Jason Kuznicki
Jason Kuznicki is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and contributor of Cato Unbound. He's on twitter as JasonKuznicki. His interests include political theory and history.
Features
Hot Posts
Thank You!
Thanks to your generosity, we were able to upgrade our service plan. Hopefully this will help us address some of our performance issues.
Recent Comments
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death PenaltyIn the abortion debate, the hardcore pro-lifers tend to make an argument that takes the form "aborti…
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death PenaltyThat's missing the point of the comment. I'm personally against the death penalty because, among oth…
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty"In practical terms" you have lost the pro-death penalty argument long ago. On the relatively rare o…
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death PenaltyIt's also very interesting the crazy spectrum that exists there. Anthony Battle raped one person and…
on Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024Trump is apparently going on again about reclaiming the Panama Canal and Greenland for the United St…
on Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024What does it mean? Probably not much. If it "made sense" to this guy to set a stranger on fire he is…
Comics
-
December 22, 2024
-
Youngsters Make Merry at Evanston Country Club Christmas Party
December 21, 2024
-
December 20, 2024
-
December 19, 2024
More Comments
on From Tablet Mag: Rapid-Onset Political Enlightenment
on From Tablet Mag: Rapid-Onset Political Enlightenment
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty
on Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024
on Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024
But on the flip side, when there is one person killing one person, 50% of the people involved are murderers. So, while the percentage of victims decreases, the percentage of murderers increases. Whoops!Report
You can absolve yourself of being a murderer by going to an anti-war protest, though. Free Palestine!Report
That’s like saying I can absolve myself of the animal blood on my hands from the cheeseburger I just ate by going to a PETA rally.Report
Damnit, now I’m hungry for a Greek Burger (lamb burger on pita with feta and tzatziki sauce) from Big Nick’s in Manhattan…Report
Or being a libertarian.Report
No – is punditry, in one comic panel.Report
True if war = murder, which is asinine.Report
Why? What is the difference between war and murder?Report
Legality, unless you 1. believe in Natural Law and 2. believe war violates said law. Alternately believe that the war violates some other, higher, law, whether something like the War Powers Act, the Constitution, or International Law.
But really, murder’s just unlawful premeditated killing. So long as it’s legal, it’s not murder.Report
Not to say that you couldn’t judge it to be wrong, of course, but moral condemnation doesn’t make something unlawful.Report
But that is circular logic at it’s best.
Why is it legal and not illegal? Because it’s war.
Why is it war and not murder? Because it’s legal.
How do we define war? If Al Quaeda viewed themselves at war with America, could they claim that the actions of 9/11 were not murders? Within war, are there killings that are still unlawful and, thus, murder (e.g., the killing of civilians)?
I do believe there are some cases where killing is justified. But I’d be hardpressed to argue that killing on the scale as is typical for most wars is justified.Report
Welcome to the law! It’s all pretty much based on bullshit and power.Report
That said, there’s an argument to be made that the law of the United States has been violated and therefore we are illegally waging war, in which case it’s not truly war, and the actions are murder, but that’s aside from the specific point about war and murder.Report
True if war = murder, which is asinine.
In just war theory, there is never more than one legitimate belligerent side in any conflict. More often, and taking into account both jus in bello and jus ad bellum, we have to find that both sides are fighting illegitimately.
So usually, yes, war is murder. It’s not asinine at all.Report
The cartoon is a jejune reduction. You stand by it, fine.
“Usually” war is murder? The cartoon does not plumb such nuance. And let President Obama in on this re Libya. Sometimes, war isn’t even war.Report
The cartoon is a jejune reduction.
Most are. Hate to break it to you.
“Usually” war is murder? The cartoon does not plumb such nuance. And let President Obama in on this re Libya. Sometimes, war isn’t even war.
No, no, no. I can’t break it to President Obama, because you’re already on record insisting on the very opposite. “War = murder is asinine,” you wrote.
Make up your mind, my friend.
(For what it’s worth, if you’ve paid any attention at all, you know that I’ve written several times about Libya and how we’re only there in violation of our own laws. On this I am being consistent, even if you are not.)Report
Well, I can’t argue with bumper sticker morality. Bumper sticker logic: murder is killing, war is killing, therefore war is murder.
As for Libya, Jason, on such Greenwaldian issues I have never known you to be anything but principled and consistent. However, it’s hard for Greenwaldians to take BHO to task if W can’t be equally slagged on at the same time. Their hearts just aren’t in it.
Is BHO’s Libya enterprise murder? The cartoon morality in question would have to say yes. Shirley you’re not prepared to accuse the president of murder.
