Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, May 03, 2014

[OTP - May 2014] House stadium funding package advances with Cuban baseball player provision

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

 

Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 09:38 AM | 4455 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 15 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >  Last ›
   1401. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:12 AM (#4704794)
But doing it wouldn't have been anything notable, either. Traitors found on the battlefield are, with some degree of historical fidelity, dealt with on the battlefield. Legal or not, there's nothing notably new or unique about a citizen fighting against his country on the battle field being killed there, either in battle or after the fact.

The President of the United States doesn't call up the sergeant and give him a direct order to kill a surrendered combatant. If the POTUS were to do that it would be notable and it would be a big deal. A common man committing a crime is not notable nor unique nor relevant to the issue at hand.

Because you have to merge the "on the battle field" metaphor of previous wars with the "global theater" metaphor of the Cold War. Again, you may not like that. You may strongly disagree with the rationale by which the "global war on terror" is bracketed. But if you're going to critique the actual actions of participants in that "global war" you must acknowledge that the brackets that they are operating within, not demand that the question be resolved only by reference to your personal, much more constrained brackets.

In the "global war on terror" the entire globe is the battlefield (not unlike the Cold War.)
Yemen is part of the globe.
If al-Q is operating in Yemen, the still standing 2001 AUMF gives the US POTUS the right to execute attacks on those operations.
If an American citizen is operating with al-Q in Yemen, their is little reason to think he will be given special dispensation.


Having the CIA or any agency kill a human being has always been illegal. That is why Kennedy or Eisenhower or Nixon didn't go around telling Congress about all the people they killed. There is no law on the books that allows the CIA the right to wage war or to kill human beings.
   1402. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:13 AM (#4704795)
Neither he, nor any President, should be trusted with the power to decide these things themselves -- and of course they aren't so trusted in the Constitutional framework.


When you say things like 'should' up there, we can find agreement. The AUMF is now and has forever been far too broad and boundless. It basically made the POTUS a Caesar. And that is the world we have been living in since 2001. If you believe we shouldn't live in such a world, you should agitate very strongly for Congress to rescind the 2001 AUMF, because until it is rescinded, the law is on the side of Caesar.
   1403. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:13 AM (#4704796)
If you deem that power unconstitutional, then it is up to you to agitate and get the courts to find in agreement with you. As of today, no court has called into question this claim, and thus unchallenged, it is constitutional. "Unconstitutional" doesn't mean "it makes SugarBear kind of sad on the inside."

It's self-evidently unconstitutional. If the nation has declined so much that its institutions permit such things, that's just another marker of what I've said over and over about our national decline. As noted several times, part of the decline is institutional rotting and failures, and this is simply another example.

And the courts have struck down many of the Bush-era (and perhaps Obama-era) WOT power grabs, in cases like Boumedienne, as is obvious to anyone paying attention.
   1404. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:15 AM (#4704797)
I'm not shilling for anyone.

Of course you are. You're shilling for Obama, and defending his illegal power grabs. What else are you doing?
   1405. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:15 AM (#4704798)
Having the CIA or any agency kill a human being has always been illegal. That is why Kennedy or Eisenhower or Nixon didn't go around telling Congress about all the people they killed


So the distinction here is that unlike Kennedy, Ike or Nixon, we know about this one?
   1406. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:16 AM (#4704799)
Of course you are. You're shilling for Obama, and defending his illegal power grabs. What else are you doing?


I'm addressing the facts of the world, without having to pretend that legal actions, even if morally abhorrent, are "illegal power grabs." The AUMF exists. You pissing in the wind doesn't change that fact.

It's self-evidently unconstitutional.


Argument to "self-evidently" is always the tell of a guy begging the question. "Unconstitutional" doesn't mean "it makes SugarBear all sad inside."
   1407. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:18 AM (#4704801)
If you believe we shouldn't live in such a world, you should agitate very strongly for Congress to rescind the 2001 AUMF, because until it is rescinded, the law is on the side of Caesar.

Nope. The President takes an independent oath to defend the Constitution. If Congress purports to cede to him powers he can't constitutionally exercise, he's duty-bound to not exercise them.

The AUMF is now and has forever been far too broad and boundless. It basically made the POTUS a Caesar.

Wherein the argument against the fact that we've declined as a nation is proven absurd, by one of its primary proponents.

   1408. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:19 AM (#4704802)
Argument to "self-evidently" is always the tell of a guy begging the question.

Not here, wherein it means "obvious and simple to explain and impossible to gainsay."
   1409. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:21 AM (#4704804)
The President takes an independent oath to defend the Constitution. If Congress purports to cede to him powers he can't constitutionally exercise, he's duty-bound to not exercise them.


Let me state this again, because you clearly have an issue with it.

You are not the arbiter of what is or is not "constitutional." The AUMF and the President's actions under that act is no more unconstitutional, based on your personal preference, than the ACA is unconstitutional simply because Ray says so.
   1410. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:21 AM (#4704805)
Yes. Under the current AUMF the POTUS has that power. If you deem that power unconstitutional, then it is up to you to agitate and get the courts to find in agreement with you. As of today, no court has called into question this claim, and thus unchallenged, it is constitutional. "Unconstitutional" doesn't mean "it makes SugarBear kind of sad on the inside."

Well, the Supreme Court did rule against the government in a case in which the AUMF was cited and the Supreme Court has stated that the government/Executive Branch has to follow the due process and the Constitution.

AS SBB points out do you really think Obama would have the guts to green light a drone strike on a White American 37 year old living in Akron? And if he did do that how long do you think it would take to strip him of any powers that would give him that authority? I mean that is the rub to me. The drone strikes are allowed because they happen far away in a land with poor media coverage (visual images) and to people who have little in common with and cannot really relate to.
   1411. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:21 AM (#4704806)
Not here, wherein it means "obvious and simple to explain and impossible to gainsay."


Begging the question about your previous begging of the question. An impressive feat.
   1412. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4704809)
AS SBB points out do you really think Obama would have the guts to green light a drone strike on a White American 37 year old living in Akron?


In the current legal framework, operative since 2001's AUMF, that question is left solely to the discretion of the POTUS. Why, or why not, isn't a question we are privy to ask, because the AUMF gives the POTUS the authority to act as he deems necessary in the matter. Period. The text of that abomination of Congressional cowardice is online if you want to check my math.

And if he did do that how long do you think it would take to strip him of any powers that would give him that authority?


The fact that Yemen doesn't move the people or the Congress to rescind the AUMF, while Whitey McWhiterson from Akron might, is irrelevant. (and if the case of Jose Padilla is any marker or bellweather, I think you may overstate the people's consternation with going after Akron.)
   1413. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:25 AM (#4704810)
AS SBB points out do you really think Obama would have the guts to green light a drone strike on a White American 37 year old living in Akron?

