From the Small-But-Important Victories Dept.

Headline from Reuters: "Senator Says Lifetime Terror Detentions 'Bad Idea'".

Comments

[Coarsetad]

"...plans to ask the U.S. Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence."

Wow, scary stuff. If there is a lack of evidence, what is government basing these detentions on? A reading from Cleo?

[Alberto Gonzales]

I find nothing in case law, the Bill of Rights, or the Geneva Convention that would make it unlawful to detain Sen. Lugar indefinitely.

[CodeMonkeySteve]

Of course, to cut costs, the duration of a "lifetime detetion" could always be reduced.

[thoreau]

As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask the U.S. Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, defense officials told the Washington Post.

This is just part of a solution. What will the final solution be?

And here's a question that maybe somebody could help me with: We've been assured that the federal government will only use its powers of indefinite detention without trial in special cases. How do you determine that this is a "special case" if there's a lack of evidence?

Finally, am I the only one who thinks it's a little Orwellian to build a prison for people that the government has insufficient evidence against?

[Brian]

A prison camp trial balloon. Awesome. And Emperor Gentlemans C Augustus hasn't even been sworn in yet. It's going to be a fun 4 years.

[Ken Shultz]

Pluralistic democracy requires a loyal opposition; if the Democrats' leadership doesn't want to play the role, someone else, eventually, will.

[thoreau]

Ken-

That assumes that we will retain pluralistic democracy. I'm not trying to sound like gaius marius, but I'm not convinced that the gang in power intends to play by the rules.

[Gary Gunnels]

Get used to the fact. We're fucked. 🙂

[gaius marius]

A prison camp trial balloon. Awesome. And Emperor Gentlemans C Augustus hasn't even been sworn in yet. It's going to be a fun 4 years.

precisely. remember the trial balloon they sent up about "delaying" elections in the event of a reichstag fire? i wonder when we get the "third-term" trial balloon....

I'm not trying to sound like gaius marius, but I'm not convinced that the gang in power intends to play by the rules.

lol -- are you implying that i'm not all there, mr thoreau?

[Isaac Bartram]

I keep wondering. Having seen what I've seen in my lifetime, what can shock me?

Now I know.

Is this administration really so utterly dense?

[Isaac Bartram]

"One proposal would transfer large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries, it said.

The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, a senior administration official was quoted as saying."

Exactly what "recognized human rights standards" allow for life imprisonment without trial?

I'm still shocked.

[Isaac Bartram]

In case of misunderstandings, it was the junta's proposal not Sen. Lugar's response that shocked me.

Sen. Lugar has impressed me in the past as a man who can be relied on to take the high road. I wish there were more.

[c]

Well, you can see where this is going: "Terrorists, remanded to the authority of their native countries, are better treated and in newer facilities than the country's other prisoners are."

[joe]

RTFA, Ken. Carl Levin denounced the idea, too.

The entire Democratic Party is against this plan. The only reason, Mr. Opposition, that Dick Lugar got the headline is because, since he is a Republican, his denunciation of a Bush atrocity has a nice man bites dog element.

[Gary Gunnels]

Isaac Betram,

It should be noted that numerous state laws allow for the virtually permanent detention of "sex offenders" after they have served their time if it is found that they are a "continuing danger" to the community. The SCOTUS has found no problem with these laws. Though this example isn't perfectly analogous, it isn't a great leap from permanently incarcerating (or whatever term you want to use for the detention) someone who has "served" their sentence but who still constitutes a danger to the "community" and permanently detaining someone who hasn't been convicted but is considered a danger to the "community."

I'm of the opinion that if you want to lock up "sex offenders" for life, or for a flexible period that is measured by some notion of their continuing dangerousness, then sentence them that way. I'm also of the opinion that if you are going to sentence someone of "terrorism," then take them to trial and prove the merits of your case.

[matt]

Some victory. The fact that a politician utters the phrase "lifetime terror detentions are a 'bad idea'" and "probably unconstitutional" (although not definately unconstitutional, just "probably"), and catches praise for it, demonstrates just how screwed we all truly are.

