I forgot the part of the army manual about loading up car bombs and blowing them up in cafes. Don't play false equivalence between those barbarians and the military. It's a game you're not going to win.
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
While the US and other countries don't actively target civilians there is a long history of not really giving a shit if civilians get caught in the cross-fire. I don't think an Afghani goat herder really cares if he's dead because Al-Qaeda used him as a human shield or because a bunch of over-zealous Americans thought he looked a bit too "terrroristy." Dead is dead regardless of your intentions.
It's been a while since my world history classes but I don't believe we dropped the A-bomb on a pair of military bases.
I'm not sure if I really have a point here but I just have a hard time claiming the moral high ground when we so recently had things like Gitmo, torture, out-sourced torture (for the really heinous stuff) and yes, various targetted civilian killings (the difference being we brought those rogue soldiers to task, but again, dead is dead).
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
While the US and other countries don't actively target civilians there is a long history of not really giving a shit if civilians get caught in the cross-fire. I don't think an Afghani goat herder really cares if he's dead because Al-Qaeda used him as a human shield or because a bunch of over-zealous Americans thought he looked a bit too "terrroristy." Dead is dead regardless of your intentions.
It's been a while since my world history classes but I don't believe we dropped the A-bomb on a pair of military bases.
I'm not sure if I really have a point here but I just have a hard time claiming the moral high ground when we so recently had things like Gitmo, torture, out-sourced torture (for the really heinous stuff) and yes, various targetted civilian killings (the difference being we brought those rogue soldiers to task, but again, dead is dead).
Jayzus, we dropped the bombs on port cities and manufacturing (and to make a point to the Soviets, sure) But this isn't about the end of WW2.
These things do not add up to one another. You can feel that way, but saying "we kill civilians too!" when we're talking about Al Qaeda makes you wear the goose hat.
0
Options
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
I mean, I don't really have anything to gain by letting them into the press room, either. Nobody who watches Fox News gives two shits about bipartisanship or consensus-building.
But you have lots to lose by barring them from coming. They'll immediately say that "THE PRESIDENT IS STOPPING FREE SPEECH" and CNN will give that equal time and it'll spread like intellectual herpes.
At which point I could just issue a press release making fun of them for either being willfully deceptive or incredibly stupid.
That could easily backfire. The rational pundits and comedians will make fun of you while the Tea Party would only double down on the stupidity in response. You'll also give them an enemy to rally behind, a tactic conservatives rely on to unite voters.
The President can't afford to pull stunts like this. As much fun as it would be for you or I to think about calling some bitches out for their shit, except in very specific instances the President, especially one so automatically vilified as Obama, can't stoop to their level. Instead, he does what he did, point out the stupidity of the question in diplomatic terms and move on. Now the story is "REPORTER ASK OBAMA RIDICULOUS QUESTION" rather than "OBAMA SHUTS OUT MEDIA MEMBERS WHO DISAGREE WITH HIM".
Image.
He already did this once. Remember when he went on every news show under the sun *except* Fox News? It backfired on him spectacularly and the other news organizations actually stood up for Fox News in that case.
SNL actually did a really great sketch about it :P
Someone feel free to add these up and compare to the number of civilians killed during our war on terror operations.
Just to be clear, I'm not defending Al Qaeda, I just think it's silly to point to their targetting of civilians as an excuse for anything above and beyond what war calls for. What they're doing is part of war. Hence the "we do it too."
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Someone feel free to add these up and compare to the number of civilians killed during our war on terror operations.
Just to be clear, I'm not defending Al Qaeda, I just think it's silly to point to their targetting of civilians as an excuse for anything above and beyond what war calls for. What they're doing is part of war. Hence the "we do it too."
All right then, but that's not what that particular usage of "we do it too" implied.
It rings a little hollow to say we can't take the high road though when we've never loaded up civilian airliners and plowed them into civilian buildings in the middle of peacetime.
This is a bit off topic, but I was scouring a few dark corners of the internet recently and came across a Youtube conversation between an Iraq veteran and a random youtuber. The Vet proudly proclaimed that America had never lost a war, to which the random dude pointed out that the US did, indeed, technically lose in Vietnam.
The Vet responds to this by going off on a diatribe about how in wars, people are meant to die no matter what and if he hadn't been under constant supervision by his commanding officers and "bureaucratic red tape" , he would have opened fire on twenty times as many targets in Iraq, be they civilian or not. His point was that the military chain of command wouldn't allow the US to "win" in Vietnam, because he thought his trigger finger was too restrained in Iraq and thus the men on the ground in Vietnam must've been just as restrained.
I think we can all agree that people like that are fucked up and shouldn't be allowed to point guns at other people as their job (especially not during what is essentially peacekeeping missions in foreign countries, like in Iraq), and it seems like this kind opinion is sadly rather prevalent among conservative US servicemen. But at the same time, at least the US military keeps trigger-fetishists like this in check, somehow, even though some of them also seem to get protection from the repercussions of acting out on their dipshittery. There's some really creepy public opinion that is allowed to flourish in the US, but in actual war/ field duty shit like that would appear to not be looked kindly upon by the people calling the shots.