If he was a Braves fan, yes.
   1414. BDC Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:27 AM (#4704812)
we can find agreement

I probably share that agreement. To me a great tragic effect of 9/11 was that the search for the perpetrators got defined as a war and not as a criminal investigation. That development showed a cynicism about the whole notion of justice. It also guaranteed that the pursuit of that "war" would be seen as illegitimate by our allies and by the criminals themselves. I know that caring about what criminals think is the mark of a wimpy liberal, but even a criminal needs to know that s/he's being punished justly. If the cops find a burglar in my house, take him outside, and start smashing him with nightsticks, the question of "WTF are you doing?" gets redirected from burglar to police. And so with a somehow-suspected terrorist (but we can never reveal why suspected) who gets murdered by drones.
   1415. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:27 AM (#4704813)
You are not the arbiter of what is or is not "constitutional."

I'm not empowered to decide, no. But I am able to discern and explain why it's unconsitutional -- which it obviously is.

The executive is not empowered to kill Americans on his whim. Nor can Americans be deprived of their lives without due process. It's that simple. These are axiomatic constitutional principles, and utterly foundational principles of republican and democratic governance. That you are so slow to grasp them demonstrates a definitive malfunction in your software -- your problem, not mine.

   1416. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:28 AM (#4704814)
So the distinction here is that unlike Kennedy, Ike or Nixon, we know about this one?

Well, no. The drone strike was supposedly carried about by the military with CIA oversight as opposed to some CIA agent killing another human being or a CIA agent paying for someone to be killed.
   1417. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:30 AM (#4704817)
In the current legal framework, operative since 2001's AUMF, that question is left solely to the discretion of the POTUS.

Wrong again.

   1418. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:30 AM (#4704818)
The executive is not empowered to kill Americans on his whim.


Except that since 2001 he quite clearly is. Tilt at those windmills, Pancho.
   1419. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:31 AM (#4704820)
These are axiomatic constitutional principles, and utterly foundational principles of republican and democratic governance.


Begging the question cubed. I'm going to have to figure out superscripting HTML if you keep this up.
   1420. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:32 AM (#4704821)
Except that since 2001 he quite clearly is. Tilt at those windmills, Pancho.

Except quite clearly this isn't a settled issue. The Executive Branch and Congress are still wrangling over this and the White House is probably holding off on killing at least one other American because this isn't a resolved issue.
   1421. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:32 AM (#4704822)
No, they're not. They're tried for treason. We have long-existing laws on the books outlawing treason, on and off the battlefield.


In the heat of battle, a commanding officer can summarily execute a soldier who is derelict of duty or otherwise showing cowardice in way that is endangering operations and lives, nevermind one committing traitorous acts.

What the heck are you talking about, Sugar? The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He is de facto a soldier in his own right. If he identifies an enemy combatant and kills him, he has the right to do so, even if that person is American. If there is reason to believe the killing was not according to military code or treaty, then a court-martial can be convened. But I have not heard one convincing argument that the killing of Awlaki was not warranted.

I'm with Rickey! in being suspect of granting the president broad powers to kill Americans who are suspected of being disloyal. But I think it's pretty evident that Obama has been extremely circumspect in using such powers.
   1422. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:37 AM (#4704825)
Except that since 2001 he quite clearly is. Tilt at those windmills, Pancho.

No, he's not. Congress can't empower the executive to act unconstitutionally, nor can it grant the executive powers the executive does not possess under the constitution. That's why things like the line item veto were struck down. The executive doesn't have the constitutional power to go through spending bills and veto small parts of it, even if Congress passes a law saying he can and does.

Whatever power the President has in this area would have to reside in his authority as C-i-C of the Armed Forces, and that authority has never been understood to encompass executions of Americans on his own whim. Recent Supreme Court cases have continued with this interpretation. If Americans are in fact enemy combatants or aiding the enemy, they can certainly wind up being executed -- just not by executive fiat with no oversight.

You appear at this point to be in way over your head.
   1423. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:40 AM (#4704830)
The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He is de facto a soldier in his own right. If he identifies an enemy combatant and kills himn American, he has the right to do so, even if that person is American. If there is reason to believe the killing was not according to military code or treaty, then a court-martial can be convened. But I have not heard one convincing argument that the killing of Awlaki was not warranted.

Well, no he isn't a soldier. The President is an elected official and is not bound by military code. He can't be court martialed.

   1424. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:40 AM (#4704831)
In the heat of battle, a commanding officer can summarily execute a soldier who is derelict of duty or otherwise showing cowardice in way that is endangering operations and lives, nevermind one committing traitorous acts.

Even if that's true, and I doubt it is, there is no "heat of battle" here.

If he identifies an enemy combatant and kills him, he has the right to do so, even if that person is American.

Please identify the military or civilian principle or law or rule of engagement that permits an American military officer to summarily execute an "enemy combatant." Were the officers at My Lai empowered to kill all the civilians they thought were aiding the VC? How about in Iraq? Could American military officers decide a family was helping the enemy too much, and line them up and shoot them?

Obviously not.

But I think it's pretty evident that Obama has been extremely circumspect in using such powers.

He assassinated a 16-year-old American.
   1425. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:54 AM (#4704848)
Why did FDR bother interring American citizens of Japanese descent? He could have just executed them. Probably would have been easier, too.
   1426. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4704852)
He didn't have the AUMF, silly.
   1427. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:59 AM (#4704854)
Even if that's true, and I doubt it is, there is no "heat of battle" here.


I disagree. Yes there is. Terrorism is a 24 hr/day thing.

Please identify the military or civilian principle or law or rule of engagement that permits an American military officer to summarily execute an "enemy combatant


From wiki:

Military jurisdiction[edit]

Under the jurisdiction of military law, summary execution is still illegal in almost all circumstances, as a military tribunal would be the competent judge needed to determine guilt and declare the sentence of death. However, there are certain rare exceptions to this rule in emergencies and warfare where summary execution is legal.
Prisoners of war[edit]

Major treaties such as the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions, and customary international law from history, protect the rights of captured regular and irregular members of an enemy military, along with civilians from enemy states. Prisoners-of-war (POWs) must be treated in carefully defined ways which definitively ban summary execution, as the Second Additional Protocol of the Geneva Conventions (1977) states:
"No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality." – Second Protocol of the Geneva Conventions (1977) Article 6.2.
Exceptions to prisoners of war status[edit]

However, some classes of combatants may not be accorded POW status, though that definition has broadened to cover more classes of combatants over time. In the past, summary execution of pirates, spies, and francs-tireurs[2] have been performed and considered legal under existing international law.[3] Francs-tireurs (a term originating in the Franco-Prussian War) are enemy civilians or militia who continue to fight in territory occupied by a warring party and do not wear military uniforms, and may otherwise be known as guerrillas, partisans, insurgents, etc.

Though these soldiers could be legally jailed or executed by most armies a century ago, the experience of World War II influenced nations occupied by foreign forces to change the law to protect this group. Many of the post-war victors, such as France, Poland, and the USSR, had the experience of resistance fighters being summarily executed by the Axis if they were captured. The war also influenced them to make sure that commandos and other special forces who were caught deep behind enemy lines would be protected as POWs, rather than summarily executed as Hitler decreed through his 1942 Commando Order.

