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.
So obviously I think this is a law enforcement problem and not a military one. I think it's an awful policy decision, and frankly I just don't consider terrorism to be a very big deal. We've over inflated the threat, and done most of their job for them, I think. I realize I'm probably fairly uncommon in that regard.
Here's an issue that worries me: what's to stop President Romney/Christie/Ryan/whoever the next Republican President is to declare, say, Mexican drug cartels a national defense issue? I realize that's a plot straight out of a Clancy novel (literally), but it's an idea I've seen thrown around various conservative web sites the last year or two. And generally speaking, we've militarized law enforcement to the point where there is less and less of a distinction between the two (as you point out) separate powers. Like, there are relatively small towns whose police forces feel they need heavily armored vehicles, and (surveillance) drones are next.
I would also feel better about Holder's speech if he tried to make the argument you're making. That's an argument that I don't agree with, but I don't agree with it more on the grounds of policy and less on the grounds of law. Holder instead claims that Anwar Aw-Awlaki did indeed get due process, which is pretty clearly bullshit, and again conflates a military target with a legal one. And it'd also be nice if they made public their legal justification.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
So obviously I think this is a law enforcement problem and not a military one. I think it's an awful policy decision, and frankly I just don't consider terrorism to be a very big deal. We've over inflated the threat, and done most of their job for them, I think. I realize I'm probably fairly uncommon in that regard.
Here's an issue that worries me: what's to stop President Romney/Christie/Ryan/whoever the next Republican President is to declare, say, Mexican drug cartels a national defense issue? I realize that's a plot straight out of a Clancy novel (literally), but it's an idea I've seen thrown around various conservative web sites the last year or two. And generally speaking, we've militarized law enforcement to the point where there is less and less of a distinction between the two (as you point out) separate powers. Like, there are relatively small towns whose police forces feel they need heavily armored vehicles, and (surveillance) drones are next.
I would also feel better about Holder's speech if he tried to make the argument you're making. That's an argument that I don't agree with, but I don't agree with it more on the grounds of policy and less on the grounds of law. Holder instead claims that Anwar Aw-Awlaki did indeed get due process, which is pretty clearly bullshit, and again conflates a military target with a legal one. And it'd also be nice if they made public their legal justification.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
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.
So obviously I think this is a law enforcement problem and not a military one. I think it's an awful policy decision, and frankly I just don't consider terrorism to be a very big deal. We've over inflated the threat, and done most of their job for them, I think. I realize I'm probably fairly uncommon in that regard.
Here's an issue that worries me: what's to stop President Romney/Christie/Ryan/whoever the next Republican President is to declare, say, Mexican drug cartels a national defense issue? I realize that's a plot straight out of a Clancy novel (literally), but it's an idea I've seen thrown around various conservative web sites the last year or two. And generally speaking, we've militarized law enforcement to the point where there is less and less of a distinction between the two (as you point out) separate powers. Like, there are relatively small towns whose police forces feel they need heavily armored vehicles, and (surveillance) drones are next.
I would also feel better about Holder's speech if he tried to make the argument you're making. That's an argument that I don't agree with, but I don't agree with it more on the grounds of policy and less on the grounds of law. Holder instead claims that Anwar Aw-Awlaki did indeed get due process, which is pretty clearly bullshit, and again conflates a military target with a legal one. And it'd also be nice if they made public their legal justification.
Actually Mexican drug cartels are threats I'd consider worthy of the CIA or military getting directly involved in shutting down.
A bunch of police officers/MP's (I'm honestly not that up to date on uniforms and such) in riot gear, at a rally, just standing around.
They're state police (It's sadly hard to tell considering they're dressed like soliders in that gear) on the steps of the state Capitol while a rally of women protesting the transvaginal ultrasound bill protested across the street in the designated 'free speech zone'.
A bunch of police officers/MP's (I'm honestly not that up to date on uniforms and such) in riot gear, at a rally, just standing around.
They're state police (It's sadly hard to tell considering they're dressed like soliders in that gear) on the steps of the state Capitol while a rally of women protesting the transvaginal ultrasound bill protested across the street in the designated 'free speech zone'.
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.
So obviously I think this is a law enforcement problem and not a military one. I think it's an awful policy decision, and frankly I just don't consider terrorism to be a very big deal. We've over inflated the threat, and done most of their job for them, I think. I realize I'm probably fairly uncommon in that regard.
Here's an issue that worries me: what's to stop President Romney/Christie/Ryan/whoever the next Republican President is to declare, say, Mexican drug cartels a national defense issue? I realize that's a plot straight out of a Clancy novel (literally), but it's an idea I've seen thrown around various conservative web sites the last year or two. And generally speaking, we've militarized law enforcement to the point where there is less and less of a distinction between the two (as you point out) separate powers. Like, there are relatively small towns whose police forces feel they need heavily armored vehicles, and (surveillance) drones are next.