[Pro Libertate]

What's next, summary executions? Not to engage in hyperbole, but, taking the government's position literally, I don't see that they would find a legal bar to doing so. Frankly, the idea that the executive can operate outside of the Constitution in military or "national security" matters has never made any sense to me. I fully grant that there are special situations--combat in the field, ticking bombs, whatever--that might require special rules, but the idea that those rules can be secret and unchecked by the other branches of government is a most dangerous doctrine.

It strikes me that I hear a lot of "this administration" language when things like this happen, but I fail to see much difference between the GOP and the Democrats when it comes to expanding executive power, especially when it comes to national security issues.

[Pavel]

Once in a great while, a budding fascist like Osama or Hitler makes the point that Western democracies-- because of their accountability and emphasis on due process-- are inherently spineless.

Thank god we have Bush to show them how wrong they are.

[c]

which are they wrong about, that we're spineless, or that we're a democracy?

[Pavel]

Exactly.

[Chiznibitz]

One proposal would transfer large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries, it said.

The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, a senior administration official was quoted as saying.

The administration official then winked violently at the camera 🙂

This is obviously doublespeak. Why would you build a prison in a country where the officials need to be told recognize human rights standards? They need a place where they can torture people to extract sufficient evidence to convict them. If it happens in another country, they will be able to escape blame.

[Jennifer]

What scares me is that they're not even trying to make excuses anymore.

As I said when discussing this topic with a married pal of mine, "If your wife is cheating on you but still takes the trouble to make excuses and lie about what she's doing, then there's still a chance your marriage can be saved. But if she comes right out and says, 'Bye, honey, I'm going to a bar to pick up some guy and sleep with him!' that's when you know that your marriage is pretty much over."

Our government has always done sleazy things, but they used to at least feel the need to lie about it and hide their sleaziness. But when they come right out and say, "We want to give lifetime sentences to guys against whom we have no evidence." . . .well, THAT'S when I seriously start to fear for the future of the country.

[thoreau]

On a positive note, I'm pleasantly surprised that we haven't seen any posts in this thread (yet) saying that all of this is perfectly legit.

It's good to know that libertarians still opose life-long incarceration without trial.

Murphy's Law says that while I'm typed this somebody else posted something in support of the administration's policy.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Costa Rica or Belize is starting to look like a more viable option every single day.

[SR]

Yes, thoreau, the entire blog seems refreshingly free of administration worship today. It's quiet... Too quiet...

[kmw]

Thoreau said:

This is just part of a solution. What will the final solution be?

I'm wondering, Thoreau... Did you intend this to be a reference to the Holocaust, or was it just an accident?

[gaius marius]

Frankly, the idea that the executive can operate outside of the Constitution in military or "national security" matters has never made any sense to me.

the romans had the good sense to limit those powers to six months; in our case, as there is no public acknowledgement of the diktator, i see little hope of a term limit.

What scares me is that they're not even trying to make excuses anymore.

this is frightening, ms jennifer. they -- clearly, imo -- assume that what they do is right because they do it. i'd drop the h-word, but why bother?

[thoreau]

kmw-

Are you suggesting that I might need the tinfoil on my hat adjusted? ;->

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

I'm wondering, Thoreau... Did you intend this to be a reference to the Holocaust, or was it just an accident?

Not meaning to pick on you kmw, but all references to 'final solution' aren't necessarily veiled references or puns involving the Nazis. I'm replying to you because I was on a conference call with a number of employees the other day and a colleague said "so is that our final solution?", and was promptly told to reword that beacuse people may be offended.

I came to his defense because it was so preposterous that something had to be said.

I have no idea if Thoreau was going for the double entendre or not, but...

[c]

but all references to 'final solution' aren't necessarily veiled references or puns involving the Nazis

Quick search on Google confirms this. Only 8 out of the top ten results for "final solution" refer to the Holocaust. One refers to the title of a book about Sherlock Holmes. The other refers to insect extermination. (Unclear whether the insects were Jews.)

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Quick search on Google confirms this.

Long live Google...

[joe]

OMG, you'd think the exterminators' trade org would mail out a pamphlet or something...

[db]

gaius:

the romans had the good sense to limit those powers to six months; in our case, as there is no public acknowledgement of the diktator, i see little hope of a term limit.

