Jaybird: If they’re a soldier on the battlefield, then they’re a soldier on a battlefield. If they’re a *TARGET*, then that’s different from them being one of the people on the battlefield.
Are we allowed to "target" enemy officers? If the answer is "yes", then there you go.
If the answer is "no", then you're insisting that we kill civilians because we're not supposed to use "smart" weapons.
There doesn't need to be "evidence". It's openly admitted the President can order these things and has ordered these things.
The disagreement is political. Some people don't like the war in Gaza/Afghanistan and want to stop it. Using the law to engage in lawfare is an obvious way to get what they want.
However if Congress wants to stop these things it can. A DA in court is the wrong way and the wrong venue.
The President should be shielded from acts he commits as President as part of his job. Doing otherwise instantly moves politics to a courtroom which will lower both of them.
None of Trump's crimes come close to official duties. He should be tried for them but that's a different issue.
Chip: You’re asserting that the DA is biased and the charges are spurious.
For Trump? No. But every President isn't Trump.
If we set a standard that every President is Trump and it's appropriate for any DA to drag the President into court for any reason then we will have problems.
Should Bush (or Obama) have been charged with murder when they killed US citizens in Afghanistan?
Should Biden be charged for supplying weapons to Israel? We have laws which prevent aiding genocide and claims of the same.
Every solider on a battlefield doesn't get a civilian trial before we can shoot them.
And what do we do if the civilian trial says we're not supposed to shoot them? They're still on a battlefield.
And if the "trial" is serious, then it will be used by the defendant as a fishing expedition to try to find out military secrets and plans. Such as what we know he's up to, how we know it, and where he is and so on.
Giving state military secrets to a foreign army has predictable effects.
You're trying force civilian rules onto a war. It's a bad idea.
Jaybird: For the record, they should get a trial if they were an American citizen.
This is nonsense. If they're on a battlefield, or hiding in a cave in a foreign country, then they aren't willing to submit to legal machinery and have made it impossible for the legal machinery to work.
It's impossible to arrest them without the army going in. And if the army goes in then so many normal laws are broken so by the normal laws they should be let off.
This is also why a president who gives that order should be shielded from nonsense lawsuits for giving the order.
My ex-wife grew up on a small farm. She's had poultry which were pets until they weren't. Her family has killed dogs for less reason. Her father attempted to raise animals for their fur.
Animals exist to serve a purpose. When that purpose is over it's off to the glue factory or whatever.
This is a very normal attitude for a small farmer.
InMD: The hypothetical where every president now gets charged by hack prosecutors or vindictive successors has yet to actually occur.
In Bush W's 2nd term we saw lots of suggestions of law-fare. Serious people trying to claim that every terrorist should have a fair trial even if they were hiding in a cave in Afghanistan.
There were flavors on that, they should get a trial if they were in that base in Cuba, or they should get a trial if they were an American citizen.
Then Obama was elected and Team Blue had to face that there literally was no way to make that work. The Team Blue President "resolved" the issue by never taking captives. Terrorists will be executed on the spot by drones.
What it came down to what Team Blue didn't like the war so was looking for ways to weaponize the legal system. Obama's election put an end to it but we were headed there.
Similarly Trump's supporters really do view his trials as "vindictive prosecution". From their point of view we're already there.
Also similarly the US refuses to sign onto various UN treaties which would let them wage lawfare against our soldiers because it would go there.
LeeEsq: and not liking it when they realized they had to allow for religions they don’t like.
DeSantis is in trouble because his "improved book banning" legal machinery has been used to ban the Bible and/or ALL books in the library.
The temptation to use the machinery of the gov to help my group and repress all other groups is very strong.
The United States lucked into this situation because we had a Mexican stand off. No single group was dominate enough to use the state to oppress everyone else and everyone didn't want to have the state used to oppress them.
Best case scenario is "be like the United States". They live in the West and consider us to be the norm.
They could copy our Constitution. Separation of Church is state would fix all of these issues... except that no one there wants anything other than an ethno-state.
The United States is the extreme exception, people forget that.
They don't actually have any skin in the game and they don't want to have any skin in the game.
Their "ethical" position either amounts to, "You should live with terrorism so I can feel better" or "You should make peace with Hamas". Both of those filter pretty seriously for people engaged in emotional thinking.
Terrorist let for for "health reasons, he only has 3 months to live". In Libya he got a hero's welcome and survived until the civil war... which might have disrupted his cancer treatments.
InMD: I thought these people were supposed to be super brave.
