Lincoln's Surveillance State

An anonymous reader writes "The N.S.A.'s program is indeed alarming — but not, from a historical perspective, unprecedented. And history suggests that we should worry less about the surveillance itself and more about when the war in whose name the surveillance is being conducted will end. In 1862, after President Abraham Lincoln appointed him secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton penned a letter to the president requesting sweeping powers, which would include total control of the telegraph lines. By rerouting those lines through his office, Stanton would keep tabs on vast amounts of communication, journalistic, governmental and personal. On the back of Stanton's letter Lincoln scribbled his approval: 'The Secretary of War has my authority to exercise his discretion in the matter within mentioned.'"

Comments

It was wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was just as wrong then as this is now. Of course, people back then couldn't even dream of having such advanced surveillance technology.

Re:It was wrong.

[gmuslera]

Today is different. Is not just surveillace on a small portion of the people of US. We are talking about basically everyone in US, plus most of the rest of the world population, intruding in places/people that have diplomatic immunity, and hacking/sabotaging foreing companies and institutions, while claiming that hacking are acts of war. But i suppose that i could compare the Everest with a pebble, saying that is just a bit bigger.

Re:It was wrong.

[westlake]

It was just as wrong then as this is now.

It is 1862.

Fort Sumter surrendered in 1861. Washington DC borders on Virgina facing off against the Confederate capital a bare 100 miles away. You are an idiot if you don't secure the only means of communication in the world that moves reliably at speeds greater than a normal walking pace,

Re:It was wrong.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It was just as wrong then as this is now.

It is 1862.

Fort Sumter surrendered in 1861. Washington DC borders on Virgina facing off against the Confederate capital a bare 100 miles away. You are an idiot if you don't secure the only means of communication in the world that moves reliably at speeds greater than a normal walking pace,

That is, of course, the other pernicious implication of any civil war comparisons: from the perspective of the US Government, the civil war actually was most of the emergencies and exigencies that people like to invoke when demanding expanded powers. At no time since the revolutionary war(which actually might have ended fairly quietly, had the rebels lost, with a bunch of executions of notable rebels, followed by pragmatic write-off of the rest and a canada-like trajectory) had things looked nearly so dire. Even the world wars were basically Europe's problem, with us intervening at arm's length as our interests dictated, and the Cold War could have gone hot and really fucked up everybody's day; but unless it actually did, things were mostly quiet.

Anybody who, implicitly or explicitly, asserts anything even close to contemporary threats of Civil War gravity needs a smack with the cluebat.

Re:It was wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to be confusing "secure" with "monitor." Those are not necessarily the same thing.

Re:It was wrong.

[Darinbob]

Even then it was a huge amount of access. Ie, they had the capability of snooping on every single telegraph line. There may not have been that many of them but that meant that it was easier to snoop them all. Probably they had it easier than today's government.. Ie, have a team of 50 soldiers back then and you could monitor nearly every line, but today you have to filter things out because there is far too much activity.

I think a lot of people forgot just how far the Lincoln administration went away from constitutional limits. Then again it was civil war so in hindsight it's easy to forgive a lot of it. Compared to Lincoln though, Nixon only participated in petty shenanigans.

Re:It was wrong.

[dreamchaser]

Lincoln was a despot who trampled the Constitution far more than any modern President has, and the changes he started led to the situation we have today where the Federal Government is all powerful compared to the States.

Was he right or wrong? I really can't say, and it's a question I've struggled with. The fact remains that it's quite politically incorrect to talk about his despotism. Instead everyone seems to revere him.

Re:It was wrong.

[thunderclap]

I am going to neutralize the mod point here because the system seriously screwed up. I marked this as +1 insightful because it is correct both historical and logical. Yet the system decides you are trolling. You are not..

Re:It was wrong.

[lightknight]

Well, we revere all our military leaders...the more blood-thirsty, the higher the reverence. Perhaps it's not the type of reverence one wishes to be known for, but it is a form of reverence.

The ultimate question will be, was allowing the federal government to become stronger, under his watch, a mistake? Was it always an inevitability that the federal government would begin using terror drones at home, and include the heavy use of propaganda as a way of life, or was this, purely, due to Lincoln's influence? The emancipation of the slaves, a good thing, kind of gets erased from Lincoln's legacy if the trade off was the US making prisoners out of its citizens at a later date; because prisoners are slaves, subject to the whims of a hostile government and society to decide ultimately when they will be 'freed' and to what degree that they will be 'free.' The push to establish tighter boundaries when trade itself is failing, and thus, our economy, seems completely contrary to the wellness of the citizenry...and does, with the militarization of the police, seem to incline that we are not so much working to keep people out...but to wall ourselves in...which will, much like the Middle Kingdom's old policies, prove to be detrimental to our nation.

Personally, I think there will be bloodshed in the US soon. We've acted with pride with regards to our allies, and have over-stepped the bounds of good-taste. Our policies seem directed at trying to condense power into fewer and fewer hands, and contrary to statistics, it has not helped in any fashion, the people or the economy. We need not continue, but apparently there is an almost...self-loathing from Americans that demands we continue down the wrong course, until someone does the worst to us, to make it stop.

Re:It was wrong.

[jaymzter]

Be it a grain of sand or a rock, in water both sink

Re:It was wrong.

[thomasw_lrd]

Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?

Peasant 1: Bread.

Peasant 2: Apples.

Peasant 3: Very small rocks.

Re:It was wrong.

[dkleinsc]

At no time since the Revolutionary War ... had things looked nearly so dire.

I can think of a point when things looked nearly so dire: 1814, the British (Canadian mostly) Army invaded, captured Washington D.C., burned the White House and Congress's meeting buildings to the ground, leaving President James Madison on the run in the face of a vastly superior force desperately trying to round up militia units to repel them.

But yes, anyone who doesn't think the Civil War was a serious threat to the US needs to have their head examined. Yes, the USA was in a superior strategic position to the CSA, but the CSA put about 10 times the troops in the field than the USA had ever faced before.

Re:It was wrong.

[ShanghaiBill]

Anybody who, implicitly or explicitly, asserts anything even close to contemporary threats of Civil War gravity needs a smack with the cluebat.

Except that Lincoln could have ended the war at any time by just letting the South go their own way. We have no "easy out" with Al Qaeda. Unlike the Confederacy, they want more than to be left alone.

Re:It was wrong.

[Colonel Korn]

Anybody who, implicitly or explicitly, asserts anything even close to contemporary threats of Civil War gravity needs a smack with the cluebat.

Except that Lincoln could have ended the war at any time by just letting the South go their own way. We have no "easy out" with Al Qaeda. Unlike the Confederacy, they want more than to be left alone.

But there are hardly any of them and they have no money and have never directly caused significant damage to any nation. They're like five hundred times less dangerous than the tobacco industry. We have no "easy out" with a few angry two year olds in Bermuda, either, but that doesn't really matter. Just put a reasonable amount of resources toward fixing the problem, and not through mass killings that just lead to another generation of Al Qaeda, and stop spending hundreds of billions every year to fight a few hicks with a budget ten thousand times smaller than that.

Re:It was wrong.

[timeOday]

It was a terrible cost, maybe even too high. We can never know how history might have turned otherwise. But it is silly to talk about America being founded on the consent of the governed. Between women, native Americans, and slaves, the majority of adults were not even allowed to vote. The Revolutionary period was very much about unlimited freedom for some, at the cost of many others.

Re:It was wrong.

[The Grim Reefer]

But there are hardly any of them and they have no money and have never directly caused significant damage to any nation.

Are you fucking kidding? They've probably cost the US (and other countries as well) more money than any other single entity. The stock market had to be shut down for three days following 9-11. Air traffic was halted and the nation was at a standstill for a week. After everyone finished shitting their pants we got the "Patriot Act", the Iraq war and the TSA. We've lost more freedoms than I could count, the TSA is a huge money sink. Not to mention that 9-11 was the single biggest loss of civilian lives in an attack on American soil in the history of the US.

That being said, I do agree with you. Way too much money has been spent(wasted) in the name of "stopping terrorists". But I'm sure you're aware it has nothing to do with this any longer. It's just an excuse for a massive ongoing power-grab. Even so, they still dealt the US a more significant blow to the civilian population than Germany or Japan ever did on our own soil. And with considerably less resources. Don't ever trivialize that.

Re:It was wrong.

[rtb61]

You miss what the interception of communication was really all about. It was not about war it was all about politics. Just like the fake war on terrorism, it is all about political control, not just within the US but globally and has very little to do with keeping people safe from attacks by backward peasants hiding in caves and primitive villages.

All about keeping the military industrial pig trough flowing and keeping those people who would protest against it silenced, not just the public but also elected representatives.

Not you are not an idiot if you don't 'secure' the lines of communication, what you are is an emerging autocratic fascist, who no longer believes in democracy and the right of people to freely communicate. All you now believe in is, you are right and every else in the world in wrong and not to be trusted and their communications are not a right but only a privilege you allow when it benefits you.

Re:It was wrong.

[colinrichardday]

Except that Lincoln could have ended the war at any time by just letting the South go their own way.

And then what happens if New York secedes. And do the slaves get to go their own way?

Re:It was wrong.

[SuricouRaven]

All those things didn't happen because Al Quida attacked. They happened because people overreacted to the attack.

Compare 9/11 to, for example, the July bombings in London. Look at what the UK government did: Grumbled, cleared up the wreckage that was obstructing roads, and got things back to normal. Within a couple of days the city was running as normal again. A criminal investigation was launched, the surviving conspirators charged, and the issue done with. That's the appropriate response to a terrorist attack: Clean up and get over it.

The death toll from 9/11 was equal to approximately one month of traffic accident fatalities in the US. Even 9/11 just didn't manage to kill enough people to be statistically noticeable. It was the panic that did the real damage - overreaction cost far more in every way than the attack itsself.

Re:It was wrong.

[SuricouRaven]

Lincoln has the good excuse of fighting an actual domestic war that threatened the unity of the country.

All Bush, Obama and modern congresses have to justify their actions are a few rather ineffectual attacks by a terrorist group and some troublesome insurgency campaigns halfway around the world.

Re:It was wrong.

[omfgnosis]

In most US jurisdictions, we don't even put the judges in at all, cowards or otherwise.

Re:It was wrong.

[oobayly]

Ducks!

