Skip to main content

The whole story from Michael Yon

A couple days ago I posted about a note Michael Yon had sent to Instapundit about the arrest of an Iraqi General.

Here's the whole fascinating story.

I had talked about the importance of the rule of law and how those in government must be subject to it.

I hope, very much, that as this goes into the Iraqi court system that it will be an example of fairness that will encourage the people in Iraq to trust the process and have confidence in their justice system.

It's *important*.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
Surprise.

I love it when combatant commanders surprise their own people by asking for forgiveness after a fait accompli. I love it when people take risky action to get even greater benefits.

Businesses might profit by playing it safe, but war is not for profit.

I contrast this with Bush's leadership, which is almost always concerned about asking for permission first, before he does anything. It is quite strange that it takes people like Crissman to create the rule of law, but once created, the rule of law tends to engage people who are not risk takers, who ask for permission first, and so forth. I wonder if that is ultimately sustainable in the end.

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...