10/12/2011 12:19:57 PM

Quote :

"Hardly"

no, completely. You are again suggesting that I am giving a completely specific litmus test for when we can attack someone in reference to an example that I gave of when there was no doubt.

Quote :

"Clearly you have different standards for a state of declared war between nations, and the sort of action we've been involved in since 9/11."

What nation are we at war against right now? right. there IS a difference there.

Quote :

"Speaking of absurdity and straw men...no, I'm not saying that."

That seems to be exactly what you were saying. You were making it sound like it was fucking impossible ever to swoop in and grab someone.

Quote :

"Your waffling on the "American citizen" qualifier is absurd."

Except I'm not waffling. I'm saying the American citizen aspect removes any and all possible arguments as to why the Constitution might not apply. That's NOT the same as saying that the Constitution doesn't or might not apply for non-citizens. think about that before jumping on it, cause I don't know how to make it any clearer. It has NOT been my claim that we can do whatever the fuck we want to non-citizens. Rather, that we most certainly can NOT do whatever we want to citizens.

10/12/2011 10:30:18 PM

Quote :

"What nation are we at war against right now? right. there IS a difference there."

I'm not sure what you're point is here, so I'll refrain from responding until you elaborate if you'd like.

Quote :

"You were making it sound like it was fucking impossible ever to swoop in and grab someone."

It's never impossible, it's just frequently illegal and unnecessarily dangerous for both US forces and civilians in the area.

Quote :

"I'm saying the American citizen aspect removes any and all possible arguments as to why the Constitution might not apply."

It's hard to phrase the difficulty here except to say that there are cases where Constitutional rights don't apply in your apparently strict interpretation, even with regards to American citizens. If I, as a citizen, hole up with a bunch of hostages and start making extreme threats against them or waving my gun around, there is a very good chance that I'm going to get shot and killed, no trial needed. If it's feasible for the SWAT team to come grab me, they will. If it isn't, they're going to fucking shoot me. It won't take a trial, it won't require a presidential order -- hell, it probably won't require an order from anywhere above the local or state police command.

If we had some reason to believe that it would have been feasible to nab this guy but we just decided to blow him up anyway, maybe there'd be some more room for doubt here.

10/12/2011 10:58:19 PM

What part of the Constitution forbids the military from carrying out strikes against its declared enemies?

10/13/2011 10:26:25 AM

We are at war with the Nation of Al Qaeda. It is not a nation defined by borders or a single government. It is a nation spanning continents and even the world. It is a nation with many governments yet no state power. It is a nation of thought and hate, leaders and followers, arms and soldiers. You can't point to it on a map, but you know where it is. You can't call up its President, but you know who it is. You can't invade its sovereign land, but you can infiltrate its strongholds. The Nation of Al Qaeda is at war with us.

10/13/2011 10:38:25 AM

At least we're not at war with Eurasia or Eastasia anymore.

10/13/2011 11:13:54 AM

^^ which is all fine and dandy. now EVERYWHERE is the battlefield, including your living room. Remember that you gave the government that carte blanche power to make such a claim. remember that you were A-OK with it.

Quote :

"It's hard to phrase the difficulty here except to say that there are cases where Constitutional rights don't apply in your apparently strict interpretation, even with regards to American citizens. If I, as a citizen, hole up with a bunch of hostages and start making extreme threats against them or waving my gun around, there is a very good chance that I'm going to get shot and killed, no trial needed."

And in that situation, we have obvious proof of who is doing what. Namely, the guy holding the fucking gun. shit, kind of like I said before. hmmm...

Quote :

"I'm not sure what you're point is here, so I'll refrain from responding until you elaborate if you'd like."

You know exactly what I mean. It was obvious we could drop bombs on Japan in WWII, because Japan was obviously a nation, they had declared war against us, and we had reciprocated. Japan's territories were also obvious. Now, contrast that with Al Qaeda. What "nation" is it? What are its territories? exactly.

10/17/2011 11:17:00 PM

Quote :

"And in that situation, we have obvious proof of who is doing what. Namely, the guy holding the fucking gun."

I'm not sure that there is "obvious proof." A man who claims to have a gun and threatens to use it is liable to get shot in this situation. That's not substantially different from the situation we had with this asshole. In fact, I'd venture so far to say that a guy who constantly broadcasts on the internet and radio that people should kill Americans is an even more obvious threat than some asshole locked up in his house with his wife and kids, saying he'll kill them.

Quote :

"It was obvious we could drop bombs on Japan in WWII, because Japan was obviously a nation"

Well this gets into all sorts of rough territory right off the bat. Afghanistan in 2001 (or now, for that matter) was not "obviously a nation." Nor is Somalia. Nor is Yemen. Nor is Pakistan, by some interpretations.

Quote :

"What "nation" is it? What are its territories? exactly."

Still not clear on your point. I agree that al Qaeda and its affiliates do not represent a nation or have any territory in any conventional sense. OK. So what? Where do we go from that understanding?