According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.

Soldiers who are wearing uniforms of the opposing army after the start of combat may be considered illegal combatants and subject to summary execution. Many armies have performed this kind of false flag ruse in the past, including both German and U.S. special forces during World War II. However, if soldiers remove their disguises and put on proper insignia before the start of combat in such an operation, they are considered legal combatants and must be treated as prisoners-of-war if captured. This distinction was settled in the post-WWII trial of Otto Skorzeny, who led Operation Greif, an infiltration mission in which German commandos wore U.S. uniforms to infiltrate U.S. lines but removed them before actual combat.

Under martial law[edit]

Within a state's policy, martial law may be declared in emergencies such as invasions or insurrections, and in such a case constitutionally protected rights would be suspended. Depending on a state's interpretation of martial law, this may allow police or military forces to decide and carry out punishments that include death on its own citizens, in order to restore lawful authority or for other vital reasons.

Note that this would not include killing a suspect who is directly endangering another's life, which police can always legally do, but rather, executing a suspect under one's control as a punishment. Proving that a summary execution fell under this legal exception would be exceptionally difficult, as one would have to show why a judgment and sentence of death absolutely needed to be meted out on the spot. Hence, these kinds of extraordinary acts are almost always seen as illegal violations of human rights, as can be seen in the recent protests against summary executions passed under martial law in the Philippines.[4]

Finally, it is theoretically legal for a military to punish its own soldiers with summary executions in emergency situations that cannot wait for trial by military tribunal, such as desertion in the face of the enemy.[
citation needed]


The frontiers of Yemen where Al Queda operates and where they have nominal control can certainly be described as "enemy territory", especially since the drone strikes there are being conducted in agreement with the Yemeni government.
   1428. Ron J2 Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:01 AM (#4704856)
#1210 As I've pointed before those Marine corp detachments aren't there to provide physical security. The guys in those detachments are signal specialist.

OK, every member of the Marines has been trained as a rifleman, but these guys don't train that way on a day to day basis.
   1429. Ron J2 Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4704863)
#1227 It's also worth noting that if more money had been made available for security in Libya it would have almost certainly gone to Tripoli. From what I've read, state regarded that as a more likely trouble spot.
   1430. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4704865)
Why did FDR bother interring American citizens of Japanese descent? He could have just executed them. Probably would have been easier, too.


Your train is off the rails, Sugar.
   1431. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:10 AM (#4704868)
However, there are certain rare exceptions to this rule in emergencies and warfare where summary execution is legal.


There's no "emergency" and we're not dealing here with the President's authority, or the authority of officers, to discipline American soldiers.

The executed Americans aren't francs-tireurs, either, because they aren't "in territory occupied by a warring party."

The actual parallel is, as noted before, things like civilians who "aided" the VC or the Iraqi insurgence, or the Japanese citizens we feared would aid the enemy in WWII. American officers and soldiers get court-martialed for deciding to execute those people.





   1432. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:13 AM (#4704872)
Your train is off the rails, Sugar.

Under your "principles" an act of Congress empowering FDR to execute Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor would have been perfectly constitutional and valid. In fact, under your "principles," FDR had the inherent authority to do so.

   1433. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:16 AM (#4704875)
The Americans aren't francs-tireurs, either, because they aren't "in territory occupied by a warring party."


Al Queda-controlled Yemen isn't territory occupied by a warring party?

Well, if it isn't, then nowhere is then.

Sugar, not only is your train off the rails now, it's burst into flames and is spewing toxic gases.
   1434. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4704877)
Looks like Ray has found his dream candidate for 2016.

Rubio Denies Humans Have An Effect on Climate Change

WASHINGTON — Senator Marco Rubio on Sunday said that he was ready to be president, becoming the second potential Republican candidate recently to drop big hints about 2016 as he vies for early attention in a crowded field of maybes.

In a wide-ranging interview on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Mr. Rubio, of Florida, also disagreed with accepted scientific wisdom that humans were having an effect on what he called the “always evolving” climate. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” he said. “And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.”

His comments challenged a major scientific report released Tuesday that found the effects of human-induced climate change are being felt in every corner of the United States, from dry regions where water is becoming more scarce to historically wet regions that are seeing increases in torrential rains....


   1435. GregD Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:21 AM (#4704881)
I'll leave the AUMF analysis to people who know it better than I do. I have opinions but would defer to a specialist on it.

More broadly, however, and perhaps sadly, it is well established that "necessity" is the ultimate defense for otherwise illegal or unconstitutional acts in wartime. It was written into the Army code during the Civil War, ratified by Congress as both an Army policy and as the basis for governmental operations during wartime.

Were military commission trials of civilians constitutional? In wartime, Congress answered yes during the Civil War, then extended wartime for five years after surrender. They were trying civilians in Mississippi before military commissions in 1869.

In each war since then, the government has taken self-evidently unconstitutional acts under the grounds of necessity in war powers. "When the war came in, the Constitution went out" was a common saying among moderate lawyers and legislators.

The premise has always been that a return to peace would come and restore constitutional normalcy. That turned out to be harder to effect than we tend to think in the Civil War and in WW 2 (when the US held onto war powers for years after German and Japanese capitulation) and now in the War on Terror, it could well run--terrifyingly--forever.

In May 2013, Obama said he would work with Congress to amend and ultimately repeal AUMF. So far nothing has come of that, perhaps because of one side's insincerity, because of the other's, perhaps because both ultimately favor keeping the power.
   1436. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4704884)
I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it


And there you have it.

It's not that he sees problems with the data, it that he doesn't "believe".

   1437. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:28 AM (#4704886)
Under your "principles" an act of Congress empowering FDR to execute Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor would have been perfectly constitutional and valid. In fact, under your "principles," FDR had the inherent authority to do so.

This sounds like the debate between Sam and Dan where Sam identified what the the slavery laws were and Dan said that identification made Sam agree with the law.

I mean, duplicity and propaganda exist, I'm just having a hard time seeing that as Sam's purpose here.
   1438. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:28 AM (#4704888)
Al Queda-controlled Yemen isn't territory occupied by a warring party?

No, it's not.

Nor is Yemen at war with the United States. Nor is al-Qaeda in territorial war with the United States.

The "francs-tireurs" principle doesn't come close to applying.

And even if it did, you must not have read the Wiki entry you posted, which said:

According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.

They may be punished as "criminals in a military jurisdiction," i.e., by the standards of military justice. Not at the whim of a single non-judicial person. Again: No one's suggesting the Americans couldn't be punished for their actions. Just not at Obama's (or any President's) whim and fancy.




   1439. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:33 AM (#4704894)
No, it's not.

Nor is Yemen at war with the United States. Nor is al-Qaeda in territorial war with the United States.


Sugar, no offense but you're due back on planet earth.
   1440. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 10:34 AM (#4704896)
This sounds like the debate between Sam and Dan where Sam identified what the the slavery laws were and Dan said that identification made Sam agree with the law.

