Arms and the Law has a short but useful post on the built-in exceptions in Posse Comitatus. If you aren't familiar with the phrase yet, you will want to become familiar with it, as you'll be hearing a lot about it in the wake of the New Orleans disaster. The term means "power of the county," although comitatus has an ancient and highly honorable heritage: the word, which is related to "comrade," meant in early Germanic society the warrior band that kept company with, and often elected, the king. These are the men who became Charlemagne's Paladins; these are the men who became knights and great nobles when the qualification for such status was a strong arm and a brave heart.
In the American legal tradition, Posse Comitatus is a law that limits the military's ability to be used as a law enforcement agency -- for example, to suppress riots and restore order in ruined New Orleans. However, one can offer another example: to storm houses of people suspected of illegal conduct in normal times, or to "stop" cars in the fashion our Mr. Yon explained is universal: by putting cannon rounds from a helicopter gunship through the vehicle's engine block. Assuming you don't miss, which even the most well-trained soldier will on occasion.
This is the law, in other words, that prevents the government from making war on the American people -- or, at least, the criminal element of the American people, as best as it can be identified by the government's agents. It is a law we ought to be very glad to have. We ought to be deeply suspicious of attempts to overturn that law. I yield to none in my respect and admiration for the US military, but their training and their firepower is not meant to be used against Americans except in extraordinary circumstances.
It would tarnish their honor to let the politicians use them in that way. It is not what they are for, nor what they are sworn to do. As Arms and the Law demonstrates, it is also not necessary -- legal exceptions exist to cover most extraordinary situations. As it is neither needful nor desirable, we ought to mistrust legislators who attempt it.
Posse Comitatus
VA
Virginia is horse country, of a sort. Horse people know that there are many kinds of horses, but in America there are mostly two kinds of riders: "English" riders, and "Western" riders. English riders draw their traditions, and their gear, from the old Foxhunting traditions of England. Western riders draw their traditions and gear from the cowboys, vaqueros, and other riders from the American West. There are also Australian riders -- the kit is an interesting mix of the two other styles, as I gather -- and of course there are non-Western traditions as well.
Virginia is English country in a big way. Many of the great among the Founders were horsemen, and the English tradition was their tradition. It is so deeply saturated in the culture around here that every little waterway -- which would be called a "creek" or a "stream" anywhere else -- is called a "run." Around here there is Broad Run, Thumb Run, and of course the infamous Bull Run, which I should not have to tell you is near a city called Manassas.
Today I saw a fellow hauling hay for his horses, and on the side of the truck was a logo for his company. Turns out they have a website: "Journey's End Carriage."
"If I'm at the journey's end," I asked my wife -- who used to teach horseback riding in the days when the Girl Scouts of America had a big national camp out west in Wyoming -- "why do I need a carriage?"
It was worth it for the look I got out of her.
On Saturday, I went to the Village of Hume and saw a ring joust. This proves to be the state sport of Maryland, which is appropriate since Maryland is the only state with a proper coat of arms for a flag. The arms of Maryland were inherited from one of their colonial grandees, Calvert, Lord Baltimore.
It was a fun little exercise, featuring no "knights" but many young maidens. So, at least, the announcer proclaimed them as they rode through: "Such and such, Maiden of the Plains." "The Plains" is a small town near here.
The girls were all having a great deal of fun, and a few of them had even attempted to kit out their horses in something like a medieval style. I have some pictures, which perhaps I can upload. Anyway, good fun, even if the announcer from the Ruritarians who was hosting the event was entirely confused by the medieval jargon.
Another thing Virginia has is lots of military folks. It's common to see USMC bumper stickers (indeed, you can see them on my trucks), as well as stickers that say "Proud Parent of a US Marine."
Until today, however, I'd never seen one of these. They say every Marine is a recruiter -- and so, apparently, is everyone in his family, at least to one degree's removal.
A TRUE HERO
Please take the time to read this article about Cpl Ted Rubin by James S. Robbins. This authentic American hero will finally receive the recognition he so richly deserves on September 23 when President Bush presents him with the Medal of Honor. I have also posted this over at Southern Appeal.
Ice cream
I wonder about the Burger King "Allah" Ice Cream. But let me pass on the story in case you haven't heard it:
The fast-food chain, Burger King, is withdrawing its ice-cream cones after the lid of the dessert offended a Muslim.You can see the design through the first link, compared with the Arabic for "Allah." Judge for yourself, as JihadWatch suggests.
The man claimed the design resembled the Arabic inscription for Allah, and branded it sacrilegious, threatening a “jihad”.
But my question is this: When one of our more Fundamentalist Christians thinks he sees in some commercial product Jesus' face, or the Virgin Mary, he takes it as a miracle that proves the existence of God. He tells us that it shows that even in these little things, these throw-offs of the godless capitalist system, God's work is done.
The more radical Muslim threatens jihad against Burger King.
Why is it that radicals in the one faith see the hand of God working something positive in these coincidences, while radicals of the other faith see a conspiracy to insult their god? Why is the radical arm of the Christian faith confident of God's power to work regardless of the intention of man, while the radical arm of the Islamic faith so ready to believe that it is man working evil in defiance of the Lord of the Dawn?
It suggests to me that there is a substantial lack of confidence at work in the radical forms of Islam. Why should that be? It's true that Islamic civilization is at a low point, while civilizations that have historic involvement with Christianity are still on top. But religion, because it speaks to issues of true power behind the obvious faces of the world, ought to liberate the intense believer from the mere facts of the world they know. The simple reality of the situation at hand should not be definitive for the true believer.
Yet, here we are. What say you?
small arms
The bottom fell out of the market for Kalashnikov rifles in Gaza this week, as smugglers from Egypt suddenly found that no one was really trying to keep their arms out of the place any more:
Palestinian gunrunners smuggled hundreds of assault rifles and pistols across the Egyptian frontier into Gaza, dealers and border officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday. The influx confirmed Israeli fears about giving up border control and could further destabilize Gaza.Another report has the price even lower:
Black market prices for weapons dropped sharply, with AK-47 assault rifles nearly cut in half to $1,300 and even steeper reductions for handguns.
News of the smuggling came as Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas tried to impose order following the Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza this week. Militant groups scoffed at a new Palestinian Authority demand that they disband after parliamentary elections in January, saying they would not surrender weapons.
An arms dealer said the price of an AK-47 assault rifle has dropped from around £1,000 (€1,484) to around £650 (€965). Bullets for the weapon are now being sold for as little as three shekels (around 50p) when previously they cost up to 18 shekels.That's the price for black-market militant groups. One wonders what the Palestinian Authority is paying for its arms. Less, because it can take advantage of wholesale prices and commercial shipping? Or more, because it involves kickbacks to every corrupt official along the way?
Indonesia, meanwhile, has decided to address the problem of small arms being too expensive in another way -- build its own:
Indonesian arms industry PT Pindad has started to produce rifles which are lighter and cheaper than US-made M-16 or Russia's AK-47 and potentially will become the standard rifle of any Indonesian soldier, an executive said Thursday.Expense shouldn't be the primary consideration in picking a battle rifle. The question that you should be asking is, "But will it work?" Still, there's no reason it shouldn't work. Rifles aren't that hard to build -- the technology has been mature for a long time.
"The SS-2 rifle will be tested by a platoon of soldiers in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy," Sutarto, an expert staff for Pindad's director of military production, was quoted as saying by the Antara news agency.
He said the 5.5-mm caliber SS-2, produced with significant improvement from the earlier series of SS-1, is designed to become the standard rifle of Indonesian soldiers.
He claimed that the local rifle is much cheaper than any other rifles of the same category.
Pindad spokesman Timbul Sitompul said separately an SS-2 is priced at some 500 US dollars, far below the price of an M-16 which is sold at 1,000 dollars in the market.
HOWDY
Since this is a hall dedicated to the heroic life I will include my favorite excerpt from Thomas Macaulay’s Lays of Ancient Rome.
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
``To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods,
CPT JL
I'm delighted to announce that Captain Leggett has accepted my invitation to join us as a blogger here at Grim's Hall. We will benefit greatly from "the Sheik Marine's" experience and analysis. The good Captain has been a reader and commenter for some time, so I expect most of you are familiar with him. Others of you may know him as a blogger at Southern Appeal, a "blawg" for lawyers of Southern extraction.
Welcome aboard.
IN
Live in Iraq is recommended to me by our own JHD. I've added it to the sidebar. It's apparently by a young officer. Give it a look.