I would also feel better about Holder's speech if he tried to make the argument you're making. That's an argument that I don't agree with, but I don't agree with it more on the grounds of policy and less on the grounds of law. Holder instead claims that Anwar Aw-Awlaki did indeed get due process, which is pretty clearly bullshit, and again conflates a military target with a legal one. And it'd also be nice if they made public their legal justification.
Well, Congress is to stop them. Again (and this is one of the big problems I had with Pierce's piece in Esquire), Congress passed the AUMF, which is what grants the Executive the authority to go after al-Qaeda with military force - in short, we did actually declare war on them. If we want to treat the cartels the same, I would want another AUMF to be passed.
And he did receive due process - the due process merited to a legitimate combatant on the battlefield. I understand that you see this as a LE issue, but the US government doesn't, and in this case, they did their homework. I think using Holder as point on this is a bad choice, and the Administration would be better off using Panetta instead.
A bunch of police officers/MP's (I'm honestly not that up to date on uniforms and such) in riot gear, at a rally, just standing around.
They're state police (It's sadly hard to tell considering they're dressed like soliders in that gear) on the steps of the state Capitol while a rally of women protesting the transvaginal ultrasound bill protested across the street in the designated 'free speech zone'.
Free Speech Zone's still exist? WTF? o_O
I say this sarcastically. It's basically "As close at the police will let you get". I don't know if they cordoned them off into that specific area or it was 'as long as you're not within X distance of the Capitol.
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.
So obviously I think this is a law enforcement problem and not a military one. I think it's an awful policy decision, and frankly I just don't consider terrorism to be a very big deal. We've over inflated the threat, and done most of their job for them, I think. I realize I'm probably fairly uncommon in that regard.
Here's an issue that worries me: what's to stop President Romney/Christie/Ryan/whoever the next Republican President is to declare, say, Mexican drug cartels a national defense issue? I realize that's a plot straight out of a Clancy novel (literally), but it's an idea I've seen thrown around various conservative web sites the last year or two. And generally speaking, we've militarized law enforcement to the point where there is less and less of a distinction between the two (as you point out) separate powers. Like, there are relatively small towns whose police forces feel they need heavily armored vehicles, and (surveillance) drones are next.
I would also feel better about Holder's speech if he tried to make the argument you're making. That's an argument that I don't agree with, but I don't agree with it more on the grounds of policy and less on the grounds of law. Holder instead claims that Anwar Aw-Awlaki did indeed get due process, which is pretty clearly bullshit, and again conflates a military target with a legal one. And it'd also be nice if they made public their legal justification.
Well, Congress is to stop them. Again (and this is one of the big problems I had with Pierce's piece in Esquire), Congress passed the AUMF, which is what grants the Executive the authority to go after al-Qaeda with military force - in short, we did actually declare war on them. If we want to treat the cartels the same, I would want another AUMF to be passed.
And he did receive due process - the due process merited to a legitimate combatant on the battlefield. I understand that you see this as a LE issue, but the US government doesn't, and in this case, they did their homework. I think using Holder as point on this is a bad choice, and the Administration would be better off using Panetta instead.
Right, due process from the Attorney General indicates a certain context which I find troubling.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
A bunch of police officers/MP's (I'm honestly not that up to date on uniforms and such) in riot gear, at a rally, just standing around.
They're state police (It's sadly hard to tell considering they're dressed like soliders in that gear) on the steps of the state Capitol while a rally of women protesting the transvaginal ultrasound bill protested across the street in the designated 'free speech zone'.
Free Speech Zone's still exist? WTF? o_O
I say this sarcastically. It's basically "As close at the police will let you get". I don't know if they cordoned them off into that specific area or it was 'as long as you're not within X distance of the Capitol.
Actually Mexican drug cartels are threats I'd consider worthy of the CIA or military getting directly involved in shutting down.
For some of the cartels, this would make some sense (Los Zetas, for example). For others, it makes no sense at all. The Tijuana 'Cartel', for example, is largely a decentralized bunch of partying teenagers and is (by and large) non-violent.
Again, this is why these distinctions are so important. Attacking a conventional paramilitary army with your own army makes all the sense in the world; attacking a decentralized organization of criminals, large slices of which are non-violent activists, makes no sense at all.
Actually Mexican drug cartels are threats I'd consider worthy of the CIA or military getting directly involved in shutting down.