Re:It was wrong.

[oobayly]

I think it needs to be said that cleaning up a few Tube stations and and exploded bus is a little bit easier than the mess left over after the Twin Towers collapsed (as well as the hole in the Pentagon).

However, you are absolutely correct - the overreaction has been insane (the UK hasn't been as bad, but then we started off with less rights in the first place).

Compare the most recent attacks in the US & UK:
US: Two (clearly sub-par intelligent) men decided to bomb the Boston Marathon - they managed to kill only 3 people because the set the bombs up right where all the medical staff were. Instead of the Government portraying them as a pair of bumbling loners, they cast them as Uber-Terrorists by leveling a WMD charge.

UK: Two men attack Lee Rigby in Woolwich. Their job is then completed for them by some people (who want their 15 minutes of fame) who ensure that the reasons for the attack are broadcast to the world*. The Government charges them with murder, plain and simple.

* Somebody asked "are you telling me nobody should be told why they did it", and my answer is "absolutely, yes". Why do people need to know the reason for the attack, what possible reason could they give that would make you think "yes, running a man over and then beheading him in the street was a rational thing to do?" The attack wouldn't have taken place if the two men knew that they would be arrested and charged with murder without anyone knowing their reasons - as far as I'm concerned, terrorism is a form of attention seeking, and the way to deal with attention seekers is to ignore them.

Re:It was wrong.

[kermidge]

"Even the world wars were basically Europe's problem..."

World War II cannot, I think, be fairly considered a basically European problem. Take a gander once at the parties involved, where they were involved, and the scope of that involvement. Factor in the economic interests in the several geographical areas. I believe it safe to say that WWII was the first truly global war in all aspects. While there were areas of relative quiet - South America, except for arms, ores, and espionage - and several nations claimed neutrality, that in no wise diminishes the scope of that war.

One thing to keep in mind is that at the time the parties to our civil war expected that there would be some sort of resolution, an ending. Ditto for WWII.

For decades, the only presumed end to the Cold War was a hot one. That it ended with such a marvelous whimper is a first in history given the extent of the global entanglements, and keeping always in mind the staggering level of forces arrayed. Even towards the end, with the hopes attending the various nuclear force restrictions and later reductions, for instance, a peaceful end to it was hardly a foregone conclusion. While most nowadays credit Reagan for outspending the Soviets, I suggest it was as much the close-run accidental loosing of the nukes on several occasions that sobered up the generals like nothing else, coupled with the simple fact that we were also bankrupting ourselves - we just were better able to cook the books using credit float.

Even with the huge profits throughout the military-industrial complex, amidst planners' requirements to be able to fight 2 1/2 land wars, the bleakness of most forecast ends to the Cold War (including our own impending bankruptcy) forced the complex's acquiescence to that end. So other outlets were needed - the largest arms selling the world has seen, and, just in the nick of time, Sandbox I and II and the side jaunt into Afghan land.

While our economic woes and structural weaknesses preclude Cold War-level spending, we do now at least have two wars without end: The War on Drugs, which has been a steady source for contracts and votes, and The War on Terror, which is a gold mine for many of the players. And, because the second especially is so serious, the requirements for intel are also serious - and so the latter day passing of all comms through NSA in lieu of Stanton's office.

We have always been at war with Eastasia. For those in power, what's not to like?

Re:It was wrong.

[mattington]

Coconuts!

Re:It was wrong.

[jkflying]

Swallows.

Re:It was wrong.

[jez9999]

Flies.

Re:It was wrong.

[Chris Mattern]

Except that Lincoln could have ended the war at any time by just letting the South go their own way.

Establishing the precedent that any state that wanted to leave the Union could just walk away. As any state with a disagreement could threaten to secede, the eventual complete dissolution of the Union would become inevitable.

Re:It was wrong.

[bill_mcgonigle]

But it is silly to talk about America being founded on the consent of the governed. Between women, native Americans, and slaves,

The Declaration of Independence is clear and is the establishing document. The subsequent forms of government that the States imposed did not live up to its ideals.

Re:It was wrong.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Any comparison of government (or corporate, etc) action today vs. at a time in the past can always be rejected on the grounds that things were different back then."

And that statement could also have been made in the past, but it's different now.

Re:It was wrong.

[squiggleslash]

The South attacked the United States, not vice-versa. And while it's true Lincoln could kinda sorta have surrendered, it would have been at the cost of making a larger war inevitable in the medium term between a desperate, bankrupt, slave-based economy and a comparatively modern industrialized nation.

I don't think any realistic assessment of the civil war, outside of revisionist "States rights! Not about slavery! Lincoln just wanted power! The South were the good guys they just had this itty bitty slave problem that made them look bad!" crap, leads to a positive outcome if the South ends up nominally independent, especially given the impetus for the split in the first place was the refusal of the North to enforce fugitive slave laws.

Re:It was wrong.

[cyberchondriac]

So you're saying the UK made no significant changes immediately after 9-11? I think you're overlooking them, because they were already implemented before the tube attack. By all accounts, the CCTV cameras on every street corner would seem to counter your argument somewhat.
The US definitely overreacted in spending though, and now we're paying for it in spades. Not just the wars - but spending throughout the 2000s on every level, municipal, county, state.. and now we're hard pressed to find the money to keep up with all the programs and hardware they bought, from a personnel and infrastructure point of view.

Re:It was wrong.

[ganjadude]

clearly you werent there

Re:It was wrong.

[SuricouRaven]

It's a matter of scale. The UK didn't launch any wars in response to the attack. The only wars we are busy with right now are providing generous assistance to the US.

Re:It was wrong.

[swalve]

That's what they say their problem is, but I suspect they would be militants no matter what the US does. I mean, it's not like middle eastern terrorism was invented in 1990. In the first case, we wouldn't have been able to set up any military bases in Saudi Arabia if the house of Saud didn't allow it. So they should be pissed at their leaders for permitting it. Secondly, the US withdrew from Saudi Arabia 10 years ago. So why is Al Qaeda still causing trouble?

Because they are troublemakers looking for power, and they are using religion as a tool to ensnare more acolytes.

Re:It was wrong.

[swalve]

Can you imagine the craphole that the CSA would be right now had they achieved secession? Good god.

Re:It was wrong.

[cyberchondriac]

Right- because you were already engaged in the war against Al Qaeda(sp?) and the Taliban, so there was nothing much to escalate to, really. You're separating battles which are part and parcel of the same war.

Re:It was wrong.

[doccus]

Bull Shit (floats)

Re:It was wrong.

[doccus]

"providing generous assistance to the US" would imply the UK is fighting wars (overt and covert) over a quarter of the planet. And what about the war on your own citizens. The US hardly has a monopoly on that either...

Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Anonymous Coward]

With an actual conclusion eventually reached. An ambiguous war on terror doesn't really have any sort of end date, unless we can somehow wipe out terror on Earth.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, in that case there was an actual war

And that made it okay? No, of course not; freedom is more important than security. We shouldn't allow freedoms to be sacrificed just because there's a 'true' war.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[artor3]

In the case of that war, yes, it was okay. It makes sense to temporarily allow the government to read your telegrams in order to permanently secure the freedom of four million slaves.

It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others. The NSA spying, by contrast, seems to be permanent and of negligible benefit.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[SJHiIlman]

Losing a war equals losing your freedom.

Fighting and losing while keeping your principles is far better than being a sniveling coward.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[SJHiIlman]

In the case of that war, yes, it was okay.

No, it wasn't.

It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others.

Don't harm innocent people (in this case, by taking away their freedoms) in order to defeat the bad guys; cowards do that.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Intrepid imaginaut]

It's not hard to wipe out terror. I mean what, did you think people just sat down on a Friday afternoon and said, hey I'm bored, let's blow up a building? Let's strap a vest packed with fertiliser based explosives to our chests and go take a last ride on a bus?

Terrorism is created when people are cornered and feel they have no other option, vastly outgunned and outmanned. Oh there's a great hue and cry that the dishonourable terrorists aren't standing there getting mown down on a field of battle like proper upstanding folk, but they chose to win rather that die. It was the same in Ireland, the same in the Middle East, the same in Vietnam, the same everywhere some farmer puts down his plough and picks up a sword after his last child steps on a mine. If you want to stop terrorism stop going out there fucking with other countries. Simples!

This is not a type of war any advanced country can win. Find another way to live or accept the price. Leave them alone and let them stand or fall on their own merits.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a nit.

For the north, the war wasn't about slavery and the north certainly wasn't fighting to free four million slaves. The north was fighting to prevent the south from leaving. That's all. For the north, the war wasn't some moral crusade to free slaves - it was simply to prevent the south from leaving. (For the south, on the other hand, the notion to leave the union was driven by slavery although nearly everyone who fought in the war was not a slave owner - less than 2% of southern soldiers were part of families that owned slaves). There were a number of northern states that continued to support and allow slavery during and after the civil war until the 14th amendment was passed.

Lincoln essentially weaponized abolitionism. He used abolitionism as a strategic tool to help defeat the south by depriving them of their economic and logistical infrastructure. Painting the Union as moral crusaders freeing the slaves is revisionism at its best, and it's every bit as wrong-headed and dishonest as painting the southern motivation as purely states rights.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Culture20]

And the war was a civil war. The enemy was Us, or related to Us by blood. Not so today.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[artor3]

As you said:

For the south, on the other hand, the notion to leave the union was driven by slavery

That part's right. Now, why did the South feel it was necessary to leave the union to preserve slavery? It was because the North was fighting to end slavery. The North was going to end slavery through peaceful means, and the South tried to secede to avoid that, which is what led to the war.

The simple fact is that, had the North lost, or not fought, millions of people would have been doomed to a life of slavery. It was a war worth fighting, and very different from this War on Terror nonsense we have now.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Jstlook]

Tell that to Truman.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

Dead people lose the capability of holding principles. If you're in a fight to the death and you allow your principles to cause your death, you've forfeited your life, your principles, and any hope of getting either back.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[White Flame]

Granting powers to someone at "his discretion" has nothing to do with limiting those powers to wartime.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[SJHiIlman]

Hah! You're killing me.

People of your mentality are killing something much more important.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[SJHiIlman]

Dead people lose the capability of holding principles.