We're dealing with people who haven't thought things through. Thus protesting in support of a terror organization continuing to commit mass murder. They also think them being outraged is should end with other people giving way to their moral correctness.
Actually going to jail isn't on their radar much less having a record. The people who disagree with them are the criminals.
Russia is not attempting to take over Ukraine like it did with Poland.
Russia is claiming that there is no such thing as a Ukraine people, they've always been Russian. It's been claiming that internally for years. It's attempting to absorb, not take over, all of Ukraine.
It's taking large numbers of children to send them to be raised as Russians. If it wins the Ukrainian people will be scattered within the Russian empire and "real Russians" will be encouraged to move to Ukraine.
It doesn't want the Ukrainian people dead, it wants them to be Russian. It most certainly does want the Ukraine as a separate identity, much less country, dead.
Lee: I really don’t understand what it exactly means to be an anti-Zionist in 2024.
Probably it means fuzzy thinkings and not well thought out positions.
Logically, if they're Jewish it probably doesn't mean "Israel must be destroyed" but rather "Israel must not be an ethno-state". Like the US is and some of the Western Europe states pretend to be.
How that would happen in practice I have no clue. Both sides agree to live in peace in one state and both agree to not use the state to push Islam/Jewishness.
You're into group rights here. Or maybe countries claiming dominion.
Part that defeated them was the serious lack of population. Between 1609 and 1890 we lost 10,476 soldiers in all tribal wars combined. That includes the war of 1812 when Europe was helping.
Yes, killing tens of thousands of people is an overreaction.
Depends on the civilian to military ratio, and we have no clue what that is. Israel claims something like 1.5 to 1. Hamas claims every death has been a civilian.
What is clear is Israel had good reason to go to war. Since the public wants it done now that means ground invasion. Which means Hamas' tactics should be getting lots of civilians killed.
The current death count in Gaza is 34,305. That's Hamas' number. For perspective Israel still isn't sure how many people died on 10/7.
If Hamas is still doing the whole "10x" thing they did at the hospital bombing then we could have less than 10k dead. Let's assume the number is right but they're only shifting "who died" into other columns.
With the scale of the war, Israel's control over the air and overall power, Hamas' tactics, & the number of displaced people, 34k suggests Israel is mostly trying to not kill civilians.
The war has been going on for 200 days and Israel had dropped 29k bombs in December, so they're probably above 40k now. I'm sure they could average more than one death per bomb if they tried.
Where are the goal posts for "ending the oppression"?
If it's two states, then we have somewhere to go but that doesn't explain the history.
If it's "everywhere from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] sea will be free [of Jews]"; then that explains the history but we don't have anywhere to go.
DavidTC: In fact, she’s the only named rape victim we have _at all_, dead or alive.(1)
This would be a lot more comforting if we didn't have a huge number of dead bodies, most of them civilians.
DavidTC: ‘There was systemic rape and violent orgies at massive levels during the attack,’ which was the original claims, and helped justify Israel’s overreaction.
Overreaction? Killing all civilians they could get their hands on takes us to "not an overreaction".
Not having enough time to commit rape because they're committing mass murder might be accurate but won't result in the situation being defused.
That problem would be a lot easier to solve if it were possible to transfer a tiny compound of Jews to the Palestinians without the expectation they'd be instantly killed.
If memory serves a lot of the settlers are there because of tax reasons or other gov economic support. Reverse those policies and we might see them move back over the green line over a few years.
It's not clear to me how many are motivated by religion and would refuse to move even if it meant dying there. I guess we could review what happened during the Gaza pull out but that's more effort than I'm willing to do.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 4/22/2024”
Jaybird: If they’re a soldier on the battlefield, then they’re a soldier on a battlefield. If they’re a *TARGET*, then that’s different from them being one of the people on the battlefield.
Are we allowed to "target" enemy officers? If the answer is "yes", then there you go.
If the answer is "no", then you're insisting that we kill civilians because we're not supposed to use "smart" weapons.
"
There doesn't need to be "evidence". It's openly admitted the President can order these things and has ordered these things.
The disagreement is political. Some people don't like the war in Gaza/Afghanistan and want to stop it. Using the law to engage in lawfare is an obvious way to get what they want.
However if Congress wants to stop these things it can. A DA in court is the wrong way and the wrong venue.
The President should be shielded from acts he commits as President as part of his job. Doing otherwise instantly moves politics to a courtroom which will lower both of them.
None of Trump's crimes come close to official duties. He should be tried for them but that's a different issue.
"
Chip: You’re asserting that the DA is biased and the charges are spurious.
