Americans enjoy being confused, distracted under Tyranny

Notice what they focus on, and hope you ignore: An important question.

Does America enjoy embracing non-sense arguments and Tyranny?

Americans would rather throw up their hands and pretend "it will all go away," than use their brains and notice what is going on.

The chorus may sing more loudly in harmony with PollyAnna, but they fail to raise a roof to nature's fury.

* * *

SecDef and Chairman JCS have had a public inconsistency over what to do.

SecDef says they're supposed to report it;

CJCS says they're supposed to intervene.

* * *

They agree that the conduct, whatever they define as "a violation," should be reported.

However, lost in this focus is the larger issue:

What about the original abuse?

Where are the reports of the abuse?

Did the Commanders timely respond to the reports of abuse?

* * *

They focus on the disagreement over "whether the are or are not supposed to take action" to distract attention from the original abuse and other unanswered questions:

Why are there no reports? No answer.

What happened to the original reporting? No answer.

Did the commanders review and take action? No answer.

* * *

Also lost is the fundamental reality: 5100.77 exists as the SecDef requirement on SecDef to ensure:

The troops know the laws of war;

They know who to talk to if they see violation.

* * *

One illusion has been "because the enemy is or is not an enemy combatant" that they are or are not subject to Geneva.

However, this fails to capture the fundamental issue:

The US has signed the treaties against abuse, not just torture; the status of someone's "combatant status" is irrelevant whether the US has or has not signed a treaty against abuse.

The US has agree to fairly treat all people humanely regardless their status under Geneva; to argue over "whether someone is or is not subject to Geneva" is a deliberate distraction from why the US, despite signing a treaty against abuse, inhumanely treats people.

* * *

Also lost in the discussion is the fundamental problem with these detentions, mistreatment:

Many of the people detained are simply innocent;

Many have simply been accused of something;

The US has used "ignorance about reality" as the justification to commit abuse.

Bluntly, such a convoluted argument, regardless the "arguably defective legal arguments" to avoid accountability with irrelevant issues, is a symptom of a society that puts the value on "use force based on ignorance" as opposed to the prudent use of reason.

* * *

The US likes to argue, "We're at war, so all must put up with it."

Then, out of the other side of its mouth it says, "We're going to be at war for generations."

Fine: Accept what you're doing -- you're using "we're at war" as the excuse to argue that "for generations going forward, without a time limit" we have no legal restrain on how we treat people.

That is the same as, "For the foreseeable future, all the constitutional provisions, treaties, and laws related to how we interact, are inapplicable."

Then you no longer have a society based on the "rule of law."

It is, rather, based on the speculative risk related to an infinite deadline, which relies on circular reasoning to ignore the rule of law.

You have no democracy or Republic -- you have a dictatorship, subject to "whatever someone wants you to believe is a justification for abuse," regardless the original agreement against that conduct.

And what is worse, you are buying into it, without a peep.

"Oh, we can't demonstrate about that until after the election?

Which one: There's always and "upcoming election" -- have you assented to "we won't speak until some equally arbitrary point in the future unrelated to your historical agreement: Your constitution?

Yes!

* * *

Americans need to decide what they're really fighting for, looking for in leadership, or what they mean by "We're involved in a great struggle."

Self-evidently, the struggle is within America:

Are we for or against the rule of law;

Are we for or against treating people, until they are proven guilty, respectfully as human beings;

Will we use "we're at war" to ignore the Constitution.

If you want excuses to ignore the rule of law and Constitution, do nothing.

If you want to showcase America as the "land of rule of law," then demonstrate that.

As of late, given the unfavorable weather, Americans defer to the rule of tyrants because they cannot, or will not, assert the rule of law over that tyrant.

If you are not willing to assert the rule of law on your own, you have no credibility when you say, "Let's protect our values" when you wage unlawful wars overseas.

A nation that is not willing to assert, at home, what it supposedly wants to share with the world has not credible foundation either at home, or abroad.

And the arrogant Americans, not just the tyrants, wonder why, when they deny others of their rights and a seat at justices table, they dare to stand and fight.

Americans: You have offered no other alternative.

Your whining about "what is or is not justice" is meaningless -- you are not willing to impose that standard on your arrogant leadership.

Do not expect your opponent to assent to a lesser standard than you might afford to a rabid dog.

America and Americans, not the rule of law or the Constitution, remains the problem.

You must choose: Do you want the rule of law, or a tyrant.