Even the most clear-thinking among us---those used to examining every last assumption and idea implicit in their attitudes and opinions---fall occasionally into the trap of widely held prograndistic notions. <a href="http://billmon.org/archives/002494.html" source="Whiskey Bar" author="Billmon">Crime and Punishment</a> has an excellent article on the recent Supreme Court decision---5--4, of course---which firmly applied the Geneva conventions to all prisoners, including enemy combatants and any other fantastical definions invented by the ruling plutarchy to deceive themselves and others into thinking that torture can, in some cases, be noble. At one point, he includes the following statement: <bq>...no matter how hard I try to remember the innocent people forced to jump, hand in hand, from the flames in the twin towers.</bq> This is presumably a quick reminder to moderate readers that, though the author is clear left-of-center in attitude, the author in no way diminishes the horror of 9/11. 9/11 was horrible, but the terror acts of the United States put it so far in the shade in the most important ways---sheer numbers, for one---that it starts seeming pathetic to keep bringing it up. ~2900 people died in that attack, which was bombastic and splashed across the world stage in a humiliating, jaw-dropping, world-view--changing way that had never happened before. And hasn't been repeated since. Compared to the US onslaught on Iraq, or even Afghanistan, for that matter, those numbers are peanuts. Not to mention that those left behind still have relatively normal lives, albeit with less family members, but still with electricity, water and an infrastructure capable of supporting one of the richest and most wasteful lifestyles in the history of the world. Al Qaeda has no follow-up; they're punters in the world of international terror. Leave the grown-up work to the grown-ups. Further on, he mentions the effects of the Cheney administration's work on America and its reputation: <bq>...but the damage done to America, and the struggle against terrorism, is incalculable, and probably irremediable.</bq> Including the struggle against terrorism, when most of the world knows America as the leading terrorist nation, is mispeaking at a crucial juncture. The <i>people</i> of the United States may be against terrorism, for the Geneva conventions, Kyoto (and so on and son ... damned lefties), but the US government has, as far as most of us can remember, been against all of those things to the point that they lead terrorist nations by leaps and bounds. <a href="http://mitchellfreedman.blogspot.com/2006/06/hamdan-and-worst-president_30.html" source="MF Blog" author="Mitchell Freedman">Hamdan and the Worst President</a> cites Thomas' dissent from the majority opinion: <bq>Indeed, respecting the present conflict, the President has found that 'the war against terrorism ushers in a new paradigm, one in which groups with broad, international reach commit horrific acts against innocent civilians, sometimes with the direct support of states. Our Nation recognizes that this new paradigm---ushered in not by us, but by terrorists---requires new thinking in the law of war.' App. 34--35. Under the Court's approach, the President's ability to address this 'new paradigm' of inflicting death and mayhem would be completely frozen by rules developed in the context of conventional warfare.</bq> Ooooh, scary, Clarence. The US is in a new kind of war, one for which the constitution is completely unprepared. No, you know what? The Constitution was <i>written</i> to prevent power-grabbing fuckheads like you and Shrub from reinstalling a monarchy in America. A new kind of war would be if those fucking bugs from Star Troopers landed in Times Square and started kicking our <i>asses</i>. Until there's a huge fucking spaceship poised over every single landmark in the world, you can take your argument, fold it up until it's all corners and stick it up your ass.