in true Keynesian fashion, pumped money into the economy.
If that worked the economy should be just screaming along right now. Even adjusted for percentage of economy we're doing two or three times what we used to.
The AUMF is not, however, legally a declaration of war. (It couldn’t possibly be, it doesn’t even *name a country*.)
Where does the Constitution say we can only declare war on countries?
If it helps, Wiki says "War is a state of armed conflict between societies" (as opposed to countries). As far as I can tell, the idea of "War" predates the creation of nation states, it even predates humanity.
Declarations of war are statements *you send other countries* informing them that you are at war with them...
Sounds like a personal definition.
There is nothing in there about ‘associated forces’.
"Aided", "such organizations", and "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" amount to the same thing.
Rso she conned those bad people out of money to do good charitable acts and has given them nothing?
Some of these bad people are governments we need to deal with.
You, an HRC supporter, are suggesting that she's "only" shaking people down. So how does that work? Is she threatening to have the gov do things or is she threatening to have the gov not do things?
There really is no good answer for this.
But by all means, show where a donor got a quid pro quo. Im waiting.
If we couldn't show that for a donor who gave a million dollars to HRC in exchange for Bill giving her husband a Presidential pardon then we won't be able to prove that there was a relationship between the tens of millions that Russian gave TCF and the mining contracts he received.
But the lack of agreeing to an explicit price and putting it in writing doesn't make the transaction ethical or less obvious, just impossible to prove in court.
However now that she can't "bundle" the government's political power to her personal "charity", I expect the talk about how great a charity it is will fade and it will go bust.
I don't think we can reasonably claim the head of a multi-Billion dollar organization is personally responsible for *everything* which happens in it. Someone in the Army committed rape/murder/terrorism last year (and see BLM for other lists), it's not useful to think Obama was personally involved without lots more evidence than we have.
Where has this magic of tax cuts and deregulation produced any effect?
The United States after Reagan.
Further all this talk about advanced economies having a low rate of growth was popular right before he took office, and we've seen non-advanced economies suffer low rates of growth from over regulation (India for example).
We have a tax code which isn't humanly understandable, it's not a reach to think it's causing economic distortions. The marginal corporate tax rate is the highest in the world and businesses flee the country via inversion on a regular basis, it's not a reach to think that costs jobs.
Additionally, at some point you really are going to have to stop conflating AQ and ISIS. ISIS has never directly attacked the US that I am aware of.
And, technically speaking, we haven’t declared war on *anyone*. At all.
The AUMF is only a page and answers all of this. The Constitution says Congress needs to declare war, it doesn't specify the form that needs to take. The AUMF expressly gives the Prez permission to take the army out to invade/destroy countries and kill people. That sounds like "war".
From wiki, the AUMF says "authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces".
How many years of 2% growth do we need before we conclude there's a problem?
If Obama had given us growth (via the Stim, or Obamacare, or anything really), then HRC would be in office. Her not being in office is a reflection of that more than anything else.
I think you’re stuck in a bad place, here, Dark. You think there’s a way to get universal coverage that require a mandate, lowers costs, guarantees issue (at community rating?), etc and so on, without healthy people “paying for it”.
No, I understand the economics of this just fine (and agree with what you said), but what we're talking about is the politics.
Universal Coverage is a fine policy choice, but it has costs. Explaining those costs and getting support anyway is what was suppose to happen. What did happen was outright lies and determined defiance of popular opposition.
Somehow there this effort on the left to present Obamacare's political and economic problems as the GOP's doing, not Obama's. Similarly there's an effort to present Obamacare as popular no matter how unpopular it is, and approved by the public no matter how many Dems got voted out of office for supporting it.
I don't understand all the determined blame shifting. Obama came into office with very little experience, being President is hard. The first painting you do is unlikely to be a masterpiece. The politics (and imho the economics) of this was mishandled.
The trial is what establishes specific parameters when it comes to American Citizens.
"American Citizens" is very much the wrong thing to claim makes a difference.
Take Green Card holders (or illegal immigrants) on American soil. It's unreasonable to think the gov can kill them when it could have them arrested/jailed/tried.
The important question should be whether or not the gov has alternatives inside the legal system. If it is possible to give someone a meaningful trial, then we should.