Hm
Longtime readers know how I feel about the use of words like "liar!" In general, they have no place whatsoever in common discussion. They are deadly insults, which should not be used against people you don't actually intend to kill, or by whom you are not prepared to be killed.
You will have to imagine the strain that particular ethic is causing me, now that I find myself faced with this assertion:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.I must assume that the Honorable Gentleman was entirely misquoted. At least, I expect him to have the decency to claim that he was in tomorrow's paper.
DOL
President Jalal Talibani has a message for you. It's something Americans should hear.
“In the name of the Iraqi people, I say to you, Mr. President, and to the glorious American people, thank you, thank you."To the glorious American people." Now there's a phrase we might hear more often. But we ought to answer in the words of Robert the Bruce:
“Thank you because you have liberated us from the worst kind of dictatorship. Our people suffered too much from this worst kind of dictatorship. The signal is mass graves with hundred thousand of Iraqi innocent children and women, young and old men. Thank you.”
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.Hat tip: Baldilocks.
Future Marines
The Adventures of Chester (hat tip Mudville's Dawn Patrol) has a summary of AEI's blockbuster seminar on the Future of the Marine Corps. Some extraordinary talent came out to discuss the question -- a question that never dies, I might add, because the larger services are always after the Marines' budget. We know that the Marine Corps has a future (I believe there are still about four hundred and fifty years on the lease), but the nature of that future is always up for debate.
Chester ably summarizes the debate, so I will refer you to his summary rather than reproduce it. The things that interest me are the discussion about "seabasing," versus a more Army-like approach with heavier equipment and more firepower in exchange for losing the ability to be sea-based; and the role of the USMC in special operations.
It's a big issue that has to be solved soon because, as Max Boot says, some major capital outlays need to be made soon one way or the other:
I remember, a few years ago, visiting Camp Lejeune and seeing a big demonstration for VIPs of amphibious warfare in action. It was all very impressive with the Amtraks and hover craft and landing craft, and Cobras and Harriers. It was a terrific demonstration and just watching it, I thought it was glorious, but I also wondered, Was this a glorious anachronism? Was this like watching the cavalry on parade in the 1930's?...Boot is suggesting that the USMC needs to make a commitment to an entirely different mindset -- a return to the days of being an imperial, colonial force, a refocusing on "small wars" and nationbuilding concepts. "I suspect that in the future, a core mission of the Corps will be doing the kind of things that it did in the past," Boot said, "such as setting up foreign constabularies, such as Smedly Butler's Haitian gendarmerie, or "Chesty" Puller's Nicaragua national guard."
It seems to me the problem with any kind of amphibious vehicle is that you're inevitably going to sacrifice firepower and armor for the sake of being able to swim. Hence, it's going to be less useful to Marines patrolling Iraq or Afghanistan, where there's not a lot of swimming to be done.
I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense, as an interim step, to buy more armored vehicles that are available on the world market, that might provide greater protection to Marines from IEDs and RPGs. You could buy vehicles like the Israeli-made Rhino Rhiner or the South Carolina-produced Cougar, which I know is being bought already, but in very small quantities.
And in the longer term, perhaps, the Marine Corps should work with the Army to develop Marine variants of the future combat system vehicles, rather than making this big buy of the expeditionary fighting vehicle.
It's certainly possible that a core mission of the US military may be that. The USMC, however, is not the right service to handle it.
Nation building exercises strongly benefit from two things that the USMC is not ideal to provide: very long term deployments, and the ability to draw on a large reserve/National Guard which is composed of people who have developed medical/police/technical skills over the course of a longer civilian life. The civilian capabilities and experience is obviously invaluable. The long-term deployments are valuable because they allow the formation of personal relationships in-country. The formation and maintenance of those relationships is the most effective strategy in counterinsurgency warfare. Finally, the Army already has a fully developed and effective special operations wing to this kind of low-intensity, relationship-forming warfare: the Green Berets.
All of these things can be better provided by the Army. The Army's far larger size means that it can more easily detail a unit to remain in an area for long periods of time. It's reserve size and access to the National Guard likewise far outstrip what the Marines can offer. Long term occupation and nation building should not be the USMC's core mission, simply because of economies of scale.
The shift away from mobility that Boot suggests is tied into the move to nation building. The Army's equipment stands up better to long term fighting. It's heavier, it's less mobile, but because we have a Marine Corps that is seabased and devoted to being expeditionary, the US military is not without rapid-entry capabilities. The Marines can secure what the Army may need to hold.
This brings us to the question of special operations. As noted, the USMC has only a small presence at SOCOM, although that may be changing. If it changes, however, it seems to me that it ought not to redefine what the USMC does in terms of special operations. The most effective thing that the USMC can do, for future special warfare, is not commando raids. The Navy SEALs are excellent commandos, and if more commandos is what we need then we need more of them -- if many more such men can be found.
The USMC's special operations competence, unmatched by anyone else, is the MEU(SOC) (pronounced, "Mew-sock"). That stands for "Marine Expeditionary Unit, Special Operations Capable." It is a Marine fighting unit of about battalion strength, with integrated air support and transport capability, trained to special operations standards, capable of deploying with extraordinary speed.
The MEU(SOC) is the extension of expeditionary warfare to the special operations field. Its capabilities were on display early in the war in Afghanistan, which I think beautifully illustrates how the Marines ought to support special operations and low intensity conflicts. The Green Berets and CIA SOG made contact with Afghan units, and provided logistics, intelligence, and air support. The Northern Alliance did most of the fighting. But when it was necessary to suddenly close a route to the enemy, the 15th MEU seized control of an area to the south of the Taliban.
They were able to deploy from the Persian Gulf to southern Afghanistan -- a victory for the concept of seabasing, for until their deployment they were out of the range of enemy attacks, yet could be on the ground in hours. Had it been desirable, they could have been back off the ground again hours later, returned to the bases at sea.
This, I think, is the role the USMC can best serve in terms of fighting future small wars. They shouldn't be the primary forces on the ground -- the Army's strengths play to that area, and if anyone is going to redesign with that in mind, it's the Army who should assign some units to doing it. They shouldn't be doing commando raids, in imitation of the SEALs or the Deltas. They shouldn't be trying to replicate the Green Berets.
What they should do is focus on their seabased, expeditionary concept, but extend it. The ideal should be for a quick-strike force with rapid deployment and withdrawal capability -- a force who can follow on Sun Tzu's advice, "When you move, fall like a thunderbolt."
The ability to deploy in sustainable force, rapidly and in an unexpected sector, is invaluable in maneuver warfare. It serves the country well against opponent states, but also in insurgency warfare such as we see in Iraq. A Corps that focused on being rapidly deployable in that fashion, and which avoided being tied down with occupation duties, would be able to support Army units with sudden surges in manpower and firepower, as well as closing off at the last hour routes that the enemy was counting on for escape.
Special operations of this type would only be part of the Marine Corps' role, of course. The other missions of the Corps will require units of other types -- including the MEFs, whose power is unmatched by any similarly sized unit of infantry. Still, insofar as the Marines are going to be more involved in special operations and low-intensity warfare, I think this is the role for them: MEU(SOC) deployments in the support of nonconventional or conventional units, and also the same ability put to use in the service of Army nation-building units.
If I were betting on the future of the Marines, that's the way I'd bet.
UPDATE: The famous "Sheik Marine", Captain Joel Leggett of Southern Appeal sends this analysis:
Grim,I will agree that the USMC's institutional culture is an advantage -- in this as in every mission it undertakes. One of the things the panel was talking about, which I think is really true, is that the Marine Corps is the thinking man's service (although I've also argued, and do believe, that the military officers' corps as a whole is sufficiently intellectual as to serve as a parallel structure to academia for the life of the mind). Regardless of that claim, the USMC is certainly more flexible and able to embrace new ways of doing things, from the squad level up to the level we're seeing here, where it's possible to debate taking the entire service in a new direction.
I agree with most of what you said. Having said that I think you are
wrong when you say that the Marine Corps is not the force best suited
for small wars occupation duty. In fact I think we are ideally suited
for that mission. As the Small Wars Manual makes clear such duty
requires a high degree of flexibility and mobility, as well as an
institutional ability to operate in a vaguely defined operational environment.
With all due respect to our brothers and sisters in the Army, that branch
of the service does not posses the institutional culture necessary for
success in that setting.
