Bill of Rights

A Tale of Two Conservatives

Andrew C. McCarthy wants to give the government more power; Sen. Rand Paul doesn't.


Before 93 percent of the U.S. Senate voted to approve the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tried to block a provision allowing for the indefinite detainment by the military of American citizens.

According to Paul's critics, his support for Sen. Mark Udall's (D-Colo.) amendment to the authorization bill makes him a dangerous extremist. That criticism reflects the Republican Party's long preference for powerful government and unchecked executive authority. 

Paul failed to prevent the bill's sponsors, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), from passing this prima facie violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process. But he did help kill an amendment that would have allowed enemy combatants to be detained even after being found not guilty.

When Paul directly asked McCain in floor debates whether his provision might allow for Americans to be detained in Guantanamo Bay, McCain responded "I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States, I don't think they should be allowed to continue that threat." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also clearly believes that the bill allows for the indefinite holding of Americans.

One of Paul's rewards for defending the liberties of American citizens was a piece by National Review Institute Senior Fellow Andrew C. McCarthy headlined "Rand Paul, Libertarian Extremist."  

Paul and McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney who resigned from the Justice Department in 2003, are twin opposing pillars of conservatism. Both are ostensibly Republicans, but one has a fundamental faith in government power, even with a Democrat in the White House. The other not only dislikes what he considers to be unconstitutional government overreach but often preaches the virtues of a fundamental distrust of government power.

(Article continues below video.)

Like his father, Texas congressman and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, Rand Paul simply advises people not to assume the American government is incapable of tyranny. McCarthy, meanwhile, tries to claim some limited-government credibility with a token mention of how he too dislikes wasteful security measures and by writing that, "The Tea Party's limited government, constitutional heart is in the right place." But he also blames creeping libertarianism for 9/11, writing in National Review Online:  

But terrorist plots do not succeed because government is too big and sprawling and inefficient; they succeed because libertarian extremists frustrate government's ability to perform even those few functions for which we actually need a central government.

Furthering that objection, McCarthy claims that Paul believes in giving equal constitutional protection to foreigners accused of terrorism, which Paul flatly denied in in his December 5 response, also published on National Review Online.

McCarthy believes that the powers Paul objects to already exist thanks to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which passed on September 18, 2001, back when Osama bin Laden was alive, Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was still at large, and the Taliban were the official government of Afghanistan. 

Cato Institute Defense and Homeland Security Studies Research Fellow Benjamin H. Friendman notes what should be obvious to McCarthy: Precedent matters. There is a reason, even if you are not a "libertarian extremist," to fight against the McCain/Levin amendment. "By explicitly endorsing constitutionally dubious powers that the president already claims, Congress makes those claims more likely to survive legal challenge," Friedman recently wrote at Cato's @Liberty blog. 

McCarthy generously suggests that Paul work on removing that 2001 authorization if he truly objects to these powers, yet McCarthy himself isn't worried. He scorns Paul's concerns over an open-ended, global war on terror because "no war has come with an expiration date." He also writes:

To assert, as Senator Paul does, that the indefinite duration of the war equates to a diminution of fundamental due process is just absurd.

But the absurdity does not end there. Senator Paul contends that this purported loss of liberty is permanent. He reasons that once government rolls back due process rights the status quo ante is never restored. But history proves him wrong again and again—even in the examples he cites.

McCarthy's proof: Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was rolled back after the war. Detention of American citizens—including 100,000 Japanese Americans and resident aliens—during World War II did not establish a permanent presidential power of imprisonment. And the Supreme Court case of Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004), which affirmed the president's power to detain indefinitely people he deems to be enemy combatants, also specified that American citizens have the right to challenge their detainment before a judge. 

This ignores the central feature of wartime judicial precident—what Robert Higgs, author of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of Government, dubs "the ratchet effect." Higgs writes that while government power may ebb a bit after wartime panic passes, it rarely returns to its original scope or size. This is what concerns Paul. And this is what McCarthy dismisses as extremism, paranoia, or at best well-meaning naivete. 

