We were expendable

"They Were Expendable," MGM 1945. Donna Reed and John Wayne. (MPTV photo)

"They have determined their desperation makes them above the law, and the rest of us expendable in their war against America," writes AJStrata of The Strata-Sphere [via The Anchoress and Dr. Sanity], saying out loud what so many of us have been seething about under our blogbreaths of late:

These liberal zealots and their liberal media comrades have apparently decided they cannot wait to dictate a change in policy through our legal, democratic processes.

Why else would we continue to see more details on how we have been protecting ourselves against terrorist attacks, thus providing the terrorists a clear road map on how to avoid our defenses. The Washington Post (and many others) have further disrupted our ability monitor terrorists in our country!

It's a call to arms for the blogosphere to put our posts where our mouths are:

A while ago someone suggested a way for ‘We The People’ to fight back as these treasonous liberals expose us to attack. The idea was to bring a class action law suit against the media outlets who recklessly expose our defense mechanisms to our enemies.

We don’t need to win, as much as get millions and millions of people signing up against the New York Times, Washington Post, the reporters themselves. In my opinion these companies are impairing my civil rights by exposing me and my familiy to terrorist acts. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the partisan actions of these leakers is putting all of this at risk.

These are not whistleblowers, they never show a single instance of wrong doing -- just theories and conjecture. Their motivations are purely partisan politics. Time for us to remind everyone the power is in the people. So if anyone knows how to start a law suit against these people please let us all know.

We like the way this man's mind works. He continues:

Some have questioned (Pierre my friend!) why I focus on the media and not the leakers. The answer is I expect the government to take care of them. But the government cannot take on the media corporations without a big constitutional crisis with the fourth estate. So while the Feds take care of their Benedict Arnolds, we the people should act on the media. And the best way to do that is remind them we have a say as well.

Why didn't we think of this? Other than amongst Islamicist terrorists poisoned by Wahhabist blamism of the infidel, the dictatorial impulse beats most loudly these days in the hearts of so-called liberals, maddened by Bush Derangment Syndrome. He sues, and she sues, and they sue, so darling, why shouldn't we sue too? As Dr. Sanity asks, "Any good lawyers out there?"

Comments

[AJStrata]

Thanks for the compliment. Some days I am surprised I am thinking at all.

Cheers.

[Teresa]

Interesting! I'd love to see Eugene Volokh's take on this!

I will have to think about this for a bit - while it sounds good... it strikes me as being something that really wouldn't work in practice. There is always the "law of unintended consequences" what might come out of it, that would make things worse in some other situation? It is something that must be kept in mind.

In the meantime the blogosphere seems to be doing an excellent job of bringing the media tricks to the attention of the general public. I'd love to know (from a captured terrorist) exactly how much they use information passed on to them by the media - it might make a stronger case for or against the proposal.

[goomp]

"Right Islam vs. Wrong Islam" by Abdurrahman Wahid, which appeared on the ed page of the12/30/05 edition of the WSJ should be required reading for everyone in the USA and really the entire world. We defeat "Wrong Islam" or we are dead.

[Tom]

Be careful what you wish for! That could open the floodgates of lawsuits (real or imagined) against the blogsphere. Whose lawyers do you think will win? Even if they are groundless, bloggers will still have to pay lawyers to defend themselves. That will stifle all the good that the blogsphere is accomplishing as a balancing tool against the MSM.

[gowain]

It's a great idea. But in order to sue, you have to have what they call "standing". And to have standing you have to prove real, actionable damage.

If another attack occured and it could be proved that the scuzballs would not have been able to mount the attack but for information they gleaned from the New York Times, then the people who were hurt, and the families of the people who were killed would have standing. And could sue the NYT.

Like I was saying, it is a great idea and if anyone can figure a way to sue 'em, then I will be the first to sign on the dotted line.