My service with the Army in joint environments has demonstrated that
the Army is very insistent on people "staying in their lanes." In fact,
I heard that phrase used repeatedly as both a command and compliment by
Army personnel. Furthermore, it became increasingly clear to me that
much of the Army leadership that I dealt with would rather see a
problem go unsolved than have a person step out of the narrowly prescribed
duties of their billet to fix the problem. Such an institutional culture
is spectacularly ill suited for small wars occupation duty.
Consequently, since Marine Corps culture is the complete opposite (i.e. every
Marine a rifleman, fill in where needed, etc.) it should come as no
surprise that we are the service that produced the Small Wars Manual in the
first place.
The Marine Corps posses the necessary institutional culture to
successfully carry out such duties. The important thing to remember is that
due to our size we can't carry out much more than one or two such duties
at a time. Furthermore, such duties require time. We have to be
allowed the time to finish the job.
I think Mr. Boot has a point to a degree when he says that we might
want to examine getting some heavier vehicles for such duties. The
amtrakers I have talked to indicate that their vehicles have been used
incorrectly in situations that would require heavier vehicles.
Let me be clear. I don't think the Marine Corps should surrender its
expeditionary role or nature. However, I think that role will require
us to be the primary counterinsurgency/small wars force.
The question for me isn't that, but rather, "To what missions should we be applying that particular advantage?" And I think that the three things mentioned above -- the need for longer deployments, the benefit of drawing on a larger reserve and the Guard, and the integration with the Special Forces -- make the Army better suited for these kinds of long-term occupation / nation building duties.
Now, the USMC Reserve has its own citizen soldiers, whose quality I certainly don't mean to denigrate. LTC Coulvillon spoke glowingly of them at the dinner he held for the brothers of Iraq the Model. It's not their quality, but their size, that is is the issue.
To maximize effectiveness in nation building and counterinsurgecy, you need to be able to combine three elements:
1) A professional class of warriors who will not mind to stay in-country on a prolonged basis. They will have to manage the reconstruction and fight most of the battles. To be effective, they will need to be able to build family-like relationships within existing tribal/social structures, whether in Iraq or Thailand. The Regular Army can do this because it has the manpower.
2) A large reserve, which can be rotated in and out on shorter deployments to maintain its viability as a volunteer force. The need to move them in and out is a disadvantage, but it is balanced and offset by the expertise that the (usually older) citizen soldiers have learned in private life. This is well served by the Army Reserve and National Guard; the USMC Reserve is not large enough to manage rotations faster than the regular units.
3) Special units that can penetrate into harder to reach areas and make initial contacts with groups "beyond the pale." These contacts can be integrated into regular units as the "pale" expands, assuming an "oil stain" model of counterinsurgency. The Green Berets are specially trained for exactly this, for example being selected based on their score on the DLAB artificial language test as well as the physical attributes. The USMC has no parallel model, and would have to devote a lot of resources to developing one or do without.
I don't dispute that the Army would be improved by developing a culture more like the Marines'. (Rather, I shall let Eric dispute it. :) I do think, though, that the Marine Corps' culture is as useful an advantage in any sort of warfighting. It ought to be reserved to where it can do the most good, given the realities of force structure.
Comments
Given the apparent reality of new readers, I thought it would be wise to repost the comments policy. Please be welcome, so long as you will adhere to this form.
I adopted [this policy] from the sadly-defunct Texas Mercury, a fringe publication but one whose bold assertion of well considered and unusual ideas I always enjoyed:Fair enough? Well, fair or unfair, those are the rules.As we see it, modern society has all the important ideas of life exactly backwards: we are completely against the belief in sensitivity and tolerance in politics and raffish disregard in private life. The Texas Mercury is founded on the opposite principles- our idea is of tolerance and polite sensitivity in private life and ruthless truth in politics. Be nice to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas.Comments failing to uphold those principles run the risk of being deleted without warning. In the year and some months since I adopted that as the policy here, I've added one additional point: hit-and-run comments, as well as anonymous comments, will generally be deleted. If you're a regular here, and willing to stand up and fight for what you believe, you can say pretty much anything that isn't a personal attack on a fellow reader. If you're just wandering through, or unwilling to leave your name (even a false name you'll stand by will do, e.g., "Grim"), pass on. This is a hall, and regular readers are honored guests not to be troubled by cowards.
PJM
I suppose I can't put this off any longer, since they've posted a profile of me at their site. Very well, then:
Grim's Hall has decided to join PajamasMedia.
I did so for the reasons that are laid out in the profile. I think that the MSM's astonishing refusal to admit alternative viewpoints can only be broken by hitting them at their foundation: advertising revenue. If we're going to have a serious effect on the media, we have to get their attention. Nothing will get their attention except cutting into their money flow.
I've read Althouse's critique of PJM, but she and I are coming at if from different perspectives. She is considering what's best for the individual blogger. What matters to me is the effect on the MSM, and looking past that, toward society and particularly to the Republic.
The thing reminds me of the early days of the unions -- a point that Jill Stewart, a charming lady who did the profile for PJM, redacted a bit in her necessary editing of my remarks. (Southerners, as I warned her on the outset, think slowly and talk slowly and take our time getting to the point. It's not her fault.)
In the early days of unions, there was a serious effort to get skilled laborers to join in with unskilled laborers to bargain collectively. By doing that, early union organizers thought, they could bring a lot more pressure to bear at once. Skilled laborers were not as easily replaced, for one thing, and so one faces a strike by skilled labor with more fear than a strike by unskilled labor (particularly in the days when the police and US Army were called out to break picket lines).
Similarly, if it is able to draw top bloggers as well as mid- and low- ranked bloggers, PJM will be able to bargain for a higher percentage of the total monies spent on revenue than bloggers individually could do. It's true that the top bloggers could make more, as Althouse says, bargaining as individuals. That is why the idea of getting skilled and unskilled labor to bargain together didn't really work out -- it was foolish for skilled laborers to go in with the unskilled, when they were in a fine position to negotiate on their own.
I am not interested in the money, however, but only in the wider effect on society. As a consequence, PJM is an initiative I wish to support.
What about the money? I have decided to spend it in three ways:
1) I offered my co-bloggers a chance to cut themselves in at whatever percentage they would care to name. I have to tell you, however, that Eric Blair and Daniel are two of the most modest and moderate people you will ever meet. I am proud to have them as co-bloggers here at Grim's Hall, and only wish they'd asked for more than they cared to do.
2) On the occasions that I get to meet with readers, it will be my pleasure to cover the costs of the feast. These chances come only too rarely, but I have enjoyed them when they have. It's your eyes that are making these ads worth what they are worth, so when we can feast together, consider that you've paid in advance.
3) I shall give the rest to my wife, who has suffered many a long adventure with me and has had little in the way of reward. She is the finest and noblest of women, one who deserves and could have gotten better than she's asked. The kind of money we're talking about won't make up for that, but at least once she will be able to say that she's profitted from our alliance.
In any event, soon enough I suppose we'll be seeing advertisements here at Grim's Hall. I trust you understand, good readers.
China and PACOM
Admiral Fallon spoke on Sunday to the possibility of renewed US-China military ties. I have a piece about that, and updating last week's commentary on China, at The Fourth Rail. I know some of you are thinking about China now, to judge from the email I've gotten since publishing that piece last week, as well as the many comments appended to that post. It may be interesting to you to see something of what the military is thinking.
Love or leave
So said Australia's top Muslim cleric to its chief radical. It's a theme that seems to be increasingly common, and not just in Australia: we've seen governments in Europe looking at forced deportation for those who don't obviously "love" being there.
At this point, Australia's Muslim community seems to be doing some damage control, isolating their own radicals so that any deportations will not harm the larger Muslim community. The attorney general there, one Phillip Ruddock, has frequently made noises about the possibility of deportations since the London attacks of July. Nor is this aimed only at Muslim radicals. "Peace activists" are coming under scrutiny too:
A US peace activist and history teacher, Scott Parkin, has been arrested in Melbourne after his visa was revoked on grounds of character. He was deemed "a threat to national security" by the Australian Department of Immigration, according to a spokesperson from Anti-Deportation Alliance. The ABC has reported that the Federal police have confirmed an American man was arrested on the orders of the Immigration Department (DIMIA) and is in custody.For now, Australia's movements are concentrated on foreigners -- some naturalized Australian citizens, but foreign-born -- who are making trouble for the current order. One can sympathize with the notion that foreign troublemakers should be sent home. Even ones, like Mr. Parkin, who haven't broken any actual laws? Perhaps.
Mr Parkin participated in an anti-war profiteering protest outside Halliburton in Sydney on August 31, and was also reported to have attended the Forbes Global CEO Conference protest.