But "meaningful trial" can't end with "we can't jail him because he's outside the reach of the Justice system and we'd have to send in the army".
We should not pretend that the entire world is a battlefield, that the army has any business blowing people up inside of first world or second world nations where there are alternatives.
The issue should be what to do when facing a total failure of law, i.e. failed states and/or lawless lands. Lands controlled by law are clear, battlefields are somewhat clear, what's not clear is the whole "no law, not on a battlefield, but engaged in war crimes".
trizzlor: Anwar al-Awlaki provided material support to Al Qaeda. Legally speaking, this is not different from shooting at American soldiers.
Jaybird: You’d think that this is something that could be proven in a court of law before killing the guy.
Great, let's think about how that happens. He refuses to go to court, but his family (or Al Qaeda) hires a lawyer to "defend" him.
Chain of evidence problems gets everything thrown out. Answering any of the basic "in court" questions is also supplying information and intel to the enemy. Just explaining what you know about his activities and communications tells the other side a lot. Explaining how you know is worse. He has the right to confront any witnesses and that's another mess.
So to make all of this work, we pass laws saying he *doesn't* get to examine evidence, question witnesses, that chain of evidence doesn't matter, etc...
...and we just trust that the government, armed with this wonderful new tool for depriving citizens of their legal rights, only applies it to terrorists at war with the country.
I’m calling for “American Citizens who are not directly engaging in violence who are in countries where we have not declared war to be tried before we have them assassinated”.
The army doesn't need to wait for a soldier to pick up a gun and shoot back before we shoot him, and we *have* declared war on AQ/ISIS. Joining this group means you have taken up arms against the United States and it is legal for the army to kill you.
If you want access to the Justice system, then you have to be willing to subject yourself to it. Hiding in a (literally) lawless part of the world for the purpose of avoiding Justice means congrats, you're successful and the Justice system has no say.
The root cause of this problem isn't the President wants to be able to kill people outside the law binding him. The root cause is we're at war. The usual "war" rules apply, and some of them are pretty ugly... but they exist for good reason.
It's a bad idea to try to change the laws and rules of war because people want to pretend we're not at war.
Id just like to see any of hilldawgs “pay to play” proven. ... But good strawwoman....
So you're saying you expect Blackwater, the Saudis, and Russian Politicians who engage in torture to continue to give Billions of dollars to her charity now that they're not dealing with the secretary of State and future President? No reduction in funding at all?
Personally I think their haircut will be so extreme they'll find some excuse to close the charity.
I still think we should have tried the guy, even if in absentia, before we did so.
The Military does not have to (and indeed, can not) try everyone before they kill them.
Trials involve rules of evidence and laws which assume police and the rest of the legal system are able to control the overall situation, including crime scene and witnesses. Trials allow defendants to question witnesses and examine evidence.
Trying to apply those to a military situation leads to insane results. The prosecutor for the first world trade center bombing reported that the "defendants" used the legal system to find out what we knew about Al Qaeda as a whole.
If they find out we're monitoring their communications, they change them. When Bin Laden realized we knew who he was, what he was doing, and where he was, he fled and retooled.
Using the legal system's rules results in smarter, better organized terrorists, just like they would if we applied them against any army. Just because Al Qaeda is a group of criminals doesn't mean they're not also an army.
However there are lots of other treaties and laws, presumably there'd be problems somewhere. Just for starters going to war with Canada is problematic (and that's what you're suggesting).
I assume with any 1st or 2nd world nation, you just ask the police to arrest someone and have the courts deal with it. We're not killing people with drones in spite of having better options, we're killing people with drones because we don't.
We could actually say that the people that don’t mind extrajudicial assassinations are really fearful,
It's "extrajudicial" because lawless areas of the world are involved and the problem has reached a scale where the army needed to step in.
One good thing Obama was forced to do was take ownership of the situation. He went into office with soaring left-wing rhetoric and quickly figured out the underlying mess is not Presidents running amok, it's that there is no pure "judicial" solution here. All the happy "there must be a law" rhetoric is unworkable when faced with the ugly reality.
We use the law where we can, we use the army where we must. They're both tools of society.
We use "extrajudicial assassinations" because that's the least ugly solution. We make them die over there because we don't want them to knock down buildings over here. If you have a less ugly solution, by all means put it on the table.
