Friday Open Thread [3.8.13]
Political scientists are going to have a lot of egg on their faces when a single dinner party ends all this polarization.
— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) March 6, 2013. I did LOL at that.
Yesterday, as I traveled the Pennsylvania mountainside, I listened to all the Rand Paul Filisbuster Aftermath, and I have to say, I contemplated driving myself off a mountain when I realized I agreed with Senators McCain and Graham in what they said in rebuking Paul. First, I must say that I enjoyed the filibuster if for the simple reason that it sparked a good debate on the Senate floor, it was basically theater, and it showed the country and these fucking cowardly traditionalists in the Senate how a good a talking filibuster, a real filibuster, can be. I hope Majority Leader Reid listens to his deputy, Dick Durbin, and revists filibuster reform today. Now. Make the talking filibuster the norm.
Now, back to McCain and Graham. Where I agreed with them was the riduculous notion that the President can just order a drone to fire a missle and kill an American on U.S. soil just because the President doesn’t like them. Conspiracy theorists on the far left and right share the black helicopter fantasy of a President empowered to kill any body and do anything they want. These nuts inspired Waco and the militia movement in the 90’s, it inspired 9/11 Truthers in the 2000’s and those who thought that Bush was going to suspend the Constitution and rule as an Emperor, and it inspires Paul and the Birthers today. It is ridiculous to start off with, and it was ridiculous that such a topic got such a lengthy airing on the Senate Floor. McCain rebuked Paul on precisely that point, and I liked it. And I especially liked Senator Graham’s question on the hypocrisy of his party. He stated the fact that the Drone program started off under President Bush and noted that not a single Republican was asking any questions then of the President.
The topic of setting restrictions on the use of drones in America and the world is an important topic. There are privacy issues and due process concerns with their use by local or state police, or by the press or for other private uses, so I get that point of the argument. But if your main concern that an omnipotent tyranical President is going to kill all citizens who disagree with him by using drones to shoot missiles into cafes, then you are fucking nuts and you have just debased an entire important discussion. That goes for those on the left or right who feel that way.
And let me say something else. I wholeheartedly endorse using drones on foreign enemy battlefields like Yemen, Pakistan or Afghanistan to kill terrorists. And if those terrorists happen to be American citizens engaged in treason and warfare against the United States, so be it. If a treasonous American is arrested in the U.S., fine, he is entitled to his due process rights. In foreign country, and especially on a foreign battlefield, nope.
Finally, this elevator ride yesterday must have been fun.
well said…
It didn’t save! Hold on….
There.
There really are black helicopters flying around multiple US cities at night, sometimes firing weapons. So far I accept the explanation it is just a drill. But it isn’t as far a jump as you might think to some more exotic theories.
Oh lord.
” terrorists happen to be American citizens engaged in treason and warfare against the United States.”
That sounds reasonable, but “Treason” and “warfare” are quite nebulous definitions that can be easily stretched. Some, especially during the Bush years, would label anti-American government editorials as “psychological warfare” and “giving aid to the enemy. Many said Jane Fonda during the Vietnam war was engaged in “treason” against the United States. Would you have killed her? The whole point is that unless the suspect is about to kills hundreds of people within the next day, a trial is necessary, regardless of which country that American is located. Who gives any president the right to kill an American who is not a provable “imminent threat” without a fair trial?
And your statements rely on the assumption that the government is working with perfect intelligence on these targets and who is a threat. However, that assumption is not always correct. Just like how there are always mix ups on the “do not fly list”, there will be mistakes made in the president’s intelligence briefing that comes from the bureaucracy. Similar to the mistakes made with capital punishment, people will be unfairly executed.
I’m reposting this from another thread, because I think this should be more widely read — American Assassinations for Dummies. Here is a bit talking about Reagan’s “no assassination” rule:
Which puts the letter sent by the Obama admin to Rand Paul in a very different light, right? I mean, who cares if they tell him NO, when all they need to do is re-label the deed?
I can’t believe you’re an attorney.
