Posse Incitatus

It's all over but the recrimination

The death by starvation of Terri Schiavo will quell some of the animosity of the debate over her fate, but the Posse predicts that the fissue lines exposed by this tragedy will remain for some time.

We do not believe that this spells the imminent crack-up of the Republican coaltion.  Much of that is wishful thinking and projection.

The most common way this is demonstrated is I am The World syndrome, where political commentators assume that their views are shared by a massive section of society when in fact their philosophical adherents are tiny in number.

It may be hard for luminaries such as the hated Instapundit to comprehend this.  Indeed, he seems to be suffering from the same delusion that affects many Hollywood star: he is confusing his popularity with agreement.

That is to say, when he gazes at his hundreds of thousands of daily hits, he assumes that a large portion of them agree with just about everything he thinks.

He may not articulate this, but it is hard not to derive some sort of encouragement from his daily six-figure traffic totals.

Evil Glenn is not alone, of course.  Andrew Sullivan seems to agree with him on this, but given Sullivan's demonstrated lack of logic, having him on your side cannot be said to mean much at this point.

The main lesson of this affair is that the judicial system is distrusted by an increasing number of Americans.

Reynolds is completely missing the point in this debate.  It is all well for him to say "I'd prefer the tube to be in but the courts have spoken," because he is an attorney.  For him the "game" aspect of law is what makes it so attractive.

But for people who believe in justice, it isn't enough to simply say "Look, all the paperwork was in order so she has to die."

As we all know, there is a difference between what is legal and what is just, and when it seems that the two are increasingly divergent, problems will result.

This brings us to the false debate about Federalism.

Federalism isn't about granting state courts autonomy to violate civil rights and kill people so long as the proper procedures are followed.

Federalism is the last recourse to preserving justice - that is why state law must take second place to federal law.

The Posse believes in allowing the states to run their own affairs.  We are Federalists, but we believe that this does not extend into areas where injustice is the result.

If that makes us "fair-weather Federalists," then we plead guilty as charged.

We would also argue that most Americans are in agreement with us:  In cases where local authorities are unwilling or unable to end corruption and injustice, the federal goverment has a duty to intervene.

This sentiment is so overwhelming that it proves that Federalism isn't the issue here.

Judicial overreach is the issue.

The courts have arrogated a dangerous amount of power unto themselves.  The Schiavo case is merely the latest example of it.

Consider this:  Were Terri Schiavo a murderess on death row, she could have been reprieved or pardoned by the executive.

Were she facing other legal difficulties, the legislature and executive branches could have changed the law to exonerate her.

In this instance, both branches attempted to keep her alive - and were denied.

Where is the check on this power?

The Posse has this challenge to and Sullivans and Reynolds' of the Web:  Name one recent policy decision that was not decided by the courts rather than the other two branches.

Go ahead.

Affirmative action?  Immigration reform?  Gay marriage?  Death Penalty? Abortion?

Time and again, the courts have inserted themselves as the final authority in questions that more properly belong to the legislative and executive branches.

Sullivan isn't bothered by this because he agrees with the diktats of the courts.

Reynolds doesn't trouble about it because it ensures he'll be employed for decades to come.  Judicial hegemony is good for his business.

And lest anyone misunderstand our last point, we do not accuse the Puppy Blender of basing his opinions purely out of greed or self-interest, merely that his choice of occupation gives him a comfort level far in excess of everyone else when looking a judicial overreach.

As a lawyer, he enjoys the game and the system.  This probably means he's a pretty good lawyer, since usually the ones that get all worked up over minor glitches in the system don't last long and aren't very successful.

Reynolds understands how to game the system, and - comfortable in that knowledge - he looks down on those that don't as irrational.

Terri Schiavo is not a Christ-like figure.  The Posse rejects this notion outright.

Instead, we believe she is similar to Jane Roe - an earlier example of judicial overreach that produced a backlash we are still feeling today.