We've done this before, i.e. had serious conflicts with non-state actors (see below). We're fighting a movement, not a state actor. The conflict will end when Islam no longer inspires people to go out and enslave/murder/etc on a big enough scale that we need the army to deal with it.
Part of dealing with this should involve state building. Part of it is just letting generation after generation of fanatics kill themselves uselessly. Part is giving Islam the time to reform.
The barbary wars.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars
The Anarchists, who assassinated President McKinley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States
maybe we wrote some of the terms a little too broadly – I mean, everyone *knew* what we meant – but then we didn’t really expect it to be the primary foreign policy vehicle in 2016, did we?
Is Al Qaeda still around?
-Yes (although they've been renamed).
Are they still killing people and destabilizing countries?
-Yes.
Are they big enough and dangerous enough that we need armies and not cops to deal with them?
-Yes.
If we leave them alone will they start knocking down buildings in the US again?
-They'd probably try if they're not busy executing Christians and enslaving women.
The problem isn't with the AUMF, the problem is with the reality. All the wishful thinking in the world can't return the situation to what we thought it was before 911.
Your chosen champion runs a Billion dollar pay-to-play scheme, and now that she's not going to be President I expect Blackwater, the Saudis, and Russian Politicians known mostly for torture will reduce their level of "humanitarian" giving.
That was the actual choice.
IMHO being a total flaming ass isn't disqualifying for being Prez, nor is marrying models, divorcing your wife because of money, etc.
Which leaves racism (i.e. not being a Democrat), insanity (and he and his family seem amazingly functional for nuts), and anti-immigration / anti-free-trade.
That last one did it for me, but we'll find out how serious he was.
Don Zeko:
Sure, you’d also get a righteous dissent pointing out that the majority’s holding turns the entire world into a free fire zone, unbounded geographically and temporally, in which the president can dispense lethal force arbitrarily, but the dissenters would lose and the drone strikes would continue.
Hardly the entire world, just where law enforcement has no ability to do anything.
If it takes the army to arrest someone, then they don't get to claim "because they're not cops the rules weren't followed".
An impeachable offense would be if Obama killed someone in lieu of using the justice system, but as far as I can tell that hasn't happened. If cops have control then he uses cops, not drones.
Judges can't wear their robes on battle fields. If you're hiding in a cave for the express purpose of preventing the justice system from having access to you, then the justice system doesn't have access to you.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Electoral College Option”
1980? Looking at the graphs, I see a more-or-less constant 3% deficit from 1974 to 1995.
http://www.eucitizens.eu/pictures/Government%20budget%20surplus%20or%20deficit%20as%20percentage%20of%20GDP%201970-2010.jpg
If that worked the economy should be just screaming along right now. Even adjusted for percentage of economy we're doing two or three times what we used to.
http://www.heritage.org/~/media/InfoGraphics/2012/10/SRfedspendingnumbers2012p4chart4_600.ashx
On “Impeach Barack Obama”
Where does the Constitution say we can only declare war on countries?
If it helps, Wiki says "War is a state of armed conflict between societies" (as opposed to countries). As far as I can tell, the idea of "War" predates the creation of nation states, it even predates humanity.
Sounds like a personal definition.
"Aided", "such organizations", and "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" amount to the same thing.
On “The Electoral College Option”
It is "same old same old". The GOP of this state learned this trick from the Dems.
"
Some of these bad people are governments we need to deal with.
You, an HRC supporter, are suggesting that she's "only" shaking people down. So how does that work? Is she threatening to have the gov do things or is she threatening to have the gov not do things?
There really is no good answer for this.
If we couldn't show that for a donor who gave a million dollars to HRC in exchange for Bill giving her husband a Presidential pardon then we won't be able to prove that there was a relationship between the tens of millions that Russian gave TCF and the mining contracts he received.
But the lack of agreeing to an explicit price and putting it in writing doesn't make the transaction ethical or less obvious, just impossible to prove in court.
However now that she can't "bundle" the government's political power to her personal "charity", I expect the talk about how great a charity it is will fade and it will go bust.
"
I don't think we can reasonably claim the head of a multi-Billion dollar organization is personally responsible for *everything* which happens in it. Someone in the Army committed rape/murder/terrorism last year (and see BLM for other lists), it's not useful to think Obama was personally involved without lots more evidence than we have.