The difference between Paul and McCarthy is that the latter interprets constitutional powers as broadly as possible in favor of government. He does so especially when government invokes the magic incantations of war and terrorism as its excuse for the security state. McCarthy doesn't trouble himself over the risk that innocent people will be caught under the heel of the state. The senator from Kentucky, on the other hand, has an attachment to constitutional rights and a broad skepticism of government power. Unfortunately for the current GOP—and for the country—Paul is the rebel in his party, and McCarthy is more of the same.

Lucy Steigerwald is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

NEXT: FDA Regulation Could Doom Cigar Shops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rand Paul is out of step with the Republican party.

    Crony capitalism, violations of due process, demonizing and jailing of political enemies are all wonderful policies they inherited from their dad the Whigs and their grand-dad the Federalists.

    1. Bullshit.

      Rand Paul is an elected US Senator.

      McCarthy is a government parasite and gas bag that couldn’t get elected dog catcher. It’s the self appointed beltway neo con wise men that are out of touch.

      1. Maxxx, tarran was making a nuanced statement laden with sarcasm.

      2. Nice reading compreshension Maxxxx

  2. Lucy, this is OT, but are you related to the Steigerwald who wrote the terrible Ovechkin steroids story? He even has his own meme, now.

    1. John Steigerwald:

      My niece, Lucy Steigerwald, a recent graduate of Chatham University, has a new job.

      She’s an associate editor at Reason Magazine

  3. I was a “dangerous extremist” before “dangerous extremists” were cool rounded up and held in detention centers as tourrrrrists until the gummint could decide what to charge them with – or not charge them – whatever – TOUUURRRRRRRSSSTTTTSZOMGSATAN!

    Why does Rand Paul hate the flag and want us to be kilt dead by tourristssz?

    1. We put tourists in detention centers now?

      1. You mean tourrorists? Absolutely. Why do you think we’re doing all of those searches before people fly?

      2. we put EVERYONE in detention centers now. None are safe.

      3. That’s Barry’s new jobs program to help his correctional officers union cronies. I’m sure it’ll work here in Orlando.

  4. Alt Text Lucy!!!!!!!

      1. In spite of recent instances of alt text on dailies, I kind of thought it was supposed to be just a blog thing.

        Sorry, kids.

        1. The Goddess has spoken.

  5. I kneel before the National Security State!

    slurp slurp slurp slurp slurp swallow
    slurp slurp slurp slurp slurp swallow
    slurp slurp slurp slurp slurp swallow
    slurp slurp slurp slurp slurp swallow

    1. u missed ur chance on the sperm bank thread.

  6. “But terrorist plots do not succeed because government is too big and sprawling and inefficient; they succeed because libertarian extremists frustrate government’s ability to perform even those few functions for which we actually need a central government.”

    Maybe that dipshit was born in 2010 or so, but I was there after 9/11 and the narrative was that the government had several clues that could have allowed them to stop it. Why didn’t they? Because they were hamstrung by terrorists’ civil liberties Because the clues were all in different departments that failed to work together, when they could be bothered to pay attention to what their own agents were saying — IOW, because government was big, sprawling, and inefficient.

    1. Yeah, this is mind-blowingly….no, this is so fucking common it’s not even surprising any more. That’s what REALLY frustrates me.

      So. Fucking. Stupid.

      It’d be different if it were re: meaningless, inconsequential shit. But when you get the diagnosis UTTERLY wrong on stuff life national defense and counter terrorism, etc….well, “people die”, and we have the populace removing their shoes and belts at airports while being groped by minimum wage baboons.

      Fuckhead McCarthy – I hope you slip while walking in the rain, fall – knocking yourself unconscious – and drown in a puddle, you fucking National Socialist prick. Also, Merry Christmas, asshole.

      1. That ridiculas statement blew me away as well. Which “libertarian extremists frustrate government’s ability to perform even those few functions for which we actually need a central government”. Let’s just make shit up. At least the “truthers” and “birthers” believe their own bullshit. This guy knows what he’s saying is a fuckin’ lie and says it anyways. If only we had more Rand Pauls that could actually accomplish anything near what he claims we might have a few less nut punches waiting for us here every day.

    2. libertarian extremists frustrate government’s ability

      In my dreams.

      Who are these libertarian extremists, and exactly what government projects have they frustrated?

      1. Fuck you you liberalterian!

  7. He scorns Paul’s concerns over an open-ended, global war on terror because “no war has come with an expiration date.”

    And Lord knows we wouldn’t want to start putting expiration dates on them, NOW, would we?!! Hah!