It sounds more like a situation where Sam can't reason a principle to its logical conclusion, here being that Congress could pass a law saying black people were a threat to national security, and empowering the President to "take all necessary action" to end the threat, and the President flying drones over Detroit and killing a bunch of black people.

"What's wrong with that?? Congress said he could do it?!?!?!"
   1441. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4704930)
"What's wrong with that?? Congress said he could do it?!?!?!"

I believe I recall Sam saying there was plenty wrong with that (droning). I suppose I could be wrong.
   1442. Morty Causa Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4704934)
My initial response was to that Rand Paul's op-ed piece that was linked.

I took issue with the idea that drones are somehow this specially verboten weapon, and also to the proposition that people who advise or moot possible justifications for an executive action are doing wrong--or even that they have to be expressing a dearly held belief.

In war, if the government can shoot you, it can drone you. If we can bomb, we can drone. The issue would be same if that citizen combatant in question had been picked off by a sniper.

Moreover, as war does not have to be fought according to our domestic legal system. War happens because legality has broken down. It's absurd to use the domestic law to whipsaw and hamstring the prosecution of war in a way that is for the benefit of enemy combatants.

The President can ask for a legal opinion. He can even ask for a Devil's Advocate type opinion. If he's smart he'll ask for dissenting views, for both sides of a course of action.

The President and the government can act both civilly and under its war powers. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The President is given tremendous discretion on how to best prosecute wars. Legally and constitutionally, we don't get to trump the President. Especially during war.

For a Presidential action to be justified in war, it doesn't have to be vetted and approved by everyone. The power resides with him, and he isn't held to a standard of perfection.

Wars are not conducted in courtrooms. Period. And the Supreme Court and the Constitution need to stay out of that.

Most are placing great emphasis on the fact that someone is a citizen. If they aren't, we have much less problem with the killing of combatants. But, if a citizen advocates war against his country and is deemed to be engaged in war against his country, then he's a combatant wherever he is. He takes his chances, like any other combatant. He doesn't get to play a hokey pokey defense. Indeed, by making war, you can say he's renounced his citizenship.

Anyway, that's one way of looking at it. Most who think the President is wrong or acting illegally are doing so because they disapprove of the war and think we shouldn't be at war in this nature. I suggest you then work to revoke the authorization given. You shouldn't be able to do an end-run. This sort of thinking is one reason rational government is all but an impossibility.
   1443. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4704935)
I believe I recall Sam saying there was plenty wrong with that (droning). I suppose I could be wrong.

He said the law and the power's exercise were both constitutional, and ridiculed me for saying otherwise.

Presumably, then, the hypothetical law noted in 1440 would also be constitutional.

Which is also absurd on its face.

And since the hypothetical law in 1440 would not be constitutional, the AUMF, as applied, is also not constitutional.
   1444. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4704938)
SBB, I am trying to follow your chain of reasoning. You seem to be basing your conclusions on the 14th Amendment, which is fine, but then I am not sure why in your statements you repeatedly focus on American citizens:

No American can be deprived of his property, much less his life, without due process of law -- an axiomatic principle of constitutional law.


The relevant clause in the 14th Amendment does not refer to American citizens:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;


It seems to me that your argument is that neither Congress nor the President may order anyone whomsoever killed without a trial. Am I correct?
   1445. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM (#4704942)
It sounds more like a situation where Sam can't reason a principle to its logical conclusion, here being that Congress could pass a law saying black people were a threat to national security, and empowering the President to "take all necessary action" to end the threat, and the President flying drones over Detroit and killing a bunch of black people.


Until such time as someone carried a civil rights complaint through the courts and one of them found the law in question unconstitutional, it would be de facto constitutional. Again, I'm dealing with reality while you're dealing with "it's unconstitutional because I say so, and I'm the arbiter of all the things!" Your position is identical to the Ray-Ray dance where the ACA is "unconstitutional" because he knows better than the courts, with the caveat that at least you haven't been positively proven wrong and are merely wrong by omission.

Until someone sues against the AUMF on civil rights grounds and a court rules it unconstitutional, it is constitutional by default. You wetting yourself over it won't change that fact.
   1446. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4704944)
It seems to me that your argument is that neither Congress nor the President may order anyone whomsoever killed without a trial. Am I correct?

Without due process of law. Which isn't always a full-blown trial under civilian rules of justice.

"I'm the President and I really thought about it hard" isn't due process of law, by definition. It's the definition of arbitrary, capricious, and dictatorial.

   1447. Morty Causa Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4704948)
"What's wrong with that?? Congress said he could do it?!?!?!"

And you want what/who to say he can't? And why do you think citing Congressional imprimatur ridiculous, but not whatever your authority is?
   1448. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4704949)

Without due process of law. Which isn't always a full-blown trial under civilian rules of justice.


Sure. I'm not trying to catch you in a trap, I am still working through this topic in my own mind. So let's take the following examples:

1) FDR's 'shoot on sight' order requiring all US Navy vessels to attempt to destroy any German U-boat they encounter, regardless of whether they take overt hostile action.

2) FDR's order to have Admiral Yamamoto pursued and shot down over the Solomons.

3) Clinton's decision to fire cruise missiles at suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998 in retaliation for the terrorist bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Which of those, in your opinion, met the requirement for due process?
   1449. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4704951)
Again, I'm dealing with reality while you're dealing with "it's unconstitutional because I say so, and I'm the arbiter of all the things!" Your position is identical to the Ray-Ray dance where the ACA is "unconstitutional" because he knows better than the courts, with the caveat that at least you haven't been positively proven wrong and are merely wrong by omission.

The courts have found a bunch of these Congressional WOT provisions unconstitutional. Applying the holdings of those cases, and cases like the line item veto cases, and the constitution itself, makes it pretty clear that the law is being unconstitutionally applied in the cases of the drone strikes.

   1450. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4704956)
I believe I recall Sam saying there was plenty wrong with that (droning). I suppose I could be wrong.


The things wrong with drone war extend far beyond the status of al-Q controlled Yemen as "battle field" or not, or whether some number of the dead were American citizens or not. Drone warfare, as it exists in reality, is a horror for entire populations, driven into the edges of insanity by the constant threat of death from above. I am well on the record opposing all of these things.

What I will not cotton to is the notion that the Obama administration (nor the Bush admin before them) did something illegal with their prosecution of the battle field. (The Bush admin veered into illegality with torture of prisoners of war, not by their prosecution of any battle field.) The AUMF of 2001 is broad and slippery and gives the POTUS massive powers to execute an open-ended war "on terror" where the entire globe's the theater of war. It's virtually impossible, barring modification or appeal of that AUMF, for any admin now or in the future to act illegally while prosecuting "terrorists" who "might pose a threat" to the United States.
   1451. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4704957)
Sure. I'm not trying to catch you in a trap, I am still working through this topic in my own mind. So let's take the following examples:

1) FDR's 'shoot on sight' order requiring all US Navy vessels to attempt to destroy any German U-boat they encounter, regardless of whether they take overt hostile action.

2) FDR's order to have Admiral Yamamoto pursued and shot down over the Solomons.