I'm curious, are you referring to Romans before or after the addition of February and January to the calendar? I assume after, since the "six months" probably was intended to be 1/2 of a year, not 60% of the old ten-month Roman calendar? Again, just curious.

[kmw]

Thoreau,

FWIW, I don?t care either way, I just didn?t see anyone else asking such an obvious question.

As for answering a question with a question? your political reflexes are remarkable. Have you considered becoming that normal LP candidate you?ve been planning to fund?

[Rick Barton]

WTF?? Someone please tell the Defense Dept. three words: RULE OF LAW.

[thoreau]

kmw-

I actually had a serious question in mind, namely "What else are they planning?" But I was well aware of the double meanings when I wrote it. I hate to trigger Godwin's Law, but when the gov't starts planning special prisons for people that they can't find the evidence to convict, well, maybe some of those scary analogies aren't so hyperbolic after all.

[drf]

"On a positive note, I'm pleasantly surprised that we haven't seen any posts in this thread (yet) saying that all of this is perfectly legit."

well, these people did WRONG. they *deserve* to be punished. so there. yah yah. {foam foam. spittle spittle}.

how'z that, thoreau? 🙂

(hey it's a depressing day here in chicagoland. our poor bears....)

(it was worth a shot - usually some fucktard comes up with that kind of bullshit excuse to justify their fucking bullying. the usual note applies: if you're in favor of the torture: FUCK YOU)

[Pavel]

On a positive note, I'm pleasantly surprised that we haven't seen any posts in this thread (yet) saying that all of this is perfectly legit.

On a negative note, I haven't seen anyone but the perpetrators really saying this is all perfectly legit.* Having your libertarian opinions ignored is par for the course, but having practially everybody's opinion ignored is genuinely frightening.

*- not that I've been looking too hard.

[Ken Shultz]

Help me out joe.

If you can show me a statement by a Democrat sayin' that our prisoners at Guantanamo should be released eventually, I'd like to see it. I'm not trying to be a smart alec; I'd really like to see the statement.

I did a couple of Google searches, and I came up with nothing. I looked at Pelosi's website, and I don't see anything there either. There's nothing on Levin's website. Did you see the statement in the news somewhere? Where?

[raymond]

In these prisons, will there be special libertarian wings, or will you all have to live with democrats?

[thoreau]

In these prisons, will there be special libertarian wings, or will you all have to live with democrats?

If we are forced to bunk with Democrats, I'm calling dibs on Jennifer Garner!

[Twba]

Thoreau, I'll trade you a carton of smokes for an hour with your bunkie.

[Pavel]

Try not to drop your copy of Road to Serfdom in the washroom.

[Pro Libertate]

Gaius Marius, speaking of ancient Rome, maybe we should revive the office of censor. Sole purpose? Throwing out anyone in government who violates the Constitution or such ethics that warrant removal. Sure, plenty of elected officials and bureaucrats would get tossed for bad reasons, but, frankly, I'd rather see some innocent politicans get purged than allow the prevailing vision of unchecked authority continue.

Of course, all of the censors would have to wear togas 🙂

[geronimo]

I get Obama.

[thoreau]

Twba, make it two cartons of smokes and you've got a deal!

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Of course, all of the censors would have to wear togas 🙂

Can Jennifer Garner assume the role of censor?

[thoreau]

I wouldn't be surprised if in some Alias episode she's already worn a toga.

[Pro Libertate]

Sure, why not? The way I figure it, we'd need a group of 'em, anyway. Miss Garner would certainly add some, ahem, appeal to the office.

[thoreau]

Wait, how can Jennifer Garner be a censor if she's sharing a cell with me?

[joe]

Ken, Levin's comment is in the original linked article.

[Ken Shultz]

Ah! There it is...sure enough.

...That's some opposition movement they got goin' there.

[Ken Shultz]

...okay, that time I was tryin' to be a smart alec.

[Jennifer]

Ken's right--what a formidable opposition group we are. No wonder that FBI babe is trolling for bait on the other thread.

Seriously though, there probably are government guys who monitor sites like this one. Are they concerned that we might be a threat to their power structure, or are they concerned that if we make them laugh any harder they'll wet their pants?