How do you define “terrorist?” And when is that enough to assassinate somebody? And the last time I checked treason is a crime and although I don’t have my JD I believe we “charge” people with “crimes.”
If a guy is riding in a car with kids or eating a meal with extended family I have a hard time believing that he/she is engaging in active combat. We’re not even at war with Yemen or Pakistan.
I’m hardly a militia member or somebody who’s going to holer up in Waco or Ruby Ridge.. but wrong is wrong… and you’re wrong.
One more item in the Who Could Have Known category — School cop accidentally fires weapon during class
I take it this is an open thread. Assuming it is, I want to make a complaint. Although I appreciate it when elected officials inform their constituents of their activities, I am growing weary of Senator Coons sending me an email many times a day, often for what seems to be incidental matters. It almost to the point that if he walks across a room, I get an email about it. I do like being on the email list, but I am getting too many a day. It seems that a summary of his activities sent at the end of the day would suffice.
I hear ya, Dana. I stopped reading them months ago. Far too many. I can’t hit delete fast enough.
I substantially agree with what DE Libertarian said. Excluding imminent threats, treason is an allegation and only becomes a finding when a court convicts the accused of treason. I also have huge problems with the USA’s targeting policies. The USA knowingly targets alleged terrorists in, say, buildings it knows children are present. You know, “collateral damage.” It does so under the pretext that drone strikes eliminate the risk to US military personnel. But why should those children and their parents give a damn about what risks the USA is unwilling to take? If the USA has the problem w/ the alleged terrorist, it should assume the risk instead of passing the risk on to babies. The US should send in strike teams to capture or kill the terrorist (kill if he or she resists) and reduce the chances of killing innocents.
Hillary News of the Week: shows Hillary crushing Rubio among Latinos (and everybody else, for that matter) for 2016: 60 – 24.
True liberals would agree with those of us who are standing for civil liberties. They would stand with Rand. Change your name to the Delaware Progressive or the Obama lackies. We started pointing out this problem last year.
I support drone strikes on the battlefield. Targeted killing of an American citizen not part of a military or enemy command and control system, I do not. I certainly do not support it on American soil.
“We started pointing out this problem last year.”
Congratulations. Sum of us objected much sooner.
You ought to rename yourself Doormat Dem. Your obsequious worship of establishment politics is revolting, and doing it under the name “Delaware” is an insult to our state.
“…I contemplated driving myself off a mountain when I realized I agreed with Senators McCain and Graham in what they said in rebuking Paul.”
That’s because in your gut you knew you were wrong. Here’s a fair rule of thumb: If the authoritarians McCain and Graham take a stance on a contentious civil liberties issue, the opposing opinion is probably the one most supportive of liberty and justice.
“Now, back to McCain and Graham. Where I agreed with them was the riduculous notion that the President can just order a drone to fire a missle and kill an American on U.S. soil just because the President doesn’t like them. ”
I realize this is a writing error on your part (at least, I hope), and ‘…was that it is a ridiculous notion…’ is what you actually meant here. However, judging from the remainder of your assertions, I take this error as a parapraxis revealing your unashamed worship of [a Democrat’s] unlimited executive power. As long as it is “your guy” throwing civil liberties out the door, you have no problem with it.
“And I especially liked Senator Graham’s question on the hypocrisy of his party. He stated the fact that the Drone program started off under President Bush and noted that not a single Republican was asking any questions then of the President.”
Know that on issues of importance Rand Paul is unlike Graham and McCain, jackboots extraordinaire, in every way conceivable.
This goes far beyond the Brennan nomination. Extrajudicial targeted killings, the extent of the drone program, surveillance, both foreign and domestic, all under the control of the President (including the situation you mock regarding sanctioned killings of Americans), are extremely important questions with constitutional ramifications that deserve forthright answers. The vague, sometimes flippant responses on these issues from the administration should be disturbing to all of those who value their liberty and constitutional protections. To find joy in Graham’s implication that it was just fine that there were no questions (were the world a right and just place, there would have been many) being asked of then President Bush by Republicans, is the height of partisan contortion on your part. I expect you, and the slimier disciples of your party, to greet Graham with open arms when he is drummed out of the Republican party.