For Trump? No. But every President isn't Trump.
If we set a standard that every President is Trump and it's appropriate for any DA to drag the President into court for any reason then we will have problems.
Should Bush (or Obama) have been charged with murder when they killed US citizens in Afghanistan?
Should Biden be charged for supplying weapons to Israel? We have laws which prevent aiding genocide and claims of the same.
"
Slade: What benefit do they personally receive?
They become a name, this can make a career, especially if they're also trying to move up the political food chain.
We have seen DA's falsely charge normal people to help their elections. It's rare but it's a thing.
"
You are subject to the ham sandwich test by a local DA who doesn't personally benefit if he takes you down.
The President is subject to every DA in the nation and they would personally benefit if they take him down.
"
Jaybird: Then try them in absentia.
Every solider on a battlefield doesn't get a civilian trial before we can shoot them.
And what do we do if the civilian trial says we're not supposed to shoot them? They're still on a battlefield.
And if the "trial" is serious, then it will be used by the defendant as a fishing expedition to try to find out military secrets and plans. Such as what we know he's up to, how we know it, and where he is and so on.
Giving state military secrets to a foreign army has predictable effects.
You're trying force civilian rules onto a war. It's a bad idea.
"
There have been people inside of Team Red who have opposed Trump (Pence for example), the current situation is after their efforts.
Two election cycles ago, amazingly, Trump ran as the less ethically challenged candidate.
All the reasons Team Blue trotted out then (which basically amounted to "my leader gets a pass") are now in play for Team Red.
The good news is the true independents should vote in lockstep for Joe for obvious reasons.
The bad news is there aren't many and both sides don't see problems with their own guy.
And I'm not sure how we avoid getting into this situation again.
"
Jaybird: For the record, they should get a trial if they were an American citizen.
This is nonsense. If they're on a battlefield, or hiding in a cave in a foreign country, then they aren't willing to submit to legal machinery and have made it impossible for the legal machinery to work.
It's impossible to arrest them without the army going in. And if the army goes in then so many normal laws are broken so by the normal laws they should be let off.
This is also why a president who gives that order should be shielded from nonsense lawsuits for giving the order.
On “Dog Gone”
Before antibiotics we had the President of the United States' son die of a blister on his foot.
"
My ex-wife grew up on a small farm. She's had poultry which were pets until they weren't. Her family has killed dogs for less reason. Her father attempted to raise animals for their fur.
Animals exist to serve a purpose. When that purpose is over it's off to the glue factory or whatever.
This is a very normal attitude for a small farmer.
On “Open Mic for the week of 4/22/2024”
InMD: The hypothetical where every president now gets charged by hack prosecutors or vindictive successors has yet to actually occur.
In Bush W's 2nd term we saw lots of suggestions of law-fare. Serious people trying to claim that every terrorist should have a fair trial even if they were hiding in a cave in Afghanistan.
There were flavors on that, they should get a trial if they were in that base in Cuba, or they should get a trial if they were an American citizen.
Then Obama was elected and Team Blue had to face that there literally was no way to make that work. The Team Blue President "resolved" the issue by never taking captives. Terrorists will be executed on the spot by drones.
What it came down to what Team Blue didn't like the war so was looking for ways to weaponize the legal system. Obama's election put an end to it but we were headed there.
Similarly Trump's supporters really do view his trials as "vindictive prosecution". From their point of view we're already there.
Also similarly the US refuses to sign onto various UN treaties which would let them wage lawfare against our soldiers because it would go there.
On “Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass”
LeeEsq: and not liking it when they realized they had to allow for religions they don’t like.
DeSantis is in trouble because his "improved book banning" legal machinery has been used to ban the Bible and/or ALL books in the library.
The temptation to use the machinery of the gov to help my group and repress all other groups is very strong.
The United States lucked into this situation because we had a Mexican stand off. No single group was dominate enough to use the state to oppress everyone else and everyone didn't want to have the state used to oppress them.
"
Best case scenario is "be like the United States". They live in the West and consider us to be the norm.
They could copy our Constitution. Separation of Church is state would fix all of these issues... except that no one there wants anything other than an ethno-state.
The United States is the extreme exception, people forget that.
On “Open Mic for the week of 4/22/2024”
They don't actually have any skin in the game and they don't want to have any skin in the game.
Their "ethical" position either amounts to, "You should live with terrorism so I can feel better" or "You should make peace with Hamas". Both of those filter pretty seriously for people engaged in emotional thinking.