And? At least they weren't cowards until the very end. People show their true colors in discussions like these; they make it known what they truly care about, and it often isn't freedom.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

With an actual conclusion eventually reached. An ambiguous war on terror doesn't really have any sort of end date, unless we can somehow wipe out terror on Earth.

Let's check with Strategic Air Command... they aren't what they were in their heyday; but they might still be up to the task.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. We (the U.S.) left Afghanistan alone until they were invaded by the Soviet Union. Then we gave them weapons which would help them to get their country back. We they did, we left them alone to sort out the aftermath for themselves.

We left Iraq alone (and even helped them in some ways). Then they invaded Kuwait and we had to kick him out. bin Laden hated us for this. Not because we were interfering, but because *he* wanted to do it (and to take over Iraq). When Saudi Arabia opted for our help instead of bin Laden and his mujahedeen, bin Laden became enraged and became the enemy of the U.S., the Saudis, and pretty much the rest of the world. That began the long string of events leading up to 9/11.

You are correct when you say that terrorism is created when people are cornered and feel they are vastly outgunned and outmanned. But in the modern world there is usually a reason for that. It gets much more complicated than that, but suffice it to say that it would be a mistake to suppose an automatic equivalence .between one outgunned and outmanned person and another.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Yeah, first you need to provide a source for your Friday night firefight comment, because I'm betting you have nothing whatosever to back up your fifth day civil disturbance theory, and second nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. Nothing.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Intrepid imaginaut]

True enough. Nonetheless look up what happened to Iran, or read Smedley Butler's famous speech. The US has been writing cheques it can't cash for a long time now. So have China, Russia, the UK, most European imperial-aspirant powers, and the bill has only just begun to come due; not my desire but the inevitable turn of the world. Even Joe six pack has to reap what he sows, in the end.

They have my sympathy but not my pity.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

It would be foolish to confuse prudence with cowardice.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[SJHiIlman]

Yes, it would be. We must be prudent, or else we'll end up with nonsense such as the TSA and a slow decline of our freedoms. Oh, wait...

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

Actually, I think people of John Wilkes Booth's mentality killed something much more important.

He thought he'd ridded the world of a terrible tyrant. The world didn't agree.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[causality]

Terrorism is created when people are cornered and feel they have no other option, vastly outgunned and outmanned. Oh there's a great hue and cry that the dishonourable terrorists aren't standing there getting mown down on a field of battle like proper upstanding folk, but they chose to win rather that die. It was the same in Ireland, the same in the Middle East, the same in Vietnam, the same everywhere some farmer puts down his plough and picks up a sword after his last child steps on a mine. If you want to stop terrorism stop going out there fucking with other countries. Simples!

Sun Tzu's Art of War, Chapter VII, # 36:

When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.

Some translations I have read word the second sentence like "desperate men will fight very hard".

I believe our leaders (the ones you see on TV who run for office, and the powers behind the throne that actually get those into office) understand these things. They're despicable, sociopathic, without morals or ethics or qualms, and completely dehumanized, but they are not stupid. If you really want to understand "why they hate us", you can start here. A little research will reveal that we've done things like this all over the world, particularly in South America and the Middle East.

That leaders who certainly know the same thing can stand there before the nation and say things like "they hate us for our freedoms" with a straight face is a level of cold-blooded that most people could never imagine.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[causality]

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. We (the U.S.) left Afghanistan alone until they were invaded by the Soviet Union. Then we gave them weapons which would help them to get their country back. We they did, we left them alone to sort out the aftermath for themselves.

Afghanistan is the perfect choice for an indefinite perpetual war. Look at the history. No one, and I mean no one, has ever been able to conquer those people. The Afghans simply will not surrender and it's impossible to annihilate them short of nuclear weapons. The Soviets couldn't do it and the USA couldn't do it. They have lots of experience at wearing down superior opponents.

It's the perfect choice for a controlled war that doesn't touch your own home soil and lasts as long as you need to pass whatever legislation you want. After all, "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia".

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

It would also be foolish to confuse stupid government waste such as the TSA with what we've been talking about.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

Smedley Butler has a famous speech?

It would be a long slog to look at what happened in Iran. So many things have. Even if we just looked at the part from 1979 to present.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[TheGavster]

We're fighting them so we don't have to fight them over here, buying time for our scientists for complete their work on Prozium, which will make terror but a distant memory ...

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[SJHiIlman]

I am bootyass process!
I have my online degree in chemical mathematics again!
Now, you understand! Now, you cower! You had no idea what you were dealing with!
I am a snap dancer! A bootynude! A search nut! I am all of these things!
I have no weakness!

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[causality]

That's a shame because I liked your comments about principles and cowardice. Appreciating the point I was making would be consistent of you.

Methinks you forgot to check the Post As AC box.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[braeldiil]

The Confederacy was never a separate nation, because they lost. They were merely territories in rebellion. Until you win (and convincing the other side to stop might be a win) you're not a separate country. Them's the rules. And in any case, the definition of "civil war" most definitely includes pieces of a former country fighting against each other.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

Many nations have tried to conquer Afghanistan throughout history. The U.S. isn't one of them. They have the same books in Annapolis and aren't completely stupid. The initial phase of the war (taking Kabul) was accomplished, thanks in chief to the Northern Alliance, with fewer than 100 personnel on the ground.

It has the lesser goal of establishing a stable indigenous government which will function within the context of the international community. Unfortunately Pakistan has played a not so helpful role.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[lightknight]

So, let's shut it down. All people for the war on terror will be cut off from the power they so love. And like an uprooted weed, it will wither and die.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[lightknight]

Not quite. They formed their own nation, albeit from the vestiges of an older one, had diplomats, a government, a military, and so on. That typically does make a nation.

Now, whether that nation was recognized by its old host government...who cares? Is Taiwan a separate nation from China? China doesn't think so...and Taiwan tries to avoid angering China with its mannerisms...but they are, administratively, rather separate.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[1s44c]

Fighting and losing while keeping your principles is far better than being a sniveling coward.

What use are your principles if you are dead?

I'd rather fight and win but pick my fights very carefully.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Mashiki]

Yeah, that's not difficult. Now all we do is take the upswing in the number of attacks which happen, and on what day and adjust for time. And you see what?

Right. Please feel free to remain as ignorant as you want.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Mashiki]

Oh and how could I forget these.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[bill_mcgonigle]

The simple fact is that, had the North lost, or not fought, millions of people would have been doomed to a life of slavery.

Complete and utter propaganda, entirely contradicted by the facts. The facts are that slavery was being abolished all over the world before the Civil War as mechanism replaced slaves, and economists have determined that slaves would have been unprofitable by 1890 without a war. Slavery ended in the rest of the world for that reason, not because they had bloody civil wars all over the world. Lincoln himself said that he would keep slavery if it would hold the Union together - his only concern was of keeping the economy of the North going by forcing the South to provide it with raw materials for its factories.

And those million people did die - the old estimates of 600,000 war casualties have been revised up over 900,000 based on recently discovered data.

And that's not counting the additional millions killed in subsequent wars by the all-power central government that arose from the end of the Republic of Republics and the beginning of the Corporate Empire.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's not difficult. Now all we do is take the upswing in the number of attacks which happen, and on what day and adjust for time. And you see what?

So I looked at the document you linked to, it doesn't actually contain any statistical analysis, it does contain a non-comprehensive list of violent events. I picked a few at random and checked the dates, I didn't see any particular distribution centered on friday or saturday. I'm assuming that this citation is the best evidence you've got since it is what you offered up first and frankly it doesn't say what you claim it says.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[KGIII]

That argument is tired and old. It's partially correct though twisted in such a manner that makes it incorrect AS I UNDERSTAND IT. (Note capitalization - it means that's the important bit.) One of the best was a history professor who actually tore into that argument while he and I were enjoying a relaxing afternoon being eaten by bugs and fishing. So it wasn't in a truly academic environment.

Anyhow, it was - very much so - about slavery but to think that slavery is the only reason is to do a disservice to history itself. You're attempting to pin it down to a single cause or seemingly fighting a straw man that claims slavery is the only cause. I'm a history aficionado but did not major in it or even minor in it. I did take lots of electives (which is why I capitalized the above part of my sentence) but this was back while history was still current events. ;) To make a long story short, I'm unable to think of any war in the past few hundred years where you can narrow the reason for it down to a single goal.

Anyhow, slavery was indeed a very important part of the American Civil War. Judging by the way you speak about it, do you call it the War of Northern Aggression? The revisionism is strong and strikes a lot of people as being a good answer - I've seen your argument put forth by people who would normally be seen as quite the history buffs and quite intelligent people.

If you'll accept Wikipedia as a citation...

"The American Civil War (1861–1865) started as a war to prevent the literal segregation of the North and South, but it soon became a fight of the eradication of the institution of slavery."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaves_and_the_American_Civil_War

Slavery was not the only reason but it was one of the reasons and a very important reason (more so as the war turned into something we certainly weren't expecting - we were expecting it to be over very quickly and with very little bloodshed) especially when it was seen how violent it was going to be and how long it was going to last. Like pretty much all wars (I'm still having trouble thinking of a war that was just for a single reason) there are many complex reasons for it. Trying to claim it wasn't for slavery does yourself a disservice and is attempting to revise history.

Oh - wait... Hmm... I think maybe some of Israel's wars could be narrowed down to a very broad single reason of "ensuring state safety." However, I'm pretty sure revenge, power projection, and making political statements could also be reasons but we could wrap those up in "ensuring state safety" and kind of, sort of, get away with it? Can you think of any in recent years?

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

I think SJHillman may have been hacked.. Weird stuff being posted under that account.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[kamapuaa]

All the US has to do is keep all seven billion people in the world happy! I never realized it was so easy!

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Livius]

That leaders who certainly know the same thing can stand there before the nation and say things like "they hate us for our freedoms" with a straight face is a level of cold-blooded that most people could never imagine.

By the greatest of irony, "they hate us for our freedoms" is exactly correct.

The puzzle is how Americans ever imagined freedoms were theirs and no-one else's.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

Or, perhaps, going to the fridge for another beer.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Slaves would have been unprofitable as cotton pickers, but not as textile workers. There's no such thing as an unprofitable slave, almost by definition. South Africa may not have had "slaves" during apartheid, but there sure as heck weren't many whites working those mines, not many blacks sitting in air conditioned offices, and definitely laws which prevented them from mingling.

