a guest post by sapient
[note: When Sapient suggested that we discuss an article about the situation in Libya, I invited him to send in a guest post. I'd be more than happy to make this a continuing series, so if you have something that you want to get up, send it to me at libjpn overyonderat gmail]
Before the murders of four Americans in Benghazi were even confirmed, MItt Romney was using the incident as a political talking point to blame President Obama for an alleged "failure of leadership."
Just to state the some of the early moments of my own awareness, I saw articles and heard radio reports something like this one describing demonstrations in Cairo and Benghazi, by people who were apparently enraged at Americans about a film believed to have been made by (it turns out) a Coptic-American, bank fraud ex-convict, who created an irreverent depiction of the prophet Mohammed. (This filmmaker was on probation, barred from using the Internet, and is now in jail.)
Republicans complain that the Banghazi murders were a "terrorist attack" that should have been anticipated and prevented. (Of course, the President called the incident an "act of terror" early on, but Republicans, as exemplified by the famous Romney debate gaffe, first ignored that fact, and now dispute that Obama was using the words appropriately as a term of art.) Darrell Issa (probable arsonist) has conducted an investigation, during which he accused the Obama administration of failing to provide sufficient security to the diplomats in Libya, and misleading the public about the facts surrounding the murders (this, despite the Republican reduction in funding for diplomatic security). The charge of misrepresentation to the public is largely based on the fact that Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows stating that the intelligence they had so far was that there was a riot caused by the anti-Islamic film, that was then hijacked by Islamist extremists.
A good timeline of events is here.
One of the suspected ringleaders of the Benghazi killings was recently seen hanging out at a luxury hotel describing the scene, and still saying that the killings began as a peaceful protest against the video.
In the aftermath of the second Presidential debate, many in the media are talking about the "questions" surrounding the events in Benghazi, seemingly bolstering the Republican argument that the Obama administration has something to answer for regarding its presentation of the facts to the public. (Listen to this for example.
It seems likely that there are classified pieces to what was going on in Benghazi, as well as the current investigation of the murders. Whether the administration has a duty to be blabbing everything in real time, before the information is all in, is the real question. The fact that Republicans are turning this into an opportunity for something to say about foreign policy (since they have so little to criticize) isn't helping either the cause of justice or security in Libya.
Also, I find the Republican call for "leadership" a bit frightening. The way they try to "lead" other countries involves lots of bombs, soldiers and guns. How should we provide "leadership"?
this, despite the Republican reduction in funding for diplomatic security
i got suckered by a wingnut ‘fact’ a few weeks back. the claim was that more House Dems voted for this than Republicans did so therefore this was a Democratic problem. and it’s true, and that changes things somewhat. but it’s only true if you’re only talking about the conference vote (149 D + 147 R)
if you’re talking about the actual vote-vote, then the total was 229 R + 182 D.
this, despite the Republican reduction in funding for diplomatic security
i got suckered by a wingnut ‘fact’ a few weeks back. the claim was that more House Dems voted for this than Republicans did so therefore this was a Democratic problem. and it’s true, and that changes things somewhat. but it’s only true if you’re only talking about the conference vote (149 D + 147 R)
if you’re talking about the actual vote-vote, then the total was 229 R + 182 D.
“Romney debate gaffe”
Not sure “gaffe” is the correct word here, in the sense of a blunder, since premeditated lying is not often viewed as a blunder by the liar.
A archaic secondary meaning of “gaff”. without the “e”, might be more appropriate, i.e. to strike or land a fish with a gaff; or better, the British slang: to cheat; hoax; or trick.
Romney was landing the already netted trash fish in the Republican base, but was also trying to hoax or trick the few undecided white whales who hadn’t been drawn to the chum yet.
Thanks, sapient, for writing this.
Let the journalism, Olympic ski-jumping, fishing with dynamite, and cage fighting begin on what David Foster Wallace called, in a posthumously discovered unfinished story, “the bathroom wall of the U.S. psyche”, the internet.
“Romney debate gaffe”
Not sure “gaffe” is the correct word here, in the sense of a blunder, since premeditated lying is not often viewed as a blunder by the liar.
A archaic secondary meaning of “gaff”. without the “e”, might be more appropriate, i.e. to strike or land a fish with a gaff; or better, the British slang: to cheat; hoax; or trick.
Romney was landing the already netted trash fish in the Republican base, but was also trying to hoax or trick the few undecided white whales who hadn’t been drawn to the chum yet.
Thanks, sapient, for writing this.
Let the journalism, Olympic ski-jumping, fishing with dynamite, and cage fighting begin on what David Foster Wallace called, in a posthumously discovered unfinished story, “the bathroom wall of the U.S. psyche”, the internet.
The “leadership” demonstrated by both parties, regarding the so called “Arab Spring” and its aftermath, has been abysmal.
Neither party has been willing to accurately describe the situation; the situation being a take-over of the region by Islamic fundementalists at the expense of secularism and non-muslim communties. Instead, we get all this sublimated crap coming from our own revolutionary heritage.
The rebels are described in the light of freedom fighters, overthrowing the forces of tyranny, reinacting 1776 in turbans.
They are treated this way by the US media and by the US govenment. It’s like it’s our own sublimated revolutionary heritage being projected onto some unlikely characters in the middle east because we have done everything possible to neuter the same at home, yet the mythos still demands expression. American citizens that become nauseous at the thought of high capacity magazines and assualt rifles loudly cheer the violent use of the same in foreign lands. Americans that scoff at the idea of civil disobedience, let alone revolution at home, see it as an unqualified good approach elsewhere.
So the first failure of leadership, the failure to objectively recognize the muslim “revolutionaries” for what they really are (i.e. islamic extreme elements that do not seek democracy as we know it), is ubiquitous in the US. And the second is to then export our own subconsciously held values into other cultures.
From these two failures arise all others. Why be overly concerned with security when “the good guys” have won the revolution? Surely they will recognize that we are kindered spirits – brothers and sisters bound by our love of freedom and democracy – and ambrace us as such.
Then when the delusion collapses we are left dazed and confused and without a clue as to what to say or do next.
The “leadership” demonstrated by both parties, regarding the so called “Arab Spring” and its aftermath, has been abysmal.
Neither party has been willing to accurately describe the situation; the situation being a take-over of the region by Islamic fundementalists at the expense of secularism and non-muslim communties. Instead, we get all this sublimated crap coming from our own revolutionary heritage.
The rebels are described in the light of freedom fighters, overthrowing the forces of tyranny, reinacting 1776 in turbans.
They are treated this way by the US media and by the US govenment. It’s like it’s our own sublimated revolutionary heritage being projected onto some unlikely characters in the middle east because we have done everything possible to neuter the same at home, yet the mythos still demands expression. American citizens that become nauseous at the thought of high capacity magazines and assualt rifles loudly cheer the violent use of the same in foreign lands. Americans that scoff at the idea of civil disobedience, let alone revolution at home, see it as an unqualified good approach elsewhere.
So the first failure of leadership, the failure to objectively recognize the muslim “revolutionaries” for what they really are (i.e. islamic extreme elements that do not seek democracy as we know it), is ubiquitous in the US. And the second is to then export our own subconsciously held values into other cultures.
From these two failures arise all others. Why be overly concerned with security when “the good guys” have won the revolution? Surely they will recognize that we are kindered spirits – brothers and sisters bound by our love of freedom and democracy – and ambrace us as such.
Then when the delusion collapses we are left dazed and confused and without a clue as to what to say or do next.
they aren’t cattle. they are not going to be lead. it’s their country, not ours. if they want an Islamic theocracy, then that’s what they will have. it’s not our job to tell them how to run their government.
they aren’t cattle. they are not going to be lead. it’s their country, not ours. if they want an Islamic theocracy, then that’s what they will have. it’s not our job to tell them how to run their government.
“Also, I find the Republican call for “leadership” a bit frightening. The way they try to “lead” other countries involves lots of bombs, soldiers and guns.”
This is not a totally fair depiction of the difference between the Republican and Democrat approach. Afterall, it is BHO who enjoys using assassination, personally selecting targets, sans trial or any other judicial process. Suspected? You die. period.
So Romney points fingers and BHO will kill a few people. In either case the “leadership” traits escape me.
“Also, I find the Republican call for “leadership” a bit frightening. The way they try to “lead” other countries involves lots of bombs, soldiers and guns.”
This is not a totally fair depiction of the difference between the Republican and Democrat approach. Afterall, it is BHO who enjoys using assassination, personally selecting targets, sans trial or any other judicial process. Suspected? You die. period.
So Romney points fingers and BHO will kill a few people. In either case the “leadership” traits escape me.
What I find especially irritating is the idea (separate from the blatant partisan posturing) that somehow our diplomats can, and should, be kept totally safe from possible harm.
That sort of bunker mentality would practically guarantee that they would be unable to do their job. Specifically the parts that involve keeping up on what is happening in the country where they are posted, and representing the United States to people beyond the government elite.
I suppose that it is part and parcel with the view elsewhere in American society that life can and should be made totally safe. No price too high; no improvement in safety too minor. It’s stupid there, too, of course. But having it rear its head regarding the diplomatic corps is especially irritating.
What I find especially irritating is the idea (separate from the blatant partisan posturing) that somehow our diplomats can, and should, be kept totally safe from possible harm.
That sort of bunker mentality would practically guarantee that they would be unable to do their job. Specifically the parts that involve keeping up on what is happening in the country where they are posted, and representing the United States to people beyond the government elite.
I suppose that it is part and parcel with the view elsewhere in American society that life can and should be made totally safe. No price too high; no improvement in safety too minor. It’s stupid there, too, of course. But having it rear its head regarding the diplomatic corps is especially irritating.
Some of us refer to “safety” as “the S-word” at my place of work. It is invoked to justify all manner of wasteful idiocy, along with “security,” the other S-word.
Some of us refer to “safety” as “the S-word” at my place of work. It is invoked to justify all manner of wasteful idiocy, along with “security,” the other S-word.
Many see ambassadors as drones*, so why not replace them with mechanical ones? 😉
*rewarded cronies highly paid for doing nothing of value. Not that this type does not exist but even idiot administrations usually abstain from sending them somewhere where they could do real harm (to their own nation, not the natives).
Many see ambassadors as drones*, so why not replace them with mechanical ones? 😉
*rewarded cronies highly paid for doing nothing of value. Not that this type does not exist but even idiot administrations usually abstain from sending them somewhere where they could do real harm (to their own nation, not the natives).
what cleek said at 11:51. or, most times, for that matter.
My thoughts on this are, basically, that if you maintain an embassy in a dangerous place, bad things might happen. I’m sure that we can always improve security, and I’m pleased to see that the State Dept is reviewing the arrangements to see what could have been done better.
But ultimately, Libya appears to be a volatile place to be, so we either have to assume some risks, or else have no presence there at all.
It also seems, to me, quite plausible that there was a planned attack on the embassy, *and* that there were riots about the movie. Both/and. And it seems to me that, if that were so, it might be difficult to tease apart the details of what actually happened.
As fate would have it, the sister of one of the security guys killed in Benghazi lives down the street from me. Her son, the killed man’s nephew, mows my lawn. They’re a very nice family.
For the record, they miss their son/brother/uncle very much, but they also recognize and accept that he was doing exactly what was important to him, and exactly what he wanted to be doing, when he was killed. It’s a not-uncommon sentiment for families of people killed while in some form of national service. What they are mostly interested in is not having him be a prop for anybody else’s agenda.
It’s an election season, and everything seems to provide some occasion for ankle-biting. So, unfortunately, it does not appear that they will get their wish.
I will say that, in this matter as in many others, my respect for Mitt Romney has declined. I doubt that matters to him, in any way whatsoever, and I wasn’t going to vote for him anyway so it’s a wash electorally. Just my two cents.
what cleek said at 11:51. or, most times, for that matter.
My thoughts on this are, basically, that if you maintain an embassy in a dangerous place, bad things might happen. I’m sure that we can always improve security, and I’m pleased to see that the State Dept is reviewing the arrangements to see what could have been done better.
But ultimately, Libya appears to be a volatile place to be, so we either have to assume some risks, or else have no presence there at all.
It also seems, to me, quite plausible that there was a planned attack on the embassy, *and* that there were riots about the movie. Both/and. And it seems to me that, if that were so, it might be difficult to tease apart the details of what actually happened.
As fate would have it, the sister of one of the security guys killed in Benghazi lives down the street from me. Her son, the killed man’s nephew, mows my lawn. They’re a very nice family.
For the record, they miss their son/brother/uncle very much, but they also recognize and accept that he was doing exactly what was important to him, and exactly what he wanted to be doing, when he was killed. It’s a not-uncommon sentiment for families of people killed while in some form of national service. What they are mostly interested in is not having him be a prop for anybody else’s agenda.
It’s an election season, and everything seems to provide some occasion for ankle-biting. So, unfortunately, it does not appear that they will get their wish.
I will say that, in this matter as in many others, my respect for Mitt Romney has declined. I doubt that matters to him, in any way whatsoever, and I wasn’t going to vote for him anyway so it’s a wash electorally. Just my two cents.
I’d like to see us provide leadership by living up to our own professed standards. Won’t happen.
On Blackhawk’s first comment, I wouldn’t go as far as he does–Pat Lang seems to think we should have stuck by our “friends” like Mubarak and I think that’s a recipe for producing another American-hating Islamic theocracy. It might go that way anyway in part for our standing with dictators as long as we did, but it would be more likely if we’d supported a dictator shooting down his own people to stay in power. There’d be a generation of Egyptians hating our guts, including the secular liberals. (Who’d probably get stamped out by the extreme Islamists who would take power in that scenario.) Obama was actually late in abandoning Mubarak and everyone knows it.
OTOH, that doesn’t mean we should jump in and side with rebel guerillas. It might or might not work out in Libya–it’s too soon to tell. (The Republican criticisms of Obama on Libya are totally irrelevant as far as I can tell. They mean nothing.) But Syria is becoming a sectarian mess and we should stay out–
yahoo news syria sunni rebels besiege shiite villages
I’d like to see us provide leadership by living up to our own professed standards. Won’t happen.
On Blackhawk’s first comment, I wouldn’t go as far as he does–Pat Lang seems to think we should have stuck by our “friends” like Mubarak and I think that’s a recipe for producing another American-hating Islamic theocracy. It might go that way anyway in part for our standing with dictators as long as we did, but it would be more likely if we’d supported a dictator shooting down his own people to stay in power. There’d be a generation of Egyptians hating our guts, including the secular liberals. (Who’d probably get stamped out by the extreme Islamists who would take power in that scenario.) Obama was actually late in abandoning Mubarak and everyone knows it.
OTOH, that doesn’t mean we should jump in and side with rebel guerillas. It might or might not work out in Libya–it’s too soon to tell. (The Republican criticisms of Obama on Libya are totally irrelevant as far as I can tell. They mean nothing.) But Syria is becoming a sectarian mess and we should stay out–
yahoo news syria sunni rebels besiege shiite villages
The Nation has a piece about the Arab Spring (in the guise of a review of a book by Marc Lynch of Abu Aardvark fame, the review being by Patrick Cockburn).
link
The Nation has a piece about the Arab Spring (in the guise of a review of a book by Marc Lynch of Abu Aardvark fame, the review being by Patrick Cockburn).
link
Romney’s gaff was his ineptness and his woeful timing, but then again, the election is not far off. Ya’ gotta’ do what ya’ gotta’ do. How long did it take Democrats to hint darkly about Bush administration national security incompetence after 9-11?
(Me, I thought he was incompetent the minute he took his hand off the bible after mumbling the Oath of Office….but I am a partisan.)
Sapient invokes that old chesnut about that all-so-sensitive ‘secret’ intelligence that we proles are not allowed to see. My own self described “progressive” Congressman-another national security hawk- invokes this BS line (sits on House Armed Services Committee)all the time, or at least when he is not sponsoring local meetings where he and the Concord Coalition can hector the masses about the evils of deficit spending.
I have a Brettneurysm every time somebody invokes it.
Romney’s gaff was his ineptness and his woeful timing, but then again, the election is not far off. Ya’ gotta’ do what ya’ gotta’ do. How long did it take Democrats to hint darkly about Bush administration national security incompetence after 9-11?
(Me, I thought he was incompetent the minute he took his hand off the bible after mumbling the Oath of Office….but I am a partisan.)
Sapient invokes that old chesnut about that all-so-sensitive ‘secret’ intelligence that we proles are not allowed to see. My own self described “progressive” Congressman-another national security hawk- invokes this BS line (sits on House Armed Services Committee)all the time, or at least when he is not sponsoring local meetings where he and the Concord Coalition can hector the masses about the evils of deficit spending.
I have a Brettneurysm every time somebody invokes it.
Slightly off-topic but I somehow get the impression that the Yahoo from Netanja is at this very moment trying to stir up some extra trouble for the GOP to exploit by suddenly making public a (imo scandalous) legal finding that his own coalition had tried to keep under wraps and that in essence says 1) ALL Israeli settlements on Palestinian soil are legal and 2) Israel is not an occupying power there and thus not bound by international law that bans such settlement activity. For me that looks a bit too big to be just for domestic consumption in preparation for the Knesset elections but an attempt to provoke the Palestinians to violence immediately before the US elections because that will hurt Obama and help the GOPsters. Is it just my paranoia and prejudices against the current RW government of Israel?
Slightly off-topic but I somehow get the impression that the Yahoo from Netanja is at this very moment trying to stir up some extra trouble for the GOP to exploit by suddenly making public a (imo scandalous) legal finding that his own coalition had tried to keep under wraps and that in essence says 1) ALL Israeli settlements on Palestinian soil are legal and 2) Israel is not an occupying power there and thus not bound by international law that bans such settlement activity. For me that looks a bit too big to be just for domestic consumption in preparation for the Knesset elections but an attempt to provoke the Palestinians to violence immediately before the US elections because that will hurt Obama and help the GOPsters. Is it just my paranoia and prejudices against the current RW government of Israel?
Please do not use the above as an excuse to derail the thread into another fruitless discussion about the IP conflict!!! This is about electoral tactics.
Please do not use the above as an excuse to derail the thread into another fruitless discussion about the IP conflict!!! This is about electoral tactics.
“Please do not use the above as an excuse to derail the thread into another fruitless discussion about the IP conflict!!! ”
Boohoo. Seriously, why not? We beat every other topic to death and they’re mostly all fruitless–the I/P conflict is only different in that people feel they have to walk on eggshells. (You’re in Germany, I think, so it’s understandable there.)
But I’m not in the mood. As for your question, who knows? It seems a little farfetched without more evidence. I’m not sure how you think this should be discussed as a matter of electoral tactic without getting into the I/P conflict-you’re talking about Netanyahu deliberately trying to start another intifada just to sway the US election.
“Please do not use the above as an excuse to derail the thread into another fruitless discussion about the IP conflict!!! ”
Boohoo. Seriously, why not? We beat every other topic to death and they’re mostly all fruitless–the I/P conflict is only different in that people feel they have to walk on eggshells. (You’re in Germany, I think, so it’s understandable there.)
But I’m not in the mood. As for your question, who knows? It seems a little farfetched without more evidence. I’m not sure how you think this should be discussed as a matter of electoral tactic without getting into the I/P conflict-you’re talking about Netanyahu deliberately trying to start another intifada just to sway the US election.
Boohoo. Seriously, why not?
Hmmm. Not to go meta on you (yet again) I think because it was Hartmut who made the previous comment and is asking. Conversation is not going to go far when someone says ‘I want to talk about X’, and the reply is ‘So? I’m going to talk about what I want’. Not that I can stop anyone from doing that if they really want to, but just an observation. Of course, in the end, we all talk about what we want, but the guest post invitation stands.
To turn back to the topic, bobbyp says
How long did it take Democrats to hint darkly about Bush administration national security incompetence after 9-11?
My impression was it was a really long time. My google-fu is screwed up because of my eyes, but I think it was at least a year. I really think that had it not been 9-11, Romney would have tried to get on CNN and Fox so he could have pics of the compound burning in the background. My take from that time (which I put down here even though it is immensely embarassing) was that Bush was one in a long line of presidents who entered office as parochial politicians and was going to expand to meet the challenges of his office, like Lincoln or FDR. Idiotic, I know, but I have students who I still hope are going to pass, even though every thing that they have ever done suggests that I’m wasting my time. I’d still like to think that if Clinton or even Bush Sr. were in office at that time, they would have done it, (I think Gore would have done so as well) but Junior just wasn’t up to it. I’m not a great man in history fan, but Shrub made me realize that there is something to having the right people in the right place at particular moments in history.
While I wouldn’t be surprised if Bibi thinks this as a way of trying to influence the election, I think it points to his general cluelessness if he thinks that Americans know anything about the legal back and forth about the settlements. I am also completely unsurprised that a person like Romney, with a pathological lack of affect and Bibi would be best friends.
Boohoo. Seriously, why not?
Hmmm. Not to go meta on you (yet again) I think because it was Hartmut who made the previous comment and is asking. Conversation is not going to go far when someone says ‘I want to talk about X’, and the reply is ‘So? I’m going to talk about what I want’. Not that I can stop anyone from doing that if they really want to, but just an observation. Of course, in the end, we all talk about what we want, but the guest post invitation stands.
To turn back to the topic, bobbyp says
How long did it take Democrats to hint darkly about Bush administration national security incompetence after 9-11?
My impression was it was a really long time. My google-fu is screwed up because of my eyes, but I think it was at least a year. I really think that had it not been 9-11, Romney would have tried to get on CNN and Fox so he could have pics of the compound burning in the background. My take from that time (which I put down here even though it is immensely embarassing) was that Bush was one in a long line of presidents who entered office as parochial politicians and was going to expand to meet the challenges of his office, like Lincoln or FDR. Idiotic, I know, but I have students who I still hope are going to pass, even though every thing that they have ever done suggests that I’m wasting my time. I’d still like to think that if Clinton or even Bush Sr. were in office at that time, they would have done it, (I think Gore would have done so as well) but Junior just wasn’t up to it. I’m not a great man in history fan, but Shrub made me realize that there is something to having the right people in the right place at particular moments in history.
While I wouldn’t be surprised if Bibi thinks this as a way of trying to influence the election, I think it points to his general cluelessness if he thinks that Americans know anything about the legal back and forth about the settlements. I am also completely unsurprised that a person like Romney, with a pathological lack of affect and Bibi would be best friends.
” I think because it was Hartmut who made the previous comment and is asking.”
Yeah, but I think it’s a little funny to accuse Netanyahu of trying to start violence (perhaps a third intifada) as an election tactic (??), and to sway the results of the American election at that, and then say one doesn’t want to talk about the I/P conflict. Um, okay.
” I think because it was Hartmut who made the previous comment and is asking.”
Yeah, but I think it’s a little funny to accuse Netanyahu of trying to start violence (perhaps a third intifada) as an election tactic (??), and to sway the results of the American election at that, and then say one doesn’t want to talk about the I/P conflict. Um, okay.
So here’s my guess. I have no idea. Seems kind of risky, even setting morality aside.
So here’s my guess. I have no idea. Seems kind of risky, even setting morality aside.
Perhaps, but as a non-American, I thought he was asking for some view of how Americans might think of what he sees as attempts by Bibi and Likud to influence who becomes president. I took him as saying ‘this is what I see from Germany, what is it like over there?’.
And I can’t really say, because the volume of info (repetitive as it is) seems to have gone way up and my ability to process it has gone down and I’m not there anyway.
I thought it was interesting that after a brief flurry about how the exchange in the debate (which was supposed to be about foreign policy, I thought, but seemed to be all over the place) really brought Libya to the front, but equally as fast, that receded to the background. I assume that polling is telling the campaigns what to emphasise, so in that regard, it is interesting that any questions about Israel have not even surfaced, because it suggests that the bulk of Americans have no interest and are not going to decide on the basis of that, so it is just an appeal to fringe groups by Romney (Someone included a link to a billboard in FL) that isn’t going to be noticed in the overall noise of the campaign.
Perhaps, but as a non-American, I thought he was asking for some view of how Americans might think of what he sees as attempts by Bibi and Likud to influence who becomes president. I took him as saying ‘this is what I see from Germany, what is it like over there?’.
And I can’t really say, because the volume of info (repetitive as it is) seems to have gone way up and my ability to process it has gone down and I’m not there anyway.
I thought it was interesting that after a brief flurry about how the exchange in the debate (which was supposed to be about foreign policy, I thought, but seemed to be all over the place) really brought Libya to the front, but equally as fast, that receded to the background. I assume that polling is telling the campaigns what to emphasise, so in that regard, it is interesting that any questions about Israel have not even surfaced, because it suggests that the bulk of Americans have no interest and are not going to decide on the basis of that, so it is just an appeal to fringe groups by Romney (Someone included a link to a billboard in FL) that isn’t going to be noticed in the overall noise of the campaign.
Those who are saying that embassy work is dangerous work are correct; especially in Islamic regions.
For chrissakes when Reagan, top of the rightwing pantheon, was POTUS, the 8th Marines took massive casualties when their barraks were hit by a terrorist attack in Lebanon.
These things happen when you are trying to make friends out of people who fundementally despise you and resent your presence on their land.
Romney is a scumbag for politicizing the inherent danger as if it couldn’t happen on his watch. Note that Romeny has offered nothing by way of how he would have acted to prevent 9/11 Libya.
Also, the families of the four killed have asked that their loved ones’ deaths NOT be politicized; something Romney has chosen to not respect and which makes him an even bigger sack of scum.
I don’t see any leadership from Romney. I see only nasty immature ill-informed gotcha tactics. Then again, I don’t see any leadership from BHO either. If he had a pair he’d tell it like it is and put Romney in his place.
Those who are saying that embassy work is dangerous work are correct; especially in Islamic regions.
For chrissakes when Reagan, top of the rightwing pantheon, was POTUS, the 8th Marines took massive casualties when their barraks were hit by a terrorist attack in Lebanon.
These things happen when you are trying to make friends out of people who fundementally despise you and resent your presence on their land.
Romney is a scumbag for politicizing the inherent danger as if it couldn’t happen on his watch. Note that Romeny has offered nothing by way of how he would have acted to prevent 9/11 Libya.
Also, the families of the four killed have asked that their loved ones’ deaths NOT be politicized; something Romney has chosen to not respect and which makes him an even bigger sack of scum.
I don’t see any leadership from Romney. I see only nasty immature ill-informed gotcha tactics. Then again, I don’t see any leadership from BHO either. If he had a pair he’d tell it like it is and put Romney in his place.
“I took him as saying ‘this is what I see from Germany, what is it like over there?’.”
We are not allowed to talk about it over here. The liberal thought police stamp out that kind of discussion.
“I took him as saying ‘this is what I see from Germany, what is it like over there?’.”
We are not allowed to talk about it over here. The liberal thought police stamp out that kind of discussion.
Let me clarify a bit the reason I at least have this nasty suspicion (i.e. one step below accusation). I think Bibi has no scruples to provoke violence because he can reasonably assume that it can be used to his advantage. I am sure he will do something nasty before the approaching Israeli elections to scare the voters in-country and to please the settlers. But it would be too soon to do it now. The US election on the other hand is very close and a sudden outbreak of violence in Palestine would definitely make big headlines. There has been talk in the past, whether Bibi could use the context of the election to strike at Iran but that would be an uncalculable risk, as opposed to the tried and true game of mutual provocation with radical Palestinian factions (that are as uninterested in peace as he is). This is the kind of situation that would cause Obama double harm. It would curtail his ability to campaign in the critical final weeks (he still has to do his day job as POTUS, in a crisis doubly so) and foreign policy crises traditionally help the RW (and an IP crisis would fire up the religious Right additionally). So I see a motive, a potential perpetrator of known ruthlessness, willing collaborators, and a vulnerable target. Add to the that the extremly bad personal relationship between potential pepetrator and designated victim and I would be actually surprised if there was no foul play in the cards. That was what made me suspicious when I read the story in the papers. No, I do not believe that there is a Mitt-Bibi conspiracy but I am 100% sure that any action on the Israeli side would be seen as an opportunity by the Republican campaign.
That is why I think this is not primarily an IP issue (at least not in the short term) but a question of US elections and their vulnerabilty to foreign intervention.
Btw, we will see whether and to what degree IP will be a topic of the 3rd presidential debate on Monday. From Romney’s POV it could be a seen as a useful tactic. He will without doubt step on some mines in any case, so drawing Obama into the worst of all foreign policy minefields would be only logical. He has not much to lose anymore in this field, so damaging Obama would be the price to be won with little additional risk to himself.
Let me clarify a bit the reason I at least have this nasty suspicion (i.e. one step below accusation). I think Bibi has no scruples to provoke violence because he can reasonably assume that it can be used to his advantage. I am sure he will do something nasty before the approaching Israeli elections to scare the voters in-country and to please the settlers. But it would be too soon to do it now. The US election on the other hand is very close and a sudden outbreak of violence in Palestine would definitely make big headlines. There has been talk in the past, whether Bibi could use the context of the election to strike at Iran but that would be an uncalculable risk, as opposed to the tried and true game of mutual provocation with radical Palestinian factions (that are as uninterested in peace as he is). This is the kind of situation that would cause Obama double harm. It would curtail his ability to campaign in the critical final weeks (he still has to do his day job as POTUS, in a crisis doubly so) and foreign policy crises traditionally help the RW (and an IP crisis would fire up the religious Right additionally). So I see a motive, a potential perpetrator of known ruthlessness, willing collaborators, and a vulnerable target. Add to the that the extremly bad personal relationship between potential pepetrator and designated victim and I would be actually surprised if there was no foul play in the cards. That was what made me suspicious when I read the story in the papers. No, I do not believe that there is a Mitt-Bibi conspiracy but I am 100% sure that any action on the Israeli side would be seen as an opportunity by the Republican campaign.
That is why I think this is not primarily an IP issue (at least not in the short term) but a question of US elections and their vulnerabilty to foreign intervention.
Btw, we will see whether and to what degree IP will be a topic of the 3rd presidential debate on Monday. From Romney’s POV it could be a seen as a useful tactic. He will without doubt step on some mines in any case, so drawing Obama into the worst of all foreign policy minefields would be only logical. He has not much to lose anymore in this field, so damaging Obama would be the price to be won with little additional risk to himself.
liberal japonicus, yes that was at least in part my intention. As for why IP has not yet been discussed in the presidential debates, I think it has something to do with the pre-planned themes for the three debates. The upcoming last one is expected to be primarily about foreign policy. Obama already made clear that he will milk his successes against Al Qaeda as much as possible and take shots at Romney’s impressive faux pas collection. Romney needs something where Obama may hurt himself and IP looks like the ideal topic. Discussing the drone program is risky for Romney since he cannot outflank Obama on the right and would risk the wrath of the base if he tried from the left. Iran will inevitably be a topic but here Romney will face difficulties to credibly take a position that is significantly different from Obama’s. I doubt that he will openly call for war since that would be extremly unpopular at the moment.
liberal japonicus, yes that was at least in part my intention. As for why IP has not yet been discussed in the presidential debates, I think it has something to do with the pre-planned themes for the three debates. The upcoming last one is expected to be primarily about foreign policy. Obama already made clear that he will milk his successes against Al Qaeda as much as possible and take shots at Romney’s impressive faux pas collection. Romney needs something where Obama may hurt himself and IP looks like the ideal topic. Discussing the drone program is risky for Romney since he cannot outflank Obama on the right and would risk the wrath of the base if he tried from the left. Iran will inevitably be a topic but here Romney will face difficulties to credibly take a position that is significantly different from Obama’s. I doubt that he will openly call for war since that would be extremly unpopular at the moment.
A couple of responses to people (and thanks for reading the post):
wj: What I find especially irritating is the idea (separate from the blatant partisan posturing) that somehow our diplomats can, and should, be kept totally safe from possible harm.
I totally agree with this (although, obviously, the US needs to take reasonable measures to back up its people). From what I’ve read about Christopher Stevens, he probably agreed as well.
bobbyp: Sapient invokes that old chesnut about that all-so-sensitive ‘secret’ intelligence that we proles are not allowed to see.
Actually, that wasn’t really my point (or perhaps I don’t know what your point is). The fact is that there might have been an intelligence mission connected with the Benghazi consulate, and the Republicans aren’t on the record as opposing CIA efforts. Therefore, their insistance on a real time reporting of all revelations regarding the consulate attack is a bit hypocritical and craven. (Obviously, bobbyp, you’re welcome to object to the fact that we have a CIA. I believe that there is a role for the CIA. But that wasn’t my point. Certainly, Republicans aren’t against the CIA unless it helps them to destroy Obama.)
Let’s not forget either that in Romney’s 47% speech, he did mention taking advantage of any foreign policy opportunities, such as those that occurred during the Carter/Reagan election.
I happen to believe that “leadership” is important – if that means that the United States exercises diplomatic influence over other governments (and I have no objection to the use of intelligence professionals). That’s what foreign relations is all about. Obama is trying to pull this off to the extent that its feasible, given the role of the United States in world affairs in recent history.
A couple of responses to people (and thanks for reading the post):
wj: What I find especially irritating is the idea (separate from the blatant partisan posturing) that somehow our diplomats can, and should, be kept totally safe from possible harm.
I totally agree with this (although, obviously, the US needs to take reasonable measures to back up its people). From what I’ve read about Christopher Stevens, he probably agreed as well.
bobbyp: Sapient invokes that old chesnut about that all-so-sensitive ‘secret’ intelligence that we proles are not allowed to see.
Actually, that wasn’t really my point (or perhaps I don’t know what your point is). The fact is that there might have been an intelligence mission connected with the Benghazi consulate, and the Republicans aren’t on the record as opposing CIA efforts. Therefore, their insistance on a real time reporting of all revelations regarding the consulate attack is a bit hypocritical and craven. (Obviously, bobbyp, you’re welcome to object to the fact that we have a CIA. I believe that there is a role for the CIA. But that wasn’t my point. Certainly, Republicans aren’t against the CIA unless it helps them to destroy Obama.)
Let’s not forget either that in Romney’s 47% speech, he did mention taking advantage of any foreign policy opportunities, such as those that occurred during the Carter/Reagan election.
I happen to believe that “leadership” is important – if that means that the United States exercises diplomatic influence over other governments (and I have no objection to the use of intelligence professionals). That’s what foreign relations is all about. Obama is trying to pull this off to the extent that its feasible, given the role of the United States in world affairs in recent history.
We are not allowed to talk about it over here. The liberal thought police stamp out that kind of discussion.
I’m not exactly sure where “over here” is for Blackhawk, but clearly the liberal thought police on Obsidian Wings are utterly failing at stamping it out.
We are not allowed to talk about it over here. The liberal thought police stamp out that kind of discussion.
I’m not exactly sure where “over here” is for Blackhawk, but clearly the liberal thought police on Obsidian Wings are utterly failing at stamping it out.
And I always thought it was (in this case) the conservative thought police that forbids serious* discussions of the IP conflict (while overe here [Germany] it is indeed the moderates that try to avoid discussions while the fringes** freely mix traditional anti-semitism with Israel criticism dicrediting the latter in the public view).
But at least over here it seems to have no influence on elections at all.
*in the non-beltway sense
**both ends, just with different flavor
And I always thought it was (in this case) the conservative thought police that forbids serious* discussions of the IP conflict (while overe here [Germany] it is indeed the moderates that try to avoid discussions while the fringes** freely mix traditional anti-semitism with Israel criticism dicrediting the latter in the public view).
But at least over here it seems to have no influence on elections at all.
*in the non-beltway sense
**both ends, just with different flavor
“If only we knew what the President knows” has been used as a club in these kinds of discussions since, like, forever. Invoking such a principle is simply an attempt to bully and/or suspend the discussion. If that’s not what you hinted at, well fine.
On another matter, we can observe the marvelous wisdom of the Obama human rights driven foreign policy principles in, no surprise again, Honduras, for example.
“If only we knew what the President knows” has been used as a club in these kinds of discussions since, like, forever. Invoking such a principle is simply an attempt to bully and/or suspend the discussion. If that’s not what you hinted at, well fine.
On another matter, we can observe the marvelous wisdom of the Obama human rights driven foreign policy principles in, no surprise again, Honduras, for example.
And, meanwhile, the youtube film maker scapegoat is still in jail. Despite the idea that the attack had anything at all to do with him having been an utter fabrication. It’s so gratuitous, but they can’t let him go now, without admitting they never should have arrested him.
And they’ll never do that, even after the cover story collapsed.
And, meanwhile, the youtube film maker scapegoat is still in jail. Despite the idea that the attack had anything at all to do with him having been an utter fabrication. It’s so gratuitous, but they can’t let him go now, without admitting they never should have arrested him.
And they’ll never do that, even after the cover story collapsed.
He clearly and unmistakably violated his conditions of probation. Please call again when/if he has finished his regular sentence and is not set free. Then we can talk about ‘political prisoner’, ‘scapegoat’ or similar concepts in this context.
He clearly and unmistakably violated his conditions of probation. Please call again when/if he has finished his regular sentence and is not set free. Then we can talk about ‘political prisoner’, ‘scapegoat’ or similar concepts in this context.
On another matter, we can observe the marvelous wisdom of the Obama human rights driven foreign policy principles in, no surprise again, Honduras, for example.
I’m certainly no expert on Honduras, but the comments section to the article to which you linked seems to indicate that the situation there was and is pretty complicated, including a link to an article about Obama’s initial reaction, and the Republican political backlash at home.
As usual, the purists will only be happy when they have even more horrific things to complain about in terms of U.S. policy under President Romney.
On another matter, we can observe the marvelous wisdom of the Obama human rights driven foreign policy principles in, no surprise again, Honduras, for example.
I’m certainly no expert on Honduras, but the comments section to the article to which you linked seems to indicate that the situation there was and is pretty complicated, including a link to an article about Obama’s initial reaction, and the Republican political backlash at home.
As usual, the purists will only be happy when they have even more horrific things to complain about in terms of U.S. policy under President Romney.
“As usual, the purists will only be happy when they have even more horrific things to complain about in terms of U.S. policy under President Romney.”
Kinda silly, sapient. I very much hope Obama wins–lesser of two evils–but why assume he’s right in his foreign policy just because the Republicans would be worse?
“As usual, the purists will only be happy when they have even more horrific things to complain about in terms of U.S. policy under President Romney.”
Kinda silly, sapient. I very much hope Obama wins–lesser of two evils–but why assume he’s right in his foreign policy just because the Republicans would be worse?
…but the comments section to the article to which you linked seems to indicate that the situation there was and is pretty complicated
Yeah, sure. Implying the author is a (gasp!) socialist….complexity indeed. The utter inability to even consider that the Obama administration is not pursuing a good policy in this instance is….telling.
Regards,
A. Purist, esq.
…but the comments section to the article to which you linked seems to indicate that the situation there was and is pretty complicated
Yeah, sure. Implying the author is a (gasp!) socialist….complexity indeed. The utter inability to even consider that the Obama administration is not pursuing a good policy in this instance is….telling.
Regards,
A. Purist, esq.
As I conceded, I don’t know enough about Honduras to know whether Obama’s policy is “good” or not. And I have no problem with socialists, since I lean that way myself. Championing human rights in Central America would be a wonderful policy, and redistribution of wealth there would be all to the good. I think that the matter is more nuanced than the author of bobbyp’s article would suggest, particularly taking into account Obama’s options and priorities, and the political situation in the United States.
From your article, bobbyp: “Yet it speaks volumes that funds were withheld from the new Honduran national chief of police until he could be investigated for allegations of overseeing death squads.”
I consider this to be a positive attempt to exercise U.S. influence towards human rights, yet the author of the article doesn’t. Examples like that are what make me believe that the article has a purism agenda. Not that I’m saying it’s wrong – remember, I conceded general ignorance.
I am not inclined to engage in Obama bashing when the Romney alternative looms as such a real possibility. Thanks, Donald, for recognizing their relative positions with regard to human rights and just about everything else.
As I conceded, I don’t know enough about Honduras to know whether Obama’s policy is “good” or not. And I have no problem with socialists, since I lean that way myself. Championing human rights in Central America would be a wonderful policy, and redistribution of wealth there would be all to the good. I think that the matter is more nuanced than the author of bobbyp’s article would suggest, particularly taking into account Obama’s options and priorities, and the political situation in the United States.
From your article, bobbyp: “Yet it speaks volumes that funds were withheld from the new Honduran national chief of police until he could be investigated for allegations of overseeing death squads.”
I consider this to be a positive attempt to exercise U.S. influence towards human rights, yet the author of the article doesn’t. Examples like that are what make me believe that the article has a purism agenda. Not that I’m saying it’s wrong – remember, I conceded general ignorance.
I am not inclined to engage in Obama bashing when the Romney alternative looms as such a real possibility. Thanks, Donald, for recognizing their relative positions with regard to human rights and just about everything else.
The number of people you could produce a ‘legitimate’ excuse for jailing if you wanted to is getting higher all the time. The fact remains they only jailed him because he made a convenient scapegoat.
The number of people you could produce a ‘legitimate’ excuse for jailing if you wanted to is getting higher all the time. The fact remains they only jailed him because he made a convenient scapegoat.
The fact remains they only jailed him because he made a convenient scapegoat.
If you’re going to violate your parole, it’s best if you don’t do so quite so publicly.
It’s also best if you don’t piss off a billion and a half people and create sh*t storms for other folks to deal with.
There are scapegoats, and then there are boneheads. One’s voluntary, one’s not.
The fact remains they only jailed him because he made a convenient scapegoat.
If you’re going to violate your parole, it’s best if you don’t do so quite so publicly.
It’s also best if you don’t piss off a billion and a half people and create sh*t storms for other folks to deal with.
There are scapegoats, and then there are boneheads. One’s voluntary, one’s not.
Given that the video brought attention to someone who was clearly in violation of his parole, how would you justify him not getting locked up for that violation?
Sure, there are no doubt other people for whom a legitimate reason could be found to lock them up. But are they going out of their way to make a public spectacle? Or are the mostly smart enough (and obviously it doesn’t take all that much smarts) to keep their heads down while they are on parole?
Given that the video brought attention to someone who was clearly in violation of his parole, how would you justify him not getting locked up for that violation?
Sure, there are no doubt other people for whom a legitimate reason could be found to lock them up. But are they going out of their way to make a public spectacle? Or are the mostly smart enough (and obviously it doesn’t take all that much smarts) to keep their heads down while they are on parole?
honestly Brett, you go on about how you don’t like the term ‘undocumented immigrants’ because you argue they are breaking the law and are therefore ‘illegal‘. A guy violates the conditions set out by a judge that he agreed to follow as a condition of his release and you want to call him a political prisoner. After your rousing defense of O’Keefe, I thought it would be difficult to be more embarrassed for you, but you have again confounded my expectations.
honestly Brett, you go on about how you don’t like the term ‘undocumented immigrants’ because you argue they are breaking the law and are therefore ‘illegal‘. A guy violates the conditions set out by a judge that he agreed to follow as a condition of his release and you want to call him a political prisoner. After your rousing defense of O’Keefe, I thought it would be difficult to be more embarrassed for you, but you have again confounded my expectations.
Sapient, if you want to see what a real moral purist looks like, google the name “Arthur Silber”, find his blog and start reading. That’s a purist. Greenwald is a sellout in comparison.
Silber thinks Obama’s “kill list” (link to digby post on Debbie Wasserman-Shultz’s ignorance on the kill list) amounts to a claim by Obama that he can kill anyone for any reason and that this is so monstrous it outweighs all other issues. Silber thinks we could have a decent world if everyone would just see this and stop cooperating with the system. I don’t believe that myself.
Sapient, if you want to see what a real moral purist looks like, google the name “Arthur Silber”, find his blog and start reading. That’s a purist. Greenwald is a sellout in comparison.
Silber thinks Obama’s “kill list” (link to digby post on Debbie Wasserman-Shultz’s ignorance on the kill list) amounts to a claim by Obama that he can kill anyone for any reason and that this is so monstrous it outweighs all other issues. Silber thinks we could have a decent world if everyone would just see this and stop cooperating with the system. I don’t believe that myself.
Donald,
Freddie Deboer also comes to mind in the purist department….but from a very unique angle.
Donald,
Freddie Deboer also comes to mind in the purist department….but from a very unique angle.
“Silber thinks Obama’s “kill list” (link to digby post on Debbie Wasserman-Shultz’s ignorance on the kill list) amounts to a claim by Obama that he can kill anyone for any reason……I don’t believe that myself.”
You don’t believe that? Why not?
Considering that Americans have been killed who are merely family members of *suspected* terrorists. I mean how many degrees of separation do you need to see among victims before you become convinced? Teenage son of a suspect, OK. Thumbs up BHO you fearless leader of the free world. Second cousin of a suspect twice removed and maybe it starts to look like we have a problem?
Disregarding of course the whole concept of execution of citizens who are only *suspects*.
But yeah, Trust the govt. They never make mistakes and they definitely never lie. If they say suspect someone of something then you can bet your bottom dollar that person is guilty and deserves instant death.
Since when does the US Constitution say that the government can summarily execute its citizens that it merely suspects of a crime? It not only doesn’t say that summary executions are ok, it says something totally opposite.
If BHO can blatantly disregard – even flaunt his disregard – of the Consitution on such a serious matter then he probably has no regard for the Constitution in any matter. That he adheres to it at all is just an artifact of tradition that continues to exists because it pleases BHO, or is convenient to him at the moment.
I ask again, where is the leadership?
“Silber thinks Obama’s “kill list” (link to digby post on Debbie Wasserman-Shultz’s ignorance on the kill list) amounts to a claim by Obama that he can kill anyone for any reason……I don’t believe that myself.”
You don’t believe that? Why not?
Considering that Americans have been killed who are merely family members of *suspected* terrorists. I mean how many degrees of separation do you need to see among victims before you become convinced? Teenage son of a suspect, OK. Thumbs up BHO you fearless leader of the free world. Second cousin of a suspect twice removed and maybe it starts to look like we have a problem?
Disregarding of course the whole concept of execution of citizens who are only *suspects*.
But yeah, Trust the govt. They never make mistakes and they definitely never lie. If they say suspect someone of something then you can bet your bottom dollar that person is guilty and deserves instant death.
Since when does the US Constitution say that the government can summarily execute its citizens that it merely suspects of a crime? It not only doesn’t say that summary executions are ok, it says something totally opposite.
If BHO can blatantly disregard – even flaunt his disregard – of the Consitution on such a serious matter then he probably has no regard for the Constitution in any matter. That he adheres to it at all is just an artifact of tradition that continues to exists because it pleases BHO, or is convenient to him at the moment.
I ask again, where is the leadership?
Yes, they had a legit basis for jailing him. They’ve got a legit basis for jailing most of the population, given how many things are illegal today.
But the fact remains, he wasn’t jailed because of a parole violation, assuming there was one. He was jailed because, after a premeditated terrorist attack on one of our embassies, the administration was looking for a fall guy to stomp on.
I don’t like the fact that this administration responds to Islamic terrorism by looking for somebody who’s annoyed Muslims to publicly stomp on, even if they took a little care to make sure their chosen fall guy wasn’t any kind of saint.
Yes, they had a legit basis for jailing him. They’ve got a legit basis for jailing most of the population, given how many things are illegal today.
But the fact remains, he wasn’t jailed because of a parole violation, assuming there was one. He was jailed because, after a premeditated terrorist attack on one of our embassies, the administration was looking for a fall guy to stomp on.
I don’t like the fact that this administration responds to Islamic terrorism by looking for somebody who’s annoyed Muslims to publicly stomp on, even if they took a little care to make sure their chosen fall guy wasn’t any kind of saint.
He was jailed because, after a premeditated terrorist attack on one of our embassies, the administration was looking for a fall guy to stomp on.
Karma’s a bitch.
He was jailed because, after a premeditated terrorist attack on one of our embassies, the administration was looking for a fall guy to stomp on.
Karma’s a bitch.
Back to Benghazi- Rep. Darrel Issa(R) released reams of State Dept documents in an attempt to uncover the “cover-up”. These ‘sensitive’ memos include the names of our friends in Libya which have now been published on the internet. Foreign Policy claims that these people’s lives have been put at risk. GOP exposing the names of agents in foreign lands-does this remind anyone of Valerie Plame?
Back to Benghazi- Rep. Darrel Issa(R) released reams of State Dept documents in an attempt to uncover the “cover-up”. These ‘sensitive’ memos include the names of our friends in Libya which have now been published on the internet. Foreign Policy claims that these people’s lives have been put at risk. GOP exposing the names of agents in foreign lands-does this remind anyone of Valerie Plame?
Thanks for this, peggy hopper. Where’s the outrage?
Oh, right, anything goes (including friends of the United States) if it furthers the cause of Republican cheap shots.
Thanks for this, peggy hopper. Where’s the outrage?
Oh, right, anything goes (including friends of the United States) if it furthers the cause of Republican cheap shots.
“I don’t like the fact that this administration responds to Islamic terrorism by looking for somebody who’s annoyed Muslims to publicly stomp on, even if they took a little care to make sure their chosen fall guy wasn’t any kind of saint.”
Yes, the Obama Administration responded to the parole violation by “looking for somebody” among the American population.
They had a lineup on the White House lawn that included the roughly 120 million American men, women, and children who have had harsh, annoying things to say about Muslims since 9/11/2001.
The final and entirely random fingering of the suspect just happened to be the guy with the sign on his back that said “Kick me, I’ve violated the terms of my probation”.
Federal agents took the convicted check-kiting, bank fraud, and identity theft (all of which should be legal, like it is on Wall Street, and according to lay legal reporters/beagles in the internet community) felon (a federal crime and thus within the proper jurisdiction) into custody, charging him with violating his sainthood.
The guy standing next to the suspect in the lineup heard this and muttered “Hey, no one is a saint around here” and the Federal agents shot a look at him that said “Don’t push it, bub, this could have been you. Thank your lucky stars this arrest is entirely random, with the exception of the probation violation, which will be reported as entirely random.”
A tidbit of facticity overlooked by Republican filth who want Obama dead and Osama resurrected to justify future homeland security expenditures, is that President Obama, despite his terrifying powers, did not ban the video in question, citing the First Amendment, though who would believe him because, after all, all guns and bullets have been confiscated from the American citizenry during his first term as President, as reported by Wayne LaCronkite of the National Rifling Through Your Underwear Drawer Association.
During a discussion of the matter at the well-known blog, Obsidian Wings, the numerous practicing attorneys known to frequent the joint were nowhere to be seen (apparently never having heard of the legal category “probation violation” and the sanctions thereof) when the subject of Nakoula Nakoula’s parole violation was chewed over by an assortment of amateur saints 😉 at the instigation of the lone professional reporter and libertarian filing his story from NorthSouth Paranoid Delusionalstan, a frontier yours truly also knows well, having also reported for the local rag, WhattheF*ck Weekly, a shopper tabloid the truth seeks out before the white sale deadline.
My sources tell me that well-known author, fatwa object, and safe house dweller Salman Rushdie, when asked about Nakoula Nakoula and his actions, retorted, “Saint? You mean As*shole, right? What have you been reading, the crack reporter streiff at Redprevaricate, the well known nonpartisan salon, who at this moment is producing fresh spermatozoa in his nut sack that carry the entire gene sequence pool for habitual lying.”
No, no, listen to me. Here’s the scoop. The Coptic Christian (yeah, right) anti-Muslim video, which even Coptic Christian saints wrap their fish in, was produced and paid for by the black box/black ops political operations of the Republican Party as yet another installment in the suite of their movie entertainments meant to eradicate their tax burden and subvert American foreign policy, which also include Dinesh D’Souzalqaeda’s masterpiece on nudity during the Raj period, the hard-hitting handheld video by an up and chucking young filmmaker detailing the wardrobe malfunctions of Muslim,, Kenyan, commie Barack Obama’s Mandingo-nuzzling mother, now showing in tiny video booths in Republican households, conveniently outfitted with glory holes so family values republicans can keep watch over their vermin, liars-in-training children, and, of course, the nap-producing miniseries musical based on the ravings of an over-sexed Russian emigre and dominatrix who somehow confused the KGB with the PTA in her lifelong conflation of altruism and State-sponsered murder.
Wake me up when the heroine does the objectivist tango in stiletto heels on the food-stamp booklet of an unconscious, but rather good-looking parasite.
This ………….. is Paul Harvey.
Good day!
Tune in for tomorrow’s show for a discussion of what should happen to Republican car thief, divulger of the names of CIA secret operatives, and American traitor Darrel Issa … hanging, or a bullet in the head as he boards the underground train to the Capital Building.
“I don’t like the fact that this administration responds to Islamic terrorism by looking for somebody who’s annoyed Muslims to publicly stomp on, even if they took a little care to make sure their chosen fall guy wasn’t any kind of saint.”
Yes, the Obama Administration responded to the parole violation by “looking for somebody” among the American population.
They had a lineup on the White House lawn that included the roughly 120 million American men, women, and children who have had harsh, annoying things to say about Muslims since 9/11/2001.
The final and entirely random fingering of the suspect just happened to be the guy with the sign on his back that said “Kick me, I’ve violated the terms of my probation”.
Federal agents took the convicted check-kiting, bank fraud, and identity theft (all of which should be legal, like it is on Wall Street, and according to lay legal reporters/beagles in the internet community) felon (a federal crime and thus within the proper jurisdiction) into custody, charging him with violating his sainthood.
The guy standing next to the suspect in the lineup heard this and muttered “Hey, no one is a saint around here” and the Federal agents shot a look at him that said “Don’t push it, bub, this could have been you. Thank your lucky stars this arrest is entirely random, with the exception of the probation violation, which will be reported as entirely random.”
A tidbit of facticity overlooked by Republican filth who want Obama dead and Osama resurrected to justify future homeland security expenditures, is that President Obama, despite his terrifying powers, did not ban the video in question, citing the First Amendment, though who would believe him because, after all, all guns and bullets have been confiscated from the American citizenry during his first term as President, as reported by Wayne LaCronkite of the National Rifling Through Your Underwear Drawer Association.
During a discussion of the matter at the well-known blog, Obsidian Wings, the numerous practicing attorneys known to frequent the joint were nowhere to be seen (apparently never having heard of the legal category “probation violation” and the sanctions thereof) when the subject of Nakoula Nakoula’s parole violation was chewed over by an assortment of amateur saints 😉 at the instigation of the lone professional reporter and libertarian filing his story from NorthSouth Paranoid Delusionalstan, a frontier yours truly also knows well, having also reported for the local rag, WhattheF*ck Weekly, a shopper tabloid the truth seeks out before the white sale deadline.
My sources tell me that well-known author, fatwa object, and safe house dweller Salman Rushdie, when asked about Nakoula Nakoula and his actions, retorted, “Saint? You mean As*shole, right? What have you been reading, the crack reporter streiff at Redprevaricate, the well known nonpartisan salon, who at this moment is producing fresh spermatozoa in his nut sack that carry the entire gene sequence pool for habitual lying.”
No, no, listen to me. Here’s the scoop. The Coptic Christian (yeah, right) anti-Muslim video, which even Coptic Christian saints wrap their fish in, was produced and paid for by the black box/black ops political operations of the Republican Party as yet another installment in the suite of their movie entertainments meant to eradicate their tax burden and subvert American foreign policy, which also include Dinesh D’Souzalqaeda’s masterpiece on nudity during the Raj period, the hard-hitting handheld video by an up and chucking young filmmaker detailing the wardrobe malfunctions of Muslim,, Kenyan, commie Barack Obama’s Mandingo-nuzzling mother, now showing in tiny video booths in Republican households, conveniently outfitted with glory holes so family values republicans can keep watch over their vermin, liars-in-training children, and, of course, the nap-producing miniseries musical based on the ravings of an over-sexed Russian emigre and dominatrix who somehow confused the KGB with the PTA in her lifelong conflation of altruism and State-sponsered murder.
Wake me up when the heroine does the objectivist tango in stiletto heels on the food-stamp booklet of an unconscious, but rather good-looking parasite.
This ………….. is Paul Harvey.
Good day!
Tune in for tomorrow’s show for a discussion of what should happen to Republican car thief, divulger of the names of CIA secret operatives, and American traitor Darrel Issa … hanging, or a bullet in the head as he boards the underground train to the Capital Building.
Blackhawk–What I don’t believe is that the kill list outweighs all other issues and that we could cure the world the way Silber suggests, though it would probably be a better world with tens of millions of Silbers in it.
Bobbyp–I’ve seen the name Freddie Deboer somewhere, but can’t remember where. Will have to google. Another in the purist department (in his own unique and incredibly witty way) was IOZ, but he’s stopped posting twice now, maybe for good the second time. I read him regularly, but didn’t agree with the anarchism.
Blackhawk–What I don’t believe is that the kill list outweighs all other issues and that we could cure the world the way Silber suggests, though it would probably be a better world with tens of millions of Silbers in it.