For some of the cartels, this would make some sense (Los Zetas, for example). For others, it makes no sense at all. The Tijuana 'Cartel', for example, is largely a decentralized bunch of partying teenagers and is (by and large) non-violent.
Again, this is why these distinctions are so important. Attacking a conventional paramilitary army with your own army makes all the sense in the world; attacking a decentralized organization of criminals, large slices of which are non-violent activists, makes no sense at all.
Agreed. Only the dangerous cartels deserve that response. First I've ever heard of a cartel that wasn't violent. Interesting.
So, one instance of a marine acting selflessly somehow erases all of the past war crimes committed by the United States?
What is this post?
I don't even really know how to respond. I'm actually aghast at you here, given how you normally are capable of carrying on a conversation and interpreting and responding to language well, and not inventing arguments out of thin air and then arguing with the invented argument.
edited to be less infractworthy
Seriously though Ender, back up and stop being a goose.
Jeezus, what is it with this thread? First it was "we're just an echo chamber because we see a slight difference between Obama and Bush", then we had a quick little side-bar of "Obama's the second worst President for human right's violation in the country's history, just behind Lincoln" (with a hilarious little smattering of "The Civil War wasn't about slavery"), and now we get "The US and Al Qaeda are completely equivalent". A couple pages ago I never would have believed you if I was told Obama=GWB would seem like the rational thread of discussion. This thread is like a bug-zapper for lunatics.
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.
It's rather disquieting to read that. Both that we've lost the chance to vote for people who can construct an argument like that, and that we've lost the general public who might reasonably be expected to follow it. Of course, the one is largely the consequence of the other.
So I don't understand Holder's argument in any case. His reasoning is ludicrous, I thought the common belief in support of military action against US Citizens in cooperation with "enemy combatants" was that they could and should be tried in absentia, and be given every opportunity to surrender to the justice system and face their crimes.
That we didn't do this angers me, but not as much as say, any time a police SWAT team kills an innocent person because they have a hardon for firing assault weapons.
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.
So obviously I think this is a law enforcement problem and not a military one. I think it's an awful policy decision, and frankly I just don't consider terrorism to be a very big deal. We've over inflated the threat, and done most of their job for them, I think. I realize I'm probably fairly uncommon in that regard.
Here's an issue that worries me: what's to stop President Romney/Christie/Ryan/whoever the next Republican President is to declare, say, Mexican drug cartels a national defense issue? I realize that's a plot straight out of a Clancy novel (literally), but it's an idea I've seen thrown around various conservative web sites the last year or two. And generally speaking, we've militarized law enforcement to the point where there is less and less of a distinction between the two (as you point out) separate powers. Like, there are relatively small towns whose police forces feel they need heavily armored vehicles, and (surveillance) drones are next.
I would also feel better about Holder's speech if he tried to make the argument you're making. That's an argument that I don't agree with, but I don't agree with it more on the grounds of policy and less on the grounds of law. Holder instead claims that Anwar Aw-Awlaki did indeed get due process, which is pretty clearly bullshit, and again conflates a military target with a legal one. And it'd also be nice if they made public their legal justification.
Well, Congress is to stop them. Again (and this is one of the big problems I had with Pierce's piece in Esquire), Congress passed the AUMF, which is what grants the Executive the authority to go after al-Qaeda with military force - in short, we did actually declare war on them. If we want to treat the cartels the same, I would want another AUMF to be passed.
And he did receive due process - the due process merited to a legitimate combatant on the battlefield. I understand that you see this as a LE issue, but the US government doesn't, and in this case, they did their homework. I think using Holder as point on this is a bad choice, and the Administration would be better off using Panetta instead.
If you look closely, he uses both arguments, plus a bit of the "active threat" argument. I would have rather he just noted that the strikes were used to stop active threats, and due process is for punishments, not incapacitation. That argument tends to be strongest argument because it also holds for law enforcement.
So I don't understand Holder's argument in any case. His reasoning is ludicrous, I thought the common belief in support of military action against US Citizens in cooperation with "enemy combatants" was that they could and should be tried in absentia, and be given every opportunity to surrender to the justice system and face their crimes.
That we didn't do this angers me, but not as much as say, any time a police SWAT team kills an innocent person because they have a hardon for firing assault weapons.
In absentia trials outside of martial law being declared are blatantly unconstitutional.
So I don't understand Holder's argument in any case. His reasoning is ludicrous, I thought the common belief in support of military action against US Citizens in cooperation with "enemy combatants" was that they could and should be tried in absentia, and be given every opportunity to surrender to the justice system and face their crimes.
That we didn't do this angers me, but not as much as say, any time a police SWAT team kills an innocent person because they have a hardon for firing assault weapons.
