The individual contributors are capable of making reasonable-sounding arguments as to why the detention of enemy combatants should not be held indefinitely at Guantanamo (assuming you view our war against Islamic radicals as a civil police action in which the US military got involved). But, as I said, their arguments usually avoid the foam flecked comments that follow these postings.
But suddenly, now that Obama has been elected, the subject has been dropped. I go to the site almost daily and the subject is internet hoaxes, the auto bailout, Eric Holder, Prop 8, God in the Declaration of Independence, Virgin Annulment, Dan Rather, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and much more.
Why the disinterest? Could it be that there have been hints out of the incoming Obama administration that they may have to keep these people confined? That there may be a reason for not granting them bail and letting them out in the streets? Could we be setting the stage for the “normalization” of Guantanamo (or its equivalent)?
And then Eureka! I find it. The thing that I thought I had lost. The Volokh article on Military Commissions and National Security Courts After Guantanamo
Because I wanted to re-visit just one more time what Liberals believed should be done to members of the Bush administration:
--Impeachment of Bush and Cheney. If necessary, after they leave office!
--Impeachment of a federal judge for writing a memo that enabled “torture”
--Local, State, and federal prosecutions such as the Brattleboro, Vermont, ordinance that calls for the arrest on sight of Bush and/or Cheney…
--Charge Bush and Cheney with murder of U.S. soldiers who have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan war under state law.
--Use of common law courts … as a means to turn revisionist international law theory by asserting international humanitarian and human rights law violations as common law in state courts prosecutions.
--Having citizens file charges with the police in various countries
--Foreign and International Prosecution of US officials.
--Complaints to licensing boards for professionals who assisted the government
The person who proposed this is a law professor in Ohio. And he is far from alone. There is a third-world smell to the Left in this country; the sort of things that juntas do to their predecessors after they take over the government. All, of course, in the name of justice. All great crimes are committed in the name of Justice for the People. I am reminded that most of the leaders of the French Revolution were lawyers, Jacobins, who revelled in the destruction of the old regime via the Reign of Terror, and then, having finished off the aristocracy turned on each other after which they drowned Europe in blood for a generation. All in the name of Justice and Virtue.
A question to ponder: is this a case of Bush hatred or is the professor planning to follow the same course of action against members of the Obama administration should the prisoners at Guantanamo not be released?
25 comments:
Umm.......you realize that the Volokh conspiracy has some of the best conservative/republican legal minds in the country writing for it on a daily basis?
You're linking a legal review article on how detainees should be handled with the far left's dreams of frog-marching Bush to the gas chamber? Could you provide links?
I don't think linking Volokh to the far-left's wet dreams is fair in this case.
Too bad you used up your 15min of Instafame on a post like this, dude.
Moneyrunner,
So if you oppose Guantanamo, then you are in the same camp as French revolutionaries from the 18th century and some wingnut professor in Ohio? Is that it? Would you be happy if Volokh posted more on the topic since Nov. 4. Are conservatives who disagree with you Jacobins, traitors or leftwingers? Your citation of the Jacobins is ironic as well. They sent many of their fellow revolutionaries to the gallows for betraying the revolution. Do you think that conservatives who disagree with Guantanamo are betraying conservativism and should be treated as intellectual traitors? Be adivse.
"Disinterest" means "impartiality," not "lack of interest."
you realize that the Volokh conspiracy has some of the best conservative/republican legal minds in the country writing for it on a daily basis?
I can't think of a single person writing at VC who is properly described as "conservative". They are all some variant of libertarianism. They are also all Jewish, a fact which informs much of their writing.
Moneyrunner pretty clearly stated that he's talking about some of the commenters at Volokh, and not the contributors, save for I guess the person who wrote the main post cited.
Crankycon,
Maybe,but its certainly not "clear". The confusing post states that the Volokh contributors stopped writing about Guantanamo because Obama got elected; the post seems to imply that anti-Bush sentiment must have driven the contributions to Volokh. The post isn't that clear and only mentions the comments on the Volokh site in passing (two sentences out of the whole thing).
@Anon 8:48
That's funny, Zywicki doesn't sound Jewish.
Care to tell us how you've divined their religion, and how you see it "informing" their opinions? Here's a shovel, please dig some more.
Who cares what lawyers think? Their days are numbered. More and more people are becoming aware that there's hardly a problem in the world lawyers and their Roman legal system aren't responsible for.
Dick the Butcher's revolution is coming. LOL!
Care to tell us how you've divined their religion
Have you ever read the site?
how you see it "informing" their opinions?
Jews have the peculiar notion that they are a persecuted minority. One of the ways this manifests itself is in extreme social liberalism. The majority of VC posters are pushing the gay marriage bandwagon.
Take your shovel and insert it in one of your smaller orifices. In your case that may not be your ass.
Your timing is close, Anonymous; you just missed, by a very few days, the anniversary of Kristallnacht and the sentencing of a synagogue arsonist to explain to us all that the persecution of Jews is a "peculiar" notion.
But you did manage to get your post out on the same day as one of Ayman Al-Zwahari's rants.