Based on all your rambling about how Japan was "obviously a nation," we are given to understand that what is acceptable against a nation at war is not necessarily acceptable against an organization at war. OK, I'll bite. What is acceptable? We could drop bombs on Japan -- hell, you don't even seem to care if we drop them on women and children and puppies in towns and villages in Japan -- but you take issue with us dropping a bomb on adult males who have repeatedly voiced their enmity towards us while operating out of an active combat zone.

Let's say we evacuated Puerto Rico and said, "Here, al Qaeda, this island is yours to do whatever you want with. It's your territory." OK, great, they'd have territory. Could we "obviously" drop bombs on al Qaeda then? Would we have to limit ourselves to bombing a (presumably uninhabited) Puerto Rico? There were plenty of Japanese and German soldiers found outside of their nations' territories, and they got shot, too.

10/17/2011 11:34:07 PM

Quote :

"That's not substantially different from the situation we had with this asshole."

Let's see... Guy holding gun towards woman's head in a bank versus a guy riding in the back of a van and making a couple videos... yep, identical situations, I tell ya.

Quote :

"Afghanistan in 2001 (or now, for that matter) was not "obviously a nation." Nor is Somalia. Nor is Yemen. Nor is Pakistan, by some interpretations."

The UN begs to differ. They are internationally recognized countries.

Quote :

"but you take issue with us dropping a bomb on adult males who have repeatedly voiced their enmity towards us while operating out of an active combat zone."

and where does that combat zone end?

Quote :

"What is acceptable?"

I've not been angling towards that end. I've been more talking to the absurd notion that we are "at war with a nation" when we most certainly are not. I've been talking more to the absurd type of comment exemplified by wdprice3's dangerous post above. The type of comment that says "everything is now a target".

10/18/2011 7:02:38 PM

Quote :

"Let's see... Guy holding gun towards woman's head in a bank versus a guy riding in the back of a van and making a couple videos"

"A man who claims to have a gun and threatens to use it is liable to get shot in this situation." The point being that sometimes you get to shoot someone who presents a reasonable threat of danger, whether or not he is pointing a weapon at someone at the moment you find him.

Quote :

"The UN begs to differ. They are internationally recognized countries."

And your great fondness and respect for the UN is well-documented. These places may have recognized governments, but that does not make them nations by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote :

"and where does that combat zone end?"

A murkier question, but not infinitely so. Yemen is a combat zone, has been for years. It's also pretty much a failed state. Those two factors make arrests far more dangerous than they would be if we found a suspected terrorist in, say, London or Detroit. If someone spouts pro-terrorist bullshit from a van in Paris or Raleigh or, hell, even Sanaa, Yemen, which the government there (such as it is) still sort of controls, I'd expect an arrest attempt to be made and would be upset if they went straight to the bombers. Sometimes an arrest is a reasonable expectation. Sometimes it isn't.

You seem to live in fear of a world in which the President can just start unilaterally blowing up people wherever and whenever he pleases. But this Congress, not known for its cozy relationship with the administration and fully capable of blocking the action, knew about the kill order for some time and did nothing. Why? Because it was a reasonable fucking order, as opposed to your oft-touted scenario involving one of us in our backyards here in the US.

Quote :

"I've been more talking to the absurd notion that we are "at war with a nation" when we most certainly are not."

Nobody's claimed we're at war with a nation. Whether or not that makes a big difference is in question, however. Probably it would be best if we could amend the Constitution to more clearly specify who has what powers in a situation in which we are involved in a conflict that walks, acts, and smells like a war but doesn't involve another sovereign nation. Of course, I wouldn't count on the current Congress to pass a non-binding resolution stating that the sky is blue, let alone a much more complicated amendment to the founding document.

10/19/2011 12:18:50 AM

Quote :

"But this Congress, not known for its cozy relationship with the administration and fully capable of blocking the action, knew about the kill order for some time and did nothing. Why? Because it was a reasonable fucking order, as opposed to your oft-touted scenario involving one of us in our backyards here in the US."

BOOSH

10/19/2011 12:48:45 AM

Quote :

"Probably it would be best if we could amend the Constitution to more clearly specify who has what powers in a situation in which we are involved in a conflict that walks, acts, and smells like a war but doesn't involve another sovereign nation. "

I suppose one could argue that it's still a Congressional responsibility, under the power to define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas (not that most of these motherfuckers are on the high seas, but they have the commonality of being stateless and hostile.)

Quote :

"Of course, I wouldn't count on the current Congress to pass a non-binding resolution stating that the sky is blue"

Haha

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 12:51 AM. Reason : True]

10/19/2011 12:50:56 AM

Quote :

"Nobody's claimed we're at war with a nation."

you might want to look above a few posts...
message_topic.aspx?topic=618845&page=3#15028200

Quote :

"The point being that sometimes you get to shoot someone who presents a reasonable threat of danger"

And the difficulty is in saying what is a "reasonable threat of danger".

Quote :

"These places may have recognized governments, but that does not make them nations by any stretch of the imagination."

They have a clear and obvious national government, even if its ineffective. They show up distinctly on maps. They have athletes in the Olympics. They are recognized by the UN as nations... What more do you need for them to be "nations"? I understand they aren't exactly cohesive, but they are very much nations nonetheless.