    What is it with governmentalists named “McCarthy” that makes so many of them become suckass authoritarian fuckbag “yer agin us” pricks?

    1. Meet the new McCarthy
      Just the same as the old McCarthy

    2. Actually, wars DID come with expiration dates. Those dates where when previously clear committments were met by one side or the other (i.e. unconditional surrender).

      Since there is no clearly stated end-game to this conflict (are we going to fight until all terrorists of all different stripes unconditionally surrender?), it is in fact different from nearly every other war.

      And since I don’t believe he’s a complete moron, that leaves only the idea that he’s a duplicitous piece of shit for obfuscating that point.

      1. Not to mention that the war on terror is an idiotic construct.

        Might as well be at war against box cutters and 747s.

        1. Sounds to me like Maxxx is harboring box cutters…

  8. How easy it is to forget that Barry Goldwater was too extreme for the Republican Party. The Goldwater tide was already receding when Reagan was President.

  9. I knew that Mannequin was a subtly hidden manifesto on the wonders of statism. I told people back in ’87, but no one listened to me. Well, who’s laughing now?

    1. who’s laughing now

      The people at Pablo Francisco’s latest show?

    2. OT, but I found this suggestion while reading the reviews for that movie you linked earlier. This looks like it could be a great diamond in the rough.

      1. That looks pretty good. And they have it at Netflix.

        1. I’ve seen it, and it’s pretty good. I’m not quite the movie snob some on here are, so don’t crucify me if you bastards don’t like it.

          1. I love trashy and extreme horror movies. The 70s and 80s are a goldmine for that sort of thing.

            1. You need to see Student Bodies.

                1. Student Bodies is excellent.

              1. the body count is now: 7

            2. Jim, have you seen C.H.U.D.? It’s fun stuff. And how about Street Trash (a good friend of mine worked on it, besides it being a cult classic)?

              1. Haven’t seen Student Bodies or Street Trash, but I own C.H.U.D. and it’s unrelated sequel.

              2. I just watched C.H.U.D. on Netflix two nights ago. Amazing movie for being a B movie horror. It was basically Aliens three years before Aliens came out. Loved it.

                1. Night of the Creeps is a great one too, if you haven’t seen it.

              3. C.H.U.D. was the shit. And John Heard, FTW. Damn, I remember when decent actors were in b- horror flicks pretty regularly.


    1. MATT…. DAMINN….

  11. OT: Folsom prison psychologist staged fake rape

    “It was, police allege, all a lie ? one concocted to persuade her husband to move to another neighborhood.

    On Monday, officers arrested the 36-year-old Martinez ? a licensed psychologist for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ? on suspicion of two counts of criminal conspiracy, according to authorities.

    In court documents, police detectives and the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office allege that Martinez, with the help of friend Nicole April Snyder, staged the entire scene.

    Martinez used sandpaper to scuff up her hands, a pin to cut her lip, they allege. She reportedly ripped open her shirt to expose her breasts and urinated on herself to convince officers she had been knocked out.

    Snyder, now 33, used boxing gloves, purchased at the direction of Martinez, to rough up her friend’s face, according to the documents. And then she hid in her own home items that Martinez would later tell police had been stolen, including two laptop computers, her purse and an Xbox, the documents state.”…..ogist.html

    1. Hey, you pig, women don’t lie about rape!

      All men are guilty until proven innocent!

      Any man accused of rape should be shot!

      1. Well, I beaten up by a robber who took her money and said, “I hate upstanding, law-abiding citizens like you, you’re the kind of people who don’t *deserve* flat-screen TVs! And nobody will get you one, either, because crime pays and goodness is an illusion!”

        Contributions to the Get Eduard a Flat-Screen TV Fund will be cheerfully accepted.

        1. The robber took *my* money and said, etc.

          Please don’t check my story, that will only add to the trauma.

          1. Check’s in the mail.

    2. All the women that have actually been raped should hunt that bitch down and sodomize her with a rack of short ribs.

      People fucking disgust me.