Also, considering that most whites in the South were dirt poor, it's not like they were keen on opening up the labor market to slaves. Jim Crow is a testament to the fact that very few Southerners--rich or poor--wanted to liberate blacks any which way. They consistently relegated blacks to the worst jobs, period. Didn't matter what the jobs were as long as they were the most undesirable.

The war was about slavery, and everything that revolved around it. You're missing the forest for the trees by thinking it had nothing to do with slavery.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[dkleinsc]

The simple fact is that, had the North lost, or not fought, millions of people would have been doomed to a life of slavery.

Complete and utter propaganda, entirely contradicted by the facts.

Err, what? The seceding states publicly declared that they were fighting to defend slavery. South Carolina goes on at length complaining about the northern states exercising their states rights and basically not enforcing fugitive slave laws. Jefferson Davis and his VP Alexander Stephens were very clear that slavery was the most important part of the Confederacy. Slaves in 1860 were the largest form of wealth in the US. And slave-based agriculture was extremely profitable.

Slavery ended in the rest of the world for that reason, not because they had bloody civil wars all over the world.

Nonsense. Slavery ended in the rest of the world for 4 major reasons:
1. Many religious groups had declared slavery to be morally evil. Right or wrong, that was a big influence.
2. Wage earners and their employers didn't want to have to compete with slaves and their slaveholders. Slaves have always been cheaper than wages.
3. Slaves revolted and/or escaped. Sometimes they won (e.g. Haiti), but even if they didn't win they raised the cost of holding slaves.
4. Governments who's ideology promoted equality (which the US kinda did, but Revolutionary France is a better example) banned slavery in order to be consistent.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[arth1]

Actually, I think people of John Wilkes Booth's mentality killed something much more important.

He thought he'd ridded the world of a terrible tyrant. The world didn't agree.

Or they did not agree that the ends justifies the means, and abhorred the murder whether they thought Mr. Lincoln was a bad apple or not.

This government, which started in 2001, seems to hold the belief that the end justifies the means. Not just the end, but the journey, it appears. That's what scares me.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[tibman]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. If there is war on US soil you would find many things suspended. The big one i can think of is searching without a warrant. If there are enemy soldiers (or rebels, or insurgents, or anything) seeking refuge in private buildings. The buildings will be surrounded and searched methodically. Any contraband would be removed and enemy captured (or shot if they are armed and do not immediately surrender). Contraband is usually military grade stuff. I should point out that military grade isn't AR-15s/AK47s. I mean manufactured explosives, armor defeating devices or ammunition, and overly large stockpiles of food and ammo (think of the quantity needed to siege something).

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[symbolic]

Unfortunately it has become a bit more complex than that because the definition of terrorism keeps changing. For example, in Maury County, Tennessee, Sherwin Smith, a deputy director for the state's Department of Environment and Conservation told a group of residents that complaints about water quality that department deemed unsubstantiated, could be considered an act of terrorism. Protesting something like the XL Pipeline? Terrorism.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Pseudonym Authority]

No one cares. No one ever cared. It is the `Civil War', not the `War of Northern Aggression', and it will remain so forever. The North won. Get over it.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[phantomfive]

what, did you think people just sat down on a Friday afternoon and said, hey I'm bored, let's blow up a building? Let's strap a vest packed with fertiliser based explosives to our chests and go take a last ride on a bus?

It looks like that's basically what happened with the Boston Marathon bombing.

Also, do you think Osama Bin Ladin really felt like he had no other options? He was richer than you'll ever be. I think you need to rework your theory of terrorism, because it's kind of shaky when it confronts reality.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[MightyMartian]

If slavery was going to end in the South, why were the Southern states so keen to make sure a large ratio of future states bring formed out of the Western expansion would b slave states?

The slave states didn't want just accommodation, they wanted to expand and further entrench slavery.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[fustakrakich]

I couldn't say that the issue was slavery per se as much as it was about plain old property rights. Seems to me that most southerners would have see abolition as the same as taking their mule.

However, if you look at the incarceration statistics and try to tell me slavery has been abolished in the U.S., I will laugh... It has simply been shifted

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[fustakrakich]

Terrorism is created when people are cornered and feel they have no other option, vastly outgunned and outmanned.

Save us the sentimental drivel please. Most terrorists are paid mercenaries, even the suicidal ones. The rest are just plain crazy. Terrorism is a business. Follow the mon-nay.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[fustakrakich]

...the definition of terrorism keeps changing.

No it doesn't. Terrorism has always been defined by the target. For instance in Syria, the 'rebels' are called El Qaeda fighters, not terrorists, like they are called in Mali.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[shutdown -p now]

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. We (the U.S.) left Afghanistan alone until they were invaded by the Soviet Union.

Funny how it's all a matter of perspective. If you ask the Soviets, they sent troops to Afghanistan on request of its legitimate government (which, I must add, UN continued to recognize as such right until it was physically eliminated by Taliban) to support the Afghan army in their "police action" against Islamist insurgents backed by Pakistan and USA.

Also, if Americans cared about the good guys getting their country back, you would have supported a moderate opposition leader like Ahmad Shah Massoud. Instead, most of US military aid to Afghanistan went to Islamist war criminals like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Intrepid imaginaut]

It looks like that's basically what happened with the Boston Marathon bombing.

I know it's fashionable in some quarters to call jaywalking 'terrorism' but there is a difference between a terrorist and say a school shooter.

Also, do you think Osama Bin Ladin really felt like he had no other options?

Yes because Osama Bin Laden personally planned and executed all of his attacks himself, single handedly, with no help from anyone, since he was the President of Terrorism.

*rubs forehead wearily*

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[bill_mcgonigle]

Err, what? The seceding states publicly declared [utk.edu] that they were fighting to defend slavery

Yes, but that's a separate issue than whether slavery would have persisted in the South.

To put it another way: do you think that without the attack by the Union against the Confederacy that there would be a slavery-based agricultural economy in the South today? If not, why not and when would it have ended? If so, why would it have persisted when the rest of the world switched to mechanization?

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[causality]

That leaders who certainly know the same thing can stand there before the nation and say things like "they hate us for our freedoms" with a straight face is a level of cold-blooded that most people could never imagine.

By the greatest of irony, "they hate us for our freedoms" is exactly correct.

The puzzle is how Americans ever imagined freedoms were theirs and no-one else's.

Most Americans simply aren't informed about any of this. They'd be horrified to know what has been committed in the name of the USA.

The real puzzle is why football and American Idol is so much more important to them.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[causality]

No one cares. No one ever cared. It is the `Civil War', not the `War of Northern Aggression', and it will remain so forever. The North won. Get over it.

When writing that, did you ever stop and think it was odd that I never used the term "Northern Aggression?" I'm certianly capable of typing it out had I intended to use it.

This is like people referring to the republic of the USA as a "democracy" when it was specifically designed not to be a democracy. It's inaccurate. It's wrong. It perpetuates ignorance to continue calling it that.

Your emotional reaction about which side you think I'm on has nothing to do with it and indicates you need to relax and perhaps grow up.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[causality]

P.S. "The War Between the States" is the more neutral term.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[c0lo]

All the US has to do is keep all seven billion people in the world happy! I never realized it was so easy!

Not making them unhappy would be start. It's not like happiness is a zero-sum game.

Re: Except, in that case there was an actual war

[neanderslob]

Agreed. When it comes to winning an acute war, I'm open to compromising on civil liberties, as is written in our constitution. The argument here is that the NSA leak seems more the culmination of paranoia and low personal standards.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[phantomfive]

What I'm saying is that your view of terrorism is as simplistic as those who compare terrorism to jaywalking. And worse, any time something comes up that doesn't fit your worldview, you find a way to explain it away.

Even worse,you don't seem to be looking for ways to attack/verify your own ideas, you just accept them as true.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[csumpi]

> cowards do that

But YOU voted for the coward. If not this one, then the previous one. So what does that make YOU? A farmer?

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[tibman]

Then in this hypothetical war you would have died. Either when your home was occupied by enemy (and you didn't immediately cave) or when your own troops came to search it because a citizen told them the enemy was near there (and you shot at your own people). War is not an environment where everyone can have their normal freedoms. If we tried, we would lose spectacularly. However that doesn't mean there isn't courtesy. Soldiers aren't going to burst into your home or anything. They knock and ask if you could please wait outside for a few minutes while they search. Then you get to shoot the shit with them and find out how the fighting is going : ) Maybe offer them some drinks? Or even ask if they have time to help you tow your truck down to the shop.

Freedom comes AFTER the fighting, not during. You fight to BE free.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

We did support Massoud. Do you think it's coincidence that Al Queda assassinated him days before 9/11?

The support we gave against the Soviets was funneled through Pakistan's ISI. It is they who gave it to rubes like Hekmatyar. We learned that lesson the hard way. That's why we coordinated with Massoud's Northern Alliance and people like Abdul Haq, who may still be alive if he had trusted us more.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Pseudonym Authority]

Okay, I'm sorry.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[shutdown -p now]

We did support Massoud. Do you think it's coincidence that Al Queda assassinated him days before 9/11?

You supported him much later against Taliban, but not back when he was fighting against Soviets.

The support we gave against the Soviets was funneled through Pakistan's ISI.

And why would you do that? It still doesn't make any sense if the goal is to "support the good guys", especially since Pakistan was already in the Islamist decline by then (Hudood Ordinance etc). And it's not like CIA didn't have people on the ground, or its own channels. But you decided to use ISI because it was easier, and because you didn't care about who gets to run Afghanistan afterwards. The only thing that mattered was finding someone willing and able to bloody the Soviets.

By the way, while we're at it, let's not forget that US was in love with Zia-ul-Haq and his coup - I take it he was a "good guy" also?

If you look at US foreign policy from the perspective of supporting the "good guys", then it's a mix of schizophrenic and naive to the point of being dumb. But it makes perfect sense from the "he's a bastard, but he is our bastard" perspective.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[causality]

Okay, I'm sorry.

What you just did takes a real man or a real woman to do.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

We made the decision to support 'Afghans' against 'Soviets'. We were successful in this. What we failed to do was to think beyond that. Thinking that would have been enough. But even that would've limited the effect to Afghanistan's internal problems - which we thought would be their own. And in fact, that pretty much played out. It took Saddam Hussein to set into motion the chain of events that would create al Queda. We didn't see that coming (and nor did anyone else)

We're not omniscient or omnipotent. We do make mistakes. But again, these things aren't so simple. Take Syria for example. A secular dictator allied with Iran's non-secular government vs. a hodge podge of democratic secularists and authoritarian Islamists. Where do we fall? A similar, but not identical situation is developing in Egypt.