Just chiming in on the whole discussion of "We can be just as bad as them", which I would tend to agree with, but there's also an issue of "Us" being able to keep "Our worst assholes" on a tight leash. At least I'd like to think that the military intervention forces in, for example Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't accept the same kind of fucknuts as Al-Qaeda.
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
The other side of the coin is this: Al Qaeda threw down an ultimatum at the start. They will only be appeased with our complete and utter destruction and eradication. They are zealots in every sense of the word, and have a clearly stated goal of not having the United States exist anymore. They are not above any and all means to achieve their goals. If they could nuke us, they would. If they could release a plague to wipe us all out, they would.
When any person, American or not, joins their organization, they are stating "Yes, I too want the complete and systematic removal of the United States." That leaves little to no room for compromise, and given that we will never meet on an open field with pistols at dawn, we should absolutely take every reasonable step to eliminate such a threat whenever we have reliable intelligence as to where it exists.
If we effect civilian targets, we should own up to it, and as much as we are able, get their lives back in order.
The other side of the coin is this: Al Qaeda threw down an ultimatum at the start. They will only be appeased with our complete and utter destruction and eradication. They are zealots in every sense of the word, and have a clearly stated goal of not having the United States exist anymore. They are not above any and all means to achieve their goals. If they could nuke us, they would. If they could release a plague to wipe us all out, they would.
When any person, American or not, joins their organization, they are stating "Yes, I too want the complete and systematic removal of the United States." That leaves little to no room for compromise, and given that we will never meet on an open field with pistols at dawn, we should absolutely take every reasonable step to eliminate such a threat whenever we have reliable intelligence as to where it exists.
If we effect civilian targets, we should own up to it, and as much as we are able, get their lives back in order.
Agreed, and I'm fairly certain we do so. Of course there are fuck heads in the military, surprisingly putting on a uniform doens't automatically make you some kind of God among Men. But for the most part, 9.5 times out of 10, they're regular guys and gals doing a helluva job in total shit conditions. It's really a shame that the maybe five or ten dickbags we hear about cast a pall over the thousands and thousands of service members our military has. That's why I can't accept the "we do it to" argument. It's false equivalency, pure and simple.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Well if all we did was engage in war against Al Qaeda after 9/11 we probably could claim the moral high ground, but we broke the rules with things like Gitmo and torture, and it was done under the excuse that the normal rules of engagement no longer apply.
To tie this back to the Obama Administration, I appreciate that he put an end to torture and (to my knowledge) has not sent anyone new to Gitmo for indefinite detention. However, while letting something so heinous as torture go unpunished might have been politically expedient, I don't think it's enough to reclaim moral superiority.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
That's a perfectly understandable position, Sir Landshark. I may not agree with it completely, but I can respect it.
This is a bit off topic, but I was scouring a few dark corners of the internet recently and came across a Youtube conversation between an Iraq veteran and a random youtuber. The Vet proudly proclaimed that America had never lost a war, to which the random dude pointed out that the US did, indeed, technically lose in Vietnam.
The Vet responds to this by going off on a diatribe about how in wars, people are meant to die no matter what and if he hadn't been under constant supervision by his commanding officers and "bureaucratic red tape" , he would have opened fire on twenty times as many targets in Iraq, be they civilian or not. His point was that the military chain of command wouldn't allow the US to "win" in Vietnam, because he thought his trigger finger was too restrained in Iraq and thus the men on the ground in Vietnam must've been just as restrained.
I think we can all agree that people like that are fucked up and shouldn't be allowed to point guns at other people as their job (especially not during what is essentially peacekeeping missions in foreign countries, like in Iraq), and it seems like this kind opinion is sadly rather prevalent among conservative US servicemen. But at the same time, at least the US military keeps trigger-fetishists like this in check, somehow, even though some of them also seem to get protection from the repercussions of acting out on their dipshittery. There's some really creepy public opinion that is allowed to flourish in the US, but in actual war/ field duty shit like that would appear to not be looked kindly upon by the people calling the shots.
Just chiming in on the whole discussion of "We can be just as bad as them", which I would tend to agree with, but there's also an issue of "Us" being able to keep "Our worst assholes" on a tight leash. At least I'd like to think that the military intervention forces in, for example Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't accept the same kind of fucknuts as Al-Qaeda.
Well if all we did was engage in war against Al Qaeda after 9/11 we probably could claim the moral high ground, but we broke the rules with things like Gitmo and torture, and it was done under the excuse that the normal rules of engagement no longer apply.
To tie this back to the Obama Administration, I appreciate that he put an end to torture and (to my knowledge) has not sent anyone new to Gitmo for indefinite detention. However, while letting something so heinous as torture go unpunished might have been politically expedient, I don't think it's enough to reclaim moral superiority.
I suspect we wouldn't be able to get convictions if we wanted to. Given the legal authority of those saying it was legal, those who carried it out could easily say that it was similar to a police officer directing traffic up a one way street.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Well if all we did was engage in war against Al Qaeda after 9/11 we probably could claim the moral high ground, but we broke the rules with things like Gitmo and torture, and it was done under the excuse that the normal rules of engagement no longer apply.