Bobbyp–I’ve seen the name Freddie Deboer somewhere, but can’t remember where. Will have to google. Another in the purist department (in his own unique and incredibly witty way) was IOZ, but he’s stopped posting twice now, maybe for good the second time. I read him regularly, but didn’t agree with the anarchism.
Just googled. Yes, I’ve seen Freddy and read this piece back when it was being discussed. It really seems like a pretty mild manifesto, mostly on target (especially when you take in the six or so updates he has modifying the original post.) Silber still has the lock on moral purity.
Just googled. Yes, I’ve seen Freddy and read this piece back when it was being discussed. It really seems like a pretty mild manifesto, mostly on target (especially when you take in the six or so updates he has modifying the original post.) Silber still has the lock on moral purity.
Donald, I read the Digby post. How ridiculous that Digby( and Greenwald, the alleged lawyer) don’t know that it would be a crime for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to reveal classified information, even if it has been discussed in the media. Who do they think she is, Darrell Issa?
Donald, I read the Digby post. How ridiculous that Digby( and Greenwald, the alleged lawyer) don’t know that it would be a crime for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to reveal classified information, even if it has been discussed in the media. Who do they think she is, Darrell Issa?
Sapient,she could have evaded the question with a simple “no comment” or the equivalent , rather than treating the questioner as though he were some lunatic from the Truther movement.
I think they see her as what she is–a political hack. I prefer the Democratic hacks to the Republican ones, mind you. Something I’ll keep repeating for the next few weeks.
Links to today’s show weren’t up yet, last I looked, but Chris Hayes had a very good discussion on “Up” about Obama’s foreign policy, touching on Benghazi and then on the Iranian sanctions. Ann Marie Slaughter’s reaction was priceless when another guest said that if Iranians die as a result of “crippling sanctions” (Biden’s words), their blood would be on our head. Slaughter used the classic terrorist reasoning that if the bad guys don’t comply and do what is right, anything we do that hurts innocent people is their fault. I wish we lived in a world where people who think like that were the greater of two evils.
Sapient,she could have evaded the question with a simple “no comment” or the equivalent , rather than treating the questioner as though he were some lunatic from the Truther movement.
I think they see her as what she is–a political hack. I prefer the Democratic hacks to the Republican ones, mind you. Something I’ll keep repeating for the next few weeks.
Links to today’s show weren’t up yet, last I looked, but Chris Hayes had a very good discussion on “Up” about Obama’s foreign policy, touching on Benghazi and then on the Iranian sanctions. Ann Marie Slaughter’s reaction was priceless when another guest said that if Iranians die as a result of “crippling sanctions” (Biden’s words), their blood would be on our head. Slaughter used the classic terrorist reasoning that if the bad guys don’t comply and do what is right, anything we do that hurts innocent people is their fault. I wish we lived in a world where people who think like that were the greater of two evils.
On a more positive note, here’s a story about George McGovern (who just died) that I got via Balloon Juice. It comes from a Stephen Ambrose book about his days as a bomber pilot. They don’t seem to make politicians like that anymore–
LINK
On a more positive note, here’s a story about George McGovern (who just died) that I got via Balloon Juice. It comes from a Stephen Ambrose book about his days as a bomber pilot. They don’t seem to make politicians like that anymore–
LINK
Thank you so much for the McGovern story, Donald. You’re right – he was a wonderful man.
Thank you so much for the McGovern story, Donald. You’re right – he was a wonderful man.
One minor nitpick Sapient: the phrase “Coptic-American” doesn’t really make sense. Either “Copt” or “Egyptian-American” would be fine. But writing “Coptic-American” is like writing Hindu-American or Catholic-American. Being a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church is a religious affiliation, and while most such members in the US are Egyptian-Americans, being of Egyptian descent is not a requirement for said membership.
One minor nitpick Sapient: the phrase “Coptic-American” doesn’t really make sense. Either “Copt” or “Egyptian-American” would be fine. But writing “Coptic-American” is like writing Hindu-American or Catholic-American. Being a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church is a religious affiliation, and while most such members in the US are Egyptian-Americans, being of Egyptian descent is not a requirement for said membership.
Thanks, Turbulence.
Thanks, Turbulence.
Yes, it would be, if she actually knew anything classified. Which is doubtful. She’s a minor member on the House Budget Committee; that’s all. She’s not on Intelligence. She’s not on Judiciary. She’s not on Homeland Security.
Back in the 111th Congress, she was on the Legislative subcommittee for Appropriations, which hardly seems sensitive. As current head of the DNC, she’s not entitled to know anything classified.
How would she know anything classified?
Pretending that she’d never heard of any of that and treating the questioner as if they were pranking her were not really what you’d expect from our newly transparent government.
Yes, it would be, if she actually knew anything classified. Which is doubtful. She’s a minor member on the House Budget Committee; that’s all. She’s not on Intelligence. She’s not on Judiciary. She’s not on Homeland Security.
Back in the 111th Congress, she was on the Legislative subcommittee for Appropriations, which hardly seems sensitive. As current head of the DNC, she’s not entitled to know anything classified.
How would she know anything classified?
Pretending that she’d never heard of any of that and treating the questioner as if they were pranking her were not really what you’d expect from our newly transparent government.
I don’t think you, Slart, or anyone else, knows what information DWS has had access to. If she didn’t have it, that’s even more reason why she could have fairly said that she didn’t know what the guy was talking about. Just because the NYT reports on allegedly classified matters with undisclosed sources doesn’t mean that they’re credible. (People might recall Judith Miller.)
What is clear is that the guy questioning DWS was aggressively looking for a gotcha moment, as well as asking for DWS to accept as true (or deny) a report on classified information. Not hugely surprising that DWS wouldn’t have answered the question, nor that she would have been annoyed by his demeanor. Perhaps she should have said “No comment” but instead she deflected the question otherwise. The rest of the video of the reporter shows that he wasn’t particularly polite when annoyed either – he was a jerk, in fact.
I don’t think you, Slart, or anyone else, knows what information DWS has had access to. If she didn’t have it, that’s even more reason why she could have fairly said that she didn’t know what the guy was talking about. Just because the NYT reports on allegedly classified matters with undisclosed sources doesn’t mean that they’re credible. (People might recall Judith Miller.)
What is clear is that the guy questioning DWS was aggressively looking for a gotcha moment, as well as asking for DWS to accept as true (or deny) a report on classified information. Not hugely surprising that DWS wouldn’t have answered the question, nor that she would have been annoyed by his demeanor. Perhaps she should have said “No comment” but instead she deflected the question otherwise. The rest of the video of the reporter shows that he wasn’t particularly polite when annoyed either – he was a jerk, in fact.
As far as Issa is concerned, Steve Benen (as usual), gets it right.
As far as Issa is concerned, Steve Benen (as usual), gets it right.
I don’t think you, Slart, or anyone else, knows what information DWS has had access to.
I think it’s safe to say that she shouldn’t have access to information she’s not cleared to have. Agreed?
Wrong. This topic has been covered by the news quite a lot over the couple of years. Either she’s completely out of touch with what’s going on in her government, or she’s pretending. Or maybe some third choice? Suggest something; preferably something plausible.
There is no “she could fairly have said she didn’t know what the guy was talking about”, because it’s been out for two years or more. She can’t talk about what she can’t talk about, certainly.
Imagine had the head of the RNC used a tactic of this sort during the Bush administration. Imagine what your response might have been.
I don’t think you, Slart, or anyone else, knows what information DWS has had access to.
I think it’s safe to say that she shouldn’t have access to information she’s not cleared to have. Agreed?
Wrong. This topic has been covered by the news quite a lot over the couple of years. Either she’s completely out of touch with what’s going on in her government, or she’s pretending. Or maybe some third choice? Suggest something; preferably something plausible.
There is no “she could fairly have said she didn’t know what the guy was talking about”, because it’s been out for two years or more. She can’t talk about what she can’t talk about, certainly.
Imagine had the head of the RNC used a tactic of this sort during the Bush administration. Imagine what your response might have been.
She could have, for instance, acknowledged reading about it in the news, but saying that she could not comment on it.
Simple. Undeceptive. Evidently too much to ask.
She could have, for instance, acknowledged reading about it in the news, but saying that she could not comment on it.
Simple. Undeceptive. Evidently too much to ask.
Congresspeoples should be able to release whatever information they come into contact with without consequence. Period.
In fact, they can, just read it into the Congressional record.
Though it sounds like DWS should win upper class twit of the year, but I’ll reserve judgment on that.
Congresspeoples should be able to release whatever information they come into contact with without consequence. Period.
In fact, they can, just read it into the Congressional record.
Though it sounds like DWS should win upper class twit of the year, but I’ll reserve judgment on that.
Simple. Undeceptive. Evidently too much to ask.
She probably could have answered the question differently, more pleasantly, and more honestly, still without giving anyone a substantive answer. So the fact that everyone has their panties in a wad because she was obviously annoyed and impolite is really what’s at issue here. Of course, you can pretend that it’s the lie of the year if you’d like to.
Simple. Undeceptive. Evidently too much to ask.
She probably could have answered the question differently, more pleasantly, and more honestly, still without giving anyone a substantive answer. So the fact that everyone has their panties in a wad because she was obviously annoyed and impolite is really what’s at issue here. Of course, you can pretend that it’s the lie of the year if you’d like to.
Not too off-topic since others have mentioned McGovern’s passing. Here’s an editorial he wrote in 1992: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203406404578070543545022704.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion.
Maybe something to chat about another time.
Not too off-topic since others have mentioned McGovern’s passing. Here’s an editorial he wrote in 1992: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203406404578070543545022704.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion.
Maybe something to chat about another time.
Yes, sapient, the guy was looking for a “gotcha” moment. It’s what passes for accountability these days when our government runs a secret assassination program that everyone knows about and apparently can’t be discussed by public officials (though Obama could joke about drone strikes a year or two ago). He was also asking an interesting question–would a Democratic congresswoman approve of a kill list when it isn’t run by a good Democratic President overflowing with wisdom and good intentions, but by an evil Republican President? Last time I checked, Nate Silver’s model places the chance of that happening at about 33 percent.
Also, I thought one of your points in the past is that Congress should step up if they don’t like what the President is doing. So what’s wrong with putting pressure on a prominent Democratic congresswoman?
Getting back to that 33 percent chance, Glenn used to be apoplectic about Bush’s human rights record before he was apoplectic about Obama’s and I don’t doubt that if the worst happens, the emotions he feels will transfer seamlessly to Romney. I’m a little curious about how Obama-loving Glenn-haters will react to him then, but I’d rather not find out.
Yes, sapient, the guy was looking for a “gotcha” moment. It’s what passes for accountability these days when our government runs a secret assassination program that everyone knows about and apparently can’t be discussed by public officials (though Obama could joke about drone strikes a year or two ago). He was also asking an interesting question–would a Democratic congresswoman approve of a kill list when it isn’t run by a good Democratic President overflowing with wisdom and good intentions, but by an evil Republican President? Last time I checked, Nate Silver’s model places the chance of that happening at about 33 percent.
Also, I thought one of your points in the past is that Congress should step up if they don’t like what the President is doing. So what’s wrong with putting pressure on a prominent Democratic congresswoman?
Getting back to that 33 percent chance, Glenn used to be apoplectic about Bush’s human rights record before he was apoplectic about Obama’s and I don’t doubt that if the worst happens, the emotions he feels will transfer seamlessly to Romney. I’m a little curious about how Obama-loving Glenn-haters will react to him then, but I’d rather not find out.
I heard about that WSJ McGovern op-ed somewhere–maybe it was David Brooks on PBS. I can’t read it–not a WSJ subscriber.
I think McGovern deserves his own thread (hint, hint) where his record (and that op ed) could be discussed. Nobody hates him (that I know about) and his record and his political campaign and a lot of other stuff would be worth talking about, so this would be one of those rare times when a politician dies and people could discuss his record pro and con without worrying about the etiquette of criticizing someone who just died. (Or so I imagine. The thread might go up and get two posts, both of them full of vitriol.)
I heard about that WSJ McGovern op-ed somewhere–maybe it was David Brooks on PBS. I can’t read it–not a WSJ subscriber.
I think McGovern deserves his own thread (hint, hint) where his record (and that op ed) could be discussed. Nobody hates him (that I know about) and his record and his political campaign and a lot of other stuff would be worth talking about, so this would be one of those rare times when a politician dies and people could discuss his record pro and con without worrying about the etiquette of criticizing someone who just died. (Or so I imagine. The thread might go up and get two posts, both of them full of vitriol.)
DJ, the link above will get you to the editorial. The Journal re-ran it today.
DJ, the link above will get you to the editorial. The Journal re-ran it today.
Yes, sapient, the guy was looking for a “gotcha” moment. It’s what passes for accountability these days
He was looking for accountability? Really? What kind of accountability could he have reasonably found?
He had every right to ask the question, even knowing that he wouldn’t get an answer. He had every right to be angry but, considering his demeanor, so did she.
The Digby post, and my quick glance (yes, I peeked, but then refused to linger) at Glenn was: She’s either stupid, or a liar! Neither of those things is, of course, true, and they know it.
Do you know what my honest answer would be? The President of the United States has a great deal of power over the life and death of people all over the world. Like it or not, s/he has the power to push a button and nuke the planet. S/he has the power to order troops into huge wars, even when the decision is based on lies and cherry-picked intelligence. S/he has the power to engage in drone warfare. With that in mind, it’s important to elect a President that will use the power wisely. And with two viable choices for President, in an election that will happen in a little over two weeks, the choice is clear who is the person who will be most “conservative” with that power. And it’s not Mitt Romney.
Yes, sapient, the guy was looking for a “gotcha” moment. It’s what passes for accountability these days
He was looking for accountability? Really? What kind of accountability could he have reasonably found?
He had every right to ask the question, even knowing that he wouldn’t get an answer. He had every right to be angry but, considering his demeanor, so did she.
The Digby post, and my quick glance (yes, I peeked, but then refused to linger) at Glenn was: She’s either stupid, or a liar! Neither of those things is, of course, true, and they know it.
Do you know what my honest answer would be? The President of the United States has a great deal of power over the life and death of people all over the world. Like it or not, s/he has the power to push a button and nuke the planet. S/he has the power to order troops into huge wars, even when the decision is based on lies and cherry-picked intelligence. S/he has the power to engage in drone warfare. With that in mind, it’s important to elect a President that will use the power wisely. And with two viable choices for President, in an election that will happen in a little over two weeks, the choice is clear who is the person who will be most “conservative” with that power. And it’s not Mitt Romney.
McKT, it does but still requires subscription (which I won’t do even for a 4 week free trial).
McKT, it does but still requires subscription (which I won’t do even for a 4 week free trial).
“Maybe something to chat about another time.”
Could you front me the subscribption fee first? I lost all my allowance in a vicious Nassau with automatic presses.
“Maybe something to chat about another time.”
Could you front me the subscribption fee first? I lost all my allowance in a vicious Nassau with automatic presses.
Wrong.
Absolutely correct. Damn those strange bedfellows mingling with my politics.
Wrong.
Absolutely correct. Damn those strange bedfellows mingling with my politics.
I’m a little curious about how Obama-loving Glenn-haters will react to him
for my part, it will be the same way i’ve reacted to him since forever: i’ll pretty much ignore him.
i don’t see the value in screaming about problems which cannot be solved by screaming, and those are the kinds of problems he prefers. it almost as if he likes screaming. which is why i don’t read him much.
I’m a little curious about how Obama-loving Glenn-haters will react to him
for my part, it will be the same way i’ve reacted to him since forever: i’ll pretty much ignore him.
i don’t see the value in screaming about problems which cannot be solved by screaming, and those are the kinds of problems he prefers. it almost as if he likes screaming. which is why i don’t read him much.
Another in the purist department….was IOZ
A great read, always. His recipies, in food and politics, can be difficult, but always thought provoking if not outrageous.
I have great admiration for TomDispatch also.
Another in the purist department….was IOZ
A great read, always. His recipies, in food and politics, can be difficult, but always thought provoking if not outrageous.
I have great admiration for TomDispatch also.
Here is the McGovern piece from 1992:
“By George McGovern
Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.
— Justice Felix Frankfurter
It’s been 11 years since I left the U.S. Senate, after serving 24 years in high public office. After leaving a career in politics, I devoted much of my time to public lectures that took me into every state in the union and much of Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.
In 1988, I invested most of the earnings from this lecture circuit acquiring the leasehold on Connecticut’s Stratford Inn. Hotels, inns and restaurants have always held a special fascination for me. The Stratford Inn promised the realization of a longtime dream to own a combination hotel, restaurant and public conference facility — complete with an experienced manager and staff.
In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn’s 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.
Today we are much closer to a general acknowledgment that government must encourage business to expand and grow. Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey and others have, I believe, changed the debate of our party. We intuitively know that to create job opportunities we need entrepreneurs who will risk their capital against an expected payoff. Too often, however, public policy does not consider whether we are choking off those opportunities.
My own business perspective has been limited to that small hotel and restaurant in Stratford, Conn., with an especially difficult lease and a severe recession. But my business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never have doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: “Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.” It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators.
For example, the papers today are filled with stories about businesses dropping health coverage for employees. We provided a substantial package for our staff at the Stratford Inn. However, were we operating today, those costs would exceed $150,000 a year for health care on top of salaries and other benefits. There would have been no reasonable way for us to absorb or pass on these costs.
Some of the escalation in the cost of health care is attributed to patients suing doctors. While one cannot assess the merit of all these claims, I’ve also witnessed firsthand the explosion in blame-shifting and scapegoating for every negative experience in life.
Today, despite bankruptcy, we are still dealing with litigation from individuals who fell in or near our restaurant. Despite these injuries, not every misstep is the fault of someone else. Not every such incident should be viewed as a lawsuit instead of an unfortunate accident. And while the business owner may prevail in the end, the endless exposure to frivolous claims and high legal fees is frightening.
Our Connecticut hotel, along with many others, went bankrupt for a variety of reasons, the general economy in the Northeast being a significant cause. But that reason masks the variety of other challenges we faced that drive operating costs and financing charges beyond what a small business can handle.
It is clear that some businesses have products that can be priced at almost any level. The price of raw materials (e.g., steel and glass) and life-saving drugs and medical care are not easily substituted by consumers. It is only competition or antitrust that tempers price increases. Consumers may delay purchases, but they have little choice when faced with higher prices.
In services, however, consumers do have a choice when faced with higher prices. You may have to stay in a hotel while on vacation, but you can stay fewer days. You can eat in restaurants fewer times per month, or forgo a number of services from car washes to shoeshines. Every such decision eventually results in job losses for someone. And often these are the people without the skills to help themselves — the people I’ve spent a lifetime trying to help.
In short, “one-size-fits-all” rules for business ignore the reality of the marketplace. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels — e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales — takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics.
The problem we face as legislators is: Where do we set the bar so that it is not too high to clear? I don’t have the answer. I do know that we need to start raising these questions more often.”
End of piece.
BobbyP–gambling is a decidedly capitalist, bourgeois activity. What’s your handicap again, playing in that kind of a game?
Here is the McGovern piece from 1992:
“By George McGovern
Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.
— Justice Felix Frankfurter
It’s been 11 years since I left the U.S. Senate, after serving 24 years in high public office. After leaving a career in politics, I devoted much of my time to public lectures that took me into every state in the union and much of Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.
In 1988, I invested most of the earnings from this lecture circuit acquiring the leasehold on Connecticut’s Stratford Inn. Hotels, inns and restaurants have always held a special fascination for me. The Stratford Inn promised the realization of a longtime dream to own a combination hotel, restaurant and public conference facility — complete with an experienced manager and staff.
In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn’s 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.
Today we are much closer to a general acknowledgment that government must encourage business to expand and grow. Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey and others have, I believe, changed the debate of our party. We intuitively know that to create job opportunities we need entrepreneurs who will risk their capital against an expected payoff. Too often, however, public policy does not consider whether we are choking off those opportunities.
My own business perspective has been limited to that small hotel and restaurant in Stratford, Conn., with an especially difficult lease and a severe recession. But my business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never have doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: “Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.” It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators.
For example, the papers today are filled with stories about businesses dropping health coverage for employees. We provided a substantial package for our staff at the Stratford Inn. However, were we operating today, those costs would exceed $150,000 a year for health care on top of salaries and other benefits. There would have been no reasonable way for us to absorb or pass on these costs.
Some of the escalation in the cost of health care is attributed to patients suing doctors. While one cannot assess the merit of all these claims, I’ve also witnessed firsthand the explosion in blame-shifting and scapegoating for every negative experience in life.
Today, despite bankruptcy, we are still dealing with litigation from individuals who fell in or near our restaurant. Despite these injuries, not every misstep is the fault of someone else. Not every such incident should be viewed as a lawsuit instead of an unfortunate accident. And while the business owner may prevail in the end, the endless exposure to frivolous claims and high legal fees is frightening.
Our Connecticut hotel, along with many others, went bankrupt for a variety of reasons, the general economy in the Northeast being a significant cause. But that reason masks the variety of other challenges we faced that drive operating costs and financing charges beyond what a small business can handle.
It is clear that some businesses have products that can be priced at almost any level. The price of raw materials (e.g., steel and glass) and life-saving drugs and medical care are not easily substituted by consumers. It is only competition or antitrust that tempers price increases. Consumers may delay purchases, but they have little choice when faced with higher prices.
In services, however, consumers do have a choice when faced with higher prices. You may have to stay in a hotel while on vacation, but you can stay fewer days. You can eat in restaurants fewer times per month, or forgo a number of services from car washes to shoeshines. Every such decision eventually results in job losses for someone. And often these are the people without the skills to help themselves — the people I’ve spent a lifetime trying to help.
In short, “one-size-fits-all” rules for business ignore the reality of the marketplace. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels — e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales — takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics.
The problem we face as legislators is: Where do we set the bar so that it is not too high to clear? I don’t have the answer. I do know that we need to start raising these questions more often.”
End of piece.
BobbyP–gambling is a decidedly capitalist, bourgeois activity. What’s your handicap again, playing in that kind of a game?
“for my part, it will be the same way i’ve reacted to him since forever: i’ll pretty much ignore him.
i don’t see the value in screaming about problems which cannot be solved by screaming, and those are the kinds of problems he prefers. it almost as if he likes screaming. which is why i don’t read him much.”
That’s your right, but he does a lot more than scream. I tend to skim over much of his posts, because he makes the same basic points repeatedly and I agree with him on those already, for the most part, and I can do my own ranting, as people here know. But there also tends to be information and links to things I often didn’t know. Greenwald is the blogger most concerned with US violations of human rights overseas and usually other bloggers I see who write on these topics start off with a link to him.
I even learned something that made me think better of Democrats recently. Okay, it was Democrats in the 80’s, but still. It was in a link in an article last August–the link was to an interview with Remi Brulin, an NYU professor, about the history of the word “terrorism” in American discourse in the past several decades. The Democrats in the Senate actually wanted to pass a resolution referring to Reagan’s Central American policy as “terrorism”. Good for them. The NYT never covered it. Anthony Lewis, their ultra-liberal columnist at the time, eventually mentioned it, but according to Brulin the paper of record never reported it.
Interview with Remi Brulin
“for my part, it will be the same way i’ve reacted to him since forever: i’ll pretty much ignore him.
i don’t see the value in screaming about problems which cannot be solved by screaming, and those are the kinds of problems he prefers. it almost as if he likes screaming. which is why i don’t read him much.”
That’s your right, but he does a lot more than scream. I tend to skim over much of his posts, because he makes the same basic points repeatedly and I agree with him on those already, for the most part, and I can do my own ranting, as people here know. But there also tends to be information and links to things I often didn’t know. Greenwald is the blogger most concerned with US violations of human rights overseas and usually other bloggers I see who write on these topics start off with a link to him.
I even learned something that made me think better of Democrats recently. Okay, it was Democrats in the 80’s, but still. It was in a link in an article last August–the link was to an interview with Remi Brulin, an NYU professor, about the history of the word “terrorism” in American discourse in the past several decades. The Democrats in the Senate actually wanted to pass a resolution referring to Reagan’s Central American policy as “terrorism”. Good for them. The NYT never covered it. Anthony Lewis, their ultra-liberal columnist at the time, eventually mentioned it, but according to Brulin the paper of record never reported it.
Interview with Remi Brulin
“He was looking for accountability? Really? What kind of accountability could he have reasonably found?”
Oh, none at all. This is America. If our government decides to kill people overseas, end of discussion. Well, okay, powerless people can discuss, rant, and fume, or score points off a disgusting politician,but that’s about it. Maybe Arthur Silber is right. He sees this as a slippery slope, with the basic principle already established that the President can have kill lists. In a few decades (or sooner, by his guess), maybe this will be acceptable inside our own boundaries.
Remember that if Romney wins and it is Republican officials who refuse to speak about their policies. I can’t see your position on this as anything other than partisan in a bad way. If Bush had an assassination policy would you really reduce this to a question of a reporter and a congressperson being rude to each other?
And to repeat, because I suspect I need to, I think the Republicans will be worse. They’re worse on every issue I can think of. I hope they lose, simply because if they win it just sets these policies in stone.
“He was looking for accountability? Really? What kind of accountability could he have reasonably found?”
Oh, none at all. This is America. If our government decides to kill people overseas, end of discussion. Well, okay, powerless people can discuss, rant, and fume, or score points off a disgusting politician,but that’s about it. Maybe Arthur Silber is right. He sees this as a slippery slope, with the basic principle already established that the President can have kill lists. In a few decades (or sooner, by his guess), maybe this will be acceptable inside our own boundaries.
Remember that if Romney wins and it is Republican officials who refuse to speak about their policies. I can’t see your position on this as anything other than partisan in a bad way. If Bush had an assassination policy would you really reduce this to a question of a reporter and a congressperson being rude to each other?
And to repeat, because I suspect I need to, I think the Republicans will be worse. They’re worse on every issue I can think of. I hope they lose, simply because if they win it just sets these policies in stone.
I see sapient’s stance as similar to mine of a few years ago, and possibly similar to mine a few years hence.
Which makes me feel bad for both of us, really.
I see sapient’s stance as similar to mine of a few years ago, and possibly similar to mine a few years hence.
Which makes me feel bad for both of us, really.
Maybe Arthur Silber is right. He sees this as a slippery slope, with the basic principle already established that the President can have kill lists. In a few decades (or sooner, by his guess), maybe this will be acceptable inside our own boundaries.
This begs at least one question: if a “kill list” was subject to judicial oversight with fact findings and some kind of ad litem representation for the person to be targeted, would that make the program acceptable? Or, do you advocate for a ‘no overseas targeted assassination policy’ even in the most extreme and compelling circumstances? It seems to me we have Choice A or Choice B–either a complete and total ban or something less than a complete and total ban, in which case we are talking about process not policy.
Which should it be?
Maybe Arthur Silber is right. He sees this as a slippery slope, with the basic principle already established that the President can have kill lists. In a few decades (or sooner, by his guess), maybe this will be acceptable inside our own boundaries.
This begs at least one question: if a “kill list” was subject to judicial oversight with fact findings and some kind of ad litem representation for the person to be targeted, would that make the program acceptable? Or, do you advocate for a ‘no overseas targeted assassination policy’ even in the most extreme and compelling circumstances? It seems to me we have Choice A or Choice B–either a complete and total ban or something less than a complete and total ban, in which case we are talking about process not policy.
Which should it be?
We’re a pretty long way away from the point where it becomes a question of total moral purity. I can imagine circumstances where I wouldn’t oppose drone strikes or they would drop way way down on my list of moral concerns. If you really had strong evidence that some people were plotting another 9/11, they couldn’t be arrested, you knew where they were, etc… This is how I feel about the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Possibly they could have taken him alive–I haven’t followed it that closely, in part because with him I just don’t get that worked up about whether he could have been arrested and given a fair trial. Though of course if he could have been arrested and given a fair trial he should have been. Silber would probably see me as an example of the moral coarseness of America and maybe he’s right, but one reason I read him is to read someone who is, well, really really strict. You need people like that because the rest of us are natural compromisers.
One problem with the current system though (not the only one) is this notion that the President gets to decide on his own and we can trust him because he’s wise. It shouldn’t work that way. The other problem is that we seem to be terrorizing a lot of innocent people.
We’re a pretty long way away from the point where it becomes a question of total moral purity. I can imagine circumstances where I wouldn’t oppose drone strikes or they would drop way way down on my list of moral concerns. If you really had strong evidence that some people were plotting another 9/11, they couldn’t be arrested, you knew where they were, etc… This is how I feel about the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Possibly they could have taken him alive–I haven’t followed it that closely, in part because with him I just don’t get that worked up about whether he could have been arrested and given a fair trial. Though of course if he could have been arrested and given a fair trial he should have been. Silber would probably see me as an example of the moral coarseness of America and maybe he’s right, but one reason I read him is to read someone who is, well, really really strict. You need people like that because the rest of us are natural compromisers.
One problem with the current system though (not the only one) is this notion that the President gets to decide on his own and we can trust him because he’s wise. It shouldn’t work that way. The other problem is that we seem to be terrorizing a lot of innocent people.
One problem with the current system though (not the only one) is this notion that the President gets to decide on his own and we can trust him because he’s wise. It shouldn’t work that way.
Which is why I suggested an oversight process. Would that make it ok, assuming it was substantive and not just a kabuki play?
One problem with the current system though (not the only one) is this notion that the President gets to decide on his own and we can trust him because he’s wise. It shouldn’t work that way.
Which is why I suggested an oversight process. Would that make it ok, assuming it was substantive and not just a kabuki play?
It seems to me we have Choice A or Choice B–either a complete and total ban or something less than a complete and total ban, in which case we are talking about process not policy.
Drone threads seem to never end well, but in the interest of broadening the discussion a bit, I’ll respectfully offer Yet Another Choice.
IMVVHO what is needed is some kind of crisp(er) legal understanding of when and if military force can be used against non-state actors. It would be really, really good if such an understanding could be achieved at an international level, but I’d be happy to see it domestically for a start.
A lot of what we do now is under the heading of the AUMF, but IMVHO blowing some guy to smithereens in Yemen stretches the definition of “folks responsible for 9/11 and those associated with them”. Every guy in the Muslim world with an axe to grind against the west calls themselves Al Qaeda these days, I’m not sure there’s any meaningful connection between them and anything the AUMF addresses.
And “terrorist” as a catch-all category for “folks we are authorized to blow up at will” is one unbelievably slippery slope.
My impression is that we are flailing around in a somewhat improvisational fashion, in the absence of any really clear principle or authority for what we’re doing.
We can get away with that because nobody else either has the means or the gumption to call us on it. But it’s not good for us as a nation, and it’s not good for any of the other nations whose nationals live under the threat of more or less random (from their point of view) deadly missile attacks.
It’s been over 10 years, longer than that if you don’t just start counting from 9/11. We need to get our heads around what we’re doing.
To McK’s point, I suppose where I’m coming down on the “process vs policy” question is “we’re focusing on process because we have no coherent policy”.
We should get the policy first, and build the process from there.
If nothing else, what I REALLY REALLY REALLY want is to get the intelligence agencies out of the business of shooting missiles. That is not an intelligence function, and those guys do not have the operational discipline that the military does.
They have *an* operational discipline, it just lacks accountability.
It seems to me we have Choice A or Choice B–either a complete and total ban or something less than a complete and total ban, in which case we are talking about process not policy.
Drone threads seem to never end well, but in the interest of broadening the discussion a bit, I’ll respectfully offer Yet Another Choice.
IMVVHO what is needed is some kind of crisp(er) legal understanding of when and if military force can be used against non-state actors. It would be really, really good if such an understanding could be achieved at an international level, but I’d be happy to see it domestically for a start.
A lot of what we do now is under the heading of the AUMF, but IMVHO blowing some guy to smithereens in Yemen stretches the definition of “folks responsible for 9/11 and those associated with them”. Every guy in the Muslim world with an axe to grind against the west calls themselves Al Qaeda these days, I’m not sure there’s any meaningful connection between them and anything the AUMF addresses.
And “terrorist” as a catch-all category for “folks we are authorized to blow up at will” is one unbelievably slippery slope.
My impression is that we are flailing around in a somewhat improvisational fashion, in the absence of any really clear principle or authority for what we’re doing.
We can get away with that because nobody else either has the means or the gumption to call us on it. But it’s not good for us as a nation, and it’s not good for any of the other nations whose nationals live under the threat of more or less random (from their point of view) deadly missile attacks.
It’s been over 10 years, longer than that if you don’t just start counting from 9/11. We need to get our heads around what we’re doing.
To McK’s point, I suppose where I’m coming down on the “process vs policy” question is “we’re focusing on process because we have no coherent policy”.
We should get the policy first, and build the process from there.
If nothing else, what I REALLY REALLY REALLY want is to get the intelligence agencies out of the business of shooting missiles. That is not an intelligence function, and those guys do not have the operational discipline that the military does.
They have *an* operational discipline, it just lacks accountability.
Though of course if he could have been arrested and given a fair trial he should have been.
To be honest, and for the record, my thought here is that Bin Laden would certainly be covered by the AUMF. I’m assuming the AUMF is still in force, I may be wrong about that.
If it’s still in force, and if (as it almost certainly would have to) it covers Bin Laden, I’m not sure we were under any obligation to handle Bin Laden through the criminal justice system.
Military force is different than police powers. We weren’t required to kill him, however IMO neither were we obliged to not do so.
Though of course if he could have been arrested and given a fair trial he should have been.
To be honest, and for the record, my thought here is that Bin Laden would certainly be covered by the AUMF. I’m assuming the AUMF is still in force, I may be wrong about that.
If it’s still in force, and if (as it almost certainly would have to) it covers Bin Laden, I’m not sure we were under any obligation to handle Bin Laden through the criminal justice system.
Military force is different than police powers. We weren’t required to kill him, however IMO neither were we obliged to not do so.
I think we pretty much have to take the process approach.
To say that there will never, ever, under any circumstances, be a justification for drone strikes (or asassinations generally) is to not live in the real world. The relevant questions really are:
1) what constitutes adequate cause?
2) who decides (and with what oversight/controls) that that adequate cause exists?
And, just possibly,
3) what do we consider an appropriate response if someone else applies the same criteria to one of us?
I think we pretty much have to take the process approach.
To say that there will never, ever, under any circumstances, be a justification for drone strikes (or asassinations generally) is to not live in the real world. The relevant questions really are:
1) what constitutes adequate cause?
2) who decides (and with what oversight/controls) that that adequate cause exists?
And, just possibly,
3) what do we consider an appropriate response if someone else applies the same criteria to one of us?
I had this long post typed, but russell and wj did it better, so I’ll pretend they stole their ideas from me.
“I see sapient’s stance as similar to mine of a few years ago, and possibly similar to mine a few years hence.”
Don’t give in to the Dark Side, Luke. That way is only–well, I forgot the rest of the Obi-Wan speech, but it really stinks to do that, kind of sums it up.
I had this long post typed, but russell and wj did it better, so I’ll pretend they stole their ideas from me.
“I see sapient’s stance as similar to mine of a few years ago, and possibly similar to mine a few years hence.”
Don’t give in to the Dark Side, Luke. That way is only–well, I forgot the rest of the Obi-Wan speech, but it really stinks to do that, kind of sums it up.
In addition to what donald, russell and wj have said, let it be noted that the drone policy is wreaking havoc with our relationships with just about every country in the ME, especially Pakistan. Some here are cognizant of the fact that India’s mortal enemy possess nukes….but by all means, rain death down from the heavens and then pull out the fainting couch when they don’t just sing halleluja and ask for more.
BLOWBACK IS A BITCH. When Bush was invading innocent countries, Democrats never tired of pointing out that St. Ronnie created Al Quaeda. Suddenly that has all changed and all consequences are intended ones, eh?
In your dreams.
Tex: Obviously in the subject instance my handicap was too low.
In addition to what donald, russell and wj have said, let it be noted that the drone policy is wreaking havoc with our relationships with just about every country in the ME, especially Pakistan. Some here are cognizant of the fact that India’s mortal enemy possess nukes….but by all means, rain death down from the heavens and then pull out the fainting couch when they don’t just sing halleluja and ask for more.
BLOWBACK IS A BITCH. When Bush was invading innocent countries, Democrats never tired of pointing out that St. Ronnie created Al Quaeda. Suddenly that has all changed and all consequences are intended ones, eh?
In your dreams.
Tex: Obviously in the subject instance my handicap was too low.
I actually asked hilzoy a while back if she would like to come back and write about drones and she said she was tempted but no, she could see herself getting pulled in. That, or McGovern, would be a perfect guest post (hint, hint to the 10th) I personally would love to see something from someone who was of voting age during McGovern’s run (I was 11) discuss what they remember of that period.
I actually asked hilzoy a while back if she would like to come back and write about drones and she said she was tempted but no, she could see herself getting pulled in. That, or McGovern, would be a perfect guest post (hint, hint to the 10th) I personally would love to see something from someone who was of voting age during McGovern’s run (I was 11) discuss what they remember of that period.
“We weren’t required to kill him, however IMO neither were we obliged to not do so.”
I don’t have a problem with killing him. But if you catch someone unarmed I think you’re supposed to take him prisoner. Whether that was a practical option I don’t know. I also don’t really care one way or the other. Live by the terrorist act, expect to get cut down in a hail of bullets. I ration out my moral purity, saving it for more interesting cases. Of which there are many.
“We weren’t required to kill him, however IMO neither were we obliged to not do so.”
I don’t have a problem with killing him. But if you catch someone unarmed I think you’re supposed to take him prisoner. Whether that was a practical option I don’t know. I also don’t really care one way or the other. Live by the terrorist act, expect to get cut down in a hail of bullets. I ration out my moral purity, saving it for more interesting cases. Of which there are many.
Donald, I think you confuse my attitude (that a President is hugely powerful, therefore we need to elect someone who is good) with a belief that I don’t believe in checks and balances and controls on the Executive. I just doubt that in this situation there is any chance whatsoever that anyone is going to tie the hands of the President. And if Obama wasn’t engaging in drone warfare, do you really think that President Romney would decide, Yikes, I’d better not do that either! More likely, Obama does have classified information that reveals real threats and he’s taking action to prevent them. If he didn’t (back to the hypothetical) and a terrorist threat happened, what do you think the result would be? Just look at Benghazi, which to my mind is totally within the realm of acceptable risk (although, sure – we should try to figure out better security if we can). I don’t think anyone would think it would be within the realm of acceptable risk to, say, allow a known terrorist to bring an airliner down.
I’m bored with talking about drones, so I’ll quit. I’ll just say again, I think that Obama’s using standards that I approve of, and if Congress wants to formalize a better procedure, they should go ahead. That’s no guarantee that any President, especially Republicans, are going to respect those boundaries. So the “Oh no – if Obama does it, then Romney will feel free to!” argument is nonsense. Republicans feel free to break the law all the time. Look at Watergate. Look at Iran Contra. Look at the Iraq war.
Donald, I think you confuse my attitude (that a President is hugely powerful, therefore we need to elect someone who is good) with a belief that I don’t believe in checks and balances and controls on the Executive. I just doubt that in this situation there is any chance whatsoever that anyone is going to tie the hands of the President. And if Obama wasn’t engaging in drone warfare, do you really think that President Romney would decide, Yikes, I’d better not do that either! More likely, Obama does have classified information that reveals real threats and he’s taking action to prevent them. If he didn’t (back to the hypothetical) and a terrorist threat happened, what do you think the result would be? Just look at Benghazi, which to my mind is totally within the realm of acceptable risk (although, sure – we should try to figure out better security if we can). I don’t think anyone would think it would be within the realm of acceptable risk to, say, allow a known terrorist to bring an airliner down.
I’m bored with talking about drones, so I’ll quit. I’ll just say again, I think that Obama’s using standards that I approve of, and if Congress wants to formalize a better procedure, they should go ahead. That’s no guarantee that any President, especially Republicans, are going to respect those boundaries. So the “Oh no – if Obama does it, then Romney will feel free to!” argument is nonsense. Republicans feel free to break the law all the time. Look at Watergate. Look at Iran Contra. Look at the Iraq war.
“I think that Obama’s using standards that I approve of,”
Because it’s Obama. He could throw darts at an open phone book and he’d do it with wisdom and flair and that special grace or whatever. So you believe in checks and balances, but nobody is going to impose them and Congress could, but they won’t and it’s fine because you like what Obama does. Who’d have guessed?
As for Republicans being worse, that’s their role. To make Democrats look less bad.
Don’t think I’ll watch this debate either. It’d be depressing and the only thing that matters is not what they say, but how it effects the polls, if at all. Somehow only the first debate seems to have had a dramatic effect. No idea why (and no that’s not sarcasm. I don’t get it.)
“I think that Obama’s using standards that I approve of,”
Because it’s Obama. He could throw darts at an open phone book and he’d do it with wisdom and flair and that special grace or whatever. So you believe in checks and balances, but nobody is going to impose them and Congress could, but they won’t and it’s fine because you like what Obama does. Who’d have guessed?
As for Republicans being worse, that’s their role. To make Democrats look less bad.
Don’t think I’ll watch this debate either. It’d be depressing and the only thing that matters is not what they say, but how it effects the polls, if at all. Somehow only the first debate seems to have had a dramatic effect. No idea why (and no that’s not sarcasm. I don’t get it.)
Because it’s Obama. He could throw darts at an open phone book and he’d do it with wisdom and flair and that special grace or whatever.
But he wouldn’t and doesn’t do that. So that’s why I trust him. If he had done that, or if anything in his life suggested that he would do that, I wouldn’t have trusted him. Sure, I’d be happy with more than trust, but that isn’t available.
I’m worried about the debate, but I can’t help myself. I’m watching it and sending whatever cosmic vibes I can to the Pres. Hope it works out, because you’re right, Donald, all that matters now are the polls. Especially the real ones on November 6.
Because it’s Obama. He could throw darts at an open phone book and he’d do it with wisdom and flair and that special grace or whatever.
But he wouldn’t and doesn’t do that. So that’s why I trust him. If he had done that, or if anything in his life suggested that he would do that, I wouldn’t have trusted him. Sure, I’d be happy with more than trust, but that isn’t available.
I’m worried about the debate, but I can’t help myself. I’m watching it and sending whatever cosmic vibes I can to the Pres. Hope it works out, because you’re right, Donald, all that matters now are the polls. Especially the real ones on November 6.
Which is why I suggested an oversight process. Would that make it ok, assuming it was substantive and not just a kabuki play?
I don’t think we know how to make a substantiative non-kabuki oversight process in the context of secrecy. I mean, the closest thing I can imagine is something like the FISA court and that’s basically a disaster. They went for decades considering thousands of cases never turning the government down once. To me, that’s just absurd: the idea that the government was always 100% right for decades is ridiculous. But the FISA court is probably the best we can do institutionally: it is well insulated, apolitical, staffed with highly regarded experts, etc.
Secrecy destroys competence. The more secret your organization is, the dumber it will be, as the secrecy slowly cuts it off from the consequences of incompetence.
Which is why I suggested an oversight process. Would that make it ok, assuming it was substantive and not just a kabuki play?
I don’t think we know how to make a substantiative non-kabuki oversight process in the context of secrecy. I mean, the closest thing I can imagine is something like the FISA court and that’s basically a disaster. They went for decades considering thousands of cases never turning the government down once. To me, that’s just absurd: the idea that the government was always 100% right for decades is ridiculous. But the FISA court is probably the best we can do institutionally: it is well insulated, apolitical, staffed with highly regarded experts, etc.
Secrecy destroys competence. The more secret your organization is, the dumber it will be, as the secrecy slowly cuts it off from the consequences of incompetence.
BLOWBACK IS A BITCH.
In my dreams, this is emblazoned in 12 foot high letters over the entrance at Langley, and tattooed inside the eyelids of everyone who works there.
I don’t think we know how to make a substantiative non-kabuki oversight process in the context of secrecy.
Game, set, and match. Thank you Turbulence.
Whether that was a practical option I don’t know.
Nor I. And like you, I haven’t lost any sleep over it.
Live by the sword, etc.
Karma is, in fact, a merciless bitch.
BLOWBACK IS A BITCH.
In my dreams, this is emblazoned in 12 foot high letters over the entrance at Langley, and tattooed inside the eyelids of everyone who works there.
I don’t think we know how to make a substantiative non-kabuki oversight process in the context of secrecy.
Game, set, and match. Thank you Turbulence.
Whether that was a practical option I don’t know.
Nor I. And like you, I haven’t lost any sleep over it.
Live by the sword, etc.
Karma is, in fact, a merciless bitch.
russell, perhaps you should read Donald’s George McGovern’s link, where he was so guilt-ridden about letting a bomb go over a farm.
ometimes doing the right thing doesn’t result in blowback. In fact, the Austrian bombing victim actually believed that if he had been hit, it would have been worth it because Hitler was worth defeating. Kind of like my Bosnian friends who welcomed Clinton’s bombs.
Maybe, just maybe, some of the people in “the neighborhood” of drone attacks feel the same way.
Which reminds me, weirdly, of the fact that you and your wife would be willing to sacrifice yourselves to an al Qaeda hit (possibly in an attack against hundreds of people who would also die), in order to avoid an accidental drone hit on a couple of people who might live with al Qaeda terrorists. Seems to me that your desire to self-sacrifice is somewhat misplaced.
russell, perhaps you should read Donald’s George McGovern’s link, where he was so guilt-ridden about letting a bomb go over a farm.
ometimes doing the right thing doesn’t result in blowback. In fact, the Austrian bombing victim actually believed that if he had been hit, it would have been worth it because Hitler was worth defeating. Kind of like my Bosnian friends who welcomed Clinton’s bombs.
Maybe, just maybe, some of the people in “the neighborhood” of drone attacks feel the same way.
Which reminds me, weirdly, of the fact that you and your wife would be willing to sacrifice yourselves to an al Qaeda hit (possibly in an attack against hundreds of people who would also die), in order to avoid an accidental drone hit on a couple of people who might live with al Qaeda terrorists. Seems to me that your desire to self-sacrifice is somewhat misplaced.
oops – where’d the S go?
oops – where’d the S go?
russell, perhaps you should read Donald’s George McGovern’s link, where he was so guilt-ridden about letting a bomb go over a farm.
I read it. McGovern’s a stand-up guy. His experience in WWII has fuck-all to do with the topic at hand, and yes, I did just say a bad word right here on ObWi.
Look sapient, every time we get into this drone crap, we each make the same arguments.
I disagree with you. Nuff said, I suspect.
And for the record, you have absolutely nothing to say to me about my “desire to self-sacrifice” and whether it’s “misplaced”.
Also for the record, my wife’s opinion on the matter doesn’t enter into this. Only mine. She neither reads nor comments on ObWi. Your conversation is with me, and only me. Not with my wife.
Clear?
I do, sincerely, wish you would actually READ WHAT I WRITE and confine your discussion of what I say to ONLY WHAT I WRITE AND NOTHING ELSE.
It would save time.
If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect you of arguing in bad freaking faith. I’d prefer to not change my mind about that.
Dig this:
We could deal with militant Islamic terror by rounding up the relatives of everyone we suspect of involvement and shooting them in the head, on a live webcam, one per day, until the last relative of anyone we suspect of involvement was dead.
We don’t do that. Why don’t we do that? Because it’s a really really really f**king bad idea. It’s a bad idea on more levels than I have fingers and toes to count them on.
Are we on the same page about that? If we’re not, we can end the discussion right now.
Somewhere between doing that, and doing nothing, is the line that divides acceptable from bloody well unacceptable.
You draw the line in a different place than I do.
I suggest we leave it at that.
russell, perhaps you should read Donald’s George McGovern’s link, where he was so guilt-ridden about letting a bomb go over a farm.
I read it. McGovern’s a stand-up guy. His experience in WWII has fuck-all to do with the topic at hand, and yes, I did just say a bad word right here on ObWi.
Look sapient, every time we get into this drone crap, we each make the same arguments.
I disagree with you. Nuff said, I suspect.
And for the record, you have absolutely nothing to say to me about my “desire to self-sacrifice” and whether it’s “misplaced”.
Also for the record, my wife’s opinion on the matter doesn’t enter into this. Only mine. She neither reads nor comments on ObWi. Your conversation is with me, and only me. Not with my wife.
Clear?
I do, sincerely, wish you would actually READ WHAT I WRITE and confine your discussion of what I say to ONLY WHAT I WRITE AND NOTHING ELSE.
It would save time.
If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect you of arguing in bad freaking faith. I’d prefer to not change my mind about that.
Dig this:
We could deal with militant Islamic terror by rounding up the relatives of everyone we suspect of involvement and shooting them in the head, on a live webcam, one per day, until the last relative of anyone we suspect of involvement was dead.
We don’t do that. Why don’t we do that? Because it’s a really really really f**king bad idea. It’s a bad idea on more levels than I have fingers and toes to count them on.
Are we on the same page about that? If we’re not, we can end the discussion right now.
Somewhere between doing that, and doing nothing, is the line that divides acceptable from bloody well unacceptable.
You draw the line in a different place than I do.
I suggest we leave it at that.
Your comment is totally out of line. And if you’ll look back at your comment, you did offer that you and your “wife” would be perfectly happy to take the hit. So don’t bring her into it if you don’t want a response.
And, yes, we’ll leave it there.
Your comment is totally out of line. And if you’ll look back at your comment, you did offer that you and your “wife” would be perfectly happy to take the hit. So don’t bring her into it if you don’t want a response.
And, yes, we’ll leave it there.
“ometimes doing the right thing doesn’t result in blowback. In fact, the Austrian bombing victim actually believed that if he had been hit, it would have been worth it because Hitler was worth defeating. Kind of like my Bosnian friends who welcomed Clinton’s bombs.
Maybe, just maybe, some of the people in “the neighborhood” of drone attacks feel the same way.”
Good God, remind me never to send you a link if that’s what you do with it. First off, the Austrian farmer was talking about Adolf Hitler here, not some back country religious fanatics in Pakistan. If people in Pakistan want us to bomb them then maybe they will make their voices heard, but so far I haven’t read anything about it. It’s fine that this farmer was willing to tell McGovern that he’d have been willing to see his innocent family die if it would have brought Hitler down, but maybe you should try reading something about the latest report on the drone policy before you fondly imagine that Pakistani families agree with you. Seriously, sapient, sometimes you sound like a Bush supporter circa 2003. Frequently, in fact.
Romney liked the drone policy. Perhaps Debbie Wasserman -Shultz will be able to comment on that. It’s one of those bipartisan things that everyone likes–bad guys in some other country die, Americans run no risk, and innocents are just collateral damage and don’t vote. Win/win.
For that matter, do you think Americans who hated Bush would have welcomed drone assassinations carried out against Americans with accompanying collateral damage? Maybe you’d find some, especially hotheads who comment on left-leaning blogs. Are they representative?
I was coming back online to say I actually watched most of the debate, with some disgust at both of them, but thought Obama “won”, for whatever that is worth.
“ometimes doing the right thing doesn’t result in blowback. In fact, the Austrian bombing victim actually believed that if he had been hit, it would have been worth it because Hitler was worth defeating. Kind of like my Bosnian friends who welcomed Clinton’s bombs.
Maybe, just maybe, some of the people in “the neighborhood” of drone attacks feel the same way.”
Good God, remind me never to send you a link if that’s what you do with it. First off, the Austrian farmer was talking about Adolf Hitler here, not some back country religious fanatics in Pakistan. If people in Pakistan want us to bomb them then maybe they will make their voices heard, but so far I haven’t read anything about it. It’s fine that this farmer was willing to tell McGovern that he’d have been willing to see his innocent family die if it would have brought Hitler down, but maybe you should try reading something about the latest report on the drone policy before you fondly imagine that Pakistani families agree with you. Seriously, sapient, sometimes you sound like a Bush supporter circa 2003. Frequently, in fact.
Romney liked the drone policy. Perhaps Debbie Wasserman -Shultz will be able to comment on that. It’s one of those bipartisan things that everyone likes–bad guys in some other country die, Americans run no risk, and innocents are just collateral damage and don’t vote. Win/win.
For that matter, do you think Americans who hated Bush would have welcomed drone assassinations carried out against Americans with accompanying collateral damage? Maybe you’d find some, especially hotheads who comment on left-leaning blogs. Are they representative?
I was coming back online to say I actually watched most of the debate, with some disgust at both of them, but thought Obama “won”, for whatever that is worth.
Not sure how it happened, but my last few paragraphs are out of order. But it makes about as much sense that way as the way I intended.
Not sure how it happened, but my last few paragraphs are out of order. But it makes about as much sense that way as the way I intended.
Donald, don’t be so freaking .
Did you actually know anyone, as in WWII, who had to face, personally, these moral dilemmas? Who the f*ck wants collateral damage? That’s a totally inane accusation. Nobody wants to kill a child. The fact is, when there’s 5 civilians killed in order that 1000 civilians can be saved, which would you choose? Obviously nobody can make that calculation for sure, but that is what war is. So F@ck you for not realizing that those are real issues. McGovern actually lived that, and so did some of my relatives.
Sure, we always try to avoid war. We try to avoid killing and being killed. If you’re a pacifist, it’s easy: never kill. If you’re not, you need to decide when to do it, even when there may be a “blowback.”
We obviously disagree on whether to kill terrorists. We should just wait to be on that plane, and write a testimonial to our descendants that, yes, it was cool with us! Because the terrorist’s brother wasn’t hurt!
I’m not doing that.
Donald, don’t be so freaking .
Did you actually know anyone, as in WWII, who had to face, personally, these moral dilemmas? Who the f*ck wants collateral damage? That’s a totally inane accusation. Nobody wants to kill a child. The fact is, when there’s 5 civilians killed in order that 1000 civilians can be saved, which would you choose? Obviously nobody can make that calculation for sure, but that is what war is. So F@ck you for not realizing that those are real issues. McGovern actually lived that, and so did some of my relatives.
Sure, we always try to avoid war. We try to avoid killing and being killed. If you’re a pacifist, it’s easy: never kill. If you’re not, you need to decide when to do it, even when there may be a “blowback.”
We obviously disagree on whether to kill terrorists. We should just wait to be on that plane, and write a testimonial to our descendants that, yes, it was cool with us! Because the terrorist’s brother wasn’t hurt!
I’m not doing that.
Your comment is totally out of line.
It bloody well is not.
I offered my personal opinion that I, personally, would prefer to risk my own death or that of my wife’s in a terror attack, to the US pursuing policies that involved the near-indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians in other countries.
There’s nothing “weird” about it, I just draw the line in a different place than you do. I’m not interested in outsourcing death from above to some remote corner of somewhere-istan in the interest of saving my own @ss or even that of my loved ones.
That’s my position. What a bold fellow I am!
I’ve never discussed the issue with my wife, let alone heard her opinion on the matter. I feel confident in saying that I have not spoken for her here on ObWi on the topic. It would be impossible for me to do so, because I have no idea what her position is.
I could be wrong, feel free to provide chapter and verse if you are inclined to do so.
I find the US policy of assassinating folks we suspect of terrorist activities, or folks we suspect of being folks we suspect of terrorist activities, by launching missiles at them from unmanned drones, wherever they happen to be at the time, to be highly problematic, for reasons we’ve discussed at length.
You don’t.
I’m happy to leave it there.
And for the record, I have no idea what folks “in the neighborhood” think about our drone policies, and neither do you. I suspect their feelings run the gamit, because people’s feelings usually do. Whatever their feelings about it, however, they are, one and all, subject to the same threat of immediate fiery death.
But none of us can really speak for them, so there’s no point in speculating about it.
Last but not least, George McGovern’s experience in WWII has bugger-all to do with my thoughts on the topic. The two situations are not commensurate.
Your comment is totally out of line.
It bloody well is not.
I offered my personal opinion that I, personally, would prefer to risk my own death or that of my wife’s in a terror attack, to the US pursuing policies that involved the near-indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians in other countries.
There’s nothing “weird” about it, I just draw the line in a different place than you do. I’m not interested in outsourcing death from above to some remote corner of somewhere-istan in the interest of saving my own @ss or even that of my loved ones.
That’s my position. What a bold fellow I am!
I’ve never discussed the issue with my wife, let alone heard her opinion on the matter. I feel confident in saying that I have not spoken for her here on ObWi on the topic. It would be impossible for me to do so, because I have no idea what her position is.
I could be wrong, feel free to provide chapter and verse if you are inclined to do so.
I find the US policy of assassinating folks we suspect of terrorist activities, or folks we suspect of being folks we suspect of terrorist activities, by launching missiles at them from unmanned drones, wherever they happen to be at the time, to be highly problematic, for reasons we’ve discussed at length.
You don’t.
I’m happy to leave it there.
And for the record, I have no idea what folks “in the neighborhood” think about our drone policies, and neither do you. I suspect their feelings run the gamit, because people’s feelings usually do. Whatever their feelings about it, however, they are, one and all, subject to the same threat of immediate fiery death.