Tip of the hat to DE Libertarian, Dorian Gray, and Dana Garrett. Stamus contra malum.
Republican David, if you supported George W. Bush, you cannot call yourself a Libertarian.
Forget to add, there *were* Republicans, as well as Democrats, asking probing questions of the then President’s actions. Graham’s assertion is groundless.
Someone got up on the sanctimonious side of the bed today…..
Try not to correct my spelling and grammar- it’s a freaking blog
Delaware Dem, you beg the question of why it’s a “ridulous notion” that the President can order a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil just because he doesn’t like that person. Out of the good grace of his heart, or due to political expedience, Obama may decide to exercise this power only where he claims capture is infeasible, but there is no coherent legal reason that this power would be confined that way. The “global war” paradigm that has been normalized under two successive administrations all but compels that, as a legal matter, this power extend everywhere and to everyone. The only possible limitations are international law and the “due process” clause of the Constitution. But otherwise, once you accept the “global-battlefield” framework, then the scope of this presidential assassination power is limitless. What, legally, would prevent this “ridiculous notion”? All the more disturbing is the fact that Obama does it all in secret – insists that even the “law” that authorizes him to do it cannot be seen by the public.
that was a different sum guy above. must be other guy.
the real sum guy does think grammar and spelling are appropriate even for a blog (at least up to a point). makes you look smarter, and thus more convincing.
Dan, what about the rights of ‘limitless assassination power’ of the un regulated, uncounted, unstable ‘men with guns’ republicans fight for? Some of them feel they should roam the streets with weapons even though they may use their gun when they don’t understand the situation, or when “capture is feasible” or when horrific mistakes could be made involving innocent bystanders – by the totally untrained, angry, unqualified ,illegal, excitable or trigger happy ‘any man.’
Does Dan trust an unchecked, unregistered potential ‘nutcases with guns’ (and there are likely tens of millions,) more than his elected President and the highest homeland security professionals?
Anon at 10:24: Huh? I don’t see how it follows at all that opposition to the president’s claimed powers of extra-judicial assassination means the person expressing that opposition believes “men with guns” are the ones who should have that power. You’re attacking a straw man here and putting forth a false dischotomy. I don’t “trust” either with the power of unchecked assassination. I don’t think any American should legally be able to kill another American without, at the very least, due process of law unless there is the immediate and threat of death and no other options (e.g. police officer killing a guy who is shooting into a crowd).
This whole crininally naive “trust the president” line has caused me to lose a tremendous amount of respect for my fellow liberals, especially when it is mixed with the snideness expressed in this post by Delaware Dem and attempts to put those of us who have serious reservations about all of this in the same camp as the Branch Davidians at Waco. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows that seizures of power are so often done under the guise of emergency necessity. And they’re always directed at the least popular members of society. Since 9/11 it has been muslims. If Del Dem were muslim or middle eastern, the “black helicopter” fear might not be so far fetched. See, e.g., Jose Padilla.
It’s easy for you to follow Dan. Republicans (mainly) think ‘any man with gun’ SHOULD have the option available to assassinate, while, at the same time, republicans (mainly) also think the govment should NOT be able to protect the American public from terrorists.
One sees that Dan has substituted quote: “police officer killing a guy” who is shooting into a crowd, for -an illegal, un registered,un trained, ‘man with gun’ shooting into a crowd.
The example you offered, is entirely different, and you know it Dan.
Police officer doesn’t equal nut case except perhaps in Dan’s world.
Yes Dan, there are Americans who respect and trust their President – call them Democrats. That’s why you have four more years to get use to it.
Anon, you seem to think that I’m pro gun and/or republican. I am neither. (I also don’t think that most republicans believe that ‘any man with gun’ should have the power to assassinate people, but that’s neither here nor there). But, I’m sure it feels good to beat up on that straw man so go ahead and keep it coming. The police officer example was merely an acknowledgement that there are certain rare exceptions where the use of deadly force by the government absent some prior legal process is justified.