On the other hand, we have predicated a lot of the War on Terror on the principle that democracy, including the right to protest and the freedom of speech, will dissipate radicalism. We've seen in London and elsewhere that this is not so -- that allowing a community of radicals to operate promotes terrorist recruitment, and permits terrorist groups to build networks capable of operations within Western countries.
Where is the middle ground between suppressing radicalism, and permitting the kind of free speech and democratic protest that avoids radicalism? If you can't have both, which one is more important? I'm going to side with free speech and liberty, even if it means more blood. That was always the choice for me and mine, as Patrick Henry put it long ago.
Yet if we make that choice, we ought to realize that it very well may mean more blood, and not only ours. There is a threat of seeing a community that is guaranteed democratic rights and freedoms, and uses those rights and freedoms to organize itself for the destruction the main society. In such a case, we may find ourselves supporting their right to speak and think freely, at the cost of having to kill them or imprison them, or watching them kill themselves in order to take some of us along. We end up defending their rights, but destroying their bodies.
That is better, I think, than not defending their rights. If we sacrifice their rights, we sacrifice our own as well -- and it is those rights that have always been the point of the American model, as the British model before us. I always heard it said, growing up, that we must expect to bleed and to sacrifice if that model was to be defended among the perils of the world. I always expected to, so it is no surprise to me to see that we may have to do so.
We shall see, however, if that line of thinking appeals broadly. Your chains are forged, Patrick Henry also said -- and so they are, fitted and ready for you. But the only other choice is blood.
Have we enough who will vote for more blood and more pain, that liberty be defended? Do we really mean that democracy and freedom are the cures to radicalism? Or shall we find ourselves not defending our principles and extending liberty to the world, but rather seeking a middle ground with tyranny -- so that Egypt is less tyrannical, but we ourselves far more so?
That may be the road to peace; it may be the only road there. If so, I will not vote to walk it.
Marathon
In yesterday's wake, it seems proper to point out that today is a mighty anniversary as well. Or, at least, so we long believed -- there is some renewed debate on the topic of when the Battle of Marathon was actually fought.
9/11
Four years ago today, I shut off the television in the middle afternoon, and walked out into the forests of Georgia. Crossing onto an island in the middle of a creek, I sat down and thought about what we had seen, and what was to come, and wrote "Enid & Geraint."
The first four years have been quite a bit easier than I would have imagined. In spite of the occasional passion, such as we saw in last year's elections; in spite of the occasional horror, such as we saw in Beslan; yet the enemy has proven incapable of fighting war on the terms it has so often threatened. I feel much more peaceful about the future now than I used to, because of the experiences of these last several years. I think that, with time and the continued application of leverage, we shall have something of the revolution we dreamed of seeing in the unfree places of the world -- in Iraq and Afghanistan, certainly, but also in those places which have been inspired to freedom in part by the experiences of those nations. We are seeing democracy strengthened from Malaysia to Lebanon, to name just two places recently unfree and oppressed, where a hopeful glow has emerged.
There is much left to be done, but I think it lies within our power. We must still accomplish more on securing the former Soviet weapons; encouraging nonproliferation; resolving the problem of North Korea, which is particularly difficult; and undermining the enemy in his home through a combination of encouraging democracy and punishing tyranny. There are still plenty of problem areas -- Thailand's south is one I spend a lot of time thinking about -- but we have made some great strides, too.
At home, there is still quite a lot to accomplish. Perhaps the most important matter is the completely unsecure border to our south, followed by the large degree of smuggling on the border to our north. The events of the last few years have also proven that our system is inadequate when it comes to holding the powerful responsible for their actions. Internal partisanship is making it harder to reform the system: one side will name Sandy Berger and certain Senators as being particularly guilty of bad faith; the other side, Wolfowitz and Brown and the President himself. The result has been that no one is punished for anything they do or say, no matter how destructive the effect on national security or the health of the Republic.
It is interesting that, four years on, we should find that we have more problems at home than abroad, but I think we have. The internal tensions of the Republic are now where the most danger lies, from the politics of elections to the Court, and from the securing of the border to the vast increase of government secrecy. It has always been the case that the American political system was our point of greatest vulnerability in this war, even as it is our greatest pride and the thing we are most devoted to defending. We need to be able to keep up the pace and pressure of our actions abroad -- both military and diplomatic -- while pursuing reforms at home.
In order to accomplish that, we need to lower the heat of the political atmosphere so that we can reason together. Encouraging and reinforcing Federalism is surely a major part of that, so that neither Red nor Blue America needs to fear for its way of life. For the same reason, it is important to encourage a Supreme Court that respects Federalism and defers to legislatures when there are no blatant violations of the Constitution. With two vacancies on the Court now, we have an unusual opportunity for influence.
That, at least, is how it seems to me four years on. I don't feel inclined to poetry today -- my own heat is much lower than it was four years ago. Now is the time for rational thinking, to consider how the Republic is changing in the face of the war, and to apply ourselves to ensuring that the changes are healthy rather than destructive for the liberty that is our government's primary purpose.
Guns
Adam asks, below, what the proper way to deal with police officers attempting to illegally disarm you would be. I answered him at some length, but let's look at an actual case study. This is how it's really being done, and we can examine it to see what some of the difficulties are.
Here is a video showing California Highway Patrol officers, who have volunteered to help with the forced evacuations, tackling an elderly woman in order to disarm her.
Now, the CHP officers and the newscaster both seem quite sympathetic -- but they are willing to use real physical violence, even against someone who is frail, to enforce the surrender of all weapons.
That's not constitutional under the Louisiana state constitution. It's just not -- the constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be abridged, though it makes provision for bearing concealed weapons. But this woman's weapons were plainly displayed, not brandished in a threatening manner, and not being carried outside of her home.
The cops were wrong to do what they did, but I doubt they understand why they were wrong. In California, the state recognizes no right to bear arms at all; they won't have known that the LA constitution is more civilized. They are probably accustomed to dealing with drug smugglers and the like as a more regular thing, and simply lack training or experience in these matters, as well as lacking an understanding of the legal context.
The lady herself was wrong to resort to screaming curses and other things that would let them view her as irrational.
If it comes to a confrontation, you must be polite and professional, explain the law, and then -- if they still insist upon it -- get everything on the record. Make them provide a receipt for everything they take, their badge numbers, etc. Make clear at the time that they're going to be called to answer in court for what they are doing.
Recognize what we're up against here. Neither the police nor the media have any conception that the Second Amendment or its mirrors at the state level protect a right that really exists. The cops and the reporter all felt that "she had a gun" explains why they can do whatever they feel they need to do in order to disarm her.
We have to prove that this understanding is wrong, and that can only be done in court. The battle has already been won, in most states, at the legislative level -- the law supports us. It's only the courts now that refuse to apply the law that already exists. Get everything on the record, don't do anything illegal, and then fight it in the court. The law is on our side -- we will win this battle, eventually.
Do look up your own state laws, to see what changes you would like in them. It's a good time to do it now, while there isn't a disaster in your own community, but people's minds are fixed on the possibility that there might be one someday.
Guns & NO
Small comfort to the people who have been disarmed at gunpoint by armed bandits the New Orleans police, but the lawyers are indeed prowling over whether this action is either legal or Constitutional. Volokh hosts the debate, which is carried on by Dave Kopel (arguing that it violates even the Louisiana emergency act) and Orin Kerr (arguing that it may not violate that act, though it still may violate the Louisiana constitution, the US constitution, etc).
There is little to be done for the citizens of New Orleans until the courts resume their activity, except to write your Senators and ask them to join in the protest against this business. But there is important work to be done in your own state: take a look at the emergency laws operating where you live, and then speak to your state legislators about them. It seems to me that the Second Amendment prohibits this sort of conduct on its face. However, it never hurts to have a few extra ranks of legal spears between us and those who care nothing for the rights of men, and who are willing to leave them and their families defenseless in a wilderness.
This is an issue to be watched. If you see any posts out there about the emergency laws of the several states, or further posts from lawyers about the issue in contention in NO, mention them in the comments and we'll keep an updated list.
EBfs
There's a new section of links called "Eric Blair's Favorites" over on the sidebar. It's between "Easy Company, MilBloggers" and "News." He picked a number of things that interested him, and which I didn't already have on the links bar.
Some of the choices will be familiar to regular readers of blogs, but there are others that will be a surprise. One of the two biggest surprises for me was Cronaca, a remarkable site with some fascinating posts from the world of archaeology.