In absentia trials outside of martial law being declared are blatantly unconstitutional.
Really? Well then
So does the US have literally no recourse against a citizen who is in a foreign country and committing treason? I'm not sure of a better way to handle it then
A bunch of police officers/MP's (I'm honestly not that up to date on uniforms and such) in riot gear, at a rally, just standing around.
They're state police (It's sadly hard to tell considering they're dressed like soliders in that gear) on the steps of the state Capitol while a rally of women protesting the transvaginal ultrasound bill protested across the street in the designated 'free speech zone'.
I don't know about you guys, but police that look that militarised scare the crap out of me and I would prefer it not to occur if avoidable, even if doing such confers real and useful physical protection to the officers or makes the more effective in riot control
I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.
Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
The easiest, fastest way to do a shitload of damage to the Mexican drug cartels is to legalize marijuana.
It'll hurt them temporarily. They'll find some other illegal drug or drugs to fill the void eventually.
Sure, they'd increase operations in things that are harder to produce, easier to track, and with a slimmer profit margin.
How does this not hurt them?
Also more likely to kill the customer.
You're assuming more people will do meth and heroin just because the cartels produce more
In reality the Cartels would end up stepping on each others toes if any major source of revenue was taken from them, which would result in a short term blood bath and a long term weakening of them
I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.
Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.
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.
Plus the circumstances leading up to the lie was skeevy. Starr was empowered to investigate Whitewater a failed real estate deal. He used that power to ask if Clinton had had an extramarital affair(mentioning dozens of women in the process). Then using the fact that Clinton had lied on one(1) of those questions to impeach him for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Notes: Whitewater? Nothing illegal happened. Extramarital affairs? Not Illegal. Guy heading up the Congressional charge to impeach? He was having an affair at the same time! His name? Newt Gingrich.
The entire impeachment was a Political smear job. History will record it as such.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.
Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.
I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.
So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.
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.
Plus the circumstances leading up to the lie was skeevy. Starr was empowered to investigate Whitewater a failed real estate deal. He used that power to ask if Clinton had had an extramarital affair(mentioning dozens of women in the process). Then using the fact that Clinton had lied on one(1) of those questions to impeach him for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Notes: Whitewater? Nothing illegal happened. Extramarital affairs? Not Illegal. Guy heading up the Congressional charge to impeach? He was having an affair at the same time! His name? Newt Gingrich.
The entire impeachment was a Political smear job. History will record it as such.
Oh no, the Democrat was an eloquent speaker when he was young and engaged in a protest to help out a professor that many people seemed to like! The horror!
If Breitbart wasn't dead I'd punch him in the neck, what did he think this was going to do?
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.
It's rather disquieting to read that. Both that we've lost the chance to vote for people who can construct an argument like that, and that we've lost the general public who might reasonably be expected to follow it. Of course, the one is largely the consequence of the other.
That speech was not for the general public. They were not educated anywhere near as well as we are.
So does the US have literally no recourse against a citizen who is in a foreign country and committing treason? I'm not sure of a better way to handle it then
No one really is, sadly. This is one of those weird, murky legal situations that doesn't have a clean answer.
EDIT: To the best of my knowledge, at any rate. I'll admit I haven't read up as much as perhaps I should have on the subject.
I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.
Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.
I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.
So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.
How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?
Posts
So obviously I think this is a law enforcement problem and not a military one. I think it's an awful policy decision, and frankly I just don't consider terrorism to be a very big deal. We've over inflated the threat, and done most of their job for them, I think. I realize I'm probably fairly uncommon in that regard.
Here's an issue that worries me: what's to stop President Romney/Christie/Ryan/whoever the next Republican President is to declare, say, Mexican drug cartels a national defense issue? I realize that's a plot straight out of a Clancy novel (literally), but it's an idea I've seen thrown around various conservative web sites the last year or two. And generally speaking, we've militarized law enforcement to the point where there is less and less of a distinction between the two (as you point out) separate powers. Like, there are relatively small towns whose police forces feel they need heavily armored vehicles, and (surveillance) drones are next.
I would also feel better about Holder's speech if he tried to make the argument you're making. That's an argument that I don't agree with, but I don't agree with it more on the grounds of policy and less on the grounds of law. Holder instead claims that Anwar Aw-Awlaki did indeed get due process, which is pretty clearly bullshit, and again conflates a military target with a legal one. And it'd also be nice if they made public their legal justification.
Actually Mexican drug cartels are threats I'd consider worthy of the CIA or military getting directly involved in shutting down.
What exactly is your angle for this picture?