Not to be a dick, (well, maybe) but if you actually wanted to look instead of just throwing crap on your blg to get hits, you could have seen these posts over at Volokh:
http://volokh.com/posts/1226332377.shtml - 10 Nov 2008
http://volokh.com/posts/1226432723.shtml - 11 Nov 2008
http://volokh.com/posts/1226435400.shtml - 11 Nov 2008
http://volokh.com/posts/1226441587.shtml - 11 Nov 2008
And thats not all of the gitmo related posts since the election. I'll grant your point that the tinfoil hat commenters aren't sounding nearly as nutty when its their guy that is going to keep gitmo open, but still.... you damage your own credibility by not doing the slightest bit of research first.
Pol
Hey, I didn't mean to be too hard on The Virginian, a blog I've liked before. I just thought it was funny to see the VC being accused of leftism. Did I misread this post? I don't think I did.
Anon 9:11-
The criticism of the lack of posts post-election about Guantanamo is a bit confusing - and strange, considering the post he links to was itself written post-election. But the very opening of the post says, "It may not be their fault that they attract a bunch of nuts and Jacobins to their blog site," so it seemed clear to me that he's really not talking about the contributors so much.
WOW! We go from the thoughtful ruminations of a Thomas Jefferson or James Madison to this? My, how the logical capacities of those calling themselves Virginians have fallen. Must be the inbreeding...
"Umm.......you realize that the Volokh conspiracy has some of the best conservative/republican legal minds in the country writing for it on a daily basis?"
Umm.... how long has it been since you were there? That hasn't been true for a while. I stopped reading when every link there brought me to just another leftist blog post. And don't get me started on the comments.
The Virginian has a good point. There are a range of contributors at VC but the "conservatives" are more accurately called libertarians. I think they are disappointed now that Obama seems to be adopting Bush Administration policies instead of the libertarian solutions they hoped he would adopt.
I have no idea why Volokh Conspiracy was brought into this post at all. Perhaps it's either an attempt at guilt by association by the author or some transcendental rant along the lines of talking about how you ordered a cup of coffee at Starbucks and ending the sentence with a screed against multinational corporations and their killing of the rainforests.
Just because one contributor linked to one article and called it "interesting", and all of the lefty commenters came out of the shadows to rant does make the Volokh Conspiracy liberal, leftist or left-leaning. If that's the case, I'm going to get a couple of Daily Kos commenters to start posting here so we can start calling The Virginian a lefty-commie cesspool.
What serious libertarian would think their policy positions jive, at all, with a Socialist's? If anyone at Volokh was hoping that Obama was going to institute "their" policy positions, they're either hopelessly naive or a closet leftist.
Simply screaming about free love and legalized drugs is not the core of libertarianism. It is the core of a lot of the VC writers and commenters (along with a healthy disdain for religious people), but it is not the basis for any kind of adult political philosophy. I wouldn't describe them as conservative, libertarian, or Republican.
I loathe VC, though, so I may not be the best judge.
Hey, if you're gonna crib the heart of your blog posting directly from my comment at VC, at least please give credit.
John Moore
Useful Fools Blog
http://www.tinyvital.com/blog
DRJ, I think the only Volokh Conspirator to voice any support for Obama based on "libertarian principles" was Dr. David Post, as he himself notes here, and he promptly got slapped down by the community - as well he should have been, since Obama's positions are antithetical to libertarianism. Where you got the idea that "they" were hoping Obama would adopt libertarian solutions, I have no idea.
LOL. "Extreme social liberalism" is equated solely to gay marriage. You're an imbecile, Anonymous at 9:24 AM. Glenn Reynolds is also for gay marriage. He's not Jewish, so clearly his "extreme social liberalism" can't be a function of his Jewishness but of his libertarianism. Funny then that in the case of the VC it's their purported Jewishness that you first latch on to. I wonder why?
Most of the VC were for McCain as I recall. And most are conservativish-libertarianish Federal Society types. Ilya and Orin made it quite clear they were voting for McCain; Lindgren and Zywicki were plainly anti-Obama. While Orin Kerr especially is not very conservative, the view that most of the VC are "left wing" is plainly incorrect.
Except for David Post, no one on the VC made naive "Obama will be libertarian" arguments. On the contrary, there was a slew of posts warning that a President Obama will in fact be statist, and therefore anathema to libertarianism (see, e.g., the posts on national service by Lindgren).
Most of you "VC are loathesome leftists" anonyms are clueless really.
joelr: Be careful not to go all Godwin for no reason. While I agree that "anonymous" was at best inellegant and more likely has his own anti-semitic isues, I long ago reached the same basic assumption based upon the fact that many VC contributers frequently post on events, issues and topic I perceive as being of greater interest to the Jewish community. I abhor racism about as much as anyone and underatnd I don't share your (assumed) personal afront, but I generally feel that evoking either the recent event in Germany or the even more heinous past to club a lone voice offering vague and non-violent anti-semetism is a bit of overkill.
p.s. do I know you in the real world? (CSG7)
When Eugene V. invited me to join the Volokh Conspiracy, he said that it would be good to get more non-Jews in the group. (I am an atheist who was brought up as a Protestant.)
My response: "But Eugene, ALL of my friends are either Jews or of Jewish heritage."
Eugene replied, "That just means that you have good taste."
Jim Lindgren
Post a Comment