3) Clinton's decision to fire cruise missiles at suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998 in retaliation for the terrorist bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Which of those, in your opinion, met the requirement for due process?


Those aren't on-point hypotheticals, as in none of them were particular peoples' lives targeted for "deprivation."

I would say generally that in warfare -- where the very endeavor entails depriving people of their lives and liberty -- international treaties to which we're a party, such as the various Geneva Conventions on the laws of war, are probably the best definition of "due process." We've violated those en masse in the so-called War on Terror.

The US Constitution, however, is supreme to them.

   1452. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:32 AM (#4704959)
The courts have found a bunch of these Congressional WOT provisions unconstitutional.


But not this one. And until they do, the de facto state holds.
   1453. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4704961)
1) FDR's 'shoot on sight' order

My favorite 'shoot-on-site' order during the war years was the one where if the elevators doors to the still-secret basement-inner-workings room below Grand Central station opened, and someone was there with buckets of sand, they were to be shot on sight, as such sand - if dumped into the right massive mechanical gears - could cripple the entire northeastern shipping corridor.
   1454. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4704962)
I think that is an oversell. She came pretty close to winning the Democratic nomination. She won 1900 delegates, only 200 short of the required amount. Mostly I think she had bad strategy. Obama spent most of his energy and resources trying to win the caucuses. Clinton was focused on Super Tuesday. She won most of the big states and pretty much all of the states that the democrats win to get elected president (except for Illinois, Obama's home state) Obama did have a lot more fervor in support which explains a lot of the caucus wins.


But:

She did lose, and to a black man (*) who was new to the scene and who had no resume to speak of. And her having a "bad strategy," if true, only speaks to her failings as a candidate; of course, I don't really believe "strategy" has much of an effect on the outcome, but if it does, it certainly doesn't help her viability that she sucked at this despite being a member of the Clinton Machine.

I think this boils down to the fact that she is unappealing as a candidate, comes off as unlikeable and artificial, and sucks at debating. The crux of her resume is that she rode Bill's coattails to the White House and all along was played for an utter fool by Bill, who had so little respect for her that, unbeknownst to her, was bopping women on the side. (The alternate theory, that she agreed to an open/fake marriage purely as a de facto business relationship, does her no favors either.)

I think she would have beat McCain, just because the electorate was tired of Bush.


But McCain was not Bush, and in order to beat McCain, if that was going to happen, she had to make it to the dance, which she proved unable to do.

(*) I keep pointing out that she lost to a black man because liberals - even now - claim that the country is racist at its core; in fact, liberals claim that the country is so racist that people disagree with Obama because he is black. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the country is racist at its core, in which case she couldn't beat a black man in a racist country, or the country is not racist at its core, in which case liberals should STFU about criticism of Obama being driven by racism.
   1455. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4704964)
The AUMF of 2001 is broad and slippery and gives the POTUS massive powers to execute an open-ended war "on terror" where the entire globe's the theater of war. It's virtually impossible, barring modification or appeal of that AUMF, for any admin now or in the future to act illegally while prosecuting "terrorists" who "might pose a threat" to the United States.

Wrong. Presidents acting under the powers "granted" to them by Congress to veto only portions of legislation were acting unconstitutionally.

Try to understand: Congress does not have the authority to grant extra-constitutional powers to the executive. The powers of US Presidents are limited to those granted by the Constitution. Congress has no power to give them more. Under your reading, Congress could give Obama the power to pass taxing and spending bills.
   1456. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4704966)
because liberals - even now - claim that the country is racist at its core

Keep settin' up and knockin' down, champ.
   1457. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4704968)
The things wrong with drone war extend far beyond the status of al-Q controlled Yemen as "battle field" or not, or whether some number of the dead were American citizens or not. Drone warfare, as it exists in reality, is a horror for entire populations, driven into the edges of insanity by the constant threat of death from above. I am well on the record opposing all of these things.

War is war. What difference does it make if the bombs that falling on you were delivered by a B-52 or by a drone? We've also discovered that populations are much more resilient to bombing campaigns than we generally think they are. Nobody has ever been able to bomb a country into submision no matter how many tonnes of death we drop on them.

The AUMF of 2001 is broad and slippery and gives the POTUS massive powers to execute an open-ended war "on terror" where the entire globe's the theater of war. It's virtually impossible, barring modification or appeal of that AUMF, for any admin now or in the future to act illegally while prosecuting "terrorists" who "might pose a threat" to the United States.


Except the AUMF only grants the President those powers to wage a war against the planner and organization behind 9/11. You can't go after the IRA or the PLO.
   1458. GregD Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4704974)
I think this boils down to the fact that she is unappealing as a candidate, comes off as unlikeable and artificial, and sucks at debating. The crux of her resume is that she rode Bill's coattails to the White House and all along was played for an utter fool by Bill, who had so little respect for her that, unbeknownst to her, was bopping women on the side. (The alternate theory, that she agreed to an open/fake marriage purely as a de facto business relationship, does her no favors either.)
Iraq has to factor in here for your analysis to carry much weight. The Dem primary in 2004 was driven by the divide between the primary electorate and mainstream party politicians on the Iraq war. By 2008, Hillary stood alone as the exemplar of the most-unpopular decision in many Democratic primary voters' adulthood. It was clear to anyone who watched that Hillary was going to face a serious challenge from someone who opposed the war. For a long time the question was Edwards or Obama. If you treat the moment as if it was a pure popularity contest, you aren't engaging with what was happening.

(*) I keep pointing out that she lost to a black man because liberals - even now - claim that the country is racist at its core; in fact, liberals claim that the country is so racist that people disagree with Obama because he is black. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the country is racist at its core, in which case she couldn't beat a black man in a racist country, or the country is not racist at its core, in which case liberals should STFU about criticism of Obama being driven by racism.
You think liberals claim all the time that Democratic primary voters are driven by racism? This is baffling.
   1459. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4704976)


Those aren't on-point hypotheticals, as in none of them were particular peoples' lives targeted for "deprivation."


Yamamoto's life most definitely was targeted for deprivation.

But yes, they aren't meant to be 'hypotheticals', since they actually happened. I am interested in the actual parameters of the constitutional right you are setting forth, and seeing what is and is not permissible.

I am not clear on your qualification regarding targeting 'particular people's lives'. The 14th amendment says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It doesn't say anything about specific targeting.
   1460. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4704977)

She did lose, and to a black man (*) who was new to the scene and who had no resume to speak of. And her having a "bad strategy," if true, only speaks to her failings as a candidate; of course, I don't really believe "strategy" has much of an effect on the outcome, but if it does, it certainly doesn't help her viability that she sucked at this despite being a member of the Clinton Machine.