The other big surprise for me was the Countercolumn, formerly "Iraq Now." It was a surprise only because I was sure I'd always linked to Captain von Steenwyk's site. I was quite surprised to go over my links bar and find that, indeed, it wasn't already there.
I apologize for its long absence, because it is certainly a worthy read. I'll take the opportunity now to commend it to those of you who don't already read it.
Hmm
Apparently Eric was right about that:
Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.I have never had the first minute's trouble with any law enforcement agency, beyond the odd traffic ticket from my wild and misspent youth. Still and all -- if any law enforcement agency ever lets me down the way the NOPD has let down the people of New Orleans, prepare to be very disappointed when you ask for my guns.
Police officers looking for survivors today in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans.
No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.
But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property. The guards, employees of private security companies like Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.And no capability to do so, either. Blackwater would hand them their hats. I've had occasion to work with the gentlemen, via a mutual friend.
...Two thousand dollars, eh? So that's, eh, five hundred bucks to replace the firearm with something suitable, and the rest for Raman noodles and a couple suits of clothes until you can find a new job.
But there were still signs of confusion and uncertainty over government plans. FEMA's director, Michael D. Brown, had said his agency would begin issuing debit cards, worth at least $2,000 each, to allow hurricane victims to buy supplies for immediate needs. More than 319,000 people have already applied for federal disaster relief, and many evacuees began lining up at the Astrodome, in Houston, early today in hope of getting cards.
Somewhere else.
I used to think the Atlanta city government was corrupt and mismanaged. Apparently, they were rank amateurs.
I'm thinking this fellow isn't going to be on the Huffingtion Post too much longer. (via Instapundit)
Make sure you read his bio.
Oh, and speaking of political humor, the Anarchist Pogo Party in Germany has taken advantage of the 'equal time' law by broadcasting what sounds like a very curious politcal commercial.
Reminds me of the Dadaists and Surrealists of the 1920's and 30's. Politics as theater. We're getting enough of that lately. And finally, as an antidote to that, Dennis the Peasant has a whole lot of things to say. Just keep reading. Accountants are sensible people.
CP
Code Pink has apparently accepted SMASH's challenge to help raise funds for the Katrina disaster. You might want to help out.
Bloodstripes
Congratulations to "Da Grunt," son of our own frequent commenter JarHeadDad, who has made corporal. Semper Fi.
Paladin
Up the militia! Even, one supposes, the hastily assembled and fairly ignorant militia:
It's been a terrifying nine days for the four, scrambling for food, water and gasoline for their generator and an arsenal of weapons they feared they would need if complete lawlessness broke out in the historic neighborhood of renovated 19th century homes. The neighborhood having survived the storm without flood damage, Pervel and Harris, both former presidents of the Algiers Point Association, worried that looters and others seeking high ground would invade the community.This isn't the best way to go about fulfilling your Second Amendment rights and duties. It's best for a militiaman to have his weapons ready, to be familiar with their operation, and prepared to serve at a moment's notice in the cause of the Republic.
Yet they have not had to fire a shot.
And that's a good thing for them. They were not sure if any of the borrowed weapons even worked.
Doc has a comment on the topic, which ends: "Have gun. Will travel." And that, my friends, is the the mark of a Paladin.
Not the ballad I'd pick for myself, but a worthy one.
Wang
Wang Jisi is a classic figure from the Chinese landscape: a scholar with influence at the court. He is, in fact, dean of the school of International Studies at an important Chinese university (which in Chinese is DaShui, lit. "Big School"). But more important than that is his position at the Central Party School of the Chinese Communist Party.
Dr. Wang has produced a paper for the journal of the Central Party School, which was revised and expanded for publication in English. It appears in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, and can be read here. It is an interesting document in several respects.
The first thing that is interesting about it is its circumstances. The paper, in its earlier Chinese form, will have been read and debated at the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party. That they desired to see it "revised" and then issued in English is notable. It purports to be a piece of analysis from a respected scholar; it is in fact a letter from China's rulers as a whole. Dr. Wang is just far enough from the halls of power to let them speak without making formal promises; yet he is so close to those halls that we cannot doubt that they gave their blessing to his words.
Wang begins:
The United States is currently the only country with the capacity and the ambition to exercise global primacy, and it will remain so for a long time to come. This means that the United States is the country that can exert the greatest strategic pressure on China. Although in recent years Beijing has refrained from identifying Washington as an adversary or criticizing its "hegemonism" -- a pejorative Chinese code word for U.S. dominance -- many Chinese still view the United States as a major threat to their nation's security and domestic stability.He is telling us that China has been trying to be friendly. But he also is giving us the formula, so we will understand what follows. Throughout the piece, Wang writes according to this formula: without formal reference to "hegemony," in friendly terms that play up the need for cooperation rather than competition, but explaining why China might reasonably view the United States as a threat.
That formula is followed precisely. When he speaks of US policy, it isn't "hegemony," but a "global security policy." He explains his understanding of US interests, so we will know that he is sympathetic:
Further bolstering U.S. primacy is the fact that many of the country's potential competitors, such as the European Union, Russia, and Japan, face internal problems that will make it difficult for them to overtake the United States anytime soon. For a long time to come, the United States is likely to remain dominant, with sufficient hard power to back up aggressive diplomatic and military policies.Note particularly the list of 'potential US competitors': "European Union, Russia, and Japan." The absence of China from that list is not an accident, but a statement -- even an invitation.
From a Chinese perspective, the United States' geopolitical superiority was strengthened in 2001 by Washington's victory in the Afghan war. The United States has now established political, military, and economic footholds in Central Asia and strengthened its military presence in Southeast Asia, in the Persian Gulf, and on the Arabian Peninsula. These moves have been part of a global security strategy that can be understood as having one center, two emphases. Fighting terrorism is the center. And the two emphases are securing the Middle East and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The greater Middle East, a region stretching from Kashmir to Morocco and from the Red Sea to the Caucasus, is vital to U.S. interests. Rich in oil and natural gas, the region is also beset by ethnic and religious conflicts and is a base for rampant international terrorism. None of the countries in the area is politically stable, and chaos there can affect the United States directly, as the country learned on September 11.
On the nonproliferation front, the United States' main concerns are Iran and North Korea, two states that are striving to develop nuclear technology and have long been antagonistic toward Washington. In 2004, the United States carried out the largest redeployment of its overseas forces since World War II in order to meet these challenges.
We all know that China is grieved, and concerned, with the US military bases in central and southeast Asia. Wang brings them up early in his list of places where the US is exerting power, and recognizes the strength of the position. But he defuses it from being an issue between us and them: "These moves have been part of a global security strategy that can be understood as having one center, two emphases. Fighting terrorism is the center. And the two emphases are securing the Middle East and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
This is part of the mindset of classical China, which influenced much of Asia in the days when they were ascendant. Social harmony requires "a beautiful mask" to cover "the ugly truth." Politeness, a central duty of everyone, means upholding that mask to prevent the webs of social harmony from being disturbed. It is not that anyone actually believes it -- it is that everyone adheres to it, that harmony can be maintained in spite of everything.
Here we are given that mask as a gift. China's Communists are making us an offer. They are willing to pretend to see our actions in that context, if we will pretend that that is the only context for them.
The rest of the piece is much the same. It is a fascinating read because it lays out how China is prepared to meet us halfway on the great issues of the day. Iraq, Asia, economics: from first to last, with one exception, we are being offered an understanding for mutual benefit. That one exception of course is Taiwan -- it is the condition on which all this is laid.
History has already proved that the United States is not China's permanent enemy. Nor does China want the United States to see it as a foe. Deng Xiaoping's prediction that "things will be all right when Sino-U.S. relations eventually improve" was a cool judgment based on China's long-term interests. To be sure, aspirations cannot replace reality. The improvement of Chinese-U.S. relations will be slow, tortuous, limited, and conditional, and could even be reversed in the case of certain provocations (such as a Taiwanese declaration of independence). It is precisely for this reason that the thorny problems in the bilateral relationship must be handled delicately, and a stable new framework established to prevent troubles from disrupting an international environment favorable for building prosperous societies. China's leadership is set on achieving such prosperity by the middle of the twenty-first century; with Washington's cooperation, there is little to stand in its way.Should we accept the deal that has been placed on the table? Much depends on how much we trust the Communists to keep their word. Yet the offer is backed, not merely with promises, but with reason. The explanations for why the United States and China have aligned interests are compelling. Having lived in China, too, I sense that they will adhere to the mask once they don it -- so long as we do also. If we accept what is offered, it will become in their mind a matter of honor to uphold the masks that protect the greater harmony.