Just remember, though, even if you are absolutely certain you trust and respect Obama and that he would never misuse his power to kill, he won’t be president forever. That seems to be lost on a lot of people. The other question I have for those who trust him so much is, why do you believe that he refuses to disclose the memos that set forth the legal basis for his supposed right to target American citizens for assassinations? I mean, we’re just talking about the legal basis here. It seems inconceivable to me that disclosing that could jeopardize any actual operation and/or national security.
That’s a real broad phrase, you use there Dan, “his ({Obama’s} supposed right to target American citizens for assassinations?” Ha.
Describe the “American citizens” Obama targets?
Further Dan, you used an example that defeats your own argument, an acknowledgement, quote from Dan, “..that there are certain rare exceptions where the use of deadly force by the government absent some prior legal process is justified.”
Dan, you just said, “..that there are certain rare exceptions where the use of deadly force by the government absent some prior legal process is justified.” And ‘you’re’ worried about President Obama.
It isn’t as if Obama has visions of imaginary mushroom clouds, all out military assault, killing a hundred thousand, costing trillions, in search for non existent WMDs, in the wrong country. That was a Bush Co – and republicans were fine with it, still are.
Dan, it seems some ‘dislike’ President Obama so much but since they have nothing concrete to build a case with, they pick among their straws, trying to construct an image of their President, as ‘the straw man,’ – they ‘imagine’ would ‘likely’ attack innocent American citizens. That’s not the legacy Obama’s after.
What would benefit the country, is more cooperation, less obstructionism, but some would rather attack their own President, interfering with laws and progress, because they fear that Americans will succeed under Obama’s leadership.
It has been reported that gun control advocate Mark Kelly, (Husband of Gabriel Gifford, women shot in Arizona), just recently purchased a .45 calibur handgun and an ar15 at a Arizona Gun store
(ON March 5th). Says he is going to sell the ar15, just did it do show how easy it is to buy. (What about the .45 calibur handgun?)
POLITICIANS: REQUIRE INSURANCE -TO CONTROL AND PROVE LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP
That Mr.Kelly bought guns, proves what rustydils? Nothing, except
that there’s another ‘man with guns.’
And what about the point he said he was making, ‘how easy it is to buy’ an ar15 or a .45, and likely, how easy it is to sell an ar15 to someone else. (Even though it’s a very poor point for Kelly to claim to make, because Kelly will presumably do it under existing laws – and a huge percentage of other people don’t, won’t.)
Because Kelly bought a gun – doesn’t mean all is well and good in the ‘country of nut case gun ownership.’
The remaining fact is, it’s an out of control, take the guns to the streets/bedroom/theater/school/courthouse; bring your own gun, be your own judge and jury, shoot em up; insufficiently regulated, unregistered, unqualified, under legislated, unenforced free-for-all,helter skelter ‘nut case system’ that the gun and ammo industries, their puppet politicians – de$ire it to be.
The industries want to make money selling an instrument of (human) death. Politicians mainly want said industries’ support, to get re elected. But it is the politicians who are elected to the job, with the job description to protect ‘all the people,’ and it is the politicians who have the responsibility to have a functioning legal system in place and enforced, to control all guns and the ownership of those guns, because freedom belongs – to ‘all’ the nation’s people – who don’t want people getting shot by an illegal, under the radar – ‘man with gun.’ And that’s who Gifford’s shooter was. A product of politicians’ failures. Everytime an illegal shooting happens – it’s the politicians’ and enforcement’s fault, unless proven otherwise.
A very good way to do that is require that those 300,000,000 guns in America, all be registered to an up-to-date, currently qualified as sane owner and INSURED up to the minute. If it isn’t simply registered, qualified and INSURED,(like a car,) it’s illegal, An unregistered gun is a crime. Illegal guns are taken, monetary penalties and time served, by illegal people with illegal guns.
