Via Sully the Pooh, a profound bit of Greenwaldian reasoning that I somehow missed:
[W]ouldn’t it be preferable to at least require the President to demonstrate to a court that probable cause exists to warrant the assassination of an American citizen before the President should be allowed to order it? That would basically mean that courts would issue “assassination warrants” or “murder warrants” — a repugnant idea given that they’re tantamount to imposing the death sentence without a trial — but isn’t that minimal safeguard preferable to allowing the President unchecked authority to do it on his own, the very power he has now claimed for himself? [sic]
Yeah, I don’t know. How about this:
| Legal Status | Approval Needed to Kill |
| foreign suspect | some guy |
| citizen suspect | President … AND a judge! |
| resident alien suspect (no green card) | internet poll |
| resident alien suspect (w/ green card) | internet poll of judges |
| tourist suspect | President AND Magic 8-ball |
| tourist suspect with bratty, grubby children complaining loudly about how much better everything is in their crappy foreign hellhole of a country | Vice-President AND Rochambeau (best 3 out of 5) |
| six-year-old non-suspect standing next to any of the above | only if you feel like it |
| cast member of “Jersey Shore” | see unlucky six-year-old, above |
| “The Situation” | mandatory |
I think mine -while repugnant – has some obvious advantages, especially with regard to Mr. Situation. But, you know, I’m easy. We should take our time. The important thing about codifying laws for the New Kind of War is that you really want to be as comfortable as possible with them, because we are going to have to live with them forever. I mean, unless New Kind of War somehow somehow gets superceded by an even Newer, even more Totally Badass and Unprecedented and Extreme Kind of War – a Nü Wär, if you will – in which case I guess we’ll have to scrap everything and start over … oh, wait, what am I even talking about? What am I thinking? You can’t just break The Law, silly!
What am I saying is that this – like the question of whether or not we are more humane than the Spanish Inquisition – is real, real, real interesting, on a certain level, but mostly just a sign of how we’ve come to accept the War On Terror as an immutable fact of life. We’ve accepted that it’s the sort of thing that happens to Other People, but not nice Americans. We’ve made our Peace with it, if you will. Hmm. Making Peace … with War. Nope, I don’t see any way this could go wrong. Kind of amazing nobody thought of this before.
February 9, 2010 at 6:30 pm
You can do umlauts. And chart layouts. This is why I read your blog not vice-versa. (Plus, when you nail it, like this one, you’re very very funny.)
February 9, 2010 at 6:44 pm
No, kenmeer, my blog read you right back.
February 9, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Nice your blog is literate. I lack the blogging impulse. I prefer to haunt ancient ruins than build new ones.
February 9, 2010 at 11:17 pm
in soviet blogtopia, blogs read you!
February 9, 2010 at 7:02 pm
I’m sure President Perry will have a reasonable solution to this endless enigma. I have an idea. What if only the Congress had the power to declare war and the war powers act was found to be a pussy, ass, bitch, deferment of responsibly? Mostly because it’s bankrupting us and the war on terror like the war on yucky things is fucking retarded.
February 9, 2010 at 9:51 pm
When dah prez declares war on congress, maybe.
February 9, 2010 at 7:05 pm
If we want to go to war with Eurasia then we can all pay a big fat Eurasia tax and we all can be subject to the draft. This will end the war with Eurasia… Ask an American to pay taxes or commit an act of physical labor that’s not Bud Light Related, and watch the civic pride start to brim over.
February 9, 2010 at 7:21 pm
I say we need a war on the word “war.”
February 9, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Didn’t Wilco already declare that?
February 9, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Theirs was a war on war. Mine is a war on the word “war.” Huge difference.
February 9, 2010 at 8:43 pm
OK, but can we still have a song about it?
February 9, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Fine by me.
February 9, 2010 at 11:21 pm
the word “war”!
huh!
what is it good for?
the two words “absolutely” and “nothin’ !”
say the word “it” again!
February 9, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Ward, dude.
As for wor…
February 9, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Here’s a good one:
February 9, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Now THAT I LIKE.
February 9, 2010 at 7:50 pm
I’m sure “You can’t have your cake and bomb it too” will filed by Republicans in their great big box titled “Paradoxes for Liberal Pussies to Worry About”.
Right along with “You can’t have your tax cuts and cut the deficit too”, “You can’t follow the Constitution and deny due process to suspects too”, and “You can’t preach about the Gay Menace and tap-dance in airport bathrooms too”. And about a million others.
Consistency is no hobgoblin for conservative minds.