To tie this back to the Obama Administration, I appreciate that he put an end to torture and (to my knowledge) has not sent anyone new to Gitmo for indefinite detention. However, while letting something so heinous as torture go unpunished might have been politically expedient, I don't think it's enough to reclaim moral superiority.
I suspect we wouldn't be able to get convictions if we wanted to. Given the legal authority of those saying it was legal, those who carried it out could easily say that it was similar to a police officer directing traffic up a one way street.
Yeah my limited understanding is that Obama would have had to prosecute some people really high up on the chain of command (up to Bush?) so he decided it was best to drop it and focus on the economy/ACA.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
I'm catching up on this thread, and I wanted to say thank you Hedgie for hitting the nail on the head with the military vs law enforcement dichotomy. Greenwald (and other people) were annoying me on this too and I couldn't quite figure out why.
Well if all we did was engage in war against Al Qaeda after 9/11 we probably could claim the moral high ground, but we broke the rules with things like Gitmo and torture, and it was done under the excuse that the normal rules of engagement no longer apply.
To tie this back to the Obama Administration, I appreciate that he put an end to torture and (to my knowledge) has not sent anyone new to Gitmo for indefinite detention. However, while letting something so heinous as torture go unpunished might have been politically expedient, I don't think it's enough to reclaim moral superiority.
I suspect we wouldn't be able to get convictions if we wanted to. Given the legal authority of those saying it was legal, those who carried it out could easily say that it was similar to a police officer directing traffic up a one way street.
Yeah my limited understanding is that Obama would have had to prosecute some people really high up on the chain of command (up to Bush?) so he decided it was best to drop it and focus on the economy/ACA.
That and the fact that it would be labeled as a partisan witch hunt regardless of whether that's true or not.
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Well if all we did was engage in war against Al Qaeda after 9/11 we probably could claim the moral high ground, but we broke the rules with things like Gitmo and torture, and it was done under the excuse that the normal rules of engagement no longer apply.
To tie this back to the Obama Administration, I appreciate that he put an end to torture and (to my knowledge) has not sent anyone new to Gitmo for indefinite detention. However, while letting something so heinous as torture go unpunished might have been politically expedient, I don't think it's enough to reclaim moral superiority.
I suspect we wouldn't be able to get convictions if we wanted to. Given the legal authority of those saying it was legal, those who carried it out could easily say that it was similar to a police officer directing traffic up a one way street.
Yeah my limited understanding is that Obama would have had to prosecute some people really high up on the chain of command (up to Bush?) so he decided it was best to drop it and focus on the economy/ACA.
Nuremburg Defense (Superior Orders) only works if the order is unlawful. When the guy at the head of the chain said "It's lawful." and is the only available authority on such, you're kinda screwed. That and the whole "Command is responsible for their subordinates actions".
You'd basically HAVE to go after the top levels. And that would set a nasty precedent for "Well my administration has the legal opinion that the acts of the previous administration were illegal, so we're now pressing charges." But we all know nobody in politics is petty enough to do that.
Reading the "Declaration of the Causes of Secession" issed by the states as they left the union, the first reason every single one of them mention is slavery.
That may be why they seceded but that's not why the war was fought.
That's like saying a mugging occurred because a pedestrian wanted to not get stabbed.
During the civil war Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and threw people in prison who disagreed with him (the Obama administration believes there are over 100,000 domestic terrorists, and these people will probably get thrown in prison without trial), which was great because it allowed him to control the propaganda. Only problem is it's completely unconstitutional and immoral. A lot of historians consider Lincoln the worst president in history for civil rights violations, Obama may just win a close second.
Every sentence in this quote contains falsehoods. Obama doesn't believe there are over 100K domestic terrorists. Lincoln didn't throw people in prison for disagreeing with him. It wasn't Unconstitutional, there's a specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in times of rebellion. Lincoln is almost universally considered the greatest or second greatest President in United States history. Those who think he's among the worst tend to be white supremacists, so its true that this group would also dislike Obama.
Stop making shit up and/or pull your head out of your ass
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who tries to put an equivalency there. My best friend nearly died not firing into a crowd of hostile civilians who had been told the marines were there to hand their town over to the Kurds, told by the same assholes who were detonating car bombs in crowded markets the next day.
During the civil war Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and threw people in prison who disagreed with him (the Obama administration believes there are over 100,000 domestic terrorists, and these people will probably get thrown in prison without trial), which was great because it allowed him to control the propaganda. Only problem is it's completely unconstitutional and immoral. A lot of historians consider Lincoln the worst president in history for civil rights violations, Obama may just win a close second.
Every sentence in this quote contains falsehoods. Obama doesn't believe there are over 100K domestic terrorists. Lincoln didn't throw people in prison for disagreeing with him.It wasn't Unconstitutional, there's a specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in times of rebellion. Lincoln is almost universally considered the greatest or second greatest President in United States history. Those who think he's among the worst tend to be white supremacists, so its true that this group would also dislike Obama.