    3. Moments before proposing to my wife, I made one last attempt to make sure she wasn’t a psycho. I asked her a series of questions, based on outrageous scenarios culled from the news headlines. Basically, asking if she could foresee herself doing the same sort of actions. This scenario would have definitely made that list. Martinez sounds like a nutcase.

      After 9 years of marriage, I’m happy to say Mrs. G is not a psycho.

      1. Don’t be too quick with that assumption. My cousin had been married for twenty six years when the insanity finally reared its ugly head last Summer. He did not know she had a gambling problem, and hid the fact she had not paid the mortgage in over a year by having the mail sent to a P. O. Box. He only found on the same day the rest of us did, when the sheriff came with a forty eight hours to get off the premises. Oh, yeah, a few weeks ago, he discovered she had cashed out his 401 K’s. The most shocking thing imo, I saw her getting gas at one of the local stations just an hour ago. hard to believe she is still alive. I would have killed her if I was in his shoes.

    4. No different than cops who falsify reports, but this woman gets charged with a crime and they get a vacation.

      1. More stupid bigotry. I know lots of officers who are regularly punished for many infractions. It happens all the time to a few bad apples, and is the fault of the local legislatures.

        Besides polls that I won’t bother to link regularly prove that Americans have huge chubbers for police. They LOVE us!

      2. sloopyverse tactic 101

        whenever a criminal gets caught doing anything, claim that when cops do it they get away with it.

        counterexamples need not apply..
        when counterexamples are given, the “it was just an isolated incident” (of an officer being punished) is the excuse

        a person could get arrested for donkey raping with a stolen dildo and sloopy would go “but the cops can do it and not get punished”

        and then go whine some more

        1. Then explain this, please.

          Especially this little gem FTA: A Chicago police spokeswoman said Macon is currently on active duty in the department’s troubled buildings unit.

          The Independent Police Review Authority ? the city agency that handles allegations of police misconduct and investigations into police-involved shootings ? said this case remains under review, and could not provide additional information.

          Shouldn’t the DA investigate when an off-duty cop shoots the driver’s side door of a vehicle in operation (attempted homicide)? Nah, we’ve got a police review board for that.

    5. The score so far:

      Feministing: No mention of this story at all.

      Jezebel: Ditto.

      NOW: No mention of Laurie Ann Martinez whatsoever.

  12. Andrew McCarthy

    For one thing, it will be seen as the policy that vested such dangerously misplaced Tea Party credibility in libertarian extremists such as Senator Paul and Judge Napolitano…

    I like Napolitano, but he’s not a judge anymore. So there are how many libertarian extremists in positions of power?

    1. Hmm..Amash, Paul, and Paul.

      So exactly three too many.

      Because you see, for the GOP, much like how California dems think of the five republicans in their state legislature, having even a single one is what blocks all progress and prevents utopia.

      Those three hold up and derail everything in their never-ending quest to destroy all life. That’s why hyper-libertarian policies have been followed so much over the last quarter century. They must be stopped – the GOP cannot rest easy until every single one of them has been purged.

      1. Yeah, the CA government is excellent example of this thinking. But Castro’s Cuba shows that even if there are no dissenters, the Revolution against them must continue.

        1. Great example. Them and the Norks.

          1. Weed abatement.

    2. I wonder why people keep titles for life when they had a particular job. We should stop calling people Judge, Secretary, Speaker of the House, Governor or whatever bullshit government job they had. It gives them some air of authority they no longer deserve.

      1. It seems anathema to the idea of a citizen temporarily raised to power, doesn’t it?

        1. Like referring to Newcular as “Mr. Speaker” or Mittens as “Governor” in debates. Fuckers are out of office. It just pisses me off to no end.

          1. Me, too. You’re nothing but a citizen with a interesting resume line. It’s total bullshit.

      2. This is an absolute tooth-grinding pet peeve of mine.


        Titles for life are for a nobility, not small-r republican citizens.

        1. We need a movie about Cincinnatus rising from the grave, deciding the U.S. is the true successor of Rome, and attacking all politicians who usurp power here with a scythe. The name of the movie? Back to the Soil.

          1. This x1000

    1. Peak Korea is best Korea!

      1. And are we rewriting the 9/11 narrative to say the planes hit the buildings at the same time?

        People who keep beating the 9/11 drum every time somebody offends them, even unintentionally, make me want to vomit.

