There's a Reason We Feed War Prisoners but Execute Spies
John Ross endorses Hillary for president in 2008. Well. Sort of.
First, although I am not a member, my political philosophy is most closely aligned with the platform of the Libertarian Party. I am not a member of the party because I believe that by forming a third party, the Libertarians have removed themselves from the political playing field and become an ineffectual debating society. I wish every Libertarian candidate would realize this and campaign for election in either of the two main parties. This, of course, would be a lot more work, but it could achieve real long-term gains for America, which the current third-party debating society never will.
...
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and if that old adage proves true of John McCain, under a McCain Presidency, America is going to become more of a Nanny State, not less. We (at least most of the time) try to treat enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield with respect and fairness, and we feed and house them until the war is over. They are our known opponents and are treated as such. They represent a known level of danger. Spies and traitors in our midst, however, are much more of a threat than the most competent of enemy generals, and that is why spies and traitors get much more severe treatment.
For this reason, I find myself in the odd position of wishing Hillary had told Bill to buzz off and had won a few more states, so I could vote for her in the general election. I'm that terrified of what Republicans might sign off on under a John McCain Presidency.