On “From Variety: Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 Rape Conviction Overturned by New York Appeals Court”
Case in point: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi
Terrorist let for for "health reasons, he only has 3 months to live". In Libya he got a hero's welcome and survived until the civil war... which might have disrupted his cancer treatments.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abdelbaset-Ali-Mohmed-al-Megrahi
Although it's been suggested Britain's cancer treatments were so bad because of Universal HC that Libya's was an improvement.
So maybe that "3 months to live" was actually true if he'd stayed in Britain.
On “Open Mic for the week of 4/22/2024”
InMD: I thought these people were supposed to be super brave.
We're dealing with people who haven't thought things through. Thus protesting in support of a terror organization continuing to commit mass murder. They also think them being outraged is should end with other people giving way to their moral correctness.
Actually going to jail isn't on their radar much less having a record. The people who disagree with them are the criminals.
On “Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass”
Russia is not attempting to take over Ukraine like it did with Poland.
Russia is claiming that there is no such thing as a Ukraine people, they've always been Russian. It's been claiming that internally for years. It's attempting to absorb, not take over, all of Ukraine.
It's taking large numbers of children to send them to be raised as Russians. If it wins the Ukrainian people will be scattered within the Russian empire and "real Russians" will be encouraged to move to Ukraine.
It doesn't want the Ukrainian people dead, it wants them to be Russian. It most certainly does want the Ukraine as a separate identity, much less country, dead.
"
Lee: I really don’t understand what it exactly means to be an anti-Zionist in 2024.
Probably it means fuzzy thinkings and not well thought out positions.
Logically, if they're Jewish it probably doesn't mean "Israel must be destroyed" but rather "Israel must not be an ethno-state". Like the US is and some of the Western Europe states pretend to be.
How that would happen in practice I have no clue. Both sides agree to live in peace in one state and both agree to not use the state to push Islam/Jewishness.
"
You're into group rights here. Or maybe countries claiming dominion.
Part that defeated them was the serious lack of population. Between 1609 and 1890 we lost 10,476 soldiers in all tribal wars combined. That includes the war of 1812 when Europe was helping.
"
IMHO it's nuts to insist a RoR spans generations.
"
‘Hamas numbers’, which are just the Ministry of Health in Gaza, are accepted by Israel, and they have not made any actual errors in them,
Statistics Prof talking about Hamas' numbers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyfDp8BE9Yg
"The Ministry of Health in Gaza" is another way to say "Hamas" since they run Gaza.
"
Yes, killing tens of thousands of people is an overreaction.
Depends on the civilian to military ratio, and we have no clue what that is. Israel claims something like 1.5 to 1. Hamas claims every death has been a civilian.
What is clear is Israel had good reason to go to war. Since the public wants it done now that means ground invasion. Which means Hamas' tactics should be getting lots of civilians killed.
The current death count in Gaza is 34,305. That's Hamas' number. For perspective Israel still isn't sure how many people died on 10/7.
If Hamas is still doing the whole "10x" thing they did at the hospital bombing then we could have less than 10k dead. Let's assume the number is right but they're only shifting "who died" into other columns.
With the scale of the war, Israel's control over the air and overall power, Hamas' tactics, & the number of displaced people, 34k suggests Israel is mostly trying to not kill civilians.
The war has been going on for 200 days and Israel had dropped 29k bombs in December, so they're probably above 40k now. I'm sure they could average more than one death per bomb if they tried.
"
Where are the goal posts for "ending the oppression"?
If it's two states, then we have somewhere to go but that doesn't explain the history.
If it's "everywhere from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] sea will be free [of Jews]"; then that explains the history but we don't have anywhere to go.
"
DavidTC: In fact, she’s the only named rape victim we have _at all_, dead or alive.(1)
This would be a lot more comforting if we didn't have a huge number of dead bodies, most of them civilians.
DavidTC: ‘There was systemic rape and violent orgies at massive levels during the attack,’ which was the original claims, and helped justify Israel’s overreaction.
Overreaction? Killing all civilians they could get their hands on takes us to "not an overreaction".
Not having enough time to commit rape because they're committing mass murder might be accurate but won't result in the situation being defused.
"
That problem would be a lot easier to solve if it were possible to transfer a tiny compound of Jews to the Palestinians without the expectation they'd be instantly killed.
If memory serves a lot of the settlers are there because of tax reasons or other gov economic support. Reverse those policies and we might see them move back over the green line over a few years.
It's not clear to me how many are motivated by religion and would refuse to move even if it meant dying there. I guess we could review what happened during the Gaza pull out but that's more effort than I'm willing to do.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.