    2. A little from column A, and a little from column B.

    3. Dumbfuck

      1. Was there ever a linkage to Khan Noonien Singh and Dr. Noonien Soong? The names are just too similar for there not to be a correlation, yet I can’t ever remember an episode where they made reference to it.

        1. Well the real linkage is that when Roddenberry was an Army aviator in WW2, he met a Gurkha named Khan Noonien Singh, and he thought the name was cool. Story-wise, the connection is through Arik Soong, Noonien’s great-grandfather and genetic engineer.

    4. I dunno what that guys sees, I see a nasty herpes outbreak.

  13. I have a feeling about Rand Paul’s future. He will bridge the gap between his father’s neoteric poltics factor, and mainstream.

    1. Ron’s number one problem is his inability to relate to the masses on a personal level. When you are asked a question about 9/11 which so traumatically affected so many Americans your first response should not be “we had it coming”. Not if you want to be president. The first response is to acknowledge the tragedy and senselessness of it all. You have to be able to relate to how people feel. Than you can educate them. If you come off sounding like your defending the perpetrators people are just going to shut you out and quit listening to anything else you have to say. That’s just one example. A little more Kirk, a little less Spock. I think he’s done better with that this time around but I’m not sure he will ever get to where he needs to be. Hopefully, Rand can make that connection.

      1. Jesus christ!

        The notion that Ron Paul ever said “we had it coming” is a lie that is promoted by shitbags like Giuliani.

        Go and listen to the audios again and note he has repeatedly said everything that you want him to say in every instance where people later said he blamed us.

        1. Dude, I’m not saying he specifically said those exact words. But that is exactly how it comes off. I’ve seen him in the debates. I’m yelling at the TV saying, just tell them the attacks were not justified! Reasons are not justifications! He doesn’t do it. He doesn’t get it. He say’s, how would you feel if some country came and occupied us. That’s not going to get you elected. That’s not even going to get you listened to.

  14. National Review is just a NeoCon shill for the military-industrial complex and AIPAC. I had a lot of respect for Buckley even when I didn’t agree with him but his old rag is just that. Pathetic.

    1. Buckley would not have let John Derbyshire on board. Derb is not religious and abhors neo-cons.


      1. I don’t have a problem with Israel. They have their own government and military. They don’t need ours.

  15. You don’t have to be a scholar ( I am a fishing guide, no degree) to realize that the government has simply gone overboard and we are truly living on the “Animal Farm”. Listen to the government….
    “Don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t eat
    anything with fat, don’t look at this or read that, don’t name your child Mao or Adolph or Lenin or Joseph without explaining to us what you mean first, don’t trade on information that the hasn’t been publicized unless you are a public servant, walk this way unless you have an official permit to jog. Do as we say not as we do or else!”

    God, Confucious, Buddah, An apple (insert whatever trips your trigger)
    save us.

    1. It really is astonishing that we have warnings like “Animal Farm” and “1984” that so many people have read and yet still, here we are. You wonder why the pols even bother pandering anymore. It’s seems like they could come right out and say “Hey we’re gonna screw you and not in a good way” and people will just go vote for them, especially iif they’re tall or have a familiar last name. Sad.

      1. I’m not for anymore laws except the one where it is against the law to name public buildings or facilities after the porky politicians who had or still have been in office long enough to get rich beyond their wildest dreams and have the best insurance possible to protect their wealth. Seeing these buildings “named in honor of public servant x” makes me want to vomit. And thats not good for my health. At least put in a two hundred year waiting period.

    2. Where do you guide?

  16. … and, meanwhile:

    Our Stupid, Ignorant, Gaffe-Prone President: Unemployment Insurance Creates More Jobs Than Actual Jobs

    … our current President is mentally (and fiscally) retarded.

  17. We should stop calling people Judge, Secretary, Speaker of the House, Governor or whatever bullshit government job they had. It gives them some air of authority they no longer deserve.

    For the most part, “Dumbass” is needlessly gracious.

    1. There’s “Traitor.”

      1. It has a better ring than “Attorney General.”

  18. Speaking of traitorous scum, is Mitch McConnell up for re-election this year? I would really really like to see that worthless piece of shit put out to pasture (by which, of course, I obviously mean “Kicked upstairs to a capacious office on K St with a gargantuan pay raise”).