[kevrob]

One wonders why a Noble Roman like marius would spell "dictator" in the German manner, with that non-latinate "k" replacing the "c". Could it be a veiled argumentum ad hitlerum?

This is a brutally stupid idea, though. Imagine if some non-terrorist schmoe who got caught up in the post-battle sweeps in Iraq and Afghanistan wound up subject to the tender mercies of, let's say, the Egyptians. I doubt having a shiny, new, U.S.-built building will change their mindset about how to treat prisoners much. That some in our executive may be counting on that would be even more disgusting.

Kevin

[Ken Shultz]

kevrob,

I've sniffed out a right winger or two in my time, and I think you may be reading gaius marius wrong.

[thoreau]

Ken-

What are you saying about gaius? He doesn't strike me as all that right wing or left wing, or libertarian. He seems to fit in the category of "gloomy."

[Ken Shultz]

I was speaking to kevrob's comment directly above mine--I shoulda quoted it.

gaius marius posted a comment in a thread over the weekend which a number of people took issue with.

"i submit that it is the weakness of western institutions undermined by individualism that allowed the fascists to rise, and has even now allowed a cadre of unvetted, unconservative nouveau fascists to come to power in the united states."

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/12/decline_of_the.shtml

If by "western institutions" g. marius means churches, then I think I'm in full agreement. As I posted in that thread, I believe there are two main threats to civil society: government overstepping its bounds and a general deterioration of morals. ...and I'm a full-blooded Libertarian.

The arguments against slavery, in favor of the civil rights movement and against torture are primarily moral arguments. When talking to Christians, my first argument against the income tax is that stealing is wrong.

I believe g. marius mourns the perversion of traditional Christianity because he thinks it was the driving force behind what was good about Western culture, and I believe that when he wrote about "western institutions", he was writing about churches and other private institutions.

...I could be wrong about that, but even if I am, g. marius doesn't trip my fascist alert system. He once commended me for arguing that the Iraq War was wrong because what we won wasn't worth the lives of the people who had to die and continue to die--that isn't the commendation of a fascist.

[Eric the .5b]

Um, in other words, kevrob is asking whether G. marius is throwing in an uncomplimentary likening of the administration to Hitler, not that GM's a fascist.

[kevrob]

There ya go, Eric!

Ken -

As for The Consul's conservatism, when I, in the fabled Decline Of The West thread, described g.m.'s theories, thusly:

His is an essentially conservative critique.

This was his reply:

exactly -- a more conservative critique than just about any i see in the american political dialogue.

Comment by: gaius marius at January 2, 2005 06:37 PM

marius' conservatism is of the type that distrusts the enlightenment, the font of all strains of modernity. I'd bet he admires Burke over Locke, though his admiration for classical thinkers is plain from his cognomen. I like to think he's H&R's own Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. 🙂

Kevin

[Gary Gunnels]

The Police - Omegaman

The night came down, jungle sounds were in my ears
City screams are all I?ve heard in twenty years
The razor?s edge of night, it cuts into my sleep
I sit upon the edge now
Shall I make that leap?

I?m the omegaman
I?m the omegaman

The sky?s alive with turned on television sets
I walk the streets and seek another vision yet
The echo makes me turn to see that last frontier
The edge of time closes down as I disappear

I?m the omegaman
I?m the omegaman
I?m the omegaman
I?m the omegaman
Always talking to myself
Oh!

The time that?s best is when surroundings fade away
The presense of another world comes close to me
It?s time for me to throw away this paper knife
I?m not alone in reaching for a perfect life

I?m the omegaman
I?m the omegaman
I?m the omegaman
I?m the omegaman

I?m so tired
Of the omegaman

[jimmy]

hmmm...when we captured germans or japanese during world war ii, did we have to provide them with due process and lawyers? did we have to release them after a certain term of detention even if the war hadn't ended? this is a WAR. i can not understand people who want to treat captured al qaeda as if they were picked up for jaywalking or something.

[thoreau]

Jimmy-

Congratulations! Yours is the first apparently serious post to suggest that lifelong detention without trial is OK.

And it took 62 posts to get one. Usually on this forum it takes less than 10.