And yet she came much closer to winning than two different Republican nominees who had much better resumes than Obama. At this point you may argue that she is a weaker candidate than Obama ever was in 2008 and 2012 but that simply places her as the second most electable candidtate in those timeframes.
   1461. GregD Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:44 AM (#4704978)
Try to understand: Congress does not have the authority to grant extra-constitutional powers to the executive. The powers of US Presidents are limited to those granted by the Constitution. Congress has no power to give them more. Under your reading, Congress could give Obama the power to pass taxing and spending bills.
Historically, Congress has given presidents powers in wartime that would be unconstitutional in peacetime.
   1462. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4704982)
Historically, Congress has given presidents powers in wartime that would be unconstitutional in peacetime.

And historically those powers have been walked back. For instance it would be virtually impossible nowadays to intern a whole race of American citizens simply because we are at war with a foreign country. Or look at the Espionage Act back in WWI.
   1463. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4704983)
Except the AUMF only grants the President those powers to wage a war against the planner and organization behind 9/11.


Not quite.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


So, anyone who planned, authorized, committed or aided in 9/11, OR anyone who harbored "such organizations or persons" (i.e. Yemenis harboring al-Q operatives), in order to prevent "any future attacks of international terrorist against the United States."

Wishing it was written narrowly doesn't make it so. If, in 2014, the POTUS decides that an organization in Yemen is harboring or aiding "such organizations or persons" as al-Q, who are "planning" "future attacks of international terrorism," he is authorized by the 2001 AUMF to deal with them at his discretion.
   1464. GregD Posted: May 12, 2014 at 11:54 AM (#4704990)
And historically those powers have been walked back. For instance it would be virtually impossible nowadays to intern a whole race of American citizens simply because we are at war with a foreign country. Or look at the Espionage Act back in WWI.
Yes they have been walked back in peacetime.

My hope is these will be walked back in peacetime. If we ever get to peacetime!

But we're not in a state of peace now, whether I wish we were or not. So I can think the policy is outrageous or ill-conceived or counter-productive or whatever, but I don't think it is outside of the norms of what the US does during wars.
   1465. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:03 PM (#4704998)
I am interested in the actual parameters of the constitutional right you are setting forth, and seeing what is and is not permissible.

It's not just the constitutional rights; it's the separation of powers. Which is why I've said several times now that I'm not inherently opposed to executing Americans who assist al-Qaeda. As, again, a matter of axiom, we typically don't permit the executive to try and convict people of capital offenses -- and we shouldn't here. (Nor is there a reason to; these aren't really "battlefield" decisions being made, instead they're being made deliberatively and against people not on the battlefield.)

If, in 2014, the POTUS decides that an organization in Yemen is harboring or aiding "such organizations or persons" as al-Q, who are "planning" "future attacks of international terrorism," he is authorized by the 2001 AUMF to deal with them at his discretion.


Wrong again. Even by the terms of the unconstitutional-as-applied AUMF, the force he uses has to be both "necessary" and "appropriate" -- the explicit modifying adjectives in the law.
   1466. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:03 PM (#4704997)
Morty (#1442),

I agree with the substance of where you're coming from, but the problem is that we haven't formally declared war on anyone since 1941, for many good reasons. That doesn't mean that I'm losing much sleep over the fate of Anwar al-Awlaki, regardless of his citizenship, but I do think that those objecting to his targeting do have a legal point.

------------------------------------

I think this boils down to the fact that she is unappealing as a candidate, comes off as unlikeable and artificial, and sucks at debating. The crux of her resume is that she rode Bill's coattails to the White House and all along was played for an utter fool by Bill, who had so little respect for her that, unbeknownst to her, was bopping women on the side. (The alternate theory, that she agreed to an open/fake marriage purely as a de facto business relationship, does her no favors either.)

I'm looking forward to your backing that sentiment up with your money once Hillary declares her candidacy. If at that point you demur, it'll be obvious that all you were really banking on was her poor health.

(*) I keep pointing out that she lost to a black man because liberals - even now - claim that the country is racist at its core; in fact, liberals claim that the country is so racist that people disagree with Obama because he is black. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the country is racist at its core, in which case she couldn't beat a black man in a racist country, or the country is not racist at its core, in which case liberals should STFU about criticism of Obama being driven by racism.

Or perhaps a certain percentage of "the country" is "racist to the core", but nowhere near big enough a percentage to block a black man's election to the presidency. To put it charitably, the birthers are certainly curious in their pronouncements about Obama's race, but fortunately there weren't enough of them to put Sarah Palin or Paul Ryan a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Or perhaps racism isn't a black or white phenomenon, but rather it exists along a spectrum, and only activates itself in certain sets of circumstances, with the circumstances depending on where an individual lies upon that spectrum. I realize that at this point this may be a bit over your head, but keep trying and some day you may get it.
   1467. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4705005)
Even by the terms of the unconstitutional-as-applied AUMF, the force he uses has to be both "necessary" and "appropriate" -- the explicit modifying adjectives in the law.


And until some citizen or representative takes the matter to court, what is "necessary" and "appropriate" is left exclusively to the discretion of the executive. If you think this is wrong, establish standing and take the state to court on a civil rights claim.
   1468. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4705007)
I'm looking forward to your backing that sentiment up with your money once Hillary declares her candidacy.


Yes, we're all aware you don't have the courage of your convictions to put your money where your mouth is. The bet exists now, not later. Now. Take it or leave it, now. There's nothing for you to "look forward" to because a future bet is YOUR weaseling, not mine. I won't be making the offer in the future. I'm making it now. And you clearly are declining the offer, now. I'm not interested in making the bet later. Is that sufficiently clear to you, or should I say it in 12 other ways?
   1469. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4705016)
And until some citizen or representative takes the matter to court, what is "necessary" and "appropriate" is left exclusively to the discretion of the executive.

Are you shooting for a record number of wrongs in one morning or something? The executive is empowered only to use necessary and appropriate force. That limits his discretion. If he uses force that isn't both necessary and appropriate, he's gone beyond the authorization, and has acted illegally.

Whether those limits have been enforced in court is irrelevant. (And, repeating, people have in fact challenged the WOT laws and authorizations in court and won pretty regularly.)

   1470. Morty Causa Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4705019)
The Espionage Act is still good law. There was, and is, a reason for it. Some people want to think it's just paranoia to think someone would take the side of a foreign enemy. And there is a correlation between being a recent immigrant and loyalty. Sorry, if that offends, but.... In 1915 the German ambassador had been given carte blanche and a ton of money to engage in what can be called terrorism on US home soil. Wilson discounted the evidence for a long time, since most of it came from localities, until it manifested itself as incontrovertible.

Dark Invasion

What happened in WWII with the Japanese internment isn't likely to happen again, not in these modern times, but, you know, it wasn't likely to happen then, either. The Consitutional test to be able to do that sort of thing on a racial basis is almost impossible to meet. For it to happen, You need a perfect storm, but perfect storms do happen. But the compelling test/narrowly-tailored standard is still constitutionally interpretative standard operating procedure.

   1471. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4705023)
The executive is empowered only to use necessary and appropriate force. That limits his discretion. If he uses force that isn't both necessary and appropriate, he's gone beyond the authorization, and has acted illegally.


