.22 Tom

Authorizing Unitary Military Forever!

Recommended Posts

Authorizing Unitary Military Forever!

Or something. I'm not great at the acronym thing.

Quote

Turley reminded the subcommittee that when one person at the United States' constitutional convention suggested giving war-making power to the executive, he couldn't even get anyone to second the motion. The desire to avoid political blame or responsibility on the part of the legislature, Turley noted, led them to begin evading that responsibility before the 18th century was even over when John Adams' administration sought war with France. Despite all the wars we've waged, only five of them (the last in 1942) involved constitutionally obligatory declarations from Congress.

It's hard to figure how to make a bad situation worse sometimes, but not for Congress.
 

Quote

 

Corker-Kaine, from Anders' perspective, would be even worse. "It would be hard to overstate the depth and breadth of the dangers to the Constitution, civil liberties, and human rights that the Corker-Kaine AUMF would cause," he said. "Not only would it almost irretrievably cede to the Executive Branch the most fundamental power that Congress has under Article I of the Constitution—the power to declare war—but it also would give the current president and all future presidents authority from Congress to engage in worldwide war, sending American troops to countries where we are not now at war and against groups that the President alone decides are enemies."

That proposed new AUMF would instantly codify that currently ongoing wars are presumptively approved, whether or not they legitimately fit the demands of the original AUMFs; empower the president to start wars in new countries non-defensively without requiring a vote from Congress, though Congress could decide not to allow it retroactively; and the AUMF would allow the president to unilaterally add any new "associated force" with which we shall then be at war, including potentially U.S. persons on U.S. soil.

 

Alot of Unauthorized Military Fuckery is the reason they should be having this debate. Still not good at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it about becoming President that changes a person?

W got elected in part by decrying all the "nation building" that was going on. Then became Nation-builder in chief.

America reacted by choosing Obama over the hawkish Hillary in the D primary and then electing him. Then he became George W Obama on foreign policy.

Now we've elected Trump, who didn't like all that Obama interventionism. And has become Barack Hussein Trump on foreign interventions.
 

Quote

 

Take Afghanistan, a war now in its 17th year, which started as a just mission to eliminate those responsible for 9/11. Years before Trump declared his presidential aspirations, he wrote what many Americans believed about the war: that it had become a strategic blunder. In 2012, he called it "a total disaster" that proved America's leaders didn't know what they were doing. A year later, he tweeted his support for "a speedy withdrawal." Trump, after all, was a businessman, and Afghanistan was a losing investment. "Why should we keep wasting our money?" he asked.

Yet once he had the power to actually pull out American troops, Trump deferred to a national security team led by establishment figures such as Defense Secretary James Mattis and then–National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. As in previous administrations, the generals got what they requested—no change in strategy, just more time and resources.

Of course something similar is now playing out in Syria. Trump has taken the very approach that he counseled against in 2013—all without obtaining congressional approval, as the Constitution requires.

His decision to launch a punitive missile attack against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in retaliation for that regime's use of chemical weapons was precisely the opposite of what Trump had recommended when he was a private citizen. "We should stay the hell out of Syria," he wrote on Twitter in 2013

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know the members of the military were Unitarians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may never win a war, but we win enough skirmishes people feel all patriotic and the military industrial complex makes money.  Even a skirmish over the failed recovery of a pilot on a failed mission was worthy of an epic movie.   Until we suffer another Beiruit and large numbers die without glory, this seems doomed to continue.   As long as we can fight with mercenaries and drones, we are doomed to war without end until the pentagon can no longer get credit to buy new toys.

i got a mailed survey and donation request from the Republican Party disguised as official correspondence from my district.   Questions included

“Should the US take a more muscular attitude toward Russia and China as they move to establish themselves as military and economic superpowers?”    

 “Do you agree with Republicans commitment to fully fund a missile defense shield...?”    After thirty years, we’re finally going to build a giant robot in space with a lightsaber!”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing we'll need to wait for the CongressWOMEN TO PROVIDE THE BALLS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I’ll tke the Constitution over the office of the Presidency 100 out of 100 times. 