[Gary Gunnels]

jimmy,

when we captured germans or japanese during world war ii, did we have to provide them with due process and lawyers?

If we were going to imprison (de facto or de jure) or execute them yes; note that the eight sabotuers that were caught in 1942 (some of whom were eventually executed) all had trials, full due process, etc., got to bring habeas challenges all the way to the SCOTUS. A permanent detention - as opposed to being in a POW camp for the duration of the war - would de facto constitute imprisonment based on a sentence handed out by the executive, thus impinging on the Constutional role of the judiciary whatever form the judiciary takes in the particular instance. Some of us still believe in seperation of powers and limited government.

did we have to release them after a certain term of detention even if the war hadn't ended?

No. But then again, the U.S. isn't discussing the release of individuals after the end of the "war" (and note that to Donald Rumsfeld that means the end of terror as a instrument that can be used globally - why the fuck does that sound like the endless war described in Orwell's masterpiece 1984?); they are discussing permanent detention war or not. That strikes me as beyond the normal bounds of the rules of war, international law (be it by treaty or not), against the philosophical doctrines which undergird our notions of war in the West, etc.

i can not understand people who want to treat captured al qaeda as if they were picked up for jaywalking or something.

We don't of course; but thanks for that bit of moronic hyperbole you twit. Indeed, its apparent any trial that these people might face would certainly carry a penalty much higher than a fine for jaywalking and would be pursued much more vigorously than an effort to convict for jaywalking.

[Gary Gunnels]

jimmy,

BTW, you are going to stupidly argue that the President has some "indepenent" power to pursue such permanent detentions on his own I would ask from whence that independent power derives? The only independent war making power the President is the "repel attack" power, which is neccasarily short in time and substance; when the Congress and the Courts are properly functioning and able to act it seems to me that the "repel attack" becomes little more than the first efforts to repel an attack and that is all.

See the Madison's notes on the debates during the Constitutional Convention for a discussion of this very limited "repel attack" power.

[Jennifer]

Jimmy-
The government itself has admitted that it has no evidence against these people. You seriously have no problem with the government saying, "Let me lock people up forever, even though we have no evidence to charge them with a crime?"

I assume your physical appearance is such that you don't "look" Arab, and thus you assume you're safe. But ask yourself--if the government IS in fact given this power, what in HELL'S name makes you think they'll stop with guys who have their Sabbath on Friday, or have the syllable "al-" in their names?

[gaius marius]

I assume after, since the "six months" probably was intended to be 1/2 of a year, not 60% of the old ten-month Roman calendar? Again, just curious.

mr db, the office of diktator was very old, so i suspect the old calendar.

[gaius marius]

Gaius Marius, speaking of ancient Rome, maybe we should revive the office of censor. Sole purpose? Throwing out anyone in government who violates the Constitution or such ethics that warrant removal.

but who among heroic washingtonians would you trust in that office?

it should be noted that the successful implementations of the office were with men like cincinnatus, in a much earlier rome -- not men like sulla and caesar. and all we now have is men like sulla and caesar -- the moral (dys)development of our society has gone well beyond the lockean moderation and rigid morality that once made such regency an approachable idea, imo.

[gaius marius]

that isn't the commendation of a fascist

thank you, mr schultz. i am anything but.

marius' conservatism is of the type that distrusts the enlightenment, the font of all strains of modernity. I'd bet he admires Burke over Locke, though his admiration for classical thinkers is plain from his cognomen.

mr kevrob, i wouldn't go quite that far. i admire burke *and* locke -- and the entire english empirical tradition -- for its moderation and sensibility. burke's criticisms of the french revolution are golden, as is locke's (and montesquieu's) moderation in articulating the principles of liberty.

but locke's liberal (in the classic sense) arguments are worthless -- worthless -- without the proper moral framework that protects society from unethical practicioners of selfishness. locke understand this -- and further understands the essential need of divided and limited power, as the republican romans did.

what i bemoan is that the ethical framework for the beneficial practice of locke's ideas is vanished as a result of the development of the public mind since rousseau. hero-cults and promethean struggles are antithetical to constructive capitalism.

fwiw, i took marius' name because his ethic is our current one -- it appeals to me only ironically.