Take one side, or the other. I don't care. The discussion can be fruitful. But when people approach the discussion with a preconceived narrative formulated through cherry-picked events, it doesn't really add to the discussion. It just shuts much of it off.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Motard]

Seeing as how you are both an AC, and seriously deluded, I respectfully decline your invitation to engage you on an intellectual basis due to your lack of standing.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[greg1104]

I'm reminded of the old joke about Clinton wishing for peace in the middle east.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not trying to take sides. I was merely disputing your initial assertion that US support of Afghan rebels was motivated by some kind of charity (I apologize if that was not what you meant; that's how it read to me), and not just a desire to get the primary geopolitical opponent mired in a costly and unpopular war a la Vietnam.

I would also dispute the assertion that Saddam was the one who set off the chain of events that led to al-Qaeda. The ideology of political Salafism itself dates back to Qutb, and its growth in popularity was largely triggered by ISI support of radical groups among Afghan rebels during that war (al-Qaeda was founded there in late 1980s). The involvement of Arab states in the region with US against Saddam pushed things forward somewhat, but the course was set before that.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm ashamed that so many people here, of all places, possess such mindsets. Here, where people complain about the TSA. Here, where people claim that freedom is more important than security.

To me, you people are at fault for all of the losses of our freedoms as of late. It is my opinion that the TSA and its ilk thrive on your nonsensical mentality and grow larger and larger because of it. These comments are the sort I agree with, and as such, I'd love it if more people stopped trying to defend blatant violations of people's civil liberties, war or no war.

Freedom comes AFTER the fighting, not during. You fight to BE free.

That might be true if there were no constitution or notions of freedom, but that is simply not the case. This sounds like the sort of tripe that politicians spew to take infringe upon our liberties; actually, that's exactly what it is!

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[cheekyjohnson]

What if he did not vote for the cowards of which you speak?

Re: Except, in that case there was an actual war

[cheekyjohnson]

When it comes to winning an acute war, I'm open to compromising on civil liberties

Such a shame.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[dkleinsc]

do you think that without the attack by the Union against the Confederacy that there would be a slavery-based agricultural economy in the South today?

1. The first attack of the war was by the Confederacy, on Jan 9, 1861, when they fired on a US Navy ship that was attempting to peaceably bring food to Fort Sumter.
2. No, I think there's be a slavery-based economy that was mostly industry and services, since slaves never were limited solely to agricultural labor. Don't think "slaves picking cotten" (although there'd still be some of that), think "slaves making Coca-Cola".

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[jwilso91]

Lincoln's power grabs were not limited to telegraph surveillance.

Very early in the war - only a month after Fort Sumter - Lincoln effectively suspended the writ of habeas corpus. A Maryland legislator, John Merryman, was taken from his home (asleep at 2am, actually) without warrant and held in military custody, charged with no crime. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court issued a ruling that Lincoln had overstepped his authority; the President simply ignored this, supporting his position in political speeches instead.

Lincoln was very much a political animal, taking power when it suited his needs and when he could get away with it. Contrast with his behavior in the Trent affair, in which Confederate diplomats were seized from a British ship in international waters. Lincoln only backed down when the British openly began war preparations and promised to break off diplomatic relations.

I have my doubts that, had he survived to continue his last term, Lincoln would have been eager to give up the sweeping powers he'd grabbed during the war. Even Andrew Johnson's impeachment was a Congressional backlash against his continuance of Lincoln's habit of acting without regard to the Legislative or Judicial branches. (It was precipitated by his dismissal of Stanton, yes, but the broader issue infuriating Congress was his stubborn pursuit of his own ideas on Reconstruction - a mule-headedness not in the least ameliorated by a spirit of compromise or attractive personality. During the 1866 presidential campaign he compared himself [favorably] to Jesus Christ in stump speeches.)

An interesting footnote appears in the writings of Lincoln's bodyguard and U.S. Marshal Ward Hill Lamon. It claims that the President issued a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney after his ruling in the Merryman case. (It's unclear why, if it existed, it was never served.) This accords with the fears expressed by Taney in his own unpublished memoirs, but is generally discredited by historians today. It's amusing, in a dark way, to consider the long-term repercussions to the Republic of arresting and, most probably, holding without charge a Supreme Court justice who had the audacity to disagree with the president.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[jwilso91]

The only siege-sized stockpiles of ammo (1.6 billion rounds, purchased for reasons unexplained - "cheaper in bulk" does not cut it) held in the continental U.S. outside military jurisdiction belong to the Department of Homeland Security.

More broadly, the issue is not the suspension of citizens' rights in time of war on U.S. soil. It's the unilateral action to do so by the Chief Executive.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[bill_mcgonigle]

By 'they' you mean the student at the Citadel?

But why do you think the Southern US would be the only place in the world with legalized slavery today?

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[jwilso91]

...Judging by the way you speak about it, do you call it the War of Northern Aggression?

Yes. My family's church in rural Tennessee was burned as a "military target" by Union regular troops, as was the one-room school. Their livestock and stored food were taken without compensation during a hard winter, their fences destroyed, their household belongings looted, soldiers quartered on their property. Neighbors were imprisoned and released only on payment of bribes to the local Federal Provost Marshal. All this to families that owned no slaves, but were unfortunate enough to live on the wrong side of the Ohio River.

Though they had largely resisted joining either army up to that point, they subsequently joined the Confederate side with alacrity; not because of slavery, but because their home had been brutally invaded.

Yes, war is hell, as Sherman so famously remarked. Particularly to civilians on the losing side.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[GargamelSpaceman]

Naw, there'll always be someone who feels cornered etc. You can't let them push you around.

Terrorism ( and civil disobedience, a close cousin ) operate by goading a larger power into acting in a way that angers a populace who then feels sympathetic to your cause. It only works however if your larger power tempers the use of that power. Do you think Genghis Kahn had problems with terrorists? Do they have terrorists in the DPRK? They'll kill/imprison you, your family and anyone suspected of being the least bit terroristy and their families. I can't think of any terrorism at all in the ancient world. Everyone knew it would just result in genocide, and nobody with power felt particularly bad about that.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Intrepid imaginaut]

They mightn't have called it terrorism, but yeah asymmetric warfare, civil insurrection, insurgency, sabotage, political assassinations and all that stuff have been around since the beginnging: http://www.historynet.com/terrorism-in-the-ancient-roman-world.htm Whether the actions of those ancient states made them more or less secure than modern states is a matter for some debate. After all, they are now extinct.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[tibman]

Yikes man, i never said anything that contradicted what you are supporting. I'm talking about War on US soil. You are talking about Peace. It's probably just that you've never had a feel for what a war would be like. No one will follow traffic laws. The TSA probably wouldn't even exist as you know it. Crime will be insane because so many people will be unemployed or stranded away from their homes (imagine all civilian flights being grounded for months). ATMs will run dry and stores will have problems stocking shelves. It would be crazy but most people would just be trying to survive. Petty crimes will be ignored, who has the time and capacity to deal with that? That's not tripe, that's real life. Do you think the US Army would ask a judge for a Search Warrant for every building in a town because a Scout followed an enemy company there? Or do you think the US Army would ask your permission to drop a 500lb bomb on your garage because a tank was hiding in there? That garage will be gone (and everything within a dozen meters of it).

Did you know that the US Military swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution first and before the President or any other position/person?

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[cheekyjohnson]

Yikes man, i never said anything that contradicted what you are supporting. I'm talking about War on US soil.

In that case, you did mention something that contradicts what I was saying. When I claim that I feel that security is less important than individual liberties, that is what I truly mean.

Again, this mentality leads to garbage such as the TSA. Guess who gets to decide when the danger is great enough? The government.

It's probably just that you've never had a feel for what a war would be like.

Whether or not that is true, it is irrelevant to whether or not my argument is wrong.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[KGIII]

We could easily find agreement there.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[KGIII]

I'm a half black man. I don't have much/any sympathy for you. It seems that even in picking sides to fight for they made a wrong choice.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[kaatochacha]

So the winning side is made up of "cowards", and the losing side is dead.
Do you think, twenty years later, people look back and say "DAMN! I wish I hadn't been a coward and was dead like those guys!".
Nope. They go on living. And the dead stay dead, not caring a bit about their lack of "cowardice". Because they're dead. And their families are dead.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[tibman]

If you'd rather have the Country capitulate because you buried victory in red-tape, that's certainly okay to think. Emergency powers exist for a very good reason. The TSA is not an emergency power. It is the kind of loss of liberty brought about during peace time because of fear. Please direct your attention there. The government is large. The mailman/lady is just as much "the government" as the president. They are not all trying to spy on you, or violate your privacy, or cause you problems. Work with the system. It is your system. If you don't like parts of it then go to a rally, write a letter, call your Senator's office, or whatever you feel comfortable with.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[cheekyjohnson]

If you'd rather have the Country capitulate because you buried victory in red-tape

That's a rather unlikely scenario to begin with, even when speaking of the civil war.

Emergency powers exist for a very good reason.

I disagree.

The TSA is not an emergency power.

Maybe not, but it is, however, the result of that sort of thinking.

Please direct your attention there.

No, because I know that once you give power to the government, they will abuse it again and again; Lincoln was no different.

They are not all trying to spy on you, or violate your privacy, or cause you problems.

Those with power will abuse it. It is foolish, in my opinion, to trust them with powers that could easily be used to violate people's fundamental rights.

The government is not composed of perfect beings.

Work with the system. It is your system. If you don't like parts of it then go to a rally, write a letter, call your Senator's office, or whatever you feel comfortable with.

I fail to see what this has to do with the issue at hand.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[tibman]

I get the feeling that you just don't like our (making an assumption here) government. That's cool man, you can do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's freedoms. The government is filled with all kinds of people, good and bad. There are checks and balances to keep shit from going too crazy. But as Americans we are also responsible for raising our voices so that the people that we elected know which direction to go. If those elected officials are marching to their own beat then fuck them and let's all vote for someone else.

