Ace of Spades HQ

« Ka Ching II: The Wrath of Khan | Main | Sullivan Freak-Out Advisory Update: Nauseated »

May 05, 2005

There's a War On UPDATE: Situation Unchanged; There Remains a War On

And Traffic Santa thinks someone should tell Alberto Gonzales.

This time the "war on" thesis is used to suggest that increased federal aggressiveness in obscenity prosecutions is unwarranted.

Well... I don't know. Yes, I suppose this does represent a small diversion of law enforcement resources from hunting down Al Qaeda. But so, for that matter, do federal prosecutions for check-kiting and moonshining. Is Reynolds' thesis really that enforcement of admittedly non-vital laws should stop in the interests of hunting down terrorists? Are we to suspend the enforement of drug, prostitution, steroid, illegal gambling, etc. laws and thereby basically change the way we live in order to respond to the strict dictates of the "war on" manifesto?

Wouldn't that, in a way, mean that the terrorists have won?

Hey, I realize that's glib and, basically, stupid. But is it really any more glib or stupid that pushing a libertarian domestic agenda -- defensible and sensible in many aspects, one could argue -- under the rather crude pretext that there's a "war on"?

BTW, the prosecutions aren't for run-of-the-mill porn. They're for porn containing "bestiality, sadomasochism and simulated rape." I suppose it's debatable whether or not we ought to be prosecuting the purveyors of such, ahem, unconventional fare, but it's not like Jenna Jameson is now on the FBI's Most Wanted List or anything.

I just think this whole line of argument is disingenuous, and I think Reynolds would object to its use in other circumstances. Civil unions? We can't change the current laws regarding gay coupling; there's a war on, you know.

And I have to say that every time a law is suggested that would help the fight against terrorists, the ACLU makes similar suggestions, claiming that, for example, any profiling at airports is wasteful and counterproductive because those resources would be "better used" to track "real terrorists."

Anytime someone doesn't like a law, it seems, he can just glibly assert that that law compromises our efforts to find the "real terrorists."

I think it would be far more useful for people to be more candid about the reasons for opposing laws. Reynolds should candidly explain why he supports, or rather does not oppose, the production and distribution of this sort of porn, rather than eliding the question with the vacuous "there's a war on" defense. And the ACLU should be candid enough to admit they don't care if profiling works or doesn't work, they just don't like it, because (they believe) it's inconsistent with the Constitution.

Enough of these childish "diversion of resources" arguments. Everything in law enforcement, in poltics, and in everyday life itself is a diversion of resources from something else.

Not sure if I can continue blogging... there's a war on, you might have heard.

Thanks to NickS.

And also thanks to The Unabrewer.

posted by Ace at 12:07 PM

Comments

I'd try to think of something insightful to say about all this, but I feel it's my duty to contribute all of my thinking to the war effort.

Posted by: Rocketeer67 on May 5, 2005 12:34 PM

At this point, I expect he's doing it partially just to taunt you. Instaman ain't backing down.

Posted by: Some Guy on May 5, 2005 12:50 PM

I can't talk about this when there's a social security crisis on.

Posted by: Jason on May 5, 2005 12:58 PM

Uh, when the hell did simulated rape porn become verboten? Did I miss something?

Posted by: Megan on May 5, 2005 01:04 PM

I can't pay attention to any of this silly Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. War is on.

Channel 42, to be exact. Man, I love "Why Can't We Be Friends." That's one tasty groove.

Posted by: Russell Wardlow on May 5, 2005 01:10 PM

I'm sorry, I have to go. I have a Victory Garden to plant, and then I have to gather up tin cans for the war effort.

Posted by: hobgoblin on May 5, 2005 01:13 PM

I have worked in fed law enforcement for 15 years so far. 1)Every single porno case &/or investigation I've ever heard of (i.e.,100s of them) have been for child porn. Every... single... one. As in,"ALL". If the AG is going after others types of porn now, word has never reached us worker bees. 2) As for FBI antiterror efforts... let's just say that since 9/11, one shouldn't be too confident about phone security down at the local Islamic Center.

Posted by: mnw on May 5, 2005 01:20 PM

Well, I work for the AG (his personal assistant) and I sent that memo out weeks ago, you nimrod.

Posted by: on May 5, 2005 01:52 PM

Memorandum

To: United States Attorneys Offices, all Federal Districts

From: US Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs

.cc Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

Subj: Update

There is a war on.

Posted by: Dave in Texas on May 5, 2005 02:15 PM

The taunting shall continue.

Posted by: Glenn Reynolds on May 5, 2005 02:36 PM

I know some of the people involved in these cases that started under Ashcroft. It is true that some of the cases involve simulated activity like rape and beatings but it also includes things like bukake. In other words their definition of obscenity is somewhat broader than they admit to reporters. Like I told my friend involved in the case go after these people for assault or rape don’t get involved with this obscenity debate but no they knew better. The feds even tried cherry picking their venue attempting to prosecute a California smut manufacturer in Pennsylvania. They still lost that case on its merits. Although, and I’m sure you’ll love this, the judge in handing down his decision quoted SCOTUS Lawrence case so I’m sure that will generate an interesting appeal.

Beyond that some of the people I know who are “working” these cases have to do things like go to the AVN awards show in Las Vegas to “investigate” their targets. I imagine the probative value of that trip was somewhere asymptotically approaching zero.

These same agents have worked domestic terrorism cases so why take good agents that already complain they don’t have enough resources and put them on this? In this case Glenn is right, but your point still stands he does apply this to stuff he personally doesn’t like. In Glenn;s defense the reason this is a waste of time/resources is because the cases are losers and are designed to placate a certain segment of the Republican Party.

Somewhat off-topic the one thing these guys tell me is a big problem is our banking system. When they start to investigate a criminal/terrorist/whatever and they request bank records the first person the bank calls is the freaking terrorist/target of investigation because they are a “valued client”. We should all take a long hard look at that whole deal and figure out a way to fix it.

Posted by: AB on May 5, 2005 02:47 PM

There IS a war on--against children

Posted by: on May 6, 2005 04:04 AM