Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances'

[woo me with science]

35. Your arguments here should embarrass you, but especially that last gem of a post.

Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 04:40 PM - Edit history (3)

Let's review, because the twisting and sophistry here are instructive, and typical of Third Way authoritarian rhetoric.

First, you tried to defend this expansion of powers by claiming that it would never be invoked, an argument as silly as would be, say, advocating government cameras in every home because they would never actually be turned on.

Confronted with the absurdity of that defense, you shifted gears. You attempted to instruct me about the government's longstanding contingency plans for a nuclear catastrophe and suggested, absurdly, that because such plans exist, "this is not anything new."

I patiently cut and pasted the change we are talking about here, showing you that it is, indeed, a change to permit military responses to a broader, vaguer category of *civil disturbances.* I asked you again, why is the change needed, and why are you defending it?

You apparently did not like that question, so you responded with a familiar Third Way rhetorical tactic: namecalling any opposition to the change as "libertarian claptrap." Note: You could not explain why you vigorously defend the need for a change that you simultaneously claim is not a change at all, nor could you explain why questioning the change is "libertarian".....yet you show great defensiveness that anyone would question it.

Then, apparently aware of the thinness of that smearing response, you tried to flesh it out by solemnly lecturing me about Eisenhower and the existence of previous COG plans, as though the mere existence of previous emergency powers automatically justifies the *expansion* of such powers into new situations as a matter of routine.

I noted your smear, and I asked you again why you consider this change necessary, if it changes nothing or will never be invoked.

You repeated your irrelevant lecture about previous contingency plans, adding the condescending flourish of suggesting that I need to "read up" on them. Then, as a final embarrassment to your performance here, you finished with this gem:

Nationwide Martial Law is one contingency of those plans, yet you say this is worse.

"Yet you say this is worse." Did you really just write that?

What a predictable Third Way "lesser of two evils" canard. You put words in my mouth to pretend that we are arguing about the *severity* of government response, rather than the *justification* for government response. You actually try to suggest that, because some contingency plans (e.g., for nuclear holocaust) may allow for full national martial law, that we should not question or oppose any plans for military intervention in other situations, even though those situations are being expanded to include creepily vaguely defined "civil disturbances." You ignore and try to deflect from the point here: that excessively broad and vague wording is being added to justify military responses even in situations where military responses were not considered remotely acceptable before.

It's not as bad as nationwide martial law. Sheesh.

This is the authoritarian mindset. This is the justification of creeping militarization in this country. And this is the cynical, manipulative rhetoric we are fed to try to justify the authoritarian creep.