Emergency powers are very important, imo. I understand what you are saying. That there is a kind of slippery slope there. But i think you can agree that Emergency denotes a temporary situation. Changes to our society that are permanent fall far outside emergency powers. Like the TSA. That is just a huge waste of time and money. I'm probably a bit biased though because i always get the *S* on the plane ticket : /

Honestly i feel that most of the problems we have are with private companies manipulating our officials. When SOPA went off it was fun to watch everyone scramble. Just as they are right now over PRISM. I've signed a couple of the petitions on whitehouse.gov. Check it out, there's a ton of good petitions there (and some crazy crazy ones too). I'm pretty excited to see the answer to this gem: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD : )

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[cheekyjohnson]

I get the feeling that you just don't like our (making an assumption here) government.

Just ours? I distrust governments (not just ours) by default, and believe it is absolutely foolish to do otherwise.

The government is filled with all kinds of people, good and bad.

Which is why I don't believe they should be trusted. Even 'good' intentions can (and have, both now and in the past) result in abuse.

But as Americans we are also responsible for raising our voices so that the people that we elected know which direction to go.

As long as the direction most people want the government to go doesn't result in the sacrifices of individual liberties, fine.

There are checks and balances to keep shit from going too crazy.

Checks and balances are meaningless when you allow the government to suspend people's rights. Lincoln ignored the courts on a number of occasions and the government of his time abused its power again and again for reasons similar to the reasons the government claims it's violating our rights now.

But i think you can agree that Emergency denotes a temporary situation.

Even if it is temporary (and when you let the government decide, which you would have to, that isn't even certain), it is, to me, still just as awful.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[cheekyjohnson]

Do you think, twenty years later, people look back and say "DAMN! I wish I hadn't been a coward and was dead like those guys!".

So lots of people are cowards; what else is new? That's why we have the TSA, the Patriot Act, and a host of other nonsense that infringes upon our civil liberties. Guess what mindset we have to thank for that?

The America I believed in never existed

[kheldan]

Do I really need to say anything more?

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[amiga3D]

Kind of like when you found out there wasn't really a Santa Claus?

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[hedwards]

That's why I'm a progressive. The America that the conservatives want never existed. But, the America that the progressives want at least is theoretically possible to some degree.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[AuMatar]

If we're realistic, we'll never get there either. But we can push as far as we can in that direction, rest and recover, then push again. That's the history of the progressive movement- massive wins for a few years/a decade until society has had enough change, then a period where society pushes back. Happened in the 1910s, happened in the 1930s, happened in the 1960s. We're in the push phase now.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[phantomfive]

Which America, exactly, did you believe in?

The America I believe in matches close to Winston Churchill's description, "Americans always do the right thing, after all other possibilities are exhausted."

It was an America built of immigrants who wanted to stick it to the man, or the king; but thought carefully about what a free government should look like.

It is an America that says, "all men are created equal," but compromised and enshrined slavery in the constitution.

It is an America founded by cowards and courage, flawed people full of weaknesses, who, despite their weaknesses, managed to accomplish something great.

It is an America populated by those of different opinions, but joined in a belief that we can all live together in peace and freedom, and who try to get better if we can.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[93 Escort Wagon]

Values shouldn't be chosen based on a pragmatic look at what's realistically possible - they should be derived from a conviction regarding what is right and just.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[dmbasso]

The cultures of a lot of countries support the brainwashing of children with blind patriotism, just as religion does with faith. To believe in a cause without good reason (or even fake reasons) makes it much more prone to succeed (as in maintaining itself, or growing). The problem is people that are trained to behave this way are susceptible to being mislead (how many Americans died because of Bush's lies about WMDs on Iraq? how many kids could have been saved from being molested if the Catholic church didn't protect the priests that were known to be sexual abusers?)

Slowly, people are starting to see the benefits of being skeptical, and of raising children capable of thinking by themselves. But unfortunately not (by far) nearly as close as needed to make a significant difference on society.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[jbmartin6]

Huh? Since "theoretically possible" doesn't mean desirable, surely this isn't the reason.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[russotto]

That's why I'm a progressive. The America that the conservatives want never existed. But, the America that the progressives want at least is theoretically possible to some degree.

Yeah, but we already HAD the Soviet Union, and it was worse. Why would you ever want it?

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[artor3]

What if I think it's right and just to build the best society that's realistically possible?

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[Tablizer]

Next you'll tell us the Brady Bunch is fake.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[dmbasso]

The America I believe in matches close to Winston Churchill's description, "Americans always do the right thing, after all other possibilities are exhausted."

1. go to youtube
2. search for any long presentation on politics by Noam Chomsky
3. disregard any of his personal opinions, just listen to his history lecture
4. come tell me with a straight face that "Americans always do the right thing, after all other possibilities are exhausted."

Alternatively, for a quicker argument, replace 1 - 3 by "1. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Obama".

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[girlintraining]

Do I really need to say anything more?

Yes. To say it's "not without precident" is just wrong. It's a stupid thing to say, and you should feel bad for saying it.We're in the information age, not some pre-industrial, largely agricultural-based society. It'd be like saying "Ghenghis Khan once gave an order to intercept carrier pidgeons of his enemies, so it's not without precident." And in terms of the amount of difference between the two societies... pre-industrial America was closer to Ghenghis Khan's world than ours is today.

And what's this crap about "the america you believed in", anyway? You think because a few government agencies decide to abuse their power the entire country is hopelessly broken and we should just give up and say the american dream is dead? What kind of bullshit self-defeatist attitude is that?

Our founding fathers said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, which is a far different attitude than "Hey, I can't get the bottle of ketchup open, I guess I'll just have to starve now." Please! If the america you "believe in" is to exist, it's going to take more than just wishing really hard.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Really. And because Lincoln did this, his agents were able to intercept that giant mechanical spider. God help us if that fell into the South's hands.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[phantomfive]

If you look for bad, you will find it.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[causality]

That's why I'm a progressive. The America that the conservatives want never existed. But, the America that the progressives want at least is theoretically possible to some degree.

Yeah, but we already HAD the Soviet Union, and it was worse. Why would you ever want it?

Because they've been sold this crazy idea that by destroying the middle class, you will somehow elevate the poor. The problem is, the middle class is the backbone of the economy. Without a functioning economy, people get desperate and rule of law is the first thing you lose. Hypothetically speaking, you just might find out that the "1%" you thought you were sticking it to are the ones with supplies, guns, guards, and contingency plans.

If you really want to stick it to the 1%, stop believing the horse-shit lies and understand that no one with power is ever to be trusted, and that anyone who can afford to launch a multi-million dollar media campaign is doing it because they know what you want to hear and they benefit by having you believe it.

I know everyone wants to believe that their favorite guy is the sole exception and it's all the others who are corrupt liars. That's called divide-and-conquer.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[dryeo]

Was the Soviet Union worse then Czarist Russia? From what I know it was mostly an improvement for the average person and if Stalin hadn't entered the equation the police state stuff would have been close to how things were under the Czars. Shit the Soviets went from a feudal based agricultural system to a space capable industrial system in less then 50 years with a war that killed 10s of millions of Russians in that period of time as well.
Just as the Soviet Union reflected what came before, a progressive America would reflect the previous America. The danger for any system is a Stalin getting into power. It has happened with left and right leaning movements.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[lightknight]

And what, pray tell, do the progressives want to mold their America as? Have we not increasingly embraced progressive policies, as well as conservative ones, to our detriment?

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[Livius]

They just keep coming up with more possibilities to try first. They even seem to be getting better at postponing doing the right thing.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[dkleinsc]

Wow, talk about straw men.

Progressives in the US tend to push for policies that have existed for decades in other industrialized democracies, like Finland, France, the UK, and Canada. You're casually equating a 45% tax rate on top earners to sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths in Siberia. That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[cold fjord]

Define "best society." American and Europe have generally held different visions.

Europe has tended to believe it is more important to be equal.

American has tended to believe it is more to be free.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[arth1]

Besides, I thought the progressive dream involved giving the government more power in order to "fix" things? Good idea, I'm sure you can trust them...

You can trust them as much as you can trust CEOs and board members. I.e. not a lot.
The main difference is that while a politician may not have your best interest in mind, you know that the corporatist only cares about the welfare of his stocks and bonuses.

So the game is whether you support the guy who may stab you in the back, or the guy who will stab you and then charge you for it.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[cold fjord]

Yes, the Soviet Union was worse than Czarist Russia. Some of the old revolutionaries that had been imprisoned under the Czar, and who inevitably ran afoul of the Bolsheviks said that the Czar's secret police beat them with wooden sticks, but the Bolsheviks, the communists, beat them with bars of Iron. Stalin was a criminal for all time, but Lenin was blood thirsty as well.

This is eye opening.
The Soviet Story (2008)

Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?

The Black Book of Communism
The Black Book of Communism - (book review) by Daniel J. Mahoney

The very nature of the communist system predisposes it toward bloody totalitarianism.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[DigiShaman]

Narcism, hubris, decadence, greed, violence, corruption. That's what "The Left" has been pushing for. Absolute moral depravity so as to not be personally judged or persecuted. Well, the left is winning for now. It's all cyclical. Eventually it all come crashing down and thus a cultural reboot will occur. Sooner or later.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[cold fjord]

There is your mistake - giving credence to Chomsky.

The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky - September 26, 2001

WITHOUT QUESTION, the most devious, the most dishonest and -- in this hour of his nation’s grave crisis – the most treacherous intellect in America belongs to MIT professor Noam Chomsky. On the 150 campuses that have mounted "teach-ins" and rallies against America’s right to defend herself; on the streets of Genoa and Seattle where "anti-globalist" anarchists have attacked the symbols of markets and world trade; among the demonstrators at Vieques who wish to deny our military its training grounds; and wherever young people manifest an otherwise incomprehensible rage against their country, the inspirer of their loathing and the instructor of their hate is most likely this man.

There are many who ask how it is possible that our most privileged and educated youth should come to despise their own nation – a free, open, democratic society – and to do so with such ferocious passion. They ask how it is possible for American youth to even consider lending comfort and aid to the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins (and the Communists before them). A full answer would involve a search of the deep structures of the human psyche, and its irrepressible longings for a redemptive illusion. But the short answer is to be found in the speeches and writings of an embittered academic and his intellectual supporters.