Me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is more important:

Keeping unilateral war making power away from Trump?

Or

Keeping unilateral war making power?

The answer seems Eva Dent. And unfortunate. Even the election of Trump can't make people start to question the wisdom of our Unitary Exec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 11:06 AM, Blue Crab said:

I'm guessing we'll need to wait for the CongressWOMEN TO PROVIDE THE BALLS.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, billy backstay said:
On 6/8/2018 at 11:06 AM, Blue Crab said:

I'm guessing we'll need to wait for the CongressWOMEN TO PROVIDE THE BALLS.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS!!

Which women are you guys hoping will suddenly start to oppose unilateral executive war-making power?

I don't know of any who merit that hope but maybe I missed something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're all waiting. The male leaders aren't providing what we paid for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Supreme Court Blessed the Imperial Presidency
 

Quote

 

In February 2018, Solicitor General Noel Francisco, an appointee of President Donald Trump, argued in support of Trump's 2017 executive order banning immigrants from certain largely majority-Muslim countries. The president enjoys "broad authority" to act in this area, the government insisted in its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, "when he deems it in the Nation's interest." Among the legal authorities Francisco cited in support of this argument was a 1936 ruling on presidential power known as United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation.

...

the Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation was indicted for selling arms to Bolivia. The company fought back, arguing that Roosevelt's proclamation was rooted in an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. In other words, the argument went, if the federal government wants to prohibit the sale of arms to a particular country, then Congress must pass a statute to that effect. Lawmaking by presidential fiat is not constitutionally sufficient.

But the Supreme Court took a very different view of the matter. "It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power," declared the majority opinion of Justice George Sutherland, but also with the "plenary and exclusive power of the President in the field of international relations—a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress." When that sort of executive power is at stake, Sutherland wrote, the president must be afforded "a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved."

...

In effect, there were two faces to Sutherland's jurisprudence. On domestic matters, he was a strict Madisonian, favoring checks and balances, limited government, and judicial action on behalf of individual rights. But when it came to foreign affairs, he became an ardent Hamiltonian, championing the exercise of virtually unlimited war powers and related government authority. "The rules of [constitutional] construction which apply when the government undertakes to deal with internal matters," he declared, "may not apply, in the case of external affairs, in the same way, or to the same degree, or, conceivably, in some cases, may not apply at all."

During World War I, Sutherland observed, Congress "invested the President with virtual dictatorship over an exceedingly wide range of subjects and activities—a grant of power which no free people would tolerate under normal conditions, but which, under the great emergency of war, has properly received unhesitating popular approval."


 

Roosevelt and every President since like this whole plenary power thing. So there's broad agreement that Sutherland was right and all's fair in love and war.

I'm not so sure this has been a wise course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2018 at 8:50 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

What is it about becoming President that changes a person?

W got elected in part by decrying all the "nation building" that was going on. Then became Nation-builder in chief.

America reacted by choosing Obama over the hawkish Hillary in the D primary and then electing him. Then he became George W Obama on foreign policy.

Now we've elected Trump, who didn't like all that Obama interventionism. And has become Barack Hussein Trump on foreign interventions.
 

 

Got back further- LBJ was elected because he was going to keep us out of Vietnam. The American people are (rightly) adverse to sending our children to fight in some village they cannot pronounce.  Politicians know that.  So they get elected promising one thing and then when “they are fully apprised of the situation” they flip and do what they feel needs to be done.

 

The ultimate comment on political speeches 

giphy.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pesident Wilson promised the same thing too.   

Edit,  of course we won that war which provides different talking points.    Congress was also involved back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2018 at 6:18 AM, Remodel said:

I didn't know the members of the military were Unitarians.