The deal is much starker when it is viewed the way Americans like to view things. We prefer the ugly truth, and here it is: Taiwan for peace. If we will do that, speak more kindly of them, pretend that our interests are what they have described them to be -- they don't care if we change our policies a whit, just how we talk about them -- then we can have peace, and all the benefits that are laid out before us in the document. Yet it contains, plainly but softly, the threat of war if we do not accept.
It is a kingly document, courtly and well-spoken. Every word of it is structured and considered, and every word -- in its fashion -- is meant. We must think carefully what answer to make, and where our interests lie.
Vikings
When I got home last night from the feasts, although it was after nine o' clock, I discovered the the grandparents whom we are visiting down here in Georgia had not put the boy to bed. Three-year-old Beowulf was sitting up watching television with them.
When I came through the door, he lept up happily and came racing over to me, dancing with every step. "Wow!" I thought to myself. "He's never been this happy to see me. I guess having me and his mother gone all day has made him extra glad to see us, and..."
So much for that train of thought. It turned out that the grandparents had bought him a present that afternoon, but told him he couldn't have it until Daddy came home.
He went racing off into their bedroom, and then came out with this huge blue box under his arm. The thing was so big that "under his arm" could be accomplished only with great difficulty, and he was dragging the thing along the floor rather than carrying it. "You gotta open this!" he said.
I picked it up to look at it. It was a fine gift indeed.
"Get your knife out!" Beowulf shouted, dancing in place with anticipation.
So I did. What a happy boy.
RN F
Ellijay is the seat of Gilmer County, Georgia, the apple-growing capital of... well, the world, as far as I know, but they claim only to be the Apple Capital of Georgia. Apples were the crop they settled on to avoid the destruction of the boll weevil, when it destroyed the major part of the economy of Georgia in the 1920s. Georgia had an economy based on what social scientists call "monoculture farming," which is to say that the whole economy is based around a single crop -- like coffee or sugar in some places today.
In Georgia, it was cotton, until the boll weevil. The people then had to figure out something else to grow, and start from scratch. Meanwhile the financial machine made things worse: all the banks crashed because they weren't getting payments on their agricultural loans; everybody lost their lands when the banks seized it and tried to sell it to cover the loans; and so on. It took about ten years to get it sorted out, which was just in time for the Great Depression to smash everyone equally. That means that, for Georgia, it was really a twenty-year depression.
Nevertheless, people got by. First they grew subsistence crops on the land, and eventually they managed to develop new forms of agriculture. These days, pine trees are the major crop up in the north of the state -- short needle pines, which are easily made into pulp that can be used to make paper. There are also the apples, and peaches, soybeans somewhat further south, and many other things as well. And, of course, these days we can grow cotton again too.
After yesterday's meal at the Pueblo Grill, I encountered a flyer for a local festival. I transcribe it below. I promise that I have typed it in accurately; or, as Dave Barry says, I am not making this up.
So, out of tragedy and hardship came a people with what appears to be a very good sense of humor. They don't mind if America laughs at them by calling them Rednecks and assigning all these stereotypes to them. They just want to laugh along.1st Annual
"REDNECK FESTIVAL"
Think we're kidding? Just be there!
Ellijay Music Park
September 9 & 10, 2005
Friday
7:00pm Karaoke Contest
With Southern Entertainment
BIGGEST BEER BELLY CONTEST
Saturday
10:00am REDNECK PARADE
...
11:00am Hot wings cookoff
3:00pm RIDING LAWN MOWER RACE
...
Saturday Special Events:
Flea Market (Call to Reserve Space)
"Redneck Truck Show"
Redneck Horseshoes with Toilet Seats
Tobacco Ring Jeans Contest
For the Kids:
Remote Control Hunt
Mudpit Belly Flop
Water Balloon Fight
MM
Today Grim pulled his great viking ship up on two high shores, and held feasts among the wrack. It was a very pleasant day, the best I've had in quite a while. I'd like to thank everyone who came out.
The first feast was held with the crew of Del's FreeSpeech, an Atlanta area blog. Del's a libertarian blogger, whose editorial philosophy has always been to give out guest accounts to anyone who felt like they had something to say. It's an interesting place to drop by.
We met at the Pueblo Grill, which is surely the finest Mexican restaurant in the mountains of North Georgia. A good time was had by all, I think I can report.
Later in the evening, we held a second feast at the Applebee's in Buford, Georgia, whose location proved to be more difficult to triangulate than anyone expected. Nevertheless, it ended well. JarHeadDad and his gracious and lovely bride came out to dine with us, and we ate well of the best that the house had to offer. Those of you who have been worried about him lately can stop worrying: he seems to have recovered nicely from the knock he took from Thor's hammer.
It was a pleasure to meet a number of readers, and to eat and drink and hold council. Thank you, everyone who came out. I am glad to have known you all.
Over at Countercolumn, Jason van Steenwyk is ripping Bob Herbert and the NY Times a new one.
Not that I think they're going to notice.
But I'm hopeful others will. I see that Instapundit noticed too.
Right
There have been two pieces recently charging that the American Right, and particularly the Republican party, is splitting. The first of these was Jonathan Rauch's, "America's Anti-Reagan isn't Hillary Clinton, It's Rick Santorum." The second is in today's Opinion Journal, where Cass Sunstein has a piece called "John Roberts, Minimalist."
Now, I'm a Southern Democrat, which is to say that I have no obvious home in the politics of modern America. I'm a Classical Liberal rather than a conservative, and a Democrat of a very old type rather than a Republican of the modern strain. Still, most people would locate me on the Right, and I suppose that qualifies me to consider the topic.
Rauch posits a divide between conservatives who believe in the modern concept of Freedom, versus those who believe in the original American concept of Liberty. As he writes:
In Santorum's view, freedom is not the same as liberty. Or, to put it differently, there are two kinds of freedom. One is "no-fault freedom," individual autonomy uncoupled from any larger purpose: "freedom to choose, irrespective of the choice." This, he says, is "the liberal definition of freedom," and it is the one that has taken over in the culture and been imposed on the country by the courts.The Sunstein piece suggests that there is a similar divide between the judicial/legal thinkers on the right:
Quite different is "the conservative view of freedom," "the liberty our Founders understood." This is "freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue -- not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be," or "the freedom to be left alone," but "the freedom to attend to one's duties -- duties to God, to family, and to neighbors."
Minimalist conservatives insist that social change should occur through the democratic process, not through the judiciary. They do not want to extend the liberal Supreme Court decisions of the 1950s and '60s. On principle, they prefer narrow decisions and small steps, nudges not earthquakes. When confronted by contentious issues, minimalists focus on details and particulars, and are prepared to rule in ways that run contrary to their politics.I've been thinking about these splits and/or divisions, and the truth is, I don't think they'll turn out to be very serious. The simple reason I feel that way is this: I can't see any path that works except the road between them.
Fundamentalist conservatives do not believe in small steps. They think that in the last 50 years, constitutional law has gone badly, even wildly, wrong. They want to reorient it in major ways. They oppose Roe v. Wade, of course. But they also reject the right of privacy itself, arguing it lacks roots in the Constitution. They do not hesitate to use judicial power to strike down affirmative action and to protect property rights. They are entirely prepared to restrict the authority of Congress by invalidating laws protecting the environment, campaign finance reforms or gun control restrictions. They also have an expansive view of presidential power.
In many areas, then, fundamentalists welcome a highly activist role for the federal courts. Consider a remarkable fact: Since 1995, the Rehnquist Court has struck down over 30 acts of Congress, including parts of the Violence Against Women Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Fundamentalist conservatives generally approve of these decisions, and would like to see more of the same.
In the case of the first split: Sure. Liberty is meant to be put in the service of virtue. And it's very important to make that argument. Aristotle pointed to happiness as the point of ethics; but he defined happiness as "Rational activity in accord with excellence or virtue." That's an ancient, correct understanding for how life ought to be lived.
On the other hand, there's no way to have a free society in which you dictate what excellence or virtue means. People who aren't free to decide that aren't free at all.
So, there's no way forward except persuasion. Santorum's crowd is right this far: you have to be making the argument that people should use their liberty in pursuit of duty and virtue. You shouldn't leave that unsaid. But they are wrong to any degree that they think that it can be dictated or legislated. If it isn't freely chosen, it isn't free; and Americans in general will rebel against anything you try to shove down their throats.
