Terrorist Captured in California

Reuters story here regarding the poster boy of the right-wing blogosphere, Chad Castagana, and his arrest on charges of mailing terrorist threats and fake anthrax to media outlets and public figures.

Oliver Willis points out, here, that this guy was a regular poster at Free Republic and Ian Schwartz' blog.

A few questions spring to mind:

Whenever some lunatic on the "Left" (i.e. not a Bush-worshiper) does something stupid like this, he or she is portrayed as the face of the left-wing blogosphere. Why don't we portray this dork as the face of the right-wing?

Aren't we fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here?

I thought we were fighting a Global War on Terror - that law-enforcement solutions weren't manly enough and we had to stamp out terrorists wherever they may hide with missile attacks and military strikes. Think I would have heard of tanks in the streets of Woodland Hills.

I guess he's lucky he's a politically correct terrorist. Were he a Muslim, he'd be getting waterboarded in whatever hellhole we've replaced Gitmo with.

Sure hope this is the right guy. We can't assume that he's guilty just because he was arrested. Good thing we have the rule of law in this country. Unless, of course, the Chimp says differently.

Because If I Could Let Bullshit Slide, I Wouldn't Be Doing This

Yeah, I was just going to let it slide, but screw it. The biggest perk of running your own blog is the ability to get the last word.

On the off chance that Blog Mad or Blog Explosion inflict my site upon PrivatePigg's delicate sensibilities, my response to his response:

1. No, you and Brian are trying to make the argument about FDR and not Bush, and I won't let you.

2. Again, no you don't get to switch the argument. And no lefty claims that every Muslim in the US is in internment - note that I didn't, either. I merely asserted that the populations of Gitmo and whatever other hellholes we're operating are exclusively Muslim. You could easily rebut this by listing all the inmates that aren't Muslims - not merely non-Arab, because they're not the same thing.

3. Let me enlighten you regarding this little concept we have here called freedom of association:

[While the]United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment itself does not make specific mention of a right to association. The United States Supreme Court jurisprudence names two distinct ways in which the right may be implicated:

1. Freedom of association is recognized and may be protected as a fundamental element of personal liberty when choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships are at issue.

2. Freedom of association is recognized and may be protected for the purposes of engaging in activities protected by the text of the First Amendment—speech, assembly, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. Because the role of these relationships is central to safeguarding individual freedoms, they may receive protection from undue intrusion by the State. Thus, there is a constitutional freedom to associate as a means of preserving other individual liberties.

This is not merely a conservative meme, it's a libertarian one.

4. One thing we agree on is that this Administration has made the 4th Amendment irrelevant. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of due process of law either.

And those "I'm smarter than you" quips apparently drew blood, hence your response. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Really read it - then come back here and tell me that ol' Chimpy is merely exercising his Constitutional powers. This would be one of the many reasons why his approval is at 33%.

Oh, and regarding your use of liberal as an insult:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.^[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.^[3]

If this is an insult, remind me to get insulted more often. Of course, I'm casually curious as to when fiscal responsibility, constitutionalism, less intrusive federal government, and personal responsibility became liberal values, but whatever.

Yep, lots of wikipedia this time. Not the source I prefer, but you win arguments with the sources you have, not the ones you want or might wish to have.

PS: Regarding your refusal to patronize my site, PrivatePigg - it's fair enough, as I have yours blocked as well. On the other hand, I read yours first. You should think of doing the same next time, lest you find yourself once again accusing a libertarian whose idea of fine dining is a restaurant with metal silverware of being a liberal elite. Just sayin'.

Once Again, We Get Mail

Yes, for a second time, I'm going to directly address a comment. This comment was posted in response to "That Didn't Take Long":

Democrat[sic] icon FDR acted in a much similar way.. At least we don't have internment camps where the only requirement for entrance is being from a specific race. The "enemy-combatants" are in Gitmo for a reason. If you aren't a terrorist, there shouldn't be anything to worry about. - Brian

Brian, Brian, Brian. Here, let me go through this point by point:

Democrat[sic] icon FDR acted in a much similar way.

Okay, laying aside for the moment what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during a declared war against an alliance of fascist nation-states, this talking point is straight out of the "He did it, so I can do it too" school of jurisprudence so beloved by my five-year-old. While adorable coming from a small child, it's disturbing when a putative adult bases civil liberties and foreign policy decisions on it. I believe the proper response would be, "So, if FDR jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?", save that I doubt a polio-crippled FDR could have managed. We can leave the minutiae regarding FDR's physical limits aside, for my point is made.

At least we don't have internment camps where the only requirement for entrance is being from a specific race.

This is teh funny. In, of course, a bitter and cynical mode of humour. No, we don't have internment camps where the only requirement is race - we have internment camps where the only requirement is religion. Stop me when that starts sounding familiar.

The "enemy-combatants" are in Gitmo for a reason.

Let's explore that, shall we?

From this article on Slate ( and yes, it's the "librul media". You guys think every corporate-owned media outlet save Rush Limbaugh and Fox News is part of the "librul media" - and Rush and Fox don't talk about this):

The data suggests that maybe 80 percent of these detainees were never al-Qaida members, and many were never even Taliban foot soldiers.

So why are they there? Glad you asked:

Most detainees are being held for the crime of having "associated" with the Taliban or al-Qaida—often in the most attenuated way, including having known or lived with people assumed to be Taliban, or worked for charities with some ties to al-Qaida. Some had "combat" experience that seems to have consisted solely of being hit by U.S. bombs. Most were not picked up by U.S. forces but handed over to our military by Afghan warlords in exchange for enormous bounties and political payback.

But weren't they all proved guilty of something at their status review hearings? Calling these proceedings "hearings" does violence to that word. Detainees are assumed guilty until proven innocent, provided no lawyers, and never told what the evidence against them consists of.

Read the full article, with the associated studies, then come back and tell me how hard-core those falafel vendors and taxi drivers we're torturing are.

If you aren't a terrorist, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

Okay, then. I suppose you don't mind if the cops start searching every house in your neighborhood looking for drugs. Who needs a warrant? After all, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Be polite when they kick in your door at three AM - they have guns.

Do they not teach civics anymore? Is the bare concept of "rule of law" so alien to you? Do you really want to live in a United States where the powerful can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they wish and your only recourse is that they decide that you're innocent?

And what, precisely, is "conservative" about that vision of America?

Oh, for readers that are interested, Brian can be found at superacidjax.blogspot.com. Enjoy.