I’m just accusing him of sophistry, that a war’s not a war.Report
You’ve retreated to, “Whatever! Obama’s a hypocrite, and antiwar liberals criticize him but it must eat them up inside.” That’s disappointing.
I was, believe it or not, interested in your, take on just war theory, since you’re clearly either Catholic or staunchly pro-Catholic. But if you can’t argue with a cartoon (and I admit it’s a silly one), you become one, it appears.Report
You’re the one who brought up W. Please don’t accuse me of bringing in our former president. Your work, not mine.
Is the Libyan enterprise murder? No, because “murder” is the name we reserve for private illegitimate killing. It’s clearly an illegal and unjust war, however, and that’s the name we use for state-run illegitimate killing.
Your challenge, should you choose to accept: Explain how an illegal and unjust war is better or more morally defensible than murder. I’m betting you can’t do it — not for Obama, anyway.Report
I really don’t want to wade too far into this but…the UN has, like, legal standing and stuff…Report
It does not have the legal standing required to authorize U.S. participation in a war. Only Congress has that.Report
Congress hasn’t done that in decades.
Look — I agree that Obama should have and should still go to Congress with his case for intervention in Libya, and that his not doing so is one of the signature blemishes on his record thus far. But calling the war “clearly […] illegal” is hyperbole.Report
Elias:
Calling our action in Libya illegal isn’t hyperbole, it is a fact. Try reading the war powers act, the constitution and forget about the UN and Bush as you might learn something.Report
I don’t like word games around the word “illegal.” If anything it lets the President off too easily, ie, if we can come with a reason why it’s not illegal then it’s ok. Legal or otherwise, it’s a bad thing. It’s the same with “unconstitutional.”
Jason mentioned the key point, the UN can give it’s blessing or not, but it cannot commit US forces to be placed in harm’s way.
And at this point, the President is in real trouble. If he went to Congress for authorization, he might well lose. I know if I had a vote I’d vote against him for sure, whereas I might have voted with him a month or whatever ago.
This gets back to a point that the Republicans need to bring to the forefront: because the President’s default mode of operating is to short-circuit our republican institutions, the ability to derail one of the President’s policies must be exercised at nearly every opportunity.Report
Indeed. If the GOP won’t reign in a runaway Executive Branch, then who will?Report
Elias:
Is there ever an instance when you don’t attempt to shift the blame for something to the GOP? It shouldn’t ever be the Congress ‘ job to make Barry or any other Pres obey the law. As a Harvard trained attorney Barry should make a minimal effort to obey the law.Report
Your team, through the public acknowledgment that President Obama is worse than George W Bush ever was, and acting accordingly. That’ll fix Libya right away, and is probably the only thing that will.Report
Koz wrote, on the question of who should fix the Libya mess….
Your team [i.e., the Democrats] through the public acknowledgment that President Obama is worse than George W Bush ever was, and acting accordingly. That’ll fix Libya right away, and is probably the only thing that will.
But this is something they wouldn’t have the courage to do. They might lose an election that way.
Much as the Republicans, who were outraged at Bill Clinton’s civil liberties violations, cheered on more of the same and worse under George W. Bush — rather than rising up to fight it.Report
Btw, I’m not with Scott’s last argument. It is important that the President follow the law. On the other hand, the “law” and the contingencies associated with it are complicated to the point that we could forgive the President if there were some plausible theory of the national interest supporting the President’s actions wrt Libya. But there isn’t, and we should insist on accountability forthwith.
Btw, a lot of conservatives hear about the UN and think, “ZOMG, black helicopters.” Now, I tend to sympathetic to the idea of UN overreach and liberals tend to eyeroll. But Elias, this one really does have to be out of bounds. The UN cannot be allowed to conduct war with the US armed forces outside of the US political process. If we can’t agree on that one, we’re in more trouble than I thought.Report
As far as Jason goes, I would certainly be willing to sell GWB down the river if the shoe fit. But I’m not aware of a circumstance where he extended the malfeasance of President Clinton.Report
It’s quite true — the difference between the state and private enterprise is that only the state ever rationalizes its misdeedsReport
Wait, wait, wait… that would required them acknowledging that misdeeds have happened! Defending wrong actions as right isn’t rationalizing… it’s embracing idiocy!
The government never says, “Yea, we F’ed up, but here is why what we had tried to do was right,” or “Yea, we made the right call, but our execution failed for this reason.” They say, “Nothing to see here folks. Keep it moving,” or “Who you going to believe, me or your lyin’ eyes,” or “Dik, der, AMERICA!”Report