Stop making shit up and/or pull your head out of your ass
Lincoln eventually fixed the situation by pardoning many of the people originally detained, but the Supreme Court was never able to enforce Ex parte Merryman. Lincoln just ignored it.
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
During the civil war Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and threw people in prison who disagreed with him (the Obama administration believes there are over 100,000 domestic terrorists, and these people will probably get thrown in prison without trial), which was great because it allowed him to control the propaganda. Only problem is it's completely unconstitutional and immoral. A lot of historians consider Lincoln the worst president in history for civil rights violations, Obama may just win a close second.
Every sentence in this quote contains falsehoods. Obama doesn't believe there are over 100K domestic terrorists. Lincoln didn't throw people in prison for disagreeing with him.It wasn't Unconstitutional, there's a specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in times of rebellion. Lincoln is almost universally considered the greatest or second greatest President in United States history. Those who think he's among the worst tend to be white supremacists, so its true that this group would also dislike Obama.
Stop making shit up and/or pull your head out of your ass
Lincoln eventually fixed the situation by pardoning many of the people originally detained, but the Supreme Court was never able to enforce Ex parte Merryman. Lincoln just ignored it.
Well, I mean, the "disagreeing" with him thing was sedition and treason. So I'm not too hacked up about it.
Well if all we did was engage in war against Al Qaeda after 9/11 we probably could claim the moral high ground, but we broke the rules with things like Gitmo and torture, and it was done under the excuse that the normal rules of engagement no longer apply.
To tie this back to the Obama Administration, I appreciate that he put an end to torture and (to my knowledge) has not sent anyone new to Gitmo for indefinite detention. However, while letting something so heinous as torture go unpunished might have been politically expedient, I don't think it's enough to reclaim moral superiority.
I suspect we wouldn't be able to get convictions if we wanted to. Given the legal authority of those saying it was legal, those who carried it out could easily say that it was similar to a police officer directing traffic up a one way street.
Yeah my limited understanding is that Obama would have had to prosecute some people really high up on the chain of command (up to Bush?) so he decided it was best to drop it and focus on the economy/ACA.
Nuremburg Defense (Superior Orders) only works if the order is unlawful. When the guy at the head of the chain said "It's lawful." and is the only available authority on such, you're kinda screwed. That and the whole "Command is responsible for their subordinates actions".
Wasn't torture still illegal when Bush was the president? I don't recall him making that legal. Yoo and co. did some unsavory legal ass-covering but nothing that stood any tests like in the Surpeme Court to prove itself. It also wasn't bought up properly by the legal channels either from what IIRC.
You'd basically HAVE to go after the top levels. And that would set a nasty precedent for "Well my administration has the legal opinion that the acts of the previous administration were illegal, so we're now pressing charges." But we all know nobody in politics is petty enough to do that.
Instead Republicans will do that directly with any minor excuse to impeach any Democratic president, like with Clinton. Yet the Democrats refuse to fight back when they'd actually be in the right morally and legally, such as going after torturers. It also would set a precedent that any administration that does crazy, illegal shit would no longer be immune to be prosecuted. It has to happen sometime or America will remain a rogue state every time a Republican becomes president.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
Instead Republicans will do that directly with any minor excuse to impeach any Democratic president, like with Clinton. Yet the Democrats refuse to fight back when they'd actually be in the right morally and legally, such as going after torturers. It also would set a precedent that any administration that does crazy, illegal shit would no longer be immune to be prosecuted. It has to happen sometime or America will remain a rogue state every time a Republican becomes president.
Instead Republicans will do that directly with any minor excuse to impeach any Democratic president, like with Clinton. Yet the Democrats refuse to fight back when they'd actually be in the right morally and legally, such as going after torturers. It also would set a precedent that any administration that does crazy, illegal shit would no longer be immune to be prosecuted. It has to happen sometime or America will remain a rogue state every time a Republican becomes president.
Instead Republicans will do that directly with any minor excuse to impeach any Democratic president, like with Clinton. Yet the Democrats refuse to fight back when they'd actually be in the right morally and legally, such as going after torturers. It also would set a precedent that any administration that does crazy, illegal shit would no longer be immune to be prosecuted. It has to happen sometime or America will remain a rogue state every time a Republican becomes president.
Huh? Lying under oath is minor?
The magnitude of the thing being lied about plays into whether or not lying under oath is more or less minor.
I wouldn't classify the Copperheads as seditious or treasonous, yet Lincoln had Vallandigham jailed and eventually exiled for "uttering disloyal sentiments" while pressing for peaceful reunification with the southern states.
I would download a car.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't classify the Copperheads as seditious or treasonous, yet Lincoln had Vallandigham jailed and eventually exiled for "uttering disloyal sentiments" while pressing for peaceful reunification with the southern states.