And, like Roe, we may learn that the underpinning case was a lot weaker than its defenders claimed - too late to save the life involved.

Memorial service for Capt. Sean Grimes

A memorial service for Capt. Sean Grimes will be held at St. Hugo of the Hills Catholic Church, 2215 Opdyke Rd., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, on Saturday, April 9, 2005 at 11 a.m.

He was laid to rest with full military honors earlier in New Jersey.  This is an opportunity for those of us who grew up with him in Michigan to pay our respects.

The Posse plans on attending and welcomes any who wish to honor the courage and sacrifice of this warrior and his family to join us.

Idiot recieves lovely parting gifts

The Posse has the greatest respect for members of our military.  We believe they are, on the whole, some of the best people this country has ever produced.

Alas, the open nature of recruitment means that utter idiots occasionally slip through the gates and manage to sully the uniform by enlisting.

The Mudville Gazette links to the pathetic story of ex-Specialist Blake Lemoine, who has just won an all-expense paid trip to the stockade for seven months.

In addition, Lemoine recieved the gift of youth - he was reduced in rank to private.  Ah to relive the joys of being a raw recruit!

Finally, he recieved a bad conduct discharge - something to carry with him for the rest of his life.

Lemoine apparently bought into the moralistic tripe pedalled by the antiwar movement; specifically that the war in Iraq was illegal and that it would be against Lemoine's religion to participate in it.

What religion that?

"Ordained pagan minister."

This gets better and better.

Now it is important to remember that Lemoine was a mechanic.  His job was to fix generators.

Now one could argue that restoring the power supply to a mobile bath unit is morally the same as shooting unarmed children in the face - because any help to Chimpy W. BusHitler's legions of Jesusfreak Deathbringers carries with it the stigma of assisting in human sacrifice (assuming that the new pagans are against that sort of thing).

Certainly Lemoine did.

Alas, the Army didn't buy it.

Apparently his wife has, however:

His wife, Alayna, told Stars & Stripes: "If we were any other mainstream religion, the Army would not be doing this. They wouldn't do this to a Jew or Christian. It's a vendetta against pagans. They can't burn us, so they shut us up."

Of course.  Christians who refuse lawful orders get a big slap on the back and free beer.

So what are the tenets of this faith?

Many pagans in modern society are said to base their beliefs and practices on a connection to nature.

Which is why he was a mechanic.

Lemoine wasn't content to go with the pure moral objection, though.  He wanted out, so he covered all his bases:

His letter also pointed out he has a non-monogamous relationship with his wife, and that he is bisexual, which is against Army policy.

This is of course the last resort for anyone who wants to get out.  We're not sure why he would bring this up if serious moral principles were at stake, but hey, maybe the Army needed to know.

The trial must have been something to see.  Apparently the judge was impressed, because she gave him a longer sentence than the prosecution asked.

The Posse is certain that the antiwar zealots will fasten onto Lemoine like a starving leech, trying to use him as a poster child for the evils of the military and the liberation of Iraq in particular.

Instead, he's a first-class screw up.

UPDATE:  In the interests of interservice cooperation, Citizen Smash has the latest on Pablo Paredes.  Call it bringing jointness to slamming idiots.

Shooting zombies

Reviewing our posts from the last few weeks, we find that things have been a little heavy at the Posse.

So today we'd like to change things up a bit.

Important Bloggers like Tim Blair and Arthur Chrenkoff are sending chain-letter book quizzes around the 'net.

Pretty soon everyone will get hit.

The Posse would like to preempt this by changing the subject.

If you are being attacked by raving hordes of brain-thirsty zombies, what weapons would you use?

SInce many of our readers are Americans, they likely won't have to resort to improvised weaponry like that in 28 Days Later, nor do we recommend hoping the neighborhood pub happens to have a working rifle as in Shaun of the Dead.

Note that stopping power will be at a premium here.  So will ammo supply, ease of use, and the possibily of fighting at extreme close quarters.

