Note-I am NOT advocating the following fantasy episode, but it has a following in the darker parts of my mind.

WASHINGTON-January 6, 2004. A paramilitary organization calling itself the Islamic Liberation Front shocked the nation by a pair of brutal attacks this afternoon. A force estimated at about 200 ILF commandos stormed the Supreme Court building, killing 35 people, including five Supreme Court Justices. At the same time, a contingent of 1,000 ILF paramilitaries attacked the Hart Senate Office Building, where a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting was being held. Approximately 150 people were killed in the attack. Once the commandos had seized the building, they systematically killed 64 Senators and over 90 staff members . Here is a temporary list of the Senators we have lost. Killed were Bill Frist Daniel Akaka Trent Lott Byron Dorgan George Voinovich Mary Landrieu John McCain John Warner John Breaux Bob Graham Blanche Lincoln Mike Dewine Zell Miller
Hillary Clinton Michael Crappo Ernest Hollings Barbara Mikulski Kent Conrad Daniel Inouyye David Pryor Tom Daschle Tim Johnson Harry Reid

ETC. ETC. ETC.

Mark Dayton Ted Kennedy Paul Sarbanes
Chris Dodd John Kerry Chuch Schumer

Joe Lieberman was campaigning in South Carolina, and missed the assassins. The attackers turned themselves in to police, and are proudly confessing their crimes, cooperating with authorities.

If the governors appoint Republican replacements, there will be 72 Republicans in the US Senate until replacement elections can be held. Even if a few Democrats are named, there will be likely at least 60 votes to vote for cloture and appoint replacements for the slain Supreme Court justices, changing the balance of power on the court.

It’s easy for someone to say, “I don’t support this.” But the author could be posting this to plant the seed in the mind of an unstable reader. Perhaps one of his students?

I really don’t you would be so kind to the author if he was talking about conservatives dying.

Oh get off yourself, this is ridiculous. Just because Byron used a totally Machiavellian analysis doesn’t mean that he doesn’t also reject the scenario for the more obvious reasons–that it’d be evil, treasonous, etc. If you can’t analyze something from a pure, cold, rational, amoral, heartless, calculating viewpoint in order to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of a particular course of action, you have clearly never participated in a marketing scheme or a campaign of any type (ad, political, etc.). Indeed, such thought amoral exercises are necessary for policymakers in areas like foreign policy; they must imagine the possible scenarios that can take place, and understanding the harsh reality of our Hobbesian world is imperative to formulating realistic responses to the various challenges we face out there.

Seems like a pretty clear renunciation to me.

I find his resons for opposing the hypothetical mass murder almost as repulsive as the plan itself; if I understand him correctly, the standard for the appropriateness of opposition to government policy (or private actions, see the previous post referring to abortion clinics) is based solely on effectiveness; both protesting Judge Moore’s monument and killing all liberal Supreme Court justices and Democrat Senators from states with Republican Governors are innapropriate because they would give too little lasting political change in return for too much bad PR for Christ.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to accuse someone of secretly supporting something they describe in loving detail and then (sort of) denounce… Particularly in this case, where I think it’s completely fair to assume he’s supporting the mass killing, if there were somewhat more advantageous circumstances.

–
Benjamin Coates

p.s.
M. Simon: are you taking about Jim Bell’s “Assassination Politics”?

At least someone did, and that is at least half the point.

(Wha!?)