For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In Chomsky’s demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe that befell them. -- more

Refuting Chomsky

In Chomsky’s telling, the bipolar world of the Cold War is viewed as though there were only one pole. In the real world, the Cold War was about America’s effort to organize a democratic coalition against an expansionist empire that conquered and enslaved more than a billion people. It ended when the empire gave up and the walls that kept its subjects locked in came tumbling down. In Chomsky’s world, the Soviet empire hardly exists, not a single American action is seen as a response to a Soviet initiative, and the Cold War is “analyzed” as though it had only one side.

This is like writing a history of the Second World War without mentioning Hitler or noticing that the actions of the Axis powers influenced its events. But in Chomsky’s malevolent hands, matters get even worse. If one were to follow the Chomsky method, for example, one would list every problematic act committed by any part or element in the vast coalition attempting to stop Hitler, and would attribute them all to a calculating policy of the United States. One would then provide a report card of these “crimes” as the historical record itself. The list of crimes — the worst acts of which the Allies could be accused and the most dishonorable motives they may be said to have acted upon — would then become the database from which America’s portrait would be drawn. The result inevitably would be the Great Satan of Chomsky’s deranged fantasy life. ...more

The Soviet Story (2008)

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[AuMatar]

Greed? That seems to be the domain of the right, which wants to help the rich get richer. Corruption seems to be pretty evenly split between the two sides. Violence- when's the last time you've seen a left wing militia, or a left wing bomber? Non-violence has been a tenet of the American left since the 1950s. Hubris also seems to be pretty well evenly split, its pretty much a job requirement- if you think that you're qualified to lead the country you have hubris by definition.

I'm not worried about a cultural reboot. Undoubtedly we'll take a few steps back, but the move to an fair and equal society will always win in the long term. The truth is the liberals of the 60s are the moderates of today- not because they changed their opinions, but because all of their opinions became mainstream. The same thing If you look at the progressives of the 1910s and 1920s- the things they fought for are so ingrained in our society that nobody think twice about them. The same thing will happen now. Your grandchildren will look at you like we look at racist old women in nursing homes- an anachronism who's time is past.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[fustakrakich]

American has tended to believe it is more to be free.

By locking people up, in record numbers (slavery v2.0)... Eh, kinda makes sense, it does teach the value of freedom to people who don't have it.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[fustakrakich]

Please tell us in which direction the capitalist system is naturally predisposed.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[dmbasso]

Combining

If you look for bad, you will find it.

with

The America I believe in matches close to Winston Churchill's description, "Americans always do the right thing, after all other possibilities are exhausted."

gives "The America I believe in always do the right thing, because I don't look for the bad."

Which is a perfect example for the patriotic brainwashing I mentioned in my post below.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[phantomfive]

You're clearly looking for the bad in my post. I think that counts as a fail.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[dmbasso]

There is your mistake - giving credence to Chomsky.

There is your mistake - giving credence to your mainstream media.

And that's the reason I explicitly said "ignore his opinions". You may disagree with his analysis of what happened, but you can't ignore all the facts that he mentions.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[kheldan]

Narcism, hubris, decadence, greed, violence, corruption. That's what "The Left" has been pushing for.

And the "right" just wants what's fair for everyone? Please, don't be quite so naive as all that. Remember the Puritans? They were some of the most hypocritical people in history. I'd rather have drug dealers and whores on every street corner than a world full of complete fakes.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[kheldan]

What if I think it's right and just to build the best society that's realistically possible?

Because, like so many people down through the millennia, you're forgetting one immutable truth: The best way to ruin a good thing is to get a large group of PEOPLE involved in it. When you have ~300,000,000 people in a country, who gets to decide what is the "best society"? You? What gives you the right to decide that for anyone other than yourself? You want an idylic world? Magically get rid of 90% of the people in it currently, and I guarantee things will calm right down. Since near-genocide isn't an option, I suggest you stop dreaming vague, impossible dreams, and learn to work with and fix the system we have in place already, it's not entirely too late to do that.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[Dabido]

But ... but ... Santa's real. I see him every Xmas at the shopping centres!!!!

Re:but but but

[amiga3D]

I think you've confused Nixon with Lincoln.

Re:Lincoln's twisted silver penmanship

[phantomfive]

Let us not get ourselves fooled by Lincoln's twisted silver penmanship, let us ask ourselves what would Benjamin Franklin would have written?

The great thing about presidents and founding fathers is: there are so many of them, you can always find one that agrees with you.

Latest and greatest?

[loosescrews]

That is exactly a year old. You are as bad as the editors.

Re:Latest and greatest?

[SuperCharlie]

you are correct sir or madam as the case may be.. my apologies and acceptance of being modded into oblivion..

Re:but but but

[hedwards]

Or possibly GWB.

And Lincoln tried other things as well

[aitikin]

He also suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, which was later overturned. Lincoln was a great president, but he wasn't perfect (and anyone who says that anyone is perfect has more issues that I care to deal with). I'm sorry, but why should the attempted "wire-tapping" of the average citizen surprise anyone in this case?

Re:And Lincoln tried other things as well

[NotBorg]

It's not as if the lack of surprise is a declaration of approval.

aka the ends justify the means

[nadaou]

And history suggests that we should worry less about the
surveillance itself and more about when the war in whose name the
surveillance is being conducted will end.

In other words, the ends justify the means, and historical
precedence makes it ok to do commit whatever crime you like.

I wonder if the author feels the same about the WWII internment
camps for Japanese? We won that war, so it's all ok, we can do that
again, right?

Or the way the Native Indians were treated? We eventually grew a
great nation on the land so that was all ok too, and we are
justified in doing the same in future for other lofty goals?

We define our nation by the society that we create through our
actions. Don't try to feed us this apologist bullshit two days after
the 4th, we have it in our power to be better than this.

Re:aka the ends justify the means

[nadaou]

[...]we have it in our power to be better than this.

I don't think you do. I don't think you ever did.

You make yourself a slave in your own mind.

Re:aka the ends justify the means

[causality]

You, sir, make me regret having already posted in this discussion.

Someone, please mod this up. I get tired of the consequentialist mentality myself.

Re:aka the ends justify the means

[phantomfive]

I wonder if the author feels the same about the WWII internment camps for Japanese?

It's impossible to come to a fair judgement about WW2 internment camps without taking into consideration the Niihau incident

Re:aka the ends justify the means

[nadaou]

protip: just because the current Supreme Court rules that it's ok, doesn't make it morally or even constitutionally right. But don't take my word for it, four of the Supreme Court Justices thought it was wrong too.

I'm talking about real justice, not the outcomes of a fallible legal system.

Gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail

[drnb]

In the case of that war, yes, it was okay.

No, it wasn't.

It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others.

Don't harm innocent people (in this case, by taking away their freedoms) in order to defeat the bad guys; cowards do that.

"Gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail."
Henry L. Stimson, U.S. Secretary of War during the Pearl Harbor attack and the former U.S. Secretary of State who in 1929 shut down the office in the U.S. State Department responsible for breaking codes to read messages sent between embassies of other countries and their capitals.

Stimson's naivety seems alive and well.

Re:Gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail

[SJHiIlman]

Stimson's naivety seems alive and well.

Cowardice is as well.

Learning from the "best"

[Tablizer]

So Obama is like his hero, Lincoln, after all

Re:Learning from the "best"

[bill_mcgonigle]

So Obama is like his hero, Lincoln, after all

Lincoln is infamous for jailing hundreds of his vocal critics, including the editors of any newspaper that was critical of his policies.

Watch out, @ggreenwald, the next tyrant rises.

Re:but but but

[amiga3D]

I've heard GWB described as many things but never power hungry. He had enough faults as it was, no need to add more.

Telegraphs were not private ...

[drnb]

Don't harm innocent people (in this case, by taking away their freedoms) ...

Reading a telegraph was harm in Lincoln's day? A message that by its very nature was read by miscellaneous strangers in the course of its creation and receipt?

Re:Telegraphs were not private ...

[SJHiIlman]

I was merely responding to "It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others." I think such a mentality is poisonous, so I replied. I don't care about semantics.

Re:Telegraphs were not private ...

[KGIII]

Yes, our principles are indeed our suicide pact. I can think of nothing greater to die for. I'd rather die for them then live without them.

Re:Telegraphs were not private ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That secrecy is necessary or even effective is a principle that people keep clinging to despite all evidence and logic to the contrary.

Other than for protecting immediate tactical information, secrecy is unnecessary, and often damaging. For one thing, it's rarely truly secret to the enemy. Rather, secrecy tends to obfuscate serious analysis at home. It's a way for those high in the command chain to shut others out, especially dissenters. Secrecy allows you create an echo chamber protected from objectivity and facts. It becomes an end to itself, and in this particular case perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy in that the U.S. and China are apparently in an electronic surveillance arms race, which predictably dire results state-side.

Want to know what actually works? Free flow of information. Real-time analysis unburdened by selection bias. And because decision makers cannot hide behind a shroud of secrecy, they must defend their arguments with facts and logic instead and exclaiming, "well I would defend my position with facts but the law prevents me from doing that, so just trust me".

Secrecy is a poison to large bureaucratic structures, period, whether they're running a school district or running a military. It just doesn't make any difference because the organizational phenomena are identical.

Re:Telegraphs were not private ...

[KGIII]

Hah! Good catch, that's one I don't usually mess up. *sighs* It's bound to happen to all of us eventually.

A Sansa-like romantic fantasy of bravery

[drnb]

Losing a war equals losing your freedom.

Fighting and losing while keeping your principles is far better than being a sniveling coward.

In the real world brave men do things in wartime they know to be wrong, things against their principles, so that they and others may live in peace, freedom and once again according to their principles at a future date.

You sound like a naive sheltered fool who has no clue what bravery is, merely a Sansa-like romantic fantasy of bravery.

""The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact

Re:A Sansa-like romantic fantasy of bravery

[SJHiIlman]

In the real world brave men do things in wartime they know to be wrong, things against their principles, so that they and others may live in peace, freedom and once again according to their principles at a future date.

Your definition of "brave" must differ from mine.

You sound like a naive sheltered fool who has no clue what bravery is, merely a Sansa-like romantic fantasy of bravery.

You sound like the sort of person who's only slightly less bad than those who support nonsense such as the TSA. It is thanks to those with your mentality (as well as apathy) that such abuses are even happening. Congratulations.