Quote :

"If someone spouts pro-terrorist bullshit from a van in Paris or Raleigh or, hell, even Sanaa, Yemen, which the government there (such as it is) still sort of controls, I'd expect an arrest attempt to be made and would be upset if they went straight to the bombers."

And this current policy doesn't require it. It just says the President can drop a bomb on anyone he declares to be a terrorist, no questions asked.

10/19/2011 7:27:04 PM

Quote :

"you might want to look above a few posts..."

:shrug: He went on at some length explaining that it was not a nation in the meaningful sense of the word.

Quote :

"And the difficulty is in saying what is a "reasonable threat of danger"."

True, but that same difficulty exists in all sorts of capacities regarding the government and private citizens. Police officers have to make determinations about "reasonable threats" and "probable cause" and the like all the time. They have oversight. So does the President of the United States -- there's Congress and the Supreme Court, both of which were aware about the kill order at least as long as the general public was (and that's been quite a while) and neither of whom found anything unreasonable with it.

Quote :

"They have a clear and obvious national government, even if its ineffective. They show up distinctly on maps. They have athletes in the Olympics. They are recognized by the UN as nations... What more do you need for them to be "nations"?"

Something approximating control over their own territory would be nice. "Showing up on maps" doesn't matter for shit. Antarctica shows up on the map. The Olympics...don't make me laugh. We didn't have any athletes in the 1980 Olympics and we were still far more clearly a nation than the ones I've mentioned. And as far as "clear and obvious national government," well, they have guys who we deal with, yeah, but they frequently control a minority of "their" territory and are not recognized by a majority of the people in it. A place can fail to meet the criteria for being a nation state and still have recognized representatives for other reasons. In Somalia, for example, we recognize the "government" because it's anti-al Qaeda/piracy/al Shabaab, not because it's actually governing anything. Meanwhile, Palestine does a much better job of meeting the definition, but we don't recognize it as a country because we're in bed with the Israelis.

10/19/2011 10:40:44 PM

Quote :

"He went on at some length explaining that it was not a nation in the meaningful sense of the word."

after saying, unequivocally, that it was a "nation".

Quote :

"They have oversight. So does the President of the United States -- there's Congress and the Supreme Court, both of which were aware about the kill order at least as long as the general public was (and that's been quite a while) and neither of whom found anything unreasonable with it."

which means they don't care that an unConstitutional order was given. AKA, no oversight.

Quote :

"Something approximating control over their own territory would be nice."

that might make it a better nation. but it doesn't keep it from being a nation. some of the things I mentioned are what makes it a nation. obviously not the Olympics

10/24/2011 10:32:23 PM

Quote :

"which means they don't care that an unConstitutional order was given. AKA, no oversight."

No, it means you and Congress don't agree on what is "Constitutional" or "reasonable," just like some people who are angry about various police shootings that many consider be be both of those things.

Quote :

"but it doesn't keep it from being a nation"

Yes, it does. Some of the things you mentioned are components of nationhood, but they do not make a nation.

10/24/2011 10:34:49 PM

Quote :

"No, it means you and Congress don't agree on what is "Constitutional" or "reasonable,""

you'll forgive me if I think the President being able to execute US citizens without any trial is unConstitutional, much less unreasonable.

Quote :

"Yes, it does."

no, it really doesn't. when the entire world is recognizing the place as a nation, as a country, that's pretty much all you need. and Afghanistan certainly fits that bill.

10/24/2011 10:50:21 PM

Quote :

"you'll forgive me if I think the President being able to execute US citizens without any trial is unConstitutional, much less unreasonable. "

Of course I'll forgive you, because like I said, it means you don't agree with your government, which is fine. However, you cannot say that there is "no oversight" with any factual basis.

Quote :

"no, it really doesn't. when the entire world is recognizing the place as a nation, as a country, that's pretty much all you need."

Problems I have with this assertion:

1) "The entire world" doesn't recognize anything. Palestine, for example, as a "non-state," does not have the capacity to recognize anybody, nor does Israel on its behalf.
2) Any reasonable definition of statehood involves sovereignty, which the places I mention generally lack.
3) Recognition is, at best, only one part of being a nation-state. One could argue it matters even less -- some definitions just involve the ability to conduct foreign relations, which is not totally contingent on recognition. (We deal with governments of unrecognized states all the time, recently and notably in Libya and Palestine). Defined territory and control over the same are also critical elements according to every accepted definition of the sovereign nation-state.
4) I'll accept, for the sake of argument, that Afghanistan (which you mentioned) is, in fact, a nation. This assumption ignores for the moment the issue of independence in a country that is still occupied and partially governed by outside forces, as well as the fact that the crucial security element of sovereignty appears to be largely reliant on outside forces and is likely to collapse as soon as they depart. But even if we ignore all that (and we shouldn't, but I'll at least try to play ball) I want you to tell me how Somalia, harbor of both pirates and terrorists, qualifies as a nation by any reasonable standard. (Or Antarctica, for that matter, since apparently being on the map is a big deal)

10/24/2011 11:38:50 PM