So is there any reason why we couldn't set up something like the FISA Court for American nationals overseas who we suspect of connections to terrorism? This set up is concerning from a legal standpoint because it seems like there's not a lot of chance for oversight from either Congress (which is Congress' fuck up) or the courts. I understand the point about not trying people in absentia. But it seems like we're sacrificing the Fifth Amendment to preserve the Sixth there. And again, in a legal sense, I just object to the drone strikes. I think there's a fundamental difference in that if you send in a special forces team, you are giving the target a chance to surrender. Not that I really expect these kinds of targets to actually surrender, but I still think it's valuable.
From a policy perspective, I think drone strikes are also largely a bad idea because we inevitably miss and/or kill innocents when we do hit a legitimate target and if we're fighting a war, it's one we're only going to win with soft power. So I think they're counterproductive.
This again views the process as a law enforcement problem which is not missing the point.
We don't pursue al Qaeda and its ilk because they've violated the laws of the United States. We do so because they are a national security threat. Police powers and National Security powers are not the same thing. If an army is invading the United States - or indeed if there's an armed rebellion ongoing - the government can shoot the invading force in the face without trial. The restrictions on law enforcement do not apply universally to the restrictions on national security. Its a concept enshrined in the Constitution: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
The Government has two different powers. It has the power to regulate behavior through law, enforce those laws and punish the violation of those laws. And it has the obligation to provide for National Defense. The former is limited in many ways, in what can be regulated, how they can be enforced and what punitive measures are permissible. That doesn't mean those restrictions likewise apply to national defense.
War inevitably ends with a lot of people dead. Something like 250K Confederates died in the Civil War, but that doesn't mean they were denied due process. The Allies didn't deprive 2,000,000 Germans their due process before execution in World War I. That's war. Those who engage in illegal warfare - both by refusing to wear a uniform and in committing war crimes - don't deserve more protection than a soldier on a battle field.
We aren't trying to arrest them. That's not the goal. That's what you do in order to evaluate whether a law has been broken beyond a shadow of a doubt so as to mete out the appropriate punishment. Hell, a lot of the time that would be against international law in war.
We're trying to kill them... or more accurately eliminate them as a threat. Sometimes its more beneficial to capture them so its easier to kill/neutralize other threats but in general the goal is not to put them in a cell. A drone strike risks zero Americans. It may be riskier in terms of civilian casualties or faster than a commando raid (at the very least both points are debatable) but even if boots on the ground is the superior tactic, there's no obligation that US troops have to ask the target to surrender. The objective is not to enforce the law, but to eliminate threats to the common defense, and the surest way to eliminate a threat is to eliminate the threat.
I wouldn't classify the Copperheads as seditious or treasonous, yet Lincoln had Vallandigham jailed and eventually exiled for "uttering disloyal sentiments" while pressing for peaceful reunification with the southern states.
War were declared.
Nothing about my statement depends on whether it was legal or justified. I'm just providing a better example than Merryman. Lincoln had people jailed for the incendiary claim that the war was about slavery instead of saving the union, and calling for the end to his presidency.
During the civil war Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and threw people in prison who disagreed with him (the Obama administration believes there are over 100,000 domestic terrorists, and these people will probably get thrown in prison without trial), which was great because it allowed him to control the propaganda. Only problem is it's completely unconstitutional and immoral. A lot of historians consider Lincoln the worst president in history for civil rights violations, Obama may just win a close second.
Every sentence in this quote contains falsehoods. Obama doesn't believe there are over 100K domestic terrorists. Lincoln didn't throw people in prison for disagreeing with him.It wasn't Unconstitutional, there's a specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in times of rebellion. Lincoln is almost universally considered the greatest or second greatest President in United States history. Those who think he's among the worst tend to be white supremacists, so its true that this group would also dislike Obama.
Stop making shit up and/or pull your head out of your ass
Lincoln eventually fixed the situation by pardoning many of the people originally detained, but the Supreme Court was never able to enforce Ex parte Merryman. Lincoln just ignored it.
Yes Lincoln threw people in jail. No it wasn't because "they disagreed with him." Merryman was a Confederate recruiter behind lines who was indicted for treason.
I wouldn't classify the Copperheads as seditious or treasonous, yet Lincoln had Vallandigham jailed and eventually exiled for "uttering disloyal sentiments" while pressing for peaceful reunification with the southern states.
War were declared.
Nothing about my statement depends on whether it was legal or justified. I'm just providing a better example than Merryman. Lincoln had people jailed for the incendiary claim that the war was about slavery instead of saving the union, and calling for the end to his presidency.
No, I know, I was just in a Futurama quote kick.
The Copperheads might have been shitasses, but they were probably mostly legal shitasses.
I wouldn't classify the Copperheads as seditious or treasonous, yet Lincoln had Vallandigham jailed and eventually exiled for "uttering disloyal sentiments" while pressing for peaceful reunification with the southern states.
War were declared.
Nothing about my statement depends on whether it was legal or justified. I'm just providing a better example than Merryman. Lincoln had people jailed for the incendiary claim that the war was about slavery instead of saving the union, and calling for the end to his presidency.
No, I know, I was just in a Futurama quote kick.
The Copperheads might have been shitasses, but they were probably mostly legal shitasses.
I still don't lose sleep over it.
I didn't recognize the reference . My fault really, the entire show is available on instant queue.