You end up having to take both sides, which is to say that you choose the road between. You have to argue for virtue and also you have to argue for your particular conception of virtue. You can't use the government to enforce either.
As for the judicial philosophy, it looks the same to me. Should you take the path of moderation, respecting the decisions of the democratic branches? Yes, of course -- as long as they can point to the part of the Constitution where they get the authority to do what they are doing. If they can do that, the courts should stand aside. The attempt to find judicial solutions for problems yields the necessity of finding judicial solutions to every problem, which is more weight than the courts can bear.
On the other hand, if a decision or a law is plainly unconstitutional, you should always overturn it. Otherwise, what's the point of the Constitution? It's not a book of suggestions.
So, am I in favor of liberty or freedom? Yes.
Am I in favor of minimalism? Yes. Of fundamentalism? Yes.
And I guess I'm opposed to them all, too.
Asian news
Reading newspapers is rather like developing a taste for a regional cuisine. You have the British newspapers, which are so brash and over the top. You have the French newspapers, which are outrageously leftist in their every thought. You have the American newspapers, which pretend to an objectivity they neither desire nor feel. And then you have the Asian newspapers, which... well, see for yourself.
From The Independent of Bangladesh:
Maulana Fariduddin Masud, a former director of Islamic Foundation, who was arrested from Zia International Airport on August 22 for his suspected links to August 17 bombings across country, is now undergoing treatment at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Suhrawardi Hospital after he reportedly fell sick during interrogation.Ah, yes, that will happen. Poor fellow -- sick enough to need visit the ICU for six days, as the article goes on to explain.
He must have been terribly ill when he got on that plane. Lucky he got arrested, so he could get the care he needed at the state's expense.
Ga.stories
It's now halftime for the season's opening game of the Georgia Bulldogs. It's been too long since I had a chance to sit down and watch the Bulldogs play. And what a game! Six turnovers, 24-0 Bulldogs going into the second half. And that against a team, Boise State, that was the single most top-scoring college football team over the last ten years.
During the game, the press was talking to the father of one of the BSU players, who had flown in from Iraq to see the game. He has been over there training the Iraqi police. Apparently, Georgia fans had taken up a collection to buy his ticket, even though he was related to a BSU and not a Bulldog player. Apparently, the NCAA made him refuse the money for some reason, but he got here anyway.
They took a moment to interview him about the game and how glad he was to be home to see it. Then, the lady doing the interview said, "Since you are just back from Iraq, can I ask you how it's going there?"
You could tell he was taken aback by the question, and it took a minute for him to sort out what she'd asked -- he was obviously focused on the football. But what he said when he had thought about it was this:
"As long as America's sons and daughters are there, we'll be fine. They're doing a great job."
That was all there was time for, because the play clock was running out.
After reading the 'guest author' over at Winds of Change, I can't say that I'm really impressed. It reminds me of one of those late night Art Bell radio show tirades about the end of the world.
The Belmont Club, as usual, is more measured, but there's a lot of turmoil in the comments. People seem to think that a magic wand can be waved and it will all be better. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
Jason van Steenwyk at his 'Countercolumn' blog has a number of excellent posts on the logistics involved.
Another note: East-West travel across the Gulf coast has been disrupted heavily. Most relief is going to have to come North-South due to so many bridges and roads being wrecked.
The Anchoress, (via American Digest) has an excellent post "100 hours after Stormfall" on what has happened and what is being done. The picture she links to of the drowned school bus motor pool says more about the administration of New Orleans, and its emergency planning, than any 1000 words could. In fact, if the news report that this "Powerline" post points to is correct, then the only reason New Orleans even began to evacuate was because the President begged the Mayor and Governor to order it.
But I suppose dwelling on that would be doing what has Dennis the Peasant mightily annoyed.
He may have a point.
Katrina
The best I've seen lies behind these two links:
Winds of Change has this reading on the final scale of the disaster. Minimum projection: forty thousand dead, nine cities lost. If you think that's too high, read up.
The Belmont Club has an analysis of preventative measures taken for the hurricane. They were designed to stop a Cat. 3 hurricane. They were not designed for a Cat. 4 or 5, because the technology needed to save New Orleans from one won't exist for decades.
Both blogs have other impressive pieces on topic. But those two should be required reading.
Contact
Greyhawk sends. Distribute to anyone who might need it.
Official DOD page on contact information for military families displaced by Katrina.
Site for Guard families impacted by Katrina.
Information for getting Guardsmen in touch with lost family members who may have been displaced by the hurricane.
Gifts
While helping my father clean out a room in the old family house, I noticed a ribboned medal atop one of the pieces of furniture we were moving. When we had shifted it to its new room, I picked the thing up to look at it.
"What's this?" I asked.
He glanced at it, and said, "I'm glad you saw that! I've had these things here for you for years. Your uncle sent them to you."
My uncle, his brother, was the elder of my grandfather's two sons. Unfortunately his own son is a tragic case, and so he has sometimes sent me things that he had intended to give his son when my cousin was old enough to get them.
The ribbon proved to be a World War II Victory Medal. It's interesting in that, on the reverse side, it is engraved with the famous "Four Freedoms," which were so capably illustrated by Norman Rockwell.
There were a few other items.
He had come across several General Officer stars, I couldn't guess where. There have certainly never been any Generals in my immediate family -- although Patton is a distant relative of ours, it is quite a distance. He had also an old Nazi mess-kit utensil. I'm no collector of Nazi things, but I recognized the crest on the back of it.
There was also a pin. It was black, engraved on the back with the number D-22; and on the front it bore a pair of crossed arrows and a dagger, and this motto:
"De Oppresso Liber."
My uncle was in Korea with the Air Force Security Police, who at that time were a very impressive bunch. This was when the Security Police was the last-ditch force for preventing the world's only nuclear weapons from falling into enemy hands, should a base be overrun or infiltrated. These were the early days of the Cold War, when the stakes were high and nowhere on earth seemed safe from covert action. The Security Police were trained in all manner of deadly combat, and understood that they were to die in place if called to do so. I gather from the occasional adventure onto an Air Force Base that the standards have changed since then, but the Security Police of the 1950s were a brave and dangerous band.
I don't know where he got this pin -- the insignia has existed since 1960, so it's possible that it was traded to him by someone he knew in Korea. It's been many years since I've spoken to him, but I'll have to write to ask where he got it.
Lawless
I warn you that what follows is not pleasant, and you may wish to skip this entry entirely if you do not wish to consider unpleasant thoughts at this time. I will hardly hold it against you, for this is a deeply unhappy time, and we have all had enough misery. Still, it is important to think things through plainly.
Probably what has been shocking people most about the hurricane damage is the chaos in New Orleans. We must remember the state of New Orleans before the disaster: a background crime rate that was one of the highest in the country; police forces, and indeed a political structure, that were notoriously corrupt. It is of no surprise that, having failed on every normal day to achieve their basic tasks, the city's government failed to achieve what would have been a heroic undertaking even for the most disciplined and efficient of governments.
There is another reason, though, that the chaos has been as bad as it has been. Reuters found someone from Sri Lanka to articulate it:
Not a single tourist caught in the tsunami was mugged. Now with all this happening in the U.S. we can easily see where the civilized part of the world's population is.Well, properly, one can see where it is not. It is not in New Orleans.
The same argument was voiced in a dire prediction from the ground, which was carried by InstaPundit. Law Professor Bill Quigley wrote:
[T]he problem for New Orleans is that everybody who had their health, had money and had a car, they left. Okay, so we have probably 100,000 people trapped in the city right now, maybe 50,000 or 60,000 people in the Superdome who are there without electricity, without flushing toilets, without food, without water. And they are people who had to walk over there or take a bus, because they didn't have a car to get out.That is to say that only two kinds of people remain in New Orleans in any numbers: the underclass, among whom the predatory criminal population is vastly higher than among any other class of people; and those too frail or poor to move, which is to say, those who are naturally easy prey. All the elements of society that normally restrain violence and chaos have been stripped away by the evacuation.
There are people in nursing homes, there's people in these little hospitals all over the place.... So who's left behind in New Orleans right now, you are talking about tens of thousands of people who are left behind, and those are the sickest, the oldest, poorest, the youngest, the people with disabilities and the like, and the plan was that everybody should leave.
This was not the case in the tsunami, because it fell instantly upon the people. Everyone was there -- militants in their jungles, tourists in their hotels, the poor and the rich and the people of every class. If this had been an earthquake instead of a hurricane, the chaos would be far lower in New Orleans. But we have left the worst predators, in a city where they are already accustomed to running rampant, alone with the most vulnerable possible prey. It is natural, and unavoidable, that hideous things should follow.