What are your choices?

We'd like to get this over to our fellow gun-bloggers and the Carnival of Cordite (it's our entry for this week) so spread the word.

Note: anyone suggesting 5.56mm or smaller calibres will be summarily ridiculed.

UPDATE:  To clarify, these would be the "shambling, feel-no-pain" variety of zombies.  They are, however, still living creatures and if you do enough damage, they fall down and can't get back up.

Blasting the head off is a good idea, so is limb removal, breaking the spine, etc.

Answers should include the specific type of firearm (i.e. Remington 870 12-gauge) rather than just "a shotgun."

A position of growing strength

While leftist sympathizers hope improved media relations will reinvigorate the terrorists in Iraq, Powerline points to growing evidence that the rebellion is largely played out.

Arthur Chrenkoff adds another mountain of good news to this discussion, demonstrating that once again the mainstream media isn't telling the whole story.

The Posse concurs with both of these optimistic reports.

Setting aside the other factors involved, military struggles has at is basis logistics.

Supplies of every sort are what combatants need to continue and broaden their struggle.

In crude terms, one can even think of humanity as being one of these factors, along with rifles, explosives, food and medicine.

The facts of the fighting in Iraq were clear from the beginning: Those fighting the Coalition would always take heavier losses, often by a grossly disproportionate margin.

This was particularly signficant given the limited replacements available.  Unlike in Vietnam, the terrorists have no "safe areas" in which they can retrain and regroup.

Nor do they have the luxury of a superpower patron to supply them with high-tech arms and heavy equipment such as tanks and jet aircraft.

Instead, they were locked into the role of the Viet Cong - without a large North Vietnamese army ready to take up the slack.

This was one reason why the Posse rejected the "Iraq-as-Vietnam" arguments so common to antiwar left.

It just so happens that we are reading several books dealing with Vietnam, and what strikes us are not the parallels, but the profound differences.

Certainly the massive terrorist attacks in the spring of 2004 were meant to repeat the success of the Tet Offensive in underminding US resolve, however these failed to do so - and carried a crippling price.

The large-scale fighting across Iraq in the spring and summer - and then again in Fallujah - severely depleted the terrorists' ranks.

This is exactly what happened to the Viet Cong in 1968.  Tet was a military disaster for them.

The VC cause was saved by the intervention of North Vietnamese regulars, who from that point on bore the brunt of the fighting.

In Iraq, no such reserves are available.

Moreover, the tactics of the Ba'athists and wannabe jihadis have undermined whatever popular support they might have enjoyed.

Thus their losses are mounting and the citizenry are increasingly willing to inform on their whereabouts - or even engage them in combat without waiting for government troops.

Though the struggle is far from over, the Posse views three distinct events as shaping the course of the post-Saddam terrorist campaign:

1.  The spring offensive of 2004, aimed at ruining George W. Bush's reelection campaign.

This was ultimately defeated and the early handover of sovreignty negated any propaganda value the fighting had generated.

2.  The reconquest of Fallujah in the fall of 2004. 

Nowhere was American determination and skill more conclusively demonstrated than this mid-election counterattack.  By reducing Fallujah and breaking up the safe havens for the terrorists, the Coalition sent a powerful signal that they were in the war to finish it. 

Additionally, the campaign saw increasing use of Iraqi government forces, demonstrating their own growing prowess and determination.

3.  The January 2005 elections.

These continue to reverberate around the region.  We could write many posts on the ways they changed the equation in Iraq and elsewhere, but for our purposes a major effect was to further restrict resupply and replacements for the terrorists.

Obviously, there are other aspects of the campaign that cannot be ignored, such as the Coalition's efforts to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis through infrastructure development.

Given the choice between people who offer schools, medicine and clean water and those that offer only death and destruction, few would chose the latter.

And now the Big Question:

As the news continues to improve and Coalition forces begin to draw down, will the raving lunatics of the hard-core left admit they were wrong, or will they persist in their delusions? 