(Of course, there needs be a time period to turn in illegal and owner-less and uninsured guns – over to authorities.) First start with events to turn any illegally owned, owner-less, unregistered/stolen guns; then uninsured guns when an insurance system is in place.) Result: Trained, up-to-date sane people, with appropriate,registered, on the record and insured (and legally liable,) – gun ownership.
People aren’t allowed to have illegal items in their homes. Why are illegal guns/ownership allowed to be the exception? Because politicians and lack of enforcement – allow it. Those illegal gun/owner situations are the situations Rustydil should be most concerned about.
There’s no such thing as a good guy with a guy unless both the gun and the guy are legal and unfortunately – even those so called, ‘good guys’ kill -as he may catch his wife in action, can’t take barking dog anymore, gotten fired, etc. It’s really the odds that have to be reduced. Less unstable people, with less ‘uncontrolled’ guns equals less gun violence.
The responsibility is on the shoulders of the politicians.
Who cares what LaPePeire says. He has a special interest -in guns, and a special interest in influencing the sale of guns. Besides that, he’s a man who makes no sense.
Rustydil, if there are 150,000 unregistered, unidentified and/or stolen guns in illegal hands of known, registered criminals in one town – how would you go about bringing law and order and legal gun ownership to every block of that town?(Because there are good people and children living in that town, who have a right – that that town be free, safe and law abiding – as any other place or town – regarding the possession of guns. The law applies to all equally.
How would you proceed, Rustydil?
ATTN: BIDEN, MARKELL. GUN INSURANCE- $60,000-$120,000 is what an average car owner/driver pays over a lifetime, @ $1,000-2,000 per year for registering,tagging,insuring ONE vehicle. From 16-76 years of age, will pay approx. $60,000-$120,000 to cover driving FEES ONLY,(not counting price tag of vehicles,gas,upkeep,) – $60,000-$120,000 in FEES alone. (I’m calling insurance a fee here.) Multiple vehicle owner, pays much more,as each (unit) vehicle is counted separately. Owners insurance is adjusted: age,safety record,type of vehicle,location,other users of vehicle,miles traveled. Insurance co has no problem adjusting rate to details or in handling large numbers of insured.)
Troopers wait under overpasses, at reduced speed roadways; cameras are at intersections,radar is along highways, in towns and on trooper dashboards. Vehicles are stopped,(or chased down for not stopping.) Tags,registration,license, condition of driver observed, vehicle visually inspected – in an attempt to find violations/violators – to fine them for same, give them points,bring them to court, take away license or arrest them, if deemed necessary.(Generally speaking.)
If one happens to be one who is totally legal, never drinks/drives never smokes anything,takes zero medications,is of healthy mind and body, never drives/talks on a phone,doesn’t drive while tired, never speeds; wears a seat belt, has the vehicle inspected,maintained, doesn’t let uninsured or others drive said vehicle and is never in a rush or competitive while driving, never drives aggressively, considers safety first, avoids dangerous driving or roadway situations, pays roadway, parking fees and has never caused an auto accident ever, has taken lots of trips to the motor vehicle, waits in lines, sents lots of checks to the insurance company – one pays $60,000 to $120,000 for FEES alone – to be ‘allowed’ to operate said motor vehicle. If that $60,000-$120,000 were spent on one’s family,it could (in many cases) be a huge help to that family. If that ‘FEE’ money (of just one vehicle) were invested over 60 years, that’s money could help with several college educations or buy a vacation property, make one energy independent, buy 5 new cars, etc. If that $60,000-$120,000 were invested over the long haul, it’s a good size nest egg.
Now, tell me why the above described ‘good citizen’is out ($60,000-$120,000 plus investment or interest of that money, use of that money) – lives in a town or society, where guns are unregistered,unlicensed and uninsured and in the hands of criminals (for free) and politicians do nothing about it?
Could it be –
1) Politicians support the auto insurance industry-(Which results in increased auto safety.)
2) Politicians support the weapons industry -(Which results in free-for-all guns and resulting gun violence.) That’s the problem.
Time to combine insurance and guns laws – (which would result in better laws, better records, better enforcement, increased gun safety.