Sunday, 18 December 2005 - 12:25 PM CST

Your argument is just another form of "the end justifies the means," this time mixed with the argument "might makes right." The doctrine of preemption is brain dead. Please don't try to keep it on life support another minute. This was an illegal war into which we were led by a team of flim-flam artists armed with a pack of lies. We were told it was a war to disarm Saddam Hussein. Any other justification at this point is post hoc. "We are a nation of laws; not of outcomes," as Sen. Lindsay Graham said today.

Sunday, 18 December 2005 - 10:01 PM CST

Graham is wrong. In a time of war, it is right that the nation as a whole should be oriented towards one outcome ---and that should be victory over our enemies.

Are you going to argue that we're not in a war?

Are you going to insist that pro forma legalities are more important than gathering intelligence on al-Qaedists?

Monday, 19 December 2005 - 6:53 AM CST

The government can gather all the intelligence it wants by presenting evidence to the secret court that the target is "connected to a foreign power," i.e., to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group. Yes, I insist on warrants and "legalities" like the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, there is no more America left to defend. (see below)

"Are you going to argue that we're not in a war?"

If you mean the war on terror, it is a war in the same metaphorical sense as the war on drugs, war on organized crime, or war on world hunger, regardless how deadly the stakes. Wars exist between nations. (Technically we are also no longer "at war" in Iraq but are providing security to support nation-building, unless you think the people or government of Iraq are somehow "the enemy.") It is a mistake to think of the war on terror as a war literally, because it leads you (or Bush) to think almost exclusively in terms of state-sponsored terrorism, of military solutions, exclusively in terms of offense and of "military victory." I know all that appeals to a holy warrior such as yourself, but it's extremely unwise. It leaves us wide open. It lulls us (or Bush) into thinking what we are doing in Iraq is somehow protecting us from terrorists. Lunacy.

It also contradicts Bush's own claim to be fighting terror through a strategy of spreading "freedom and democracy." Your proposed tactic (spying on Americans, the Constitution be damned) is in direct conflict with your strategy (spreading democracy and freedom). Democracy: friend or foe?

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
--A Man For All Seasons