in
>decision making. You cannot risk a "bathroom Bolshevik" designing your
>banking software or developing sophisticated business plans. You need
>dedicated functionaries and these are difficult to find in iron-fist
>dictatorships. This is what I meant by high transaction costs imposed by
>police states. Those costs are borne by the economy - not by the police
>apparatus - and the encomy will eventually scream.
>
It can take, say, 70 years . . . .
But I am not saying that Ashcroft will overthrow the Constitutiona and
establish a new fascism. It is you who raised that red herring. Kelly is, as
usual, dead wrong about who is deliberately misinterpreting whom. What is
going on right now is scary enough: lawyers being chargedwith terrorism for
advising their clients, US citizens being hekd as unlawful combatants,
aliens--most of who never did anything to us beyond getting caught in
ourwar--being held as not-POWs under awful conditions, thousands being
detained indefinitely and incommunicado, serious talk of torture, the
practical repeal og the 4A if "terrorsim: is believed by unreviewable and so
unaccountable administrative authority tobe be involved, and I could go on.
You have not given a single reason, not have they, why any of this makes us
onewhit safer.
>
>I think of myself as a pragmatist. I do not belive that rules, statues,
>declarations etc. and agencies that interpret them can protect anyone from
>anything in their own right. People have as many rights and freedoms as
>the society in which they live is willing to give them, and that in turn
>depends on power bargaining.
I agree.
The same applies to the "war of terror." People feel generally
>threatened
>and they are willing to sus[end some of the liberties that they would be
>willing to extend under different circumstances. There is nothing wrong
>with it, civil libertarian fundamentalism notwithstanding.
That does not follow. Please explain. You need to gove reasonds to think that the measures diminish the threat and donot create enough of a threat intheir own right to overbalance any degree of safety that may be gained by them. So far you have not given a single reason.
When the
>house
>is on fire, civil liberties become the proverbial roses. In this situation
>dogmatic support of some lowlife's civil terrorism is counterproductive -
>it erodes our credibility and ads to the other side, which already portrays
>ACLU and Co. as a bunch of crackpots.
It always does. We zre used to it. We ain't gonna change now.
A better approach is to start
>discussion a new balance between civil liberties and counter-terrorism in
>the aftermath of 9/11, instead of letting Ashcroft and Co. to be seen as
>the only credible voice on that issue.
>
So, you think we should weight the merits of toturewarrants with Dershowitz?
>
>>You think you are on the left, but there is no hope of changing US policy,
>>ever, it is literally a pipe dream.
>
>No. But the change must be realistic.
Well, since on your story the left has no power whatsoever, no change is realistic.
jks
>wojtek
>
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx