They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
QuoteEXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaida or "an associated force" -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration's most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week's hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them "consistent with the inherent right of self-defense." In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses "an imminent threat of violent attack."
But the confidential Justice Department "white paper" introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a "broader concept of imminence" than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
Michael Isikoff, national investigative correspondent for NBC News, talks with Rachel Maddow about a newly obtained, confidential Department of Justice white paper that hints at the details of a secret White House memo that explains the legal justifications for targeted drone strikes that kill Americans without trial in the name of national security.
"The condition that an operational leader present an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future," the memo states.
Instead, it says, an "informed, high-level" official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been "recently" involved in "activities" posing a threat of a violent attack and "there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities." The memo does not define "recently" or "activities."
As in Holder's speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be "infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to "law of war principles." But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an "undue risk" to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.
The undated memo is entitled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa'ida or An Associated Force." It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussed publicly.
Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly -- or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.
"This is a chilling document," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. "Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. ... It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it's easy to see how they could be manipulated."
In particular, Jaffer said, the memo "redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning."
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a "parade" of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the "legal framework" for such operations.
Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.
On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators -- led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that "there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force" against Americans who take up arms against the country, it said, "It is vitally important ... for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority."
Anticipating domestic boom, colleges rev up drone piloting programs
The completeness of the administration's public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act. McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a "veritable Catch-22," said she was unable to order the release of the documents given "the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret."
In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials "had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens." But, she wrote, they have done so "in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing ... any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions."
In one passage in Holder's speech at Northwestern in March, he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.
"The Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear," he said.
But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified if "capture is not feasible." But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible "if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation." The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was mentioned in the white paper.
The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.
It also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.
"A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination," the white paper reads. "In the Department's view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And a stitch in time saves nine. BFD STFU.
An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
Anyway, I applaud the US government's struggle to bring equal treatment to all human beings, irrespective of their nationality. :swiss:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 12:08:49 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And a stitch in time saves nine. BFD STFU.
:D
YES WE CAN!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 12:08:49 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And a stitch in time saves nine. BFD STFU.
The sad part is that if this was done in the Bush era, you would be the thread starter, and Timmy would defend it as no big deal.
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 02:19:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 12:08:49 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And a stitch in time saves nine. BFD STFU.
The sad part is that if this was done in the Bush era, you would be the thread starter, and Timmy would defend it as no big deal.
It definitely is sad that there was a Bush era. :(
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 02:19:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 12:08:49 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And a stitch in time saves nine. BFD STFU.
The sad part is that if this was done in the Bush era, you would be the thread starter, and Timmy would defend it as no big deal.
No I wouldn't
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2013, 03:07:25 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 02:19:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 12:08:49 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And a stitch in time saves nine. BFD STFU.
The sad part is that if this was done in the Bush era, you would be the thread starter, and Timmy would defend it as no big deal.
No I wouldn't
maybe. But derspiess would
He hasn't attacked it yet here.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 04:10:54 AM
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!
So CdM's argument is that he is not a hypocrite, because Tim would have a view on one thing and derspiess would have a different view on another thing? :hmm:
As you well know, I was pointing out the ridicoulous tribalism in American politics (or most politics, as a matter of fact)
On the Democratic side, they went from OMG BUSHITLER to IT IS PERFECTLY FINE TO ASSASSINATE AMERICAN CITIZENS IF THE PRESIDENTS WANTS TO!
On the other side, they went from WATERBOADING IS GOOD FOR YOUR SKIN to OMG TEH CIVIL RIGHT OUTRAGE!
We think we are so sophisticated with our politics, where as in fact we are hardly better than shit-flinging monkeys.
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 05:22:05 AM
As you well know, I was pointing out the ridicoulous tribalism in American politics (or most politics, as a matter of fact)
On the Democratic side, they went from OMG BUSHITLER to IT IS PERFECTLY FINE TO ASSASSINATE AMERICAN CITIZENS IF THE PRESIDENTS WANTS TO!
On the other side, they went from WATERBOADING IS GOOD FOR YOUR SKIN to OMG TEH CIVIL RIGHT OUTRAGE!
We think we are so sophisticated with our politics, where as in fact we are hardly better than shit-flinging monkeys.
It would help your case if people here actually said the things you allege.
Legal beagles (by which I mean Minsky), can you explain to me why it matters that this is about "American citizens?" The US Constitution forbids the government from depriving "any person" of life without due process. The "American citizen" distinction doesn't make sense from this perspective. Is there another statute or court decision that applies here stating that American citizens have protections from lethal US government actions that non-citizens don't have?
It is a general observation. You people here are just parts of the big whole, in your own way.
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 07:40:39 AM
It is a general observation. You people here are just parts of the big whole, in your own way.
Ok, Grals.
:lol:
don't tell me you Americans haven't noticed how this goes.
Sure it happens sometimes but I think I have to agree with Raz on this, right now.
We really are opening up a can of worms with all these drones. In just a couple decades most countries are going to have them (if they do not already)...makes those nutters with the reinforced bunkers seem not so nutty.
Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2013, 07:30:26 AM
Legal beagles (by which I mean Minsky), can you explain to me why it matters that this is about "American citizens?" The US Constitution forbids the government from depriving "any person" of life without due process. The "American citizen" distinction doesn't make sense from this perspective. Is there another statute or court decision that applies here stating that American citizens have protections from lethal US government actions that non-citizens don't have?
Yeah that is a good question. Even though the Bill of Rights and so forth never specifically mentions 'citizens' but seems to be for everybody, but in practice it seems like it is assumed to be just for citizens.
Quote from: Martinus on February 05, 2013, 05:17:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 04:10:54 AM
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!
So CdM's argument is that he is not a hypocrite, because Tim would have a view on one thing and derspiess would have a different view on another thing? :hmm:
I'm not making any argument here, other than Timmay is a twat commentator.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 08:51:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 05, 2013, 05:17:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 04:10:54 AM
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!
So CdM's argument is that he is not a hypocrite, because Tim would have a view on one thing and derspiess would have a different view on another thing? :hmm:
I'm not making any argument here, other than Timmay is a twat commentator.
Yeah, I've no idea how you got looped in.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:22:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 08:51:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 05, 2013, 05:17:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 04:10:54 AM
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!
So CdM's argument is that he is not a hypocrite, because Tim would have a view on one thing and derspiess would have a different view on another thing? :hmm:
I'm not making any argument here, other than Timmay is a twat commentator.
Yeah, I've no idea how you got looped in.
As member of the Democrat Tribe here.
Shame Languish loses its archives every six months, or you'd find that I've always supported any administration's use extrajudicial assassinations of terrorist assmonkeys from above, regardless of their citizenship.
So eat me.
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2013, 08:37:08 AM
Yeah that is a good question. Even though the Bill of Rights and so forth never specifically mentions 'citizens' but seems to be for everybody, but in practice it seems like it is assumed to be just for citizens.
The Constitution and BoR refers to the US government, and doesn't apply to any individuals, US citizen or not.
Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2013, 09:40:40 AM
The Constitution and BoR refers to the US government, and doesn't apply to any individuals, US citizen or not.
I got what you meant.
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 09:24:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:22:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 08:51:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 05, 2013, 05:17:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 04:10:54 AM
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!
So CdM's argument is that he is not a hypocrite, because Tim would have a view on one thing and derspiess would have a different view on another thing? :hmm:
I'm not making any argument here, other than Timmay is a twat commentator.
Yeah, I've no idea how you got looped in.
As member of the Democrat Tribe here.
You need to stop taking Berkut and Grumbler's posts so seriously.
You and DGuller are far worse
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 10:08:17 AM
You and DGuller are far worse
You mean they take Berkut and grumbler's posts more seriously than you do? :o
You can read the white paper here.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 05:22:05 AM
As you well know, I was pointing out the ridicoulous tribalism in American politics (or most politics, as a matter of fact)
On the Democratic side, they went from OMG BUSHITLER to IT IS PERFECTLY FINE TO ASSASSINATE AMERICAN CITIZENS IF THE PRESIDENTS WANTS TO!
On the other side, they went from WATERBOADING IS GOOD FOR YOUR SKIN to OMG TEH CIVIL RIGHT OUTRAGE!
We think we are so sophisticated with our politics, where as in fact we are hardly better than shit-flinging monkeys.
I was never against the assassination of American citizens. I was against torture and indefinite imprisonment (and to the extent those continue, Obama sucks). It's called nuance.
Lincoln extrajudicially killed more than 72,000 Americans, no one ever gives him any shit.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:29:55 PM
Lincoln extrajudicially killed more than 72,000 Americans, no one ever gives him any shit.
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:29:55 PM
Lincoln extrajudicially killed more than 72,000 Americans, no one ever gives him any shit.
No one? How can someone from South Carolina say that with a straight face?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2013, 06:41:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:29:55 PM
Lincoln extrajudicially killed more than 72,000 Americans, no one ever gives him any shit.
No one? How can someone from South Carolina say that with a straight face?
He said it with his gay face.
So if I understood that correctly, a US citizen can be blown up with a drone missile for terrorizing a forum by starting too many threads?
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 05, 2013, 06:48:16 PM
So if I understood that correctly, a US citizen can be blown up with a drone missile for terrorizing a forum by starting too many threads?
What about a non US citizen living in Poland, as an example?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2013, 06:49:11 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 05, 2013, 06:48:16 PM
So if I understood that correctly, a US citizen can be blown up with a drone missile for terrorizing a forum by starting too many threads?
What about a non US citizen living in Poland, as an example?
Not worth the price of the missile, it could better be used on an Islamic extremist terrorist.
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 05, 2013, 06:50:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2013, 06:49:11 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 05, 2013, 06:48:16 PM
So if I understood that correctly, a US citizen can be blown up with a drone missile for terrorizing a forum by starting too many threads?
What about a non US citizen living in Poland, as an example?
Not worth the price of the missile, it could better be used on an Islamic extremist terrorist.
Not worth a bullet, either. Maybe a job for a guy with a knife.
Lusti and CC are giving me murder boners.
Quote from: dps on February 05, 2013, 07:13:25 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 05, 2013, 06:50:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2013, 06:49:11 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 05, 2013, 06:48:16 PM
So if I understood that correctly, a US citizen can be blown up with a drone missile for terrorizing a forum by starting too many threads?
What about a non US citizen living in Poland, as an example?
Not worth the price of the missile, it could better be used on an Islamic extremist terrorist.
Not worth a bullet, either. Maybe a job for a guy with a knife.
Yes.
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 03:20:49 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2013, 03:07:25 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 02:19:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 12:08:49 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And a stitch in time saves nine. BFD STFU.
The sad part is that if this was done in the Bush era, you would be the thread starter, and Timmy would defend it as no big deal.
No I wouldn't
maybe. But derspiess would
I'm on record as saying I don't have a problem with the drone thing. Sorry T :D
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 02:19:48 AM
The sad part is that if this was done in the Bush era, you would be the thread starter, and Timmy would defend it as no big deal.
I've said many times that I think the one group that can feel legitimately betrayed by Obama are the civil libertarians. They do. They get furious.
Luckily they don't matter anywhere.
Civil liberties are terrible.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:31:16 PM
Civil liberties are terrible.
:lol: For me it's like the environment, even when I read well-argued, engaging pieces on the subject I just don't really care.
I've just no problem with CCTV, national ID cards and all the rest :Embarrass:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 09:34:31 PM
I've just no problem with CCTV, national ID cards and all the rest :Embarrass:
For shame.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:37:34 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 09:34:31 PM
I've just no problem with CCTV, national ID cards and all the rest :Embarrass:
For shame.
Now, now. Don't flip flop.
Quote from: Yes, a Minority Homosexual actually wrote thisCivil liberties are terrible.
Sarcasm, have you heard of it? Also homosexuals are a minority. :blurgh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 09:18:01 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2013, 02:19:48 AM
The sad part is that if this was done in the Bush era, you would be the thread starter, and Timmy would defend it as no big deal.
I've said many times that I think the one group that can feel legitimately betrayed by Obama are the civil libertarians. They do. They get furious.
Luckily they don't matter anywhere.
I know but we can still sound shrill on the internet.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:52:50 PM
Sarcasm, have you heard of it? Also homosexuals are a minority. :blurgh:
OK, you're a Double Minority with Cheese.
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2013, 09:56:10 PM
I know but we can still sound shrill on the internet.
And you do :hug: :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 10:02:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:52:50 PM
Sarcasm, have you heard of it? Also homosexuals are a minority. :blurgh:
OK, you're a Double Minority with Cheese.
I wish I had cheese. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 10:03:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2013, 09:56:10 PM
I know but we can still sound shrill on the internet.
And you do :hug: :P
Someday I shall rise up and strike down my oppressors in the name of liberty, equality, and brotherhood....right now way too busy. Fortunately plenty of time to type in righteous fury.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:08:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 10:06:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 10:02:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:52:50 PM
Sarcasm, have you heard of it? Also homosexuals are a minority. :blurgh:
OK, you're a Double Minority with Cheese.
I wish I had cheese. :(
Smells like socialism.
Not really. If you fools would be suckered enough to give it to me, I'd take it.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:52:50 PM
Sarcasm, have you heard of it? Also homosexuals are a minority. :blurgh:
But not really. Fashion decisions don't make you part of a minority in any meaningful sense. That's like saying goths are a minority: Technically true, but useless.
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2013, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:52:50 PM
Sarcasm, have you heard of it? Also homosexuals are a minority. :blurgh:
But not really. Fashion decisions don't make you part of a minority in any meaningful sense. That's like saying goths are a minority: Technically true, but useless.
Fashion? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2013, 07:30:26 AM
Legal beagles (by which I mean Minsky), can you explain to me why it matters that this is about "American citizens?" The US Constitution forbids the government from depriving "any person" of life without due process. The "American citizen" distinction doesn't make sense from this perspective. Is there another statute or court decision that applies here stating that American citizens have protections from lethal US government actions that non-citizens don't have?
Ima bump this because I really am curious.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 10:16:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2013, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:52:50 PM
Sarcasm, have you heard of it? Also homosexuals are a minority. :blurgh:
But not really. Fashion decisions don't make you part of a minority in any meaningful sense. That's like saying goths are a minority: Technically true, but useless.
Fashion? :huh:
Gayness is a fashion thing. Like being a goth.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 10:11:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:08:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 10:06:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 10:02:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 09:52:50 PM
Sarcasm, have you heard of it? Also homosexuals are a minority. :blurgh:
OK, you're a Double Minority with Cheese.
I wish I had cheese. :(
Smells like socialism.
Not really. If you fools would be suckered enough to give it to me, I'd take it.
That would make you a fraudster.
Quote from: grumbler on February 07, 2013, 09:36:36 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2013, 07:30:26 AM
Legal beagles (by which I mean Minsky), can you explain to me why it matters that this is about "American citizens?" The US Constitution forbids the government from depriving "any person" of life without due process. The "American citizen" distinction doesn't make sense from this perspective. Is there another statute or court decision that applies here stating that American citizens have protections from lethal US government actions that non-citizens don't have?
Ima bump this because I really am curious.
Saw this when originally posted but just didn't have the time to write a proper response.
Short answer is that I think your reading is sound, but that isn't always how the courts view it.
Process is due to "persons" not citizens so a straight textual reading suggests that citizenship shouldn't matter. The Constitution by its plain meaning restricts the ways in which the government can act with respect to any "person" to deprive life, liberty or property, regardless of citizenship.
One possible counter is to contend that the degree of process that is due in a particular situation depends on circumstances, and citizenship status in one relevant circumstance. That could explain why the government does things to non-citizen immigrants it doesn't and wouldn't do it citizens.
But the bigger and hairier gorilla in the room is the question of how the Constitution applies extra-territorially. The most obvious way to answer that question IMO is that it shouldn't really matter - because the Constitution sets rules that dictate how the US government can or cannot act, those rules are universal and apply no matter where physically in the world those actions are exerted. But the courts have often taken quite a different view and so the US government or its agents can do things abroad (like searches or arrests) they couldn't do within US territorial limits. In this view of the world, citizenship can matter quite a bit because the body of a US citizen overseas can function as a physical manifestation of US territoriality in an extra-territorial sea.
Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2013, 02:03:36 AM
Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2013, 02:03:36 AM
Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.
That's not illogical at all. You just have to accept the premise that black folk are subhuman.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2013, 03:36:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2013, 02:03:36 AM
Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.
That's not illogical at all. You just have to accept the premise that black folk are subhuman.
Considering the Constitution had already specified that at the time. 3/5ths and all that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 08, 2013, 08:44:36 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2013, 03:36:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2013, 02:03:36 AM
Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.
That's not illogical at all. You just have to accept the premise that black folk are subhuman.
Considering the Constitution had already specified that at the time. 3/5ths and all that.
The Constitution said nothing of the sort. It said slave owners get 3/5ths more representation in Congress for every person they own. I am not sure why giving the slave owners more power to dominate the country would have meant black folk were more human. Besides free blacks were not considered 3/5ths only 'people in bondage'.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 08:56:19 AM
The Constitution said nothing of the sort. It said slave owners get 3/5ths more representation in Congress for every person they own. I am not sure why giving the slave owners more power to dominate the country would have meant black folk were more human. Besides free blacks were not considered 3/5ths only 'people in bondage'.
Bigger picture here, not the small print.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2013, 02:03:36 AM
Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.
Please show me the part in the Bill of Rights that was/is anti-slavery. It simply says what laws the government cannot pass. So I do not see where the reconciliation was needed or where you find coherence issues. If the Bill of Rights could have been interpreted as anti-slavery they would not have needed an Amendment to end slavery and it certainly would never have passed in the first place. Have you even read it or have any idea what is in it?
Stop defending slavery with your forked lawyerly tongue, you cad.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 08:59:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2013, 02:03:36 AM
Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.
Please show me the part in the Bill of Rights that was/is anti-slavery. It simply says what laws the government cannot pass. So I do not see where the reconciliation was needed or where you find coherence issues. If the Bill of Rights could have been interpreted as anti-slavery they would not have needed an Amendment to end slavery and it certainly would never have passed in the first place. Have you even read it or have any idea what is in it?
Yeah, the Bill of Rights restricts government action, not action by private individuals.
I assume he's confusing the preamble to the Declaration w/ the Bill of Rights.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2013, 01:19:20 AM
Short answer is that I think your reading is sound, but that isn't always how the courts view it.
Process is due to "persons" not citizens so a straight textual reading suggests that citizenship shouldn't matter. The Constitution by its plain meaning restricts the ways in which the government can act with respect to any "person" to deprive life, liberty or property, regardless of citizenship.
One possible counter is to contend that the degree of process that is due in a particular situation depends on circumstances, and citizenship status in one relevant circumstance. That could explain why the government does things to non-citizen immigrants it doesn't and wouldn't do it citizens.
In particular, the degree of "due" process in the context, of a war seems rather low. Certainly, not a lot of individualized determinations were made during Korea or Vietnam before depriving persons of life.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2013, 01:19:20 AM
Saw this when originally posted but just didn't have the time to write a proper response.
Short answer is that I think your reading is sound, but that isn't always how the courts view it.
Process is due to "persons" not citizens so a straight textual reading suggests that citizenship shouldn't matter. The Constitution by its plain meaning restricts the ways in which the government can act with respect to any "person" to deprive life, liberty or property, regardless of citizenship.
One possible counter is to contend that the degree of process that is due in a particular situation depends on circumstances, and citizenship status in one relevant circumstance. That could explain why the government does things to non-citizen immigrants it doesn't and wouldn't do it citizens.
But the bigger and hairier gorilla in the room is the question of how the Constitution applies extra-territorially. The most obvious way to answer that question IMO is that it shouldn't really matter - because the Constitution sets rules that dictate how the US government can or cannot act, those rules are universal and apply no matter where physically in the world those actions are exerted. But the courts have often taken quite a different view and so the US government or its agents can do things abroad (like searches or arrests) they couldn't do within US territorial limits. In this view of the world, citizenship can matter quite a bit because the body of a US citizen overseas can function as a physical manifestation of US territoriality in an extra-territorial sea.
Thanks. Can you give me a steer to a court case/cases in which the US Constitution is held to be interpreted differently outside the US than internally? I know that citizenship can create external jurisdiction over an individual, but can't seem to find cases where a government action is held to be legal merely because it is being carried out outside the US.
I am aware of the Bush administrations arguments on this score, but can't find any factual basis for their assertions in re, for instance, Gitmo. I am obviously not looking in the right places.
Quote from: ulmont on February 08, 2013, 09:28:22 AM
In particular, the degree of "due" process in the context, of a war seems rather low. Certainly, not a lot of individualized determinations were made during Korea or Vietnam before depriving persons of life.
Perhaps true (I wouldn't necessarily agree, but your argument would find supporters), but not relevant to my question of Minsky's answer. The distinction the Administration is drawing is between US citizens and non-citizens, not between wartime and peacetime procedures.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2013, 12:13:53 PM
Thanks. Can you give me a steer to a court case/cases in which the US Constitution is held to be interpreted differently outside the US than internally? I know that citizenship can create external jurisdiction over an individual, but can't seem to find cases where a government action is held to be legal merely because it is being carried out outside the US.
I am aware of the Bush administrations arguments on this score, but can't find any factual basis for their assertions in re, for instance, Gitmo. I am obviously not looking in the right places.
See the discussion starting at page 25 of the Boumediene opinion - I've pulled out a couple of interesting bits:
QuoteThe Court has discussed the issue of the Constitution's extraterritorial application on many occasions.
...
A constricted reading of Eisentrager overlooks what we see as a common thread uniting the Insular Cases, Eisentrager, and Reid: the idea that questions of extraterritoriality turn on objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism.
...
Based on this language from Eisentrager, and the reasoning in our other extraterritoriality opinions, we conclude that at least three factors are relevant in determining the reach of the Suspension Clause: (1) the citizenship and status of the detainee and the adequacy of the process through which that status determination was made; (2) the nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took place; and (3) the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner's entitlement to the writ.
...
As to the second factor relevant to this analysis, the detainees here are similarly situated to the Eisentrager petitioners in that the sites of their apprehension and detention are technically outside the sovereign territory of the United States. As noted earlier, this is a factor that weighs against finding they have rights under the Suspension Clause.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf
...and some followup thoughts in this law review article:
http://clhc.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/lawreview/documents/Neuman_Gerald_82_2.pdf
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2013, 12:17:27 PM
The distinction the Administration is drawing is between US citizens and non-citizens, not between wartime and peacetime procedures.
I think the Administration is drawing the war / peace distinction as well. From the DOJ White Paper:
QuoteThe United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida and its associated forces
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Moreover, at 5-6 of the DOJ White Paper, there are numerous references to "the realities of combat," "the government's interest in waging war," and that the subject is planning attacks against the United States.
At Page 5, the DOJ explicitly assumes that 5th and 4th Amendment principles apply to US citizens extraterritorially.
Quote from: ulmont on February 08, 2013, 01:02:12 PM
See the discussion starting at page 25 of the Boumediene opinion - I've pulled out a couple of interesting bits:
QuoteThe Court has discussed the issue of the Constitution's extraterritorial application on many occasions.
...
A constricted reading of Eisentrager overlooks what we see as a common thread uniting the Insular Cases, Eisentrager, and Reid: the idea that questions of extraterritoriality turn on objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism.
...
Based on this language from Eisentrager, and the reasoning in our other extraterritoriality opinions, we conclude that at least three factors are relevant in determining the reach of the Suspension Clause: (1) the citizenship and status of the detainee and the adequacy of the process through which that status determination was made; (2) the nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took place; and (3) the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner's entitlement to the writ.
...
As to the second factor relevant to this analysis, the detainees here are similarly situated to the Eisentrager petitioners in that the sites of their apprehension and detention are technically outside the sovereign territory of the United States. As noted earlier, this is a factor that weighs against finding they have rights under the Suspension Clause.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf
...and some followup thoughts in this law review article:
http://clhc.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/lawreview/documents/Neuman_Gerald_82_2.pdf
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2013, 12:17:27 PM
The distinction the Administration is drawing is between US citizens and non-citizens, not between wartime and peacetime procedures.
I think the Administration is drawing the war / peace distinction as well. From the DOJ White Paper:
QuoteThe United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida and its associated forces
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Moreover, at 5-6 of the DOJ White Paper, there are numerous references to "the realities of combat," "the government's interest in waging war," and that the subject is planning attacks against the United States.
At Page 5, the DOJ explicitly assumes that 5th and 4th Amendment principles apply to US citizens extraterritorially.
The issue in Boumediene was whether or not a prisoner at Gitmo had the right of habeus corpus, and the court held that he did. That is part of what has me confused here. The USSC has held any number of times that the Constitution applies outside the US (indeed, the Constitution must hold outside the US, as it is the sole font of US government power). The exact nature of that power depends, clearly, on a number of factors; the insular and
Eisentrager cases demonstrated that the Constitution is not the only law which holds, even in foreign areas under temporary US jurisdiction.
This doesn't seem to me to support any distinction between US and non-US citizens when it comes to attacking them overseas. I would note that I am not challenging the legitimacy of such attacks, merely querying as to why the US administration seems to think that the nationality of those targeted has any bearing on the lawfulness of the attacks.
I think it might be useful to look at some of the 19th century court cases involving US territories. Offhand, I don't recall any of the names of those cases.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2013, 01:38:58 PM
I would note that I am not challenging the legitimacy of such attacks, merely querying as to why the US administration seems to think that the nationality of those targeted has any bearing on the lawfulness of the attacks.
Ah, I missed this before my previous post. I think the administration's position really boils down to saying that the nationality of those targeted doesn't have any bearing on the lawfulness of the attacks. Basically, they're saying that if you're a member of or supported of Al Queda and/or associated groups, you're a legit military target, regardless of whether or not you're a US citizen.
dps, the territory cases are the insular cases referred to in boumediene.
dang, I'm missing stuff tonight.
Quote from: ulmont on February 08, 2013, 09:28:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2013, 01:19:20 AM
Short answer is that I think your reading is sound, but that isn't always how the courts view it.
Process is due to "persons" not citizens so a straight textual reading suggests that citizenship shouldn't matter. The Constitution by its plain meaning restricts the ways in which the government can act with respect to any "person" to deprive life, liberty or property, regardless of citizenship.
One possible counter is to contend that the degree of process that is due in a particular situation depends on circumstances, and citizenship status in one relevant circumstance. That could explain why the government does things to non-citizen immigrants it doesn't and wouldn't do it citizens.
In particular, the degree of "due" process in the context, of a war seems rather low. Certainly, not a lot of individualized determinations were made during Korea or Vietnam before depriving persons of life.
The constitution provides for a declaration of war though, which I will note was not done in either of those cases.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 08, 2013, 10:27:13 PM
The constitution provides for a declaration of war though, which I will note was not done in either of those cases.
And I will note that the courts have held that a congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force is legally the same as a declaration of war, and so your note is moot.
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2013, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 08, 2013, 10:27:13 PM
The constitution provides for a declaration of war though, which I will note was not done in either of those cases.
And I will note that the courts have held that a congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force is legally the same as a declaration of war, and so your note is moot.
So then the hippies were right and Bush and Congress were war criminals for their invasion of Afghanistan? Kellogg-Briand clearly forbids the attack by the US on Afghanistan, as they were both contracting parties.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is with the recent emphasis on these drone killings. There are bigger problems to worry about.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2013, 12:58:56 PM
I honestly don't see what the big deal is with the recent emphasis on these drone killings. There are bigger problems to worry about.
Relax, shareholder value is fine.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2013, 01:38:58 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 08, 2013, 01:02:12 PM
See the discussion starting at page 25 of the Boumediene opinion - I've pulled out a couple of interesting bits:
QuoteThe Court has discussed the issue of the Constitution's extraterritorial application on many occasions.
...
A constricted reading of Eisentrager overlooks what we see as a common thread uniting the Insular Cases, Eisentrager, and Reid: the idea that questions of extraterritoriality turn on objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism.
...
Based on this language from Eisentrager, and the reasoning in our other extraterritoriality opinions, we conclude that at least three factors are relevant in determining the reach of the Suspension Clause: (1) the citizenship and status of the detainee and the adequacy of the process through which that status determination was made; (2) the nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took place; and (3) the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner's entitlement to the writ.
...
As to the second factor relevant to this analysis, the detainees here are similarly situated to the Eisentrager petitioners in that the sites of their apprehension and detention are technically outside the sovereign territory of the United States. As noted earlier, this is a factor that weighs against finding they have rights under the Suspension Clause.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf
...and some followup thoughts in this law review article:
http://clhc.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/lawreview/documents/Neuman_Gerald_82_2.pdf
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2013, 12:17:27 PM
The distinction the Administration is drawing is between US citizens and non-citizens, not between wartime and peacetime procedures.
I think the Administration is drawing the war / peace distinction as well. From the DOJ White Paper:
QuoteThe United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida and its associated forces
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Moreover, at 5-6 of the DOJ White Paper, there are numerous references to "the realities of combat," "the government's interest in waging war," and that the subject is planning attacks against the United States.
At Page 5, the DOJ explicitly assumes that 5th and 4th Amendment principles apply to US citizens extraterritorially.
The issue in Boumediene was whether or not a prisoner at Gitmo had the right of habeus corpus, and the court held that he did. That is part of what has me confused here. The USSC has held any number of times that the Constitution applies outside the US (indeed, the Constitution must hold outside the US, as it is the sole font of US government power). The exact nature of that power depends, clearly, on a number of factors; the insular and Eisentrager cases demonstrated that the Constitution is not the only law which holds, even in foreign areas under temporary US jurisdiction.
This doesn't seem to me to support any distinction between US and non-US citizens when it comes to attacking them overseas. I would note that I am not challenging the legitimacy of such attacks, merely querying as to why the US administration seems to think that the nationality of those targeted has any bearing on the lawfulness of the attacks.
My beef is that with regard to US military action, the only concern needs to be the application of the law of war, unless we're talking about civilian agencies operating these drones. The language about due process is confusing, stupid, and wrong, because there is no need for it to be there. The white paper clearly says that the drones are operated in accordance with the law of war (whether they are or not), and so they should be judged on that basis. Due process extra-territorially is a non-sequitur; the only issue is the law of nations.
So, if the issue of due process is included, it must mean that it is provided to give justification for an internal/domestic use of the drones against US citizens deemed to be terrorists (presumably whose capture and trial for treason would cause too many problems).
Quote from: Scipio on February 09, 2013, 02:56:08 PM
My beef is that with regard to US military action, the only concern needs to be the application of the law of war, unless we're talking about civilian agencies operating these drones. The language about due process is confusing, stupid, and wrong, because there is no need for it to be there. The white paper clearly says that the drones are operated in accordance with the law of war (whether they are or not), and so they should be judged on that basis. Due process extra-territorially is a non-sequitur; the only issue is the law of nations.
So, if the issue of due process is included, it must mean that it is provided to give justification for an internal/domestic use of the drones against US citizens deemed to be terrorists (presumably whose capture and trial for treason would cause too many problems).
Due process is required under the law of war, though the technicalities of due process are different under the law of war than under domestic US law. I agree, though, that the discussion of due process in this context seems to be a red herring, and this is why I raised the issue. US citizens do not enjoy due process right that non-US citizens lack.
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2013, 04:00:20 PM
Quote from: Scipio on February 09, 2013, 02:56:08 PM
My beef is that with regard to US military action, the only concern needs to be the application of the law of war, unless we're talking about civilian agencies operating these drones. The language about due process is confusing, stupid, and wrong, because there is no need for it to be there. The white paper clearly says that the drones are operated in accordance with the law of war (whether they are or not), and so they should be judged on that basis. Due process extra-territorially is a non-sequitur; the only issue is the law of nations.
So, if the issue of due process is included, it must mean that it is provided to give justification for an internal/domestic use of the drones against US citizens deemed to be terrorists (presumably whose capture and trial for treason would cause too many problems).
Due process is required under the law of war, though the technicalities of due process are different under the law of war than under domestic US law. I agree, though, that the discussion of due process in this context seems to be a red herring, and this is why I raised the issue. US citizens do not enjoy due process right that non-US citizens lack.
The due process they are talking about seems to be separate from considerations of the law of war, though. This is just a poorly-worded memo.
Quote from: Scipio on February 09, 2013, 08:18:27 PM
The due process they are talking about seems to be separate from considerations of the law of war, though. This is just a poorly-worded memo.
Agree that it is poorly written. The constant insertions of "US citizen" and "senior commander" unnecessarily muddle the waters. Neither of those need to be considerations when evaluating the three criteria for the lawful use of lethal force.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 08, 2013, 10:27:13 PMThe constitution provides for a declaration of war though, which I will note was not done in either of those cases.
And the last declaration of war was WW2 :mellow:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F07%2F08%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2Fthe-strip-slide-MGDB%2Fthe-strip-slide-MGDB-jumbo.png&hash=b836177676c33feac6dd9623d96737b233e0131c)
Ugh. That's as bad as those Tom the dancing bug cartoons.
Dinosaur cartoons are funnier.
That's worse that Tom Tomorrow with diarrhea.
That's the worst cartoon I've read since the last one Phil posted. :P
Reminds me of Chick Tracts.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2013, 12:13:53 PM
Thanks. Can you give me a steer to a court case/cases in which the US Constitution is held to be interpreted differently outside the US than internally? I know that citizenship can create external jurisdiction over an individual, but can't seem to find cases where a government action is held to be legal merely because it is being carried out outside the US.
The Insular Cases. Johnson v. Eisentrager. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
I also consider the Chinese Exclusion Case to fall under this category.
Fugitive LAPD-killer is first drone target on U.S. soil
"It's official: The drone war has come home to America. Wanted fugitive Christopher Dorner, the homicidal former cop currently at war with the LAPD, has become the first known human target for airborne drones on U.S. soil."
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil (http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblu.stb.s-msn.com%2Fi%2FE2%2F375DFCDA7EDEDA37C34E6A834F9C_h316_w628_m5_cfcpbngVo.jpg&hash=a1c34b1bf062722480dd4a035ef61fd2448b06b7)
That's a stupid story and then I saw stupid comments on it. I feel dumber just reading that. How is that materially different then using a helicopter to search for a fugitive?
The difference is that drones are scary, mmmkay?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2013, 10:17:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2013, 12:13:53 PM
Thanks. Can you give me a steer to a court case/cases in which the US Constitution is held to be interpreted differently outside the US than internally? I know that citizenship can create external jurisdiction over an individual, but can't seem to find cases where a government action is held to be legal merely because it is being carried out outside the US.
The Insular Cases. Johnson v. Eisentrager. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
I also consider the Chinese Exclusion Case to fall under this category.
Thanks. I couldn't find any but US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, either. Still, the latter is pretty interesting, especially the pinhead-dancing that allowed the Supremes to conclude that the rights of 'the people" mentioned in the Fourth Amendment are of an entirely different character than the rights of "persons" in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
While, on the face of it, US v. Verdugo-Urquidez would seem to support the reasons for my confusion, it does answer the question I posed to you. Thanks.
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2013, 10:04:47 AM
Thanks. I couldn't find any but US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, either. Still, the latter is pretty interesting, especially the pinhead-dancing that allowed the Supremes to conclude that the rights of 'the people" mentioned in the Fourth Amendment are of an entirely different character than the rights of "persons" in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
It's a significant result, among other things it allows the government to use results from overseas wiretaps that probably wouldn't pass muster here.
The Insular Cases were a series of cases relating to the US administration of territories acquired from Spain after 1898 - some of them are actually cited in the Verdugo-Urquidez opinion. They held that certain constitutional guarantees were not applicable in the territories such as jury rights (not entirely suprising given the nasty little counter-insurgency campaign fought in the Phillipines). Johnson v. Eisentrager was a prosecution of German saboteurs in WW2 - some have claimed that it stands for the proposition that non-citizens lack the right to the writ of habeas corpus, although the Supreme Court did not accept that sweeping reading in the terror cases. The Chinese Exclusion Case upheld the nation's first federal immigrant exclusion law despite the awkward fact that no such enumerated power seems to exist - the Court invoked the inherent powers of the US as a sovereign, apparently confusing the sovereign People with their limited instrument, the federal government. The potential implications of that reasoning are pretty far reaching as it suggests that constitutional restraints are not entirely binding the more the federal government acts in a traditional sovereign capacity.
Quote from: Scipio on February 09, 2013, 02:56:08 PM
My beef is that with regard to US military action, the only concern needs to be the application of the law of war, unless we're talking about civilian agencies operating these drones.
Does it really turn entirely on what agency of the Exec branch flies the drone? Because then evading certain legal niceties merely requires that a guy in a suit and tie hand over his controller to a guy in a uniform.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 11, 2013, 01:36:50 PM
It's a significant result, among other things it allows the government to use results from overseas wiretaps that probably wouldn't pass muster here.
I agree. It's a fascinating example of the USSC using languish-style nitpicking to determine that "the people" have an entirely different set of right than do "persons." The USSC majority got the result they wanted, no matter how objectively silly their argument was.
Of course, the rights in the case of drone strikes are those of "persons" and not "the people," so it isn't clear how the precedent of US v. Verdugo-Urquidez would be applied. On the face of it, it would seem that everyone, US citizen or not, is a "person" who cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. If we apply the spirit of US v V-U, though, the ruling would be that the constitution means whatever the executive wants it to mean. :lol:
QuoteThe Insular Cases ...
I am familiar with those others and agree that they are not really applicable.
Why is any of this related to drones per se?
Are the rules for killing somenoe with a missile from a drone somehow different from the rules for killing someone with a missile from a manned fighter, or a Tomahawk, or even a sniper?
I don't understand why we need a set of drone-specific rules - surely the legal justifications for the use of deadly force in whatever circumstances (war or peace, citizen/non-citizens, etc., etc) do not hinge on how the instrument of that force is delivered?
Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2013, 12:28:11 PM
Why is any of this related to drones per se?
Are the rules for killing somenoe with a missile from a drone somehow different from the rules for killing someone with a missile from a manned fighter, or a Tomahawk, or even a sniper?
I don't understand why we need a set of drone-specific rules - surely the legal justifications for the use of deadly force in whatever circumstances (war or peace, citizen/non-citizens, etc., etc) do not hinge on how the instrument of that force is delivered?
Drones are scary.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2013, 07:19:52 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 11, 2013, 01:36:50 PM
It's a significant result, among other things it allows the government to use results from overseas wiretaps that probably wouldn't pass muster here.
I agree. It's a fascinating example of the USSC using languish-style nitpicking to determine that "the people" have an entirely different set of right than do "persons." The USSC majority got the result they wanted, no matter how objectively silly their argument was.
Of course, the rights in the case of drone strikes are those of "persons" and not "the people," so it isn't clear how the precedent of US v. Verdugo-Urquidez would be applied. On the face of it, it would seem that everyone, US citizen or not, is a "person" who cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. If we apply the spirit of US v V-U, though, the ruling would be that the constitution means whatever the executive wants it to mean. :lol:
Had there actually been a DoW, I'd argue that Congress voting for war constituted due process.
Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2013, 12:28:11 PM
Why is any of this related to drones per se?
It isn't.
Drones are being used in ways that, if the payload was delivered from a fighter or a warship into the areas they have been, there would probably be at least a few bigger media/diplomatic/political incidents than we've had. For some reason they are avoiding those consequences for now, but I think that will change in the future.
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:19:02 PM
Had there actually been a DoW, I'd argue that Congress voting for war constituted due process.
There was the AUMF, but that isn't as broad as some seem to assume.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 12, 2013, 03:00:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 12:37:57 PM
Drones are scary.
Robots in disguise.
Exactly. Which is why I have robot insurance from Old Glory.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insurance/n10766/
Did someone get a box set of SNL vids for Christmas? :P
I can't bring myself to get very worked up about the targeting of terrorists by drones or any other similar means. Is the collateral damage from drone strikes higher than the collateral damage from, say, rockets fired from manned fighters?
Nitpicking over whether the terrorist is a US citizen or not seems to me a strange distinction; if someone's gone overseas in order to plan to blow up a building as a political act against the USA, surely they've renounced their US citizenship if spirit if not in writing, haven't they?
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 03:35:59 PM
I can't bring myself to get very worked up about the targeting of terrorists by drones or any other similar means. Is the collateral damage from drone strikes higher than the collateral damage from, say, rockets fired from manned fighters?
I am just concerned about establishing the standard acceptable international procedures in using these things. Sure we are using to target bad bad people but very shortly every country will have these things and we are basically announcing it is perfectly fine and legal to take out anybody you consider a threat anywhere in the world. Like all really really bad ideas they are done for what at the time seemed like a reasonable expedient.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 03:38:00 PM
I am just concerned about establishing the standard acceptable international procedures in using these things. Sure we are using to target bad bad people but very shortly every country will have these things and we are basically announcing it is perfectly fine and legal to take out anybody you consider a threat anywhere in the world. Like all really really bad ideas they are done for what at the time seemed like a reasonable expedient.
You're worried about setting precedent rather than whether the threat is a US citizen or not. That makes sense.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 03:42:01 PM
You're worried about setting precedent rather than whether the threat is a US citizen or not. That makes sense.
Well the Bill of Rights makes no distinction as far as due process. If the process involved works for non-citizens there is nothing constitutionally requiring the government to make another one for citizens so the damage there has already been done as far as precedents are concerned. Besides if the rationalization is these guys are at war with the US last I checked being a US citizen did not do much if you were considered a belligerent against the US.
My deal is that I question whether all these dangerous precedents and disregard for implications were even necessary in the first place, if there might have been a way to deal with these guys that would be less problematic in the long term. I think that is everybody's concern, who care about this sort of thing. Not that they are wanting to offer warm fuzzies to terrorists like we often get lampooned.
Are these drone strikes considered assassinations? Serious question.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
Are these drone strikes considered assassinations? Serious question.
I believe they are officially acts of war, as we are at war with Terrorism, and the targets are considered combatants.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 12, 2013, 03:14:09 PM
Did someone get a box set of SNL vids for Christmas? :P
Man, I was trying to find the Kelsey Grammar 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea one the other day, and no dice. That sketch was awesome.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 03:35:59 PM
I can't bring myself to get very worked up about the targeting of terrorists by drones or any other similar means. Is the collateral damage from drone strikes higher than the collateral damage from, say, rockets fired from manned fighters?
And if not, what can we do to get those numbers up?
My concern is with the practicalities of their use, maybe a subject for another thread.
The use of drones seems to lower the bar in several areas, because there's no one riding the thing, there's no risk of losing US lives or a shoot down resulting in a Gary Powers international incident, drones are more deniable and even in the case of the Iranian capture of the US drone seems to generate less controversy (ie no US hostage)
So Obama seems to be relying on them more and more, maybe he's getting a touch of the LBJ syndrome, at first caring a great deal about collateral damage and now not being so bothered, hence deploying them increasingly, just so long as a target is taken out ?
Hasn't the CIA guy who oversaw the early days of the Afghanistan/Pakistan drone program gone on record to say, the US is relying too heavily on them and neglecting other policy tools ?
My main concern is US forces withdraw from Afghanistan and the Karzai 'administration' can't hold its shit together and collapses in a little over a year.
So what if the US can carry out a drone strike on the day Taliban leaders take over the Afghan president's offices, there always be more Islamists to take their place. And the US will be face with having to implement a program on steriods, DronesPlus ?
Better to be now ratcheting down the campaign and try and co-op/negotiate with those 'militant' willing to fold into a wider national Afghan coalition ?
As an aside, doesn't a drone campaign that's successful in it's own internal objectives of taking out lots of taliban leaders, run the risk of just creating a lot of churn, enabling more younger, extreme militants to take up leadership position ?
Eventually someone has to negotiate with these people ?
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2013, 04:55:11 PM
So what if the US can carry out a drone strike on the day Taliban leaders taking over the Afghan president's offices, they'll always be more Islamists to take their place.
No. Their numbers are finite.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 12, 2013, 03:14:09 PM
Did someone get a box set of SNL vids for Christmas? :P
No, but Easter is coming up (hint, hint).
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 03:54:13 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
Are these drone strikes considered assassinations? Serious question.
I believe they are officially acts of war, as we are at war with Terrorism
No we are not.
Here's the problem:
The only possible justification for using this kind of force without securing warrants or following court procedures is as an excercise of some war power.
But the authority to declare war is vested in Congress and these drone strikes are targeted in countries we plainly are not at war with.
Now the modern reality is that we don't really declare wars anymore. It isn't practical to hamstring the use of military force by requiring a formal preceding declaration of war of Congress. So the constitutional kludge of a solution is the War Powers Resolution. Basically, it allows the President carte blanche do use military force but only for a limited time, then he has to get authority from Congress. And although every President has insisted they aren't bound by it, every one has also agreed to act in accordance with it because no one dares test in the courts the unvarnished executive authority to employ unilateral war powers.
The war power resolution worked pretty well but it presumes that the use of miliatary force will involve some kind of deployment of soldiers, sailors or airmen to carry out - the Resolution is triggered by the entry of United States Armed Forces into "hostilities" or foreign territory. As long as physical commitment of forces to a zone of hostilities is required, the Resolution will ensure that Congress will ultimately be able to approve or disapprove the action, unless the President can somehow wrap everything up in 60 days.
The tricky thing about a drone campaign is that it effectively evades all this. The drone campaign as a whole is continuous and long-term but any particular act of entry to hostilities by an instrumentality of the armed forces is ephemeral. So what results is a series of logically connected but functionally separate, transient acts of war. That not only allows effective evasion of Congressional authorization and responsibility, it also raises the potential danger of blurring the lines between conduct of war and conduct of criminal law enforcement, including the improper use of military instrumentalities to carry out law enforcement tasks.
That is no different however in using a Tomahawk to blow up a terrorist camp in some other country though.
Drones just let us do what we have always been able to do expensively, cheaply. There is no difference in kind between lacuning some cruise missiles into the tribal areas of Pakistan, and using a drone to launch a Hellfire.
I think there is a greater issue here, really - and that is the fact that the exercise of deadly force by the state against those perceived to be threats, but under circumstances that simply do not fit into anything that would traditionally resemble "war" is largely undefined from any kind of legal standing. It mostly seems like states that can do it, do do it, and there isn't much anyone can do about it, no real oversight, and no particular control outside of international political pressure.
This mostly works out acceptable ok so far because it has just been the "good guys" doing so, but what about when it is not?
I don't see this as a law enforcement issue however - that I just do not buy. Dealing with international organizations intent on creating terror is not law enforcement, it is something else. Perhaps it is just my lack of imagination, but I cannot even conceive of how a well intentioned administration could handle threats like Al-Quaeda and the like using strictly law enforcement tools.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2013, 03:13:55 PM
Here's the problem:
The only possible justification for using this kind of force without securing warrants or following court procedures is as an excercise of some war power.
But the authority to declare war is vested in Congress and these drone strikes are targeted in countries we plainly are not at war with.
Now the modern reality is that we don't really declare wars anymore. It isn't practical to hamstring the use of military force by requiring a formal preceding declaration of war of Congress. So the constitutional kludge of a solution is the War Powers Resolution. Basically, it allows the President carte blanche do use military force but only for a limited time, then he has to get authority from Congress. And although every President has insisted they aren't bound by it, every one has also agreed to act in accordance with it because no one dares test in the courts the unvarnished executive authority to employ unilateral war powers.
The war power resolution worked pretty well but it presumes that the use of miliatary force will involve some kind of deployment of soldiers, sailors or airmen to carry out - the Resolution is triggered by the entry of United States Armed Forces into "hostilities" or foreign territory. As long as physical commitment of forces to a zone of hostilities is required, the Resolution will ensure that Congress will ultimately be able to approve or disapprove the action, unless the President can somehow wrap everything up in 60 days.
The tricky thing about a drone campaign is that it effectively evades all this. The drone campaign as a whole is continuous and long-term but any particular act of entry to hostilities by an instrumentality of the armed forces is ephemeral. So what results is a series of logically connected but functionally separate, transient acts of war. That not only allows effective evasion of Congressional authorization and responsibility, it also raises the potential danger of blurring the lines between conduct of war and conduct of criminal law enforcement, including the improper use of military instrumentalities to carry out law enforcement tasks.
The problem is that the white paper expressly claims these assassinations are authorized by the law of war. So I would like to see that actual analysis, not just their conclusions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2013, 03:13:55 PM
Here's the problem:
The only possible justification for using this kind of force without securing warrants or following court procedures is as an excercise of some war power.
But the authority to declare war is vested in Congress and these drone strikes are targeted in countries we plainly are not at war with.
Now the modern reality is that we don't really declare wars anymore. It isn't practical to hamstring the use of military force by requiring a formal preceding declaration of war of Congress. So the constitutional kludge of a solution is the War Powers Resolution. Basically, it allows the President carte blanche do use military force but only for a limited time, then he has to get authority from Congress. And although every President has insisted they aren't bound by it, every one has also agreed to act in accordance with it because no one dares test in the courts the unvarnished executive authority to employ unilateral war powers.
The war power resolution worked pretty well but it presumes that the use of miliatary force will involve some kind of deployment of soldiers, sailors or airmen to carry out - the Resolution is triggered by the entry of United States Armed Forces into "hostilities" or foreign territory. As long as physical commitment of forces to a zone of hostilities is required, the Resolution will ensure that Congress will ultimately be able to approve or disapprove the action, unless the President can somehow wrap everything up in 60 days.
The tricky thing about a drone campaign is that it effectively evades all this. The drone campaign as a whole is continuous and long-term but any particular act of entry to hostilities by an instrumentality of the armed forces is ephemeral. So what results is a series of logically connected but functionally separate, transient acts of war. That not only allows effective evasion of Congressional authorization and responsibility, it also raises the potential danger of blurring the lines between conduct of war and conduct of criminal law enforcement, including the improper use of military instrumentalities to carry out law enforcement tasks.
Thanks, MM. That's the sort of analysis I was hoping to see here. I am now convinced that it does not have a thing to do with US citizenship, other than the ickeeness of the US government waxing US citizens in some peoples' minds, but that's just the context in which the debate seems to be framed.
It is something to think about, for sure.
I would, again, call to mind the piracy analogy. Just as all civilized nations are permanently at war with all pirates, so I would argue all civilized nations are permanently at war with all terrorists. Just as any military and naval forces can be employed against all pirates, so I would argue that all military and naval forces can be employed against all terrorists. Thoughts?
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2013, 08:03:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2013, 03:13:55 PM
Here's the problem:
The only possible justification for using this kind of force without securing warrants or following court procedures is as an excercise of some war power.
But the authority to declare war is vested in Congress and these drone strikes are targeted in countries we plainly are not at war with.
Now the modern reality is that we don't really declare wars anymore. It isn't practical to hamstring the use of military force by requiring a formal preceding declaration of war of Congress. So the constitutional kludge of a solution is the War Powers Resolution. Basically, it allows the President carte blanche do use military force but only for a limited time, then he has to get authority from Congress. And although every President has insisted they aren't bound by it, every one has also agreed to act in accordance with it because no one dares test in the courts the unvarnished executive authority to employ unilateral war powers.
The war power resolution worked pretty well but it presumes that the use of miliatary force will involve some kind of deployment of soldiers, sailors or airmen to carry out - the Resolution is triggered by the entry of United States Armed Forces into "hostilities" or foreign territory. As long as physical commitment of forces to a zone of hostilities is required, the Resolution will ensure that Congress will ultimately be able to approve or disapprove the action, unless the President can somehow wrap everything up in 60 days.
The tricky thing about a drone campaign is that it effectively evades all this. The drone campaign as a whole is continuous and long-term but any particular act of entry to hostilities by an instrumentality of the armed forces is ephemeral. So what results is a series of logically connected but functionally separate, transient acts of war. That not only allows effective evasion of Congressional authorization and responsibility, it also raises the potential danger of blurring the lines between conduct of war and conduct of criminal law enforcement, including the improper use of military instrumentalities to carry out law enforcement tasks.
Thanks, MM. That's the sort of analysis I was hoping to see here. I am now convinced that it does not have a thing to do with US citizenship, other than the ickeeness of the US government waxing US citizens in some peoples' minds, but that's just the context in which the debate seems to be framed.
It is something to think about, for sure.
I would, again, call to mind the piracy analogy. Just as all civilized nations are permanently at war with all pirates, so I would argue all civilized nations are permanently at war with all terrorists. Just as any military and naval forces can be employed against all pirates, so I would argue that all military and naval forces can be employed against all terrorists. Thoughts?
That just supports the argument that the white paper is the forerunner to an extended justification for killing unpopular Americans, on American soil, with drones, without due process.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment
these drone strikes are targeted in countries we plainly are not at war with.
Don't see how this particular bit matters. We targeted a lot of weapons in France in 1917-18 and again in 1943-45 without ever being at war with France.
Obviously not a lawyer, but can't we treat terrorism like piracy, sort of like considering them at war with all humanity? The US has launched several anti-piracy campaigns in it's history. Is there no precedent there?
The way I look at the problem is to start from first principles.
The drone strikes appear to qualify as sustained, ongoing campaign. Thus, if the justification for evading the normal due process requirement for the use of governmental force is that it is a military campaign, then as a constitutional matter a Congressional declaration of war should be required. But other than the decade-old AUMF, which is specific to the planners and perpetrators of 9/11, that authorization doesn't seem to exist.
Grumbler invokes the example of piracy, which under accepted of law of war, could justify a military campaign using military means without formal pre-authorization of a state of war. And it is not unreasonable to analogize modern day terror organizations to pirates. But it is a bit more tricky. It's one thing to identify old time pirates on the high seas - but present day terrorist organizations make more of an effort to blend in and that creates a lot of very gray areas. Take one concrete example - the Hamdan case. Is Osama bin Laden's former chaffeur a terrorist such that he places himself outside of all protection of the law? The DOD thought so, although the Supreme Court took a more nuanced view. And if a driver is enough to qualify, how far to we go? bin Laden's barber? The guy who delivers his paper?
Such a campaign calls for some very fine judgments and very debatable distinctions. But who makes those judgments and distinctions, what kind of review or control exists, and how does the sovereign citzenry come to learn about any of this?
It comes down to the age old problem: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The American answer was the Constitution but if the government acts on or even past the far margins of that document, where does that leave us?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2013, 10:25:02 AM
Grumbler invokes the example of piracy, which under accepted of law of war, could justify a military campaign using military means without formal pre-authorization of a state of war. And it is not unreasonable to analogize modern day terror organizations to pirates. But it is a bit more tricky. It's one thing to identify old time pirates on the high seas - but present day terrorist organizations make more of an effort to blend in and that creates a lot of very gray areas. Take one concrete example - the Hamdan case. Is Osama bin Laden's former chaffeur a terrorist such that he places himself outside of all protection of the law? The DOD thought so, although the Supreme Court took a more nuanced view. And if a driver is enough to qualify, how far to we go? bin Laden's barber? The guy who delivers his paper?
Pirates are not "outside all protection of the law." Nor was the identification of pirates on the high seas as simple as the movies would suggest.
Had Hamdan been the driver for some pirate lord rather than a terrorist lord, he would be entitled to the same protections of habeus corpus and due process as he now has.
And, I would note, the pirate precedent shows that it is entirely possible to have normal criminal courts deal with these kinds of criminals.
Though he is ignoring me, I'm with Grumbler on this one.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2013, 09:06:01 PM
Though he is ignoring me, I'm with Grumbler on this one.
I'll be sure to let him know.
You do that, and while you are at it could you relay all my posts to Berkut.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2013, 03:13:55 PM
Here's the problem:
The only possible justification for using this kind of force without securing warrants or following court procedures is as an excercise of some war power.
But the authority to declare war is vested in Congress and these drone strikes are targeted in countries we plainly are not at war with.
Now the modern reality is that we don't really declare wars anymore. It isn't practical to hamstring the use of military force by requiring a formal preceding declaration of war of Congress. So the constitutional kludge of a solution is the War Powers Resolution. Basically, it allows the President carte blanche do use military force but only for a limited time, then he has to get authority from Congress. And although every President has insisted they aren't bound by it, every one has also agreed to act in accordance with it because no one dares test in the courts the unvarnished executive authority to employ unilateral war powers.
The war power resolution worked pretty well but it presumes that the use of miliatary force will involve some kind of deployment of soldiers, sailors or airmen to carry out - the Resolution is triggered by the entry of United States Armed Forces into "hostilities" or foreign territory. As long as physical commitment of forces to a zone of hostilities is required, the Resolution will ensure that Congress will ultimately be able to approve or disapprove the action, unless the President can somehow wrap everything up in 60 days.
The tricky thing about a drone campaign is that it effectively evades all this. The drone campaign as a whole is continuous and long-term but any particular act of entry to hostilities by an instrumentality of the armed forces is ephemeral. So what results is a series of logically connected but functionally separate, transient acts of war. That not only allows effective evasion of Congressional authorization and responsibility, it also raises the potential danger of blurring the lines between conduct of war and conduct of criminal law enforcement, including the improper use of military instrumentalities to carry out law enforcement tasks.
We are at war, but not with a nation state. In 2001 Congress gave the President pretty wide latitude to pursue the war against Al Qaeda. Given the nature of our enemy this is an indefinite expansion of Presidential power to wage war around the world to defeat our enemy. thus, the president's actions are completely justified and legal.
Congress can take that power away, just as it authorized it, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. just as I predicted years ago the anti-war movement proved to be a group of partisan hacks who simply put Al Qaeda before their country as long as the opposition party controlled the White House.
In the end we either continue to pursue our enemy or stick our heads back into the sand until the next attack. Though drone attacks are not nearly as good as capturing terrorists in order to gather more intel, but apparently drone attacks are morally superior to waterboarding.
HANS SUPPORTS OBAMA.
:D
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2013, 12:49:30 PM
HANS SUPPORTS OBAMA.
:D
As I've said in the past I'm an ideologue, not a partisan hack, unlike most of the posters here.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 15, 2013, 01:06:30 PM
As I've said in the past I'm an ideologue, not a partisan hack, unlike most of the posters here.
I'd have trouble coming up with more than half a dozen posters that label could aptly be used for.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2013, 01:13:37 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 15, 2013, 01:06:30 PM
As I've said in the past I'm an ideologue, not a partisan hack, unlike most of the posters here.
I'd have trouble coming up with more than half a dozen posters that label could aptly be used for.
In terms of strict allegiance to a party-- I'm with you on that. In terms of antipathy *towards* a certain party, I disagree.
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2013, 01:17:00 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2013, 01:13:37 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 15, 2013, 01:06:30 PM
As I've said in the past I'm an ideologue, not a partisan hack, unlike most of the posters here.
I'd have trouble coming up with more than half a dozen posters that label could aptly be used for.
In terms of strict allegiance to a party-- I'm with you on that. In terms of antipathy *towards* a certain party, I disagree.
Ok, who is against Republicans just to be against Republicans and not on ideological grounds that couldn't be considered a partisan Democrat?
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2013, 01:17:00 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2013, 01:13:37 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 15, 2013, 01:06:30 PM
As I've said in the past I'm an ideologue, not a partisan hack, unlike most of the posters here.
I'd have trouble coming up with more than half a dozen posters that label could aptly be used for.
In terms of strict allegiance to a party-- I'm with you on that. In terms of antipathy *towards* a certain party, I disagree.
My antipathy towards the msm is far higher than against the Democrats, due to their immense dishonesty. My opposition to the Democrats is ideological, since I consider their views a perversion of the American Constitutional ideal.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2013, 01:20:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2013, 01:17:00 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2013, 01:13:37 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 15, 2013, 01:06:30 PM
As I've said in the past I'm an ideologue, not a partisan hack, unlike most of the posters here.
I'd have trouble coming up with more than half a dozen posters that label could aptly be used for.
In terms of strict allegiance to a party-- I'm with you on that. In terms of antipathy *towards* a certain party, I disagree.
Ok, who is against Republicans just to be against Republicans and not on ideological grounds that couldn't be considered a partisan Democrat?
80% of Languish.
edit: and probably 95% of non-American Languishites.
I'm not seeing it. Most of Languish is against them on ideological grounds, especially the foreign contingent.
The Republican Party has managed to take almost everything that made it great and systematically set fire to it. Why wouldn't a reasonably informed person be against them, even if you're not necessarily going to be pro-Democrat?
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 15, 2013, 11:00:23 AM
In 2001 Congress gave the President pretty wide latitude to pursue the war against Al Qaeda.
Let's be precise: the authorization relates to "nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"
Assuming the President's determination is subject to a rule of reason, that authorization relates to a finite, determinate group of people. For example, it wouldn't extend to organizations that played no role in 9/11 and indeed didn't even exist at the time but subsequently formed and adopted al-Qaeda franchise names. Nor would it extend to organizations or individual jihadis that are not al-Qaeda affiliated at all and had no role in 9/11.
QuoteGiven the nature of our enemy this is an indefinite expansion of Presidential power to wage war around the world to defeat our enemy.
The point of requiring declaration of war is to limit Presidential warpowers to particular, definite objects as set by the coordinate branch. An expansion of Executive warpower that is indefinite and unbounded is antithetical to our constitutional system.
So am I reading this correctly-- Hans is arguing in favor of an Obama policy & Minsky against it?
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2013, 03:39:30 PM
So am I reading this correctly-- Hans is arguing in favor of an Obama policy & Minsky against it?
Seems consistent with their usual positions. It's probably the policy that is unusual.
Quote from: Zanza on February 15, 2013, 03:40:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2013, 03:39:30 PM
So am I reading this correctly-- Hans is arguing in favor of an Obama policy & Minsky against it?
Seems consistent with their usual positions. It's probably the policy that is unusual.
Don't ruin the moment. Yeah, we know why solar eclipses happen but it doesn't mean we should ignore them.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 15, 2013, 01:06:30 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2013, 12:49:30 PM
HANS SUPPORTS OBAMA.
:D
As I've said in the past I'm an ideologue, not a partisan hack, unlike most of the posters here.
I'm a partisan hack.
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2013, 03:39:30 PM
So am I reading this correctly-- Hans is arguing in favor of an Obama policy & Minsky against it?
There are strong continuities between the post-Rumsfeld Bush administration security policy and the Obama policy. I am not really arguing against either per se, in part because I don't really know exactly what the policy is - i.e. what criteria is being used to select targets and what safeguards are in place. It does make me uneasy.