Re:A Sansa-like romantic fantasy of bravery

[drnb]

You sound like the sort of person who's only slightly less bad than those who support nonsense such as the TSA. It is thanks to those with your mentality (as well as apathy) that such abuses are even happening. Congratulations.

Actually I'm the sort who has read his grandfather's letters during WW2. Nearly every letter was censored. A violation of his and my grandmother's privacy? Yes. A temporary wartime necessity? Yes. In contrast my father's letters to my mother are uncensored, he served during peacetime.

Re:A Sansa-like romantic fantasy of bravery

[SJHiIlman]

Well, I'm sure the TSA is happy that people like you exist; you help give them a sense of legitimacy whether or not you specifically support them.

A little off topic

[wjcofkc]

A little off topic, but pertinent all the same. The events as of late have had me wondering: if the majority of the American people are driven to revolt in similar fashion to the Arab spring type revolts (that our government overall praises), would our own military fire on us if ordered?

A couple of years ago, I may have very well modded this question down.

Re:A little off topic

[rock_climbing_guy]

I remember reading a post a while back to the effect that when a dictator wants his police and army to be willing to fire upon the people by his orders, he first will typically orchestrate events that cause the police and army to develop an "us vs them" mentality toward the civilian population.

I've known a few people in the military who obviously think that they're better than a civilian by virtue of their status.

Re:A little off topic

[wjcofkc]

Am excellent point. It's one of those "lest we never forget" moments that I had forgotten about.

Re:A little off topic

[wjcofkc]

I am glad I posed the question. These responses, especially yours, have been enlightening.

Re:A little off topic

[iggymanz]

if a certain small percentage of the military refuse to attack civilians, the whole chain of command breaks down. But we have another group, the DHS, national police in training, who are being indoctrinated with "the people are the enemy" attitude and the local police are being conditioned to be subject to them.

Re:A little off topic

[dryeo]

If the government can demonize the protesters the army will fire on them. In previous days just labeling the protesters as commies would have been enough. Now perhaps labeling them terrorists, especially if some acts of terrorism happen, whether committed by the protesters or agents provacator. The army is a captive audience for the propagandist.

Re:Lincoln's twisted silver penmanship

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And you can always find flaws so you can tear them down to satisfy your minuscule issues of the modern day, living in the world they built for you.

Re:Lincoln's twisted silver penmanship

[Anonymous Coward]

There is just one Founding Father who matters: John Hancock.

Why is he the only one that actually matters? There are two reasons:

1) He signed his name the most prominently on the Declaration of Independence.

2) His name has two of the most important words of all time in it: hand and cock .

Those two facts render him as the only Founding Father with any real importance.

Temporary is the key word

[manu0601]

Many nations have constitutional provisions to temporarily suspend laws when there is a threat like a war.

Even a philosopher like Jean-Jacques Rousseau recognized the need for such temporary measure, which are legitimate because they in line with the general will of the People, who do not want the nation to be destroyed because of its own laws.

But the key word is temporary: that should be short and to solve an identified problem.Todays US surveillance state is another beast. The war against a given terrorist group may end. The war against terrorism will not.

Re:Temporary is the key word

[Neppy]

Perpetual surveillance is an outgrowth of perpetual "war".

Re:Lincoln's twisted silver penmanship

[phantomfive]

"A man's faults are the faults of his generation; his geniousness his own." --Goethe

Re:Random Fact of the Day

[Zimluura]

and about 106 times the (human) population of earth.

Anyone else...?

[Anachragnome]

Is there anyone here beside me getting the feeling that the submissions of late have a certain...smell(?). Perhaps it is honey I smell.

Re:Lincoln was a lapdog for the northern businessm

[1s44c]

I'm leaving the US soon, for good. The rest of you sheep can have the
steaming pile. Fuck you all.

The rest of the world is messed up too, just in different ways.

All considered Europe is probably a better place to live than the US right now.

Re:but but but

[bill_mcgonigle]

You can't tell facts about Lincoln or you are a racist.

Correct. Lincoln detractors are racists because Lincoln was sent from heaven to save the United States from their original sin. Him and his big blue ox. I learned it in government schools.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.
- Abraham Lincoln, 4th Lincoln/Douglas Debate, 1858

Who was Lincoln?

[emil]

Most people find this enlightening:

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate1.htm

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]

Lincoln was a lawyer, and a politician. People attribute something profound to him. I have doubts.

Re:Who was Lincoln?

[tibman]

Honesty.

Re:Who was Lincoln?

[thrich81]

How about, "Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."
and, "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
Both from Lincoln's second inaugural address. The whole thing is worth a read. Which American (or any other nation's) leader would you consider profound if Lincoln doesn't make it into that class?

"War Powers"

[Dereck1701]

As noted in the article, this was during a time of war. When the war ended, so did the spying. Today we live in a perpetual state of "war", even though none of our "enemies" can actually harm us on the national level.

Re:Lincoln's twisted silver penmanship

[fustakrakich]

...what would Benjamin Franklin would have written?

The address of the best whore house in Paris

When does it start?

[nickmh]

OK, So, when does it start? The war that is? The civil War! I'm assuming that there is going to be one? Why else would you need the NSA to have the same sweeping powers granted by Lincoln? Cop out! Total Cop Out!

Ask Martin Luther King

[raymorris]

Dr. King was killed fighting for his principles.
I dare say the principles he fought for are far more valuable than one man

If my life could be as meaningful as his, I'd be very glad indeed. After all, none of us is going to get out of here alive.

We all lose our lives. For what? MLK, declaration

[raymorris]

The Declaration of Independence closes with the words "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The founders understand that some things are of greater value than their own life.

They knew that we ALL die. The only question is, what will you die FOR? Cigarettes? To drive a little faster? To avoid exercise?
Martin Luther King died for something WORTH dying for, something bigger than himself.

What will YOU die for? If you want to make it worth it, to trade your life for something more valuable, something bigger than you is called a "principle".

Re:Lincoln's twisted silver penmanship

[c0lo]

Let us not get ourselves fooled by Lincoln's twisted silver penmanship, let us ask ourselves what would Benjamin Franklin would have written?

The great thing about presidents and founding fathers is: there are so many of them, you can always find one that agrees with you.

Are you trying to somehow say: "with so many founding fathers, it's no wonder America is a properly fucked up nation"?

A Different Issue

[b4upoo]

President Lincoln faced an entirely different situation. The nature of the Civil War put the existence of the nation at great risk. Current conflicts pose almost no risk at all of a calamity great enough to destroy our nation. Next the telegraph wires were the only way to quickly command attacks from troops over a distance. It was also the only fast way to send information out of the north to southern agents. The northern forces would probably have been better off if all telegraphs were locked down until the war was over.
                              In the current world situation the US might be better to pull out all troops and embassies and tell the Arab region to rot. I wonder if the US would suffer at all if the nations in the mid east simply went into total war and chaos. As it stands now the expense of stopping this foolishness is a burden. As far as wars go this war has not taken many of our soldiers' lives. But if we assume that the ultimate totals might come to 20,000 dead American troops why should we be willing to allow this risk to climb? The entire mess very much resembles the problem in Vietnam. We could have won that war with great ease by going to maximum technology on the first day. We would have suffered no loss of troops at all and the financial component would have been trivial. Huge numbers of innocents would have been killed but at least it would all be over in a few minutes. So our kinder gentler mode of war cost the lives of 50,000 US soldiers and billions of dollars. The other part of the issue is that if we had crushed Vietnam with a full technology attack I seriously doubt that the Arab nations would ever have dared to offend us. Many nations perceive a lack of violent aggression to be a signal of weakness. Look at the threats made by N. Korea today. N.Korea threatens simply because they know we will not bomb them into oblivion.

one does lead to another

[raymorris]

The current total tax rate on the AVERAGE American is over 45%. Income tax, FICA x 2, gas tax, property tax, death tax, business personal property tax, sales tax, car registration tax ...

Increasing it another 25% on productive people, as progressives wish to do, brings the total to around 70%. It just so happens that if you intend to take everything people have worked for, you're going to have to imprison or kill many of them to do it.

Re:Lincoln's twisted silver penmanship

[phantomfive]

no

let me fix that for you

[csumpi]

The [your choice of country] I believed in never existed.

Re:let me fix that for you

[kheldan]

Let me guess: you've given up voting in elections, haven't you?

Re:let me fix that for you

[csumpi]

No, I haven't. And I keep hoping that next time, the election will be decided on real issues by informed voters.

Re:but but but

[hedwards]

Excuse me? He gave himself the power to classify American citizens as enemy combatants and remove them from the justice system completely. He gave himself more or less completely unchecked power by crying about national security when people wanted to ensure that there were reasonable checks and balances to his authority.

How on Earth did you come up with the idea that he wasn't power hungry? He was one of the most power hungry Presidents in US history. He even went so far as to take the 2000 election by convincing the SCrOTUmS that counting the ballots thoroughly infringed upon the rights of other Americans in areas that weren't quite as evenly divided.

Re: but but but

[hedwards]

And, if my being upset bothers you, perhaps I should send you a brown hanky to match your shirt.

Want to put this into 20th-Century perspective?

[cundare]

Stream a copy of "J.Edgar," then get back to me.

(Leonardo's performance is interesting, btw.)

Re:We all lose our lives. For what? MLK, declarati

[Motard]

People like MLK and Medgar Evers didn't sacrifice themselves. They weren't in it to die. They had to do a great deal while alive before their deaths would take on the larger national historic significance that they did. MLK isn't great because he died. He's great because he lived a large life *before* he died.

Re:Lincoln was a lapdog for the northern businessm

[1s44c]

GPD/capita is lower, consumer price index is lower. US dominates world finance/economy/art.

GDP/capita is an average that includes some super rich people. Bill Gates could buy a thousand mansions, that doesn't help you buy a cup of coffee.
The consumer price index is lower in Europe? I'm not so sure the cost of living is. Things are pretty cheap in the US I'll grant you that but I'm talking about safety from crime and quality of life here not how much cheap clothing people can buy.
The US doesn't dominate finance/economy as you so say, it's all one big interconnected system with no center.

And ART? Are you kidding? In fact forget art, it's a silly thing to even mention.

Re:Lincoln was a lapdog for the northern businessm

[1s44c]

I agree. To retire I'd leave Europe and go to Thailand or somewhere pleasant and cheap.