"
We can do better. If we're interested in not handing power to people like Trump we need to do better.
One way to think of it is over 105 years 4% growth means an economy which is 8x bigger than 2%.
And if you're willing to settle for 2% you'll get that "with" recessions and depressions and not "without" them.
"
@don-zeko
The United States after Reagan.
Further all this talk about advanced economies having a low rate of growth was popular right before he took office, and we've seen non-advanced economies suffer low rates of growth from over regulation (India for example).
We have a tax code which isn't humanly understandable, it's not a reach to think it's causing economic distortions. The marginal corporate tax rate is the highest in the world and businesses flee the country via inversion on a regular basis, it's not a reach to think that costs jobs.
On “Impeach Barack Obama”
The AUMF is only a page and answers all of this. The Constitution says Congress needs to declare war, it doesn't specify the form that needs to take. The AUMF expressly gives the Prez permission to take the army out to invade/destroy countries and kill people. That sounds like "war".
From wiki, the AUMF says "authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces".
AQ-in-Iraq is clearly an associate of AQ.
On “The Electoral College Option”
How many years of 2% growth do we need before we conclude there's a problem?
If Obama had given us growth (via the Stim, or Obamacare, or anything really), then HRC would be in office. Her not being in office is a reflection of that more than anything else.
"
No, I understand the economics of this just fine (and agree with what you said), but what we're talking about is the politics.
Universal Coverage is a fine policy choice, but it has costs. Explaining those costs and getting support anyway is what was suppose to happen. What did happen was outright lies and determined defiance of popular opposition.
Somehow there this effort on the left to present Obamacare's political and economic problems as the GOP's doing, not Obama's. Similarly there's an effort to present Obamacare as popular no matter how unpopular it is, and approved by the public no matter how many Dems got voted out of office for supporting it.
I don't understand all the determined blame shifting. Obama came into office with very little experience, being President is hard. The first painting you do is unlikely to be a masterpiece. The politics (and imho the economics) of this was mishandled.
On “Impeach Barack Obama”
"American Citizens" is very much the wrong thing to claim makes a difference.
Take Green Card holders (or illegal immigrants) on American soil. It's unreasonable to think the gov can kill them when it could have them arrested/jailed/tried.
The important question should be whether or not the gov has alternatives inside the legal system. If it is possible to give someone a meaningful trial, then we should.
But "meaningful trial" can't end with "we can't jail him because he's outside the reach of the Justice system and we'd have to send in the army".
We should not pretend that the entire world is a battlefield, that the army has any business blowing people up inside of first world or second world nations where there are alternatives.
The issue should be what to do when facing a total failure of law, i.e. failed states and/or lawless lands. Lands controlled by law are clear, battlefields are somewhat clear, what's not clear is the whole "no law, not on a battlefield, but engaged in war crimes".
"
Can you link to it?
"
As far as I can tell, all of the alternatives are seriously ugly. Maybe that's the least ugly and Bush made a mistake leaving these people alive?
"
Great, let's think about how that happens. He refuses to go to court, but his family (or Al Qaeda) hires a lawyer to "defend" him.
Chain of evidence problems gets everything thrown out. Answering any of the basic "in court" questions is also supplying information and intel to the enemy. Just explaining what you know about his activities and communications tells the other side a lot. Explaining how you know is worse. He has the right to confront any witnesses and that's another mess.
So to make all of this work, we pass laws saying he *doesn't* get to examine evidence, question witnesses, that chain of evidence doesn't matter, etc...
...and we just trust that the government, armed with this wonderful new tool for depriving citizens of their legal rights, only applies it to terrorists at war with the country.
"
The army doesn't need to wait for a soldier to pick up a gun and shoot back before we shoot him, and we *have* declared war on AQ/ISIS. Joining this group means you have taken up arms against the United States and it is legal for the army to kill you.
If you want access to the Justice system, then you have to be willing to subject yourself to it. Hiding in a (literally) lawless part of the world for the purpose of avoiding Justice means congrats, you're successful and the Justice system has no say.
The root cause of this problem isn't the President wants to be able to kill people outside the law binding him. The root cause is we're at war. The usual "war" rules apply, and some of them are pretty ugly... but they exist for good reason.