I wouldn't classify the Copperheads as seditious or treasonous, yet Lincoln had Vallandigham jailed and eventually exiled for "uttering disloyal sentiments" while pressing for peaceful reunification with the southern states.
War were declared.
Nothing about my statement depends on whether it was legal or justified. I'm just providing a better example than Merryman. Lincoln had people jailed for the incendiary claim that the war was about slavery instead of saving the union, and calling for the end to his presidency.
No, I know, I was just in a Futurama quote kick.
The Copperheads might have been shitasses, but they were probably mostly legal shitasses.
I still don't lose sleep over it.
I didn't recognize the reference . My fault really, the entire show is available on instant queue.
I wouldn't classify the Copperheads as seditious or treasonous, yet Lincoln had Vallandigham jailed and eventually exiled for "uttering disloyal sentiments" while pressing for peaceful reunification with the southern states.
Lincoln didn't put Vallandigham in jail. He was arrested by General Burnside who was essentially in charge of much of the midwest. While he was initially jailed, Lincoln sent him to the Confederacy rather than hold him and justified his arrest thusly:
Take the particular case mentioned by the meeting. They assert [It is asserted] in substance that Mr. Vallandigham was by a military commander, seized and tried "for no other reason than words addressed to a public meeting, in criticism of the course of the administration, and in condemnation of the military orders of that general" Now, if there be no mistake about this--if this assertion is the truth and the whole truth--if there was no other reason for the arrest, then I concede that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest, as I understand, was made for a very different reason. Mr. Vallandigham avows his hostility to the war on the part of the Union; and his arrest was made because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army, and to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to suppress it. He was not arrested because he was damaging the political prospects of the administration, or the personal interests of the commanding general; but because he was damaging the army, upon the existence, and vigor of which, the life of the nation depends. He was warring upon the military; and this gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands upon him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not damaging the military power of the country, then his arrest was made on mistake of fact, which I would be glad to correct, on reasonably satisfactory evidence.
...
If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in cases of rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety requires them, which would not be constitutional when, in absence of rebellion or invasion, the public Safety does not require them--in other words, that the constitution is not in it’s application in all respects the same, in cases of Rebellion or invasion, involving the public Safety, as it is in times of profound peace and public security. The constitution itself makes the distinction; and I can no more be persuaded that the government can constitutionally take no strong measure in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man, because it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger, apprehended by the meeting, that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of evidence, trial by jury, and Habeas corpus, throughout the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness, as to persist in feeding upon them through the remainder of his healthful life.
..
And yet, let me say that in my own discretion, I do not know whether I would have ordered the arrest of Mr. V. While I can not shift the responsibility from myself, I hold that, as a general rule, the commander in the field is the better judge of the necessity in any particular case. Of course I must practice a general directory and revisory power in the matter.
I wouldn't classify the Copperheads as seditious or treasonous, yet Lincoln had Vallandigham jailed and eventually exiled for "uttering disloyal sentiments" while pressing for peaceful reunification with the southern states.
War were declared.
Nothing about my statement depends on whether it was legal or justified. I'm just providing a better example than Merryman. Lincoln had people jailed for the incendiary claim that the war was about slavery instead of saving the union, and calling for the end to his presidency.
No, I know, I was just in a Futurama quote kick.
The Copperheads might have been shitasses, but they were probably mostly legal shitasses.
I still don't lose sleep over it.
I didn't recognize the reference . My fault really, the entire show is available on instant queue.
S'cool, but now you have your assignment for the week: watch Futurama until you see references where there are none!
Lincoln didn't directly order his arrest and I don't believe knew about it before it happened. His proclamations that the arrest isn't justified if Vallandigham was just speaking out against the administration don't carry much weight though, as he still took direct part in Vallandigham's punishment after it was clear that he was arrested for just that.
Maybe Vallandigham didn't provide enough evidence of his innocence...
I'm going to have to ask you to read this slowly, as I can't actually say it to you at the appropriate speed:
They
attack
civilians.
So does the American military. And no, not just in terms of collateral damage: You've assisted in armed coups against democratically elected civilian governments, you've provided arms & training to criminal organizations in order to terrorize civilians via proxy, you've engaged in mass indiscriminate bombing campaigns in the past in order to attempt to 'break' the willpower of belligerent nations, etc. All of this bullshit has been hand-waved and rationalized by your government, so trying to claim special distinction from al Qaeda's brand of brutality is ridiculous.
Thus the importance of the distinction between military belligerent vs criminal organization.
That's why I can't accept the "we do it to" argument. It's false equivalency, pure and simple.
It's not false equivalence. Your military has, in the not-so-distant past, engaged in mass murder of civilians both directly and via proxy. You even helped to facilitate a genocide in East Timor.
Again, thus the importance of the distinction that Holder wants to muddle.
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who tries to put an equivalency there. My best friend nearly died not firing into a crowd of hostile civilians who had been told the marines were there to hand their town over to the Kurds, told by the same assholes who were detonating car bombs in crowded markets the next day.