February 9, 2010 at 9:13 pm
February 10, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Bits of Carlin’s routine reminded me of this 500 years of history of the West, condensed to 9:20:
February 10, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Thanks. I had not heard that before.
February 10, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Here’s a favorite of mine:
February 9, 2010 at 9:51 pm
It’s nice to see triple trouble in full effect…all blog crewing and shit.
February 9, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Kinda like mama’s slave galley. Or, as they say in the more dexterous side of the blogosphere: Stroke! Stroke! Stroke!
February 10, 2010 at 4:04 am
Pretty sure Greenwald wasn’t actually advocating for murder warrants. Instead he was pointing out the irony that progressives and many others were outraged when wiretaps were issued without the minimal procedural safeguard of a showing of probable cause, but have been largely silent in the face of state sanctioned killing of Americans without trials. Is that funny to you? Or do you just think killing Americans without trials is ok?
February 10, 2010 at 4:32 am
Pretty sure I got that. I actually wasn’t aware that “why apples but not oranges?” was considered ironic these days, but, then again, I never liked Alanis. Personally, I would think the irony would be “why were liberals outraged 8 years ago when Bush started assassinating Americans citizens, but not now?” – although, in a loss for irony, I don’t know that that is actually the case – or, uncharitably, “why was St. Greenwald dead silent for the 8 years this was happening, and then suddenly decides everyone who doesn’t consider old news to be surprising is starting a ‘lynch mob’?” Irony is subjective, I guess.
And to answer your question, it’s like 50%/50%.
February 10, 2010 at 5:08 pm
It’s OK when your Daddy’s a psycho-killer, but when it’s my Daddy it embarrasses me.
February 10, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Greenwald dead silent for 8 years? That’s highly nonintuitive.
February 10, 2010 at 6:14 pm
… on the subject.
Smartass.
February 10, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Besides being non-legal, a really practical question is the efficacy, does it really have to go down from a Star Chamber? Does wacking guys prevent terrorism? Does it work? Beneficial, or do the unintended consequences like when we prove their thesis about our subjective sense of international law, outweigh the benefits.
I would say so if you’re hitting major leaders with command and control, but the mob and al-qaeda are all just lines of succession and a hard wired program on accumulating resources it’s organized crime, you don’t need a manual. People kind of know what the goal is and the tactics and strategy are kind of obvious.
Killing the guy with the ideas makes sense, killing pawns, dupes and soldiers is probably a waste of time in this context. But then don’t be surprised when they get our guy. You can’t protect protect the king inside the concentric circles of security. Right now Bin Ladin is safer then President Obama. That’s unfortunate, but it’s hard to get agents through the layers of family relationships.
The recent suicide attack that killed many Al-Qaeda experts and CIA was a by-product of our preoccupation with the individual and the tactical device and not the engine of that drives Al Qaeda, our foreign policy mistakes. All the rest is a recruitment tool, they are all Jujitsu.
February 13, 2010 at 9:55 am
I respect your contrarian attitude with Greenwald. For one thing, he does get a lot of deference from progressives (“St. Greenwald” — that’s clever), which I guess you disapprove of, and with some justification. For another, he is a much better advocate than most bloggers and other writers, so you definitely run the risk, every time, of sounding incoherent, and I admire your willingness to keep coming back for more.
And you’re right, Greenwald was way too easy on the Bush administration (thanks for the lesson on irony by the way).
February 10, 2010 at 7:32 am
“We can’t call it a war because wars end.” I’m going to remember that line.
February 10, 2010 at 8:28 am
Let’s not forget the war to end all wars. Not to be confused w/ nuclear winter.
February 10, 2010 at 4:32 pm
WIth the Khadr *trial* and all, I think ya gotta at least add a line for “6yo suspected terrorist” (I think one of the recent habeas involved a guy who would have been 9yo at the time he was accused of being active in an al-Qaeda covert cell) and/or the KSMatic “child of a terorist suspect” to the legal statuses.
And then there’s the trump card for the “approval needed to kill” Apparently “Unknown guy on National Security Council plus guy with foreign accent” pretty much can authorize the killing of everything except baby seals. If no one’s looking – those too.
February 10, 2010 at 8:17 pm
President Obama
“Change you can ridicule”
“Change your diapers”
“Change you can convert to wooden nickels”
“Change my mind”
Anything I’m missing?
February 10, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Yeah, President John McCain manufacturing consent to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, and hopefully President Romney finishing off the economy.
February 12, 2010 at 11:36 am
Yeah! Anybody But Bush!
February 13, 2010 at 3:33 pm
(Ray Charles voice) Un-change my heart…