Ron Paul v. The Prince of Peace

As this cowardly generation slouches toward Gomorrah, we increasingly show ourselves willing to prostrate ourselves before any tyranny that promises to keep us safe. Our only qualifiers on that are “How much will it cost me personally?” As long as somebody else foots the bill in blood or treasure, no problem.

The Dems have, for years, insisted on pushing the butcher’s bill for person autonomy and sexual license off on the very weakest: the unborn. Lately, the Thing That Used to be Conservatism, has embraced the notion that we can likewise have Peace and Safety if we will just agree to the project embracing torture and Grand End to Evil projects abroad. Basically, the idea has been Build the Great Society at the Point of a Gun while making fun of Dem attempts to do the same domestically.

Dems, seizing the opportunity afforded by the grotesque mismanagement of the econony and home and the war abroad, took control a year ago. Result: even more grotesque mismanagement of the economy.

Ah! But the war abroad! Surely, you are not going to suggest that the Prince of Peace, the Winner of the Nobel Prize for Not Being George W. Bush is doing worse than his predecessor?

No. I’ll let Ron Paul do that:

Yes, in a grand synthesis that only degenerate post-modern America can achieve, we now have moved from merely torturing foreigner (as least, usually they are foreigners) to a murdering American citizens in cold blood without trial–because the Executive has voted himself a 007 to do it.

For those of you who still believe in rule of law and not in the raw exercise of unchecked royal power, Zippy has a little reminder of what used to be common sense before so-called “conservatives” started wetting themselves and selling our liberty down the river in the pathetic hunger to feel safe:

There are three classes of persons we must consider in warfare.

First, there are innocents. Innocents are those who are not in any way engaged in any attacking behaviors, where “attacking behaviors”, for the sake of argument at least, include any activity proximately supporting the war. We must never kill innocents deliberately, no matter what consequences flow from not doing so. Accidents do happen, and are expected to happen, on the interstate highway system and in wartime. Proper care must be taken to avoid signate accidents, but in both venues – highway system and wartime – they are generally unavoidable.

Second, there are enemy soldiers. Soldiers fight in uniform under the laws of war or provide supplies, etc to the war effort. It is licit to kill them on the battlefield, when necessary, and yes, the battlefield includes the supply lines. When we capture them we owe them – to the extent of our ability to reasonably provide it – medical care, three hots, a cot, and (always) POW status. Name, rank, and serial number are all we are entitled to from them. If they attempt to escape, they are thereby deliberately making themselves active combatants again: a POW in the process of attempting escape becomes, qua escape attempt in process, an active combatant. As always, killing legitimate soldiers and support personnel is only licit when it is necessary in order to stop an attack. POW’s must be released when hostilities cease.

Third, there are criminals acting outside the laws of war. (Thus the term “war criminal”). Criminals may be killed in the process of committing a crime, if necessary. They may be captured, killed while attempting to escape capture (if necessary), interrogated, put on trial (military or civilian), and even executed if doing so is necessary to protect the common good. Interrogation may (or may not) involve plea bargaining with respect to their criminal status and sentencing.

Complicity of leadership in war crimes makes them war criminals also.

It is not permissible to torture, rape, abuse, or perform other intrinsically immoral acts on criminals.

There is no other kind of person: there is no subhuman “illegal enemy combatant” distinct from a war criminal.

Running around murdering American citizens because the Supreme Maximum Leader strongly feels they may very well be guilty of something or other is not “safety”. It is tyranny.