A bunch of police officers/MP's (I'm honestly not that up to date on uniforms and such) in riot gear, at a rally, just standing around.
They're state police (It's sadly hard to tell considering they're dressed like soliders in that gear) on the steps of the state Capitol while a rally of women protesting the transvaginal ultrasound bill protested across the street in the designated 'free speech zone'.
Free Speech Zone's still exist? WTF? o_O
Well, Congress is to stop them. Again (and this is one of the big problems I had with Pierce's piece in Esquire), Congress passed the AUMF, which is what grants the Executive the authority to go after al-Qaeda with military force - in short, we did actually declare war on them. If we want to treat the cartels the same, I would want another AUMF to be passed.
And he did receive due process - the due process merited to a legitimate combatant on the battlefield. I understand that you see this as a LE issue, but the US government doesn't, and in this case, they did their homework. I think using Holder as point on this is a bad choice, and the Administration would be better off using Panetta instead.
I say this sarcastically. It's basically "As close at the police will let you get". I don't know if they cordoned them off into that specific area or it was 'as long as you're not within X distance of the Capitol.
Probably #1.
Right, due process from the Attorney General indicates a certain context which I find troubling.
Okay then.
For some of the cartels, this would make some sense (Los Zetas, for example). For others, it makes no sense at all. The Tijuana 'Cartel', for example, is largely a decentralized bunch of partying teenagers and is (by and large) non-violent.
Again, this is why these distinctions are so important. Attacking a conventional paramilitary army with your own army makes all the sense in the world; attacking a decentralized organization of criminals, large slices of which are non-violent activists, makes no sense at all.
Agreed. Only the dangerous cartels deserve that response. First I've ever heard of a cartel that wasn't violent. Interesting.
What is this post?
I don't even really know how to respond. I'm actually aghast at you here, given how you normally are capable of carrying on a conversation and interpreting and responding to language well, and not inventing arguments out of thin air and then arguing with the invented argument.
edited to be less infractworthy
Seriously though Ender, back up and stop being a goose.
Which is ridiculous, because I'm pretty sure all of us here are of like mind on things like Operation Ajax and MKULTRA
It's rather disquieting to read that. Both that we've lost the chance to vote for people who can construct an argument like that, and that we've lost the general public who might reasonably be expected to follow it. Of course, the one is largely the consequence of the other.
That we didn't do this angers me, but not as much as say, any time a police SWAT team kills an innocent person because they have a hardon for firing assault weapons.
If you look closely, he uses both arguments, plus a bit of the "active threat" argument. I would have rather he just noted that the strikes were used to stop active threats, and due process is for punishments, not incapacitation. That argument tends to be strongest argument because it also holds for law enforcement.
In absentia trials outside of martial law being declared are blatantly unconstitutional.
Really? Well then
So does the US have literally no recourse against a citizen who is in a foreign country and committing treason? I'm not sure of a better way to handle it then
It'll hurt them temporarily. They'll find some other illegal drug or drugs to fill the void eventually.
Sure, they'd increase operations in things that are harder to produce, easier to track, and with a slimmer profit margin.
How does this not hurt them?
Also more likely to kill the customer.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I don't know about you guys, but police that look that militarised scare the crap out of me and I would prefer it not to occur if avoidable, even if doing such confers real and useful physical protection to the officers or makes the more effective in riot control
Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
Never said it wouldn't hurt them.
You're assuming more people will do meth and heroin just because the cartels produce more
In reality the Cartels would end up stepping on each others toes if any major source of revenue was taken from them, which would result in a short term blood bath and a long term weakening of them
Plus the circumstances leading up to the lie was skeevy. Starr was empowered to investigate Whitewater a failed real estate deal. He used that power to ask if Clinton had had an extramarital affair(mentioning dozens of women in the process). Then using the fact that Clinton had lied on one(1) of those questions to impeach him for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Notes: Whitewater? Nothing illegal happened. Extramarital affairs? Not Illegal. Guy heading up the Congressional charge to impeach? He was having an affair at the same time! His name? Newt Gingrich.
The entire impeachment was a Political smear job. History will record it as such.
I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.
man, this ad.
and i like how they say 42 million was donated when it was more like 4.2 million. and can obama even control who donates to his campaign?
Exactly.
Oh no, the Democrat was an eloquent speaker when he was young and engaged in a protest to help out a professor that many people seemed to like! The horror!
If Breitbart wasn't dead I'd punch him in the neck, what did he think this was going to do?
No one really is, sadly. This is one of those weird, murky legal situations that doesn't have a clean answer.
EDIT: To the best of my knowledge, at any rate. I'll admit I haven't read up as much as perhaps I should have on the subject.
How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?