  19. Senator Paul contends that this purported loss of liberty is permanent. He reasons that once government rolls back due process rights the status quo ante is never restored. But history proves him wrong again and again?even in the examples he cites.

    Apparently Andy believes the TSA is a “temporary” measure, and will be discarded in that glorious future when America claims its rightful unrestricted dominion over the planet.

  20. Let me begin my comment by pointing out for those who were somehow unaware, that everything Mr. Mark opines about Mr. Mark opines about with the utmost perfection, so that it is a logical impossibility for Mr. Mark to ever be wrong about anything.

    With that out of the way, there are some preliminaries to point out before attacking the McCarthy article:

    1. War is a symptom of human nature. As long we’re human, to quote Tony Montana, “We gonna war.”

    2. International law is a joke. There is no third party to arbitrate disputes among nations. (Those who start to think about the U.N. please go back out on the patio and let the grown-ups talk.)

    3. A nation as prominent (population, land area, economic share of world productivity and consumption) as the United States will be getting into fights. There is no avoiding it. All you can do is make preparations and take actions ahead of time so that the inevitable fights are resolved in your favor.

    You are now more qualified to discuss international relations and foreign policy than if you headed an academic department at an Ivy League institution and were a decades-long member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Few such persons seem to be able to grasp the above points. Or much else.

    To attack the McCarthy article:

    – Regarding the Tea Party, he states, “But it needs much better guidance about how the Constitution works in wartime.”

    >> No. I did a full text search on the constitution and could find neither “operating instructions” nor “wartime” anywhere in it. I believe poor Mr. McCarthy has been the victim of one of those big-type face emails that gets my older relatives all excited until I direct them to snopes.

    – Not long after, McCarthy types the following regarding aging RINOceros McCain: “He is a populist, out of his depth arguing constitutional issues.”

    >>Ah, out of his depth…quite! As indeed, the sun-wearied Southwestern Senator certainly does have his trouble deciphering our nation’s most treasured legal documentation (BCRA anyone?) (His ignorance and confusion may remind the reader of that suffered by a certain former prosecutor who now writes for National Review….)

    – Then, there is this: “Why confront Iranian aggression or Pakistani duplicity, they wonder, if the price-tag is endless years of nation-building masquerading as warfare? Why bother if our troops are hamstrung in combat, put at risk by rules of engagement that prioritize the safety of ungrateful populations? Why mortgage our children’s future if the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is a sharia state that despises America?”

    >> That stuff’s right on the money. Guess if you annoy a word processor long enough, you can’t help but accidentally write something that makes sense by purely random chance.

    – Next, I noticed, down at the lower right hand corner of the page, that this “article” of McCarthy’s goes on for SEVEN OR MORE FRICKIN’ PAGES!!!! What the hell? That’s almost longer than my comment here! It’s a book! Brevity is the soul of wit, but this guy’s writing for, not the a web publication…tidy it up some.

    1. Matt Damon!

    2. – Blasting Awlaki to Pluto: Great. Outstanding. Boo-yah!

      – Locking up Americans and throwing away the key because you locked them up under suspicion of being al Qaida members: Bad. Very bad. Not American.

      Now, you are thinking, this Mussolini wannabe is a blithering idiot – can’t he tell that relieving Awlaki of his burdensome earthly existence and locking up Americans forever on suspicion of al-Qaidaism are exactly the same thing!?!?!?!?


      They’re not.

      Here’s why:

      – Awlaki was out there actively operating with al Qaida. Don’t take my word for it, ask Awlaki.

      – When Awlaki was killed, he was not in custody and had communicated no intent to surrender. Under the law of war (which, yes, like all international law, is a joke), he was fair game. There are lots of folks who like to suggest that he should have been arrested/apprehended/captured and given a civilian trial in America…yada and while I disagree, the important point here is simply that he was not in custody, not in the United States, not easily accessible for capture. He was an enemy combatant and he was killed. That he was American machts nichts.

      – Once a person has been captured and is in your custody, the situation changes significantly. Now, they are due certain protections. For an American citizen, these must include constitutional rights. You can’t claim that someone you have currently have physically in your custody is still out there fighting as a combatant. There is no military necessity for killing them.