And absent anyone telling him otherwise, the decision of what is necessary and appropriate is left exclusively to the President's discretion. I mean, unless there's a covert red phone directly to your basement where the POTUS calls to ask you for your permission.
   1472. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4705026)
If, in 2014, the POTUS decides that an organization in Yemen is harboring or aiding "such organizations or persons" as al-Q, who are "planning" "future attacks of international terrorism," he is authorized by the 2001 AUMF to deal with them at his discretion.

This is also wrong. The verbs in the AUMF are all past tense. The "organization in Yemen" would have had to have "harbored" al-Q before 9/11.
   1473. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4705027)
Yes, we're all aware you don't have the courage of your convictions to put your money where your mouth is.

The fact that you're insulting someone for refusing to put their money where your mouth - and fractured definition of unelectable is - is just base.
   1474. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:22 PM (#4705031)
The Espionage Act is still good law. There was, and is, a reason for it. Some people want to think it's just paranoia to think someone would take the side of a foreign enemy. And there is a correlation between being a recent immigrant and loyalty. Sorry, if that offends, but.... In 1915 the German ambassador had been given carte blanche and a ton of money to engage in what can be called terrorism on US home soil. Wilson discounted the evidence for a long time, since most of it came from localities, until it manifested itself as incontrovertible.

Dark Invasion


Read that book about a week ago, as it happens. Pretty solid, I thought.
   1475. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4705043)
The verbs in the AUMF are all past tense. The "organization in Yemen" would have had to have "harbored" al-Q before 9/11.


Nope. If al-Q Yemen harbors operatives planning future attacks on the US, then the AUMF authorizes action to prevent those future attacks. Not only is that a reasonable reading of law's verbiage, it is also clearly the operative reading of the law by everyone with any moderate degree of power. Again, you are not the arbiter of all the things, Puddin' Pie.
   1476. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:40 PM (#4705051)
I'm looking forward to your backing that sentiment up with your money once Hillary declares her candidacy.

Yes, we're all aware you don't have the courage of your convictions to put your money where your mouth is. The bet exists now, not later. Now. Take it or leave it, now. There's nothing for you to "look forward" to because a future bet is YOUR weaseling, not mine. I won't be making the offer in the future. I'm making it now. And you clearly are declining the offer, now. I'm not interested in making the bet later. Is that sufficiently clear to you, or should I say it in 12 other ways?


You say you want to bet because you're sure of the weakness of Hillary's candidacy. So far, so good.

But you only want to place the bet at the point when she's not even a candidate.

And if and when she does declare her candidacy, you say the bet is off.

That sure says wonders about the lack of confidence you have in the weakness of her candidacy, no matter how you try to spin it in 12 or 120 different ways.
   1477. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:47 PM (#4705057)
Yes, we're all aware you don't have the courage of your convictions to put your money where your mouth is.
The fact that you're insulting someone for refusing to put their money where your mouth - and fractured definition of unelectable is - is just base.
####### pathetic. Let me try again.

The fact that you're insulting someone for refusing to put their money where your mouth - and fractured definition of unelectable - is is just base.
   1478. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4705060)
Lassus, you can post the same thing from your fainting couch a third time if you want. The fact is that if Hillary declines to run, that goes to proving MY point that she is unelectable.

Regardless of how you want to look at it, though, as I've said: my offer is open now, and I'm not interested in a later bet. Andy can take it or leave it. He's obviously decided to leave it, but him refusing to take the bet because he was all talk, making a later, different bet, and then whining endlessly about me not accepting a future bet that I never offered is bizarre.
   1479. formerly dp Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4705068)
The fact is that if Hillary declines to run, that goes to proving MY point that she is unelectable.
Is this really the sort of logic they teach in law school?
   1480. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4705071)
Lassus, you can post the same thing from your fainting couch a third time if you want. The fact is that if Hillary declines to run, that goes to proving MY point that she is unelectable.

Right, even if she's ahead in all the polls at the time, as she is today.

Regardless of how you want to look at it, though, as I've said: my offer is open now, and I'm not interested in a later bet.

Of course you're not, because if Hillary actually declares herself a candidate, all that BS about her "unelectability" will fly right out your window as you duck under the sheets.
   1481. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4705073)
Is this really the sort of logic they teach in law school?

I certainly hope so, because it's obviously correct.

You gotta love a situation wherein I propose a bet, Andy flexes and says "I'll take the whole grand, but if she drops out, you don't win," and "I'll take the whole grand, but only if you wait for 18 months" and that's somehow my problem. How do you guys come up with your material?
   1482. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4705078)
The betting odds that any online challenge turns into buts and pedantry are always 1:100.
   1483. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4705079)
Nope. If al-Q Yemen harbors operatives planning future attacks on the US, then the AUMF authorizes action to prevent those future attacks. Not only is that a reasonable reading of law's verbiage, it is also clearly the operative reading of the law by everyone with any moderate degree of power. Again, you are not the arbiter of all the things, Puddin' Pie.

That wasn't the statement I was addressing.

But in any event, your reading of the AUMF would easily legitimize Bush's invasion of Iraq and torture of prisoners. So here we have yet another principle-free leftie flight of whimsy: Iraq and torture bad -- W the meanie did them; drone murders of 16-year-old Americans swell -- Barack Obama stroked his chin and thought really hard before he did it.
   1484. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4705082)
The fact is that if Hillary declines to run, that goes to proving MY point that she is unelectable.

Is this really the sort of logic they teach in law school?


Are you claiming that whether she can get elected does not factor into her decision of whether to run?
   1485. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4705088)
The fact is that if Hillary declines to run, that goes to proving MY point that she is unelectable.

Wait. Is "goes to proving my point" the same as "proves my point"? Because the latter is what you said originally, and something almost being proven is not something one should pay out on.
   1486. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4705091)
Are you claiming that whether she can get elected does not factor into her decision of whether to run?


It's a factor. It's not even close to being the only factor.

There are dozens of other reasons she might not want to run.
   1487. formerly dp Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4705094)
WRT drones: I'm more interested in 1) the fact that Obama has decided that civilian casualties are a totally acceptable consequence of the strikes, 2) that there's been limited oversight of the target selection process, 3) that they're often counterproductive-- by killing noncombatants in Muslim countries, we're breeding more 'terrorists' than we're eliminating, and 4) we're not very good at them-- drones aren't as good at hitting their intended targets as advertised, either because they're informed by bad intelligence, or because missiles aren't all that precise.

==
I certainly hope so, because it's obviously correct.

I'm no HRC fan, but the idea that a decision not to run for health reasons indicates that she's "unelectable" is pure confirmation bias. Ray's got a half-baked theory, informed by a real disdain for Clinton, and he's projecting onto a circumstance where she isn't elected president in 2016. That's not logical and level-headed analysis-- it's petty point-scoring masquerading as thinking. But then, Ray's not the logical thinker he imagines himself as, so this most recent illustration of the point doesn't come as a big shock...
   1488. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4705095)
So will you guys be posting your betting slips wherein you jump all over the 11-8 odds currently quoted in London?
   1489. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4705096)
So, anyone who planned, authorized, committed or aided in 9/11, OR anyone who harbored "such organizations or persons" (i.e. Yemenis harboring al-Q operatives), in order to prevent "any future attacks of international terrorist against the United States."