[Pro Libertate]

Gaius Marius, I can't argue that there are a lot of people in politics that I would trust with removal power. Still, I think the whole concept of checks and balances has always assumed that no one in authority can be trusted. We were supposed to have a limited government to ensure that there wasn't all that much power to abuse, but that isn't where we are today.

Anyway, we could limit the power of the censors by having some sort of override by two or more of the other branches and by allowing some of their functions to be defined by Congress. Maybe the Supreme Court could have appointment power? One problem I'm not sure how to handle would be the partisan makeup of a panel of censors--how do we keep removal from being solely a matter of partisan politics? Maybe we should sequester the young and train them to be philosopher kin--I mean, censors.

I'd be good as a censor, because I'd kick half of the bozos in DC out day one.

[thoreau]

Could we get back to talking about Jennifer Garner?

[Pro Libertate]

thoreau, I almost mentioned Miss Garner, but I thought my date tonight would have been upset if I had "lusted in my heart for another woman". What a babe.

[kevrob]

PL, this is your month. A 2-hour Alias premeire and the release of Elektra. Just don't gibber too much about it to your sweetie.

JG is cute, if a tad on the skinny side. (I should be so picky!)

Kevin

[andy]

Jennifer:

"I assume your physical appearance is such that you don't "look" Arab, and thus you assume you're safe. But ask yourself--if the government IS in fact given this power, what in HELL'S name makes you think they'll stop with guys who have their Sabbath on Friday, or have the syllable "al-" in their names?"

While I admire your principles, why are you talking to this person as though he was a two year old- "You should only be concerned about them because it's in your self-interest." Maybe that's the Randian view, but the way I see it, we should be concerned about unjust detentions because they're... UNJUST, not merely because we could become victims of them.
It would seem to me that the moral thing to do would be to stand up to any injustice, regardless of its potential ramifications (or lack thereof) to oneself.

[thoreau]

andy-

Principled opposition to injustice may work for some libertarians, but on this forum a lot of people couldn't care less what happens to Arabs whom the government claims are terrorists.

Sad but true.

[jimmy]

jennifer: i don't recall hearing that the govt has "no evidence" against the people captured by the military in afghanistan, some of whom have publicly stated to reporters that they would go right back to terror against americans if released. don't know WHERE you got that one. but we're not talking about the govt randomly picking up arab-looking people on the streets of american cities, to which the constitution clearly applies. we're talking about military combatants from a group that declared war on us, captured in a foreign country. i wish they would be treated as pow's and given full geneva protections, but that's not the issue i raised. the issue i raised was basically, where does the constitution grant due process rights to military enemies captured in war? it DOESN'T.

gary: saboteurs captured in world war ii may have been given due process rights, but i'm not convinced they had to be. it just seems to me due process does apply to criminal acts committed by aliens on us soil, but not to acts of war. and people who want to treat 9/11 as just one big bad crime are fools...that's the reason for the jaywalking comment.

i'm not up on my federalist papers, i admit, so i can't comment about madison's theory of "repel attack" power. i take it then, that even going into afghanistan to go after al qaeda violates this theory? then again, madison came perilously close to losing the whole damn country in the war of 1812, in which case we wouldn't even be here discussing this. self-preservation comes first.

i'm not arguing in favor of lifetime detention even in the absence of war. but al qaeda declared war on us; there needs to be a clear defeat of the enemy before the detainees can be released.

[kevrob]

jimmy, in 1812, we declared war on them. The President and Congress should have expected Great Britain to raid our coast and even invade our shores. As much as sticking up for our merchant sailors' rights may have been a good thing, picking a fight with the greatest military and naval power on the planet, especially when little or no preparation had been made to carry out a threat of war, was lunacy. Remember, we launched an invasion of British North America (not yet the Dominion of Canada) that not only failed to be the land grab the War Hawks dreamed of, but wound up with the UK counter-attacking into upstate New York.

Making it all the more absurd, had a telegraph and undersea cable been available back then, news that London had rescinded the orders to violate the sovereignty of U.S. flagged ships would have reached Washington City before war was declared. With better communications, the entire war could have been avoided.

Kevin, in history-nerd mode