      And there you have it. Now you know the right answers and can tell everyone who disagrees with me that they’re wrong. Which they are.

    3. Mmm, judging by the clothes your invitation must have been a misprint, Mr. Mark. Ours said ‘orgy’, not ‘debutant ball’.

    4. I’d bet the “right on the money” stuff isn’t what you think. He’s probably lamenting that we don’t just level the place and leave it a heaping pile of rubble.

  21. I loved Andrew McCarthy in Pretty in Pink.

  22. Being a Kentucky boy and small ‘l’ libertarian, I, for the first time in my voting years actually was ok with pulling the lever for Rand. First time I’ve ever felt somewhat ok with voting.

  23. Tall, with silky chocolate skin and very smart, this girl has it all. And now she shows it to us…

    This was Valerie’s first time posing nude, and we can thank her boyfriend for encouraging her. In school they call her the gazelle, and with those long legs it’s not hard to see why. Beautiful features and big, wild hair make her look like an untamed animal!

    Originally from Mauritius, she now lives in Germany, where her dark beauty has to inspire second glances on the street. She speaks English, French and German fluently. Strict about her diet and work-out regime, she runs like the wind? helpful for a spirited gazelle like her!

    Strikingly attractive in so many ways, this woman of colour now shares herself with you, only here on Hegre-Art.

  24. “That criticism reflects the Republican Party’s long preference for powerful government”

    What a shameless, pitiful and lazy statement. There are young children who could tell you smaller and less intrusive government is the #1 conservative principle. The readership as a whole should feel insulted.

    1. Totally agree. When the GOP had control of congress and the WH, during GWB’s years, they did a great job of limiting the scope of government. They fought off those fucking liberals on the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind. Shit, some dipshit liberals tried to use congress to intervene in the affairs of the Schiavo family, but Santorum/Delay et al wouldn’t let them.

  25. McCarthy is not a conservative. He is a statist tool who believes granting more and more fiat to the government will keep us safe. I would say he falls somewhere between Barney Fife and a mall security guard.

  26. “But terrorist plots do not succeed because government is too big and sprawling and inefficient; they succeed because libertarian extremists frustrate government’s ability to perform even those few functions for which we actually need a central government.”

    Yes, those all powerful libertarians who can’t stop the tiniest tentacle of the sprawling Leviathan can prevent the core functions of government, with which they agree, from operating.

    Yeah, that makes sense. I’m sure that’s true.

  27. Konata has come to us from what could be almost another world. We know of the Japanese tradition. The girl-woman seems so quiet and almost timid. Very eager to please and very submissive.

    Get ready for a big surprise. Konata is all this but much more. This giggling girl with a fondness for fizzy sodas has her big secret and it’s just come out.

    Konata thinks about nothing but sex. Whatever way, whenever is her style. Most of all being in front of the camera – to show off her perfect breasts and milky skin – is what turns her on.

    Right now she has a glorious black bush. Catch it now before she tries something new with that as well.

  28. Call to Action! Hire an attorney or use NaSI SARs to charge your U.S. Representative and Senators who voted for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA: S.1867/H.R.1540) with “Seditious Conspiracy” under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384. Details here:

  29. Both are ostensibly Republicans, but one has a fundamental faith in government power, even with a Democrat in the White House

    That’s a point I always like to make with people who love executive power. “So you think that Obama/Bush/[whoever their preferred boogeyman is] should be able to snatch you off the street and hold you forever because he says you’re a terrorist?

    If I were the President and they tried to pass this bill, I would give a speech outlining my case for why the bill’s supporters are enemy combatants. Then see how many votes it gets.

  30. ==== ====
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel sunglasses is $9.88
    DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $30
    Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
    Kid t-shirt $9
    Jeans price is $29.68
    ==== ====

  31. ==== ====
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel sunglasses is $9.88
    DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $30
    Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
    Kid t-shirt $9
    Jeans price is $29.68
    ==== ====

  32. ==== ====
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel sunglasses is $9.88
    DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $30
    Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
    Kid t-shirt $9
    Jeans price is $29.68
    ==== ====

  33. ==== ====
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel sunglasses is $9.88
    DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $30
    Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
    Kid t-shirt $9
    Jeans price is $29.68
    ==== ====

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.