Is there a point where the inflammatory rhetoric will translate in to action?

We wil have to wait and see.

By their deeds you shall know them

Some days ago, reader Ken took considerable umbrage when we pointed out that a large segment of the the "anti-war" movement was in fact on the side of the terrorists.

Summing up his reserves of sarcasm, Ken made this statement:

Oops, forgot--those of us who oppose this war aren't supposed to care; we're too busy making common cause with the terrorists.

The Posse took on his entire screed elsewhere, and there we thought matters would remain.

Fortunately, repeat commenter and known friend of Communist Chinese Despots and now megaphone of Islamic terrorists Collin Baber has returned to give the lie to the left's protestations that it is really, honestly patriotic.

Here is a person who is openly calling for a US admission of defeat, who would rather see Islamofascism triumphant that democracy flower throughout the Middle East.

Fair-minded readers must wonder: Is this man insane, or simply the victim of bad information?

Well, there is a strong case for the latter.   Anyone who approvingly quotes the Chinese Communist government or looks to the "Iraqi Resistance" for the truth is probably going to get a skewed worldview.

On the other hand, why would someone trust these known propaganda organs?

The case of insanity thus ultimately seems stronger.  Who else but a first-class nutjob could write, much less believe this juvenile tripe?

The Posse must have missed the blood frenzy we're supposed to be in because we were watching news of pro-democracy demonstrations sweeping the Middle East.

We are tempted to suggest that Baber "read 'em and weep," because he has chosen to place himself squarely in the camp opposing democracy.

The "Iraqi Resistance" are resisting human rights.  They are resisting democracy.  They are resisting an unprecedented flowering of freedom.

Baber can bury his head in delusions of American empire all he likes; he can imagine that the millions of demonstrators that took to the streets in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Syria and Kuwait are all Bush sycophants, worshipping a GOP golden calf because Hollywood has brainwashed them.

But for the rest of the world, they are powerful symbols of the enduring power of the human spirit and its innate need for freedom.

Canada to deserter: drop dead

Alert reader Sithkitten emails to let us know that reprehensible deserter Jeremy Hinzman has been denied refugee status by Canada.

The Posse gave this loser and his ilk both barrels some time ago.

Irony abounds when dealing with these people; they mouth platitudes about wanting to serve and protect, only to desert on the eve of critical disaster relief operations.

Let there be no question: desertion is a crime motivated entirely by selfishness.   

Those that wish to serve but refuse to harm others can serve in a non-combatant service.  These are the true heroes - men and women who carry no weapons but bring healing to other warriors.

We would like to remind scumbags like Hinzman that Captain Sean Grimes was a healer, a man who brought medicine and hope to those who had neither.  And in terms of worth, there is simply no comparison betwen people like Sean and trash like Hinzman.

This being Good Friday, the Posse will refrain from any further remarks on the topic lest we blaspheme.

The Aussies are coming

Arthur Chrenkoff highlights the bravery and spirit of self-sacrifice on the part of Australia's military that will soon deploy for Iraq.

The story (that of course mainstream media organs will want to hide) is that the increased deployment to Iraq is besieged by a glut of volunteers.

This comes as no surprise to the Posse:  any student of military history is aware of the superlative qualities of Australia's fighting men and women.

We believe that this is the century when Australia will come into its own as America's most trusted and indispensible ally and as a major Power in its own right.

Good on ya, mates.

The fallacy of state overreach in the Schiavo case

Reader Andrew Upson offers a different argument against state or federal intervention in the Schiavo case.  The nut of his argument runs thusly:

For those who advocate such government intervention, please just remember the law of unintended consequences. If the .gov can intrude in this case, it will set a precedent for a whole host of other cases where the .gov has even less authority to involve itself. This is more important than Terri Schaivo, me, you, or any other single person.

