Possibly, Dave Smith misunderstands what Bob Levy truly advocates. How about considering that most of the article is a setup for the last two paragraphs:
“Finally, what peripheral concerns need to be addressed before implementing compulsory injections? What will be the enforcement process, and the punishment for non-compliance? Will there be reporting requirements? Data tracking? Will special interests — drug companies being one example — exploit their government-conferred market power? Will politicians use the next crisis to rationalize even more invasive decrees?”
“Those are crucial questions, which should be examined before embarking on a program that encroaches on personal autonomy. And yet, we are in the midst of a health emergency, which means that suitably modified, narrowly-tailored, time-limited rules may be justified.”
Yes – Bob leaves open the possibility that narrowly-tailored, time-limited rules may be justified, but that does not mean that he advocates for those rules. Before he would be happy with mandates, he wants the crucial questions he raises answered. Since it is unlikely that his questions would ever get satisfactory answers, one could say that his article is attempting to put roadblocks in the way of those who want vaccine mandates.
“That’s my job.” Those three words summed up a controversial interview this week with the long-unnamed officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6. Shortly after being cleared by the Capitol Police in the shooting, Lt. Michael Byrd went public in an NBC interview, insisting that he “saved countless lives” by shooting the unarmed protester.
I have long expressed doubt over the Babbitt shooting, which directly contradicted standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement. But what was breathtaking about Byrd’s interview was that he confirmed the worst suspicions about the shooting and raised serious questions over the incident reviews by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and, most recently, the Capitol Police.
The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.
Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviewsin the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.
Politico reported that Byrd previously was subjected to a disciplinary review when he left his Glock 22 service weapon in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex. He reportedly told other officers that his rank as a lieutenant and his role as commander of the House chambers section would protect him and that he expected to “be treated differently.”
In the Babbitt shooting, the different treatment seems driven more by the identity of the person shot than the shooter. Babbitt is considered by many to be fair game because she was labeled an “insurrectionist.” To describe her shooting as unjustified would be to invite accusations of supporting sedition or insurrection. Thus, it is not enough to condemn her actions (as most of us have done); you must not question her killing.
While U.S. soldiers technically take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, as a practical matter their oath is to serve the president and unconditionally obey his orders. Since the president is democratically elected, in their minds they are supporting and defending the Constitution when they dutifully and loyally obey the commands of their commander in chief.
It is undisputed that there was never a congressional declaration of war against North Vietnam or Afghanistan. Given such, no president had the legal authority to order U.S. troops to invade and occupy either country.
Nonetheless, such orders were issued. At that point, U.S. soldiers had a choice: either support and defend the Constitution by disobeying those illegal orders to invade and occupy or faithfully and loyally obey the president and, in the process, violate the Constitution.
U.S. soldiers chose to obey the president. They always do. They just rationalize their decision by convincing themselves that by obeying the president, they are supporting and defending the Constitution.
