"Fighting Bob" LaFollette, one of the great progressives of the Republican party of long ago, had something to say about war, when it was foisted on the American people by Wilson and the various bondholders of Britain and France (source):
Stretcher bears in mud near Boesinghe, Belgium 8/1/17.
This war was supposed to have been over some 3 years before.
In the sense that this war is being forced upon our people without their knowing why and without their approval, and that wars are usually forced upon all peoples in the same way, there is some truth in the statement; but I venture to say that the response which the German people have made to the demands of this war shows that it has a degree of popular support which the war upon which we are entering has not and never will have among our people.
The espionage bills, the conscription bills, and other forcible military measures which we understand are being ground out of the war machine in this country is the complete proof that those responsible for this war fear that it has no popular support and that armies sufficient to satisfy the demand of the Entente Allies cannot be recruited by voluntary enlistments. . . .
The
Espionage Act of 1917 is still with us, and in fact forms the basis for the prosecution of Edward Snowden.
We don't have conscription any more, that's a good thing. But we're doing a lot of similar things. The 1917 Espionage Act authorized the Postmaster General (who was always a reliable political hack) to refuse to carry anti-war writings.
Our reach is far broader now. We monitor the entire nation, whom we have converted from citizens into suspects. Our NSA can now monitor communications like:
Pick up some Trojans if you drop by Target tonight. If I get one more denial of service, I'm going to burst.
In some ways we are going beyond what was done in 1917. Now we see the case for war being made in secret. Dana Milbank hit the nail on the over at the
WaPo (9/4/13):
Estimates of collateral damage? “Lower than a certain number which I would rather share with you in a classified setting,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey told lawmakers.
Response of the Arab and Muslim countries? “This is something I’d be happier discussing in greater detail with you in the closed session,” Kerry said.
Safeguards to keep military action limited? “We can talk about that in a closed session,” Dempsey said.
How would Russia and other Syrian allies respond to a U.S. strike? “We all agree that that would be best handled in a classified session,” Kerry said.
Nobody wants to know ship movements, military codes, etc. What is being withheld from us are the basic facts that justify war. Even if there are secret briefings for Congress, we have no way to evaluate whether our representatives will have made the correct assessment of the situation -- this prevents them from being held accountable.
Hence we see the arrogant Diane Feinstein tell us she knows better (source):
Acknowledging that most Californians calling her office about Syria oppose military action, Feinstein said, “They have not seen what I have seen, or heard what I have heard. I like to believe that after 20 years ... I have some skills in separating the wheat from the chaff.”
So shut up and go shopping.