The Posse agrees that there are many instances where the government oversteps what should be the proper bounds.  This, however, is not one of them.

One of the few functions the government can legitimately exercise is the protection of life.

Indeed, this is arguably its core function.  Through a system of laws and police, government's primary duty is to provide for the safety of the people that put it in place.

This power is often abused, but that should not preclude its legitimate use in cases where it is warranted.

Terri Schiavo's husband is her legal guardian and has made his decision.  Upton argues that further state intervention is therefore unnecessary and invasive.

The Posse disagress completely.

Have we not moved beyond the old Roman system of paterfamilias, where the husband had the power of life and death over his wife and children?

In that system, "privacy" stood foremost - to the great detriment of everyone save the male who ran the household.

The United States has correctly abandoned the idea that husbands can abuse their wives with impunity; that "privacy" stops when violence is invoked - and starving someone to death is a violent act.

The fact that the victim is helpless makes it no less immoral or an encroachment of the victim's rights.

The Posse strongly believes in the right to self defense and one of the reasons we do is that abused wives need the ability to defend themselves from abusive and predatory husbands and lovers.

To repeat, when violence is invoked, the privacy of hearth and home is forfeit.

Michael Schiavo has sentenced his wife to death by slow starvation.  Where does he come by this authority?  What aspect of his guardianship or marriage "rights" confer this power?

Does the helplessness of his victim provide this?

If that is the case, then all disabled people must take note: their lives are at risk.  Those entrusted with their care may now kill them in the cruelest means available - and the state shall stand by and let it happen.

This realization is what is now sweeping the blogosphere.  Arguments about the limits of federalism and the laws of unintended consequences are merely smokescreens, distractions from the basic fact that the death lobby has once again changed the law by judicial fiat:  If you cannot act in your own defense, if you are physically incapable of articulating a desire to live, you will be killed when it is convenient.

What should terrify people like Upson who distrust state power is that this new doctrine will be applied indescrimately, whenever the whim of the courts is so moved.

If there is any abuse of power here, it is on the part of the judiciary.

Since when is preserving life selfish?

Reader Sithkitten offers the standard argument in the comments section for why Terri Schiavo ought to be starved to death, i.e. that she has no brain functions and therefore should be dispatched as quickly as possible.

James Taranto of Best of the Web examined the question of selfishness earlier and if anyone can be claimed to have an interest, it is her "husband," who has already taken a mistress and sired two children with her.

Therefore, if it is selfish of the parents to want their child to life, cannot it also be called selfish of the husband to want his soon-to-be first wife to die?

There is of course some dispute about just how crippled Schiavo is.  There is some disagreement among medical professionals as to whether she has higher brain function and her level of incapacitation.

But all of this is secondary to the true question: Is it moral to condemn someone to death when their only failing is diminished intellect?

Many people are so crippled as to be incapable of feeding themselves.  Shall we let them starve to death?

Would that be "nature running its course?"

It is the position of the Posse that human life is sacred and that its protection is one of the highest callings in life.

In cases where life is weak or somehow diminished, it becomes even more precious.

There are of course situations where modern technology can make this belief more complex. 

For example, people suffering from true brain death, existing only because of machinery can arguably be said to have forsaken this world.

To disconnect them is acceptable for death is quick and merciful.

But for Terri Schiavo, death will be neither.  For five days she has suffered cruel thirst and great hunger.  Each day will prolong her agony.

It is a device worthy of a Stephen King novel:  A woman, betrayed by her husband and abandoned by the courts, her mind shattered and unable to converse but still self-aware.

And now she is being slowly starved to death "for her own good."

It is a sign of the times that some call this monstrous cruelty "humane" or "merciful" - as if the fact that Terri Schiavo cannot cry out and beg for succour makes her agony any less.

Indeed, what little of her mind she has left can now do nothing more than obsess on the pain of hunger she feels, the choking thirst she must endure.

We cannot imagine a more grisly and horrific torture than what she is now undergoing.