-.-
So, one instance of a marine acting selflessly somehow erases all of the past war crimes committed by the United States?
Posts
I forgot the part of the army manual about loading up car bombs and blowing them up in cafes. Don't play false equivalence between those barbarians and the military. It's a game you're not going to win.
A better statement would be "They specifically and intentionally target civilians. Their entire goal is to not engage the military.
It's been a while since my world history classes but I don't believe we dropped the A-bomb on a pair of military bases.
I'm not sure if I really have a point here but I just have a hard time claiming the moral high ground when we so recently had things like Gitmo, torture, out-sourced torture (for the really heinous stuff) and yes, various targetted civilian killings (the difference being we brought those rogue soldiers to task, but again, dead is dead).
Jayzus, we dropped the bombs on port cities and manufacturing (and to make a point to the Soviets, sure) But this isn't about the end of WW2.
These things do not add up to one another. You can feel that way, but saying "we kill civilians too!" when we're talking about Al Qaeda makes you wear the goose hat.
He already did this once. Remember when he went on every news show under the sun *except* Fox News? It backfired on him spectacularly and the other news organizations actually stood up for Fox News in that case.
SNL actually did a really great sketch about it :P
Someone feel free to add these up and compare to the number of civilians killed during our war on terror operations.
Just to be clear, I'm not defending Al Qaeda, I just think it's silly to point to their targetting of civilians as an excuse for anything above and beyond what war calls for. What they're doing is part of war. Hence the "we do it too."
All right then, but that's not what that particular usage of "we do it too" implied.
It rings a little hollow to say we can't take the high road though when we've never loaded up civilian airliners and plowed them into civilian buildings in the middle of peacetime.
The Vet responds to this by going off on a diatribe about how in wars, people are meant to die no matter what and if he hadn't been under constant supervision by his commanding officers and "bureaucratic red tape" , he would have opened fire on twenty times as many targets in Iraq, be they civilian or not. His point was that the military chain of command wouldn't allow the US to "win" in Vietnam, because he thought his trigger finger was too restrained in Iraq and thus the men on the ground in Vietnam must've been just as restrained.
I think we can all agree that people like that are fucked up and shouldn't be allowed to point guns at other people as their job (especially not during what is essentially peacekeeping missions in foreign countries, like in Iraq), and it seems like this kind opinion is sadly rather prevalent among conservative US servicemen. But at the same time, at least the US military keeps trigger-fetishists like this in check, somehow, even though some of them also seem to get protection from the repercussions of acting out on their dipshittery. There's some really creepy public opinion that is allowed to flourish in the US, but in actual war/ field duty shit like that would appear to not be looked kindly upon by the people calling the shots.
Just chiming in on the whole discussion of "We can be just as bad as them", which I would tend to agree with, but there's also an issue of "Us" being able to keep "Our worst assholes" on a tight leash. At least I'd like to think that the military intervention forces in, for example Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't accept the same kind of fucknuts as Al-Qaeda.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
When any person, American or not, joins their organization, they are stating "Yes, I too want the complete and systematic removal of the United States." That leaves little to no room for compromise, and given that we will never meet on an open field with pistols at dawn, we should absolutely take every reasonable step to eliminate such a threat whenever we have reliable intelligence as to where it exists.
If we effect civilian targets, we should own up to it, and as much as we are able, get their lives back in order.
Agreed, and I'm fairly certain we do so. Of course there are fuck heads in the military, surprisingly putting on a uniform doens't automatically make you some kind of God among Men. But for the most part, 9.5 times out of 10, they're regular guys and gals doing a helluva job in total shit conditions. It's really a shame that the maybe five or ten dickbags we hear about cast a pall over the thousands and thousands of service members our military has. That's why I can't accept the "we do it to" argument. It's false equivalency, pure and simple.
To tie this back to the Obama Administration, I appreciate that he put an end to torture and (to my knowledge) has not sent anyone new to Gitmo for indefinite detention. However, while letting something so heinous as torture go unpunished might have been politically expedient, I don't think it's enough to reclaim moral superiority.
Welcome to the American Dolschtuss.
I suspect we wouldn't be able to get convictions if we wanted to. Given the legal authority of those saying it was legal, those who carried it out could easily say that it was similar to a police officer directing traffic up a one way street.
Likewise, good sir. I should have known better than to jump in with a snarky one-liner anyways.
Yeah my limited understanding is that Obama would have had to prosecute some people really high up on the chain of command (up to Bush?) so he decided it was best to drop it and focus on the economy/ACA.
That and the fact that it would be labeled as a partisan witch hunt regardless of whether that's true or not.
Nuremburg Defense (Superior Orders) only works if the order is unlawful. When the guy at the head of the chain said "It's lawful." and is the only available authority on such, you're kinda screwed. That and the whole "Command is responsible for their subordinates actions".
You'd basically HAVE to go after the top levels. And that would set a nasty precedent for "Well my administration has the legal opinion that the acts of the previous administration were illegal, so we're now pressing charges." But we all know nobody in politics is petty enough to do that.
