tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8537045684820674531.post1455257449746207743..comments2023-12-22T15:54:02.289-08:00Comments on Consider The Source: The bin Laden Wrap-Up -- Just Another Paragraph in a History Textbookmikeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13057701313718589322noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8537045684820674531.post-4387183154892420092011-05-10T19:15:36.747-07:002011-05-10T19:15:36.747-07:00Your point is both critically important and utterl...Your point is both critically important and utterly specious. Because the government will ALWAYS retain the power to attack its enemies. So we are dependent upon a political leadership that is legitimate, and would not choose to murder it's people, even if they are among the political opposition. There is, very simply, no structural solution to your concerns. They are entirely political.<br /><br />And I'd agree that we should have serious concerns about our current political leadership. But it remains true that a government led by Dennis Kucinich and Mahatma Ghandi would have these exact same powers, and could, at any time, without accountability, choose to abuse them.<br /><br />And this isn't some passing academic argument - it's critical. Because we give our leadership this kind of unfettered power, we need to be able to trust them to use it appropriately. And, frankly, at this point, like most every other population on the planet, we cannot...mikeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057701313718589322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8537045684820674531.post-78165522494122784152011-05-09T08:52:24.427-07:002011-05-09T08:52:24.427-07:00The argument is about who and how the decision is ...The argument is about who and how the decision is made. Under G.W.Bush, a failure on 9-11 was used to usurp powers that did not belong to the president in the name of "The War On Terror".<br /><br />Predictably, under Obama, these powers have been expanded. Not because of who Obama is, or what party he is from, but because that's how these things go. It's why the people who wrote the Constitution tried so hard to make sure this wouldn't happen. (And predictably, the right-wingers who make such a fetish of the "Founders' Intent" don't care, as long as people they don't like are getting blown up.)<br /><br /><i>I keep saying that a military strike on bin Laden was legitimate - I certainly would not agree that a military strike on mikey would be so. </i><br /><br />I agree! But where's your protection? Where's the line that says "The president can blow up Bin Laden, because everyone agrees. However, the president can't blow up mikey because..."<br /><br />The "because" has been obliterated. <br /><br />February 28, 2012: President Sarab Palin has mikey killed, as part of the War On Terror. Friends of mikey say, "hey, wtf, mikey may have terrorized some assholes in some hi-tech firms, but he wasn't <i>a terrorist!</i><br /><br />Spokespeople speaking for the president respond: "We had actionable intelligence that showed mikey was an imminent threat. We cannot reveal this intelligence, however, because it would endanger the troops."<br /><br />Who do you think is going to defend you? The Washington Post? The New York Times? The ACLU probably would try, but they are routinely demonized and ignored these days.<br /><br />That's my point, mikey. <br />~ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©https://www.blogger.com/profile/06252371815131259831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8537045684820674531.post-53640246630358837202011-05-09T08:00:59.755-07:002011-05-09T08:00:59.755-07:00But if it's not silly, it's kind of meanin...But if it's not silly, it's kind of meaningless. EVERY political system, every system of governance retains (or at least attempts to retain) a monopoly on the use of force. Which is to say that any government in the WORLD, indeed, any government in the history of the world, could decide that mikey was a threat and launch a military attack against him. Comes with the territory. <br /><br />I'd like to hear a description of a system of governance that did not include this 'feature'. So, ok, what I suppose you're saying is that you do not trust the current American system of governance to make good, or at least honest decisions around deploying violent solutions. And that's perfectly legitimate. But it's critical to recognize that this complaint is about those who control the military, not the military as an occasionally appropriate solution.<br /><br />I keep saying that a military strike on bin Laden was legitimate - I certainly would not agree that a military strike on mikey would be so. But what I'm wondering is if you believe that there is ANY legitimate use of military force, and if you do, then we're not talking about the power of a government to deploy violence, but rather and merely a single decision to do so.mikeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057701313718589322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8537045684820674531.post-41245977569133448642011-05-09T06:51:06.835-07:002011-05-09T06:51:06.835-07:00Democracies can order defensive or retaliatory mil...<i>Democracies can order defensive or retaliatory military attacks without losing their inherent right to govern. </i><br /><br />It's not a silly argument, mikey, it's about who makes the decision and how.<br /><br />Say the next president isn't a fan of mikey. He says, "I think this guy is a threat, and we can't wait for the mushroom cloud. So yesterday evening I sent out the assassination team."<br /><br />From my link:<br /><br /><i>It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. <br />...<br /> The attack does not appear to have killed Mr. Awlaki, the officials said, but may have killed operatives of Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen. <br />...<br />The other people killed "may have" been Al Qaeda operatives. Or they "may not have" been. Who cares? </i> <br /><br />Who indeed. Probably relatives of the dead, but certainly not us.<br />~ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©https://www.blogger.com/profile/06252371815131259831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8537045684820674531.post-68274870131890363042011-05-07T20:20:36.736-07:002011-05-07T20:20:36.736-07:00That's just silly. Democracies can order defe...That's just silly. Democracies can order defensive or retaliatory military attacks without losing their inherent right to govern. To assume that only authoritarian dictatorships can use the military to defend their people and their sovereignty is to fundamentally misunderstand what a nation is and what it's obligations amount to.<br /><br />And I addressed your due process argument, but I'll address it again. If you want due process, you have to USE due process. If you recognize and identify a threat, it's perfectly reasonable to use your military assets - but as soon as you do, there IS no due process. You simply kill your enemy. If/when you identify a military target, the very idea of due process is moot - it's an attack. As I said, if you don't believe this was appropriate in this case, THIS is the argument you make - but you're going to have a very hard time making the case that bin Laden wasn't a viable and legitimate military target...mikeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057701313718589322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8537045684820674531.post-90385343459851287882011-05-07T18:43:31.332-07:002011-05-07T18:43:31.332-07:00No. We do not torture because it is wrong, it vio...<i>No. We do not torture because it is wrong, it violates our most deeply and strongly held beliefs about human rights and human dignity...</i><br /><br />Agreed, but I have to point out that the argument that <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/07/awlaki" rel="nofollow">the due process people</a> are making is also about our strongly held beliefs.<br /><br />I consider Osama a dirtbag who killed some friends of mine, and beyond the personal angle, he promotes a cultural misogyny I find repulsive. But no one is going to let me use my personal feelings to order military attacks in other nations. <br /><br /> Maybe you trust Obama to make these judgments (I'm lose trust in him day after day), but then what about our next president? <br /><br />When do we go back to calling them kings?<br />~ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©https://www.blogger.com/profile/06252371815131259831noreply@blogger.com