It's a bad idea to try to change the laws and rules of war because people want to pretend we're not at war.
On “The Electoral College Option”
So you're saying you expect Blackwater, the Saudis, and Russian Politicians who engage in torture to continue to give Billions of dollars to her charity now that they're not dealing with the secretary of State and future President? No reduction in funding at all?
Personally I think their haircut will be so extreme they'll find some excuse to close the charity.
On “Impeach Barack Obama”
The Military does not have to (and indeed, can not) try everyone before they kill them.
Trials involve rules of evidence and laws which assume police and the rest of the legal system are able to control the overall situation, including crime scene and witnesses. Trials allow defendants to question witnesses and examine evidence.
Trying to apply those to a military situation leads to insane results. The prosecutor for the first world trade center bombing reported that the "defendants" used the legal system to find out what we knew about Al Qaeda as a whole.
If they find out we're monitoring their communications, they change them. When Bin Laden realized we knew who he was, what he was doing, and where he was, he fled and retooled.
Using the legal system's rules results in smarter, better organized terrorists, just like they would if we applied them against any army. Just because Al Qaeda is a group of criminals doesn't mean they're not also an army.
"
According to the AUMF? Yes.
However there are lots of other treaties and laws, presumably there'd be problems somewhere. Just for starters going to war with Canada is problematic (and that's what you're suggesting).
I assume with any 1st or 2nd world nation, you just ask the police to arrest someone and have the courts deal with it. We're not killing people with drones in spite of having better options, we're killing people with drones because we don't.
"
It's "extrajudicial" because lawless areas of the world are involved and the problem has reached a scale where the army needed to step in.
One good thing Obama was forced to do was take ownership of the situation. He went into office with soaring left-wing rhetoric and quickly figured out the underlying mess is not Presidents running amok, it's that there is no pure "judicial" solution here. All the happy "there must be a law" rhetoric is unworkable when faced with the ugly reality.
We use the law where we can, we use the army where we must. They're both tools of society.
We use "extrajudicial assassinations" because that's the least ugly solution. We make them die over there because we don't want them to knock down buildings over here. If you have a less ugly solution, by all means put it on the table.
"
We've done this before, i.e. had serious conflicts with non-state actors (see below). We're fighting a movement, not a state actor. The conflict will end when Islam no longer inspires people to go out and enslave/murder/etc on a big enough scale that we need the army to deal with it.
Part of dealing with this should involve state building. Part of it is just letting generation after generation of fanatics kill themselves uselessly. Part is giving Islam the time to reform.
The barbary wars.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars
The Anarchists, who assassinated President McKinley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States
"
As far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet.
The Authorization to Use Military Force was basically a blank check with a "fill in the country" section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
"
Is Al Qaeda still around?
-Yes (although they've been renamed).
Are they still killing people and destabilizing countries?
-Yes.
Are they big enough and dangerous enough that we need armies and not cops to deal with them?
-Yes.
If we leave them alone will they start knocking down buildings in the US again?
-They'd probably try if they're not busy executing Christians and enslaving women.
The problem isn't with the AUMF, the problem is with the reality. All the wishful thinking in the world can't return the situation to what we thought it was before 911.
On “The Electoral College Option”
Pot. Meet Kettle.
Your chosen champion runs a Billion dollar pay-to-play scheme, and now that she's not going to be President I expect Blackwater, the Saudis, and Russian Politicians known mostly for torture will reduce their level of "humanitarian" giving.
That was the actual choice.
IMHO being a total flaming ass isn't disqualifying for being Prez, nor is marrying models, divorcing your wife because of money, etc.
Which leaves racism (i.e. not being a Democrat), insanity (and he and his family seem amazingly functional for nuts), and anti-immigration / anti-free-trade.
That last one did it for me, but we'll find out how serious he was.
On “Impeach Barack Obama”
Hardly the entire world, just where law enforcement has no ability to do anything.
If it takes the army to arrest someone, then they don't get to claim "because they're not cops the rules weren't followed".
"
An impeachable offense would be if Obama killed someone in lieu of using the justice system, but as far as I can tell that hasn't happened. If cops have control then he uses cops, not drones.
Judges can't wear their robes on battle fields. If you're hiding in a cave for the express purpose of preventing the justice system from having access to you, then the justice system doesn't have access to you.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.