That's like saying a mugging occurred because a pedestrian wanted to not get stabbed. We don't have 50,000 troops in Iraq. Please learn basic facts before engaging in debate.
Every sentence in this quote contains falsehoods. Obama doesn't believe there are over 100K domestic terrorists. Lincoln didn't throw people in prison for disagreeing with him. It wasn't Unconstitutional, there's a specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in times of rebellion. Lincoln is almost universally considered the greatest or second greatest President in United States history. Those who think he's among the worst tend to be white supremacists, so its true that this group would also dislike Obama.
Stop making shit up and/or pull your head out of your ass
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Actually that is true. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman
Lincoln eventually fixed the situation by pardoning many of the people originally detained, but the Supreme Court was never able to enforce Ex parte Merryman. Lincoln just ignored it.
Well, I mean, the "disagreeing" with him thing was sedition and treason. So I'm not too hacked up about it.
Wasn't torture still illegal when Bush was the president? I don't recall him making that legal. Yoo and co. did some unsavory legal ass-covering but nothing that stood any tests like in the Surpeme Court to prove itself. It also wasn't bought up properly by the legal channels either from what IIRC.
Instead Republicans will do that directly with any minor excuse to impeach any Democratic president, like with Clinton. Yet the Democrats refuse to fight back when they'd actually be in the right morally and legally, such as going after torturers. It also would set a precedent that any administration that does crazy, illegal shit would no longer be immune to be prosecuted. It has to happen sometime or America will remain a rogue state every time a Republican becomes president.
Huh? Lying under oath is minor?
Compared to war crimes it is.
The magnitude of the thing being lied about plays into whether or not lying under oath is more or less minor.
In Clinton's case, it was pretty minor.
War were declared.
We don't pursue al Qaeda and its ilk because they've violated the laws of the United States. We do so because they are a national security threat. Police powers and National Security powers are not the same thing. If an army is invading the United States - or indeed if there's an armed rebellion ongoing - the government can shoot the invading force in the face without trial. The restrictions on law enforcement do not apply universally to the restrictions on national security. Its a concept enshrined in the Constitution: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
The Government has two different powers. It has the power to regulate behavior through law, enforce those laws and punish the violation of those laws. And it has the obligation to provide for National Defense. The former is limited in many ways, in what can be regulated, how they can be enforced and what punitive measures are permissible. That doesn't mean those restrictions likewise apply to national defense.
War inevitably ends with a lot of people dead. Something like 250K Confederates died in the Civil War, but that doesn't mean they were denied due process. The Allies didn't deprive 2,000,000 Germans their due process before execution in World War I. That's war. Those who engage in illegal warfare - both by refusing to wear a uniform and in committing war crimes - don't deserve more protection than a soldier on a battle field.
We aren't trying to arrest them. That's not the goal. That's what you do in order to evaluate whether a law has been broken beyond a shadow of a doubt so as to mete out the appropriate punishment. Hell, a lot of the time that would be against international law in war.
We're trying to kill them... or more accurately eliminate them as a threat. Sometimes its more beneficial to capture them so its easier to kill/neutralize other threats but in general the goal is not to put them in a cell. A drone strike risks zero Americans. It may be riskier in terms of civilian casualties or faster than a commando raid (at the very least both points are debatable) but even if boots on the ground is the superior tactic, there's no obligation that US troops have to ask the target to surrender. The objective is not to enforce the law, but to eliminate threats to the common defense, and the surest way to eliminate a threat is to eliminate the threat.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Nothing about my statement depends on whether it was legal or justified. I'm just providing a better example than Merryman. Lincoln had people jailed for the incendiary claim that the war was about slavery instead of saving the union, and calling for the end to his presidency.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No, I know, I was just in a Futurama quote kick.
The Copperheads might have been shitasses, but they were probably mostly legal shitasses.
I still don't lose sleep over it.
I didn't recognize the reference
Season 2 - Ep 17? "War is the H-Word"
Lincoln didn't put Vallandigham in jail. He was arrested by General Burnside who was essentially in charge of much of the midwest. While he was initially jailed, Lincoln sent him to the Confederacy rather than hold him and justified his arrest thusly:
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
S'cool, but now you have your assignment for the week: watch Futurama until you see references where there are none!
Maybe Vallandigham didn't provide enough evidence of his innocence...
So does the American military. And no, not just in terms of collateral damage: You've assisted in armed coups against democratically elected civilian governments, you've provided arms & training to criminal organizations in order to terrorize civilians via proxy, you've engaged in mass indiscriminate bombing campaigns in the past in order to attempt to 'break' the willpower of belligerent nations, etc. All of this bullshit has been hand-waved and rationalized by your government, so trying to claim special distinction from al Qaeda's brand of brutality is ridiculous.
Thus the importance of the distinction between military belligerent vs criminal organization.
It's not false equivalence. Your military has, in the not-so-distant past, engaged in mass murder of civilians both directly and via proxy. You even helped to facilitate a genocide in East Timor.
Again, thus the importance of the distinction that Holder wants to muddle.
-.-
So, one instance of a marine acting selflessly somehow erases all of the past war crimes committed by the United States?