As Glenn Greenwald points out:

In the name of the War on Terror, the current president has diluted decades-old Miranda warnings; codified a new scheme of indefinite detention on US soil; plotted to relocate Guantanamo to Illinois; increased secrecy, repression and release-restrictions at the camp; minted a new theory of presidential assassination powers even for US citizens; renewed the Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping framework for another five years, as well as the Patriot Act, without a single reform; and just signed into law all new restrictions on the release of indefinitely held detainees.

Does that sound to you like a government anticipating the end of the War on Terror any time soon? Or does it sound like one working feverishly to make their terrorism-justified powers of detention, surveillance, killing and secrecy permanent?

There are two major parties in the U.S.  No, not republicans and democrats.  The country is divided between the rulers and the ruled.  Government will always seek more power.  It’s the nature of the beast.  And there is no better way to gain power than to declare a perpetual state of war.  The rationale is that the government needs these new powers because the country is under some  extraordinary threat.  The war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on drugs, and the war on terror have all served a singular purpose and that is to expand governmental power.  And, in that regard, every one of those wars has been a roaring success.  Unfortunately, giving power to the government is almost always bloodless.  Getting it back rarely is.

If you don’t follow Glenn Greenwald, you probably should.  That goes double if you’re one of those party loyalists who think government would be so much better if only it were completely controlled by the republicans or democrats.

Having to choose between republicans or democrats is very similar to having to choose which one of your nuts to hit as hard as you can with a hammer.  There is no “lesser of two evils” in that choice.