Not quite. You can't just drop the "by such nations, organizations or persons" language that follows the United States in the quote above, which refers back to those that planned, authorized, committed, aided or harbored in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The AUMF authorizes action against Al-Qaeda and it's affiliates or allies, world-wide, but wouldn't authorize a drone strike on the IRA, except in the unlikely event they signed up with Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, neither the Bush nor Obama Administrations have claimed that the AUMF authorizes drone strikes against American citizens in the United States. Presidents also claim authority under other provisions to defend the country against different types of attack, so there is certainly a grey area outside the AUMF.
   1490. formerly dp Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4705102)
Are you claiming that whether she can get elected does not factor into her decision of whether to run?
It definitely does. But it's one factor among many, and you've decided that if she decides not to run, you're going to attribute it to her seeing herself as unelectable. And your perception here is driven by a very obvious dislike for Clinton that will not allow you to interpret the decision any other way.

Edit: Let me put it another way: is there a scenario you could imagine where Hillary's people tell her "you've got a 75% chance of winning this election, the party is counting on you, it's yours if you want it" and she responds by saying, for whatever combination of reasons, "no"?

FWIW, I've found tshipman's posts on the subject fairly convincing.
   1491. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4705103)
Not quite. You can't just drop the "by such nations, organizations or persons" language that follows the United States in the quote above, which refers back to those that planned, authorized, committed, aided or harbored in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The AUMF authorizes action against Al-Qaeda and it's affiliates or allies, world-wide, but wouldn't authorize a drone strike on the IRA, except in the unlikely event they signed up with Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, neither the Bush nor Obama Administrations have claimed that the AUMF authorizes drone strikes against American citizens in the United States. Presidents also claim authority under other provisions to defend the country against different types of attack, so there is certainly a grey area outside the AUMF.

Now, now -- you don't understand. Now that a Democrat is in office, the AUMF is and always was intended to turn the President into Caesar.

And why do they think that? Because they prefer a Caesar, as long as he's a Democrat, to a Republican chief executive bound by the principles of the Constitution. The more interesting question is whether we needed the AUMF dustup to make this clear. Probably not -- your hardcore lefties have always had something of a thing for strongmen.
   1492. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:29 PM (#4705104)
Wait. Is "goes to proving my point" the same as "proves my point"? Because the latter is what you said originally, and something almost being proven is not something one should pay out on.


I don't recall saying initially that if she doesn't run it "proves my point." Regardless, I said "goes to proving my point" above because if she doesn't run it's evidence that is relevant to what I'm trying to prove. And obviously whether she can win factors in heavily to whether she runs, so I see no reason why I shouldn't in all fairness be paid out on the bet if she decides not to run. Andy obviously understands this too, which is why he has refused the bet and has constructed a different, future bet that I never offered, while pretending that I am welching on an imaginary future bet that I never offered.
   1493. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:30 PM (#4705105)
Are you claiming that whether she can get elected does not factor into her decision of whether to run?

So what this boils down to is that you're betting that either her health or a scandal is going to bring her down before she even announces her candidacy, but if she makes it to the declaration stage you'll then think she'll win.

---------------------------------------------

So will you guys be posting your betting slips wherein you jump all over the 11-8 odds currently quoted in London?

I'll be content to wait till she announces and then ask you what you think of her chances. I'm sure your opinion won't have changed about her unelectability, and I'm equally sure you won't want to back it up with your money, for the same reason that Ray won't.
   1494. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:30 PM (#4705106)
1) the fact that Obama has decided that civilian casualties are a totally acceptable consequence of the strikes,


If you have figured out a way to kill terrorists without risking civilian lives, I'd like to hear about it.

that they're often counterproductive-- by killing noncombatants in Muslim countries, we're breeding more 'terrorists' than we're eliminating, and


They're obviously productive. They've disemboweled the Al Queda command-and-control structure so much so that Al Queda doesn't really exist anymore. It's been atomized by drone strikes into smaller, more dispersed and disconnected, less proficient cells.
   1495. Greg K Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:30 PM (#4705107)
Can we at least reach a compromise?

Bookmark this thread and at some point in the next two years one person can come back and rub it in the other guy's face (I mean, that's what it's about right? Money's just the most convenient way to do it...linking to this thread and saying "told you so" would be satisfying too).
   1496. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4705108)
It definitely does. But it's one factor among many, and you've decided that if she decides not to run, you're going to attribute it to her seeing herself as unelectable. And your perception here is driven by a very obvious dislike for Clinton that will not allow you to interpret the decision any other way.


I don't "dislike" Clinton as much as I find it bizarre that you people don't see her for who she is.
   1497. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4705114)
They've disemboweled the Al Queda command-and-control structure so much so that Al Queda doesn't really exist anymore.

Assuming that's true, who cares? "al-Qaeda" was just one part of the many-tentacled structure of a militant Islam that's grown in strength since 9/11 and is now a threat to states like Syria, Iraq, and others. The relative strength of these factions wihtin militant Islam is always transitive.
   1498. formerly dp Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4705115)
If you have figured out a way to kill terrorists without risking civilian lives, I'd like to hear about it.
I'd like the transparency Obama's said is forthcoming. I'd like there to be oversight and accountability.

They're obviously productive.
Hearts and minds. We've ensured we're going to be fighting this war forever, because every drone strike, every dead cousin/sibling/child/parent, breeds anti-US sentiment and future generations of "terrorists".
   1499. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4705116)
I don't "dislike" Clinton as much as I find it bizarre that you people don't see her for who she is.

A longtime public servant who just wants to help people?
   1500. GregD Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4705119)
Now, now -- you don't understand. Now that a Democrat is in office, the AUMF is and always was intended to turn the President into Caesar.

And why do they think that? Because they prefer a Caesar, as long as he's a Democrat, to a Republican chief executive bound by the principles of the Constitution. The more interesting question is whether we needed the AUMF dustup to make this clear. Probably not -- your hardcore lefties have always had something of a thing for strongmen.
To the contrary, you have seen several liberals post about their belief that AUMF should be restrained or ended, while also acknowledging that--like lots of other bad laws--it is the law. You have a Democratic president who--while he has done things I dislike on this front--has for the first time called for it to be modified and eventually repealed.

And your only responses have been to deny there is a difference between a law's constitutionality and its wisdom, and to trumpet false equivalence.
Page 15 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3734 - 12:13am, Oct 25)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(19 - 12:08am, Oct 25)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(382 - 12:03am, Oct 25)
Last: steagles

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(14 - 11:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Zach

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(513 - 11:58pm, Oct 24)
Last: Snowboy

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(78 - 11:54pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(10 - 11:46pm, Oct 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(915 - 7:37pm, Oct 24)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(15 - 5:31pm, Oct 24)
Last: zonk

Page rendered in 1.0377 seconds
52 querie(s) executed