But none of us can really speak for them, so there’s no point in speculating about it.
Last but not least, George McGovern’s experience in WWII has bugger-all to do with my thoughts on the topic. The two situations are not commensurate.
By the way, russell, you should click on your link. You might not still endorse what you find there.
It’s quite difficult to search this site for your comments, but you did mention that you and your wife would be totally okay with being terrorized, so long as nobody was being hit with drones. And that’s fine with me, but if your wife isn’t okay with that, maybe you shouldn’t be volunteering her.
Maybe it’s a Massachusetts thing that you people disavow what you’ve said before.
By the way, russell, you should click on your link. You might not still endorse what you find there.
It’s quite difficult to search this site for your comments, but you did mention that you and your wife would be totally okay with being terrorized, so long as nobody was being hit with drones. And that’s fine with me, but if your wife isn’t okay with that, maybe you shouldn’t be volunteering her.
Maybe it’s a Massachusetts thing that you people disavow what you’ve said before.
I was voting age when McGovern ran. It was my first election. I can’t say I remember much about it, though. He got treated by the newsmedia as if he was a hippie. Nixon was portrayed as the serious responsible sensible one. Hah!
I enjoyed the hell out of Watergate.
I was voting age when McGovern ran. It was my first election. I can’t say I remember much about it, though. He got treated by the newsmedia as if he was a hippie. Nixon was portrayed as the serious responsible sensible one. Hah!
I enjoyed the hell out of Watergate.
It’s been a good discussion, so let’s ratchet it back a bit folks.
For comment searches, I find that advanced google search where you limit it to this domain and have a definite phrase you remember rather than a word does ok. But I don’t think the best way of operating to hold someone to something they said in the context of another conversation unless they decide to claim something like ‘I have never, ever, said X’ and you clearly remember something that contradicts that. Even then, it is something that I don’t think is very conducive to discussion and I try not to do it very often.
It’s been a good discussion, so let’s ratchet it back a bit folks.
For comment searches, I find that advanced google search where you limit it to this domain and have a definite phrase you remember rather than a word does ok. But I don’t think the best way of operating to hold someone to something they said in the context of another conversation unless they decide to claim something like ‘I have never, ever, said X’ and you clearly remember something that contradicts that. Even then, it is something that I don’t think is very conducive to discussion and I try not to do it very often.
bobbyp, 10-19-4:04 pm: Sapient invokes that old chesnut about that all-so-sensitive ‘secret’ intelligence that we proles are not allowed to see.
sapient, 10-19, 10:24 pm: Actually, that wasn’t really my point (or perhaps I don’t know what your point is).
Sapient, 10-22, 7:48 pm: More likely, Obama does have classified information that reveals real threats and he’s taking action to prevent them.
Not your point? Don’t know what I’m talking about? Gracious me. Well, I’m tired of talking about drones, too. Let’s make it unanimous.
But the russell contretempts has merit. We, as a society, put up with all kinds of carnage: Auto accident deaths (tens of thousands annually), deaths from alcohol abuse (hundreds of thousands annually), senseless gun mayhem (more thousands). We deal with it. But the threat that a few unhinged political extremists could get lucky and take out a couple hundred citizens sends us into a paroxysm of fear and vengeance does not speak well to our social health. Is “no price is too high” a rational standard to assess our response to such a minimal physical threat? Taking out a plane or a train is an existential threat to our way of life? Really? Do you cower in your bed in the morning, afraid to go out into the world and its attendant risks?
I would argue that a sane society would treat this threat as a manageable problem to the civil order much like any other threat of a similar magnitude. Use intelligence, good police work, rational preventative measures, and a modicum of common sense to deal with it. This is how grown ups assess and deal with risk. I guess this makes me a purist.
The War on Terror, much like the War on Drugs, will prove to be a costly and utter abject failure. Count on it.
Simpleminded aggregation of individual economic behavior leads to simpleminded and disastrous fiscal policies. simpleminded aggregation of individual fear leads to insanely misplaced priorities and foreign policy folly.
We will see this folly to its lamentable end as long as we continue the underlying political mistakes that got us here to begin with. Perhaps we best look at finding a way out of that box first rather than arguing about drones.
bobbyp, 10-19-4:04 pm: Sapient invokes that old chesnut about that all-so-sensitive ‘secret’ intelligence that we proles are not allowed to see.
sapient, 10-19, 10:24 pm: Actually, that wasn’t really my point (or perhaps I don’t know what your point is).
Sapient, 10-22, 7:48 pm: More likely, Obama does have classified information that reveals real threats and he’s taking action to prevent them.
Not your point? Don’t know what I’m talking about? Gracious me. Well, I’m tired of talking about drones, too. Let’s make it unanimous.
But the russell contretempts has merit. We, as a society, put up with all kinds of carnage: Auto accident deaths (tens of thousands annually), deaths from alcohol abuse (hundreds of thousands annually), senseless gun mayhem (more thousands). We deal with it. But the threat that a few unhinged political extremists could get lucky and take out a couple hundred citizens sends us into a paroxysm of fear and vengeance does not speak well to our social health. Is “no price is too high” a rational standard to assess our response to such a minimal physical threat? Taking out a plane or a train is an existential threat to our way of life? Really? Do you cower in your bed in the morning, afraid to go out into the world and its attendant risks?
I would argue that a sane society would treat this threat as a manageable problem to the civil order much like any other threat of a similar magnitude. Use intelligence, good police work, rational preventative measures, and a modicum of common sense to deal with it. This is how grown ups assess and deal with risk. I guess this makes me a purist.
The War on Terror, much like the War on Drugs, will prove to be a costly and utter abject failure. Count on it.
Simpleminded aggregation of individual economic behavior leads to simpleminded and disastrous fiscal policies. simpleminded aggregation of individual fear leads to insanely misplaced priorities and foreign policy folly.
We will see this folly to its lamentable end as long as we continue the underlying political mistakes that got us here to begin with. Perhaps we best look at finding a way out of that box first rather than arguing about drones.
I enjoyed the hell out of Watergate.
I did, too. lily for the win!
I enjoyed the hell out of Watergate.
I did, too. lily for the win!
By the way, russell, you should click on your link.
I haven’t linked to anything in this thread.
you did mention that you and your wife would be totally okay with being terrorized, so long as nobody was being hit with drones.
And, I call bullshit.
Find and cite where I made that statement, or stand down.
Maybe it’s a Massachusetts thing that you people disavow what you’ve said before.
Again, I call bullshit.
I made the statement that I stated I made upthread.
Neither my wife, nor I, would be “totally okay” with being terrorized. I feel quite confident in speaking for her on that topic.
I, personally, hold the position that I, personally, would be willing to accept a higher risk of terrorist violence, in exchange for us not using drones in the way that we do.
In saying that, I recognize that I, personally, and/or folks I love, might be the victims of that. More likely, it would be somebody altogether other than me or anyone I care about, and I can’t speak for them. I am speaking only for myself.
Political violence is, unfortunately, a reality in the world we live in, and we have to balance that risk against all of the other things that we value and that are of importance to us.
All of us will probably draw the line in a different place. I’m fine with that.
I draw it where I draw it. And, where I draw it is somewhere other than a policy of allowing the intelligence community, who are not subject to the same requirements of accountability and transparency that the military is, to fire missiles at people, in civilian communities, in nations with whom we are not at war, on the basis of things like intelligence “signatures”, which often fall far short of positive, or even near-positive, identification.
You can draw it wherever you like.
The one and only thing I ask in discussing this stuff is that you not put words in my mouth, or ascribe statements to me that I did not make. That is called “bad faith”, and I personally have no patience for it, whatsoever.
By the way, russell, you should click on your link.
I haven’t linked to anything in this thread.
you did mention that you and your wife would be totally okay with being terrorized, so long as nobody was being hit with drones.
And, I call bullshit.
Find and cite where I made that statement, or stand down.
Maybe it’s a Massachusetts thing that you people disavow what you’ve said before.
Again, I call bullshit.
I made the statement that I stated I made upthread.
Neither my wife, nor I, would be “totally okay” with being terrorized. I feel quite confident in speaking for her on that topic.
I, personally, hold the position that I, personally, would be willing to accept a higher risk of terrorist violence, in exchange for us not using drones in the way that we do.
In saying that, I recognize that I, personally, and/or folks I love, might be the victims of that. More likely, it would be somebody altogether other than me or anyone I care about, and I can’t speak for them. I am speaking only for myself.
Political violence is, unfortunately, a reality in the world we live in, and we have to balance that risk against all of the other things that we value and that are of importance to us.
All of us will probably draw the line in a different place. I’m fine with that.
I draw it where I draw it. And, where I draw it is somewhere other than a policy of allowing the intelligence community, who are not subject to the same requirements of accountability and transparency that the military is, to fire missiles at people, in civilian communities, in nations with whom we are not at war, on the basis of things like intelligence “signatures”, which often fall far short of positive, or even near-positive, identification.
You can draw it wherever you like.
The one and only thing I ask in discussing this stuff is that you not put words in my mouth, or ascribe statements to me that I did not make. That is called “bad faith”, and I personally have no patience for it, whatsoever.
There’s a decent probability that drone strikes in Pakistan have now killed more people than died in the September 11th attacks: see statistics here. The 7th July attacks in London killed 52 people; there are 176 children reported killed in drone strikes. The Bali bombings killed 202 people; the number of civilians killed in Pakistan may be twice or four times that.
The question is how many innocent foreigners the US is wlling to kill in order to ensure that another terrorist attack doesn’t happen. And the answer seems to be a disproportionate number.
There’s a decent probability that drone strikes in Pakistan have now killed more people than died in the September 11th attacks: see statistics here. The 7th July attacks in London killed 52 people; there are 176 children reported killed in drone strikes. The Bali bombings killed 202 people; the number of civilians killed in Pakistan may be twice or four times that.
The question is how many innocent foreigners the US is wlling to kill in order to ensure that another terrorist attack doesn’t happen. And the answer seems to be a disproportionate number.
russell says that I mischaracterized his words, and for that I apologize. My point stands though.
I don’t believe that the chances are very great that I will be killed in a terrorist attack. I get in a car almost every day, where my chances of being killed are far greater. However, if I have a car accident, the country isn’t going to go apes%it and use the incident to elect quasi-fascists to office, invade other countries, etc. Terrorist attacks are different. They not only kill people, they cause horrible political consequences (speaking of blowback). The country hasn’t collectively decided to tolerate the risk of terrorism. Until it does, drones seem to be the least damaging use of force to combat terrorists.
russell says that I mischaracterized his words, and for that I apologize. My point stands though.
I don’t believe that the chances are very great that I will be killed in a terrorist attack. I get in a car almost every day, where my chances of being killed are far greater. However, if I have a car accident, the country isn’t going to go apes%it and use the incident to elect quasi-fascists to office, invade other countries, etc. Terrorist attacks are different. They not only kill people, they cause horrible political consequences (speaking of blowback). The country hasn’t collectively decided to tolerate the risk of terrorism. Until it does, drones seem to be the least damaging use of force to combat terrorists.
Terrorist attacks are nothing to be afraid of because car crashes and cancer kill a lot more people every year. For the same reason, drone attacks are nothing to be concerned about.
Also, people who walk into public places and open fire on other people are nothing for the public to worry its collective pretty little head about, because of car crashes and cancer.
Terrorist attacks are nothing to be afraid of because car crashes and cancer kill a lot more people every year. For the same reason, drone attacks are nothing to be concerned about.
Also, people who walk into public places and open fire on other people are nothing for the public to worry its collective pretty little head about, because of car crashes and cancer.
Subjecting the wrong people to the death penalty: also nothing to worry about.
And police accidentally shooting an innocent person? You guessed it. Really, we live in a deadly world, and a few extra deaths here and there are nothing to be concerned about.
Subjecting the wrong people to the death penalty: also nothing to worry about.
And police accidentally shooting an innocent person? You guessed it. Really, we live in a deadly world, and a few extra deaths here and there are nothing to be concerned about.
“they aren’t cattle. they are not going to be lead. it’s their country, not ours. if they want an Islamic theocracy, then that’s what they will have. it’s not our job to tell them how to run their government.”
They sure are going to be gold either, but seriously, per last last night’s debate, both candidates propose policies that involve shaping, if not overtly leading, these people. Both candidates offer policies that seek to eliminate the rise of Islamic theocracies and islamic extremist individuals. So clearly, we intend, whoever wins the election, to continue to meddle in the affairs of ME countries and, basically, continue the same policies that have earned us the animosity that we face today. Both candidates will continue using drones and racking up the collateral damage that, according to the USA War College, is creating more anti-US insurgents/terrorists than we are eliminating.
So where’s the enlightened leadership?
“Who the f*ck wants collateral damage? ”
Curtis LeMay?
(both literally and metaphorically)
“they aren’t cattle. they are not going to be lead. it’s their country, not ours. if they want an Islamic theocracy, then that’s what they will have. it’s not our job to tell them how to run their government.”
They sure are going to be gold either, but seriously, per last last night’s debate, both candidates propose policies that involve shaping, if not overtly leading, these people. Both candidates offer policies that seek to eliminate the rise of Islamic theocracies and islamic extremist individuals. So clearly, we intend, whoever wins the election, to continue to meddle in the affairs of ME countries and, basically, continue the same policies that have earned us the animosity that we face today. Both candidates will continue using drones and racking up the collateral damage that, according to the USA War College, is creating more anti-US insurgents/terrorists than we are eliminating.
So where’s the enlightened leadership?
“Who the f*ck wants collateral damage? ”
Curtis LeMay?
(both literally and metaphorically)
“….Until it does, drones seem to be the least damaging use of force to combat terrorists.”
Sapient, Your line of argumentation is only alive and in play for consideration *if* the drone warfare creates a net decrease in the number of anti-US terrorists.
The problem is, it doesn’t achieve that. Quite the opposite. For every single individual killed by a drone (actual terrorist or collateral damage) we are creating 12 to 20 new active anti-US terrorists. This has been confirmed by several studies (and I get my info straight from the source, which shall remain unidentified, but you can google or something and get find the studies that support what I say).
“..However, if I have a car accident, the country isn’t going to go apes%it and use the incident to elect quasi-fascists to office…”
What are you saying here? That US citizens are crazy as is the US govt and until we become sane some people in a foreign land are going to have to be sacrificed to the gods that (barely) keep the US system glued together? This is one of the most dismal rationals I have ever heard. If it’s true, then we should just give up and outsource management of the country to China.
“….Until it does, drones seem to be the least damaging use of force to combat terrorists.”
Sapient, Your line of argumentation is only alive and in play for consideration *if* the drone warfare creates a net decrease in the number of anti-US terrorists.
The problem is, it doesn’t achieve that. Quite the opposite. For every single individual killed by a drone (actual terrorist or collateral damage) we are creating 12 to 20 new active anti-US terrorists. This has been confirmed by several studies (and I get my info straight from the source, which shall remain unidentified, but you can google or something and get find the studies that support what I say).
“..However, if I have a car accident, the country isn’t going to go apes%it and use the incident to elect quasi-fascists to office…”
What are you saying here? That US citizens are crazy as is the US govt and until we become sane some people in a foreign land are going to have to be sacrificed to the gods that (barely) keep the US system glued together? This is one of the most dismal rationals I have ever heard. If it’s true, then we should just give up and outsource management of the country to China.
Terrorist attacks are nothing to be afraid of…
You went off the rails right there, Slart. The rest of what you wrote has been rendered meaningless.
I think it’s a question of what mitigation measures are appropiate relative to the subject risk. Sometimes comparisons can provide an additional level of perspective on such things when the current level of perspective seems to be lacking.
Of course, you wouldn’t suggest drone strikes to combat car crashes or cancer, in part because drone strikes wouldn’t help. Maybe if drone strikes were a perfect prevention method against terrorism, people might feel differently. But, for that to be the case, they would have to be of a completely different nature than they are, such that the other problematic things about drone strikes probably wouldn’t be the case.
It’s all the collateral shit that makes them counterproductive, to the extent that they are, in the first place.
Terrorist attacks are nothing to be afraid of…
You went off the rails right there, Slart. The rest of what you wrote has been rendered meaningless.
I think it’s a question of what mitigation measures are appropiate relative to the subject risk. Sometimes comparisons can provide an additional level of perspective on such things when the current level of perspective seems to be lacking.
Of course, you wouldn’t suggest drone strikes to combat car crashes or cancer, in part because drone strikes wouldn’t help. Maybe if drone strikes were a perfect prevention method against terrorism, people might feel differently. But, for that to be the case, they would have to be of a completely different nature than they are, such that the other problematic things about drone strikes probably wouldn’t be the case.
It’s all the collateral shit that makes them counterproductive, to the extent that they are, in the first place.
“What are you saying here? That US citizens are crazy as is the US govt and until we become sane some people in a foreign land are going to have to be sacrificed to the gods that (barely) keep the US system glued together?”
I realize it *is* what you are saying. This reminds me of the Aztecs waging war solely to capture prisoners who could be dragged up the temple stairs, to have their hearts ceremonially cut out, to appease the angry gods.
So that’s what our civilization has come to?
“What are you saying here? That US citizens are crazy as is the US govt and until we become sane some people in a foreign land are going to have to be sacrificed to the gods that (barely) keep the US system glued together?”
I realize it *is* what you are saying. This reminds me of the Aztecs waging war solely to capture prisoners who could be dragged up the temple stairs, to have their hearts ceremonially cut out, to appease the angry gods.
So that’s what our civilization has come to?
FYI: drones are not up for discussion this time around, ladies and gents. you’re wasting your outrage.
FYI: drones are not up for discussion this time around, ladies and gents. you’re wasting your outrage.
Sorry; I’d meant to start sooner.
I think that if we could perform drone strikes to combat cancer, I could get behind that. Even with a little collateral damage.
Sorry; I’d meant to start sooner.
I think that if we could perform drone strikes to combat cancer, I could get behind that. Even with a little collateral damage.
“FYI: drones are not up for discussion this time around, ladies and gents. you’re wasting your outrage.”
But drones seem to be a cornerstone of both candidate’s strategy in the islamic world. Then again, drones are just a tool to achieve what is more precisely the cornerstone strategy; extrajudicial MURDER.
Drones are a demonstrably poor method of achieving targeted murder (aka assassination).
So we are not to discuss the effectiveness of the method of killing, but is the general concept of murder as a strategy to achieve national security still fair game?
“FYI: drones are not up for discussion this time around, ladies and gents. you’re wasting your outrage.”
But drones seem to be a cornerstone of both candidate’s strategy in the islamic world. Then again, drones are just a tool to achieve what is more precisely the cornerstone strategy; extrajudicial MURDER.
Drones are a demonstrably poor method of achieving targeted murder (aka assassination).
So we are not to discuss the effectiveness of the method of killing, but is the general concept of murder as a strategy to achieve national security still fair game?
Not sure who said above that no one wants to kill children but that is demonstrable rubbish (and I am not talking about clinically insane child murderers). It’s easy to find some political pundits that not only accept the idea of collateral death of children but propose to make them prime targets. Usually as part of a mad scheme of deterrence but occasionally going back to the ‘nits make lice’ principle used to justify massacres of defenceless Native American women and children. Iirc I have even spotted one time the argument “we know what we would do, if they did to us what we did to them. That leaves us no choice but to leave no one that could take revenge one day”.
And these guys unfortunately enough have big enough megaphones to be heard by those that would be at the receiving end of such a policy.
Not sure who said above that no one wants to kill children but that is demonstrable rubbish (and I am not talking about clinically insane child murderers). It’s easy to find some political pundits that not only accept the idea of collateral death of children but propose to make them prime targets. Usually as part of a mad scheme of deterrence but occasionally going back to the ‘nits make lice’ principle used to justify massacres of defenceless Native American women and children. Iirc I have even spotted one time the argument “we know what we would do, if they did to us what we did to them. That leaves us no choice but to leave no one that could take revenge one day”.
And these guys unfortunately enough have big enough megaphones to be heard by those that would be at the receiving end of such a policy.
So we are not to discuss the effectiveness of the method of killing, but is the general concept of murder as a strategy to achieve national security still fair game?
drones are not on the table. they will be used exactly as they are being used now, regardless of who wins. regardless of how the ideologues vote. regardless of how hyperbolic your descriptions become.
So we are not to discuss the effectiveness of the method of killing, but is the general concept of murder as a strategy to achieve national security still fair game?
drones are not on the table. they will be used exactly as they are being used now, regardless of who wins. regardless of how the ideologues vote. regardless of how hyperbolic your descriptions become.
Slarti is entirely ‘on rail’.
Slarti is entirely ‘on rail’.
Terrorist attacks are nothing to be afraid of because car crashes and cancer kill a lot more people every year.
For the record, it’s not my position that (a) terrorist attacks are nothing to be afraid of, or that (b) they are of no greater or lesser consequence than any of the other ills that befall the human race.
For the record, hopefully for the last time, it *is* my position that the current US use of drones to assassinate suspected terrorists in civilian areas of nations we are not at war with is problematic. For a wide variety of reasons.
And if we were to decide that the use of drones is not worth the various problems that their use incurs, and that resulted in a somewhat higher risk of terror attacks, I *personally* would find that acceptable.
My own, personal, point of view, and no more.
If anyone ever actually wants to know what my thoughts on the matter actually are, those are them. No more, no less.
I totally get, and agree with, sapient’s point about the social and political dangers raised by the reality, or even the threat, of terrorist activity. Freaked-out people are easy to manipulate.
IMO that speaks to a deeper national problem, one whose scope is much broader than whether we employ military force in this context, or which kind.
We’ve been through stuff like this before, and handled it differently. IMO, better.
Topic for another day.
In any case, as cleek notes, the whole discussion is a tempest in a teapot, because nobody in a position to change anything has any interest whatsoever in changing our use of drones.
Terrorist attacks are nothing to be afraid of because car crashes and cancer kill a lot more people every year.
For the record, it’s not my position that (a) terrorist attacks are nothing to be afraid of, or that (b) they are of no greater or lesser consequence than any of the other ills that befall the human race.
For the record, hopefully for the last time, it *is* my position that the current US use of drones to assassinate suspected terrorists in civilian areas of nations we are not at war with is problematic. For a wide variety of reasons.
And if we were to decide that the use of drones is not worth the various problems that their use incurs, and that resulted in a somewhat higher risk of terror attacks, I *personally* would find that acceptable.
My own, personal, point of view, and no more.
If anyone ever actually wants to know what my thoughts on the matter actually are, those are them. No more, no less.
I totally get, and agree with, sapient’s point about the social and political dangers raised by the reality, or even the threat, of terrorist activity. Freaked-out people are easy to manipulate.
IMO that speaks to a deeper national problem, one whose scope is much broader than whether we employ military force in this context, or which kind.
We’ve been through stuff like this before, and handled it differently. IMO, better.
Topic for another day.
In any case, as cleek notes, the whole discussion is a tempest in a teapot, because nobody in a position to change anything has any interest whatsoever in changing our use of drones.
Slarti is entirely ‘on rail’.
Yes, because of all that comments here declaring that terrorism doesn’t matter at all because of cancer and car crashes. And because making comparisons of terrorism to other known risks is just so silly, necessarily resulting in pointless absurdity, with no possibility of demonstrating how we address and accept risks in other areas of life, such that one may be able to make the point that we respond disproportionately to the risk of terrorism relative to how we respond to other risks. Right? It’s just so stupid, isn’t it?
Or shorter version: …whatever.
Slarti is entirely ‘on rail’.
Yes, because of all that comments here declaring that terrorism doesn’t matter at all because of cancer and car crashes. And because making comparisons of terrorism to other known risks is just so silly, necessarily resulting in pointless absurdity, with no possibility of demonstrating how we address and accept risks in other areas of life, such that one may be able to make the point that we respond disproportionately to the risk of terrorism relative to how we respond to other risks. Right? It’s just so stupid, isn’t it?
Or shorter version: …whatever.
Ok, sarcasm off, since russell is being so reasonable and all.
I say that doing the freshly-beheaded-chicken-dance over the latest terrorist attacks doesn’t really get you far in the direction of preventing the next. But I don’t think that advocating action to address threats posed by people who would like to see us dead or discredited (or both) is intrinsically borne out of pants-wetting fear.
So: it’s not a bad thing to plan and take action in general. It does pay to consider what said action might wind up costing you, as well as costing some number of innocent bystanders.
Putting the e.g. CIA in charge of executions via drones is probably the least-good implementation I can imagine. The whole way in which drone attacks are approved and executed is not, in my opinion, conducive to good and defensible decisions being made. I don’t like it. I don’t have a lot more detailed thinking behind that, but it’s a layer of removal from the guy in the helicopter wearing NVGs doing it. Usually that guy has a controller that has to give him the go-ahead before he can do anything.
As far as I can tell, russell and I are pretty much in complete agreement.
But I don’t have any issue with tempests in a teapot, because what the hell else are we going to do with our spare time? I guess there’s tumblr.
Whether the drone executions are something that distinguishes a President Romney from a President Obama is not something I can predict all that well, sadly. It’s just something I’d sooner avoid with either guy in office.
Ok, sarcasm off, since russell is being so reasonable and all.
I say that doing the freshly-beheaded-chicken-dance over the latest terrorist attacks doesn’t really get you far in the direction of preventing the next. But I don’t think that advocating action to address threats posed by people who would like to see us dead or discredited (or both) is intrinsically borne out of pants-wetting fear.
So: it’s not a bad thing to plan and take action in general. It does pay to consider what said action might wind up costing you, as well as costing some number of innocent bystanders.
Putting the e.g. CIA in charge of executions via drones is probably the least-good implementation I can imagine. The whole way in which drone attacks are approved and executed is not, in my opinion, conducive to good and defensible decisions being made. I don’t like it. I don’t have a lot more detailed thinking behind that, but it’s a layer of removal from the guy in the helicopter wearing NVGs doing it. Usually that guy has a controller that has to give him the go-ahead before he can do anything.
As far as I can tell, russell and I are pretty much in complete agreement.
But I don’t have any issue with tempests in a teapot, because what the hell else are we going to do with our spare time? I guess there’s tumblr.
Whether the drone executions are something that distinguishes a President Romney from a President Obama is not something I can predict all that well, sadly. It’s just something I’d sooner avoid with either guy in office.
There are a number of things you might mean by this, but I am damned if I can pin down which one. Unpack, bitte?
There are a number of things you might mean by this, but I am damned if I can pin down which one. Unpack, bitte?
There are a number of things you might mean by this, but I am damned if I can pin down which one. Unpack, bitte?
Sorry, I thought it was obvious I was responding to the below, the thing I had mentioned as a derailing, which McKinney seemed to think was entirely ‘on rail.’
But, at this point, it’s a quibble, given your last comment. I’d rather just retract the whole thing and forget it.
There are a number of things you might mean by this, but I am damned if I can pin down which one. Unpack, bitte?
Sorry, I thought it was obvious I was responding to the below, the thing I had mentioned as a derailing, which McKinney seemed to think was entirely ‘on rail.’
But, at this point, it’s a quibble, given your last comment. I’d rather just retract the whole thing and forget it.
Done.
Done.
As far as I can tell, russell and I are pretty much in complete agreement.
Yes, I think that is so.
But I don’t have any issue with tempests in a teapot, because what the hell else are we going to do with our spare time?
I think it may be time to resurrect the dreaded fried pickles / gin vs. vodka martini slugfests.
As far as I can tell, russell and I are pretty much in complete agreement.
Yes, I think that is so.
But I don’t have any issue with tempests in a teapot, because what the hell else are we going to do with our spare time?
I think it may be time to resurrect the dreaded fried pickles / gin vs. vodka martini slugfests.
Do people still do the Mac v. Windows thing?
Do people still do the Mac v. Windows thing?
“….because of all that comments here declaring that terrorism doesn’t matter at all because of cancer and car crashes”
The thinking is that car crashes, etc occur in relatively predictable volumes and proportions. The risk is of known ratios and, apparently, we have decided that we can live with those risk metrics.
Additionally, knowing the risks and the risk factors we can – or feel that we can – take certain individual and/or collective measures to decrease the exposure.
Terrorism on the other contains many unknowns. The magnitude and societal impact of a terrorist attack is not restrained to actuarially predictable boudries. Terrorists could deploy a biological weapon or a nuclear weapon that would result in a human tragedy vastly beyond the scope of anything seen before.
The next year will result in the same number of car crashes/fatalities +/- 5% as each of the previous 10 years.
The next year *could* result in a terrorist attack that produces 1,000 or even 100,000+ times the fatalities arising from terrorist attacks in each of the past 10 years, with exponentially increased associated economic and other social costs.
Hence the greater concern over terrorism than other risk containing behaviors.
“….because of all that comments here declaring that terrorism doesn’t matter at all because of cancer and car crashes”
The thinking is that car crashes, etc occur in relatively predictable volumes and proportions. The risk is of known ratios and, apparently, we have decided that we can live with those risk metrics.
Additionally, knowing the risks and the risk factors we can – or feel that we can – take certain individual and/or collective measures to decrease the exposure.
Terrorism on the other contains many unknowns. The magnitude and societal impact of a terrorist attack is not restrained to actuarially predictable boudries. Terrorists could deploy a biological weapon or a nuclear weapon that would result in a human tragedy vastly beyond the scope of anything seen before.
The next year will result in the same number of car crashes/fatalities +/- 5% as each of the previous 10 years.
The next year *could* result in a terrorist attack that produces 1,000 or even 100,000+ times the fatalities arising from terrorist attacks in each of the past 10 years, with exponentially increased associated economic and other social costs.
Hence the greater concern over terrorism than other risk containing behaviors.
The next year *could* result in a terrorist attack that produces 1,000 or even 100,000+ times the fatalities arising from terrorist attacks in each of the past 10 years, with exponentially increased associated economic and other social costs.
Hence the greater concern over terrorism than other risk containing behaviors.
I’m glad you put asterisks around “could.” Whose greater concern, would you say, is based on this line of thinking, involving actuarial predictability?
(So much for retractions…)
The next year *could* result in a terrorist attack that produces 1,000 or even 100,000+ times the fatalities arising from terrorist attacks in each of the past 10 years, with exponentially increased associated economic and other social costs.
Hence the greater concern over terrorism than other risk containing behaviors.
I’m glad you put asterisks around “could.” Whose greater concern, would you say, is based on this line of thinking, involving actuarial predictability?
(So much for retractions…)
“Whose greater concern, would you say, is based on this line of thinking….” Not mine; at least not 100%, but it is the line of thinking employed by the Bush admin and followed by a number of pundits, media personalities and regular citizens. Remember? the next time could be a mushroom cloud……..and now BHO is playing a similar card; though he has toned down the rhetoric a bit.
The point is that such an attack would be outside of actuarial predictability. That’s why it is so scary to so many people.
As far as I am concerned the lack of predictability coupled with some level of real probability (albeit small) does demand leadership to remain focussed on counter-terrorism programs. What those programs should be and how they should an integrated piece of a larger foreign policy is another matter entirely. I note that neither candidate discussed these important issues at the debate; actually neither have ever discussed them at a level of detail where anyone paying attention could obtain a fair picture of what the plan is and why.
Where’s the leadership?
Instead we have both candidates hyping Iran as the new impending source of existential threat. I really don’t appreciate that and see it as a failure of leadership on both of their parts. What is the possibility of Iran striking the US with a nuclear weapon? Nill, zip, 0. Even if they had a nuclear weapon (which they don’t) they don’t have a delivery system that can reach the US. Even if someday they developed a nuclear weapon and a delivery system, the odds of these deployed so as to fly all the way from Iran to “The Homeland” without being shot down are extremely minimal. And for Iran to even attempt to send their currently non-existant nuke via their non-existant delivery system to the US relies on Iran being a nonrational actor that would accept an annhilating retaliatory strike. The probability of each necessary juncture of this scenario multiplied by the probabilities of the subsequent necessary junctures in this chain of events results in an utterly miniscule outcome.
Yet, there they are, both candidates, declaring Iran to be the largest threat to our national security.
Where’s the leadership?
“Whose greater concern, would you say, is based on this line of thinking….” Not mine; at least not 100%, but it is the line of thinking employed by the Bush admin and followed by a number of pundits, media personalities and regular citizens. Remember? the next time could be a mushroom cloud……..and now BHO is playing a similar card; though he has toned down the rhetoric a bit.
The point is that such an attack would be outside of actuarial predictability. That’s why it is so scary to so many people.
As far as I am concerned the lack of predictability coupled with some level of real probability (albeit small) does demand leadership to remain focussed on counter-terrorism programs. What those programs should be and how they should an integrated piece of a larger foreign policy is another matter entirely. I note that neither candidate discussed these important issues at the debate; actually neither have ever discussed them at a level of detail where anyone paying attention could obtain a fair picture of what the plan is and why.
Where’s the leadership?
Instead we have both candidates hyping Iran as the new impending source of existential threat. I really don’t appreciate that and see it as a failure of leadership on both of their parts. What is the possibility of Iran striking the US with a nuclear weapon? Nill, zip, 0. Even if they had a nuclear weapon (which they don’t) they don’t have a delivery system that can reach the US. Even if someday they developed a nuclear weapon and a delivery system, the odds of these deployed so as to fly all the way from Iran to “The Homeland” without being shot down are extremely minimal. And for Iran to even attempt to send their currently non-existant nuke via their non-existant delivery system to the US relies on Iran being a nonrational actor that would accept an annhilating retaliatory strike. The probability of each necessary juncture of this scenario multiplied by the probabilities of the subsequent necessary junctures in this chain of events results in an utterly miniscule outcome.
Yet, there they are, both candidates, declaring Iran to be the largest threat to our national security.
Where’s the leadership?
lily, my recollection is that McGovern got treated the way he did as a result of the protest theater which went on outside the 1972 Democratic Convention. The crazies were much in evidence, and McGovern (and the Democrats generally) got tarred with the result.
lily, my recollection is that McGovern got treated the way he did as a result of the protest theater which went on outside the 1972 Democratic Convention. The crazies were much in evidence, and McGovern (and the Democrats generally) got tarred with the result.
And, as for the probability of a terrorist attack in the US aand drones should be “on the rail”, it’s like this.
Neither candidate will state what US foreign policy is, will be or should be. For the most part we are left guessing and/or reading the thoughts of pundits who are also guessing.
All we do know is that both candidates are going to 1. Continue to meddle in the internal affairs of muslim countries 2. Support Israel no matter what 3. Fly drones and continue to assassinate muslims with associated collateral damage. 4. Threaten – and possibly commence – war with Iran. 5. maintain a US military presence in muslim lands
We know, as a fact, that all five of the above are a primary – if not THE primary – grievances fueling anti-US sentiment and anti-US terrorism.
Therefore both candidates are, de facto, saying that they will continue policies that encourage terrorists to strike the US. They will perpetuate the cycle; endlessly.
Maybe this is the best we can do given other considerations; maybe not. A lot of moving parts in this thing. Regardless, given that it is what are going to do, we need to be prepared for the inevitibility of spectacular terrorist reprisals.
And, as for the probability of a terrorist attack in the US aand drones should be “on the rail”, it’s like this.
Neither candidate will state what US foreign policy is, will be or should be. For the most part we are left guessing and/or reading the thoughts of pundits who are also guessing.
All we do know is that both candidates are going to 1. Continue to meddle in the internal affairs of muslim countries 2. Support Israel no matter what 3. Fly drones and continue to assassinate muslims with associated collateral damage. 4. Threaten – and possibly commence – war with Iran. 5. maintain a US military presence in muslim lands
We know, as a fact, that all five of the above are a primary – if not THE primary – grievances fueling anti-US sentiment and anti-US terrorism.
Therefore both candidates are, de facto, saying that they will continue policies that encourage terrorists to strike the US. They will perpetuate the cycle; endlessly.
Maybe this is the best we can do given other considerations; maybe not. A lot of moving parts in this thing. Regardless, given that it is what are going to do, we need to be prepared for the inevitibility of spectacular terrorist reprisals.
Instead we have both candidates hyping Iran as the new impending source of existential threat.
“existential” is hyperbole.
but, Iran is a great concern to more than “the candidates”. the UN is concerned. our allies are concerned. all the countries involved in the boycotts and embargoes are concerned. Israel is very concerned – and it may be an existential issue for them. it’s a big deal. a really big deal.
Instead we have both candidates hyping Iran as the new impending source of existential threat.
“existential” is hyperbole.
but, Iran is a great concern to more than “the candidates”. the UN is concerned. our allies are concerned. all the countries involved in the boycotts and embargoes are concerned. Israel is very concerned – and it may be an existential issue for them. it’s a big deal. a really big deal.
Yet, there they are, both candidates, declaring Iran to be the largest threat to our national security.
Which would be fncking comical if it wasn’t so tragic.
Yet, there they are, both candidates, declaring Iran to be the largest threat to our national security.
Which would be fncking comical if it wasn’t so tragic.
cleek is the voice of reason here. Thank you, cleek.
cleek is the voice of reason here. Thank you, cleek.
“cleek is the voice of reason here. Thank you, cleek.”
He is?
I’m sorry, but I thought that BHO & Romney were running for the position of POTUS- where the US stands for the United States – not President of Israel, or France or the UN.
Furthermore, the candidates did not say what cleek said. There were no qualifiers involving allies, etc. Both candidates stated, quite clearly, that Iran is a threat – the BIGGEST – to the US. I say that is a ridiculous terrible lie. Nothing that cleek says refutes my position on this.
If there is an attack on Iran it won’t be utilizing UN or NATO assets. It will be a joint US/ Israeli enterprise.
“cleek is the voice of reason here. Thank you, cleek.”
He is?
I’m sorry, but I thought that BHO & Romney were running for the position of POTUS- where the US stands for the United States – not President of Israel, or France or the UN.
Furthermore, the candidates did not say what cleek said. There were no qualifiers involving allies, etc. Both candidates stated, quite clearly, that Iran is a threat – the BIGGEST – to the US. I say that is a ridiculous terrible lie. Nothing that cleek says refutes my position on this.
If there is an attack on Iran it won’t be utilizing UN or NATO assets. It will be a joint US/ Israeli enterprise.
also, cleek, why is it a “big deal” if Iran acquired nuclear weapons? Could you explain that to me? What with all of the countries that already have them (Israel included). Thanks.
also, cleek, why is it a “big deal” if Iran acquired nuclear weapons? Could you explain that to me? What with all of the countries that already have them (Israel included). Thanks.
and finally cleek, aren’t you the one who said that it’s ok if these people want to be extremists and that they aren’t cattle to be led around as such? Are you now revising your assertion? They can be extremist and they can be forced to not develop nuclear weapons, but otherwise are not ours to be led where we want them to go? Free to do as they please as long as that is what also pleases us?
and finally cleek, aren’t you the one who said that it’s ok if these people want to be extremists and that they aren’t cattle to be led around as such? Are you now revising your assertion? They can be extremist and they can be forced to not develop nuclear weapons, but otherwise are not ours to be led where we want them to go? Free to do as they please as long as that is what also pleases us?
Because if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Americans will have to give up cancer research and highway safety.
We’ll still be able to shoot each other pretty much at will, so there is that consolation.
If Iran is negotiated out of their path toward a nuclear weapon, we’ll still be prevented from funding cancer research and highway safety, because without a constant war footing, risk must be reintroduced fully back into civilian life to keep parasites and sleepy and careless drivers on their toes and productive.
Because if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Americans will have to give up cancer research and highway safety.
We’ll still be able to shoot each other pretty much at will, so there is that consolation.
If Iran is negotiated out of their path toward a nuclear weapon, we’ll still be prevented from funding cancer research and highway safety, because without a constant war footing, risk must be reintroduced fully back into civilian life to keep parasites and sleepy and careless drivers on their toes and productive.
why is it a “big deal” if Iran acquired nuclear weapons? Could you explain that to me?
1. Iran is not a stable country. they had a pretty big near-revolution a couple of years back, remember. safe-guarding and controlling access to such things, within a country, is very import. Iran’s instability makes that iffy.
2. Iran is the kind of country that would probably like to make a little money selling nuke tech to other countries.
3. Iran hates many of our allies, and has a history of squabbling with its neighbors. nukes change the balance of things.
4. Iran has a long history of sponsoring terrorism. while i don’t think they’d be so dumb as to give such an expensive and powerful weapon to terrorists, should they get a nuke, options for the rest of the world w/r/t retaliation for their terrorism-related activities will be limited.
Are you now revising your assertion?
no.
the self-directed formation of a government by the people of a country is not the same as the construction of a nuclear weapon by a government that’s proven to be untrustworthy and dangerous.
Free to do as they please as long as that is what also pleases us?
again, it’s not just us. i’m opposed to the US being a self-appointed playground nanny, but this is not such a situation. essentially the entire fucking world is opposed to Iran getting a nuke.
why is it a “big deal” if Iran acquired nuclear weapons? Could you explain that to me?
1. Iran is not a stable country. they had a pretty big near-revolution a couple of years back, remember. safe-guarding and controlling access to such things, within a country, is very import. Iran’s instability makes that iffy.
2. Iran is the kind of country that would probably like to make a little money selling nuke tech to other countries.
3. Iran hates many of our allies, and has a history of squabbling with its neighbors. nukes change the balance of things.
4. Iran has a long history of sponsoring terrorism. while i don’t think they’d be so dumb as to give such an expensive and powerful weapon to terrorists, should they get a nuke, options for the rest of the world w/r/t retaliation for their terrorism-related activities will be limited.
Are you now revising your assertion?
no.
the self-directed formation of a government by the people of a country is not the same as the construction of a nuclear weapon by a government that’s proven to be untrustworthy and dangerous.
Free to do as they please as long as that is what also pleases us?
again, it’s not just us. i’m opposed to the US being a self-appointed playground nanny, but this is not such a situation. essentially the entire fucking world is opposed to Iran getting a nuke.
“Iran is not a stable country. they had a pretty big near-revolution a couple of years back, remember.”
Ok. So then at some point in the future could Iran have a nuclear weapon if there were no more “near revolutions”? How many years have to pass? China, Russia and Pakistan all obtained nukes within fifty years of revolution. France within fifty years of being totally invaded by a vicious foreign power. NoKo just went ahead and built one despite being NoKo. So is fifty years of stability a good litmus test?
I also question the seriousness of the threat posed by the “near revolution” to the govt of Iran. Just how “near”.
“Iran is the kind of country that would probably like to make a little money selling nuke tech to other countries.”
Well Pakistan is a country that would “probably” like to sell nuclear tech. It has sold nuclear tech. Both candidates say Pak is an ally. Israel regularly sells tech related to delivery systems. Ironicly some of the tech they sell ends up in Iran via China. So I’m having a hard time understanding how Iran is unique in this regard.
“Iran hates many of our allies, and has a history of squabbling with its neighbors. nukes change the balance of things.”
Hates who? The US and Israel, sure, but who else? Squabbling with neighbors? Which ones. I recall Saddam’s Iraq attacking Iran and Iran reacting defensively, but what else? Isn’t the nuclear armed US the country that starts wars all over the globe for reasons that are not clear. Surely “squabbles” with neighbors hardly equates with Iraq, Vietnam, a dozen or so bannana republics………why is Iran being held to a unique interpretation of standards in this regard?
“Iran has a long history of sponsoring terrorism.”
Every country that has nukes has a long history of sponsoring terrorism in the world. Why is Iran held to a unique interpretation of standards in this regard?
Sorry cleek. Your argument fails to move me in the least.
Is it that you are just afraid of swarthy men in turbans?
“Iran is not a stable country. they had a pretty big near-revolution a couple of years back, remember.”
Ok. So then at some point in the future could Iran have a nuclear weapon if there were no more “near revolutions”? How many years have to pass? China, Russia and Pakistan all obtained nukes within fifty years of revolution. France within fifty years of being totally invaded by a vicious foreign power. NoKo just went ahead and built one despite being NoKo. So is fifty years of stability a good litmus test?
I also question the seriousness of the threat posed by the “near revolution” to the govt of Iran. Just how “near”.
“Iran is the kind of country that would probably like to make a little money selling nuke tech to other countries.”
Well Pakistan is a country that would “probably” like to sell nuclear tech. It has sold nuclear tech. Both candidates say Pak is an ally. Israel regularly sells tech related to delivery systems. Ironicly some of the tech they sell ends up in Iran via China. So I’m having a hard time understanding how Iran is unique in this regard.
“Iran hates many of our allies, and has a history of squabbling with its neighbors. nukes change the balance of things.”
Hates who? The US and Israel, sure, but who else? Squabbling with neighbors? Which ones. I recall Saddam’s Iraq attacking Iran and Iran reacting defensively, but what else? Isn’t the nuclear armed US the country that starts wars all over the globe for reasons that are not clear. Surely “squabbles” with neighbors hardly equates with Iraq, Vietnam, a dozen or so bannana republics………why is Iran being held to a unique interpretation of standards in this regard?
“Iran has a long history of sponsoring terrorism.”
Every country that has nukes has a long history of sponsoring terrorism in the world. Why is Iran held to a unique interpretation of standards in this regard?
Sorry cleek. Your argument fails to move me in the least.
Is it that you are just afraid of swarthy men in turbans?
btw…how do nukes “change the balance” – unless you are saying that Iran would use a nuke offensively? In which case you would be arguing that they are insane. if so, on what do you base your allegations of insanity?
btw…how do nukes “change the balance” – unless you are saying that Iran would use a nuke offensively? In which case you would be arguing that they are insane. if so, on what do you base your allegations of insanity?
i’m not going to do a word-by-word defense of what i wrote. i get it: you’re fine with Iran getting nukes.
makes no sense to me, but nothing else you write makes any sense to me either. so, whatever.
i’m not going to do a word-by-word defense of what i wrote. i get it: you’re fine with Iran getting nukes.
makes no sense to me, but nothing else you write makes any sense to me either. so, whatever.
“you’re fine with Iran getting nukes”
No. I’m not fine with it.
However, like car accidents and terrorism, I think it is something we can learn to live with because there isn’t much else we can do about it short of starting a ground war in Iran that would probably ignite the entire region and result in more US deaths (probably more deaths of all nationalities) than a nuclear armed Iran ever would and all at a financial cost that would finish us off as an economy within a couple years.
“you’re fine with Iran getting nukes”
No. I’m not fine with it.
However, like car accidents and terrorism, I think it is something we can learn to live with because there isn’t much else we can do about it short of starting a ground war in Iran that would probably ignite the entire region and result in more US deaths (probably more deaths of all nationalities) than a nuclear armed Iran ever would and all at a financial cost that would finish us off as an economy within a couple years.
No. I’m not fine with it.
did you hear that sound? that was the sound of my forehead cracking against my desk.
No. I’m not fine with it.
did you hear that sound? that was the sound of my forehead cracking against my desk.
well, if it helps I’m not overly concerned either.
well, if it helps I’m not overly concerned either.
Gah. Maybe we should treat Iran as a civilized nation of 75 million people and then see how that goes, before we get all air-strikey.
Oh, we decided against that in 1953, you say? Never mind then.
Gah. Maybe we should treat Iran as a civilized nation of 75 million people and then see how that goes, before we get all air-strikey.
Oh, we decided against that in 1953, you say? Never mind then.
I have to actually agree with blackhawk’s general description of the situation.
I think though that the main reason that Iran having a nuke would mean trouble is not its threat to Isreal, let alone the US. One practically undisputed prediction is that an Iranian nuke would mean at the minimum Saudi Arabia and Egypt going full hog for their own (and maybe some other countries in the region too). And it is my personal opinion that Saudi Arabia would be far less trustworthy with nukes than Iran (no opinion on Egypt). An Iranian bomb would be a life insurance* for the Iranian regime not an offensive tool(btw, the nuclear program as a general idea has the support of even the opposition. Had the Green ones taken over there would have been little change to it). So I see the main danger of Iranian nukes not in the devices themselves and their controllers but in the reactions outside Iran.
—
Humans have no real sense for risks and are in general quite irrational about them, i.e. they often fear negligible risks and ignore real ones. And this gets extremer the more probablity and expectable/potential damage differ. A terrorist strike could in theory have a huge impact but the really big ones are also extremly unlikely and rare. This difference imo explains in part the totally irrational panic reactions. On a smaller scale people tend to fear more to die in a crash when in an aircraft than when in a car. I think it would take far less effort to lower the risk of large terrorist attacks than reducing lethal car accidents (something that must have swallowed many billions over the years but also had a very measurable effect). But a single event like 9/11 is far more spectacular than all those separate car accidents (and those millions that have been avoided don’t show up at all). As a political comedian over here has said, about as many people fall victim to landmines each year as died on 9/11 but showing 3000 people stepping on landmines in sequence would bore anyone to death. So we put all these efforts into anti-terrorism and pretty little into defusing mines (also it is rarely Westerners that become mine victims, so interest is even lower).
Sorry for ranting off-topic again.
*as a ‘take you with me’ threat in case of an attack.
I have to actually agree with blackhawk’s general description of the situation.
I think though that the main reason that Iran having a nuke would mean trouble is not its threat to Isreal, let alone the US. One practically undisputed prediction is that an Iranian nuke would mean at the minimum Saudi Arabia and Egypt going full hog for their own (and maybe some other countries in the region too). And it is my personal opinion that Saudi Arabia would be far less trustworthy with nukes than Iran (no opinion on Egypt). An Iranian bomb would be a life insurance* for the Iranian regime not an offensive tool(btw, the nuclear program as a general idea has the support of even the opposition. Had the Green ones taken over there would have been little change to it). So I see the main danger of Iranian nukes not in the devices themselves and their controllers but in the reactions outside Iran.
—
Humans have no real sense for risks and are in general quite irrational about them, i.e. they often fear negligible risks and ignore real ones. And this gets extremer the more probablity and expectable/potential damage differ. A terrorist strike could in theory have a huge impact but the really big ones are also extremly unlikely and rare. This difference imo explains in part the totally irrational panic reactions. On a smaller scale people tend to fear more to die in a crash when in an aircraft than when in a car. I think it would take far less effort to lower the risk of large terrorist attacks than reducing lethal car accidents (something that must have swallowed many billions over the years but also had a very measurable effect). But a single event like 9/11 is far more spectacular than all those separate car accidents (and those millions that have been avoided don’t show up at all). As a political comedian over here has said, about as many people fall victim to landmines each year as died on 9/11 but showing 3000 people stepping on landmines in sequence would bore anyone to death. So we put all these efforts into anti-terrorism and pretty little into defusing mines (also it is rarely Westerners that become mine victims, so interest is even lower).
Sorry for ranting off-topic again.
*as a ‘take you with me’ threat in case of an attack.
Maybe we should treat Iran as a civilized nation of 75 million people and then see how that goes, before we get all air-strikey.
By what criteria are the current Iranian leaders civilized? I’ll concede there is a large element in Iran who would make that country a delight to visit. Unfortunately, they are unarmed.
Maybe we should treat Iran as a civilized nation of 75 million people and then see how that goes, before we get all air-strikey.
By what criteria are the current Iranian leaders civilized? I’ll concede there is a large element in Iran who would make that country a delight to visit. Unfortunately, they are unarmed.
“We obviously disagree on whether to kill terrorists.”
We obviously disagree on whether facts matter. This is fun. I just deleted a whole series of “We obviously disagree on whether X”.
I’m not a pacifist and not opposed to killing terrorists. I don’t have your touching faith in the goodness of the Obama. I’m voting for a centrist liberal politician who is far preferable to the alternative, not some dreamlike vision of a wise guru who can always be trusted to do the right thing. Why even have checks and balances? Just put Obama in office. What check and balance could be better than that?
And sure, collateral damage. The get out of jail free card for every single action America takes which kills or hurts innocent people (sometimes even when it is intended to hurt innocent people, as with our sanctions on Iran). Collateral damage is an argument one uses sparingly, if you’re really serious about not wanting to kill innocent people. In WWII it was beat Hitler or see a genocidal maniac set up a slave empire in Eastern Europe, like some villain out of a fantasy or SF novel. Not every situation in the world justifies actions which terrorize innocent people. Try reading the summary of the recent report on drones–
living under drones
“We obviously disagree on whether to kill terrorists.”
We obviously disagree on whether facts matter. This is fun. I just deleted a whole series of “We obviously disagree on whether X”.
I’m not a pacifist and not opposed to killing terrorists. I don’t have your touching faith in the goodness of the Obama. I’m voting for a centrist liberal politician who is far preferable to the alternative, not some dreamlike vision of a wise guru who can always be trusted to do the right thing. Why even have checks and balances? Just put Obama in office. What check and balance could be better than that?
And sure, collateral damage. The get out of jail free card for every single action America takes which kills or hurts innocent people (sometimes even when it is intended to hurt innocent people, as with our sanctions on Iran). Collateral damage is an argument one uses sparingly, if you’re really serious about not wanting to kill innocent people. In WWII it was beat Hitler or see a genocidal maniac set up a slave empire in Eastern Europe, like some villain out of a fantasy or SF novel. Not every situation in the world justifies actions which terrorize innocent people. Try reading the summary of the recent report on drones–
living under drones
The fact that both Presidential candidates agree on the drone policy doesn’t make it irrelevant. Frequently when the two parties agree it’s a bad thing, not a good thing.
There is a country in the Middle East which helped another country with a similar human rights record with its ballistic missile program and possibly with its nuclear program–
New York Times article on Israel and apartheid South Africa
I don’t feel real comfortable with the notion that we have the right to inflict “crippling” sanctions on a country to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. Sanctions which aren’t “crippling” would be justifiable. The notion that Iran shouldn’t have them because they aren’t civilized is fine, but it applies to everyone. The real danger with Iran having nukes is not that they are so much more likely to use them, given their uncivilized ways, but because we will have two more countries in the world with nuclear weapons pointed at each other and it’s really not a good idea to count on nuclear deterrence working forever. We got lucky in the Cold War and people sometimes act as though that proves deterrence with nuclear weapons works. It just shows that, for instance, if there’s a 1 percent chance of failure per year for 50 years straight you’re more likely to survive than not.
But if we were serious about all this, we wouldn’t be singling out Iran. There’s Israel, there’s India, there’s Pakistan, the US, Russia, and a few other places.
The fact that both Presidential candidates agree on the drone policy doesn’t make it irrelevant. Frequently when the two parties agree it’s a bad thing, not a good thing.
There is a country in the Middle East which helped another country with a similar human rights record with its ballistic missile program and possibly with its nuclear program–
New York Times article on Israel and apartheid South Africa
I don’t feel real comfortable with the notion that we have the right to inflict “crippling” sanctions on a country to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. Sanctions which aren’t “crippling” would be justifiable. The notion that Iran shouldn’t have them because they aren’t civilized is fine, but it applies to everyone. The real danger with Iran having nukes is not that they are so much more likely to use them, given their uncivilized ways, but because we will have two more countries in the world with nuclear weapons pointed at each other and it’s really not a good idea to count on nuclear deterrence working forever. We got lucky in the Cold War and people sometimes act as though that proves deterrence with nuclear weapons works. It just shows that, for instance, if there’s a 1 percent chance of failure per year for 50 years straight you’re more likely to survive than not.
But if we were serious about all this, we wouldn’t be singling out Iran. There’s Israel, there’s India, there’s Pakistan, the US, Russia, and a few other places.
I am in favor of obliterating ANY nation that does not get rid of its nukes….you never know what might happen.
I am in favor of obliterating ANY nation that does not get rid of its nukes….you never know what might happen.
Maybe we should treat Iran as a civilized nation of 75 million people and then see how that goes, before we get all air-strikey.
By what criteria are the current Iranian leaders civilized?
Boom. That’s how they teach you to move goal posts in law school.
Maybe we should treat Iran as a civilized nation of 75 million people and then see how that goes, before we get all air-strikey.
By what criteria are the current Iranian leaders civilized?
Boom. That’s how they teach you to move goal posts in law school.
Don’t be bloodthirsty, bobbyp. Crippling sanctions first.
Don’t be bloodthirsty, bobbyp. Crippling sanctions first.
By what criteria are the current [US] leaders civilized? I’ll concede there is a large element in [US] who would make that country a delight to visit. Unfortunately, they are unarmed.
At what point is the rest of the world allowed to say that the US is a threat to world peace and start bombing you? And after all, if we bomb you because your leaders are ignorant war-mongers who support terrorists, then you’ll see the error of your ways, won’t you? Opponents of the current President will be delighted with our behaviour. And we probably won’t kill many of you who don’t deserve it. 😉
By what criteria are the current [US] leaders civilized? I’ll concede there is a large element in [US] who would make that country a delight to visit. Unfortunately, they are unarmed.
At what point is the rest of the world allowed to say that the US is a threat to world peace and start bombing you? And after all, if we bomb you because your leaders are ignorant war-mongers who support terrorists, then you’ll see the error of your ways, won’t you? Opponents of the current President will be delighted with our behaviour. And we probably won’t kill many of you who don’t deserve it. 😉
Nuclear nonproliferation is good. Disarmament is better. Nonproliferation is a lot easier than disarmament though.
Donald, you said: I’m voting for a centrist liberal politician who is far preferable to the alternative, not some dreamlike vision of a wise guru who can always be trusted to do the right thing.
I have no idea whether Obama is a wise guru. I think he’s made good decisions. I think his life points to the fact that people (even powerless people) matter to him. I think he’s been around: He spent part of his childhood in a Muslim country. He faced a racial identity crisis, and chose to identify as a black man. He’s not a natural gladhander. He reads. He’s written. He chose his religion rather than mindlessly doing what his family did. His reputation is as a conciliator. I think he is a wise person.
That doesn’t mean I trust him in all ways, or that I agree with everything he’s ever said or done. I agree with the idea of checks and balances, although I think that the current Republican party lacks the good faith to exercise checks and balances appropriately. Frankly, I’d trust Obama’s unfettered judgment before I’d trust anything touched by Mitch McConnell or his checks or balances.
As for the drone report you cited, I’ve read it (and a criticism of it). Pakistan is a war-torn country. I’d hate living there. I would have hated it without the drones. I would have hated acid being thrown in my face or my head shot if I were a woman trying to go to school. Pakistan has a whole lot of things about it that would make me sick living there. Oddly, even worse than the U.S.!
Nuclear nonproliferation is good. Disarmament is better. Nonproliferation is a lot easier than disarmament though.
Donald, you said: I’m voting for a centrist liberal politician who is far preferable to the alternative, not some dreamlike vision of a wise guru who can always be trusted to do the right thing.
I have no idea whether Obama is a wise guru. I think he’s made good decisions. I think his life points to the fact that people (even powerless people) matter to him. I think he’s been around: He spent part of his childhood in a Muslim country. He faced a racial identity crisis, and chose to identify as a black man. He’s not a natural gladhander. He reads. He’s written. He chose his religion rather than mindlessly doing what his family did. His reputation is as a conciliator. I think he is a wise person.
That doesn’t mean I trust him in all ways, or that I agree with everything he’s ever said or done. I agree with the idea of checks and balances, although I think that the current Republican party lacks the good faith to exercise checks and balances appropriately. Frankly, I’d trust Obama’s unfettered judgment before I’d trust anything touched by Mitch McConnell or his checks or balances.
As for the drone report you cited, I’ve read it (and a criticism of it). Pakistan is a war-torn country. I’d hate living there. I would have hated it without the drones. I would have hated acid being thrown in my face or my head shot if I were a woman trying to go to school. Pakistan has a whole lot of things about it that would make me sick living there. Oddly, even worse than the U.S.!
Iran being full of swarthy men in turbans, I think we need to call in The Phantom.
Iran being full of swarthy men in turbans, I think we need to call in The Phantom.
“I agree with the idea of checks and balances, although I think that the current Republican party lacks the good faith to exercise checks and balances appropriately.”
Well, it’d be nice to see some liberal Democrats challenging him from his left. It happens sometimes. Not enough. I’m fine with it not happening that much in the next two weeks, but after that, it should happen a lot. Or rather, I wish it would.
Just checked Nate Silver. His model has Obama with a 70 percent chance of winning. Slowly creeping back up. I hope that’s right.
“I agree with the idea of checks and balances, although I think that the current Republican party lacks the good faith to exercise checks and balances appropriately.”
Well, it’d be nice to see some liberal Democrats challenging him from his left. It happens sometimes. Not enough. I’m fine with it not happening that much in the next two weeks, but after that, it should happen a lot. Or rather, I wish it would.
Just checked Nate Silver. His model has Obama with a 70 percent chance of winning. Slowly creeping back up. I hope that’s right.
Will the drones find their way to the targets under a Romney geographical regime?
Study the maps:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/10/23/romney-middle-east-geography-fail/
Will the drones find their way to the targets under a Romney geographical regime?
Study the maps:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/10/23/romney-middle-east-geography-fail/
Countme-in, I’d rather live in that world than this one.
Countme-in, I’d rather live in that world than this one.
Nonproliferation is a lot easier than disarmament though.
The history of ignorance is clear. The logic of the awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons coupled with the idea of nation-state sovereignty leads inexorably to proliferation.
Israel has The Bomb. They came very close to using it in ’73. Are we so stupid as to believe that other powerful nations in the area can resist the lure of joining the nuclear club?
Our current “serious” policies in the ME verge on the insane. If Donald cannot abide my bloodthirstiness, well fine. Let everybody have nuclear weapons. Then when the other side talks, we might actually ‘effing listen.
I once read a book a long time ago where the author argued that the US should unilaterally disarm. Made a good case, too. But I smoked a lot of pot in those days.
I’ll try to find it at my local Socialist Public Library.
Nonproliferation is a lot easier than disarmament though.
The history of ignorance is clear. The logic of the awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons coupled with the idea of nation-state sovereignty leads inexorably to proliferation.
Israel has The Bomb. They came very close to using it in ’73. Are we so stupid as to believe that other powerful nations in the area can resist the lure of joining the nuclear club?
Our current “serious” policies in the ME verge on the insane. If Donald cannot abide my bloodthirstiness, well fine. Let everybody have nuclear weapons. Then when the other side talks, we might actually ‘effing listen.
I once read a book a long time ago where the author argued that the US should unilaterally disarm. Made a good case, too. But I smoked a lot of pot in those days.
I’ll try to find it at my local Socialist Public Library.
Just checked Nate Silver. His model has Obama with a 70 percent chance of winning. Slowly creeping back up. I hope that’s right.
Me too. I live in Virginia, and I’ll be out canvassing this weekend, and maybe doing some other stuff in the meantime for the folks at Obama headquarters. They’re unbelievable. Heroic really.
Just checked Nate Silver. His model has Obama with a 70 percent chance of winning. Slowly creeping back up. I hope that’s right.
Me too. I live in Virginia, and I’ll be out canvassing this weekend, and maybe doing some other stuff in the meantime for the folks at Obama headquarters. They’re unbelievable. Heroic really.
That doesn’t mean I trust him in all ways, or that I agree with everything he’s ever said or done.
On the head of which pin shall be inscribe this missive?
That doesn’t mean I trust him in all ways, or that I agree with everything he’s ever said or done.
On the head of which pin shall be inscribe this missive?
On the topic of Iran:
Is there actually some kind of legal basis – international law, treaty obligations, UN proclamations, whatever – for denying Iran nuclear weapons?
Or is it just a matter of them being Not Quite Our Kind Or People, Dear?
I think a world with a non-nuclear Iran will be a much better place than a world with one. Then again, I think a non-nuclear world, period, would be a better place than a nuclear one.
But I’m curious to know, other than the undesirable disruption to the balance of power, what basis we have for saying Iran CANNOT have nukes?
On the topic of Iran:
Is there actually some kind of legal basis – international law, treaty obligations, UN proclamations, whatever – for denying Iran nuclear weapons?
Or is it just a matter of them being Not Quite Our Kind Or People, Dear?
I think a world with a non-nuclear Iran will be a much better place than a world with one. Then again, I think a non-nuclear world, period, would be a better place than a nuclear one.
But I’m curious to know, other than the undesirable disruption to the balance of power, what basis we have for saying Iran CANNOT have nukes?
But I’m curious to know, other than the undesirable disruption to the balance of power, what basis we have for saying Iran CANNOT have nukes?
My guess: because we can, as in, we have the power to, given our military, political and economic might.
What else is there when you really get down to it?
But I’m curious to know, other than the undesirable disruption to the balance of power, what basis we have for saying Iran CANNOT have nukes?
My guess: because we can, as in, we have the power to, given our military, political and economic might.
What else is there when you really get down to it?
what basis we have for saying Iran CANNOT have nukes
Iran is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Treaties aren’t voluntary (supposedly). Once you sign up, it’s the law.
what basis we have for saying Iran CANNOT have nukes
Iran is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Treaties aren’t voluntary (supposedly). Once you sign up, it’s the law.
Or is it just a matter of them being Not Quite Our Kind Or People, Dear?
i hope that wasn’t aimed at me. i certainly don’t think what i think because they’re Not Quite Our Kind Of People, Dear. i don’t think they shouldn’t have a nuke because of i’m afraid of their culture or their upbringing or their genetics (or whatever else that phrase implies). i think what i think because Iran’s leadership have proven themselves, over and over, to be belligerent, untrustworthy, aggressive, and a threat to everyone around them. they fund and support Hezbollah, for crying out loud.
and no doubt the US is perceived in quite the same way by many in the world. but we already have nukes, like it or not. that ship has sailed. getting rid of our nukes would be great, but that is never going to happen while countries like Iran are actively trying to get them.
Or is it just a matter of them being Not Quite Our Kind Or People, Dear?
i hope that wasn’t aimed at me. i certainly don’t think what i think because they’re Not Quite Our Kind Of People, Dear. i don’t think they shouldn’t have a nuke because of i’m afraid of their culture or their upbringing or their genetics (or whatever else that phrase implies). i think what i think because Iran’s leadership have proven themselves, over and over, to be belligerent, untrustworthy, aggressive, and a threat to everyone around them. they fund and support Hezbollah, for crying out loud.
and no doubt the US is perceived in quite the same way by many in the world. but we already have nukes, like it or not. that ship has sailed. getting rid of our nukes would be great, but that is never going to happen while countries like Iran are actively trying to get them.
It’s because of their swarthiness. And because of the turbans.
It’s because of their swarthiness. And because of the turbans.
Maybe we should treat Iran as a civilized nation of 75 million people and then see how that goes, before we get all air-strikey.
By what criteria are the current Iranian leaders civilized?
Boom. That’s how they teach you to move goal posts in law school.
Very insightful. Of course Iran’s leadership is immaterial. It’s the people who matter, the people who are building the nukes and the people who support, inter alia, Hezbollah. Thanks for straightening me out.
Or is it just a matter of them being Not Quite Our Kind Or People, Dear?
Maybe it’s their leaders?
Maybe we should treat Iran as a civilized nation of 75 million people and then see how that goes, before we get all air-strikey.
By what criteria are the current Iranian leaders civilized?
Boom. That’s how they teach you to move goal posts in law school.
Very insightful. Of course Iran’s leadership is immaterial. It’s the people who matter, the people who are building the nukes and the people who support, inter alia, Hezbollah. Thanks for straightening me out.
Or is it just a matter of them being Not Quite Our Kind Or People, Dear?
Maybe it’s their leaders?
sapient: Iran is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Signed by…?
sapient: Iran is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Signed by…?
Iran is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Bingo. Thank you sapient!
i hope that wasn’t aimed at me. i certainly don’t think what i think because they’re Not Quite Our Kind Of People, Dear.
Not aimed at you. Or at anyone here, really.
I will say that, as belligerent untrustworthy aggressive threatening states go, Iran seems, to me, to be no more than middling.
Not an argument in favor of looking the other way while they develop a nuclear capability, certainly. Just noting that they’re not particularly unique, either among nuclear or non-nuclear states.
Iran is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Bingo. Thank you sapient!
i hope that wasn’t aimed at me. i certainly don’t think what i think because they’re Not Quite Our Kind Of People, Dear.
Not aimed at you. Or at anyone here, really.
I will say that, as belligerent untrustworthy aggressive threatening states go, Iran seems, to me, to be no more than middling.
Not an argument in favor of looking the other way while they develop a nuclear capability, certainly. Just noting that they’re not particularly unique, either among nuclear or non-nuclear states.
“what basis we have for saying Iran CANNOT have nukes”
Actually, we should probably take a few steps back and ask, “What is the basis for saying that Iran is even trying to obtain nukes”.
I mean it is a big leap to assume that they are. They’ve had a nuclear power program since the 1950s. The original revolutionary religious leadership issued a statement that was certainly ahered to in the 1980s declaring nukes to be against Islam.
So based on what are we even having this discussion about programs to develop nukes? Mossad once again? If not Mossad, where is it coming from?
Sounds to me like another Iraq war type black flag op., but maybe someone can show me the evidence that Iran is pursuing nukes and needs to be subject to harsh sanctions and even bombardment in order to thwart their plans.
Because, if it’s just civilian use of nuclear energy – as Iran says it is – then this discussion is moot at best.
“what basis we have for saying Iran CANNOT have nukes”
Actually, we should probably take a few steps back and ask, “What is the basis for saying that Iran is even trying to obtain nukes”.
I mean it is a big leap to assume that they are. They’ve had a nuclear power program since the 1950s. The original revolutionary religious leadership issued a statement that was certainly ahered to in the 1980s declaring nukes to be against Islam.
So based on what are we even having this discussion about programs to develop nukes? Mossad once again? If not Mossad, where is it coming from?
Sounds to me like another Iraq war type black flag op., but maybe someone can show me the evidence that Iran is pursuing nukes and needs to be subject to harsh sanctions and even bombardment in order to thwart their plans.
Because, if it’s just civilian use of nuclear energy – as Iran says it is – then this discussion is moot at best.
Iran’s leaders don’t like each other either:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/world/middleeast/dispute-between-ahmadinejad-and-rivals-in-iran-takes-bitter-turn.html?pagewanted=all
I heard a guy recently on NPR talking about how the Iranian people, unlike their leadership and of all of the Muslim populations in the Middle East, have the highest regard for America.
I suspect we’ll ….. (America: Now, which ones are the Shias and which ones are the Sunnis? Who let the dogs out? I love the Shias. Oh, you’re a Sunni? I love the Sunnis. I forget, which one of you have we armed? Both? I love both of you. Here’s some money. Now, about that oil. Would you please speak English when asking whether or not my crypto-religious/business base in America thinks you’re all a bunch of sand others who, if you were Pennsylvania residents (I love the Amish) sitting atop the Marcellus Shale, we’d have to trespass on your property at night to get those soundings, please sign here because we’re tunneling under you as we speak, etc.) …. all of that goodwill out of our a*ses.
Iran’s leaders don’t like each other either:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/world/middleeast/dispute-between-ahmadinejad-and-rivals-in-iran-takes-bitter-turn.html?pagewanted=all
I heard a guy recently on NPR talking about how the Iranian people, unlike their leadership and of all of the Muslim populations in the Middle East, have the highest regard for America.
I suspect we’ll ….. (America: Now, which ones are the Shias and which ones are the Sunnis? Who let the dogs out? I love the Shias. Oh, you’re a Sunni? I love the Sunnis. I forget, which one of you have we armed? Both? I love both of you. Here’s some money. Now, about that oil. Would you please speak English when asking whether or not my crypto-religious/business base in America thinks you’re all a bunch of sand others who, if you were Pennsylvania residents (I love the Amish) sitting atop the Marcellus Shale, we’d have to trespass on your property at night to get those soundings, please sign here because we’re tunneling under you as we speak, etc.) …. all of that goodwill out of our a*ses.
Very insightful. Of course Iran’s leadership is immaterial.
Yes, well, they aren’t the ones who are going to be in the path when we start with the airstrikes. It’s going to be those other 75 million people.
Very insightful. Of course Iran’s leadership is immaterial.
Yes, well, they aren’t the ones who are going to be in the path when we start with the airstrikes. It’s going to be those other 75 million people.
I heard a guy recently on NPR talking about how the Iranian people, unlike their leadership and of all of the Muslim populations in the Middle East, have the highest regard for America.
The sanctions aren’t working, then.
I heard a guy recently on NPR talking about how the Iranian people, unlike their leadership and of all of the Muslim populations in the Middle East, have the highest regard for America.
The sanctions aren’t working, then.
McTx: Very insightful. Of course Iran’s leadership is immaterial. It’s the people who matter, the people who are building the nukes and the people who support, inter alia, Hezbollah.
It’s like the people who operate the drones and support, inter alia, MEK.
McTx: Very insightful. Of course Iran’s leadership is immaterial. It’s the people who matter, the people who are building the nukes and the people who support, inter alia, Hezbollah.
It’s like the people who operate the drones and support, inter alia, MEK.
Yes, well, they aren’t the ones who are going to be in the path when we start with the airstrikes. It’s going to be those other 75 million people.
I think that Obama really, really wants to avoid that.
Yes, well, they aren’t the ones who are going to be in the path when we start with the airstrikes. It’s going to be those other 75 million people.
I think that Obama really, really wants to avoid that.
Ultimately, I think this is going to come down to a question of “what are you going to do about it?”
The plain fact is that it will be really hard to completely prevent Iran from moving ahead, if that’s what they really really want to do. It will likely take a real live shooting war, and that will be a REALLY ugly mess.
I mean really ugly. Order of magnitude greater level of effort, as compared to either Afghanistan or Iraq, or even both combined. If my understanding of the situation is correct.
It will cost a lot of money, a lot of people will be killed and many of them will be American. It will take years. The end game is totally unclear – if we achieve a military goal sufficient to eliminate (in one way or other) the current government, what happens then?
What price are we willing to pay to prevent a nuclear Iran? How much money, how much debt, how many other things get crowded out, how many dead mangled or otherwise FUBAR young American people?
I’m sure that, at some price, we can prevent a nuclear Iran. We are going to have to decide if the price is worth it.
Maybe there’s something else they – the Iranians – want more than a nuke, that we can make happen for a lower (to us) price point. My druthers, I’d look down that path before putting on the battle armor.
War is not just another foreign policy option. And Iran is not just another “shitty little country” that we can “throw against the wall”.
Ultimately, I think this is going to come down to a question of “what are you going to do about it?”
The plain fact is that it will be really hard to completely prevent Iran from moving ahead, if that’s what they really really want to do. It will likely take a real live shooting war, and that will be a REALLY ugly mess.
I mean really ugly. Order of magnitude greater level of effort, as compared to either Afghanistan or Iraq, or even both combined. If my understanding of the situation is correct.
It will cost a lot of money, a lot of people will be killed and many of them will be American. It will take years. The end game is totally unclear – if we achieve a military goal sufficient to eliminate (in one way or other) the current government, what happens then?
What price are we willing to pay to prevent a nuclear Iran? How much money, how much debt, how many other things get crowded out, how many dead mangled or otherwise FUBAR young American people?
I’m sure that, at some price, we can prevent a nuclear Iran. We are going to have to decide if the price is worth it.
Maybe there’s something else they – the Iranians – want more than a nuke, that we can make happen for a lower (to us) price point. My druthers, I’d look down that path before putting on the battle armor.
War is not just another foreign policy option. And Iran is not just another “shitty little country” that we can “throw against the wall”.
It’s going to be those other 75 million people.
i’d be pretty surprised if any of our stop-the-nuke bombing scenarios included intentional bombing of Iranian civilians.
not that sanctions don’t hurt them, but there’s a difference…
It’s going to be those other 75 million people.
i’d be pretty surprised if any of our stop-the-nuke bombing scenarios included intentional bombing of Iranian civilians.
not that sanctions don’t hurt them, but there’s a difference…
I agree with russell that strikes against Iran might well lead to a very ugly war, which is why Obama has tried to stop the possibility with sanctions, and perhaps with talks. I hope that we can find a way not to go down that road. My belief is that Obama’s exploring every other option. “Just say no,” unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be an option if Israel decides to strike Iran, since Iran will retaliate against the United States.
I agree with russell that strikes against Iran might well lead to a very ugly war, which is why Obama has tried to stop the possibility with sanctions, and perhaps with talks. I hope that we can find a way not to go down that road. My belief is that Obama’s exploring every other option. “Just say no,” unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be an option if Israel decides to strike Iran, since Iran will retaliate against the United States.
since Iran will retaliate against the United States.
really?
i’d think Iran would have its hands full just dealing with Israel. pulling the US (and therefore all of NATO) into things would be suicide.
since Iran will retaliate against the United States.
really?
i’d think Iran would have its hands full just dealing with Israel. pulling the US (and therefore all of NATO) into things would be suicide.
“….which is why Obama has tried to stop the possibility with sanctions….”
Does anyone understand what is being said here?
The “possibility”?
We wage war because there is a *possibility* that a country might do something they haven’t done and claim to not want to do (i.e. Iran says it wants peaceful nuclear power).
Does this strike anyone as being wrong in some higher moral sense as well as illegal in an international law sense?
I mean, why not just militarily colonize the entire planet because, after all, there is a possibility that some country or another will do something that we perceive as a threat at some point in the future. Oh yeah….wait a minute…..that’s what the neocons proposed doing in the PNAC manifesto as well as other published papers.
BTW, I concur with Russell’s assessment of what a war with Iran would be like as well as his approach to making such decisions.
“unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be an option if Israel decides to strike Iran”
In that case, Israel would be in violation of international law and the UN/NATO should attack Israel and destroy its government with any survivors being tried for war crimes (e.g. waging a war of aggression).
There are options once we stop believing that we have moral obligation to protect Israel no matter what it does.
Israel is NOT a 51st state, you know.
“….which is why Obama has tried to stop the possibility with sanctions….”
Does anyone understand what is being said here?
The “possibility”?
We wage war because there is a *possibility* that a country might do something they haven’t done and claim to not want to do (i.e. Iran says it wants peaceful nuclear power).
Does this strike anyone as being wrong in some higher moral sense as well as illegal in an international law sense?
I mean, why not just militarily colonize the entire planet because, after all, there is a possibility that some country or another will do something that we perceive as a threat at some point in the future. Oh yeah….wait a minute…..that’s what the neocons proposed doing in the PNAC manifesto as well as other published papers.
BTW, I concur with Russell’s assessment of what a war with Iran would be like as well as his approach to making such decisions.
“unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be an option if Israel decides to strike Iran”
In that case, Israel would be in violation of international law and the UN/NATO should attack Israel and destroy its government with any survivors being tried for war crimes (e.g. waging a war of aggression).
There are options once we stop believing that we have moral obligation to protect Israel no matter what it does.
Israel is NOT a 51st state, you know.
i’d think Iran would have its hands full just dealing with Israel. pulling the US (and therefore all of NATO) into things would be suicide.
Maybe, but dealing with Israel would likely end up meaning dealing with us. I hope that it all becomes moot.
i’d think Iran would have its hands full just dealing with Israel. pulling the US (and therefore all of NATO) into things would be suicide.
Maybe, but dealing with Israel would likely end up meaning dealing with us. I hope that it all becomes moot.
ditto
ditto
likewise
likewise
i’d be pretty surprised if any of our stop-the-nuke bombing scenarios included intentional bombing of Iranian civilians.
Since at least the Elder Bush’s Iraq war, it has become a central part of US military campaigns to attack infrastructure like power plants, bridges etc.
Rumsfeld was not happy about going into Afghanistan for the reason (among others) that there was no infrastructure to bomb anymore (‘not enough targets’).
It does not necessarily need direct collateral damage (let alone intentional carpet bombing) to hit the civilan population hard.
Also a lot of primary targets in a ‘denuclearisation’ bombing of Iran are located within population centers (not totally by chance). Experience shows that even seriously trying not to miss with a significant number of bombs, it does not really work.
i’d be pretty surprised if any of our stop-the-nuke bombing scenarios included intentional bombing of Iranian civilians.
Since at least the Elder Bush’s Iraq war, it has become a central part of US military campaigns to attack infrastructure like power plants, bridges etc.
Rumsfeld was not happy about going into Afghanistan for the reason (among others) that there was no infrastructure to bomb anymore (‘not enough targets’).
It does not necessarily need direct collateral damage (let alone intentional carpet bombing) to hit the civilan population hard.
Also a lot of primary targets in a ‘denuclearisation’ bombing of Iran are located within population centers (not totally by chance). Experience shows that even seriously trying not to miss with a significant number of bombs, it does not really work.
I bow to your superior knowledge.
I bow to your superior knowledge.
Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. They are subject to IAEA oversight. Due to intransigence over revealing “completely” what they have been up to, the UN has passed a number of condemnatory resolutions against the country. Sanctions (an act of war) of one sort or another have been adopted by the UN, NATO, US, and other international organizations.
Meanwhile, the many UN resolutions passed as regards Israel’s ongoing oppressive occupation of Palestinian land go largely unremarked, unnoticed, ignored….well, you get the picture.
Funny how that works.
You want the thrill of scary politics?* Start reading the Israeli press regularly.
*and by this, I do not mean “vote Republican”.
Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. They are subject to IAEA oversight. Due to intransigence over revealing “completely” what they have been up to, the UN has passed a number of condemnatory resolutions against the country. Sanctions (an act of war) of one sort or another have been adopted by the UN, NATO, US, and other international organizations.
Meanwhile, the many UN resolutions passed as regards Israel’s ongoing oppressive occupation of Palestinian land go largely unremarked, unnoticed, ignored….well, you get the picture.
Funny how that works.
You want the thrill of scary politics?* Start reading the Israeli press regularly.
*and by this, I do not mean “vote Republican”.
“….since Iran will retaliate against the United States.”
Gosh. Whoulda’ thunk? Most likely they would try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This would be a retaliation against the entire industrialized world, not just the US.
A aserious and direct attack against the Sacred Homeland is pretty much out of the question.
“….since Iran will retaliate against the United States.”
Gosh. Whoulda’ thunk? Most likely they would try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This would be a retaliation against the entire industrialized world, not just the US.
A aserious and direct attack against the Sacred Homeland is pretty much out of the question.
Meanwhile, the many UN resolutions passed as regards Israel’s ongoing oppressive occupation of Palestinian land go largely unremarked, unnoticed, ignored….well, you get the picture.
Preaching to the choir. Unfortunately, it took a long time to develop a functional civil law that would apply somewhat fairly within countries (and, obviously, we’re not really there yet). International law is still developing. We can only work towards it. We should really have a separate thread about Israel. (I realize that we sorta just had one, but it was a bit arcane for me.)
Gosh. Whoulda’ thunk? Most likely they would try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This would be a retaliation against the entire industrialized world, not just the US.
True too. But who represents the military might of the entire industrialized (especially Western) world? That would be us. I mean US. I mean NATO, including US. This isn’t a situation we want.
Meanwhile, the many UN resolutions passed as regards Israel’s ongoing oppressive occupation of Palestinian land go largely unremarked, unnoticed, ignored….well, you get the picture.
Preaching to the choir. Unfortunately, it took a long time to develop a functional civil law that would apply somewhat fairly within countries (and, obviously, we’re not really there yet). International law is still developing. We can only work towards it. We should really have a separate thread about Israel. (I realize that we sorta just had one, but it was a bit arcane for me.)
Gosh. Whoulda’ thunk? Most likely they would try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This would be a retaliation against the entire industrialized world, not just the US.
True too. But who represents the military might of the entire industrialized (especially Western) world? That would be us. I mean US. I mean NATO, including US. This isn’t a situation we want.
A aserious and direct attack against the Sacred Homeland is pretty much out of the question.
Most analyses, including from folks ranging from the Russian military to the FAS, is that Iran has a well-developed asymmetric warfare capability.
So, Gulf of Hormuz, but significant deployments of US troops are also well within reach of Iran, as are lots of other military and infrastructure assets important to us and our allies.
They don’t have an overwhelmingly strong conventional military, but they have the capability to make it very, very painful for anyone who wants to take them on.
I have no doubt whatsoever that, if it came to it, that we could prevail. It would just cost us a lot, in a lot of kinds of coin. And not just us.
That’s how it looks to me.
A aserious and direct attack against the Sacred Homeland is pretty much out of the question.
Most analyses, including from folks ranging from the Russian military to the FAS, is that Iran has a well-developed asymmetric warfare capability.
So, Gulf of Hormuz, but significant deployments of US troops are also well within reach of Iran, as are lots of other military and infrastructure assets important to us and our allies.
They don’t have an overwhelmingly strong conventional military, but they have the capability to make it very, very painful for anyone who wants to take them on.
I have no doubt whatsoever that, if it came to it, that we could prevail. It would just cost us a lot, in a lot of kinds of coin. And not just us.
That’s how it looks to me.
That’s certainly my understanding too, russell.
That’s certainly my understanding too, russell.
Slightly off-topic, but if people here are supporting Obama (even as the lesser of two evils 🙂 ), there are some things you can do. If you don’t think canvassing or phone calling will work for you (say, if you can’t do that, or you live in a place that is very safe), you might consider sending some kind of moral support to office workers at various Obama headquarters in swing states. I can personally testify that these people are crazily working their butts off. i’ll leave it to people’s creativity to figure out what to do, but just a thought.
Slightly off-topic, but if people here are supporting Obama (even as the lesser of two evils 🙂 ), there are some things you can do. If you don’t think canvassing or phone calling will work for you (say, if you can’t do that, or you live in a place that is very safe), you might consider sending some kind of moral support to office workers at various Obama headquarters in swing states. I can personally testify that these people are crazily working their butts off. i’ll leave it to people’s creativity to figure out what to do, but just a thought.
“So, Gulf of Hormuz…”
The US Navy would waste whatever Iran tosses into the fray in the Gulf. There’d be some US losses, but not beyond acceptable limits.
“…significant deployments of US troops are also well within reach of Iran”
Yes. True, but the real problem becomes ensuring that Iran’s nuclear capacity is verily destroyed and that means ground troops going into Iran, seizing and holding territory, just like ground troops are meant to do and exactly as is necessary to accomplish anything in warfare. That is where the real trouble begins – trouble as in bloody, economy destroying quagmire. Iraq X 100.
This faith in the ability of air power alone to achieve military objectives should have been recognized as the crock of crap that it is (along with COIN) long ago. It has never worked.
I feel all warm and fuzzy finding myself in total agreement with Russell 🙂
“So, Gulf of Hormuz…”
The US Navy would waste whatever Iran tosses into the fray in the Gulf. There’d be some US losses, but not beyond acceptable limits.
“…significant deployments of US troops are also well within reach of Iran”
Yes. True, but the real problem becomes ensuring that Iran’s nuclear capacity is verily destroyed and that means ground troops going into Iran, seizing and holding territory, just like ground troops are meant to do and exactly as is necessary to accomplish anything in warfare. That is where the real trouble begins – trouble as in bloody, economy destroying quagmire. Iraq X 100.
This faith in the ability of air power alone to achieve military objectives should have been recognized as the crock of crap that it is (along with COIN) long ago. It has never worked.
I feel all warm and fuzzy finding myself in total agreement with Russell 🙂
“I can personally testify that these people are crazily working their butts off.”
My wife is working at Dem HQ in our area making the calls and rallying the voters for BHO. She is putting in time every day. We got good seats to see Bill Clinton as a reward for her efforts. That man truly is a great communicator. Makes BHO look like a rank ammateur, but yeah, he is still less evil by several degrees than the republican toad.
“I can personally testify that these people are crazily working their butts off.”
My wife is working at Dem HQ in our area making the calls and rallying the voters for BHO. She is putting in time every day. We got good seats to see Bill Clinton as a reward for her efforts. That man truly is a great communicator. Makes BHO look like a rank ammateur, but yeah, he is still less evil by several degrees than the republican toad.
Me:”Israel is NOT a 51st state, you know.”
Slarti: “I bow to your superior knowledge.”
Good. You should.
So, now that we recognize that Israel is not a US state,. Now why don’t you tell me why we need to back the zionist play when they are out of line with international law and out of line with US interests.
Me:”Israel is NOT a 51st state, you know.”
Slarti: “I bow to your superior knowledge.”
Good. You should.
So, now that we recognize that Israel is not a US state,. Now why don’t you tell me why we need to back the zionist play when they are out of line with international law and out of line with US interests.
There was a story recently about how a serious air campaign against Iran’s nuclear program would probably cause thousands of casualties in the short run and possibly tens of thousands of deaths from illness. I might have even linked to it in some earlier thread on this subject. I might or might not look for it–feeling a bit lazy.
Someone mentioned Iran’s support of Hezbollah–while I’m not a fan of Hezbollah and they have been guilty of terrorism against the US, the US also supplied Israel with the cluster munitions they spread liberally on Lebanon at the close of the 2006 war and anyway, Americans (and Israelis) are in no position to lecture Iran on the sorts of groups they support. Hezbollah is no worse on human rights than some of our allies. (I’d include Israel there.) We recently took an Iranian group with a rather shady past (the MEK) off the terrorist list (which is a joke in itself).
Israel may not be the 51st state, but they sure get a lot of love in our Presidential debates. Plus weapons. One Romney flipflop that Obama didn’t go after–Romney dismissed the 2SS in his 47 percent secret talk, but embraced it a couple of weeks ago.
There was a story recently about how a serious air campaign against Iran’s nuclear program would probably cause thousands of casualties in the short run and possibly tens of thousands of deaths from illness. I might have even linked to it in some earlier thread on this subject. I might or might not look for it–feeling a bit lazy.
Someone mentioned Iran’s support of Hezbollah–while I’m not a fan of Hezbollah and they have been guilty of terrorism against the US, the US also supplied Israel with the cluster munitions they spread liberally on Lebanon at the close of the 2006 war and anyway, Americans (and Israelis) are in no position to lecture Iran on the sorts of groups they support. Hezbollah is no worse on human rights than some of our allies. (I’d include Israel there.) We recently took an Iranian group with a rather shady past (the MEK) off the terrorist list (which is a joke in itself).
Israel may not be the 51st state, but they sure get a lot of love in our Presidential debates. Plus weapons. One Romney flipflop that Obama didn’t go after–Romney dismissed the 2SS in his 47 percent secret talk, but embraced it a couple of weeks ago.
That’s how it looks to me.
Ok by me, too. But when I stated “Sacred Homeland” I was refering to the lower 48, Alaska, and Hawaii. If you want to throw in Samoa and Puerto Rico, OK by me.
If we are really serious about ending US hegemony in the world, I’d suggest invading Iran, or the Romney tax plan.
On another note….when the Shah was running things, there were a lot of Iranian students over here. I was friends with several. Great folks, and I think a source of ongoing good will towards us. Hang on a little longer guys! Freedom!!!!!
That’s how it looks to me.
Ok by me, too. But when I stated “Sacred Homeland” I was refering to the lower 48, Alaska, and Hawaii. If you want to throw in Samoa and Puerto Rico, OK by me.
If we are really serious about ending US hegemony in the world, I’d suggest invading Iran, or the Romney tax plan.
On another note….when the Shah was running things, there were a lot of Iranian students over here. I was friends with several. Great folks, and I think a source of ongoing good will towards us. Hang on a little longer guys! Freedom!!!!!
“Israel may not be the 51st state, but they sure get a lot of love in our Presidential debates. Plus weapons.”
The zionists spy on the US and the US continues to give them access at top security cleance levels. The zionists take the weapons systems we give them and sell them to the Chinese who in turn sell them to Iran. And then demand more.
Pure unmitigated avarice and non-symbiotic parasitic relationships with host countries should have already been the zionists undoing – probably will be in the long run.
I, for one, will loudly oppose any more US blood or treasure being sacrificed to further the corrupt and illegal zionist agenda.
“Israel may not be the 51st state, but they sure get a lot of love in our Presidential debates. Plus weapons.”
The zionists spy on the US and the US continues to give them access at top security cleance levels. The zionists take the weapons systems we give them and sell them to the Chinese who in turn sell them to Iran. And then demand more.
Pure unmitigated avarice and non-symbiotic parasitic relationships with host countries should have already been the zionists undoing – probably will be in the long run.
I, for one, will loudly oppose any more US blood or treasure being sacrificed to further the corrupt and illegal zionist agenda.
My wife is working at Dem HQ in our area making the calls and rallying the voters for BHO. She is putting in time every day.
I am totally grateful to her!
My wife is working at Dem HQ in our area making the calls and rallying the voters for BHO. She is putting in time every day.
I am totally grateful to her!
I’m opposed to what Israel does to the Palestinians. The arms trade in general stinks–I think the US is the leader in that area.
On the other topic–my help for Obama is going to be financial. Which is unusual for me. Normally giving money to politicians seems like a really rotten way to spend it, but I’ll make an exception this time.
I’m opposed to what Israel does to the Palestinians. The arms trade in general stinks–I think the US is the leader in that area.
On the other topic–my help for Obama is going to be financial. Which is unusual for me. Normally giving money to politicians seems like a really rotten way to spend it, but I’ll make an exception this time.
If we’re mentioning support for terrorists, anyone remember NORAID? Probably not many, but for Britons of a certain age, it’s hard to forget that there were some prominent Americans happy to support terrorist groups attacking a democracy that was one of the US’s closest allies. For British people, terrorism didn’t start in 2001. (That doesn’t mean I support all of the British policy in Ireland, by the way).
If we’re mentioning support for terrorists, anyone remember NORAID? Probably not many, but for Britons of a certain age, it’s hard to forget that there were some prominent Americans happy to support terrorist groups attacking a democracy that was one of the US’s closest allies. For British people, terrorism didn’t start in 2001. (That doesn’t mean I support all of the British policy in Ireland, by the way).
Well, I guess that means we have another 400 years or so (if you date from Cromwell) or at least 200 years (if you date from the 1798 rebellion) to sort this sh*t out.
Well, I guess that means we have another 400 years or so (if you date from Cromwell) or at least 200 years (if you date from the 1798 rebellion) to sort this sh*t out.
I haven’t gotten to it yet, but the Washington Post has put out a long article on Obama’s kill list, which seems to be expanding. Glenn is angry, and Spencer Ackerman is also very bothered–
Ackerman’s post
I haven’t gotten to it yet, but the Washington Post has put out a long article on Obama’s kill list, which seems to be expanding. Glenn is angry, and Spencer Ackerman is also very bothered–
Ackerman’s post
it’s hard to forget that there were some prominent Americans happy to support terrorist groups attacking a democracy that was one of the US’s closest allies.
Clearly, the solution ought to have been drone strikes on every Irish bar and cop hangout in NYC.
Plus, the home of Rep. Peter King in bucolic Seaford, NY. Light it up. Send a message.
Because, to my knowledge, the US government was completely unresponsive in addressing domestic US support – by which I mean real money and real guns – for Irish terrorists.
A lot of folks in the UK were killed with those guns and that money.
it’s hard to forget that there were some prominent Americans happy to support terrorist groups attacking a democracy that was one of the US’s closest allies.
Clearly, the solution ought to have been drone strikes on every Irish bar and cop hangout in NYC.
Plus, the home of Rep. Peter King in bucolic Seaford, NY. Light it up. Send a message.
Because, to my knowledge, the US government was completely unresponsive in addressing domestic US support – by which I mean real money and real guns – for Irish terrorists.
A lot of folks in the UK were killed with those guns and that money.
From Donald’s cite:
Note that intelligence “signatures” may, and quite often do, fall short of positive identification. We may not even know who it is we are targeting.
And by that I don’t mean we think it’s person X but it turns out not to be. I mean we don’t even know that there is a person X, the folks we target just fit a pattern of behavior that we deem to be suspicious.
Karma’s a bitch. We think we’re above and beyond it all, but nobody is.
From Donald’s cite:
Note that intelligence “signatures” may, and quite often do, fall short of positive identification. We may not even know who it is we are targeting.
And by that I don’t mean we think it’s person X but it turns out not to be. I mean we don’t even know that there is a person X, the folks we target just fit a pattern of behavior that we deem to be suspicious.
Karma’s a bitch. We think we’re above and beyond it all, but nobody is.
False premises lead to all conclusions.
Where you went wrong is “now” in “now that we recognize that Israel is not a US state”.
I am pleased that you have finally come to this realization, but it’s not news to much of the rest of the world.
Now, can we move on to the next tiresome argument by assertion? This one seems to be broken.
False premises lead to all conclusions.
Where you went wrong is “now” in “now that we recognize that Israel is not a US state”.
I am pleased that you have finally come to this realization, but it’s not news to much of the rest of the world.
Now, can we move on to the next tiresome argument by assertion? This one seems to be broken.
The sentence you cite, russell, from the Ackerman article isn’t very well sourced (in fact, Ackerman doesn’t really argue from the facts). For example, there is no explanation of the context in which signature strikes are made. The Washington Post article (with which I have a few other quibbles) says this “The review process [for determining criteria to target] is compressed but not skipped when the CIA or JSOC has compelling intelligence and a narrow window in which to strike, officials said. The approach also applies to the development of criteria for “signature strikes,” which allow the CIA and JSOC to hit targets based on patterns of activity — packing a vehicle with explosives, for example — even when the identities of those who would be killed is unclear.”
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but these kinds of “signature strikes” seem to be a normal use of strategic air power that has been used since air power has existed as a tool of war. When we bombed munitions factories in WWII, do you think we knew the identity of the people working there?
The Washington Post’s thesis, that Obama is institutionalizing or codifying procedures for drone strikes, seems to be translated by Ackerman (and Greg Miller) as a means whereby the administration is setting up drone strikes as a tool of a perpetual war. But that’s not what it seems to me that Obama is trying to do – he’s trying to remove arbitrariness from the decision to strike, and add elements of process to guard against a casual use of the weapons in instances where their use isn’t justified.
The AUMF is problematic, as we’ve discussed before. The fact that Obama is trying to create procedures to guide his administration in the use of weapons is not. Certainly Congress could take the initiative to do that, but it hasn’t.
The sentence you cite, russell, from the Ackerman article isn’t very well sourced (in fact, Ackerman doesn’t really argue from the facts). For example, there is no explanation of the context in which signature strikes are made. The Washington Post article (with which I have a few other quibbles) says this “The review process [for determining criteria to target] is compressed but not skipped when the CIA or JSOC has compelling intelligence and a narrow window in which to strike, officials said. The approach also applies to the development of criteria for “signature strikes,” which allow the CIA and JSOC to hit targets based on patterns of activity — packing a vehicle with explosives, for example — even when the identities of those who would be killed is unclear.”
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but these kinds of “signature strikes” seem to be a normal use of strategic air power that has been used since air power has existed as a tool of war. When we bombed munitions factories in WWII, do you think we knew the identity of the people working there?
The Washington Post’s thesis, that Obama is institutionalizing or codifying procedures for drone strikes, seems to be translated by Ackerman (and Greg Miller) as a means whereby the administration is setting up drone strikes as a tool of a perpetual war. But that’s not what it seems to me that Obama is trying to do – he’s trying to remove arbitrariness from the decision to strike, and add elements of process to guard against a casual use of the weapons in instances where their use isn’t justified.
The AUMF is problematic, as we’ve discussed before. The fact that Obama is trying to create procedures to guide his administration in the use of weapons is not. Certainly Congress could take the initiative to do that, but it hasn’t.
“The approach also applies to the development of criteria for “signature strikes,” which allow the CIA and JSOC to hit targets based on patterns of activity — packing a vehicle with explosives, for example — even when the identities of those who would be killed is unclear.””
It’s more than that. “Signature” is also based on things like facial recognition software – there’s someone we are looking for to kill. Here’s man fitting the general description. Facial and/or voice recognition determines a 65% match. Go or no go? It’s the match threshold that is problematic in some instances. 100% match is probably not realistic, but where does one draw the line. 65%? Innocents get killed, but sometimes you get your intended target too. There’s all sorts of pressures on analysts and those pressures are currently skewed towards deciding to “go”.
But yeah, a signature can also be behaviors that resemble those of someone planting an IED. Still, it comes down what the acceptable match level is.
“The approach also applies to the development of criteria for “signature strikes,” which allow the CIA and JSOC to hit targets based on patterns of activity — packing a vehicle with explosives, for example — even when the identities of those who would be killed is unclear.””
It’s more than that. “Signature” is also based on things like facial recognition software – there’s someone we are looking for to kill. Here’s man fitting the general description. Facial and/or voice recognition determines a 65% match. Go or no go? It’s the match threshold that is problematic in some instances. 100% match is probably not realistic, but where does one draw the line. 65%? Innocents get killed, but sometimes you get your intended target too. There’s all sorts of pressures on analysts and those pressures are currently skewed towards deciding to “go”.
But yeah, a signature can also be behaviors that resemble those of someone planting an IED. Still, it comes down what the acceptable match level is.
these kinds of “signature strikes” seem to be a normal use of strategic air power that has been used since air power has existed as a tool of war.
In one form or other they are a common part of the target identification and acquisition process in modern warfare (and probably before). In other words, during wartime they’re a normal part of the process of deciding whether or not to try to attack something or someone.
And not just in the context of air strikes, most if not all targeting and other tactical decisions involve intelligence analyses.
So I’m not agin intelligence per se as a component of warfighting. On the contrary, the more information the better, for all kinds of reasons, not least of which is minimizing harm to non-combatants.
As we have discussed, my issue with drone strikes is not any one particular aspect of the program. It is the combination of (a) ambiguity about what does and does not get included under the heading of “at war with”, (b) the delegation of the use of deadly military force to organizations outside of the discipline of military command and control, and (c) the overall lack of transparency about who is deciding what and on what basis.
A lot of the above is kind of baked into a general lack of precision about what status, exactly, belongs to non-state belligerents. Hence, my consistent wish for some kind of crisp definition in that area. As you note, that properly belongs to lawmakers in Congress, who seem generally less than interested in taking the question on.
It’s also more or less baked into the involvement of the intelligence community, who are notoriously averse to the light of day. Not saying they should anything but, it’s just not something that combines well with deadly force.
The specific issue with using intelligence signatures is that they are, or often are, a weaker form of evidence than, say, positive identification. It’s a matter of “looks like a duck, walks like a duck” as opposed to “yes, that is a duck”.
Which just muddies the water even further. What does a duck look like? Are there things that aren’t ducks that share the attributes you are using to say that something is a duck?
I’m sure you take my point.
Drones are a really really good hammer, and when other tools are either not available, or seem like they won’t quite get the job done adequately, hammers have an appeal.
They’re just not a great tool for, frex, surgery.
these kinds of “signature strikes” seem to be a normal use of strategic air power that has been used since air power has existed as a tool of war.
In one form or other they are a common part of the target identification and acquisition process in modern warfare (and probably before). In other words, during wartime they’re a normal part of the process of deciding whether or not to try to attack something or someone.
And not just in the context of air strikes, most if not all targeting and other tactical decisions involve intelligence analyses.
So I’m not agin intelligence per se as a component of warfighting. On the contrary, the more information the better, for all kinds of reasons, not least of which is minimizing harm to non-combatants.
As we have discussed, my issue with drone strikes is not any one particular aspect of the program. It is the combination of (a) ambiguity about what does and does not get included under the heading of “at war with”, (b) the delegation of the use of deadly military force to organizations outside of the discipline of military command and control, and (c) the overall lack of transparency about who is deciding what and on what basis.
A lot of the above is kind of baked into a general lack of precision about what status, exactly, belongs to non-state belligerents. Hence, my consistent wish for some kind of crisp definition in that area. As you note, that properly belongs to lawmakers in Congress, who seem generally less than interested in taking the question on.
It’s also more or less baked into the involvement of the intelligence community, who are notoriously averse to the light of day. Not saying they should anything but, it’s just not something that combines well with deadly force.
The specific issue with using intelligence signatures is that they are, or often are, a weaker form of evidence than, say, positive identification. It’s a matter of “looks like a duck, walks like a duck” as opposed to “yes, that is a duck”.
Which just muddies the water even further. What does a duck look like? Are there things that aren’t ducks that share the attributes you are using to say that something is a duck?
I’m sure you take my point.
Drones are a really really good hammer, and when other tools are either not available, or seem like they won’t quite get the job done adequately, hammers have an appeal.
They’re just not a great tool for, frex, surgery.
We don’t have any reconnaissance aircraft (or spy satellites) that can do facial recognition, despite the contrary testimony of amazing capabilities displayed in works of fiction.
We don’t have any reconnaissance aircraft (or spy satellites) that can do facial recognition, despite the contrary testimony of amazing capabilities displayed in works of fiction.
A (hopefully final, from me) comment on drones.
Quite often when we discuss this, it turns into a debate about what Obama is, or is not, doing.
Frankly, IMO the focus on Obama is not the point. Bush employed drones, whoever is President after Obama, whenever that happens, will likely also employ them.
I don’t see the use of drones as problematic because Obama is, as CIC, employing them. I see it as problematic on its face.
Obama owns his piece of the responsibility for the policy, but it is not exclusively his. I see that responsibility as pretty widespread. To some degree it belongs to all of us.
A (hopefully final, from me) comment on drones.
Quite often when we discuss this, it turns into a debate about what Obama is, or is not, doing.
Frankly, IMO the focus on Obama is not the point. Bush employed drones, whoever is President after Obama, whenever that happens, will likely also employ them.
I don’t see the use of drones as problematic because Obama is, as CIC, employing them. I see it as problematic on its face.
Obama owns his piece of the responsibility for the policy, but it is not exclusively his. I see that responsibility as pretty widespread. To some degree it belongs to all of us.
“We don’t have any reconnaissance aircraft (or spy satellites) that can do facial recognition, despite the contrary testimony of amazing capabilities displayed in works of fiction.”
I vigorously disagree.
Just to clarify, the craft doesn’t do the recognition. The craft sends a feed to an analyst that then loads the image into recognition software.
We have image capabilities that allow us to read the news paper in the hands of a man.
Nothing fictional about it.
“We don’t have any reconnaissance aircraft (or spy satellites) that can do facial recognition, despite the contrary testimony of amazing capabilities displayed in works of fiction.”
I vigorously disagree.
Just to clarify, the craft doesn’t do the recognition. The craft sends a feed to an analyst that then loads the image into recognition software.
We have image capabilities that allow us to read the news paper in the hands of a man.
Nothing fictional about it.
That’s your right, of course.
I didn’t assume that it did. All you really need is math for this one.
I’ve seen Predator imagery. It’s not of sufficient quality to facilitate facial recognition, unless you buy that image processing algorithms can undo the effects of diffraction, jitter-induced blur and pixel resolution limits to accomplish miracles of the kind you see on 24.
Small unarmed vehicles that can get close to a target undetected have small, cheap cameras that produce poor-quality imagery. Large, armed vehicles that can put a weapon on target have larger, better-quality cameras but operate from a couple of miles of standoff range, so they are pretty much screwed, image-quality wise.
But as I said, it sounds like you know otherwise. Do tell.
That’s your right, of course.
I didn’t assume that it did. All you really need is math for this one.
I’ve seen Predator imagery. It’s not of sufficient quality to facilitate facial recognition, unless you buy that image processing algorithms can undo the effects of diffraction, jitter-induced blur and pixel resolution limits to accomplish miracles of the kind you see on 24.
Small unarmed vehicles that can get close to a target undetected have small, cheap cameras that produce poor-quality imagery. Large, armed vehicles that can put a weapon on target have larger, better-quality cameras but operate from a couple of miles of standoff range, so they are pretty much screwed, image-quality wise.
But as I said, it sounds like you know otherwise. Do tell.
I can do that with no image processing capability at all.
That aside, you’re going to have to source this assertion for me to take you seriously.
I can do that with no image processing capability at all.
That aside, you’re going to have to source this assertion for me to take you seriously.
I’ve seen Predator imagery. It’s not of sufficient quality to facilitate facial recognition, unless you buy that image processing algorithms can undo the effects of diffraction, jitter-induced blur and pixel resolution limits to accomplish miracles of the kind you see on 24.
in a single image, no we can’t do that.
but i’ve seen some demos of algorithms that can combine multiple images of a moving object (ex. a license plate on a moving car), correct for motion blur and perspective change, etc. and come up with an excellent quality composite.
the basic idea is that each of those images can be treated like a deformed version of a slightly different sub-sample of a hi-res image. so by removing motion blur (doable), correcting for perspective (doable), registration of the corrected images (doable), compositing (doable), and a bit of extra magic that i didn’t understand when i was looking at the math, you’ll get something approaching a sharp final image.
the demos were on the web, many years ago, but i can’t find them now. they might be trapped behind one of those annoying research paper aggregation sites.
anyway, point is, given multiple low-res images of an object you can construct a higher-res version by clever compositing.
I’ve seen Predator imagery. It’s not of sufficient quality to facilitate facial recognition, unless you buy that image processing algorithms can undo the effects of diffraction, jitter-induced blur and pixel resolution limits to accomplish miracles of the kind you see on 24.
in a single image, no we can’t do that.
but i’ve seen some demos of algorithms that can combine multiple images of a moving object (ex. a license plate on a moving car), correct for motion blur and perspective change, etc. and come up with an excellent quality composite.
the basic idea is that each of those images can be treated like a deformed version of a slightly different sub-sample of a hi-res image. so by removing motion blur (doable), correcting for perspective (doable), registration of the corrected images (doable), compositing (doable), and a bit of extra magic that i didn’t understand when i was looking at the math, you’ll get something approaching a sharp final image.
the demos were on the web, many years ago, but i can’t find them now. they might be trapped behind one of those annoying research paper aggregation sites.
anyway, point is, given multiple low-res images of an object you can construct a higher-res version by clever compositing.
Slarti, you saw images from which model drone?
There are drone images and then there are drone images. Something like 0.5 petabytes a month of image data are being generated by intelligence services, so it is not desirable to have all drones/drone models equiped with top resolution imaging capability because increased resolution = increased data and when you’re at a petabyte per every 2 months, storage becomes a problem.
Drones and satellites work complimentarily – sometimes with additional feeds from manned aircraft with high resolution cameras. Software can join the various feeds together to compose a remarkably clear picture with resolution significantly less than 1 meter.
“I can do that with no image processing capability at all.”
ha, humint is always better IMO.
Slarti, you saw images from which model drone?
There are drone images and then there are drone images. Something like 0.5 petabytes a month of image data are being generated by intelligence services, so it is not desirable to have all drones/drone models equiped with top resolution imaging capability because increased resolution = increased data and when you’re at a petabyte per every 2 months, storage becomes a problem.
Drones and satellites work complimentarily – sometimes with additional feeds from manned aircraft with high resolution cameras. Software can join the various feeds together to compose a remarkably clear picture with resolution significantly less than 1 meter.
“I can do that with no image processing capability at all.”
ha, humint is always better IMO.
ah, I see cleek beat me to it. Thanks for the backup, cleek.
ah, I see cleek beat me to it. Thanks for the backup, cleek.
It’d have to be a lot less than a meter to resolve a face though, wouldn’t it?
Not that I want to get into the technical argument. It’s interesting though. I might come back and pick up on the moral argument, but not now.
It’d have to be a lot less than a meter to resolve a face though, wouldn’t it?
Not that I want to get into the technical argument. It’s interesting though. I might come back and pick up on the moral argument, but not now.
Here’s an interview with Naureen Shah, who runs the human rights group at Columbia that just put out a report on counting drone strike deaths–
low-balling civilian deaths in Pakistan
On the report in the Washington Post, the fact that John Brennan is the one seeking to codify the process by which the kill list is compiled is not encouraging, since he’s the one that made the absurd claim that there had been no civilian deaths caused by drones in some given year.
Still, lesser of two evils and all that. I’m finding my mood is being tracked with uncanny accuracy by Nate Silver’s estimates of a probability of an Obama win. It was at 70 percent on Monday, dropped to 68 percent and now it’s at 71. (I think it was somewhere around 85 before Denver, but what the hell. I’ll take what I can get.)
Here’s an interview with Naureen Shah, who runs the human rights group at Columbia that just put out a report on counting drone strike deaths–
low-balling civilian deaths in Pakistan
On the report in the Washington Post, the fact that John Brennan is the one seeking to codify the process by which the kill list is compiled is not encouraging, since he’s the one that made the absurd claim that there had been no civilian deaths caused by drones in some given year.
Still, lesser of two evils and all that. I’m finding my mood is being tracked with uncanny accuracy by Nate Silver’s estimates of a probability of an Obama win. It was at 70 percent on Monday, dropped to 68 percent and now it’s at 71. (I think it was somewhere around 85 before Denver, but what the hell. I’ll take what I can get.)
I’ve seen imagery from Predator and (IIRC) Desert Hawk. Possibly Reaper, but I don’t want to claim that. It was a busy day, and the narratives could have gotten mixed up.
I’ve also seen loads of imagery from the best available tactical targeting & recon systems that have realtime on-board image processing (that, by the way, do multiple-frame compositing, realtime), and I still say the facial-recognition thing is sketchy at best, and the bit about reading newspring is utter bullshit.
Unless you can show me. Which I doubt you can.
But I might be wrong. Show me.
I’ve seen imagery from Predator and (IIRC) Desert Hawk. Possibly Reaper, but I don’t want to claim that. It was a busy day, and the narratives could have gotten mixed up.
I’ve also seen loads of imagery from the best available tactical targeting & recon systems that have realtime on-board image processing (that, by the way, do multiple-frame compositing, realtime), and I still say the facial-recognition thing is sketchy at best, and the bit about reading newspring is utter bullshit.
Unless you can show me. Which I doubt you can.
But I might be wrong. Show me.
*Vibration-isolated optical bed, high-speed servo stabilization loop, large aperture optics
*Vibration-isolated optical bed, high-speed servo stabilization loop, large aperture optics
Showoff
Showoff
The Washington Post has part 2 up on the drone program. This one focuses on John Brennan–
Post
The Washington Post has part 2 up on the drone program. This one focuses on John Brennan–
Post
Showoff
LOL
Showoff
LOL
It’s also more or less baked into the involvement of the intelligence community, who are notoriously averse to the light of day. Not saying they should anything but, it’s just not something that combines well with deadly force.
I guess Brennan agrees with you. (Thank you, Donald, for Part 2 of the Washington Post series.*) From that Washington Post, Part 2 article:
“Brennan is leading efforts to curtail the CIA’s primary responsibility for targeted killings. Over opposition from the agency, he has argued that it should focus on intelligence activities and leave lethal action to its more traditional home in the military, where the law requires greater transparency. Still, during Brennan’s tenure, the CIA has carried out hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan and opened a new base for armed drones in the Arabian Peninsula.”
[I’m not inclined to judge Brennan for whatever he said about civilian casualties. It’s got to be crazy to work for the CIA for one’s entire adult life (and he was a spy). I’d definitely go somewhere else for information. But I do think that he probably knows what he’s doing professionally, and it appears that he does favor a line between intelligence and military force.]
It’s also more or less baked into the involvement of the intelligence community, who are notoriously averse to the light of day. Not saying they should anything but, it’s just not something that combines well with deadly force.
I guess Brennan agrees with you. (Thank you, Donald, for Part 2 of the Washington Post series.*) From that Washington Post, Part 2 article:
“Brennan is leading efforts to curtail the CIA’s primary responsibility for targeted killings. Over opposition from the agency, he has argued that it should focus on intelligence activities and leave lethal action to its more traditional home in the military, where the law requires greater transparency. Still, during Brennan’s tenure, the CIA has carried out hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan and opened a new base for armed drones in the Arabian Peninsula.”
[I’m not inclined to judge Brennan for whatever he said about civilian casualties. It’s got to be crazy to work for the CIA for one’s entire adult life (and he was a spy). I’d definitely go somewhere else for information. But I do think that he probably knows what he’s doing professionally, and it appears that he does favor a line between intelligence and military force.]
*Oops – forgot to place my footnote to my comment. I used to read the Washington Post, as my daily paper, then became disgusted with it during the Bush years. Perhaps I should give it another try.
*Oops – forgot to place my footnote to my comment. I used to read the Washington Post, as my daily paper, then became disgusted with it during the Bush years. Perhaps I should give it another try.
Brennan may agree with Russell, but in the meantime he’s the guy who made the crazy claim about no civilian casualties and the fact that he worked in the CIA for his adult life doesn’t really excuse that. You’d like people in the CIA to be clearheaded analysts. Don’t know how often they actually are–maybe it’s rare–but that’s what you’d like to see.
Anyway, the human rights groups (including HRW, which supports some military interventions and can’t be accused of rampant pacifism) have their doubts and for me that trumps what any set of government bureaucrats would say about their secret programs.
Gotta stop looking at polls. There’s one up on the Yahoo page from ABC with Romney ahead, gaining on all fronts. If true, lying is an even better campaign strategy than articles in the Onion would suggest.
Brennan may agree with Russell, but in the meantime he’s the guy who made the crazy claim about no civilian casualties and the fact that he worked in the CIA for his adult life doesn’t really excuse that. You’d like people in the CIA to be clearheaded analysts. Don’t know how often they actually are–maybe it’s rare–but that’s what you’d like to see.
Anyway, the human rights groups (including HRW, which supports some military interventions and can’t be accused of rampant pacifism) have their doubts and for me that trumps what any set of government bureaucrats would say about their secret programs.
Gotta stop looking at polls. There’s one up on the Yahoo page from ABC with Romney ahead, gaining on all fronts. If true, lying is an even better campaign strategy than articles in the Onion would suggest.
the fact that he worked in the CIA for his adult life doesn’t really excuse that.
Doesn’t excuse it, but it may explain it.
the fact that he worked in the CIA for his adult life doesn’t really excuse that.
Doesn’t excuse it, but it may explain it.
Meanwhile, another dispatch from the War on Terror, British style. The ongoing trial of three Birmingham men accused of trying to plan a large suicide bomb attack.
It’s not yet clear how serious a threat they were, but some of them allegedly went to Pakistan for training and now they’re being prosecuted. Not killed by drones or detained indefinitely. The UK government have been credibly accused of allowing/outsourcing torture in some cases, and there are worrying stories coming out about our involvement in the US’s drone warfare, but mostly terrorism is being treated as a criminal offence in this country.
And two days ago, I travelled on the London tube and later walked past the plaque commemorating where a bus got blown up in Tavistock Aquare on 7th July. Not because I’m some kind of hero, but because that is ordinary life. When I was in London I could have gone to Harrods (which the IRA bombed in 1983) or St Paul’s (which German bombs almost set on fire in 1940).
No big city can be completely safe from terrorism; no country can be. The September 11th attacks were huge and it’s not surprising that there was immediate panic and over-reaction in the US (there was when the Troubles started in Northern Ireland). But the fact that so many Americans are still prepared to accept any actions by their government, however brutal, in order that they can be “protected” does not reflect well on the US as a whole.
Meanwhile, another dispatch from the War on Terror, British style. The ongoing trial of three Birmingham men accused of trying to plan a large suicide bomb attack.
It’s not yet clear how serious a threat they were, but some of them allegedly went to Pakistan for training and now they’re being prosecuted. Not killed by drones or detained indefinitely. The UK government have been credibly accused of allowing/outsourcing torture in some cases, and there are worrying stories coming out about our involvement in the US’s drone warfare, but mostly terrorism is being treated as a criminal offence in this country.
And two days ago, I travelled on the London tube and later walked past the plaque commemorating where a bus got blown up in Tavistock Aquare on 7th July. Not because I’m some kind of hero, but because that is ordinary life. When I was in London I could have gone to Harrods (which the IRA bombed in 1983) or St Paul’s (which German bombs almost set on fire in 1940).
No big city can be completely safe from terrorism; no country can be. The September 11th attacks were huge and it’s not surprising that there was immediate panic and over-reaction in the US (there was when the Troubles started in Northern Ireland). But the fact that so many Americans are still prepared to accept any actions by their government, however brutal, in order that they can be “protected” does not reflect well on the US as a whole.
Slarti, I admit the newspaper reading part of the comment was hyperbole on my part. The facial recognition is not and I know this as a fact. Without going into how I know here are a couple links, just the first couple that popped up:
http://www.sciencewa.net.au/topics/technology-a-innovation/item/1282-satellite-imaging-employed-in-facial-recognition-technology
http://tribune.com.pk/story/161636/us-used-facial-recognition-technology-to-identify-bin-laden/
Slarti, I admit the newspaper reading part of the comment was hyperbole on my part. The facial recognition is not and I know this as a fact. Without going into how I know here are a couple links, just the first couple that popped up:
http://www.sciencewa.net.au/topics/technology-a-innovation/item/1282-satellite-imaging-employed-in-facial-recognition-technology
http://tribune.com.pk/story/161636/us-used-facial-recognition-technology-to-identify-bin-laden/
It’s not yet clear how serious a threat they were, but some of them allegedly went to Pakistan for training and now they’re being prosecuted. Not killed by drones or detained indefinitely.
Congratulations, magistra. That case would have been handled in an identical way in the United States. The three were apprehended in the UK, so they were subject to your system of justice, just as the underwear bomber was apprehended and tried in the United States (and convicted).
We’re not talking about people who actually show up in a country with a functioning criminal justice system being subject to drone warfare. We’re talking about people who are working on their crimes in places where they can’t be apprehended.
You might want to read about the UK‘s recent purchase of drones to use in Afghanistan.
It’s not yet clear how serious a threat they were, but some of them allegedly went to Pakistan for training and now they’re being prosecuted. Not killed by drones or detained indefinitely.
Congratulations, magistra. That case would have been handled in an identical way in the United States. The three were apprehended in the UK, so they were subject to your system of justice, just as the underwear bomber was apprehended and tried in the United States (and convicted).
We’re not talking about people who actually show up in a country with a functioning criminal justice system being subject to drone warfare. We’re talking about people who are working on their crimes in places where they can’t be apprehended.
You might want to read about the UK‘s recent purchase of drones to use in Afghanistan.
We’re not talking about people who actually show up in a country with a functioning criminal justice system being subject to drone warfare. We’re talking about people who are working on their crimes in places where they can’t be apprehended.
As I said, these men allegedly trained in Pakistan. Do you think if the UK government had learned about them when they were out there, they should have used drones on them then? Do you think your country or my country is justified in killing people who might be going to commit crimes against us, rather than trying to capture them and put them on trial? Even if those drone strikes also kill innocent bystanders? As far as I know, no inhabitants of Britain or Pakistan were killed putting these men on trial. But it’d make policing a hell of a lot easier if you just execute the people who you’re sure beforehand are up to no good.
I know the UK is purchasing drones and has already carrying out drone strikes. I’m sure many other countries are stupidly going to follow the precedent of the world’s most powerful nation. (My government can be pretty damn stupid as well). And these drones will bring more death and misery to the world and we’ll all slide down another notch from any ideas of human rights. I don’t want that for my country, and I don’t want that for your country either.
We’re not talking about people who actually show up in a country with a functioning criminal justice system being subject to drone warfare. We’re talking about people who are working on their crimes in places where they can’t be apprehended.
As I said, these men allegedly trained in Pakistan. Do you think if the UK government had learned about them when they were out there, they should have used drones on them then? Do you think your country or my country is justified in killing people who might be going to commit crimes against us, rather than trying to capture them and put them on trial? Even if those drone strikes also kill innocent bystanders? As far as I know, no inhabitants of Britain or Pakistan were killed putting these men on trial. But it’d make policing a hell of a lot easier if you just execute the people who you’re sure beforehand are up to no good.
I know the UK is purchasing drones and has already carrying out drone strikes. I’m sure many other countries are stupidly going to follow the precedent of the world’s most powerful nation. (My government can be pretty damn stupid as well). And these drones will bring more death and misery to the world and we’ll all slide down another notch from any ideas of human rights. I don’t want that for my country, and I don’t want that for your country either.
Do you think if the UK government had learned about them when they were out there, they should have used drones on them then?
Possibly. I wish a drone had gotten this guy.
Do you think if the UK government had learned about them when they were out there, they should have used drones on them then?
Possibly. I wish a drone had gotten this guy.
And, to add to my last comment, it would been even better if a drone had attacked the people who had equipped and sent the 15-year-old suicide bomber on his deadly mission.
And, to add to my last comment, it would been even better if a drone had attacked the people who had equipped and sent the 15-year-old suicide bomber on his deadly mission.
We’re talking about people who are working on their crimes in places where they can’t be apprehended.
“Can’t” is doing a tremendous amount of heavy lifting in that sentence.
We’re talking about people who are working on their crimes in places where they can’t be apprehended.
“Can’t” is doing a tremendous amount of heavy lifting in that sentence.
“”Can’t” is doing a tremendous amount of heavy lifting in that sentence.”
Yes it is.
What your doing is justifying summary execution of suspects – not convicted criminals – based on a spectrum of the level of inconvience involved in arresting them
Not only is it just plain wrong in legal sense based on our stated laws (I guess wrong in a moral sense is subjective enough to be left aside); this is truely a slippery slope. Right now it’s swarthy people in turbans that might be terrorists who get whacked because it’s too inconvenient to build a solid case, arrest and try them on the evidence. Maybe in a few years it will be citizens of our own country whose summary execution is easier than due process. Something to think about at least.
“”Can’t” is doing a tremendous amount of heavy lifting in that sentence.”
Yes it is.
What your doing is justifying summary execution of suspects – not convicted criminals – based on a spectrum of the level of inconvience involved in arresting them
Not only is it just plain wrong in legal sense based on our stated laws (I guess wrong in a moral sense is subjective enough to be left aside); this is truely a slippery slope. Right now it’s swarthy people in turbans that might be terrorists who get whacked because it’s too inconvenient to build a solid case, arrest and try them on the evidence. Maybe in a few years it will be citizens of our own country whose summary execution is easier than due process. Something to think about at least.
Blackhawk’s first link goes to an article talking about how satellite cameras removed from the satellites are really useful for facial identification. I have no trouble believing that to be generally true.
The second link makes an unsourced claim about how, contrary to the frequently published narrative that bin Laden was located via HUMINT, that he was IDed using satellite photography. Then it spends about four times as much space discussing positive facial ID, postmortem. Which one might assume was done using imagery obtained from a closer distance.
Not buying it. Not from that information.
Blackhawk’s first link goes to an article talking about how satellite cameras removed from the satellites are really useful for facial identification. I have no trouble believing that to be generally true.
The second link makes an unsourced claim about how, contrary to the frequently published narrative that bin Laden was located via HUMINT, that he was IDed using satellite photography. Then it spends about four times as much space discussing positive facial ID, postmortem. Which one might assume was done using imagery obtained from a closer distance.
Not buying it. Not from that information.
What your doing is justifying summary execution of suspects – not convicted criminals – based on a spectrum of the level of inconvience involved in arresting them
That’s why they’re calling it a war instead of a criminal case. But sure.
What your doing is justifying summary execution of suspects – not convicted criminals – based on a spectrum of the level of inconvience involved in arresting them
That’s why they’re calling it a war instead of a criminal case. But sure.
I guess today’s NYTimes front page suicide bombing (the 15-year-old who killed dozens, and sent dozens more to the hospital, doesn’t move any human rights folks to comment. A little late for due process for that kid. As I mentioned, I hope they drone strike his enablers.
I guess today’s NYTimes front page suicide bombing (the 15-year-old who killed dozens, and sent dozens more to the hospital, doesn’t move any human rights folks to comment. A little late for due process for that kid. As I mentioned, I hope they drone strike his enablers.
Moral cripple that I am, I’m having trouble deciding whose side to take on the drone issue.
I really get the problem of human rights violations, international law violations, violations of common human decency, and the inevitable problem of blowback we’re going to face, especially given the human collateral damage.
I really do.
On the other hand, the Afghan assassin sapient cites was in fact a drone by any other name.
As quite frankly was George Zimmerman of the anti-Skittles condo defense league.
In both cases, a drone for a drone against the Afghan citizen and Zimmerman seems like justice of some kind, though messy and fraught.
Inhumane, yes. But then given the events of the past several hundred thousand years, it’s about time we renamed our race Inhumanity, rather than Humanity, which I find to be a highly politically correct term.
I mean if leading public figures, who came within a whisker of the Vice Presidency, at this late date in Reconstruction can accuse our black President of shucking and jiving, then surely sending a drone Valentine to the dumb churlish Alaskan twat, the essence of Inhumanity, who uttered the words is not a politically incorrect stretch, though to be even-handed, the dicks who surround her will surely be collateral damage.
But, one drone at a time.
After the briefcase bomb went off near Hitler’s chair during World War II, I can’t say that I would have been too awfully conflicted if, as backup, a couple of drones had been ready overhead as he hot-footed it to the armored vehicle outside.
A drone up Pol Pot’s wazoo at the appropriate time might have made for good viewing on the History Channel.
I could envision a simultaneous whacking via drone technology of an Iranian mullah or two, the Syrian leader, and Netanyahu and whichever Palestinian is the worst of the bombthrowers, with accompanying leafleting pointing out the advisability of ending the 60-year troubles by, say, next Friday.
Paul Ryan. Now there is a guy, via whose murderous policy plans for Medicaid alone many many Americans will die a premature death, for whom drone technology would present a good defense alternative for the afflicted victims.
Yes, the world would be a better place if an international treaty was signed outlawing drone technology altogether, here and abroad.
I suspect first though, as Blackhawk 0, 7, and 12 do as well, that American citizens on American soil will have to be whacked first before we get it.
In the meantime, though, as of now, I’m commandeering my own interactive drone air force, including four dedicated satellites for logistics and targeting, tiny drones that will fit into the palm of your hand, and larger drones the size of, say, the craft in “Independence Day”.
That bartender the other night? The one who ignored me for ten minutes even though he was fiddling not two feet from me with some such, so that I had to walk out (I just needed a Coke) … he’s O.K.
I can differentiate between crimes against humanity and bad service.
Now, Erick Erickson might have a problem. He shouldn’t go home cause I can see the roof of his house.
I think that’s his house. Or is it the one in the corner.
Anyway, people, be nice out there. Do the right thing. Don’t make life hard for those around you, even if that means leaving Brett the hell alone.
Because Santa knows whose naughty and nice and you have the choice of the bearded one coming down your chimney or having a drone making a big mess in the living room come this Christmas.
Moral cripple that I am, I’m having trouble deciding whose side to take on the drone issue.
I really get the problem of human rights violations, international law violations, violations of common human decency, and the inevitable problem of blowback we’re going to face, especially given the human collateral damage.
I really do.
On the other hand, the Afghan assassin sapient cites was in fact a drone by any other name.
As quite frankly was George Zimmerman of the anti-Skittles condo defense league.
In both cases, a drone for a drone against the Afghan citizen and Zimmerman seems like justice of some kind, though messy and fraught.
Inhumane, yes. But then given the events of the past several hundred thousand years, it’s about time we renamed our race Inhumanity, rather than Humanity, which I find to be a highly politically correct term.
I mean if leading public figures, who came within a whisker of the Vice Presidency, at this late date in Reconstruction can accuse our black President of shucking and jiving, then surely sending a drone Valentine to the dumb churlish Alaskan twat, the essence of Inhumanity, who uttered the words is not a politically incorrect stretch, though to be even-handed, the dicks who surround her will surely be collateral damage.
But, one drone at a time.
After the briefcase bomb went off near Hitler’s chair during World War II, I can’t say that I would have been too awfully conflicted if, as backup, a couple of drones had been ready overhead as he hot-footed it to the armored vehicle outside.
A drone up Pol Pot’s wazoo at the appropriate time might have made for good viewing on the History Channel.
I could envision a simultaneous whacking via drone technology of an Iranian mullah or two, the Syrian leader, and Netanyahu and whichever Palestinian is the worst of the bombthrowers, with accompanying leafleting pointing out the advisability of ending the 60-year troubles by, say, next Friday.
Paul Ryan. Now there is a guy, via whose murderous policy plans for Medicaid alone many many Americans will die a premature death, for whom drone technology would present a good defense alternative for the afflicted victims.
Yes, the world would be a better place if an international treaty was signed outlawing drone technology altogether, here and abroad.
I suspect first though, as Blackhawk 0, 7, and 12 do as well, that American citizens on American soil will have to be whacked first before we get it.
In the meantime, though, as of now, I’m commandeering my own interactive drone air force, including four dedicated satellites for logistics and targeting, tiny drones that will fit into the palm of your hand, and larger drones the size of, say, the craft in “Independence Day”.
That bartender the other night? The one who ignored me for ten minutes even though he was fiddling not two feet from me with some such, so that I had to walk out (I just needed a Coke) … he’s O.K.
I can differentiate between crimes against humanity and bad service.
Now, Erick Erickson might have a problem. He shouldn’t go home cause I can see the roof of his house.
I think that’s his house. Or is it the one in the corner.
Anyway, people, be nice out there. Do the right thing. Don’t make life hard for those around you, even if that means leaving Brett the hell alone.
Because Santa knows whose naughty and nice and you have the choice of the bearded one coming down your chimney or having a drone making a big mess in the living room come this Christmas.
I guess today’s NYTimes front page suicide bombing … doesn’t move any human rights folks to comment.
Look, if you want to continue discussing the pros and cons of drones, fine. There are compelling points to be made on all sides.
I’d suggest leaving what “moves” folks who disagree with you out of it.
I guess today’s NYTimes front page suicide bombing … doesn’t move any human rights folks to comment.
Look, if you want to continue discussing the pros and cons of drones, fine. There are compelling points to be made on all sides.
I’d suggest leaving what “moves” folks who disagree with you out of it.
I was trying to avoid getting sucked further into this discussion, because it’s probably not good for my peace of mind, but just so you know, Sapient, I don’t approve of suicide bombing, and I don’t approve of terrorism. I want to stop the terrorists just as much as you. But you don’t defeat terrorism by just killing people because they might be terrorists. (Or by locking them up because you think they might be terrorists, as the British did with internment).
It doesn’t work like that; the communities you target just hate you the more, because you cannot avoid collateral damage. Terrorist campaigns very rarely get defeated by purely military means, and pretending that you can somehow find a way that it can be solved like this is kidding yourself.
I was trying to avoid getting sucked further into this discussion, because it’s probably not good for my peace of mind, but just so you know, Sapient, I don’t approve of suicide bombing, and I don’t approve of terrorism. I want to stop the terrorists just as much as you. But you don’t defeat terrorism by just killing people because they might be terrorists. (Or by locking them up because you think they might be terrorists, as the British did with internment).
It doesn’t work like that; the communities you target just hate you the more, because you cannot avoid collateral damage. Terrorist campaigns very rarely get defeated by purely military means, and pretending that you can somehow find a way that it can be solved like this is kidding yourself.
russell, sorry to offend you (as I so often do). It’s just that sometimes the drone conversations seem to fail to take into account the problem that drones are addressing. It’s as if the United States government flies around the world trying to see whose due process rights it can violate. In fact, it’s an effort to prevent these organized, outrageous attacks.
We can’t quantify how many of these kinds of attacks have been prevented by the use of drones, so people who argue in favor of U.S. policy are faced with critics’ real statistics of civilian casualties, etc., caused by our mistakes, without being able to counter with specifics on whose lives were saved. I would suggest that there is a good faith and credible argment among people who support the use of drones that they have prevented a large number of suicide bombings and senseless mass murders. There are human rights arguments on both sides of this policy.
russell, sorry to offend you (as I so often do). It’s just that sometimes the drone conversations seem to fail to take into account the problem that drones are addressing. It’s as if the United States government flies around the world trying to see whose due process rights it can violate. In fact, it’s an effort to prevent these organized, outrageous attacks.
We can’t quantify how many of these kinds of attacks have been prevented by the use of drones, so people who argue in favor of U.S. policy are faced with critics’ real statistics of civilian casualties, etc., caused by our mistakes, without being able to counter with specifics on whose lives were saved. I would suggest that there is a good faith and credible argment among people who support the use of drones that they have prevented a large number of suicide bombings and senseless mass murders. There are human rights arguments on both sides of this policy.
I guess today’s NYTimes front page suicide bombing (the 15-year-old who killed dozens, and sent dozens more to the hospital, doesn’t move any human rights folks to comment.
This is a shitty tactic even when deployed by people who are good at it jftr.
I guess today’s NYTimes front page suicide bombing (the 15-year-old who killed dozens, and sent dozens more to the hospital, doesn’t move any human rights folks to comment.
This is a shitty tactic even when deployed by people who are good at it jftr.
Terrorist campaigns very rarely get defeated by purely military means, and pretending that you can somehow find a way that it can be solved like this is kidding yourself.
I posted my previous comment before I saw yours. I agree that military means aren’t enough to defeat terrorists, and that drones are problematic. But I think that the problem of terrorism is difficult, and careful use of drones can be justified. I’ll leave it at that.
Terrorist campaigns very rarely get defeated by purely military means, and pretending that you can somehow find a way that it can be solved like this is kidding yourself.
I posted my previous comment before I saw yours. I agree that military means aren’t enough to defeat terrorists, and that drones are problematic. But I think that the problem of terrorism is difficult, and careful use of drones can be justified. I’ll leave it at that.
I would suggest that there is a good faith and credible argment among people who support the use of drones that they have prevented a large number of suicide bombings and senseless mass murders. There are human rights arguments on both sides of this policy.
I don’t disagree with this particular bit of meta. I just happen to disagree about the incalculable benefit of the drone program, on an equally good-faith basis.
And, yes, it would be great if we could jump into a time machine and kill the suicide bomber before he could do his deed, knowing what the relative future would hold short of doing so.
Given that we don’t have time machines, and that I think our technological and intelligence-based ersatz crystal balls fall a bit short, along with our aim, I believe our current level of drone deployment is counterproductive.
I would suggest that there is a good faith and credible argment among people who support the use of drones that they have prevented a large number of suicide bombings and senseless mass murders. There are human rights arguments on both sides of this policy.
I don’t disagree with this particular bit of meta. I just happen to disagree about the incalculable benefit of the drone program, on an equally good-faith basis.
And, yes, it would be great if we could jump into a time machine and kill the suicide bomber before he could do his deed, knowing what the relative future would hold short of doing so.
Given that we don’t have time machines, and that I think our technological and intelligence-based ersatz crystal balls fall a bit short, along with our aim, I believe our current level of drone deployment is counterproductive.
Note “current level.” I’m not saying there is no conceivalbe situation in which the use of a drone would be justifiable. I’d guess no one else here is saying that, either – at least not many people, anyway.
Note “current level.” I’m not saying there is no conceivalbe situation in which the use of a drone would be justifiable. I’d guess no one else here is saying that, either – at least not many people, anyway.
Sapient, do you ever stop to think how exactly like a Bush Republican you sound like with that comment about the NYT story and the lack of comment here? It’s pitch perfect and you do this a lot. It goes back further–people who protest US human rights violations (or those of our allies) always hear such remarks. Occasionally on the very far and not very pleasant part of the left you might actually find someone who supports terrorism as a legitimate tactic. By all means take those folks on.
According to the Guardian the UN plans to examine the legality of drone strikes that kill civilians–
Un inquiry US drone strikes
Sapient, do you ever stop to think how exactly like a Bush Republican you sound like with that comment about the NYT story and the lack of comment here? It’s pitch perfect and you do this a lot. It goes back further–people who protest US human rights violations (or those of our allies) always hear such remarks. Occasionally on the very far and not very pleasant part of the left you might actually find someone who supports terrorism as a legitimate tactic. By all means take those folks on.
According to the Guardian the UN plans to examine the legality of drone strikes that kill civilians–
Un inquiry US drone strikes
We can’t quantify how many of these kinds of attacks have been prevented by the use of drones, so people who argue in favor of U.S. policy are faced with critics’ real statistics of civilian casualties, etc., caused by our mistakes, without being able to counter with specifics on whose lives were saved.
Yes, quite so, it’s impossible to cite things that have not happened in favor of your argument.
Even more difficult when most of the information that actually does exist, and that you might be able to marshal in favor of your position, is not in the public record.
That’s all true. And I’m sure it places you in a frustrating position.
It is, however, bad form to work around that impediment by calling the good intentions of folks who disagree with you into question.
I mean, sapient, don’t you care *at all* about the poor folks of Waziristan who live under the threat of death from above every day of their lives, through no fault of their own? What kind of person are you, anyway?
See, it’s kinda like that.
That is all.
Thanks.
We can’t quantify how many of these kinds of attacks have been prevented by the use of drones, so people who argue in favor of U.S. policy are faced with critics’ real statistics of civilian casualties, etc., caused by our mistakes, without being able to counter with specifics on whose lives were saved.
Yes, quite so, it’s impossible to cite things that have not happened in favor of your argument.
Even more difficult when most of the information that actually does exist, and that you might be able to marshal in favor of your position, is not in the public record.
That’s all true. And I’m sure it places you in a frustrating position.
It is, however, bad form to work around that impediment by calling the good intentions of folks who disagree with you into question.
I mean, sapient, don’t you care *at all* about the poor folks of Waziristan who live under the threat of death from above every day of their lives, through no fault of their own? What kind of person are you, anyway?
See, it’s kinda like that.
That is all.
Thanks.
Maybe, instead of drones, we could take the billions of dollars we give the ISI and spend it instead on a network of village wells and health clinics throughout Waziristan and the Pashtun tribal areas in general.
Likewise, Yemen and the Sudan. Mali, even.
Everybody likes wells and medicine. I think we send about a billion and a half a year to Pakistan now, and that excludes $$$$ for direct military support. A billion and half buys a lot of wells and medicine.
Probably too late for that now, but you never know. It’s just a thought.
Maybe, instead of drones, we could take the billions of dollars we give the ISI and spend it instead on a network of village wells and health clinics throughout Waziristan and the Pashtun tribal areas in general.
Likewise, Yemen and the Sudan. Mali, even.
Everybody likes wells and medicine. I think we send about a billion and a half a year to Pakistan now, and that excludes $$$$ for direct military support. A billion and half buys a lot of wells and medicine.
Probably too late for that now, but you never know. It’s just a thought.
“Everybody likes wells and medicine. I think we send about a billion and a half a year to Pakistan now, and that excludes $$$$ for direct military support. A billion and half buys a lot of wells and medicine.”
I don’t disagree with this, but, really, how is that working for us?
“Everybody likes wells and medicine. I think we send about a billion and a half a year to Pakistan now, and that excludes $$$$ for direct military support. A billion and half buys a lot of wells and medicine.”
I don’t disagree with this, but, really, how is that working for us?
I guess I plead guilty to sounding politically incorrect, Donald. I have a lot of negative opinions about Bush and his policies, as you know. Any president, however, (including Al Gore or someone else I would have supported) would have likely taken some kind of action against people who plotted the 9/11 attacks, and probably would have continued to be vigilant against people who were up to similar terrorist attacks. We can only speculate as to what those actions might have been, and how his policy would have borne out. I suggest that drone attacks would probably have been among the tools that any president would have used.
I’m glad that the UN is investigating drone attacks. I’m in favor of international law, and believe that terrorism is an international law problem. Unfortunately, the UN doesn’t have very good tools to deal with terrorism, IMO. The more deliberation occurs with respect to how nations deal with terrorism, the better, even if it ends up being merely a discussion. The whole world has a stake.
As for the good intentions of people who disagree with me, russell: I often feel as though people have the attitude that I don’t care at all about the poor folk of Waziristan (who, by the way, have a lot more problems than drones), or that I am someone who doesn’t care about civil liberties, or that I dismiss the serious tragedy of civilian casualties.
And sure, a lot of what might support my position is classified, and a lot of it should be. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or that the people in government who are conducting this policy have no basis for it. My reference to the suicide bombing in the news today is a reminder that there is an ugly phenomenon that we’re fighting against.
I am totally in favor of wells and medicines in all of the places you mention. It’s my understanding that our efforts towards building infrastructure in Afghanistan have been hampered by insurgents (and terrorists). I’ve read intermittently that we’ve tried to work with various Taliban leaders to accomplish certain popular projects, but haven’t had much luck with that. But sure – if we haven’t been trying hard enough to build wells and distribute medicine – I’m all for that.
I guess I plead guilty to sounding politically incorrect, Donald. I have a lot of negative opinions about Bush and his policies, as you know. Any president, however, (including Al Gore or someone else I would have supported) would have likely taken some kind of action against people who plotted the 9/11 attacks, and probably would have continued to be vigilant against people who were up to similar terrorist attacks. We can only speculate as to what those actions might have been, and how his policy would have borne out. I suggest that drone attacks would probably have been among the tools that any president would have used.
I’m glad that the UN is investigating drone attacks. I’m in favor of international law, and believe that terrorism is an international law problem. Unfortunately, the UN doesn’t have very good tools to deal with terrorism, IMO. The more deliberation occurs with respect to how nations deal with terrorism, the better, even if it ends up being merely a discussion. The whole world has a stake.
As for the good intentions of people who disagree with me, russell: I often feel as though people have the attitude that I don’t care at all about the poor folk of Waziristan (who, by the way, have a lot more problems than drones), or that I am someone who doesn’t care about civil liberties, or that I dismiss the serious tragedy of civilian casualties.
And sure, a lot of what might support my position is classified, and a lot of it should be. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or that the people in government who are conducting this policy have no basis for it. My reference to the suicide bombing in the news today is a reminder that there is an ugly phenomenon that we’re fighting against.
I am totally in favor of wells and medicines in all of the places you mention. It’s my understanding that our efforts towards building infrastructure in Afghanistan have been hampered by insurgents (and terrorists). I’ve read intermittently that we’ve tried to work with various Taliban leaders to accomplish certain popular projects, but haven’t had much luck with that. But sure – if we haven’t been trying hard enough to build wells and distribute medicine – I’m all for that.
I don’t disagree with this, but, really, how is that working for us?
To be honest, just a pipe dream on my part, and nothing more.
I don’t disagree with this, but, really, how is that working for us?
To be honest, just a pipe dream on my part, and nothing more.
My reference to the suicide bombing in the news today is a reminder that there is an ugly phenomenon that we’re fighting against.
Nobody has any objection to your calling attention to instances of terrorist violence.
People object to this:
doesn’t move any human rights folks to comment
I don’t think it’s necessary to further explain why. If it is necessary I’ll take a stab at it, but my guess is that you can figure it out.
On the substance of the issue, I think it’s fair to say that you believe the problem of terrorism justifies the current drone program, while other folks are straight up against it, and still other folks find various aspects of it problematic.
My reference to the suicide bombing in the news today is a reminder that there is an ugly phenomenon that we’re fighting against.
Nobody has any objection to your calling attention to instances of terrorist violence.
People object to this:
doesn’t move any human rights folks to comment
I don’t think it’s necessary to further explain why. If it is necessary I’ll take a stab at it, but my guess is that you can figure it out.
On the substance of the issue, I think it’s fair to say that you believe the problem of terrorism justifies the current drone program, while other folks are straight up against it, and still other folks find various aspects of it problematic.
I think it’s fair to say that you believe the problem of terrorism justifies the current drone program, while other folks are straight up against it, and still other folks find various aspects of it problematic.
I think that the situation itself (world terrorism, organized loosely around fundamentalist religious dogma) is problematic, and addressing it (or choosing not to address) is also problematic. It seems to me that some people don’t think it’s our problem, or that a fight for global human rights includes addressing it.
I think it’s fair to say that you believe the problem of terrorism justifies the current drone program, while other folks are straight up against it, and still other folks find various aspects of it problematic.
I think that the situation itself (world terrorism, organized loosely around fundamentalist religious dogma) is problematic, and addressing it (or choosing not to address) is also problematic. It seems to me that some people don’t think it’s our problem, or that a fight for global human rights includes addressing it.
And sure, a lot of what might support my position is classified, and a lot of it should be. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or that the people in government who are conducting this policy have no basis for it.
The UK government lied to us blatantly in order to get us to go to war with Iraq. So did the US government. And with the exact same excuse: there were terrifying threats to us that we had to be protected from, but we just couldn’t be told about them.
The current US government is now claiming that prisoners at Guantanamo can’t be allowed to talk about being tortured. Successive British governments hid information about torture in colonial Kenya (where we also decided that we knew who the Mau-Mau terrorists were, so what did due process of law matter?)
In other words, I’m sceptical about claims that we can simply trust governments on these matters. I don’t understand why some other people aren’t.
And sure, a lot of what might support my position is classified, and a lot of it should be. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or that the people in government who are conducting this policy have no basis for it.
The UK government lied to us blatantly in order to get us to go to war with Iraq. So did the US government. And with the exact same excuse: there were terrifying threats to us that we had to be protected from, but we just couldn’t be told about them.
The current US government is now claiming that prisoners at Guantanamo can’t be allowed to talk about being tortured. Successive British governments hid information about torture in colonial Kenya (where we also decided that we knew who the Mau-Mau terrorists were, so what did due process of law matter?)
In other words, I’m sceptical about claims that we can simply trust governments on these matters. I don’t understand why some other people aren’t.
“How is that working for us?”
A legitimate question on the receiving end, partly because those in receipt of the aid, for very complicated reasons, don’t necessarily feel the requisite amount of gratitude for the aid (I differentiate aid given by the U.S. Government and other countries’ governments as part of their cynical diplomatic grifts, and aid provided by international NGOs, and a few countries who have nothing to gain but the pleasure of seeing the beneficiaries profit and prosper).
And most governments and the populations they represent don’t react well when the proper obeisance is not paid.
On our end, here in the U.S., it’s not working at all.
A good part of the electorate, in poll after poll, believe we spend some ridiculously large percentage of our federal budget on the type of foreign aid we’re talking about here, when in reality the spending amounts to a few billion here and there.
Why do they believe that?
Because a certain political party and its operatives in the media have, over a number of decades, lied their murderous butts off about it.
The cause is lost.
So, we have drones instead.
Bought from the very same murderous motherf*ckers.
Compare the profit margin on a drone and a CARE package.
I do realize, of course, that any number of water pumps installed in a few Afghan villages is not going to dissuade a few Taliban from using the parts of the pump as shrapnel in their suicide bomb vests.
You might as well expect the Tennessee or Texas legislature to stop trying to engrave the Ten Commandments on the vaginal walls of 13-year old girls, while, of course, having a sizable hooker contingent along for their prayer retreats, because it might look bad to have the 13-year-olds along.
Monster storm hitting landfall soon. Whether its severity and weird behavior is a result in part from manmade global warming will, I hope, be clarified via research in the coming years, but I do hope the storm takes out Rush Limbaugh (as in: dead) just for the fact that he won’t allow us to talk about it without impugning our motives.
Not to mention that fact that he has, I’m sure, spent a considerable amount of time over the years lying about the foreign aid budget.
His death now will allow me to save one of my drones for Sean Hannity. Or maybe Monica Crowley.
Maybe they’ll be standing close together so you know .. one stone, two buzzards.
“How is that working for us?”
A legitimate question on the receiving end, partly because those in receipt of the aid, for very complicated reasons, don’t necessarily feel the requisite amount of gratitude for the aid (I differentiate aid given by the U.S. Government and other countries’ governments as part of their cynical diplomatic grifts, and aid provided by international NGOs, and a few countries who have nothing to gain but the pleasure of seeing the beneficiaries profit and prosper).
And most governments and the populations they represent don’t react well when the proper obeisance is not paid.
On our end, here in the U.S., it’s not working at all.
A good part of the electorate, in poll after poll, believe we spend some ridiculously large percentage of our federal budget on the type of foreign aid we’re talking about here, when in reality the spending amounts to a few billion here and there.
Why do they believe that?
Because a certain political party and its operatives in the media have, over a number of decades, lied their murderous butts off about it.
The cause is lost.
So, we have drones instead.
Bought from the very same murderous motherf*ckers.
Compare the profit margin on a drone and a CARE package.
I do realize, of course, that any number of water pumps installed in a few Afghan villages is not going to dissuade a few Taliban from using the parts of the pump as shrapnel in their suicide bomb vests.
You might as well expect the Tennessee or Texas legislature to stop trying to engrave the Ten Commandments on the vaginal walls of 13-year old girls, while, of course, having a sizable hooker contingent along for their prayer retreats, because it might look bad to have the 13-year-olds along.
Monster storm hitting landfall soon. Whether its severity and weird behavior is a result in part from manmade global warming will, I hope, be clarified via research in the coming years, but I do hope the storm takes out Rush Limbaugh (as in: dead) just for the fact that he won’t allow us to talk about it without impugning our motives.
Not to mention that fact that he has, I’m sure, spent a considerable amount of time over the years lying about the foreign aid budget.
His death now will allow me to save one of my drones for Sean Hannity. Or maybe Monica Crowley.
Maybe they’ll be standing close together so you know .. one stone, two buzzards.
One difference between myself (and I think most others here) and folks like sapient is the just the belief that people respond to incentives. From reading sapient’s comments, I don’t think she or he believes that.
I mean, what happens to you if you’re a government official deep in the national security apparatus and you target a completely innocent person for death by drone? Will you be executed? Of course not. Will you be charged with murder and sent to prison. Surely not. Will you be fired or demoted or fined. Ha. Ha. Ha. In fact, nothing bad will happen to you. There will be no investigation. It will probably help your career because you’ll claim that you eliminated another deadly terrorist and more dead terrorists is more better.
So, the system gives people incentives to kill innocent people. And it gives them no incentive to avoid such killings. What is the logical result? Lots of innocent people killed. The incentives compel that result.
I think a lot of people here get that at some level; there is an awareness that secrecy and the corresponding lack of accountability make the drone assassination program problematic at best.
One difference between myself (and I think most others here) and folks like sapient is the just the belief that people respond to incentives. From reading sapient’s comments, I don’t think she or he believes that.
I mean, what happens to you if you’re a government official deep in the national security apparatus and you target a completely innocent person for death by drone? Will you be executed? Of course not. Will you be charged with murder and sent to prison. Surely not. Will you be fired or demoted or fined. Ha. Ha. Ha. In fact, nothing bad will happen to you. There will be no investigation. It will probably help your career because you’ll claim that you eliminated another deadly terrorist and more dead terrorists is more better.
So, the system gives people incentives to kill innocent people. And it gives them no incentive to avoid such killings. What is the logical result? Lots of innocent people killed. The incentives compel that result.
I think a lot of people here get that at some level; there is an awareness that secrecy and the corresponding lack of accountability make the drone assassination program problematic at best.
“Successive British governments hid information about torture in colonial Kenya (where we also decided that we knew who the Mau-Mau terrorists were, so what did due process of law matter?)”
Yeah, there are a couple of X-rated movies on that subject in circulation among the electorate right about now.
Given the tight polls, they could decide the election, in the wrong direction, as in, toward the greater evil rather than the lesser.
And in the service of … what?
Think about it. How many other populations does the greater evil want to torture and kill?
Not you, magistra .. but YOU.
“Successive British governments hid information about torture in colonial Kenya (where we also decided that we knew who the Mau-Mau terrorists were, so what did due process of law matter?)”
Yeah, there are a couple of X-rated movies on that subject in circulation among the electorate right about now.
Given the tight polls, they could decide the election, in the wrong direction, as in, toward the greater evil rather than the lesser.
And in the service of … what?
Think about it. How many other populations does the greater evil want to torture and kill?
Not you, magistra .. but YOU.
And it gives them no incentive to avoid such killings.
are we to assume the people who fly and dispatch drones are soulless ?
And it gives them no incentive to avoid such killings.
are we to assume the people who fly and dispatch drones are soulless ?
are we to assume the people who fly and dispatch drones are soulless ?
The people who fly drones generally don’t make targeting decisions.
The people who dispatch them, well, they’re generally CIA. And yeah, those guys are soulless. I mean, historically, the CIA has often acted in ways that imply absence of a soul. Now, maybe the organization has completely transformed. But we have no reason to believe that.
Look, I’m pretty critical of the US Air Force. But the USAF has a doctrine and institutional controls for targeting air strikes. Plus, USAF members are subject to UCMJ jurisdiction. Why is the CIA running its own drones rather than the USAF? CIA officers are literally lawless.
are we to assume the people who fly and dispatch drones are soulless ?
The people who fly drones generally don’t make targeting decisions.
The people who dispatch them, well, they’re generally CIA. And yeah, those guys are soulless. I mean, historically, the CIA has often acted in ways that imply absence of a soul. Now, maybe the organization has completely transformed. But we have no reason to believe that.
Look, I’m pretty critical of the US Air Force. But the USAF has a doctrine and institutional controls for targeting air strikes. Plus, USAF members are subject to UCMJ jurisdiction. Why is the CIA running its own drones rather than the USAF? CIA officers are literally lawless.
“are we to assume the people who fly and dispatch drones are soulless ?”
Stanley Milgram, anyone? You don’t need to be a grand guignol villain to kill someone because it’s easier than not killing them. See also pregnant woman getting tased, diabetic guy getting tased, and on and on.
“are we to assume the people who fly and dispatch drones are soulless ?”
Stanley Milgram, anyone? You don’t need to be a grand guignol villain to kill someone because it’s easier than not killing them. See also pregnant woman getting tased, diabetic guy getting tased, and on and on.
are we to assume the people who fly and dispatch drones are soulless ?
Also, let’s not be naive about this. People given power without accountability are going to do horrific things. That’s a fact of human nature; it has nothing to do with souls. We wouldn’t depend on the souls of police officers to stop them from engaging in police brutality or abusing the rights of criminal suspects and I see no reason why we should in the case of CIA officers.
are we to assume the people who fly and dispatch drones are soulless ?
Also, let’s not be naive about this. People given power without accountability are going to do horrific things. That’s a fact of human nature; it has nothing to do with souls. We wouldn’t depend on the souls of police officers to stop them from engaging in police brutality or abusing the rights of criminal suspects and I see no reason why we should in the case of CIA officers.
Adding to Turb’s comment about incentives, it’s not even that hard to understand. Maybe someone you have in your sites might really be a terrorist. If you don’t kill him maybe he kills Americans later and you get blamed for not taking him out. OTOH, if he’s innocent or not that important or surrounded by innocent people, there’s no punishment if you hit him anyway, just to be on the bureaucratic safe side. Who in America is even complaining? There’s a bipartisan consensus–you just have irrelevant people complaining on some lefty (and a few righty) blogsites.
“I guess I plead guilty to sounding politically incorrect, ”
“Politically incorrect” is a self-serving term. The point is that you were using the same silly accusation that has always been leveled at critics of US foreign policy–that is “I guess you don’t care about the atrocities of the evil people we are fighting”. In the case of Pakistan I think it’s up to the people there to solve their own problems-our drone program probably hurts the liberal cause because it hurts innocent people and quite possibly helps the Taliban win recruits. That’s how it usually works. It worked that way on a far larger scale in Cambodia in 1973–if you ever read Ben Kiernan’s work on Cambodia you’ll find that CIA analysts were saying that US bombing recruited for the Khmer Rouge. And yeah, the Khmer Rouge ended up killing far more than our bombs did.
Adding to Turb’s comment about incentives, it’s not even that hard to understand. Maybe someone you have in your sites might really be a terrorist. If you don’t kill him maybe he kills Americans later and you get blamed for not taking him out. OTOH, if he’s innocent or not that important or surrounded by innocent people, there’s no punishment if you hit him anyway, just to be on the bureaucratic safe side. Who in America is even complaining? There’s a bipartisan consensus–you just have irrelevant people complaining on some lefty (and a few righty) blogsites.
“I guess I plead guilty to sounding politically incorrect, ”
“Politically incorrect” is a self-serving term. The point is that you were using the same silly accusation that has always been leveled at critics of US foreign policy–that is “I guess you don’t care about the atrocities of the evil people we are fighting”. In the case of Pakistan I think it’s up to the people there to solve their own problems-our drone program probably hurts the liberal cause because it hurts innocent people and quite possibly helps the Taliban win recruits. That’s how it usually works. It worked that way on a far larger scale in Cambodia in 1973–if you ever read Ben Kiernan’s work on Cambodia you’ll find that CIA analysts were saying that US bombing recruited for the Khmer Rouge. And yeah, the Khmer Rouge ended up killing far more than our bombs did.
“Note “current level.” I’m not saying there is no conceivalbe situation in which the use of a drone would be justifiable. I’d guess no one else here is saying that, either – at least not many people, anyway.”
Right. A drone is just another weapon, like a gun. However, we typically don’t fire arty at poorly identified targets or suspected targets situated in the midst of civilians. That’s against the ROE and is usually considered an offense to be punished by courts martail and prison time. If some rifleman opened up on a crowd with his SAW because he thought an insurgent might be amongst it, he would, rightfully, be tried and imprisoned.
“The people who dispatch them, well, they’re generally CIA. And yeah, those guys are soulless.”
Bingo! Zeroed in better than the best drone. The spooks are NOT subject to any ROE. The drones lend themselves to this sort of ruleless activity (aka assassination) because there a drone cannot be courts martialed. The drone is a weapon that enhances lack of accountability. Spooks like being, well, spooks.
“Note “current level.” I’m not saying there is no conceivalbe situation in which the use of a drone would be justifiable. I’d guess no one else here is saying that, either – at least not many people, anyway.”
Right. A drone is just another weapon, like a gun. However, we typically don’t fire arty at poorly identified targets or suspected targets situated in the midst of civilians. That’s against the ROE and is usually considered an offense to be punished by courts martail and prison time. If some rifleman opened up on a crowd with his SAW because he thought an insurgent might be amongst it, he would, rightfully, be tried and imprisoned.
“The people who dispatch them, well, they’re generally CIA. And yeah, those guys are soulless.”
Bingo! Zeroed in better than the best drone. The spooks are NOT subject to any ROE. The drones lend themselves to this sort of ruleless activity (aka assassination) because there a drone cannot be courts martialed. The drone is a weapon that enhances lack of accountability. Spooks like being, well, spooks.
“I think that the situation itself (world terrorism, organized loosely around fundamentalist religious dogma) is problematic….”
Lots of issues are problematic. Domestic crime, like murder, gang activity and rape are problematic. Do you not see the slippery slope you want to go sledding down?
We have unaccountable (souless) people hiding somewhere in a organizational maze designed to obfuscate, behind the mindless lethal weapons they fly around, killing people because of secret assessment process that they claim has determined the victim guilty beyond some unknown criteria of certainty (or lack thereof).
Congress is considering a bill that would increase the drone force by thousands of units. Domestic agencies already have drones and are seeking more.
It is only a matter of time before the “problem solving” processes are established here at home and, by your thinking, sapient, why not?
“I think that the situation itself (world terrorism, organized loosely around fundamentalist religious dogma) is problematic….”
Lots of issues are problematic. Domestic crime, like murder, gang activity and rape are problematic. Do you not see the slippery slope you want to go sledding down?
We have unaccountable (souless) people hiding somewhere in a organizational maze designed to obfuscate, behind the mindless lethal weapons they fly around, killing people because of secret assessment process that they claim has determined the victim guilty beyond some unknown criteria of certainty (or lack thereof).
Congress is considering a bill that would increase the drone force by thousands of units. Domestic agencies already have drones and are seeking more.
It is only a matter of time before the “problem solving” processes are established here at home and, by your thinking, sapient, why not?
We wouldn’t depend…
before you get too far down this path, let me point out that i did not say anything about “depend”.
We wouldn’t depend…
before you get too far down this path, let me point out that i did not say anything about “depend”.
OTOH, if he’s innocent or not that important or surrounded by innocent people, there’s no punishment if you hit him anyway, just to be on the bureaucratic safe side. Who in America is even complaining?
right right. i’m not arguing against any of that. i’m well aware of the institutional momentum and the fear ratchet effect that keeps us on this path.
i was just wondering if the assumption is that the people who make these decisions do not care a whit about killing innocents (aka: wasting ammo). because it seems to me that, unlike what descriptions here sometimes tend toward, the people who make these decisions (which do go all the way to The Top) are not blood-thirsty killing machines who would Pilot The Predator with one hand while controlling their drone with the other. i assume that there are people who care about this.
if there aren’t, nuking the whole ME would be more efficient than picking them off one by one. we haven’t done that. there’s a reason.
OTOH, if he’s innocent or not that important or surrounded by innocent people, there’s no punishment if you hit him anyway, just to be on the bureaucratic safe side. Who in America is even complaining?
right right. i’m not arguing against any of that. i’m well aware of the institutional momentum and the fear ratchet effect that keeps us on this path.
i was just wondering if the assumption is that the people who make these decisions do not care a whit about killing innocents (aka: wasting ammo). because it seems to me that, unlike what descriptions here sometimes tend toward, the people who make these decisions (which do go all the way to The Top) are not blood-thirsty killing machines who would Pilot The Predator with one hand while controlling their drone with the other. i assume that there are people who care about this.
if there aren’t, nuking the whole ME would be more efficient than picking them off one by one. we haven’t done that. there’s a reason.
“…if there aren’t, nuking the whole ME would be more efficient than picking them off one by one. we haven’t done that. there’s a reason.”
Don’t worry, we’ll get there. It starts with an attack against Iran. The the ungrateful wogs get all crazy anti-US. They just won’t accept our gift of freedom and, well, we have little choice. The psychotic murderous little wogs asked for it.
In fact, that’s the outcome that the attack Iran-ers are looking for.
“…if there aren’t, nuking the whole ME would be more efficient than picking them off one by one. we haven’t done that. there’s a reason.”
Don’t worry, we’ll get there. It starts with an attack against Iran. The the ungrateful wogs get all crazy anti-US. They just won’t accept our gift of freedom and, well, we have little choice. The psychotic murderous little wogs asked for it.
In fact, that’s the outcome that the attack Iran-ers are looking for.
“if there aren’t, nuking the whole ME would be more efficient than picking them off one by one. we haven’t done that. there’s a reason.”
Well, that’s setting the bar too low. Even some of the worst dictators usually don’t kill as many people as they possibly could. (Pol Pot might have been heading in that direction.) In general, yeah, over the past few generations we’ve been moving in a direction where deliberate killing of civilians is considered unacceptable by Western countries, though in practice what I think that often means is that we engage in doublethink sometimes, targeting civilians and denying that we’re doing that. But that said, I don’t think we’re deliberately targeting civilians here. I accept that the drone campaign is intended to be killing what are supposed to be dangerous terrorists.
I don’t think these people are just soulless killers–I think I’ve seen stories about the actual people controlling the drones getting post traumatic stress disorder. There’s probably a mixture of people, just as there would be in the military or in a big city police force , but the incentives here are tilted too far in the wrong direction. And I can’t help but feel a little cynicism about people who wield this kind of power. Obama joked about drone strikes once–no, that doesn’t mean he’s a sociopath (as Arthur Silber would argue, the moral purist I read), but I think it probably says something bad about the effects of power on a person. One shouldn’t be joking about drone strikes when you order them.
Sapient is probably boiling as I say that–so no, I don’t mean Obama is worse than anyone else in that position. But people shouldn’t be in that position, having that kind of unaccountable power.
“if there aren’t, nuking the whole ME would be more efficient than picking them off one by one. we haven’t done that. there’s a reason.”
Well, that’s setting the bar too low. Even some of the worst dictators usually don’t kill as many people as they possibly could. (Pol Pot might have been heading in that direction.) In general, yeah, over the past few generations we’ve been moving in a direction where deliberate killing of civilians is considered unacceptable by Western countries, though in practice what I think that often means is that we engage in doublethink sometimes, targeting civilians and denying that we’re doing that. But that said, I don’t think we’re deliberately targeting civilians here. I accept that the drone campaign is intended to be killing what are supposed to be dangerous terrorists.
I don’t think these people are just soulless killers–I think I’ve seen stories about the actual people controlling the drones getting post traumatic stress disorder. There’s probably a mixture of people, just as there would be in the military or in a big city police force , but the incentives here are tilted too far in the wrong direction. And I can’t help but feel a little cynicism about people who wield this kind of power. Obama joked about drone strikes once–no, that doesn’t mean he’s a sociopath (as Arthur Silber would argue, the moral purist I read), but I think it probably says something bad about the effects of power on a person. One shouldn’t be joking about drone strikes when you order them.
Sapient is probably boiling as I say that–so no, I don’t mean Obama is worse than anyone else in that position. But people shouldn’t be in that position, having that kind of unaccountable power.
If we weren’t using drones, why would things be better (for your own personal values of better: fewer civilian fatalities, etc)?
Are we assuming that absent drones, military strikes would stop? Or would there be fewer of them? Or what?
I 100% see problems with drones – depersonalization, etc. But I’m not sure it’s clear that they are worse than the alternative. Arguably, a drone is vastly better for accountability: its movements are probably painstakingly tracked, maybe the footage it takes is relayed and recorded so that drone pilot judgment calls can be analyzed after the fact.
Just wondering what kind of cost benefit analysis people are doing on this, or if we’re mostly focused on the downsides.
If we weren’t using drones, why would things be better (for your own personal values of better: fewer civilian fatalities, etc)?
Are we assuming that absent drones, military strikes would stop? Or would there be fewer of them? Or what?
I 100% see problems with drones – depersonalization, etc. But I’m not sure it’s clear that they are worse than the alternative. Arguably, a drone is vastly better for accountability: its movements are probably painstakingly tracked, maybe the footage it takes is relayed and recorded so that drone pilot judgment calls can be analyzed after the fact.
Just wondering what kind of cost benefit analysis people are doing on this, or if we’re mostly focused on the downsides.
If we weren’t using drones, why would things be better (for your own personal values of better: fewer civilian fatalities, etc)?
There are different issues at play here.
I don’t think drone vs non-drone matters very much except insofar as the drones are cheap and extremely low risk. Without drones, the alternative is sending an expensive aircraft flown by an even more expensive pilot that can be shot down; that risk imposes higher costs.
I think the controls that the USAF uses to ensure appropriate use of force are not enough, but they are something, and they’re a hell of a lot more than the CIA. Being subject to the UCMJ versus being lawless matters. But that’s not a drone issue per se: it would be just as problematic if the CIA was dropping bombs with F-16s.
If we weren’t using drones, why would things be better (for your own personal values of better: fewer civilian fatalities, etc)?
There are different issues at play here.
I don’t think drone vs non-drone matters very much except insofar as the drones are cheap and extremely low risk. Without drones, the alternative is sending an expensive aircraft flown by an even more expensive pilot that can be shot down; that risk imposes higher costs.
I think the controls that the USAF uses to ensure appropriate use of force are not enough, but they are something, and they’re a hell of a lot more than the CIA. Being subject to the UCMJ versus being lawless matters. But that’s not a drone issue per se: it would be just as problematic if the CIA was dropping bombs with F-16s.
Excellent point, Julian.
Were it up to me — and since I’m American and thus exceptional, I expect it will be soon — I would ban drones, nuclear weapons, all traditional military armaments, and guns of all types except those explicitly used for hunting and for those people who feel aggrieved that Brett has told them to go to hell.
But how to enforce? Well, drones, of course, controlled exclusively by a fleet of satellites by some supra-national agency of enforcers, of which I want to be one.
Pick up a weapon against your fellow man anywhere in the world and you are zapped back to the fundamental carbon.
In fact, try to manufacture a weapon and kablooey!
We’d of course have to have consultations about swords, machetes, bolos, knives, spears, baseball bats, arsenic, strangleholds, etc, etc. before taking action.
Brandishing Skittles would not be call to action and satellite lens technology can detect the difference between candy and a weapon.
Basing the receipt of medical care on the ability to pay would of course be an immediate cause for conflagratory retaliation from the sky.
But, until then, Julian’s question begs for an answer. Whether to use drones for missions or fall back on traditional war craft with their attendant costs reminds me of the choice between the tenderly treated organic free-range chicken for dinner or the factory farmed slave chicken tortured for seven and half weeks in its own feces.
Either way, what you have is a dead chicken, throttled, cooked and eaten.
From the chickens’ point of view, pondering the relative soullessness of the chicken farmers and the diners is a piece of avian philosophy as pointless as requesting roasting over frying in their last wills and testicles.
I’m quite sure, too, that the people ordering and commandeering the drone attacks are no less imbued with souls, whatever that means, than soldiers in the field.
Yes, the relative incentives and disincentives are different in degree but, after all, after you tell a 19-year old to go kill or be killed and they want to go anyway, then what you have here is an honorable idiot for whom all of the normal incentives and disincentives are moot anyway.
They rationalized the idea of “soul” into something else.
With the exception of a few psychopaths, like Allen West, for example, most of these people go home after battle and drink heavily and otherwise sedate themselves to lessen the nightmares and try to avoid having breakdowns over what they’ve just participated in.
I would hope.
They do what all of us do when we are required to be ruthless and otherwise do unto others what we hope no one does unto us — they call it a job.
You know who the soulless ones are? The girls and boys who call our soldiers and Federal employee drone commandeers part of the 47% of American parasites (that they call any fellow American a parasite is a piece of soul-sucking that may require remedial drone attacks) who don’t pay taxes because they might be suffering from PTSD and taking federal benefits because of their experiences in warfare.
Those worthless bug-filth suits and hairpieces, right there on TV, are the soulless ones.
Am I wrong? Careful what you answer, because I have drones. 😉
Excellent point, Julian.
Were it up to me — and since I’m American and thus exceptional, I expect it will be soon — I would ban drones, nuclear weapons, all traditional military armaments, and guns of all types except those explicitly used for hunting and for those people who feel aggrieved that Brett has told them to go to hell.
But how to enforce? Well, drones, of course, controlled exclusively by a fleet of satellites by some supra-national agency of enforcers, of which I want to be one.
Pick up a weapon against your fellow man anywhere in the world and you are zapped back to the fundamental carbon.
In fact, try to manufacture a weapon and kablooey!
We’d of course have to have consultations about swords, machetes, bolos, knives, spears, baseball bats, arsenic, strangleholds, etc, etc. before taking action.
Brandishing Skittles would not be call to action and satellite lens technology can detect the difference between candy and a weapon.
Basing the receipt of medical care on the ability to pay would of course be an immediate cause for conflagratory retaliation from the sky.
But, until then, Julian’s question begs for an answer. Whether to use drones for missions or fall back on traditional war craft with their attendant costs reminds me of the choice between the tenderly treated organic free-range chicken for dinner or the factory farmed slave chicken tortured for seven and half weeks in its own feces.
Either way, what you have is a dead chicken, throttled, cooked and eaten.
From the chickens’ point of view, pondering the relative soullessness of the chicken farmers and the diners is a piece of avian philosophy as pointless as requesting roasting over frying in their last wills and testicles.
I’m quite sure, too, that the people ordering and commandeering the drone attacks are no less imbued with souls, whatever that means, than soldiers in the field.
Yes, the relative incentives and disincentives are different in degree but, after all, after you tell a 19-year old to go kill or be killed and they want to go anyway, then what you have here is an honorable idiot for whom all of the normal incentives and disincentives are moot anyway.
They rationalized the idea of “soul” into something else.
With the exception of a few psychopaths, like Allen West, for example, most of these people go home after battle and drink heavily and otherwise sedate themselves to lessen the nightmares and try to avoid having breakdowns over what they’ve just participated in.
I would hope.
They do what all of us do when we are required to be ruthless and otherwise do unto others what we hope no one does unto us — they call it a job.
You know who the soulless ones are? The girls and boys who call our soldiers and Federal employee drone commandeers part of the 47% of American parasites (that they call any fellow American a parasite is a piece of soul-sucking that may require remedial drone attacks) who don’t pay taxes because they might be suffering from PTSD and taking federal benefits because of their experiences in warfare.
Those worthless bug-filth suits and hairpieces, right there on TV, are the soulless ones.
Am I wrong? Careful what you answer, because I have drones. 😉
Turb, I agree on the problem with lawlessness vis a vis civilian agencies commandeering drones.
I don’t buy the soulessness argument, however, for whomever suggested that.
The degree of soul between professional soldiers and civilian drone practitioners, I suspect, is about equal.
As is their ability to subsume their souls underneath the demands of their jobs.
Turb, I agree on the problem with lawlessness vis a vis civilian agencies commandeering drones.
I don’t buy the soulessness argument, however, for whomever suggested that.
The degree of soul between professional soldiers and civilian drone practitioners, I suspect, is about equal.
As is their ability to subsume their souls underneath the demands of their jobs.
You know who the soulless ones are? The girls and boys who call our soldiers and Federal employee drone commandeers part of the 47% of American parasites (that they call any fellow American a parasite is a piece of soul-sucking that may require remedial drone attacks) who don’t pay taxes because they might be suffering from PTSD and taking federal benefits because of their experiences in warfare.
This.
You know who the soulless ones are? The girls and boys who call our soldiers and Federal employee drone commandeers part of the 47% of American parasites (that they call any fellow American a parasite is a piece of soul-sucking that may require remedial drone attacks) who don’t pay taxes because they might be suffering from PTSD and taking federal benefits because of their experiences in warfare.
This.
“This.”
Oh, absolutely. But that is the CIC who, ultimately, controls the drones.
“This.”
Oh, absolutely. But that is the CIC who, ultimately, controls the drones.
But that is the CIC who, ultimately, controls the drones.
Hope the best man wins then.
But that is the CIC who, ultimately, controls the drones.
Hope the best man wins then.
What makes you think Obama or anyone else is in “control” of the drones? The system is out of control in that it kills random people without consequence. Obama can’t stop it because he doesn’t know which killings are justified and which are random, and he doesn’t know because he doesn’t want to know and no one can make him.
What makes you think Obama or anyone else is in “control” of the drones? The system is out of control in that it kills random people without consequence. Obama can’t stop it because he doesn’t know which killings are justified and which are random, and he doesn’t know because he doesn’t want to know and no one can make him.
i was just wondering if the assumption is that the people who make these decisions do not care a whit about killing innocents
I’m not making that assumption.
First, the folks making the decision to shoot are not the folks doing the shooting.
Second, the level of empathy and self-awareness and general level of plain human conscience among both folks deciding and folks shooting probably runs the gamut.
IMO, or to me anyway, the issue here isn’t the personal goodness or callousness of the individual people involved.
I want to call attention to magistra’s contributions in this thread, because magistra lives in the UK, and folks there have experience with ideological political violence. As do folks in France, Spain, Germany, and lots of other countries.
Among our peer nations, programs to deal with terrorism by assassinating non-state actors are not common. The reason for that is that it conflicts with other values they wish to maintain.
In not a few cases, their present policy came as a result of NOT maintaining values they claimed to hold, and then living with the result.
In any case, they have not, as a result, been driven into the sea. They have endured. They have accepted the risks of walking their particular talk, and carried on.
I don’t think we’re doing that. I think we, as a nation, when the chips were down, were more than happy to let the big men and women in Washington do whatever they felt they wanted or needed to do, in order to make us feel safer.
That’s my objection to the drone program, as well as my objection to any number of other initiatives that followed on the attacks of September 11.
We’ve been through stuff like this before, and have come to our senses more quickly than we are doing now.
I frankly don’t know quite what to make of the response of the US to the attacks of 9/11, or to the lesser attempted attacks on us since then. IMO we are living out some kind of national hysteria.
Equally frankly, the threat of losing my life through some kind of political violence initiated by some Saudi or Yemeni dude disturbs me far less, if you can believe it, than the attitudes and actions I have seen in play here in the good old USA over the last eleven years.
I’m not sure what that means for us, but I don’t see it portending anything good.
Freaked out people quite often don’t behave well.
Over and out.
i was just wondering if the assumption is that the people who make these decisions do not care a whit about killing innocents
I’m not making that assumption.
First, the folks making the decision to shoot are not the folks doing the shooting.
Second, the level of empathy and self-awareness and general level of plain human conscience among both folks deciding and folks shooting probably runs the gamut.
IMO, or to me anyway, the issue here isn’t the personal goodness or callousness of the individual people involved.
I want to call attention to magistra’s contributions in this thread, because magistra lives in the UK, and folks there have experience with ideological political violence. As do folks in France, Spain, Germany, and lots of other countries.
Among our peer nations, programs to deal with terrorism by assassinating non-state actors are not common. The reason for that is that it conflicts with other values they wish to maintain.
In not a few cases, their present policy came as a result of NOT maintaining values they claimed to hold, and then living with the result.
In any case, they have not, as a result, been driven into the sea. They have endured. They have accepted the risks of walking their particular talk, and carried on.
I don’t think we’re doing that. I think we, as a nation, when the chips were down, were more than happy to let the big men and women in Washington do whatever they felt they wanted or needed to do, in order to make us feel safer.
That’s my objection to the drone program, as well as my objection to any number of other initiatives that followed on the attacks of September 11.
We’ve been through stuff like this before, and have come to our senses more quickly than we are doing now.
I frankly don’t know quite what to make of the response of the US to the attacks of 9/11, or to the lesser attempted attacks on us since then. IMO we are living out some kind of national hysteria.
Equally frankly, the threat of losing my life through some kind of political violence initiated by some Saudi or Yemeni dude disturbs me far less, if you can believe it, than the attitudes and actions I have seen in play here in the good old USA over the last eleven years.
I’m not sure what that means for us, but I don’t see it portending anything good.
Freaked out people quite often don’t behave well.
Over and out.
The system is out of control in that it kills random people without consequence.
Could you document that statement for us, Turbulence? Could you also compare or contrast to other implements of war? Your previous comment seems to take a more considered view. From that comment:
I think the controls that the USAF uses to ensure appropriate use of force are not enough, but they are something, and they’re a hell of a lot more than the CIA.
Isn’t that what’s going on (from the information that the Washington Post article imparts), that the military is taking a larger role?
My take on the Washington Post articles is not that Obama is trying to create a perpetual drone war, but that he is trying to create a system. He’s “regulating,” if you will, meaning restricting the process. This is what I don’t get about the hysteria always coming from the Glenn Greenwald camp: they scream about “institutionalizing” and “perpetuating”. What seems clear to me is that Obama is trying to create a process, so that the very objections you have here are addressed.
I’m going to write another comment in a moment, because the issues need to be broken down.
The system is out of control in that it kills random people without consequence.
Could you document that statement for us, Turbulence? Could you also compare or contrast to other implements of war? Your previous comment seems to take a more considered view. From that comment:
I think the controls that the USAF uses to ensure appropriate use of force are not enough, but they are something, and they’re a hell of a lot more than the CIA.
Isn’t that what’s going on (from the information that the Washington Post article imparts), that the military is taking a larger role?
My take on the Washington Post articles is not that Obama is trying to create a perpetual drone war, but that he is trying to create a system. He’s “regulating,” if you will, meaning restricting the process. This is what I don’t get about the hysteria always coming from the Glenn Greenwald camp: they scream about “institutionalizing” and “perpetuating”. What seems clear to me is that Obama is trying to create a process, so that the very objections you have here are addressed.
I’m going to write another comment in a moment, because the issues need to be broken down.
These questions need to be answered, I think, separately (and some people have already done so, to an extent):
Is there a problem of “global terrorism”?
Assuming that we all agree that terrorism is a negative movement, do we all agree that the United States has a role in combatting it?
What role do we have in combatting terrorism?
Is warfare an appropriate paradigm for combatting terrorism?
What advantages and disadvantages exist in the use of drones?
If drones are sometimes appropriate, how should their use be regulated?
I don’t expect anyone to go through these questions or to answer them, but that was the series of questtions I asked myself. The reason I pointed to this morning’s suicide bombing report is because I think that the answer to the first question (which I would answer in the affirmative) isn’t always a given here.
These questions need to be answered, I think, separately (and some people have already done so, to an extent):
Is there a problem of “global terrorism”?
Assuming that we all agree that terrorism is a negative movement, do we all agree that the United States has a role in combatting it?
What role do we have in combatting terrorism?
Is warfare an appropriate paradigm for combatting terrorism?
What advantages and disadvantages exist in the use of drones?
If drones are sometimes appropriate, how should their use be regulated?
I don’t expect anyone to go through these questions or to answer them, but that was the series of questtions I asked myself. The reason I pointed to this morning’s suicide bombing report is because I think that the answer to the first question (which I would answer in the affirmative) isn’t always a given here.
Could you document that statement for us, Turbulence?
I have secret evidence that is classified, so I can’t reveal it to you.
But I’ve read a bit about the history of the CIA Directorate of Operations and historically — these people are fucking crazy. And absurdly comically incompetent. If it weren’t for terrifying degree of ammorality espoused by the institution, their incompetence would be hilarious.
More to the point, in any functioning institution, people do wrong and are punished. Every few months the US Navy publishes a list of commanders who it has fired along with explanations for what they did wrong. The Army publishes information about who it court martials. But there is no such action for the CIA: historically, the more you fuck up, the more you rise to the top in that organization. And why not? No one will ever find out, at least not for a decade or so until the historians can publish.
the military is taking a larger role?
Can someone, anyone, explain to me why the CIA is fielding an air force now? Seriously, I want to understand.
We have an Air Force. It has way more experience in all facets of air operations than the CIA. And it is full of people accountable to some authority. Is that the only reason why we have to create a faux air force under Langley’s control?
Could you document that statement for us, Turbulence?
I have secret evidence that is classified, so I can’t reveal it to you.
But I’ve read a bit about the history of the CIA Directorate of Operations and historically — these people are fucking crazy. And absurdly comically incompetent. If it weren’t for terrifying degree of ammorality espoused by the institution, their incompetence would be hilarious.
More to the point, in any functioning institution, people do wrong and are punished. Every few months the US Navy publishes a list of commanders who it has fired along with explanations for what they did wrong. The Army publishes information about who it court martials. But there is no such action for the CIA: historically, the more you fuck up, the more you rise to the top in that organization. And why not? No one will ever find out, at least not for a decade or so until the historians can publish.
the military is taking a larger role?
Can someone, anyone, explain to me why the CIA is fielding an air force now? Seriously, I want to understand.
We have an Air Force. It has way more experience in all facets of air operations than the CIA. And it is full of people accountable to some authority. Is that the only reason why we have to create a faux air force under Langley’s control?
Excellent point, Turbulence. With USAF, there are Rules of Engagement. With the CIA, I would expect those rules, if any, are quite different and substantially less restrictive. Not necessarily because they are evil, but more that they haven’t experienced the pointed negative feedback that the USAF officers who did things that spawned those rules experienced.
Or something like that. USAF Rules of Engagement didn’t just happen by accident, I think.
Excellent point, Turbulence. With USAF, there are Rules of Engagement. With the CIA, I would expect those rules, if any, are quite different and substantially less restrictive. Not necessarily because they are evil, but more that they haven’t experienced the pointed negative feedback that the USAF officers who did things that spawned those rules experienced.
Or something like that. USAF Rules of Engagement didn’t just happen by accident, I think.
“Second, the level of empathy and self-awareness and general level of plain human conscience among both folks deciding and folks shooting probably runs the gamut.”
I’m sure slarti will argue with me about this, but the fact is that the guys actually doing the shooting, pressing the button on the “joy” stick aren’t even seeing human targets. They are seeing avatars, literally. That is how the systems are programmed to work. Those making the call to shoot see a human. The guy doing the shooting sees an avatar. This is deliberate. It eliminates hesitation, stress and remorse on the shooter’s part. It makes killing easy. There are no avatars of women or children in the program.
“I don’t think we’re doing that. I think we, as a nation, when the chips were down, were more than happy to let the big men and women in Washington do whatever they felt they wanted or needed to do, in order to make us feel safer.”
Exactly. That entire comment is right on.
“But I’ve read a bit about the history of the CIA Directorate of Operations and historically — these people are fucking crazy.”
Yep. And they are arogant conceited massive screw-ups.
“Not necessarily because they are evil…”
No. Mostly because they are smug, beligerent, mired in group think, machiavelian sociopaths…in other words, evil.
And think about it, who names a weapons system “Hellfire”, “Predator”, “Reaper”, etc? It’s right there in front of you. This shit is the product of some seriously warped, death & destruction obsessed minds.
Back in the day we named bombers, “Liberator”, “Fly Fortress”, etc.
Even the a-bombs were benignly code named (Fat Boy?). It was a different mindset.
“Second, the level of empathy and self-awareness and general level of plain human conscience among both folks deciding and folks shooting probably runs the gamut.”
I’m sure slarti will argue with me about this, but the fact is that the guys actually doing the shooting, pressing the button on the “joy” stick aren’t even seeing human targets. They are seeing avatars, literally. That is how the systems are programmed to work. Those making the call to shoot see a human. The guy doing the shooting sees an avatar. This is deliberate. It eliminates hesitation, stress and remorse on the shooter’s part. It makes killing easy. There are no avatars of women or children in the program.
“I don’t think we’re doing that. I think we, as a nation, when the chips were down, were more than happy to let the big men and women in Washington do whatever they felt they wanted or needed to do, in order to make us feel safer.”
Exactly. That entire comment is right on.
“But I’ve read a bit about the history of the CIA Directorate of Operations and historically — these people are fucking crazy.”
Yep. And they are arogant conceited massive screw-ups.
“Not necessarily because they are evil…”
No. Mostly because they are smug, beligerent, mired in group think, machiavelian sociopaths…in other words, evil.
And think about it, who names a weapons system “Hellfire”, “Predator”, “Reaper”, etc? It’s right there in front of you. This shit is the product of some seriously warped, death & destruction obsessed minds.
Back in the day we named bombers, “Liberator”, “Fly Fortress”, etc.
Even the a-bombs were benignly code named (Fat Boy?). It was a different mindset.
“What makes you think Obama or anyone else is in “control” of the drones? The system is out of control in that it kills random people without consequence. Obama can’t stop it because he doesn’t know which killings are justified and which are random, and he doesn’t know because he doesn’t want to know and no one can make him.”
Well, for one thing, BHO sits at his weekly assassination meetings and flips around some playing cards and decides which cards – uh people – will die by drone that week. So, yeah, I think the CIC has ultimate control over some proportion of the extrajudicial killings.
Anyhow, POTUS is the CIC. The CIA Director serves at his pleasure. So, if drones are F’ing up and killing a lot of civilians and turning hearts and minds against the US (which they are) then it is POTUS/CIC’s job to, first, have read the intelligence reports and to have been properly briefed and then to straighten out the CIA. The buck stops with POTUS/CIC. Period.
Could it be that the golden triangle is influencing BHO more than common sense, moral decency and good foreign policy?
Sure, Romney will be worse. BHO loves him some drones. Romeny is positively orgasmic at the thought of them.
Either way, drones are the future; coming soon to a theater near you.
“What makes you think Obama or anyone else is in “control” of the drones? The system is out of control in that it kills random people without consequence. Obama can’t stop it because he doesn’t know which killings are justified and which are random, and he doesn’t know because he doesn’t want to know and no one can make him.”
Well, for one thing, BHO sits at his weekly assassination meetings and flips around some playing cards and decides which cards – uh people – will die by drone that week. So, yeah, I think the CIC has ultimate control over some proportion of the extrajudicial killings.
Anyhow, POTUS is the CIC. The CIA Director serves at his pleasure. So, if drones are F’ing up and killing a lot of civilians and turning hearts and minds against the US (which they are) then it is POTUS/CIC’s job to, first, have read the intelligence reports and to have been properly briefed and then to straighten out the CIA. The buck stops with POTUS/CIC. Period.
Could it be that the golden triangle is influencing BHO more than common sense, moral decency and good foreign policy?
Sure, Romney will be worse. BHO loves him some drones. Romeny is positively orgasmic at the thought of them.
Either way, drones are the future; coming soon to a theater near you.
The bit about avatars is also crap.
The bit about avatars is also crap.
There’s actually a lot out there on PTSD among drone operators.
link, and link.
Of course, someone who referred to Christopher Stevens as an ‘embassy prick‘ (at 11:32 pm) would be expected to have problems with nuance.
There’s actually a lot out there on PTSD among drone operators.
link, and link.
Of course, someone who referred to Christopher Stevens as an ‘embassy prick‘ (at 11:32 pm) would be expected to have problems with nuance.
And absurdly comically incompetent.
I would say, really really competent at really harmful things.
Is that the only reason why we have to create a faux air force under Langley’s control?
My understanding is:
Drones in Afghanistan, are USAF.
Drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, are CIA.
Is warfare an appropriate paradigm for combatting terrorism?
In general, I would say it emphatically is not.
I started a reply here that began to go quite long, I will try to boil it down.
Warfare, and all of the methods, weapons, strategies, rules, and doctrines that attend on warfare, is oriented toward forcing another *state* to stop doing something you don’t want it to do.
We’re not, certainly not in Pakistan, Yemen, or Sudan, fighting a state. We are fighting smallish groups of individuals.
Those individuals don’t care if we destroy the infrastructure of the nations they are living in. They don’t care if we kill the folks around them. They don’t care if we make the governments of those nations incapable of effective governance. They don’t even care all that much if we kill them, personally.
So, warmaking as a practice is not a particularly useful tool.
And, in fact, what we are employing against Al Qaeda is not exactly warfare. What we are about with Al Qaeda is a program of *assassination*, using the methods and weaponry of war.
It’s not a good fit.
*Assassination* is arguably an appropriate paradigm for dealing with terrorism. There are very, very significant moral and ethical issues bound up in the question of whether we should, or should not, employ state-sponsored assassination against terrorists, and in this country we basically have zero legal or procedural infrastructure for sorting those out.
Were we to consider establishing some legal and procedural infrastructure for supporting state-sponsored assassination, we might find that, all in, the downside risks were way, way larger than any benefit we might get from it. We haven’t had that discussion, at least publicly, so it remains an open question.
But that is not the question you asked.
To answer your question, warfare, as a practice of using deadly force, in the context of political states, to prevail in that context, is a *completely* inappropriate paradigm for dealing with the issue of terrorism. The goals are different, the means are different, the rules and procedures that govern its practice are not a good fit for the problem at hand.
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad fit. Morality and ethics aside, it’s just not an effective tool for the task at hand.
And absurdly comically incompetent.
I would say, really really competent at really harmful things.
Is that the only reason why we have to create a faux air force under Langley’s control?
My understanding is:
Drones in Afghanistan, are USAF.
Drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, are CIA.
Is warfare an appropriate paradigm for combatting terrorism?
In general, I would say it emphatically is not.
I started a reply here that began to go quite long, I will try to boil it down.
Warfare, and all of the methods, weapons, strategies, rules, and doctrines that attend on warfare, is oriented toward forcing another *state* to stop doing something you don’t want it to do.
We’re not, certainly not in Pakistan, Yemen, or Sudan, fighting a state. We are fighting smallish groups of individuals.
Those individuals don’t care if we destroy the infrastructure of the nations they are living in. They don’t care if we kill the folks around them. They don’t care if we make the governments of those nations incapable of effective governance. They don’t even care all that much if we kill them, personally.
So, warmaking as a practice is not a particularly useful tool.
And, in fact, what we are employing against Al Qaeda is not exactly warfare. What we are about with Al Qaeda is a program of *assassination*, using the methods and weaponry of war.
It’s not a good fit.
*Assassination* is arguably an appropriate paradigm for dealing with terrorism. There are very, very significant moral and ethical issues bound up in the question of whether we should, or should not, employ state-sponsored assassination against terrorists, and in this country we basically have zero legal or procedural infrastructure for sorting those out.
Were we to consider establishing some legal and procedural infrastructure for supporting state-sponsored assassination, we might find that, all in, the downside risks were way, way larger than any benefit we might get from it. We haven’t had that discussion, at least publicly, so it remains an open question.
But that is not the question you asked.
To answer your question, warfare, as a practice of using deadly force, in the context of political states, to prevail in that context, is a *completely* inappropriate paradigm for dealing with the issue of terrorism. The goals are different, the means are different, the rules and procedures that govern its practice are not a good fit for the problem at hand.
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad fit. Morality and ethics aside, it’s just not an effective tool for the task at hand.
I want to call attention to magistra’s contributions in this thread, because magistra lives in the UK, and folks there have experience with ideological political violence. As do folks in France, Spain, Germany, and lots of other countries.
Among our peer nations, programs to deal with terrorism by assassinating non-state actors are not common. The reason for that is that it conflicts with other values they wish to maintain.
I would dispute that; in fact, it’s flatly wrong. Our NATO allies have supported US efforts in Afghanistan, including our drone campaign. Again, they see it as an international problem, not one merely of domestic terrorism – which is handled in the courts in all of those countries, and in the U.S. It would be interesting to see a link where any of the leaders of the countries you’ve named have criticized Americans’ use of drones. I pointed out already that the UK will be using drones in Afghanistan, alongside the US. France will be using drones in Mali.
Not sure what you’re talking about with this, russell.
As to the conventional wisdom is that drones are driving new recruits to al Qaeda, this is an opposing view, based on this study.
I want to call attention to magistra’s contributions in this thread, because magistra lives in the UK, and folks there have experience with ideological political violence. As do folks in France, Spain, Germany, and lots of other countries.
Among our peer nations, programs to deal with terrorism by assassinating non-state actors are not common. The reason for that is that it conflicts with other values they wish to maintain.
I would dispute that; in fact, it’s flatly wrong. Our NATO allies have supported US efforts in Afghanistan, including our drone campaign. Again, they see it as an international problem, not one merely of domestic terrorism – which is handled in the courts in all of those countries, and in the U.S. It would be interesting to see a link where any of the leaders of the countries you’ve named have criticized Americans’ use of drones. I pointed out already that the UK will be using drones in Afghanistan, alongside the US. France will be using drones in Mali.
Not sure what you’re talking about with this, russell.
As to the conventional wisdom is that drones are driving new recruits to al Qaeda, this is an opposing view, based on this study.
“There’s actually a lot out there on PTSD among drone operators.”
This never happens with Presidents, AFAIK. Doesn’t matter what they do, what they’ve supported or ordered. I don’t know if it’s the trappings of the office makes them feel they are above the feelings of normal people, or if the type of person who wants that job is just more comfortable wielding the power of life and death over other people.
“Is there a problem of “global terrorism”?
Sure, but there’s also a lot of local violence and for the forseeable future there will be no lack of “bad people” we should be killing, including some among our allies. Which leads me to the next point,, which is that there’s an even bigger problem of Western governments arrogantly deciding to use violence (including terrorism–who was killing those Iranian scientists?) and committing war crimes when they choose to. There’s a problem with having double standards. Maybe everybody should have drone technology, so everyone can start assassinating all the people who are or who might be engaged in barbaric activity.
You brought up the suicide bombing, Sapient, but your reason for why Obama couldn’t go after Bush’s war crimes is that it wasn’t politically possible. Well, all righty then. That leaves crippling sanctions or drone attacks on America. In principle you have to support that, because you support it for other countries which don’t punish or arrest their wrongdoers, unless you think that the crimes of non-Americans are worse than the launching of an unjustified war, or torture. How do you know that some Americans wouldn’t support drone strikes on some other Americans? As for sanctions, do you propose that the rest of the world simply do nothing as Americans continue to behave like our actions or that of our allies shouldn’t have legal consequences?
“There’s actually a lot out there on PTSD among drone operators.”
This never happens with Presidents, AFAIK. Doesn’t matter what they do, what they’ve supported or ordered. I don’t know if it’s the trappings of the office makes them feel they are above the feelings of normal people, or if the type of person who wants that job is just more comfortable wielding the power of life and death over other people.
“Is there a problem of “global terrorism”?
Sure, but there’s also a lot of local violence and for the forseeable future there will be no lack of “bad people” we should be killing, including some among our allies. Which leads me to the next point,, which is that there’s an even bigger problem of Western governments arrogantly deciding to use violence (including terrorism–who was killing those Iranian scientists?) and committing war crimes when they choose to. There’s a problem with having double standards. Maybe everybody should have drone technology, so everyone can start assassinating all the people who are or who might be engaged in barbaric activity.
You brought up the suicide bombing, Sapient, but your reason for why Obama couldn’t go after Bush’s war crimes is that it wasn’t politically possible. Well, all righty then. That leaves crippling sanctions or drone attacks on America. In principle you have to support that, because you support it for other countries which don’t punish or arrest their wrongdoers, unless you think that the crimes of non-Americans are worse than the launching of an unjustified war, or torture. How do you know that some Americans wouldn’t support drone strikes on some other Americans? As for sanctions, do you propose that the rest of the world simply do nothing as Americans continue to behave like our actions or that of our allies shouldn’t have legal consequences?
I’m not sure why you think, russell that warfare needs to be confined to conflicts between political states (presumably with geographic borders). War has been going on among groups of people for all time, before the concept of nation states even arose.
It strikes me again, that people who are objecting to drone strike warfare propose no real alternative except that the world needs to learn to live with this kind of violence, and meanwhile maybe we can try to do some helpful development projects in between civilan targeted terrorist bomb blasts. I think that suggestion is even less workable than drone warfare.
I’m not sure why you think, russell that warfare needs to be confined to conflicts between political states (presumably with geographic borders). War has been going on among groups of people for all time, before the concept of nation states even arose.
It strikes me again, that people who are objecting to drone strike warfare propose no real alternative except that the world needs to learn to live with this kind of violence, and meanwhile maybe we can try to do some helpful development projects in between civilan targeted terrorist bomb blasts. I think that suggestion is even less workable than drone warfare.
“This never happens with Presidents, AFAIK.”
I take it back. Lincoln seemed utterly human. The ones in the past several decades, not so much, though I’m sure someone can point to a story about LBJ’s anguish. I think Carter probably must feel bad about his East Timor policy–I think Amy Goodman asked him about that once and he gave some weak excuse IIRC. But mostly the modern day President seems to be above the squishy moral anguish of a Lincoln.
“This never happens with Presidents, AFAIK.”
I take it back. Lincoln seemed utterly human. The ones in the past several decades, not so much, though I’m sure someone can point to a story about LBJ’s anguish. I think Carter probably must feel bad about his East Timor policy–I think Amy Goodman asked him about that once and he gave some weak excuse IIRC. But mostly the modern day President seems to be above the squishy moral anguish of a Lincoln.
War has been going on among groups of people for all time, before the concept of nation states even arose.
True enough, among other things wars were often more or less pissing matches between royals. With, of course, their fiefdoms dragged along for the ride.
What I’m referring to is war in the modern period, which is the context in which all of US military doctrine and practice is grounded.
people who are objecting to drone strike warfare propose no real alternative except that the world needs to learn to live with this kind of violence
Well, I did put assassination on the table.
No points for good effort?
You asked some questions. I presented an answer. Rather than address the substance of my response, you object because I haven’t “presented any alternative” to the use of military tactics against individual terrorists.
In fact I have, repeatedly, offered a very simple alternative:
Do all the other things we do, but not the drones. At least, not the drones in places where are otherwise not engaged militarily.
And yes, that might increase the risk that some terror attack would be successful. I, personally, consider that an acceptable trade-off. Just like the people in all of the other countries of the world, who live with terrorist political violence on a regular or semi-regular basis, consider it an acceptable trade-off.
It’s not an insane position, it’s just one you personally don’t like.
That’s not something I can do anything about.
You asked the question, I answered it. You just don’t like my answer.
War has been going on among groups of people for all time, before the concept of nation states even arose.
True enough, among other things wars were often more or less pissing matches between royals. With, of course, their fiefdoms dragged along for the ride.
What I’m referring to is war in the modern period, which is the context in which all of US military doctrine and practice is grounded.
people who are objecting to drone strike warfare propose no real alternative except that the world needs to learn to live with this kind of violence
Well, I did put assassination on the table.
No points for good effort?
You asked some questions. I presented an answer. Rather than address the substance of my response, you object because I haven’t “presented any alternative” to the use of military tactics against individual terrorists.
In fact I have, repeatedly, offered a very simple alternative:
Do all the other things we do, but not the drones. At least, not the drones in places where are otherwise not engaged militarily.
And yes, that might increase the risk that some terror attack would be successful. I, personally, consider that an acceptable trade-off. Just like the people in all of the other countries of the world, who live with terrorist political violence on a regular or semi-regular basis, consider it an acceptable trade-off.
It’s not an insane position, it’s just one you personally don’t like.
That’s not something I can do anything about.
You asked the question, I answered it. You just don’t like my answer.
“that people who are objecting to drone strike warfare propose no real alternative except that the world needs to learn to live with this kind of violence, a”
Cross-posted with my post, but your position, sapient, is that the world has no real alternative except to live with an America which won’t investigate and punish its own war criminals. It’s not politically possible , so everyone else should just live with it.
The objection of people like me is that issue of double standards is central. If you think we have the right to kill terrorists overseas, and you’re justifying this not just as self-defense, but because those terrorists kill innocent people in their own country, then you’ve opened the door wide for everyone to do the same. You should also be calling for the rest of the world to impose crippling sanctions on the US until we get serious about investigating our own crimes or allowing others to do so, and bring people to justice if the investigations show that would be warranted.
You see this as lefty posturing, unrealistic, etc… Then you go back to your serious position, which is that we have the right to do what others can’t do to us. That’s imperialism.
The more moderate position is that at the very least we need more transparency with our drone program. I agree with that, but the fundamental problem is the double standard issue.
“that people who are objecting to drone strike warfare propose no real alternative except that the world needs to learn to live with this kind of violence, a”
Cross-posted with my post, but your position, sapient, is that the world has no real alternative except to live with an America which won’t investigate and punish its own war criminals. It’s not politically possible , so everyone else should just live with it.
The objection of people like me is that issue of double standards is central. If you think we have the right to kill terrorists overseas, and you’re justifying this not just as self-defense, but because those terrorists kill innocent people in their own country, then you’ve opened the door wide for everyone to do the same. You should also be calling for the rest of the world to impose crippling sanctions on the US until we get serious about investigating our own crimes or allowing others to do so, and bring people to justice if the investigations show that would be warranted.
You see this as lefty posturing, unrealistic, etc… Then you go back to your serious position, which is that we have the right to do what others can’t do to us. That’s imperialism.
The more moderate position is that at the very least we need more transparency with our drone program. I agree with that, but the fundamental problem is the double standard issue.
“This never happens with Presidents.”
Hmmm.
Well, they assume a state of mind, a mask, that undertakes the gravitas of the office’s awful responsibilities. (read those words to yourself in a slightly arch tone of voice to see that I don’t possess the gravitas.) They do what Tony Soprano did — tell themselves this is the way business is done, It hadda be taken care of; I hadda make a decision.
Of course, the joke is, which we are perpetuating here, is that Soprano had a soul which was giving him the yips and the heebie jeebies and the nightsweats, what with all the whacking and the buck stops here, so he sought out the shrink, who he soullessly sought to lay, as he wavered between his Walker Percyish angelism/beatialism..
Harry Truman.
I suppose the first thing the new president does in the nuclear age is have a couple of hyper-serious guys with briefcases handcuffed to their wrists show him how to work the nuclear hotline telephone (I wonder if it’s a cell phone now and what would happen if someone forgot to recharge the thing).
It would be refreshing to have footage of a new President clowning around during this instructional session, say, picking up the receiver and saying “Nikita, no, I wanted pepperoni with that, not anchovies. What? NO anchovies is what I said!”
But then, we, the American people, would impeach immediately, wouldn’t we, because we are complicit and we can’t abide hijinks when what we want is deadly gravitas.
Someone, somewhere, was is it on this thread
criticized Obama for joking about the drone attacks. And Reagan asked “When does the bombing start?” in his little theatrical War of the Worlds moment.
So, instead, we are presented with the occasional media photo spread of the President and his staff in the war room, brows furrowed, shirtsleeves rolled up, bags under their eyes, monitoring what their orders have just wrought.
I liked Life Magazine’s spreads in black and white. It looked like a scene from “Fail Safe”.
Then, we, the complicit American people, all-seeing, all-knowing, see that and are profoundly impressed, but simultaneously shake our heads and say to the guy on the bar stool next to us: “That is some cold sh*t. What a bunch of soulless motherf*ckers.”
“Maybe everybody should have drone technology, so everyone can start assassinating all the people who are or who might be engaged in barbaric activity.”
Sort of Brett’s “telling everyone to go to hell” world. In a couple a decades I fully expect that we will have personal drone fleets and we’ll be treated to the spectacle of a doddering, dementia-ridden Wayne LaPierre of the national Drone Association railing that our Second Amendment rights are being egregiously violated because we may only pack one surface to air missile at a time on our drones, and then only for the airborne elk hunting weekends.
The Supreme Court will accept a case considering the constitutional legality of warrantless private drone surveillance technology because, you know, there is no right to privacy in the Constitution as long as government stays out of the way.
At which point I’m going to pick up the red telephone and plead with Nikita to launch all of his warheads, but first, I want pizza.
“This never happens with Presidents.”
Hmmm.
Well, they assume a state of mind, a mask, that undertakes the gravitas of the office’s awful responsibilities. (read those words to yourself in a slightly arch tone of voice to see that I don’t possess the gravitas.) They do what Tony Soprano did — tell themselves this is the way business is done, It hadda be taken care of; I hadda make a decision.
Of course, the joke is, which we are perpetuating here, is that Soprano had a soul which was giving him the yips and the heebie jeebies and the nightsweats, what with all the whacking and the buck stops here, so he sought out the shrink, who he soullessly sought to lay, as he wavered between his Walker Percyish angelism/beatialism..
Harry Truman.
I suppose the first thing the new president does in the nuclear age is have a couple of hyper-serious guys with briefcases handcuffed to their wrists show him how to work the nuclear hotline telephone (I wonder if it’s a cell phone now and what would happen if someone forgot to recharge the thing).
It would be refreshing to have footage of a new President clowning around during this instructional session, say, picking up the receiver and saying “Nikita, no, I wanted pepperoni with that, not anchovies. What? NO anchovies is what I said!”
But then, we, the American people, would impeach immediately, wouldn’t we, because we are complicit and we can’t abide hijinks when what we want is deadly gravitas.
Someone, somewhere, was is it on this thread
criticized Obama for joking about the drone attacks. And Reagan asked “When does the bombing start?” in his little theatrical War of the Worlds moment.
So, instead, we are presented with the occasional media photo spread of the President and his staff in the war room, brows furrowed, shirtsleeves rolled up, bags under their eyes, monitoring what their orders have just wrought.
I liked Life Magazine’s spreads in black and white. It looked like a scene from “Fail Safe”.
Then, we, the complicit American people, all-seeing, all-knowing, see that and are profoundly impressed, but simultaneously shake our heads and say to the guy on the bar stool next to us: “That is some cold sh*t. What a bunch of soulless motherf*ckers.”
“Maybe everybody should have drone technology, so everyone can start assassinating all the people who are or who might be engaged in barbaric activity.”
Sort of Brett’s “telling everyone to go to hell” world. In a couple a decades I fully expect that we will have personal drone fleets and we’ll be treated to the spectacle of a doddering, dementia-ridden Wayne LaPierre of the national Drone Association railing that our Second Amendment rights are being egregiously violated because we may only pack one surface to air missile at a time on our drones, and then only for the airborne elk hunting weekends.
The Supreme Court will accept a case considering the constitutional legality of warrantless private drone surveillance technology because, you know, there is no right to privacy in the Constitution as long as government stays out of the way.
At which point I’m going to pick up the red telephone and plead with Nikita to launch all of his warheads, but first, I want pizza.
In the meantime, I would occasionally favor randomly taking one of the CIA drone guys out into a meadow next to Langley, tying him to a tree, and blowing him to smithereens from an overhead drone.
Just to certify the soulfulness of the rest of the crack staff. Kind of keep everyone on an even keel on the soulicity scale.
I wonder what we would do if China, for example, decided to halt all commerce with the United States and have a bond-burning party as a way of sanctioning our drone and nuclear forces.
Maybe a blockade of both U.S. coasts.
I guess we’d soon have a black and white photo spread of the POTUS and cabinet in the bunker, wearing their souls on their sleeves.
In the meantime, I would occasionally favor randomly taking one of the CIA drone guys out into a meadow next to Langley, tying him to a tree, and blowing him to smithereens from an overhead drone.
Just to certify the soulfulness of the rest of the crack staff. Kind of keep everyone on an even keel on the soulicity scale.
I wonder what we would do if China, for example, decided to halt all commerce with the United States and have a bond-burning party as a way of sanctioning our drone and nuclear forces.
Maybe a blockade of both U.S. coasts.
I guess we’d soon have a black and white photo spread of the POTUS and cabinet in the bunker, wearing their souls on their sleeves.
You asked the question, I answered it. You just don’t like my answer.
I like your answer okay, I just don’t agree with it. My main problem with your earlier comment is comparing United States policy to the UK and Europe, as if we’re the only nation on earth which supports/feels benefit, etc. from drones because we have betrayed our values, as opposed to the UK and Europe, which are so pure and true to theirs. That is simply untrue.
your position, sapient, is that the world has no real alternative except to live with an America which won’t investigate and punish its own war criminals. It’s not politically possible , so everyone else should just live with it.
That’s not at all my position. First of all, my position on drones has nothing to do with punishing criminals. I think that trying to analogize the use of drones in a war against al Qaeda with a situation that is not at all comparable is really a silly rabbit hole. What I’ve been pointing out is not that we should try to find every bad person on the planet and attack that person with a drone. What we are trying to do is (along with our European allies, as I’ve just pointed out) confront a movement of people who are loosely organized across borders, and who have engaged in attacks against civilians on every single continent. They pose a threat everywhere.
It is possible to apprehend them using the criminal law when they are found in a country where the legal mechanisms exist to do so. But since they take refuge in failed states, taking advantage of power vacuums and the chaos of civil war, it’s difficult to use the criminal justice system to stop them there.
The more I read, the more I believe that a true international effort against these people, such as the one being organized in Mali (and the one that began in Afghanistan before Bush lost interest and invaded Iraq) is really an important innovation in international cooperation to solve a horrible internationally destablilizing problem. The use of drones is a tool – having the support of everyone who’s involved in this fight.
You asked the question, I answered it. You just don’t like my answer.
I like your answer okay, I just don’t agree with it. My main problem with your earlier comment is comparing United States policy to the UK and Europe, as if we’re the only nation on earth which supports/feels benefit, etc. from drones because we have betrayed our values, as opposed to the UK and Europe, which are so pure and true to theirs. That is simply untrue.
your position, sapient, is that the world has no real alternative except to live with an America which won’t investigate and punish its own war criminals. It’s not politically possible , so everyone else should just live with it.
That’s not at all my position. First of all, my position on drones has nothing to do with punishing criminals. I think that trying to analogize the use of drones in a war against al Qaeda with a situation that is not at all comparable is really a silly rabbit hole. What I’ve been pointing out is not that we should try to find every bad person on the planet and attack that person with a drone. What we are trying to do is (along with our European allies, as I’ve just pointed out) confront a movement of people who are loosely organized across borders, and who have engaged in attacks against civilians on every single continent. They pose a threat everywhere.
It is possible to apprehend them using the criminal law when they are found in a country where the legal mechanisms exist to do so. But since they take refuge in failed states, taking advantage of power vacuums and the chaos of civil war, it’s difficult to use the criminal justice system to stop them there.
The more I read, the more I believe that a true international effort against these people, such as the one being organized in Mali (and the one that began in Afghanistan before Bush lost interest and invaded Iraq) is really an important innovation in international cooperation to solve a horrible internationally destablilizing problem. The use of drones is a tool – having the support of everyone who’s involved in this fight.
I like your answer okay, I just don’t agree with it.
Cool with me.
As are you, personally, in case that has been obscured in the heat of argument.
Maybe everybody should have drone technology, so everyone can start assassinating all the people who are or who might be engaged in barbaric activity
Never worry, it’s on it’s way.
Among other folks, Iran is now fielding unmanned military and intelligence aircraft.
Everybody likes a good hammer.
I like your answer okay, I just don’t agree with it.
Cool with me.
As are you, personally, in case that has been obscured in the heat of argument.
Maybe everybody should have drone technology, so everyone can start assassinating all the people who are or who might be engaged in barbaric activity
Never worry, it’s on it’s way.
Among other folks, Iran is now fielding unmanned military and intelligence aircraft.
Everybody likes a good hammer.
As are you, personally
Thanks, russell. Much returned. Just want to express my gratitude generally for this forum. It’s not always easy to discuss things deeply with nonvirtual friends. (Hard to link to stuff too.)
As are you, personally
Thanks, russell. Much returned. Just want to express my gratitude generally for this forum. It’s not always easy to discuss things deeply with nonvirtual friends. (Hard to link to stuff too.)
This never happens with Presidents, AFAIK.
Well, there is the story that Churchill, at a dinner with Truman, insisted that they arrange a trial after wondering if they were going to be allowed into heaven, though Churchill was famed for having bouts of depression.
Still, this seems too close to Brett’s formulation that all politicians are sociopaths, which, coupled with the fact that you are dealing with a group of only 44, and you think of PTSD as being a modern aliment, you are talking about a group of 6 or 7 people, the observation doesn’t really tell us a lot.
This never happens with Presidents, AFAIK.
Well, there is the story that Churchill, at a dinner with Truman, insisted that they arrange a trial after wondering if they were going to be allowed into heaven, though Churchill was famed for having bouts of depression.
Still, this seems too close to Brett’s formulation that all politicians are sociopaths, which, coupled with the fact that you are dealing with a group of only 44, and you think of PTSD as being a modern aliment, you are talking about a group of 6 or 7 people, the observation doesn’t really tell us a lot.
a movement of people who are loosely organized across borders, and who have engaged in attacks against civilians on every single continent.
I do not think this is accurate.
I’m not sure why you think, russell that warfare needs to be confined to conflicts between political states (presumably with geographic borders). War has been going on among groups of people for all time, before the concept of nation states even arose.
From where I sit, it’s because my side is supposed to have rules about this sort of thing, both codified in our own laws and as a result of various treaties and conventions and membership in the United Nations. If, suddenly, we are going to declare a right to wage war – literal, on-paper war – with non-state actors, then we need to have codified rules about that, too, and not this cobbled-together crap we have now.
For starters, as was asked so many times during the Bush administration but which it appears you are not interested in now,* who on the other side has the power and the right to sue for peace in this war or signal an end to hostilities?
*See what a shitty tactic that is?
a movement of people who are loosely organized across borders, and who have engaged in attacks against civilians on every single continent.
I do not think this is accurate.
I’m not sure why you think, russell that warfare needs to be confined to conflicts between political states (presumably with geographic borders). War has been going on among groups of people for all time, before the concept of nation states even arose.
From where I sit, it’s because my side is supposed to have rules about this sort of thing, both codified in our own laws and as a result of various treaties and conventions and membership in the United Nations. If, suddenly, we are going to declare a right to wage war – literal, on-paper war – with non-state actors, then we need to have codified rules about that, too, and not this cobbled-together crap we have now.
For starters, as was asked so many times during the Bush administration but which it appears you are not interested in now,* who on the other side has the power and the right to sue for peace in this war or signal an end to hostilities?
*See what a shitty tactic that is?
LJ–I wasn’t planning on writing a scientific paper proposing that all Presidents are sociopaths. And the sample size is much less than 44, since I’m thinking of Presidents since the national security state really got going. But I suspect that people who want that much power and are comfortable wielding it might have something funny about them, or else maybe it’s something that grows on you.
I don’t really care one way or the other if I ever happen to sound like Brett. Anyway, Brett is a libertarian and I’m not, so there’s not much overlap. I always admired Jim Henley over at Unqualified Offerings and “Thoreau” too. Henley used to be a libertarian and has become a liberal again, while I think Thoreau is still a libertarian, I think. Both of them seemed the kind of libertarian (when they both were of that persuasion) that seemed mainly outraged by governmental abuse of power overseas and in the drug war–that sort of libertarian has a lot in common with lefties. Brett has a few of those tendencies, I think, but most of the time he seems more exercised by the economic issues, the Ayn Rand type of stuff, where I disagree completely.
LJ–I wasn’t planning on writing a scientific paper proposing that all Presidents are sociopaths. And the sample size is much less than 44, since I’m thinking of Presidents since the national security state really got going. But I suspect that people who want that much power and are comfortable wielding it might have something funny about them, or else maybe it’s something that grows on you.
I don’t really care one way or the other if I ever happen to sound like Brett. Anyway, Brett is a libertarian and I’m not, so there’s not much overlap. I always admired Jim Henley over at Unqualified Offerings and “Thoreau” too. Henley used to be a libertarian and has become a liberal again, while I think Thoreau is still a libertarian, I think. Both of them seemed the kind of libertarian (when they both were of that persuasion) that seemed mainly outraged by governmental abuse of power overseas and in the drug war–that sort of libertarian has a lot in common with lefties. Brett has a few of those tendencies, I think, but most of the time he seems more exercised by the economic issues, the Ayn Rand type of stuff, where I disagree completely.
“First of all, my position on drones has nothing to do with punishing criminals. I think that trying to analogize the use of drones in a war against al Qaeda with a situation that is not at all comparable is really a silly rabbit hole.”
That’s your way of dodging the double standard issue. Al Qaeda murders people. So do Western governments, by launching unjust wars and in other ways. The issue is whether there is any justice for people do these things–if there isn’t, then where is the deterrence and how can future wars be prevented if there are no serious consequences for the perpetrators? Western governments have shown that they won’t punish their own–so by your own logic other countries should try to assassinate the guilty parties. Or there should be a global movement to impose crippling sanctions on the US until we show some evidence of taking international law seriously. I don’t favor such things because of the collateral damage problem and because I think Americans would react badly, much as Pakistanis react to drones, with the difference being that our reaction is likely to be much more violent.
As for Al Qaeda, we have the right to engage in self-defense, though to the same degree that any country has that right. But that global community you want to unify–well, maybe they could also take on the rogue US problem while they are at it.
“First of all, my position on drones has nothing to do with punishing criminals. I think that trying to analogize the use of drones in a war against al Qaeda with a situation that is not at all comparable is really a silly rabbit hole.”
That’s your way of dodging the double standard issue. Al Qaeda murders people. So do Western governments, by launching unjust wars and in other ways. The issue is whether there is any justice for people do these things–if there isn’t, then where is the deterrence and how can future wars be prevented if there are no serious consequences for the perpetrators? Western governments have shown that they won’t punish their own–so by your own logic other countries should try to assassinate the guilty parties. Or there should be a global movement to impose crippling sanctions on the US until we show some evidence of taking international law seriously. I don’t favor such things because of the collateral damage problem and because I think Americans would react badly, much as Pakistanis react to drones, with the difference being that our reaction is likely to be much more violent.
As for Al Qaeda, we have the right to engage in self-defense, though to the same degree that any country has that right. But that global community you want to unify–well, maybe they could also take on the rogue US problem while they are at it.
Phil: *See what a shitty tactic that is?
Just to get this part of your comment out of the way first: I am not particularly thin-skinned, so perhaps I’m not very sensitive to thin-skinnedness. Yes, I certainly have noticed when I’ve been accused of a lot of horrible things on this blog (including being an elevator stalker), and sometimes I’m a bit taken aback when people make comments about what they imagine my demographic profile to be, etc. But basically, I tend not to become offended. I’ll try to become more sensitive (try, and try again).
The comment of mine that you thought was a shitty tactic was inspired by the following fact: most people here (feel free to correct me) seem to believe that terrorist attacks outside of our geographical borders are none of our business (except that, of course, we’re sad about them). They see the problem of terrorism as a series of crimes inflicted one instance at a time in various jurisdictions, and that each jurisdiction’s government needs to respond in accordance with its criminal law. Our reaction, thus far, to the September 11 attacks, has been an overzealous retaliation for the crimes committed within our borders on that day.
That’s one way to look at it, and it’s a legitimate way. It’s convenient to look at it that way, because it fits nicely within the existing framework of our legal system.
As any lawyer knows, however, the beauty of our legal system is that it changes to accommodate new situations. This is done by creating new laws, through statutes, or by interpreting existing law to embrace new facts. I would suggest that the criminal law isn’t really up to the task of dealing with terrorism. I would also say that we’re not really there in terms of creating a satisfying legal framework to solve all of the problematic issues that international terrorism presents.
The acts of terrorism on September 11 were bigger than most crimes we deal with, in that they resulted in more carnage than any single act of war by a a foreign power on U.S. soil in our history. There were more people killed as a result of that attack than Americans killed in action during the War of 1812. It’s understandable (to me) that Americans would see that huge mass murder, not as a criminal conspiracy, but as an act of war – just based on its size alone.
But not only that, the primary perpetrators (the triggermen, if you will) were all dead. Retaliation against them wouldn’t have been possible. Besides, was retaliation really the point? Most Americans, mainly, wanted this not to happen again. Whatever people were interested in organizing these purposeful massive attacks on civilians – those people had to be brought to justice.
Well, it turns out that “those people” are a somewhat amorphous (I admit) movement of fundamentalist Islamists who use terrorism for a religious end. It’s not clear that any particular political solution would even bring a stop to their actions. You ask who on the other side has the power and the right to sue for peace in this war or signal an end to hostilities? Well, before we even get to that issue, who has the authority even to state what they want? Our legal system has very little experience with preventing murder as massive as this, and our system of government has little experience with such an uncertain adversary in war.
But should we forego the use of military power (or the tools of military power) because the people who staged “crime” (as big as the act of war) aren’t very well organized, and can’t get it together to have a government or even a solid spokesperson? Why should we be the ones who have to confine response to an insufficient legal paradigm – when they are the ones who can’t get their act together to have a normal government, a coherent cause for their war, or a practical plan for peace? They are warriors without a rational cause, so that means we aren’t allowed to fight them? That, to me, seems ridiculous.
There’s a reason why nobody (in our allied governments) complains about drone warfare. They’re grateful for it. It’s an international problem, not just a domestic one. It calls for an international solution, and we’ve stepped into the breach. If we, and/or the international community, creates a better system for joint police action, or whatever, that’s fine with me. In the meantime, we’re doing what needs to be done, because it’s unconscionable for us to allow suicide bombings, resulting in mass murders, when we can do something to prevent them.
Perhaps this doesn’t fit into currently “codified rules” because the rules weren’t codified to address this kind of a threat.
Phil: *See what a shitty tactic that is?
Just to get this part of your comment out of the way first: I am not particularly thin-skinned, so perhaps I’m not very sensitive to thin-skinnedness. Yes, I certainly have noticed when I’ve been accused of a lot of horrible things on this blog (including being an elevator stalker), and sometimes I’m a bit taken aback when people make comments about what they imagine my demographic profile to be, etc. But basically, I tend not to become offended. I’ll try to become more sensitive (try, and try again).
The comment of mine that you thought was a shitty tactic was inspired by the following fact: most people here (feel free to correct me) seem to believe that terrorist attacks outside of our geographical borders are none of our business (except that, of course, we’re sad about them). They see the problem of terrorism as a series of crimes inflicted one instance at a time in various jurisdictions, and that each jurisdiction’s government needs to respond in accordance with its criminal law. Our reaction, thus far, to the September 11 attacks, has been an overzealous retaliation for the crimes committed within our borders on that day.
That’s one way to look at it, and it’s a legitimate way. It’s convenient to look at it that way, because it fits nicely within the existing framework of our legal system.
As any lawyer knows, however, the beauty of our legal system is that it changes to accommodate new situations. This is done by creating new laws, through statutes, or by interpreting existing law to embrace new facts. I would suggest that the criminal law isn’t really up to the task of dealing with terrorism. I would also say that we’re not really there in terms of creating a satisfying legal framework to solve all of the problematic issues that international terrorism presents.
The acts of terrorism on September 11 were bigger than most crimes we deal with, in that they resulted in more carnage than any single act of war by a a foreign power on U.S. soil in our history. There were more people killed as a result of that attack than Americans killed in action during the War of 1812. It’s understandable (to me) that Americans would see that huge mass murder, not as a criminal conspiracy, but as an act of war – just based on its size alone.
But not only that, the primary perpetrators (the triggermen, if you will) were all dead. Retaliation against them wouldn’t have been possible. Besides, was retaliation really the point? Most Americans, mainly, wanted this not to happen again. Whatever people were interested in organizing these purposeful massive attacks on civilians – those people had to be brought to justice.
Well, it turns out that “those people” are a somewhat amorphous (I admit) movement of fundamentalist Islamists who use terrorism for a religious end. It’s not clear that any particular political solution would even bring a stop to their actions. You ask who on the other side has the power and the right to sue for peace in this war or signal an end to hostilities? Well, before we even get to that issue, who has the authority even to state what they want? Our legal system has very little experience with preventing murder as massive as this, and our system of government has little experience with such an uncertain adversary in war.
But should we forego the use of military power (or the tools of military power) because the people who staged “crime” (as big as the act of war) aren’t very well organized, and can’t get it together to have a government or even a solid spokesperson? Why should we be the ones who have to confine response to an insufficient legal paradigm – when they are the ones who can’t get their act together to have a normal government, a coherent cause for their war, or a practical plan for peace? They are warriors without a rational cause, so that means we aren’t allowed to fight them? That, to me, seems ridiculous.
There’s a reason why nobody (in our allied governments) complains about drone warfare. They’re grateful for it. It’s an international problem, not just a domestic one. It calls for an international solution, and we’ve stepped into the breach. If we, and/or the international community, creates a better system for joint police action, or whatever, that’s fine with me. In the meantime, we’re doing what needs to be done, because it’s unconscionable for us to allow suicide bombings, resulting in mass murders, when we can do something to prevent them.
Perhaps this doesn’t fit into currently “codified rules” because the rules weren’t codified to address this kind of a threat.
No, but all this muttering about how politicians can’t actually be normal is, to me, Tea Party 101.
That libertarians have a lot in common with a certain variety of lefties is certainly a fair observation, and at one point in the not so distant past, a Republican libertarian would have been like centaur. That it doesn’t seem bizarre to find your friendly neighbourhood Republican retreating behind libertarian reasoning seems to underline the problem.
But to go back to the invocation of PTSD, it occurs to me that your observation is related to the notion that certain behaviors that would be classified insane are actually the only sane reaction to an insane situation. There is a certain amount of truth in that, but it sort of denies that the world can or should change. It is going to change, whether we like it or not.
No, but all this muttering about how politicians can’t actually be normal is, to me, Tea Party 101.
That libertarians have a lot in common with a certain variety of lefties is certainly a fair observation, and at one point in the not so distant past, a Republican libertarian would have been like centaur. That it doesn’t seem bizarre to find your friendly neighbourhood Republican retreating behind libertarian reasoning seems to underline the problem.
But to go back to the invocation of PTSD, it occurs to me that your observation is related to the notion that certain behaviors that would be classified insane are actually the only sane reaction to an insane situation. There is a certain amount of truth in that, but it sort of denies that the world can or should change. It is going to change, whether we like it or not.
But that global community you want to unify–well, maybe they could also take on the rogue US problem while they are at it.
I would suggest that the global community (well, not entirely global, but certainly Europe and the US) is already unified on this issue – it just hasn’t created a coherent framework.
As to the rogue US: sometimes the law isn’t up to the task. Maybe it will never be, or maybe we’re still evolving. Perhaps the international community will someday step up. In the meantime, I don’t think it’s useful to play blame games when the lives of suicide bomber victims continue to be at stake.
But that global community you want to unify–well, maybe they could also take on the rogue US problem while they are at it.
I would suggest that the global community (well, not entirely global, but certainly Europe and the US) is already unified on this issue – it just hasn’t created a coherent framework.
As to the rogue US: sometimes the law isn’t up to the task. Maybe it will never be, or maybe we’re still evolving. Perhaps the international community will someday step up. In the meantime, I don’t think it’s useful to play blame games when the lives of suicide bomber victims continue to be at stake.
I’m not clear what point you’re making, LJ. I think Presidents are people with almost the power of a monarch when it comes to killing people overseas and it probably goes to their head in bad ways. And people who want that kind of power are hard to understand. As for the Tea Party, the odd thing about them is that they take populist notions and use them to support people like Romney who probably despise them. Thomas Frank talks about this weird phenomenon of rightwing populism a lot–he was on Book TV this afternoon making that point again. (In slightly different words.)
Taking up sapient’s point, the legal system we need is one that can handle both groups like Al Qaeda and war criminals that occupy the White House. But it would not be good to have a half-baked one that, in practice, gives people in the White House yet more power to kill people without being accountable to anyone. In other words, one that focuses solely on the crimes of Al Qaeda and that sort and not on the crimes of the powerful. There’s too much of that already. We use terrorists too–everyone knows this. Everyone takes for granted that either the US or Israel or both assassinated the Iranian scientists. That’s terrorism. Maybe it’s in a “good” cause, though in that case we should have no complaints if someone employs the same tactics against people in our country.
Show me a working legal system that would hold all government leaders, including Westerners, to account, and I’d probably favor drones or other assassination programs carefully targeted with a lot of oversight and care taken. In this current world, though, it’s just more of the same BS that lets us get away with murder.
I’m not clear what point you’re making, LJ. I think Presidents are people with almost the power of a monarch when it comes to killing people overseas and it probably goes to their head in bad ways. And people who want that kind of power are hard to understand. As for the Tea Party, the odd thing about them is that they take populist notions and use them to support people like Romney who probably despise them. Thomas Frank talks about this weird phenomenon of rightwing populism a lot–he was on Book TV this afternoon making that point again. (In slightly different words.)
Taking up sapient’s point, the legal system we need is one that can handle both groups like Al Qaeda and war criminals that occupy the White House. But it would not be good to have a half-baked one that, in practice, gives people in the White House yet more power to kill people without being accountable to anyone. In other words, one that focuses solely on the crimes of Al Qaeda and that sort and not on the crimes of the powerful. There’s too much of that already. We use terrorists too–everyone knows this. Everyone takes for granted that either the US or Israel or both assassinated the Iranian scientists. That’s terrorism. Maybe it’s in a “good” cause, though in that case we should have no complaints if someone employs the same tactics against people in our country.
Show me a working legal system that would hold all government leaders, including Westerners, to account, and I’d probably favor drones or other assassination programs carefully targeted with a lot of oversight and care taken. In this current world, though, it’s just more of the same BS that lets us get away with murder.
Well, given that your original comment was just a throw away line, I might be constructing a huge edifice of thought behind it when it didn’t really mean anything. But there seems to be a dividing line in regarding government power in our discussions. To put it in broad strokes, the division is whether it is always to be questioned and doubted or to be embraced without any reservations. Obviously, most of us reside in the area between those two poles that doesn’t necessarily provide a bright line of separation, but at some point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in type. My own thoughts mirror the point that Russell made here at 2:58, which is that
Obama owns his piece of the responsibility for the policy, but it is not exclusively his. I see that responsibility as pretty widespread. To some degree it belongs to all of us.
Which seems to be of a piece with your use of ‘us’ in the last paragraph. But given that it would be exceedingly difficult for us to enter, say, Warzistan, and separate out the person accused from the civilians and do what needed to be done, it seems to me that arguing for a total ban on drones (which I’m not sure if you are, but others do) is not realistic. One may argue that we didn’t use a drone to take out Bin Laden, but that seems to underline the fact that the people at the top are going to get more attention than the underlings at the bottom of the food chain. One can also argue that we are using drones because those in power are sociopaths, but again, that leads into Conor Friesdorf territory, which is a no-go, at least for me.
Well, given that your original comment was just a throw away line, I might be constructing a huge edifice of thought behind it when it didn’t really mean anything. But there seems to be a dividing line in regarding government power in our discussions. To put it in broad strokes, the division is whether it is always to be questioned and doubted or to be embraced without any reservations. Obviously, most of us reside in the area between those two poles that doesn’t necessarily provide a bright line of separation, but at some point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in type. My own thoughts mirror the point that Russell made here at 2:58, which is that
Obama owns his piece of the responsibility for the policy, but it is not exclusively his. I see that responsibility as pretty widespread. To some degree it belongs to all of us.
Which seems to be of a piece with your use of ‘us’ in the last paragraph. But given that it would be exceedingly difficult for us to enter, say, Warzistan, and separate out the person accused from the civilians and do what needed to be done, it seems to me that arguing for a total ban on drones (which I’m not sure if you are, but others do) is not realistic. One may argue that we didn’t use a drone to take out Bin Laden, but that seems to underline the fact that the people at the top are going to get more attention than the underlings at the bottom of the food chain. One can also argue that we are using drones because those in power are sociopaths, but again, that leads into Conor Friesdorf territory, which is a no-go, at least for me.
I am not particularly thin-skinned, so perhaps I’m not very sensitive to thin-skinnedness.
No, but you excel at passive aggressiveness, apparently. Keep it up, it’s working great for you.
The acts of terrorism on September 11 were bigger than most crimes we deal with, in that they resulted in more carnage than any single act of war by a a foreign power on U.S. soil in our history.
” . . . and a baby zebra.”
There were more people killed as a result of that attack than Americans killed in action during the War of 1812.
Pro tip: If you have to pull a random event out of your hat and dress it up as a meaningful metric, you probably should have left it out.
Why should we be the ones who have to confine response to an insufficient legal paradigm – when they are the ones who can’t get their act together to have a normal government, a coherent cause for their war, or a practical plan for peace?
Indeed! Why have any principles at all, if the other side won’t bother?!
Do you even realize how close this is to “Who cares if we waterboarded them? They behead their prisoners!” The difference between you and the Bush apologists is pretty slim, no matter how much you cheerlead for Obama GOTV efforts or dress it up in talk about who you trust. And if, heaven forbid, Romney wins, you’ll almost certainly do a 180 on drone attacks within six months. It’s like the Democratic Party version of American Exceptionalism.
I am not particularly thin-skinned, so perhaps I’m not very sensitive to thin-skinnedness.
No, but you excel at passive aggressiveness, apparently. Keep it up, it’s working great for you.
The acts of terrorism on September 11 were bigger than most crimes we deal with, in that they resulted in more carnage than any single act of war by a a foreign power on U.S. soil in our history.
” . . . and a baby zebra.”
There were more people killed as a result of that attack than Americans killed in action during the War of 1812.
Pro tip: If you have to pull a random event out of your hat and dress it up as a meaningful metric, you probably should have left it out.
Why should we be the ones who have to confine response to an insufficient legal paradigm – when they are the ones who can’t get their act together to have a normal government, a coherent cause for their war, or a practical plan for peace?
Indeed! Why have any principles at all, if the other side won’t bother?!
Do you even realize how close this is to “Who cares if we waterboarded them? They behead their prisoners!” The difference between you and the Bush apologists is pretty slim, no matter how much you cheerlead for Obama GOTV efforts or dress it up in talk about who you trust. And if, heaven forbid, Romney wins, you’ll almost certainly do a 180 on drone attacks within six months. It’s like the Democratic Party version of American Exceptionalism.
“They are warriors without a rational cause….”
No, they aren’t.
They have stated their cause and it’s as reasonable and rational as any other causus belli in history. They want us out of their lands, out of their politics, out of their lives, generally, and to stop backing Israeli agression against palistinians. These grievances have been clearly and consistently delineated by various spokesmen, including Osama Bin Laden.
At bottom, they are fighting an anti-imperial guerilla war.
You don’t have to agree with the correctness of their greivances, nor do you have to like their tactics, but you do have to recognize that there is a real political and ideological impasse that has resulted in a call to arms and that the impasse is of a scale and quality that is not at all unusual in the history of international strife.
Europeans have embarked on far more bloody enterprises for far more frivolous a reason. Yet, I must note, that the hisory of European war is permeated by a sense of gentlemanly conduct.
The drones and torture are more about racism and religious intolerance than about effective war fighting.
You don’t want to recognize these things at all becuase that would cause cognitive dissonance regarding the US reaction to them. It’s easier to see these people that hate us as irrational murderous maniacs. That could be seen as justifying a lot of what we do in repsonse. There is, afterall, only one thing to be done with a rabid dog.
You don’t like that they don’t wear uniforms or have defined national boders or official spokesmen because not having those things makes them harder to kill. “they’re not fighting fair!”. Well boo hoo. When one goes abroad, one should expect to meet foreigners and one should expect that they won’t speak english. One should be adult enough to understand this before deciding on traveling.
Furthermore, when one tries to hustle the East one should expect to get hustled back.
This post was originally about leadership. Well it was a lot easier to be a leader of the free world pre-9/11/01 because our core values weren’t seriously challenged. We were never subject (except the war of 1812) to foreign attack. We were like the guru on the mountain top preaching lofty ideals to people who actually have to live in the strife of the every day world.
Then came 9/11/01. The US experienced what just about every other nation on the planet has experienced in the past 100 years.
How did we react? By immediately throwing all of our lofty ideals right out the window.
Sooner or later every individual and every group is put to the test. Without the test, whatever BS comes out of their mouths is just BS. After the test the talk can be reconciled with the walk. 9/11/01 was the test for us. We have failed the test.
Failing the test was in large part a failure of leadership. Bush was atrocious in this regard. BHO is just about as bad. We need a leader that calls upon us to adhere to our pre-9/11/01 values in spite of the threat of terrorism.
I’m with Russell. I rather risk be dead from a terrorist attack than to become a flailing wounded monster, indiscriminantly killing, torturing, living under a police state, sacrifing what we once held to be self-evident truth and justice for a pitiful iota of “security”. Because that’s what we’re really talking about here.
The problem with monsters is that they lack self reflection.
“They are warriors without a rational cause….”
No, they aren’t.
They have stated their cause and it’s as reasonable and rational as any other causus belli in history. They want us out of their lands, out of their politics, out of their lives, generally, and to stop backing Israeli agression against palistinians. These grievances have been clearly and consistently delineated by various spokesmen, including Osama Bin Laden.
At bottom, they are fighting an anti-imperial guerilla war.
You don’t have to agree with the correctness of their greivances, nor do you have to like their tactics, but you do have to recognize that there is a real political and ideological impasse that has resulted in a call to arms and that the impasse is of a scale and quality that is not at all unusual in the history of international strife.
Europeans have embarked on far more bloody enterprises for far more frivolous a reason. Yet, I must note, that the hisory of European war is permeated by a sense of gentlemanly conduct.
The drones and torture are more about racism and religious intolerance than about effective war fighting.
You don’t want to recognize these things at all becuase that would cause cognitive dissonance regarding the US reaction to them. It’s easier to see these people that hate us as irrational murderous maniacs. That could be seen as justifying a lot of what we do in repsonse. There is, afterall, only one thing to be done with a rabid dog.
You don’t like that they don’t wear uniforms or have defined national boders or official spokesmen because not having those things makes them harder to kill. “they’re not fighting fair!”. Well boo hoo. When one goes abroad, one should expect to meet foreigners and one should expect that they won’t speak english. One should be adult enough to understand this before deciding on traveling.
Furthermore, when one tries to hustle the East one should expect to get hustled back.
This post was originally about leadership. Well it was a lot easier to be a leader of the free world pre-9/11/01 because our core values weren’t seriously challenged. We were never subject (except the war of 1812) to foreign attack. We were like the guru on the mountain top preaching lofty ideals to people who actually have to live in the strife of the every day world.
Then came 9/11/01. The US experienced what just about every other nation on the planet has experienced in the past 100 years.
How did we react? By immediately throwing all of our lofty ideals right out the window.
Sooner or later every individual and every group is put to the test. Without the test, whatever BS comes out of their mouths is just BS. After the test the talk can be reconciled with the walk. 9/11/01 was the test for us. We have failed the test.
Failing the test was in large part a failure of leadership. Bush was atrocious in this regard. BHO is just about as bad. We need a leader that calls upon us to adhere to our pre-9/11/01 values in spite of the threat of terrorism.
I’m with Russell. I rather risk be dead from a terrorist attack than to become a flailing wounded monster, indiscriminantly killing, torturing, living under a police state, sacrifing what we once held to be self-evident truth and justice for a pitiful iota of “security”. Because that’s what we’re really talking about here.
The problem with monsters is that they lack self reflection.
As for drones and the people operating them; the military mindset demands conformity and dedication to a common goal. Military personnel are not souless as individuals, but, colectively, they will behave in ways that appear to be souless if they are ordered to. At least the miltary personnel are subject to the UCMJ and the ROE that are established by our civilian representatives.
The CIA has a selection process that absolutely prefers goal oriented mindsets (i.e. end justifies the means) and they are not subject to the UCMJ or ROE.
The CIA is an executive branch.
Hence the importance of leadership.
These issues are really quite simple at the moral level.
It’s only when we start thinking like a bunch of post modern acedemics or like lawyers that things get muddied and the compass begins to spin out of control.
As for drones and the people operating them; the military mindset demands conformity and dedication to a common goal. Military personnel are not souless as individuals, but, colectively, they will behave in ways that appear to be souless if they are ordered to. At least the miltary personnel are subject to the UCMJ and the ROE that are established by our civilian representatives.
The CIA has a selection process that absolutely prefers goal oriented mindsets (i.e. end justifies the means) and they are not subject to the UCMJ or ROE.
The CIA is an executive branch.
Hence the importance of leadership.
These issues are really quite simple at the moral level.
It’s only when we start thinking like a bunch of post modern acedemics or like lawyers that things get muddied and the compass begins to spin out of control.
Furthermore, when one tries to hustle the East one should expect to get hustled back.
Ahh, those inscrutable Asians!
The problem with monsters is that they lack self reflection.
Yes, if those monsters could just be as reflective as you, the world would be perfect, I’m sure.
Furthermore, when one tries to hustle the East one should expect to get hustled back.
Ahh, those inscrutable Asians!
The problem with monsters is that they lack self reflection.
Yes, if those monsters could just be as reflective as you, the world would be perfect, I’m sure.
They want us out of their lands, out of their politics, out of their lives, generally, and to stop backing Israeli agression against palistinians. These grievances have been clearly and consistently delineated by various spokesmen, including Osama Bin Laden.
At bottom, they are fighting an anti-imperial guerilla war.
Most of what they’re doing now has squat to do with the United States and/or Israel. Most of it now is about bullying and terrorizing their neighbors and destabilizing nascent democracies. They’re crazy fundamentalist nuts, and their goals are untenable. We have our own brand here in the US, but they aren’t sponsoring suicide bombings.
They want us out of their lands, out of their politics, out of their lives, generally, and to stop backing Israeli agression against palistinians. These grievances have been clearly and consistently delineated by various spokesmen, including Osama Bin Laden.
At bottom, they are fighting an anti-imperial guerilla war.
Most of what they’re doing now has squat to do with the United States and/or Israel. Most of it now is about bullying and terrorizing their neighbors and destabilizing nascent democracies. They’re crazy fundamentalist nuts, and their goals are untenable. We have our own brand here in the US, but they aren’t sponsoring suicide bombings.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/27/gop-rigging-elections-for-romney/
To change the subject…I wonder what people more knowledgeable than me thiink of this article. I have no doubts that the Republican party as a national organizationw ould engage in voter machine tampering if they could. I wonder about the feasiblity of it and I wonder about the logic of this particlualr article. Is anyone interested in discussing this?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/27/gop-rigging-elections-for-romney/
To change the subject…I wonder what people more knowledgeable than me thiink of this article. I have no doubts that the Republican party as a national organizationw ould engage in voter machine tampering if they could. I wonder about the feasiblity of it and I wonder about the logic of this particlualr article. Is anyone interested in discussing this?
“We have our own brand here in the US, but they aren’t sponsoring suicide bombings.”
Crafty of them. How civilized.
So, I suppose we just have to lay back and take it.
Maybe the plan is to drive everyone stark raving mad, so that WE commit suicide.
Luckily, according to Hans van Spakovsky’s accusatory ravings, we’ll still vote after we’re dead by our own hands.
lily: interesting subject for a future OBWI post, methinks. I’m not sure what to think about the article, frankly.
If it’s that blatant statistically, then who needs suicide bombers?
Not that I don’t put it past them.
This week’s New Yorker (Oct 29 – Nov 25) has a profile of von Spakovsky (no, he’s not a villain in the new Austin Powers sequel, he’s a real-life motherf*cker, in the here and now), the mastermind behind the effort to suppress and steal the voting franchise.
The man is a dapper sort, sartorially well-appointed and grammatically impeccable, and for my money, along with roughly 200 other elite Republican operatives beavering away at our precious bodily fluids, a mountebank, a grifter, a cheat, a liar of such immensity that if he had walked in on the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention, they’d have thrown their parchments up in the air and boarded the next frigate back to England, kneeled before King George and put their lips to his hem and sobbed “We don’t know what we were thinking, my Liege, because no matter what we wrought, it would have been pearls before these swine.”
In fact, I’ll reiterate, the soulless al Qaeda suicide bombers and the soulless CIA drone operatives are bad, very bad.
But Spakovsky and crew (Ralph Reed comes to mind) and their Republican ilk are the truly dangerous mortal threats to the American way of life.
al Qaeda only dreams of killing as many Americans as these vermin will kill with their policies.
They talk of their superior, exceptional souls, which is a dead giveaway of the howling, deadly, soulless wasteland they are determined to creat for the rest of us.
A patriot would strap on the suicide bomber vest, apply some teeth whitener, shoot his cuffs, and attend one of their closed-door conferences, the better to limit innocent collateral damage.
“We have our own brand here in the US, but they aren’t sponsoring suicide bombings.”
Crafty of them. How civilized.
So, I suppose we just have to lay back and take it.
Maybe the plan is to drive everyone stark raving mad, so that WE commit suicide.
Luckily, according to Hans van Spakovsky’s accusatory ravings, we’ll still vote after we’re dead by our own hands.
lily: interesting subject for a future OBWI post, methinks. I’m not sure what to think about the article, frankly.
If it’s that blatant statistically, then who needs suicide bombers?
Not that I don’t put it past them.
This week’s New Yorker (Oct 29 – Nov 25) has a profile of von Spakovsky (no, he’s not a villain in the new Austin Powers sequel, he’s a real-life motherf*cker, in the here and now), the mastermind behind the effort to suppress and steal the voting franchise.
The man is a dapper sort, sartorially well-appointed and grammatically impeccable, and for my money, along with roughly 200 other elite Republican operatives beavering away at our precious bodily fluids, a mountebank, a grifter, a cheat, a liar of such immensity that if he had walked in on the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention, they’d have thrown their parchments up in the air and boarded the next frigate back to England, kneeled before King George and put their lips to his hem and sobbed “We don’t know what we were thinking, my Liege, because no matter what we wrought, it would have been pearls before these swine.”
In fact, I’ll reiterate, the soulless al Qaeda suicide bombers and the soulless CIA drone operatives are bad, very bad.
But Spakovsky and crew (Ralph Reed comes to mind) and their Republican ilk are the truly dangerous mortal threats to the American way of life.
al Qaeda only dreams of killing as many Americans as these vermin will kill with their policies.
They talk of their superior, exceptional souls, which is a dead giveaway of the howling, deadly, soulless wasteland they are determined to creat for the rest of us.
A patriot would strap on the suicide bomber vest, apply some teeth whitener, shoot his cuffs, and attend one of their closed-door conferences, the better to limit innocent collateral damage.
“Most of it now is about bullying and terrorizing their neighbors and destabilizing nascent democracies. They’re crazy fundamentalist nuts…..”
fundemnetalist nuts come in all shapes and sizes, as do efforts to destablize nascent democracies (or other forms of govt). Why I could give dozens of examples where we, the good old US of A, has engaged in exactly the same attitudes and behaviors. They do it for their vision of Allah, we do it for profit margins. You don’t want to pay attention (the failure of your justification has been brought up by others here) because you are a closet fundementalist. You think we have a right because we are right in some absolute objective sense. Go read your Smedley Butler and then continue with history that takes you through Latin America and the Middle East during the cold war.
Let’s assume Slarti knows what he’s talking about. The drones cannot see well enough to do accurate target identification. So we are flying heavily armed, poorly aimed weapons into civilian populated areas and then pulling the trigger. We are not – can’t be – sure of who we are shooting at. That’s criminally irresponsible in any court room.
Again, this is really simple once the cloud of deliberate obfuscation is dispelled.
“Yes, if those monsters could just be as reflective as you, the world would be perfect, I’m sure.”
Was this sniping really called for?
“Most of it now is about bullying and terrorizing their neighbors and destabilizing nascent democracies. They’re crazy fundamentalist nuts…..”
fundemnetalist nuts come in all shapes and sizes, as do efforts to destablize nascent democracies (or other forms of govt). Why I could give dozens of examples where we, the good old US of A, has engaged in exactly the same attitudes and behaviors. They do it for their vision of Allah, we do it for profit margins. You don’t want to pay attention (the failure of your justification has been brought up by others here) because you are a closet fundementalist. You think we have a right because we are right in some absolute objective sense. Go read your Smedley Butler and then continue with history that takes you through Latin America and the Middle East during the cold war.
Let’s assume Slarti knows what he’s talking about. The drones cannot see well enough to do accurate target identification. So we are flying heavily armed, poorly aimed weapons into civilian populated areas and then pulling the trigger. We are not – can’t be – sure of who we are shooting at. That’s criminally irresponsible in any court room.
Again, this is really simple once the cloud of deliberate obfuscation is dispelled.
“Yes, if those monsters could just be as reflective as you, the world would be perfect, I’m sure.”
Was this sniping really called for?
Also, Sapient, not to be too obsessive on this topic, but i find it as fascinating as it is important, I want to address this statement you made as a justification for everything we’ve done post 9/11/01:
“Our legal system has very little experience with preventing murder as massive as this, and our system of government has little experience with such an uncertain adversary in war.”
I would say that LE’s approach to our domestic “mafia” is an very good example of how pre-9/11/01 criminal justice infrastructure is up to the task and has experience in dealing with vast muderous criminal conspiracies.
No drones, no extraoridinary rendition, no torture, no suspension of civil liberties. And all within established boundries of due process.
As an aside, organized crime kills more poeple per decade than AQ does; even the decade containing 9/11/01 and the negative economic impact of organized crime is substantially higher than that caused by AQ.
Can you imagine flying drones through hell’s Kitchen, targeting suspects because they were seen with organized crime figures, firing hellfire missiles into Moma Rosa’s Italian restuarant during dinner hour?
Why not?
Also, Sapient, not to be too obsessive on this topic, but i find it as fascinating as it is important, I want to address this statement you made as a justification for everything we’ve done post 9/11/01:
“Our legal system has very little experience with preventing murder as massive as this, and our system of government has little experience with such an uncertain adversary in war.”
I would say that LE’s approach to our domestic “mafia” is an very good example of how pre-9/11/01 criminal justice infrastructure is up to the task and has experience in dealing with vast muderous criminal conspiracies.
No drones, no extraoridinary rendition, no torture, no suspension of civil liberties. And all within established boundries of due process.
As an aside, organized crime kills more poeple per decade than AQ does; even the decade containing 9/11/01 and the negative economic impact of organized crime is substantially higher than that caused by AQ.
Can you imagine flying drones through hell’s Kitchen, targeting suspects because they were seen with organized crime figures, firing hellfire missiles into Moma Rosa’s Italian restuarant during dinner hour?
Why not?
Why not?
the technology isn’t ready yet.
it will be.
Why not?
the technology isn’t ready yet.
it will be.
as a justification for everything we’ve done post 9/11/01
What? Do you really think I’ve been trying to justify everything we’ve done post-9/11?
What I attempted to convey is that the criminal law is not up to dealing with massive extraterritorial conspiracies to attack our country. The traditional means of combatting national security threats is war. Drone warfare is a tool in the “war” portion.
It’s always helpful, Blackhawk, if you link to what you’re referring to when you cite statistics (such as those about “organized crime”). “Organized crime” is a big topic. It could even be said to include terrorism. It certainly includes a host of other things: the international drug trade, cybercrime, financial crime, electoral tampering: you name it. I would definitely agree that we have a legal mechanism set up to deal with all of it (not necessarily effectively). Most organized crime doesn’t occur in Italian restaurants, and most of it doesn’t involve random mass murder of innocent civilians.
as a justification for everything we’ve done post 9/11/01
What? Do you really think I’ve been trying to justify everything we’ve done post-9/11?
What I attempted to convey is that the criminal law is not up to dealing with massive extraterritorial conspiracies to attack our country. The traditional means of combatting national security threats is war. Drone warfare is a tool in the “war” portion.
It’s always helpful, Blackhawk, if you link to what you’re referring to when you cite statistics (such as those about “organized crime”). “Organized crime” is a big topic. It could even be said to include terrorism. It certainly includes a host of other things: the international drug trade, cybercrime, financial crime, electoral tampering: you name it. I would definitely agree that we have a legal mechanism set up to deal with all of it (not necessarily effectively). Most organized crime doesn’t occur in Italian restaurants, and most of it doesn’t involve random mass murder of innocent civilians.
Was this sniping really called for?
Yeah, I think so. You pull out these racist/religionist tropes (‘the East’, (doing it for their vision of Allah’) to argue for total withdrawal. You call a guy who was working to establish democracy in Libya and died trying an ’embassy prick’. You call anyone who thinks it is important to define terms a ‘post modern academic’. You dismiss the experience of others because it doesn’t accord with what you read in some source that you don’t cite. And after that hard work is done, you pat yourself on the back for your moral purity. Believe me, sniping is a generous reaction.
Was this sniping really called for?
Yeah, I think so. You pull out these racist/religionist tropes (‘the East’, (doing it for their vision of Allah’) to argue for total withdrawal. You call a guy who was working to establish democracy in Libya and died trying an ’embassy prick’. You call anyone who thinks it is important to define terms a ‘post modern academic’. You dismiss the experience of others because it doesn’t accord with what you read in some source that you don’t cite. And after that hard work is done, you pat yourself on the back for your moral purity. Believe me, sniping is a generous reaction.
If their activities have “squat to do with the US” what is the US doing there? And how can they be part of “massive extraterritorial conspiracies to attack our country”?
That makes no sense whatsoever, even if I shared your axioms, which I emphatically do not.
If their activities have “squat to do with the US” what is the US doing there? And how can they be part of “massive extraterritorial conspiracies to attack our country”?
That makes no sense whatsoever, even if I shared your axioms, which I emphatically do not.
“We have our own brand here in the US, but they aren’t sponsoring suicide bombings.”
Actually, a few support bombing abortion clinics, though it’s a minority. Not suicide bombings, but that’s like worrying about drones vs. F-16’s.
More importantly, a fanatic of any variety who is a citizen in a superpower doesn’t have to support the flaky nongovernmental style of terrorism. They can support unjust violence through socially acceptable means, by starting unjust wars, propping up dictators , giving money to “freedom fighters” (though that often amounts to supporting terror), or an ally that practices apartheid. They can be couch potato terrorists and best of all, feel superior to the variety that thinks in fundamentally similar ways, but uses cruder techniques.
LJ, on the sociopath thing,it’s just natural for me to distrust people who can wield life or death powers and don’t seem to be anguished about it. I come to this from varying places–C.S. Lewis wrote somewhere about men in air-conditioned offices who can inflict great evil without ever raising their voices, and Francis Jennings, an historian of colonial America (focusing on the Native Americans) once wrote that the gentlemen who dress in lace somehow float above the dirty deeds performed by their underlings. That’s a conservative Christian and a lefty historian on the same wavelength.
“We have our own brand here in the US, but they aren’t sponsoring suicide bombings.”
Actually, a few support bombing abortion clinics, though it’s a minority. Not suicide bombings, but that’s like worrying about drones vs. F-16’s.
More importantly, a fanatic of any variety who is a citizen in a superpower doesn’t have to support the flaky nongovernmental style of terrorism. They can support unjust violence through socially acceptable means, by starting unjust wars, propping up dictators , giving money to “freedom fighters” (though that often amounts to supporting terror), or an ally that practices apartheid. They can be couch potato terrorists and best of all, feel superior to the variety that thinks in fundamentally similar ways, but uses cruder techniques.
LJ, on the sociopath thing,it’s just natural for me to distrust people who can wield life or death powers and don’t seem to be anguished about it. I come to this from varying places–C.S. Lewis wrote somewhere about men in air-conditioned offices who can inflict great evil without ever raising their voices, and Francis Jennings, an historian of colonial America (focusing on the Native Americans) once wrote that the gentlemen who dress in lace somehow float above the dirty deeds performed by their underlings. That’s a conservative Christian and a lefty historian on the same wavelength.
Donald, I suppose it’s not the idea that I object to, it’s the offhand manner that you put it that caught me. As we crunch these larger statements down to reduced concentrate (like the shift from ‘The banking sector has, because of the perverse incentives, now become one where people don’t really know right from wrong’ to ‘well, bankers are all crooks’) we seem to be mixing in this notion that with the correct people in place, these things don’t happen. I’m not saying that you need to wholeheartedly support whoever gets to decide these things, but I do think that one has to understand where ‘the evil’ comes from.
I’m trying to find an article that talks about Jean Quan, the mayor of Oakland who was an Asian-American activist of some note, with deep ties to the Asian-American community and the left in Oakland, but whose actions in regards to Occupy Oakland have people calling for her to resign. I’ve followed that controversy and I don’t think you can say ‘gee, if a person of sterner stuff had been elected mayor, things would have turned out alright’ This is not the article I was thinking of, but hopefully it will give you some idea of where I am coming from.
Donald, I suppose it’s not the idea that I object to, it’s the offhand manner that you put it that caught me. As we crunch these larger statements down to reduced concentrate (like the shift from ‘The banking sector has, because of the perverse incentives, now become one where people don’t really know right from wrong’ to ‘well, bankers are all crooks’) we seem to be mixing in this notion that with the correct people in place, these things don’t happen. I’m not saying that you need to wholeheartedly support whoever gets to decide these things, but I do think that one has to understand where ‘the evil’ comes from.
I’m trying to find an article that talks about Jean Quan, the mayor of Oakland who was an Asian-American activist of some note, with deep ties to the Asian-American community and the left in Oakland, but whose actions in regards to Occupy Oakland have people calling for her to resign. I’ve followed that controversy and I don’t think you can say ‘gee, if a person of sterner stuff had been elected mayor, things would have turned out alright’ This is not the article I was thinking of, but hopefully it will give you some idea of where I am coming from.
I think “the evil” comes from a mixture of perverse incentives set up by whatever system we are talking about, along with whatever character flaws an individual might have. But I also think that a given system will probably attract a certain type or types of persons. Right now a President is expected to be a little bit ruthless (where “right now” goes back many decades) and someone who isn’t comfortable with, say, the drone policy is pretty unlikely to win either major party’s political nomination.
I just started reading Charles Ferguson’s “Predator Nation”–Ferguson is the one who directed the documentary “Inside Job”, which I never got around to watching. But the theme of the book seems to be that the financial sector imploded because of perverse incentives, but of course people who had enough integrity to resist those incentives would have had difficulty prospering in that industry. Then also, as Ferguson points out, some people might have been upstanding citizens and not immediately realized the immorality of what was going on all around them. It was just business.
I think “the evil” comes from a mixture of perverse incentives set up by whatever system we are talking about, along with whatever character flaws an individual might have. But I also think that a given system will probably attract a certain type or types of persons. Right now a President is expected to be a little bit ruthless (where “right now” goes back many decades) and someone who isn’t comfortable with, say, the drone policy is pretty unlikely to win either major party’s political nomination.
I just started reading Charles Ferguson’s “Predator Nation”–Ferguson is the one who directed the documentary “Inside Job”, which I never got around to watching. But the theme of the book seems to be that the financial sector imploded because of perverse incentives, but of course people who had enough integrity to resist those incentives would have had difficulty prospering in that industry. Then also, as Ferguson points out, some people might have been upstanding citizens and not immediately realized the immorality of what was going on all around them. It was just business.
Right now a President is expected to be a little bit ruthless (where “right now” goes back many decades)
since before the first one was elected, i suspect. that’s why they don’t have all the powers that so many wish/fear/fantasize that they had.
what the President can do in situations like this depends on what Congress allows him to do.
this comment is now the first and second appearance of “Congress” on this page.
Right now a President is expected to be a little bit ruthless (where “right now” goes back many decades)
since before the first one was elected, i suspect. that’s why they don’t have all the powers that so many wish/fear/fantasize that they had.
what the President can do in situations like this depends on what Congress allows him to do.
this comment is now the first and second appearance of “Congress” on this page.
“I think “the evil” comes from a mixture of perverse incentives set up by whatever system we are talking about, along with whatever character flaws an individual might have. But I also think that a given system will probably attract a certain type or types of persons.”
Most anyone can be a cog on a wheel in any system. People only get to become a wheel (aka decision maker) after they pass certain, usually unspoken, litmus tests. They have to be a team player and they have to understand what the game is realy all about. The game is always about protecting careers, preserving/furthering the power of the right people above you and making money.
So perverse incentives have nothing to do with anything in the way you mean it.
It’s not that some well meaning, but poorly finished, policy leaves some unrecognized perverse incentives out there, which are then later exploited by well meaning, but all too human actors.
People pervert incentives, deliberately, as a feature of the game. Perverse incentives are a baked in reality without which the game would never be played. Those who recognize the opportunity that’s been made available and are prepared to artfully exploit it are the ones that advance to become wheels.
“I think “the evil” comes from a mixture of perverse incentives set up by whatever system we are talking about, along with whatever character flaws an individual might have. But I also think that a given system will probably attract a certain type or types of persons.”
Most anyone can be a cog on a wheel in any system. People only get to become a wheel (aka decision maker) after they pass certain, usually unspoken, litmus tests. They have to be a team player and they have to understand what the game is realy all about. The game is always about protecting careers, preserving/furthering the power of the right people above you and making money.
So perverse incentives have nothing to do with anything in the way you mean it.
It’s not that some well meaning, but poorly finished, policy leaves some unrecognized perverse incentives out there, which are then later exploited by well meaning, but all too human actors.
People pervert incentives, deliberately, as a feature of the game. Perverse incentives are a baked in reality without which the game would never be played. Those who recognize the opportunity that’s been made available and are prepared to artfully exploit it are the ones that advance to become wheels.
I’m confused; I thought you knew what you were talking about.
I was simply voicing some moderately-informed skepticism. I should by no means be confused with someone who has image processing credentials. I’ve done some image correlation, and I’ve been around some folks who were doing superresolution(i.e. worked the inertial-registration side of the problem), but that’s pretty much the extent of my knowledge base.
If what you think you know was obtained on the Internet, it’s of suspect veracity. That includes everything that I tell you, I add. If you’ve actually seen evidence (not claims) that Predator imagery can be used to pull out license plate numbers or recognizable facial features at a standoff range measured in miles, with any degree of confidence, I am as wrong as wrong can be.
I’m confused; I thought you knew what you were talking about.
I was simply voicing some moderately-informed skepticism. I should by no means be confused with someone who has image processing credentials. I’ve done some image correlation, and I’ve been around some folks who were doing superresolution(i.e. worked the inertial-registration side of the problem), but that’s pretty much the extent of my knowledge base.
If what you think you know was obtained on the Internet, it’s of suspect veracity. That includes everything that I tell you, I add. If you’ve actually seen evidence (not claims) that Predator imagery can be used to pull out license plate numbers or recognizable facial features at a standoff range measured in miles, with any degree of confidence, I am as wrong as wrong can be.
“If what you think you know was obtained on the Internet, it’s of suspect veracity.”
Thanks, Slart.
We were told just weeks ago on these very pages that it was “investigative journalism”.
So which is it, folks?
My theory, presented here on the internet, is that satellite imagery is confirming that a huge cloud of what scientists now believe is a peculiarly condensed form of “bullsh*it” kicked up by AM radio and internet activity, and now by sources such as Twitter and its sister sites, Twaddle, Runatthemouth, and Crapallooza, is obscuring a goodly part of the Earth’s surface and is not only spreading but intensifying over much of the Earth’s surface.
The very weather is being affected.
There are point sources that have been identified as particularly heavy contributors to the overall effect which, depending on your geographic location, have been variously named the Kardashian Effect, the Limbaugh Effect off the east coast of Florida, the Berlosconi Halo over Europe and there’s a shifting locus of activity, one week over Alaska and the next over Arizona, that has been dubbed the Princess Dumbass Plume.
The Gingrich Vortex Spew has been particularly noxious, even shutting down airline traffic over most of the northern hemisphere.
For some reason, the cloud of obscurity is especially thick in and around my apartment building. I can barely see my hand in front of my face.
Wait a second, both of my hands are on a keyboard at the moment.
So, whose hand is that?
“If what you think you know was obtained on the Internet, it’s of suspect veracity.”
Thanks, Slart.
We were told just weeks ago on these very pages that it was “investigative journalism”.
So which is it, folks?
My theory, presented here on the internet, is that satellite imagery is confirming that a huge cloud of what scientists now believe is a peculiarly condensed form of “bullsh*it” kicked up by AM radio and internet activity, and now by sources such as Twitter and its sister sites, Twaddle, Runatthemouth, and Crapallooza, is obscuring a goodly part of the Earth’s surface and is not only spreading but intensifying over much of the Earth’s surface.
The very weather is being affected.
There are point sources that have been identified as particularly heavy contributors to the overall effect which, depending on your geographic location, have been variously named the Kardashian Effect, the Limbaugh Effect off the east coast of Florida, the Berlosconi Halo over Europe and there’s a shifting locus of activity, one week over Alaska and the next over Arizona, that has been dubbed the Princess Dumbass Plume.
The Gingrich Vortex Spew has been particularly noxious, even shutting down airline traffic over most of the northern hemisphere.
For some reason, the cloud of obscurity is especially thick in and around my apartment building. I can barely see my hand in front of my face.
Wait a second, both of my hands are on a keyboard at the moment.
So, whose hand is that?
“what the President can do in situations like this depends on what Congress allows him to do.”
Sure. Congresspeople (like Wasserman Shultz) are partly to blame.
“what the President can do in situations like this depends on what Congress allows him to do.”
Sure. Congresspeople (like Wasserman Shultz) are partly to blame.
Sure. Congresspeople (like Wasserman Shultz) are partly to blame.
AFAIK, AUMF is to blame for most of the authority Bush and Obama have (ab-)used. rescind AUMF, and … poof.
Sure. Congresspeople (like Wasserman Shultz) are partly to blame.
AFAIK, AUMF is to blame for most of the authority Bush and Obama have (ab-)used. rescind AUMF, and … poof.
Maybe we should go back to 2000 (the election), talk about who was to “blame” for that, then talk about who was to blame for the ultimate decision by the Supreme Court, then talk about who was to blame for 9/11, then talk about who was to blame for the AUMF, then talk about who was to blame for Guantanamo, then talk about who was to blame for the Iraq war, then talk about who was to blame for the black sites, then talk about who was to blame for torture, then talk about who was to blame for the election of 2004, then …
Whatever.
There’s a lot to talk about if we’re going to talk about who is to blame.
But, absolutely, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is surely to blame.
Maybe we should go back to 2000 (the election), talk about who was to “blame” for that, then talk about who was to blame for the ultimate decision by the Supreme Court, then talk about who was to blame for 9/11, then talk about who was to blame for the AUMF, then talk about who was to blame for Guantanamo, then talk about who was to blame for the Iraq war, then talk about who was to blame for the black sites, then talk about who was to blame for torture, then talk about who was to blame for the election of 2004, then …
Whatever.
There’s a lot to talk about if we’re going to talk about who is to blame.
But, absolutely, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is surely to blame.
We have our own brand here in the US, but they aren’t sponsoring suicide bombings.
They aren’t that brave. They are cowards. They bomb civilian targets in the middle of the night. They gun down unarmed people. They call themselves “right to lifers” and “protectors of innocent life”.
They are vermin.
We have our own brand here in the US, but they aren’t sponsoring suicide bombings.
They aren’t that brave. They are cowards. They bomb civilian targets in the middle of the night. They gun down unarmed people. They call themselves “right to lifers” and “protectors of innocent life”.
They are vermin.
I wonder, if both houses voted to repeal AUMF, what would change. Could the President “veto” it? There’s nothing in the Constitution about “taking back” the a declaration of war.
I wonder, if both houses voted to repeal AUMF, what would change. Could the President “veto” it? There’s nothing in the Constitution about “taking back” the a declaration of war.
“Maybe we should go back to 2000 (the election), talk about who was to “blame” for that, t”
You could go back to the Precambrian on any issue if you want. For the drone policy it’s mainly the President and Congress.
“Maybe we should go back to 2000 (the election), talk about who was to “blame” for that, t”
You could go back to the Precambrian on any issue if you want. For the drone policy it’s mainly the President and Congress.
And speaking of tracing back blame, I’m finishing Charles Ferguson’s book “Predator Nation”. He blames both parties going back to 1980 for the state of the economy , though he does say the Republicans are worse.
And speaking of tracing back blame, I’m finishing Charles Ferguson’s book “Predator Nation”. He blames both parties going back to 1980 for the state of the economy , though he does say the Republicans are worse.
Jeffrey Rosen discusses the Obama Administration’s opinions on wiretapping–
supreme court exposes the obama administration’s circular logic on wiretapping
I agree that if Congress does nothing this is also on their heads. Not to mention the organelles of single-celled organisms back in the Precambrian.
Jeffrey Rosen discusses the Obama Administration’s opinions on wiretapping–
supreme court exposes the obama administration’s circular logic on wiretapping
I agree that if Congress does nothing this is also on their heads. Not to mention the organelles of single-celled organisms back in the Precambrian.
You could go back to the Precambrian on any issue if you want. For the drone policy it’s mainly the President and Congress.
And the American people who elected them. Debbie Wasserman Schulz, as a Congressional Representatives, ranks pretty low on the blame list, IMHO.
As for wiretapping, in the absence of Congressional action, the matter is right where it should be, in the Supreme Court, where Democratic appointees – including Obama’s own – are the ones questioning whether the executive branch is overstepping its prerogative. As per usual.
You could go back to the Precambrian on any issue if you want. For the drone policy it’s mainly the President and Congress.
And the American people who elected them. Debbie Wasserman Schulz, as a Congressional Representatives, ranks pretty low on the blame list, IMHO.
As for wiretapping, in the absence of Congressional action, the matter is right where it should be, in the Supreme Court, where Democratic appointees – including Obama’s own – are the ones questioning whether the executive branch is overstepping its prerogative. As per usual.
And Obama’s lawyers are arguing the wrong side. As usual.
I do agree though, that an Obama Supreme Court is far preferable to the alternative.
And Obama’s lawyers are arguing the wrong side. As usual.
I do agree though, that an Obama Supreme Court is far preferable to the alternative.
And Obama’s lawyers are arguing the wrong side. As usual.
It’s called full and fair litigation of an issue, resulting in a binding Supreme Court opinion. That’s how Constitutional law is made. It doesn’t happen if the Executive department concedes the point for the sake of avoiding criticism.
And Obama’s lawyers are arguing the wrong side. As usual.
It’s called full and fair litigation of an issue, resulting in a binding Supreme Court opinion. That’s how Constitutional law is made. It doesn’t happen if the Executive department concedes the point for the sake of avoiding criticism.
You’re the only person I’ve seen who thinks that Obama’s lawyers argue a case they vehemently oppose for the sake of establishing a binding Supreme Court opinion. The good intentions of the Obama Administration are an unfalsifiable propositions with you–it doesn’t matter what position they take. Would they have argued for school segregation? Shouldn’t they be making a forceful case for enhanced interrogation or whatever torture will be called if Romney wins? Might be good to have a Supreme Court ruling on that as well.
You’re the only person I’ve seen who thinks that Obama’s lawyers argue a case they vehemently oppose for the sake of establishing a binding Supreme Court opinion. The good intentions of the Obama Administration are an unfalsifiable propositions with you–it doesn’t matter what position they take. Would they have argued for school segregation? Shouldn’t they be making a forceful case for enhanced interrogation or whatever torture will be called if Romney wins? Might be good to have a Supreme Court ruling on that as well.
sapient: It’s called full and fair litigation of an issue, resulting in a binding Supreme Court opinion. That’s how Constitutional law is made. It doesn’t happen if the Executive department concedes the point for the sake of avoiding criticism.
Right. Just as they’ve gone whole-hog defending DOMA.
sapient: It’s called full and fair litigation of an issue, resulting in a binding Supreme Court opinion. That’s how Constitutional law is made. It doesn’t happen if the Executive department concedes the point for the sake of avoiding criticism.
Right. Just as they’ve gone whole-hog defending DOMA.
No, you misunderstand me. Obama believes in the policy of wiretapping is constitutional. The only way to test the legality of his position is through court scrutiny, and his making a vigorous legal defense.
Obviously, Ugh, he doesn’t believe that DOMA is constitutional, so he couldn’t make a good faith argument in favor of its constitutionality. His administration won’t defend it for that reason.
If you don’t understand this, it’s no wonder you’re always annoyed.
No, you misunderstand me. Obama believes in the policy of wiretapping is constitutional. The only way to test the legality of his position is through court scrutiny, and his making a vigorous legal defense.
Obviously, Ugh, he doesn’t believe that DOMA is constitutional, so he couldn’t make a good faith argument in favor of its constitutionality. His administration won’t defend it for that reason.
If you don’t understand this, it’s no wonder you’re always annoyed.
Obama believes in the policy of wiretapping is constitutional.
And some people have a problem with that. It’s good that there are checks and balances to resolve these things when necessary, but wouldn’t it be better if the Obama administration, among others, wasn’t trying to push the wrong things in the first place, particularly if the court is compliant on the given issue and might let them get away with it?
If you agree with the adminstration’s stance, then there’s no reason to be upset. The question is – do you agree with them? If not, you’d probably prefer that they had a different position rather than having to rely on the court to fix it, particularly if you think the court isn’t very reliable.
I’d prefer not to have someone try to break into my house over having to call the cops. Wouldn’t you?
Obama believes in the policy of wiretapping is constitutional.
And some people have a problem with that. It’s good that there are checks and balances to resolve these things when necessary, but wouldn’t it be better if the Obama administration, among others, wasn’t trying to push the wrong things in the first place, particularly if the court is compliant on the given issue and might let them get away with it?
If you agree with the adminstration’s stance, then there’s no reason to be upset. The question is – do you agree with them? If not, you’d probably prefer that they had a different position rather than having to rely on the court to fix it, particularly if you think the court isn’t very reliable.
I’d prefer not to have someone try to break into my house over having to call the cops. Wouldn’t you?
I’m perfectly happy that the issue is being decided by the Supreme Court. That’s the beauty of the legal system. It makes me especially proud that Obama was willing to appoint justices that don’t seem inclined to rubber stamp all of his views on Executive power.
I’m perfectly happy that the issue is being decided by the Supreme Court. That’s the beauty of the legal system. It makes me especially proud that Obama was willing to appoint justices that don’t seem inclined to rubber stamp all of his views on Executive power.
“They aren’t that brave. They are cowards. They bomb civilian targets in the middle of the night. They gun down unarmed people. They call themselves “right to lifers” and “protectors of innocent life”.
They are vermin.”
Riiight. People who disagree with you are murderous vermin. They don’t actually murder? That’s just because they’re cowardly murderous vermin.
It couldn’t possibly be because you’re wrong about them being murderous. Who are we supposed to believe, their actual behavior, or your intuitions about what’s going on in their heads?
I think I’ll go with the former, I’ve got no reason to believe you can read minds.
“They aren’t that brave. They are cowards. They bomb civilian targets in the middle of the night. They gun down unarmed people. They call themselves “right to lifers” and “protectors of innocent life”.
They are vermin.”
Riiight. People who disagree with you are murderous vermin. They don’t actually murder? That’s just because they’re cowardly murderous vermin.
It couldn’t possibly be because you’re wrong about them being murderous. Who are we supposed to believe, their actual behavior, or your intuitions about what’s going on in their heads?
I think I’ll go with the former, I’ve got no reason to believe you can read minds.
“It makes me especially proud that Obama was willing to appoint justices that don’t seem inclined to rubber stamp all of his views on Executive power.”
Obama makes you especially proud no matter what position he takes.
“It makes me especially proud that Obama was willing to appoint justices that don’t seem inclined to rubber stamp all of his views on Executive power.”
Obama makes you especially proud no matter what position he takes.
Obama makes you especially proud no matter what position he takes.
True dat.
Obama makes you especially proud no matter what position he takes.
True dat.
It’s not like Obama had the option of picking justices by issue in an a la carte manner. I don’t think using drones or wiretapping were his very highest priorities when selecting among a fairly short list of qualified and reasonable acceptable appointees.
It’s not like Obama had the option of picking justices by issue in an a la carte manner. I don’t think using drones or wiretapping were his very highest priorities when selecting among a fairly short list of qualified and reasonable acceptable appointees.
I don’t think using drones or wiretapping were his very highest priorities when selecting among a fairly short list of qualified and reasonable acceptable appointees.
Not sure what your point is, but I totally agree. Let’s also agree that the opposing party (represented by either John McCain or Mitt Romney) might not have chosen from such a list.
The fact is, no matter what your policy differences with Obama are, the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mandate one point of view or another. That’s what justices are for, and what they’re arguing about. If the Supreme Court decides that the wiretapping policy at issue is constitutional, then we can argue about whether the policy is wise (and we can tell Glenn Greenwald to STFU about the Constitution.) If it decides that either of these policies are not, we can be reasonably certain that Obama will abide by the ruling, because he believes in the Constitution.
I’d rather that he be dealing with a whole Court full of his appointees, because I have confidence that he doesn’t appoint people based on some ability to channel the “founders’ intent”. He appoints people based on their record of fidelity to the body of federal law that has interpreted and applied the Constitution to changing facts over the course of almost 250 years. I’m quite happy with what he does, how he comes to his decisions, and most of the results.
I don’t think using drones or wiretapping were his very highest priorities when selecting among a fairly short list of qualified and reasonable acceptable appointees.
Not sure what your point is, but I totally agree. Let’s also agree that the opposing party (represented by either John McCain or Mitt Romney) might not have chosen from such a list.
The fact is, no matter what your policy differences with Obama are, the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mandate one point of view or another. That’s what justices are for, and what they’re arguing about. If the Supreme Court decides that the wiretapping policy at issue is constitutional, then we can argue about whether the policy is wise (and we can tell Glenn Greenwald to STFU about the Constitution.) If it decides that either of these policies are not, we can be reasonably certain that Obama will abide by the ruling, because he believes in the Constitution.
I’d rather that he be dealing with a whole Court full of his appointees, because I have confidence that he doesn’t appoint people based on some ability to channel the “founders’ intent”. He appoints people based on their record of fidelity to the body of federal law that has interpreted and applied the Constitution to changing facts over the course of almost 250 years. I’m quite happy with what he does, how he comes to his decisions, and most of the results.
We would never have guessed …
Salient is starting to remind me of theologians trying to prove the omnibenevolence of god.
We would never have guessed …
Salient is starting to remind me of theologians trying to prove the omnibenevolence of god.
Not sure what your point is…
You praised Obama for being willing to appoint judges who wouldn’t rubber-stamp whatever he wanted to do. My point was that he couldn’t create a justice of his own making, who would agree with his every decision. He had to pick among the best available in an imperfect world, much like we have to choose among presidential candidates with whom we don’t agree on every single thing.
The fact is, no matter what your policy differences with Obama are, the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mandate one point of view or another.
Nothing mandates a point of view. The constitution might mandate or prohibit, at least in terms of legality, if not physics, certain actions. I’m glad you used the word “necessarily” and wrote in general terms. It leaves open the possibility that you actually have an opinion of your own about the constitutionality of his policies and that you might think some of them actually aren’t constitutional without the SCOTUS telling you so.
I don’t doubt that Obama would abide by a decision declaring one of his policies unconstitutional. And the process by which that was decided would be constitutional, even if the policy was not.
BTW, you can continue to compare Obama to McCain or Romney all you like, but I’d have to guess you’d be mostly talking to yourself, since just about everyone you’ve been arguing with already prefers him over either of them, AFAICT. I, personally, am sweating over the possibility that Obama might lose on Tuesday. It scares me, maybe even more than it should. I have to tell myself it won’t be the end of the world.
Not sure what your point is…
You praised Obama for being willing to appoint judges who wouldn’t rubber-stamp whatever he wanted to do. My point was that he couldn’t create a justice of his own making, who would agree with his every decision. He had to pick among the best available in an imperfect world, much like we have to choose among presidential candidates with whom we don’t agree on every single thing.
The fact is, no matter what your policy differences with Obama are, the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mandate one point of view or another.
Nothing mandates a point of view. The constitution might mandate or prohibit, at least in terms of legality, if not physics, certain actions. I’m glad you used the word “necessarily” and wrote in general terms. It leaves open the possibility that you actually have an opinion of your own about the constitutionality of his policies and that you might think some of them actually aren’t constitutional without the SCOTUS telling you so.
I don’t doubt that Obama would abide by a decision declaring one of his policies unconstitutional. And the process by which that was decided would be constitutional, even if the policy was not.
BTW, you can continue to compare Obama to McCain or Romney all you like, but I’d have to guess you’d be mostly talking to yourself, since just about everyone you’ve been arguing with already prefers him over either of them, AFAICT. I, personally, am sweating over the possibility that Obama might lose on Tuesday. It scares me, maybe even more than it should. I have to tell myself it won’t be the end of the world.
People who disagree with you are murderous vermin.
Once again, I am reduced to shaking my head and saying “WTF?”.
If I’m not mistaken, bobbyp is talking about militant right-to-lifers who shoot abortion providers.
At the risk of a mega-threadjack – no matter how you view abortion per se, how it that not murder?
Nothing mandates a point of view. The constitution might mandate or prohibit, at least in terms of legality, if not physics, certain actions.
Thank you.
It’s great that Obama’s, or any President’s, policies and actions are subject to judicial review.
It sucks that the kind of stuff that, these days, requires judicial review, actually requires judicial review.
We can go around the mulberry bush a million more times, but the bottom line is that a lot of people, including myself, find many of Obama’s policies and actions not so great.
And by “not so great” I mean “ought to be seen as not constitutional”.
I’m sure there are a thousand pragmatic and compelling reasons for the choices he has made, and in fact given his position they may well have been the best available options.
But all of that may be true, and they still might suck. Comes with the job.
Do I wish John McCain, or Mitt Romney, were President instead?
No.
Do I wish the President we actually have, Barack Obama, drew a clearer line on constitutional limits on executive power?
Yes, I do.
You might not. Your prerogative.
I do.
People who disagree with you are murderous vermin.
Once again, I am reduced to shaking my head and saying “WTF?”.
If I’m not mistaken, bobbyp is talking about militant right-to-lifers who shoot abortion providers.
At the risk of a mega-threadjack – no matter how you view abortion per se, how it that not murder?
Nothing mandates a point of view. The constitution might mandate or prohibit, at least in terms of legality, if not physics, certain actions.
Thank you.
It’s great that Obama’s, or any President’s, policies and actions are subject to judicial review.
It sucks that the kind of stuff that, these days, requires judicial review, actually requires judicial review.
We can go around the mulberry bush a million more times, but the bottom line is that a lot of people, including myself, find many of Obama’s policies and actions not so great.
And by “not so great” I mean “ought to be seen as not constitutional”.
I’m sure there are a thousand pragmatic and compelling reasons for the choices he has made, and in fact given his position they may well have been the best available options.
But all of that may be true, and they still might suck. Comes with the job.
Do I wish John McCain, or Mitt Romney, were President instead?
No.
Do I wish the President we actually have, Barack Obama, drew a clearer line on constitutional limits on executive power?
Yes, I do.
You might not. Your prerogative.
I do.
It leaves open the possibility that you actually have an opinion of your own about the constitutionality of his policies and that you might think some of them actually aren’t constitutional without the SCOTUS telling you so.
My opinions on the constitutionality of policies are based on specific policies, the way they’re implemented, and the law that applies to those facts. It takes quite a long time to do that research, and although I have a knee-jerk opinion about a lot of things, that doesn’t translate into a solid opinion about the Constitutionality about a particular policy (as it is implemented towards specific people).
Some of my knee-jerk opinions: (1) the “state secrets” doctrine is problematic. (2) private companies that were involved in intercepting private communications without a warrant should not have been immunized from suit. (3) Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and even more so Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club Pac v. Bennett were wrongly decided. (4) prisoners are shortchanged regarding their Constitutional rights. Could go on.
Some of those beliefs rise to a Constitutional level, perhaps; but maybe not. I don’t require that the Constitution, or Constitutional jurisprudence be adjusted to my beliefs.
And by “not so great” I mean “ought to be seen as not constitutional”
Those two things aren’t equivalent in the law or in history.
That’s the problem with the blogospheric Constitutional law conversation – it has nothing to do with anything.
If a whole lot of people think that something is “not so great” the political system should take care of that with elections (and we should work to make it so that it does). The Constitution doesn’t prohibit all things that are “not so great”.
It leaves open the possibility that you actually have an opinion of your own about the constitutionality of his policies and that you might think some of them actually aren’t constitutional without the SCOTUS telling you so.
My opinions on the constitutionality of policies are based on specific policies, the way they’re implemented, and the law that applies to those facts. It takes quite a long time to do that research, and although I have a knee-jerk opinion about a lot of things, that doesn’t translate into a solid opinion about the Constitutionality about a particular policy (as it is implemented towards specific people).
Some of my knee-jerk opinions: (1) the “state secrets” doctrine is problematic. (2) private companies that were involved in intercepting private communications without a warrant should not have been immunized from suit. (3) Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and even more so Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club Pac v. Bennett were wrongly decided. (4) prisoners are shortchanged regarding their Constitutional rights. Could go on.
Some of those beliefs rise to a Constitutional level, perhaps; but maybe not. I don’t require that the Constitution, or Constitutional jurisprudence be adjusted to my beliefs.
And by “not so great” I mean “ought to be seen as not constitutional”
Those two things aren’t equivalent in the law or in history.
That’s the problem with the blogospheric Constitutional law conversation – it has nothing to do with anything.
If a whole lot of people think that something is “not so great” the political system should take care of that with elections (and we should work to make it so that it does). The Constitution doesn’t prohibit all things that are “not so great”.
And back to Benghazi: more information.
Many of the people here don’t believe in secrecy of any kind, and deny that we should have a CIA at all, etc. I disagree. And let me also express my disgust for Republicans who claim to support U.S. intelligence efforts, but thwart our agents at every opportunity if it will gain them some political points. The CIA people who died in the attack deserve better.
And back to Benghazi: more information.
Many of the people here don’t believe in secrecy of any kind, and deny that we should have a CIA at all, etc. I disagree. And let me also express my disgust for Republicans who claim to support U.S. intelligence efforts, but thwart our agents at every opportunity if it will gain them some political points. The CIA people who died in the attack deserve better.
Those two things aren’t equivalent in the law or in history.
Yes, I get that the two are not strictly equivalent.
Hence, my clarification.
Those two things aren’t equivalent in the law or in history.
Yes, I get that the two are not strictly equivalent.
Hence, my clarification.
What this has to do with the article you linked, I cannot tell. Also, I cannot tell what this has to do with, period.
Some explanation might be good.
What this has to do with the article you linked, I cannot tell. Also, I cannot tell what this has to do with, period.
Some explanation might be good.
Many of the people here don’t believe in secrecy of any kind, and deny that we should have a CIA at all, etc.
Really?
Many of the people here don’t believe in secrecy of any kind, and deny that we should have a CIA at all, etc.
Really?
I just wanted to see that in print again. I am still not sure that I really read that, and I am also not completely sure that sapient is aware of what he has just stated.
It’s one of the more depressing confessions of faith I have read in recent times. But maybe sapient didn’t mean that the way I am reading it.
I just wanted to see that in print again. I am still not sure that I really read that, and I am also not completely sure that sapient is aware of what he has just stated.
It’s one of the more depressing confessions of faith I have read in recent times. But maybe sapient didn’t mean that the way I am reading it.
Ugh, could you explain to russell what you think about government secrecy? Donald, how much secrecy should the CIA be allowed – could you please let russell know your views on that?
Slart, my statement was a bit hyperbolic, but I believe that Obama is a great president. Up there with Lincoln and Roosevelt. So, yes, I’m proud of him, and I don’t think that he would take a position that I would be ashamed of. (Obviously, if he suddenly turned into a monster and took uncharacteristic positions, I would be ashamed of him then. But you’re not so linear that you wouldn’t have understood that, are you? )
Ugh, could you explain to russell what you think about government secrecy? Donald, how much secrecy should the CIA be allowed – could you please let russell know your views on that?
Slart, my statement was a bit hyperbolic, but I believe that Obama is a great president. Up there with Lincoln and Roosevelt. So, yes, I’m proud of him, and I don’t think that he would take a position that I would be ashamed of. (Obviously, if he suddenly turned into a monster and took uncharacteristic positions, I would be ashamed of him then. But you’re not so linear that you wouldn’t have understood that, are you? )
Oh, and Slart, regarding your 8:06 comment, please read up on the Valerie Plame affair, and the recent attempt by Darrell Issa to smear the President by exposing facts about the Benghazi CIA office. Two examples for you.
Oh, and Slart, regarding your 8:06 comment, please read up on the Valerie Plame affair, and the recent attempt by Darrell Issa to smear the President by exposing facts about the Benghazi CIA office. Two examples for you.
That’s the problem with the blogospheric Constitutional law conversation – it has nothing to do with anything.
Ah, so it isn’t possible to have a relevant conversation about constitutional law on a blog. Got it.
The Constitution doesn’t prohibit all things that are “not so great”.
Thanks for being so condescending.
That’s the problem with the blogospheric Constitutional law conversation – it has nothing to do with anything.
Ah, so it isn’t possible to have a relevant conversation about constitutional law on a blog. Got it.
The Constitution doesn’t prohibit all things that are “not so great”.
Thanks for being so condescending.
That’s too bad that exposing facts is seen by you as a smear.
Sometimes the facts are smeary like that.
I’m fairly conversant with that, but thanks for the condescension! It makes for good conversation.
Valerie Plame was exposed by Dick Armitage, who is, yes, a Republican. And Democrats were absolutely correct to demand his head for having done so.
That’s too bad that exposing facts is seen by you as a smear.
Sometimes the facts are smeary like that.
I’m fairly conversant with that, but thanks for the condescension! It makes for good conversation.
Valerie Plame was exposed by Dick Armitage, who is, yes, a Republican. And Democrats were absolutely correct to demand his head for having done so.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind, and I will henceforth sprinkle that kind of assertion into conversation uninvited until everyone else believes that, too. Possibly even longer.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind, and I will henceforth sprinkle that kind of assertion into conversation uninvited until everyone else believes that, too. Possibly even longer.
No, you misunderstand me. Obama believes in the policy of wiretapping is constitutional. The only way to test the legality of his position is through court scrutiny, and his making a vigorous legal defense.
Obviously, Ugh, he doesn’t believe that DOMA is constitutional, so he couldn’t make a good faith argument in favor of its constitutionality. His administration won’t defend it for that reason.
You know, despite my own feelings on DOMA and my support of the president’s position, there’s a very, very legitimate argument that it’s the president’s job to execute all duly-passed laws whether he personally agrees with them or not until such time as they’re either repealed or found unconstitutional. In fact, that might even be written down someplace.
No, you misunderstand me. Obama believes in the policy of wiretapping is constitutional. The only way to test the legality of his position is through court scrutiny, and his making a vigorous legal defense.
Obviously, Ugh, he doesn’t believe that DOMA is constitutional, so he couldn’t make a good faith argument in favor of its constitutionality. His administration won’t defend it for that reason.
You know, despite my own feelings on DOMA and my support of the president’s position, there’s a very, very legitimate argument that it’s the president’s job to execute all duly-passed laws whether he personally agrees with them or not until such time as they’re either repealed or found unconstitutional. In fact, that might even be written down someplace.
“Donald, how much secrecy should the CIA be allowed – could you please let russell know your views on that?”
Wikileaks again. That wasn’t the CIA, but nevermind. I don’t want to revisit that particularly, but I supported the Wikileaks dump, except that they should have been careful to take out names of people who might have been endangered. There were some interesting and damning revelations that should have embarrassed both the Obama and Bush Administrations, but they didn’t get enough play, because people were too busy condemning Assange. Things like the fact that the Obama administration put pressure on foreign governments to stop their investigations into the Bush torture policies. Or the time we lied about an air strike on Yemen that killed dozens of civilians. I’m glad these things were exposed and regret that so many self-described liberals lined up behind the Obama Administration’s desire to stop Wikileaks.
I think that there are probably some real secrets that should be kept–the names of people who might be endangered for talking to US officials would be one such and no doubt various military secrets and probably things I’m not thinking about right now, but until that system of checks and balances kicks in, I think we need whistleblowers like Wikileaks. Not that it does that much good, if people care more about the danger posed by Assange than they do about some of the things he helped expose.
As for the CIA, of course we need intelligence analysts, though in practice it seems Administrations often either pressure them to say what they want to hear or ignore them if they don’t. But in theory, yes, it’d be nice to have governmental agencies devoted to figuring out what is going on in the world and writing objective analysis of that. Or did you mean “Do we need a secretive organization of assassins?”
“Donald, how much secrecy should the CIA be allowed – could you please let russell know your views on that?”
Wikileaks again. That wasn’t the CIA, but nevermind. I don’t want to revisit that particularly, but I supported the Wikileaks dump, except that they should have been careful to take out names of people who might have been endangered. There were some interesting and damning revelations that should have embarrassed both the Obama and Bush Administrations, but they didn’t get enough play, because people were too busy condemning Assange. Things like the fact that the Obama administration put pressure on foreign governments to stop their investigations into the Bush torture policies. Or the time we lied about an air strike on Yemen that killed dozens of civilians. I’m glad these things were exposed and regret that so many self-described liberals lined up behind the Obama Administration’s desire to stop Wikileaks.
I think that there are probably some real secrets that should be kept–the names of people who might be endangered for talking to US officials would be one such and no doubt various military secrets and probably things I’m not thinking about right now, but until that system of checks and balances kicks in, I think we need whistleblowers like Wikileaks. Not that it does that much good, if people care more about the danger posed by Assange than they do about some of the things he helped expose.
As for the CIA, of course we need intelligence analysts, though in practice it seems Administrations often either pressure them to say what they want to hear or ignore them if they don’t. But in theory, yes, it’d be nice to have governmental agencies devoted to figuring out what is going on in the world and writing objective analysis of that. Or did you mean “Do we need a secretive organization of assassins?”
Donald hits the nail on the head regarding the distinction between the Directorate of Analysis and the Directorate of Operations at the CIA. Analysis does some very good work. Operations has, historically, been insane. You can strongly limit the activities of one without interfering with the other.
Donald hits the nail on the head regarding the distinction between the Directorate of Analysis and the Directorate of Operations at the CIA. Analysis does some very good work. Operations has, historically, been insane. You can strongly limit the activities of one without interfering with the other.
Phil, Obama knows all about that argument. That’s why he does enforce DOMA. He doesn’t assert its constitutionality in court.
hairshirt, of course we can talk about the Constitution with offhand comments about what is and isn’t Constitutional, and what should or shouldn’t be. We can also talk about quantum physics without knowing anything about it. No law against doing so, and I’m not suggesting that people stop. But don’t be confused that you’re making fair judgments about why lawyers are “on the wrong side” of various issues, etc.
Phil, Obama knows all about that argument. That’s why he does enforce DOMA. He doesn’t assert its constitutionality in court.
hairshirt, of course we can talk about the Constitution with offhand comments about what is and isn’t Constitutional, and what should or shouldn’t be. We can also talk about quantum physics without knowing anything about it. No law against doing so, and I’m not suggesting that people stop. But don’t be confused that you’re making fair judgments about why lawyers are “on the wrong side” of various issues, etc.
No one here knows anything at all about the Constitution, or about quantum physics. Got it. Good to know.
No one here knows anything at all about the Constitution, or about quantum physics. Got it. Good to know.
To this non-lawyer, there seems to be a difference between enforcing a law on the books and arguing for it in court. And Jeffrey Rosen in the link to the article I provided above seems to think the same. There’s no reason why the Obama Administration has to be taking the position it is taking unless it really believes what it is arguing.
“In his Supreme Court brief and in the oral argument yesterday, however, Verrilli alleged that these harms were too speculative to create legal standing to challenge the law, since the lawyers and journalists couldn’t be sure they were being surveilled under the FAA rather than under some other warrantless wiretapping authority. Essentially, the Obama administration was arguing that targets of surveillance could only challenge the law after they knew they were being surveilled, though the government would never tell them they were being surveilled before bringing a case against them.
The liberal justices pounced on the Alice in Wonderland circularity of Verrilli’s argument. “General, is there anybody who has standing?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked after Verrilli had gotten out three sentences. “I don’t see a real person who would be subject to a Federal charge who could raise an objection,” chimed in Justice Ginsburg, noting that the human rights lawyers in the case would never be charged with a crime and their clients had no Fourth Amendment rights as non-citizens who acted abroad. Justice Breyer noted that the lawyers who represented clients at Guantanamo could be as certain that their telephone calls were being monitored as the probability that there would be “a storm tomorrow—I mean, you know, nothing is certain.” And Justice Elena Kagan noted that since the 2008 amendments vastly expanded the government’s surveillance powers, it was just “commonsensical” that the lawyers and journalists had to take precautions that wouldn’t have been necessary before the law was passed. Although the conservative justices were more sympathetic to the claim that the plaintiffs couldn’t be certain they were being surveilled, they, too, were skeptical of parts of Verrilli’s argument. “You are saying that the Government has obtained this extraordinarily wide-reaching power … and the Government’s not going to use it,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “It’s hard for me to think that the Government isn’t using all of the powers at its command under the law.”
I wanted to include some more paragraphs where Rosen points out the Obama Administration is siding with House Republicans against Senate Democrats, but I think the excerpt was getting too long.
To this non-lawyer, there seems to be a difference between enforcing a law on the books and arguing for it in court. And Jeffrey Rosen in the link to the article I provided above seems to think the same. There’s no reason why the Obama Administration has to be taking the position it is taking unless it really believes what it is arguing.
“In his Supreme Court brief and in the oral argument yesterday, however, Verrilli alleged that these harms were too speculative to create legal standing to challenge the law, since the lawyers and journalists couldn’t be sure they were being surveilled under the FAA rather than under some other warrantless wiretapping authority. Essentially, the Obama administration was arguing that targets of surveillance could only challenge the law after they knew they were being surveilled, though the government would never tell them they were being surveilled before bringing a case against them.
The liberal justices pounced on the Alice in Wonderland circularity of Verrilli’s argument. “General, is there anybody who has standing?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked after Verrilli had gotten out three sentences. “I don’t see a real person who would be subject to a Federal charge who could raise an objection,” chimed in Justice Ginsburg, noting that the human rights lawyers in the case would never be charged with a crime and their clients had no Fourth Amendment rights as non-citizens who acted abroad. Justice Breyer noted that the lawyers who represented clients at Guantanamo could be as certain that their telephone calls were being monitored as the probability that there would be “a storm tomorrow—I mean, you know, nothing is certain.” And Justice Elena Kagan noted that since the 2008 amendments vastly expanded the government’s surveillance powers, it was just “commonsensical” that the lawyers and journalists had to take precautions that wouldn’t have been necessary before the law was passed. Although the conservative justices were more sympathetic to the claim that the plaintiffs couldn’t be certain they were being surveilled, they, too, were skeptical of parts of Verrilli’s argument. “You are saying that the Government has obtained this extraordinarily wide-reaching power … and the Government’s not going to use it,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “It’s hard for me to think that the Government isn’t using all of the powers at its command under the law.”
I wanted to include some more paragraphs where Rosen points out the Obama Administration is siding with House Republicans against Senate Democrats, but I think the excerpt was getting too long.
In the editing of my comment above I must have taken out the part where I said I was quoting Rosen–sorry about that. Though I guess it’s clear enough. For the convenience of people who haven’t read it and don’t want to scroll up looking for it, here it is again–
supreme court exposes Obama administration’s circular logic on wiretapping
In the editing of my comment above I must have taken out the part where I said I was quoting Rosen–sorry about that. Though I guess it’s clear enough. For the convenience of people who haven’t read it and don’t want to scroll up looking for it, here it is again–
supreme court exposes Obama administration’s circular logic on wiretapping
But don’t be confused that you’re making fair judgments about why lawyers are “on the wrong side” of various issues, etc.
Don’t be confused about the fact that some things are more obvious than others. I wouldn’t attempt to pass judgement with any degree of confidence on some arcane and highly ambiguous matter of constitutional law, not being an expert of any sort. But I think I can say with great confidence that, frex, the president sending CIA operatives to my house to kill me for no particular reason would be a violation of my constitutional rights. (Gravity involves quantum mechanics at some level, but you can still catch a baseball without being a quantum physicist.)
That aside, law may be complicated, but it’s entirely the product of human beings. The universe is a far deeper mystery.
But what we’re arguing about, or at least the points I’ve been making, aren’t about the legal specifics about any particular issue or policy. Rather, I’m talking about the nature of people’s arguments, including yours, particularly the idea that a president’s willingness of abide by a SCOTUS decision, after the fact, is somehow equivalent to self-restraint.
To further my burglar analogy, it’s like saying a burglar is strictly law abiding because he doesn’t resist arrest when caught and doesn’t attempt to escape his jail cell once he’s locked up.
But don’t be confused that you’re making fair judgments about why lawyers are “on the wrong side” of various issues, etc.
Don’t be confused about the fact that some things are more obvious than others. I wouldn’t attempt to pass judgement with any degree of confidence on some arcane and highly ambiguous matter of constitutional law, not being an expert of any sort. But I think I can say with great confidence that, frex, the president sending CIA operatives to my house to kill me for no particular reason would be a violation of my constitutional rights. (Gravity involves quantum mechanics at some level, but you can still catch a baseball without being a quantum physicist.)
That aside, law may be complicated, but it’s entirely the product of human beings. The universe is a far deeper mystery.
But what we’re arguing about, or at least the points I’ve been making, aren’t about the legal specifics about any particular issue or policy. Rather, I’m talking about the nature of people’s arguments, including yours, particularly the idea that a president’s willingness of abide by a SCOTUS decision, after the fact, is somehow equivalent to self-restraint.
To further my burglar analogy, it’s like saying a burglar is strictly law abiding because he doesn’t resist arrest when caught and doesn’t attempt to escape his jail cell once he’s locked up.
One other thing: I have no problem with the concept that my thinking that some aspects of the current use of drones are stupid and counterproductive and immoral is or may be orthogonal to the constitutionality of the same.
One other thing: I have no problem with the concept that my thinking that some aspects of the current use of drones are stupid and counterproductive and immoral is or may be orthogonal to the constitutionality of the same.
But I think I can say with great confidence that, frex, the president sending CIA operatives to my house to kill me for no particular reason would be a violation of my constitutional rights.
Don’t know who’s disagreeing with you here. Is anyone? I’m not.
But I think I can say with great confidence that, frex, the president sending CIA operatives to my house to kill me for no particular reason would be a violation of my constitutional rights.
Don’t know who’s disagreeing with you here. Is anyone? I’m not.
Regarding DOMA:
Obviously, Ugh, he doesn’t believe that DOMA is constitutional, so he couldn’t make a good faith argument in favor of its constitutionality. His administration won’t defend it for that reason.
It’s quite possible I missed something..but Noah Kaplan’s argument in response to the New York Times is wrong in your view?
Regarding DOMA:
Obviously, Ugh, he doesn’t believe that DOMA is constitutional, so he couldn’t make a good faith argument in favor of its constitutionality. His administration won’t defend it for that reason.
It’s quite possible I missed something..but Noah Kaplan’s argument in response to the New York Times is wrong in your view?
Don’t know who’s disagreeing with you here. Is anyone? I’m not.
You’re not? Then why did you write this earlier?
of course we can talk about the Constitution with offhand comments about what is and isn’t Constitutional. We can also talk about quantum physics without knowing anything about it. But don’t be confused that you’re making fair judgments.
I read that as directly saying that non-lawyers like hsh are not qualified to opine on matters of constitutional law. If that’s not what you meant, what did you mean?
Don’t know who’s disagreeing with you here. Is anyone? I’m not.
You’re not? Then why did you write this earlier?
of course we can talk about the Constitution with offhand comments about what is and isn’t Constitutional. We can also talk about quantum physics without knowing anything about it. But don’t be confused that you’re making fair judgments.
I read that as directly saying that non-lawyers like hsh are not qualified to opine on matters of constitutional law. If that’s not what you meant, what did you mean?
Donald There’s no reason why the Obama Administration has to be taking the position it is taking unless it really believes what it is arguing.
I think that the Obama administration does believe what it is arguing in that case. The specific issue being argued involves standing, which is the doctrine that allows certain plaintiffs to sue based on their demonstration of harm. The case (at this stage) is not challenging the constitutionality of the law (the FAA).
A summary of Obama’s (Clapper’s) argument is here:
“Clapper counters that allowing the federal court to decide the constitutionality of the FAA in this circumstance would result in the court examining the effects of the FAA in the abstract, not in a concrete setting. Clapper believes the federal court will have to speculate on the probable effects of the law. Six former Attorneys General agree with Clapper, arguing that allowing standing in this case will create the opportunity for anyone who dislikes a law to self-inflict harm and gain standing to challenge the law. The former Attorneys General contend that such a reading of standing law would open up the government to excessive challenges from parties disagreeing with policies that do not directly injure that party.”
Do you see why this standing argument might be one that the government want to win, even aside from the argument regarding the constitutionality of the FAA? If fewer people have standing to sue, there is less of a burden on the federal government to engage in litigation. There is no reason why any executive department would be comfortable allowing a more expansive standing doctrine to go unchallenged.
Again, this case has nothing at all to do with the underlying issue of the Constitutionality of the FAA, although I’m sure that Obama will want to defend that too. If I’m not mistaken, the version of the FAA that’s at issue (the amended FISA) is the one that he voted for.
Donald There’s no reason why the Obama Administration has to be taking the position it is taking unless it really believes what it is arguing.
I think that the Obama administration does believe what it is arguing in that case. The specific issue being argued involves standing, which is the doctrine that allows certain plaintiffs to sue based on their demonstration of harm. The case (at this stage) is not challenging the constitutionality of the law (the FAA).
A summary of Obama’s (Clapper’s) argument is here:
“Clapper counters that allowing the federal court to decide the constitutionality of the FAA in this circumstance would result in the court examining the effects of the FAA in the abstract, not in a concrete setting. Clapper believes the federal court will have to speculate on the probable effects of the law. Six former Attorneys General agree with Clapper, arguing that allowing standing in this case will create the opportunity for anyone who dislikes a law to self-inflict harm and gain standing to challenge the law. The former Attorneys General contend that such a reading of standing law would open up the government to excessive challenges from parties disagreeing with policies that do not directly injure that party.”
Do you see why this standing argument might be one that the government want to win, even aside from the argument regarding the constitutionality of the FAA? If fewer people have standing to sue, there is less of a burden on the federal government to engage in litigation. There is no reason why any executive department would be comfortable allowing a more expansive standing doctrine to go unchallenged.
Again, this case has nothing at all to do with the underlying issue of the Constitutionality of the FAA, although I’m sure that Obama will want to defend that too. If I’m not mistaken, the version of the FAA that’s at issue (the amended FISA) is the one that he voted for.
Why waste all of this time discussing the constitutionality of FAA body-cavity searches when we have important nipple-spacing questions to resolve?
Why waste all of this time discussing the constitutionality of FAA body-cavity searches when we have important nipple-spacing questions to resolve?
It’s quite possible I missed something..but Noah Kaplan’s argument in response to the New York Times is wrong in your view?
Noah Kaplan wrote that shortly before Eric Holder issued the specific policy on not defending DOMA, which I linked to above, but will do again. It’s very specific as to its reasoning, and it makes a very important point: “The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.”
In other words, the Obama administration could not in good faith advance the argument that DOMA was Constitutional. But it wanted to be certain to allow Congress to do so if such an argument can be made.
Further, Holder said this: “Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law.”
Don’t know how Noah Kaplan feels about the way that the administration decided to proceed, but he probably approves since the issues can still be fully and fairly litigated by Congress.
It’s quite possible I missed something..but Noah Kaplan’s argument in response to the New York Times is wrong in your view?
Noah Kaplan wrote that shortly before Eric Holder issued the specific policy on not defending DOMA, which I linked to above, but will do again. It’s very specific as to its reasoning, and it makes a very important point: “The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.”
In other words, the Obama administration could not in good faith advance the argument that DOMA was Constitutional. But it wanted to be certain to allow Congress to do so if such an argument can be made.
Further, Holder said this: “Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law.”
Don’t know how Noah Kaplan feels about the way that the administration decided to proceed, but he probably approves since the issues can still be fully and fairly litigated by Congress.
I read that as directly saying that non-lawyers like hsh are not qualified to opine on matters of constitutional law. If that’s not what you meant, what did you mean?
I meant that they might want to spend a little extra time supporting their arguments, or at least be open to the possibility that they’re missing something.
I read that as directly saying that non-lawyers like hsh are not qualified to opine on matters of constitutional law. If that’s not what you meant, what did you mean?
I meant that they might want to spend a little extra time supporting their arguments, or at least be open to the possibility that they’re missing something.
“Do you see why this standing argument might be one that the government want to win, even aside from the argument regarding the constitutionality of the FAA? I”
Sure. But how this answers the actual arguments being made by the Supreme Court justices and Rosen escapes me. You have this abstract argument that the government wants to limit the number of people who can sue it to those who are actually harmed, but in this case the harm is caused in part because journalists don’t know if the government could be wiretapping them, the government won’t tell them, and says they can’t sue until they prove they’ve been wiretapped.
“There is no reason why any executive department would be comfortable allowing a more expansive standing doctrine to go unchallenged.”
This is so freaking grotesque. The government we are talking about won’t even investigate its own war crimes. We are such a long, long way from existing in a universe where any decent person has to worry about the government being subjected to frivolous lawsuits about violations of people’s civil rights.
“Do you see why this standing argument might be one that the government want to win, even aside from the argument regarding the constitutionality of the FAA? I”
Sure. But how this answers the actual arguments being made by the Supreme Court justices and Rosen escapes me. You have this abstract argument that the government wants to limit the number of people who can sue it to those who are actually harmed, but in this case the harm is caused in part because journalists don’t know if the government could be wiretapping them, the government won’t tell them, and says they can’t sue until they prove they’ve been wiretapped.
“There is no reason why any executive department would be comfortable allowing a more expansive standing doctrine to go unchallenged.”
This is so freaking grotesque. The government we are talking about won’t even investigate its own war crimes. We are such a long, long way from existing in a universe where any decent person has to worry about the government being subjected to frivolous lawsuits about violations of people’s civil rights.
Donald, my understanding is that you are criticizing the Obama administration for appearing in court to defend the statute? There are some really important issues that were discussed in the oral argument of the Clapper case. Have you listened to it, or taken the time to think about the issues?
It’s difficult to discuss an issue when you try to, say, conflate the issue in the Clapper case with whether the government prosecutes people who torture. Pick a topic, and then we can discuss it, but don’t try to derail the conversation by stating that “There are a lot of really shitty things going on in the Universe!” In fact, there are, and we can solve some of them, one by one. Sometimes we do this through litigation.
The standing issue is important for a lot of reasons. It limits the people who can bring an action to those who actually have a real stake in the outcome. You should listen to the oral argument. The conclusion I reach is this: the lawyers, human rights advocates and journalists only have a stake in this litigation because they claim to go to some extra expense to get their work done since they can’t do as much work on the phone (or the Internet) for fear of having the conversation monitored. But, in fact, people who are doing sensitive work (such as representing people accused of crimes, or suspected of crimes) rarely do their most important investigations on the phone or by email. So it’s very questionable whether they can show actual harm.
It’s obvious that some of the liberal justices would like to get past the standing issue, and (correctly, in my view) stress in their questioning that the classified nature of the subject matter makes it almost impossible for anyone ever to challenge the law since no one ever knows that they’re being monitored. It will be interesting to see what the court ends up saying about it.
But that’s what litigation is about – scrutinizing a statute (or a set of facts), applying the law, and figuring out what harm was done if there was any. What’s wrong with the Obama administration subjecting the FAA to that process? What if there is no harm done? I’m sure that Glenn will freak out, but maybe no harm is, actually, done by intercepting international electronic communications.
Just by the way, I talk very frequently with people who live outside the United States. It creeps me out immensely that anyone might be monitoring my phone calls. However, if the United States government isn’t doing it, I can be pretty sure that some of the other governments around the world are. When I skype with friends in China, for example, I’m pretty sure that those communications aren’t private (not that anyone would be particularly interested in my chats). My feeling is, if I want to be private, I need to get a room (and hope that it doesn’t have a video camera in it). I’m pretty sure that most lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists should do that too.
Donald, my understanding is that you are criticizing the Obama administration for appearing in court to defend the statute? There are some really important issues that were discussed in the oral argument of the Clapper case. Have you listened to it, or taken the time to think about the issues?
It’s difficult to discuss an issue when you try to, say, conflate the issue in the Clapper case with whether the government prosecutes people who torture. Pick a topic, and then we can discuss it, but don’t try to derail the conversation by stating that “There are a lot of really shitty things going on in the Universe!” In fact, there are, and we can solve some of them, one by one. Sometimes we do this through litigation.
The standing issue is important for a lot of reasons. It limits the people who can bring an action to those who actually have a real stake in the outcome. You should listen to the oral argument. The conclusion I reach is this: the lawyers, human rights advocates and journalists only have a stake in this litigation because they claim to go to some extra expense to get their work done since they can’t do as much work on the phone (or the Internet) for fear of having the conversation monitored. But, in fact, people who are doing sensitive work (such as representing people accused of crimes, or suspected of crimes) rarely do their most important investigations on the phone or by email. So it’s very questionable whether they can show actual harm.
It’s obvious that some of the liberal justices would like to get past the standing issue, and (correctly, in my view) stress in their questioning that the classified nature of the subject matter makes it almost impossible for anyone ever to challenge the law since no one ever knows that they’re being monitored. It will be interesting to see what the court ends up saying about it.
But that’s what litigation is about – scrutinizing a statute (or a set of facts), applying the law, and figuring out what harm was done if there was any. What’s wrong with the Obama administration subjecting the FAA to that process? What if there is no harm done? I’m sure that Glenn will freak out, but maybe no harm is, actually, done by intercepting international electronic communications.
Just by the way, I talk very frequently with people who live outside the United States. It creeps me out immensely that anyone might be monitoring my phone calls. However, if the United States government isn’t doing it, I can be pretty sure that some of the other governments around the world are. When I skype with friends in China, for example, I’m pretty sure that those communications aren’t private (not that anyone would be particularly interested in my chats). My feeling is, if I want to be private, I need to get a room (and hope that it doesn’t have a video camera in it). I’m pretty sure that most lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists should do that too.
What the Obama Administration does can’t be separated out the way you want. In the abstract I could agree with your previous point, but not when it’s part of a package, where the government tries to limit the number of people who can sue it while at the same time refusing to investigate itself. It’s insane. It’s why I supported Wikileaks. I don’t think that what Wikileaks did is ideal–I’d prefer a more targeted sort of whistleblowing, but we live in a political climate where many Democrats defend policies they would have condemned under Bush, where the checks and balances don’t work, where powerful people in the world of finance and in the national security state can get away with things that should have them serving long prison sentences. If we lived in a different world I’d take your concerns seriously. As it stands it’s just apologetics. It’s like listening to someone discussing states rights when the issue is slavery. And no, I’m not equating you with a state’s rights advocate circa 1860–my point is that sure, you can isolate out some legal point that might be worth talking about in the abstract, but it might take on a very different flavor in the actual context where it comes up.
And for your last point, if human rights investigators are investigating Chinese human rights violations, they need to take for granted that China will try to spy on them. Apparently the same is true if you replace the word “China” with “the United States”. Wonderful.
What the Obama Administration does can’t be separated out the way you want. In the abstract I could agree with your previous point, but not when it’s part of a package, where the government tries to limit the number of people who can sue it while at the same time refusing to investigate itself. It’s insane. It’s why I supported Wikileaks. I don’t think that what Wikileaks did is ideal–I’d prefer a more targeted sort of whistleblowing, but we live in a political climate where many Democrats defend policies they would have condemned under Bush, where the checks and balances don’t work, where powerful people in the world of finance and in the national security state can get away with things that should have them serving long prison sentences. If we lived in a different world I’d take your concerns seriously. As it stands it’s just apologetics. It’s like listening to someone discussing states rights when the issue is slavery. And no, I’m not equating you with a state’s rights advocate circa 1860–my point is that sure, you can isolate out some legal point that might be worth talking about in the abstract, but it might take on a very different flavor in the actual context where it comes up.
And for your last point, if human rights investigators are investigating Chinese human rights violations, they need to take for granted that China will try to spy on them. Apparently the same is true if you replace the word “China” with “the United States”. Wonderful.
if human rights investigators are investigating Chinese human rights violations, they need to take for granted that China will try to spy on them.
Anyone communicating electronically should take for granted that their communications can be intercepted. That’s particularly important for lawyers (since it’s an ethical violation for lawyers to disclose confidential information, lawyers are warned that electronic communications are never safe). I’m sure that the same applies to people in other professions.
The fact remains that, but for the lawsuits that are pending, there would be very little discussion of the actual manner in which these laws operate. The discussion we’re having right now is elucidated by the very argument that you don’t think should be occurring in court. This is why it’s valuable for the lawyers to be sifting through every issue, and bringing them all up.
I don’t have to like the FAA in order to think that it should be vigorously defended, even just in order that it can be subjected to thorough scrutiny.
if human rights investigators are investigating Chinese human rights violations, they need to take for granted that China will try to spy on them.
Anyone communicating electronically should take for granted that their communications can be intercepted. That’s particularly important for lawyers (since it’s an ethical violation for lawyers to disclose confidential information, lawyers are warned that electronic communications are never safe). I’m sure that the same applies to people in other professions.
The fact remains that, but for the lawsuits that are pending, there would be very little discussion of the actual manner in which these laws operate. The discussion we’re having right now is elucidated by the very argument that you don’t think should be occurring in court. This is why it’s valuable for the lawyers to be sifting through every issue, and bringing them all up.
I don’t have to like the FAA in order to think that it should be vigorously defended, even just in order that it can be subjected to thorough scrutiny.
if the United States government isn’t doing it, I can be pretty sure that some of the other governments around the world are.
Other governments have no obligation to respect my privacy.
if the United States government isn’t doing it, I can be pretty sure that some of the other governments around the world are.
Other governments have no obligation to respect my privacy.
Anyone communicating electronically should take for granted that their communications can be intercepted.
When I was a boy, my father travelled to China on a business trip. He called home one night, and after wishing me a good night, he started speaking to my mother in Arabic. At which point, an angry Chinese man cut onto the phone line and started screaming at them in Mandarin until they switched back to English. That night, both my parents wondered if a paranoid Chinese regime might conclude he was an American spy and imprison him; I doubt either of them slept very well that night.
When I grew older, I took pride that I lived in a country where the government didn’t spy on its citizens and where people didn’t have to live in fear that the state might annihilate them if they ever (however accidentally) frustrated its mass surveillance apparatus. Apparently, my pride was misplaced.
On the plus side, imagine how easy trials will be for the DA now that no one has any right to privacy regarding their electronic communications. Phone calls and text messages and email and video chat all belong to the government now.
Anyone communicating electronically should take for granted that their communications can be intercepted.
When I was a boy, my father travelled to China on a business trip. He called home one night, and after wishing me a good night, he started speaking to my mother in Arabic. At which point, an angry Chinese man cut onto the phone line and started screaming at them in Mandarin until they switched back to English. That night, both my parents wondered if a paranoid Chinese regime might conclude he was an American spy and imprison him; I doubt either of them slept very well that night.
When I grew older, I took pride that I lived in a country where the government didn’t spy on its citizens and where people didn’t have to live in fear that the state might annihilate them if they ever (however accidentally) frustrated its mass surveillance apparatus. Apparently, my pride was misplaced.
On the plus side, imagine how easy trials will be for the DA now that no one has any right to privacy regarding their electronic communications. Phone calls and text messages and email and video chat all belong to the government now.
On the plus side, imagine how easy trials will be for the DA now that no one has any right to privacy regarding their electronic communications. Phone calls and text messages and email and video chat all belong to the government now.
First of all, the above is incorrect. People have a theoretical right to privacy, and private electronic communications can’t be used against a U.S. citizen without a warrant having been obtained. Unfortunately, the nature of the technology is such that it is not guaranteed to be private – not from the government or anyone else.
Second, I’m not particularly interested in defending the law here. (I am as interested as anyone else in my government getting the balance between security and Constitutional protections right.) Laws can be made better (and be made to conform to the Constitution) when offensive aspects of the law are explored in depth. Actual harm is one way to determine how a law operates to offend. That’s what the standing issue tries to reach. That’s why the solicitor general’s argument is valuable.
I don’t really care, at this point, whether people agree with this or not. If Jill Stein were elected President, the Executive branch would still be defending laws in court. That’s the way the system works.
On the plus side, imagine how easy trials will be for the DA now that no one has any right to privacy regarding their electronic communications. Phone calls and text messages and email and video chat all belong to the government now.
First of all, the above is incorrect. People have a theoretical right to privacy, and private electronic communications can’t be used against a U.S. citizen without a warrant having been obtained. Unfortunately, the nature of the technology is such that it is not guaranteed to be private – not from the government or anyone else.
Second, I’m not particularly interested in defending the law here. (I am as interested as anyone else in my government getting the balance between security and Constitutional protections right.) Laws can be made better (and be made to conform to the Constitution) when offensive aspects of the law are explored in depth. Actual harm is one way to determine how a law operates to offend. That’s what the standing issue tries to reach. That’s why the solicitor general’s argument is valuable.
I don’t really care, at this point, whether people agree with this or not. If Jill Stein were elected President, the Executive branch would still be defending laws in court. That’s the way the system works.
Unfortunately, this
People have a theoretical right to privacy, and private electronic communications can’t be used against a U.S. citizen without a warrant having been obtained.
seems to contradict this
Anyone communicating electronically should take for granted that their communications can be intercepted.
I mean what’s the point of the fourth amendment really? There is no such thing as secure papers; your papers can always be confiscated by someone after all. So you should take for granted that someone has rifled through them in the night. No matter what your theoretical constitutional rights are.
Unfortunately, this
People have a theoretical right to privacy, and private electronic communications can’t be used against a U.S. citizen without a warrant having been obtained.
seems to contradict this
Anyone communicating electronically should take for granted that their communications can be intercepted.
I mean what’s the point of the fourth amendment really? There is no such thing as secure papers; your papers can always be confiscated by someone after all. So you should take for granted that someone has rifled through them in the night. No matter what your theoretical constitutional rights are.
Is your point that those things obtained through unreasonable search/seizure/surveillance might be used not for evidence at trial, but as a reason for tighter surveillance, Turbulence?
Not arguing with your objection, just wondering what the perceived harm is. I think that there is harm; I’m just having trouble articulating for myself what that harm is, other than that peace of mind is ripped away.
Is your point that those things obtained through unreasonable search/seizure/surveillance might be used not for evidence at trial, but as a reason for tighter surveillance, Turbulence?
Not arguing with your objection, just wondering what the perceived harm is. I think that there is harm; I’m just having trouble articulating for myself what that harm is, other than that peace of mind is ripped away.
Turbulence, you of all people should know that I was not referring to the government; I was talking about the technological ability of people to intercept communications (hackers, businesses, etc.), and the possibility that communications get derailed accidentally. Just the other day I was having a normal conversation on the phone (can’t remember whether it was my cell phone, or the wireless receiver to my landline) when somebody’s conversation came through the ear piece.
There are law firms in my area where the lawyers always include the following disclaimer in their emails: “This email transmission may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please let me know immediately by return email and destroy any copies of the email.”
What do you think that’s about? It’s not about the government! With or without the disclaimer, an “unintended recipient” destroy a claim of attorney/client privilege, etc.
Most people are relatively comfortable using electronic communications for most purposes. But people who work in areas where interception could be problematic don’t do it lightly (or shouldn’t). This is not because of the government; it’s because privacy isn’t an absolute with remote communication technology.
Turbulence, you of all people should know that I was not referring to the government; I was talking about the technological ability of people to intercept communications (hackers, businesses, etc.), and the possibility that communications get derailed accidentally. Just the other day I was having a normal conversation on the phone (can’t remember whether it was my cell phone, or the wireless receiver to my landline) when somebody’s conversation came through the ear piece.
There are law firms in my area where the lawyers always include the following disclaimer in their emails: “This email transmission may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please let me know immediately by return email and destroy any copies of the email.”
What do you think that’s about? It’s not about the government! With or without the disclaimer, an “unintended recipient” destroy a claim of attorney/client privilege, etc.
Most people are relatively comfortable using electronic communications for most purposes. But people who work in areas where interception could be problematic don’t do it lightly (or shouldn’t). This is not because of the government; it’s because privacy isn’t an absolute with remote communication technology.
just wondering what the perceived harm is
Historically, the motivation for the protection against unreasonable search and seizure was the use of writs of assistance by British or colonial authorities to conduct more or less open-ended searches, especially for smuggled goods. Smuggling was very common during the colonial period, especially in MA and maybe NY.
Basically, some authority would give a sheriff or other local agent a writ allowing them to go into anyone’s home or property and look for smuggled stuff. They could do this on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that your were involved in illegal activity, or just because you annoyed them, or maybe because they wanted to look at your wife’s underwear. They had the writ, they could do what they wanted, and they were more or less unaccountable for whatever consequences flowed from that.
The potential harm in the modern context ranges from undirected fishing expeditions on the part of criminal or intelligence authorities looking for “suspicious activity”, to not wanting sensitive personal information to be exposed to folks who might not use it responsibly, to a simple aversion to nosey parkers. Or, all of the above.
A number of years ago I was involved in local activity in opposition to the USA Patriot Act. The things that folks most objected to in the act were:
1. Increased scrutiny of normal banking activity
2. Monitoring of what folks read, online or otherwise
3. Surveillance of electronic communications like email
All of these things fall under the general heading of “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about”, but that’s not really that comforting to a lot of people. Not everyone trusts the state to do the right thing in the absence of transparency and accountability.
And, there are very compelling historical reasons to hold that exact opinion.
Folks don’t like it. So, in an at least nominally self-governing context, there needs to be a really compelling reason to do it. IMVHO.
Some people think that the fact that somebody, somewhere, might be doing something that they, perhaps, should not be is weak sauce.
Other people think that whatever it takes to prevent any possible act of political violence is a small price to pay.
Everybody gets to pick where on the line they fall.
But, at least in the early days of the Republic, the line was drawn on the side of respecting privacy.
just wondering what the perceived harm is
Historically, the motivation for the protection against unreasonable search and seizure was the use of writs of assistance by British or colonial authorities to conduct more or less open-ended searches, especially for smuggled goods. Smuggling was very common during the colonial period, especially in MA and maybe NY.
Basically, some authority would give a sheriff or other local agent a writ allowing them to go into anyone’s home or property and look for smuggled stuff. They could do this on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that your were involved in illegal activity, or just because you annoyed them, or maybe because they wanted to look at your wife’s underwear. They had the writ, they could do what they wanted, and they were more or less unaccountable for whatever consequences flowed from that.
The potential harm in the modern context ranges from undirected fishing expeditions on the part of criminal or intelligence authorities looking for “suspicious activity”, to not wanting sensitive personal information to be exposed to folks who might not use it responsibly, to a simple aversion to nosey parkers. Or, all of the above.
A number of years ago I was involved in local activity in opposition to the USA Patriot Act. The things that folks most objected to in the act were:
1. Increased scrutiny of normal banking activity
2. Monitoring of what folks read, online or otherwise
3. Surveillance of electronic communications like email
All of these things fall under the general heading of “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about”, but that’s not really that comforting to a lot of people. Not everyone trusts the state to do the right thing in the absence of transparency and accountability.
And, there are very compelling historical reasons to hold that exact opinion.
Folks don’t like it. So, in an at least nominally self-governing context, there needs to be a really compelling reason to do it. IMVHO.
Some people think that the fact that somebody, somewhere, might be doing something that they, perhaps, should not be is weak sauce.
Other people think that whatever it takes to prevent any possible act of political violence is a small price to pay.
Everybody gets to pick where on the line they fall.
But, at least in the early days of the Republic, the line was drawn on the side of respecting privacy.
Is your point that those things obtained through unreasonable search/seizure/surveillance might be used not for evidence at trial, but as a reason for tighter surveillance, Turbulence?
That’s part of it; once you’ve got complete surveillance of the population, you can do lots of things besides produce evidence during trials. The 4th amendment doesn’t say, “the government can do whatever it wants with surveillance as long as it doesn’t introduce it as evidence at trial”.
I mean, what happens when my company is competing with a government contractor. Can the government spy on all our communications and give the results to their favored contractor so that we don’t put them out of business? If I ask annoying questions about government officials, can the government spy on me and leak embarrassing details of my personal life to the newspapers?
Is your point that those things obtained through unreasonable search/seizure/surveillance might be used not for evidence at trial, but as a reason for tighter surveillance, Turbulence?
That’s part of it; once you’ve got complete surveillance of the population, you can do lots of things besides produce evidence during trials. The 4th amendment doesn’t say, “the government can do whatever it wants with surveillance as long as it doesn’t introduce it as evidence at trial”.
I mean, what happens when my company is competing with a government contractor. Can the government spy on all our communications and give the results to their favored contractor so that we don’t put them out of business? If I ask annoying questions about government officials, can the government spy on me and leak embarrassing details of my personal life to the newspapers?
Now you’ve peaked our curiosity.
If I were you, I’d follow the Kardashian/Trump practice and establish immunity upfront by leaking all of the embarrassing details of your personal life on Facebook and Twitter.
As far as the newspapers go, at least a couple of times a year, there’s a headline in my local paper, something along the lines of “Turbulence Causes Emergency Landing of Delta Flight”, “Public Figure Has Turbulence In Past.”
We know everything.
Now you’ve peaked our curiosity.
If I were you, I’d follow the Kardashian/Trump practice and establish immunity upfront by leaking all of the embarrassing details of your personal life on Facebook and Twitter.
As far as the newspapers go, at least a couple of times a year, there’s a headline in my local paper, something along the lines of “Turbulence Causes Emergency Landing of Delta Flight”, “Public Figure Has Turbulence In Past.”
We know everything.
i’ve even heard about turbulence in the middle east!!!
i’ve even heard about turbulence in the middle east!!!
russell: Historically …
Turbulence: once you’ve got complete surveillance of the population, you can do lots of things besides produce evidence during trials.
Historically, there’s been an exception to 4th amendment for international mail. In other words, international communication has not been protected against searches. We’re not talking about “complete surveillance of the population”. We’re talking about international electronic communications. At least that’s my impression of what the law allows.
That said, I don’t contend that the law is either Constitutional or wise. There may be aspects of the law that aren’t. But arguing on the basis that the FAA is the same as the government coming into one’s home and searching through one’s belongings, or that it amounts to universal surveillance – neither of these things seems to be true about what this law is about. And litigating it is the process for scrutinizing the law’s Constitutionality, and exposing its effects.
russell: Historically …
Turbulence: once you’ve got complete surveillance of the population, you can do lots of things besides produce evidence during trials.
Historically, there’s been an exception to 4th amendment for international mail. In other words, international communication has not been protected against searches. We’re not talking about “complete surveillance of the population”. We’re talking about international electronic communications. At least that’s my impression of what the law allows.
That said, I don’t contend that the law is either Constitutional or wise. There may be aspects of the law that aren’t. But arguing on the basis that the FAA is the same as the government coming into one’s home and searching through one’s belongings, or that it amounts to universal surveillance – neither of these things seems to be true about what this law is about. And litigating it is the process for scrutinizing the law’s Constitutionality, and exposing its effects.
Historically, there’s been an exception to 4th amendment for international mail.
Given that the DOJ has already admitted that the NSA wiretapping effort illegally collected substantial amounts of purely domestic traffic, your exception is beside the point, no?
More to the point, I don’t see any reasonable basis for believing that the NSA is not collecting vast sums of data on purely domestic persons. I mean, they’ve suffered zero legal penalty for doing so in the past. And they seems to have the technical capability. So why not?
Historically, there’s been an exception to 4th amendment for international mail.
Given that the DOJ has already admitted that the NSA wiretapping effort illegally collected substantial amounts of purely domestic traffic, your exception is beside the point, no?
More to the point, I don’t see any reasonable basis for believing that the NSA is not collecting vast sums of data on purely domestic persons. I mean, they’ve suffered zero legal penalty for doing so in the past. And they seems to have the technical capability. So why not?
Given that the DOJ has already admitted that the NSA wiretapping effort illegally collected substantial amounts of purely domestic traffic, your exception is beside the point, no?
A cite would be nice, because I’m not sure what admission you’re referring to. I found an admission that occurred under the Bush administration, prior to the change in the law. Is that what you’re talking about?
Also, I’m not trying to argue that the government is incapable of wrongdoing, or that it never abuses its authority or violates rights. (If the administration doesn’t mind breaking the law, it doesn’t matter what the law is or what the administration says in court. Is that what you’re arguing is happening?) And I’m certainly in favor of holding people accountable, although I understand why Obama didn’t do it, especially in his first term.
Back to my actual point (which maybe nobody any longer disagrees with): I think the Obama administration is correct to defend the law in court.
Given that the DOJ has already admitted that the NSA wiretapping effort illegally collected substantial amounts of purely domestic traffic, your exception is beside the point, no?
A cite would be nice, because I’m not sure what admission you’re referring to. I found an admission that occurred under the Bush administration, prior to the change in the law. Is that what you’re talking about?
Also, I’m not trying to argue that the government is incapable of wrongdoing, or that it never abuses its authority or violates rights. (If the administration doesn’t mind breaking the law, it doesn’t matter what the law is or what the administration says in court. Is that what you’re arguing is happening?) And I’m certainly in favor of holding people accountable, although I understand why Obama didn’t do it, especially in his first term.
Back to my actual point (which maybe nobody any longer disagrees with): I think the Obama administration is correct to defend the law in court.
A cite would be nice
OK, here you go. Did you really not know about the “significant misconduct” described in the article?
A cite would be nice
OK, here you go. Did you really not know about the “significant misconduct” described in the article?
Sure, I knew that there had been misconduct during the Bush administration, but maybe since I read this in the article you cite (from April of 2009), I quit worrying that the Obama administration was continuing the abuses:
“As part of a periodic review of the agency’s activities, the department “detected issues that raised concerns,” it said. Justice Department officials then “took comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance” with the law and court orders, the statement said. It added that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. went to the national security court to seek a renewal of the surveillance program only after new safeguards were put in place.”
It sounds to me that the Justice Department not only discovered the abuses, but corrected them.
Thanks for the article though. I appreciate your going to the trouble to find it.
Sure, I knew that there had been misconduct during the Bush administration, but maybe since I read this in the article you cite (from April of 2009), I quit worrying that the Obama administration was continuing the abuses:
“As part of a periodic review of the agency’s activities, the department “detected issues that raised concerns,” it said. Justice Department officials then “took comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance” with the law and court orders, the statement said. It added that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. went to the national security court to seek a renewal of the surveillance program only after new safeguards were put in place.”
It sounds to me that the Justice Department not only discovered the abuses, but corrected them.
Thanks for the article though. I appreciate your going to the trouble to find it.
It sounds to me that the Justice Department not only discovered the abuses, but corrected them.
I don’t see any indication that that is true.
Have there been any prosecutions? Has anyone been fired? Or even demoted? Or reprimanded?
Usually, when organizations screw up, they take clear steps to punish offenders. But no one has paid any price for this “wrongdoing” because the people in charge don’t think that anything wrong was done. But perhaps I’m wrong: can you show me even one person who got a letter of reprimand placed in their file over “significant misconduct”?
It sounds to me that the Justice Department not only discovered the abuses, but corrected them.
I don’t see any indication that that is true.
Have there been any prosecutions? Has anyone been fired? Or even demoted? Or reprimanded?
Usually, when organizations screw up, they take clear steps to punish offenders. But no one has paid any price for this “wrongdoing” because the people in charge don’t think that anything wrong was done. But perhaps I’m wrong: can you show me even one person who got a letter of reprimand placed in their file over “significant misconduct”?
can you show me even one person who got a letter of reprimand placed in their file over “significant misconduct”?
Sorry, don’t have access to NSA personnel records.
can you show me even one person who got a letter of reprimand placed in their file over “significant misconduct”?
Sorry, don’t have access to NSA personnel records.
You know, the US Navy publishes on a regular basis lists of officers who were fired from their commands. I don’t see any security issue with the NSA doing the same. Of course, the NSA has no interest in firing its staff; it doesn’t think they did anything wrong.
You know, the US Navy publishes on a regular basis lists of officers who were fired from their commands. I don’t see any security issue with the NSA doing the same. Of course, the NSA has no interest in firing its staff; it doesn’t think they did anything wrong.
I don’t see any security issue with the NSA doing the same.
I don’t pretend to know whether this is true or not.
Of course, the NSA has no interest in firing its staff; it doesn’t think they did anything wrong.
Just guessing, but there probably are some people in the NSA who do want to exceed their authority. There are probably others who wish to obey the law. But they all report to President Obama, who seems respectful of the law. His Justice Department found problems and reportedly took steps to correct them (for example). And he is willing to take his arguments to court (another example).
I don’t see any security issue with the NSA doing the same.
I don’t pretend to know whether this is true or not.
Of course, the NSA has no interest in firing its staff; it doesn’t think they did anything wrong.
Just guessing, but there probably are some people in the NSA who do want to exceed their authority. There are probably others who wish to obey the law. But they all report to President Obama, who seems respectful of the law. His Justice Department found problems and reportedly took steps to correct them (for example). And he is willing to take his arguments to court (another example).