Our society does not rely for its order on our police forces, our National Guard, or indeed very much on the government at all. We are not a security state, like China, with uniformed servants of the state posted everywhere to enforce order. By and large, order is kept in America by middle-class Americans. In those parts of the inner cities where poverty is rampant and there is no middle class to speak of, there is always serious disorder -- the background murder rate for New Orleans, say, or the rate in much of Washington, D.C.
But we must institute such a security state in New Orleans for the duration, because American society is no longer there to restrain its criminals. Everyone with a stake in American society and also the power to help enforce its norms has been removed from the city. There will now be no order except by main force.
That would be a tremendous task even if those people given over to instituting that force did not have to deal with flooding, and the engineering challenges that go with it. Yet they do have to deal with it, which means that the application of force must be that much more stern.
That is the only way to protect any of the vulnerable peoples left in the area. The predators have been turned loose, by the evacuation as much as by the disaster. Civilization was packed up and removed from what was once a city, but which is now a jungle as dark and perilous as any in imagination.
Trip down
I flew down today, passing up my airline's invitation to become a Federal felon. When I went to check in my firearm, I declared it and presented it to security, unloaded and sealed in a locking case. "You want to check this firearm?" the officer of the airline asked me. Misunderstanding her intention, I said politely that yes, I did, and that the regulations for doing so were posted on a large sign right behind her.
"But you don't have to check it," she said. "You can carry it on the plane."
"Um, what?" I asked.
"Yes, we carry on firearms now. If you want to do that, that will be fine."
I insisted on checking it as baggage, because I knew that was legal. It turns out, I realized at the end of the conversation (after the firearm case was already on its way through the TSA scanners, properly declared and sealed) that she had been under the misapprehension that I was a law enforcement officer of some description. Well, I was traveling through Dulles, so it's perfectly sensible she might have thought so. I imagine they come through all the time.
I got to Atlanta in the early afternoon, and found the city unusually quiet. I took MARTA through town. The parking garages at the terminal ends of the line were packed to capacity, which is apparently highly unusual. The gas panic seems to have produced real expectations of shortages here, with the result that there actually were several gas stations that had sold out their tanks to local consumers.
It will be interesting to see whether I can get home, too.
Everywhere I've been, television screens are constantly focused on the hurricane. Even on MARTA -- unlike the D.C. Metro, they've now got televisions on MARTA trains. Great, just what I wanted. Another place where there's a constant TV presence.
Katrina has gotten people's attention in a big way. There's been quite a bit of talk today about how this may change behavior in the long term. We'll see if it plays out, of course. The big question is the refineries, as I see it; we can buy extra oil if we need it, but the refineries are the choke point. We can't make more gas than we can make, and we can make less now with the gulf refineries offline.
Still, it honestly wouldn't take much belt-tightening to overcome the shortage, if it is widespread. I saw that Bush had suggested to all Americans that they should not buy gas if they didn't need to do so. It certainly appears to be the case that the folks in Atlanta are buying all the gas they can get, but also trying to cut down on use of gasoline. Even a small savings in terms of personal use, if it is adopted by millions, will probably ease the shortage enough that it will be just a memory in a little while.
If so, the dire projections I've been hearing and reading about today probably won't ever come to pass. But, at least for the moment, there are people thinking seriously about questions of how far they really want to commute to work; how big a car they need; and how many cars. The sudden spike in gas prices has caused people to reflect on their personal budgets.
This is not to say that the talk today has shown a basic selfishness, or self-interest. People are emotionally involved in the tragedy, of course. But there is nothing that the emotional involvement can accomplish; other than mourning it, and giving to their favored charity, there honestly isn't much to be done. There really does come a point where everything to be said about the tragedy has been said; and then you think of other things, and right now, these other things also weigh heavily on peoples' minds.
I have a few more stories, but it's almost one AM and I've been up since five AM, so they'll have to wait.
Travel
I'll be traveling for a week or so, down to Georgia and back. Should make for some good stories. I'll share the best ones with you.
Disaster
The hurricane has been a terrible blight on the American South, with economic tremblings that are traveling north. My father informs me that the main gasoline pipeline from the gulf to Atlanta was destroyed in the storm, with the result that the entire city will run out of gas in a few days. How long will that last? Who knows?
But I find that my heart goes out instead to the families of Iraqi pilgrims, who have suffered today the greatest tragedy to befall them for several years. I was once in a crowd that got spooked, and remember it well. It was in the early 1990s, the year the Atlanta Braves first got to play in the World Series. There was a parade downtown, and probably the whole city came out to see it. The Braves had been the worst team in baseball for so many years that, in addition to the pleasure of seeing the home team within reach of the top prize, there was a feeling of great wonder and joy at seeing so complete a reversal. I could not guess how many people were packed into those streets, but I know that they overran the barricades and were pressed so tightly together in places that it was impossible to move.
At one point the crowd began to become aware of the peril of that situation, and several drunken fools began to exploit it. They shouted, and shoved, and tried to panic people: and many in the crowd, for some were frail and easily frightened, did panic. They began to scream, and try to get out: but there was nowhere to go. So they shoved, and the crowd began to sway, back and forth, pressing together so tightly that you felt that you would have to lose your feet in the crush, first forward, now backwards.
At last some people near a side street gave way. Then it turned into a rout, with the whole crowd pushing and shoving and exploding into that space. I remember that some folks broke in the door to a parking garage -- wisely! -- and a part of the crowd escaped up into it, avoiding the chaos below.
I don't know if anyone was hurt, but surely they must have been. I remember hearing that someone had been stabbed, though I don't know if it was true. Still, I understand something of what it is like to be caught in a crush, and I pity and mourn for those who have died in Iraq today.
The bitter irony, of course, is that no suicide bomber or team of such bombers could have killed so many people. Nor, in fact, did the enemy have to so much as lift a finger to kill all of these people: the rumor of their coming was enough. Though they could never have killed so many had they set themselves to it with their fullest might, yet the fear of them did it with a terrible ease.
See here, and learn, how very deadly that fear is. It is the true weapon of the enemy. It is what we must all first learn to overcome.
I wish I knew words to comfort the people of Iraq. There are no such words, of course.
King James
I found this to be a fascinating story. It's about a man, an early Mormon leader, who decided to make himself king of an island in Michigan. The United States sent a boatload of Marines and US Marshals to correct his behavior, but having arrested him, lost the trial! He was acquitted on every charge they could name against him, and ended up... well, see for yourselves.
It's one of those grand old stories from America's history, the sort of things that you almost can't believe really happened. Judge Roy Bean is another of that sort: even after you've filtered out all the legendary material, and have only the plain facts before you, you just have to shake your head in amazement and wonder at the extraordinary stories America has produced.
Hmm..
If it weren't for the fact that I know that Thaksin Shinawatara is a former telecom guy, I would have suspected a hoax in his plan to buy cable television for all coffeeshops in Muslim southern Thailand. Yeah, sure... the kids will be so busy watching soccer that they'll forget to jihad.
Hm. Maybe they're on to something after all:
In the wilds of southern Thailand, where people believe Islam first took root in Southeast Asia, plans to dish out cable TV with free English soccer to quell ethnic Malay unrest have not gone down well.Well, it may not be "culturally sensible," but as I reflect on it, it does have a certain history behind it. The Romans kept the mob of Rome from rising up against them through a combination of bread and circuses. Free soccer? Every day? Could be just the trick.
"The kids will just watch TV and leave the Koran and their school books behind," said Haji Mustafa Bin Haji Abdul Latif of Ban Sawo Hilir in Narathiwat, one of three provinces rocked by 20 months of violence in which more than 800 people have died.
"I don't think it's a good idea," he says, taking a long drag on a hand-rolled cigarette at his run-down tea-shop in the exclusively Muslim village deep in the jungle.
Around him, a handful of customers give similar verdicts on the proposals by Interior Minister Kongsak Wantana to use Thai TV, karaoke stars and European soccer to wean Muslim youths away from violence.
The plans, they say, illustrate clearly the lack of cultural sensibility from Bangkok's Buddhist government which critics say is fuelling resentment in the far south, where 80 percent of the population are Muslim, ethnic Malay and non-Thai speaking.
Or, as Bill Waterson said, Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet.
YSTC
An excellent example of how to explain things to general officers.
Hat tip: BlackFive.
Marines
Count the ways that this inspection differs from the way that we do it. Better, or worse? Discuss.