I’m a fallen Unitarian!:)

(And don’t worry- it didn’t hurt, given there was such a tiny distance to fall- :lol:  (Leetle Unitarian Joke))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

More:

Trump suggested Venezuela invasion, stunning top aides - report

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/04/trump-suggested-invading-venezuela-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other 

The administration officials are said to have taken turns in trying to talk the president out of the idea in August of last year 

Julian Borger in Washington DC 
Thu 5 Jul 2018 02.26 EDT 

Donald Trump repeatedly raised the possibility of invading Venezuela in talks with his top aides at the White House, according to a new report. 

Trump brought up the subject of an invasion in public in August last year, saying: “We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary.” But the president’s musings about the possibility of a US invasion were more extensive and persistent than that public declaration, according to the Associated Press. 

The previous day Trump reportedly took his top officials by surprise in an Oval Office meeting, asking why the US could not intervene to remove the government of Nicolás Maduro on the grounds that Venezuela’s political and economic unraveling represented a threat to the region. 

Quoting an unnamed senior administration official, the AP report said the suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, which included the then national security adviser, HR McMaster, and secretary of state, Rex Tillerson. Both have since left the administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK..what's the REASON the USA would invade V?

Is there oil there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

OK..what's the REASON the USA would invade V?

Is there oil there?

Yes, lots of it. They were a major supplier, but many workers have quit and production way down due to govt mismanagement. The oil is low quality, and costs more to refine, so profit margins are low when oil prices are down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RKoch said:

They were a major supplier, but many workers have quit and production way down due to govt mismanagement.

To put it mildly. Chavez and his band of looters nationalizing the oil industry had the predictable result: a few rich looters and widespread poverty for everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the cellphones thread, I posted an article that noted that Justice Scalia's favorite Supreme Court decision of all time was the dissent of Justice Jackson in the case of Fred Korematsu.

So I decided to read it. It seems to apply abundantly to this topic.

Quote

 

In the very nature of things, military decisions are not susceptible of intelligent judicial appraisal. They do not pretend to rest on evidence, but are made on information that often would not be admissible and on assumptions that could not be proved. Information in support of an order could not be disclosed to courts without danger that it would reach the enemy. Neither can courts act on communications made in confidence. Hence, courts can never have any real alternative to accepting the mere declaration of the authority that issued the order that it was reasonably necessary from a military viewpoint.

Much is said of the danger to liberty from the Army program for deporting and detaining these citizens of Japanese extraction. But a judicial construction of the due process clause that will sustain this order is a far more [p246] subtle blow to liberty than the promulgation of the order itself. A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period, a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens.

 

He probably did not foresee that we'd have emergencies that last decades and span the globe, like the one we are currently experiencing in our quest to right the wrongs of 9/11/01.

He also talks about how precedents spiral out of control:

Quote

 

A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image. Nothing better illustrates this danger than does the Court's opinion in this case.

It argues that we are bound to uphold the conviction of Korematsu because we upheld one in Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, when we sustained these orders insofar as they applied a curfew requirement to a citizen of Japanese ancestry. I think we should learn something from that experience.

In that case, we were urged to consider only the curfew feature, that being all that technically was involved, because it was the only count necessary to sustain Hirabayashi's conviction and sentence. We yielded, and the Chief Justice guarded the opinion as carefully as language [p247] will do.

...

However, in spite of our limiting words, we did validate a discrimination on the basis of ancestry for mild and temporary deprivation of liberty. Now the principle of racial discrimination is pushed from support of mild measures to very harsh ones, and from temporary deprivations to indeterminate ones. And the precedent which it is said requires us to do so is Hirabayashi. The Court is now saying that, in Hirabayashi, we did decide the very things we there said we were not deciding.

 

Oops. Some clever lawyer can always find the broader implications in a narrow opinion.

Quote

The military reasonableness of these orders can only be determined by military superiors. If the people ever let command of the war power fall into irresponsible and unscrupulous hands, the courts wield no power equal to its restraint. The chief restraint upon those who command the physical forces of the country, in the future as in the past, must be their responsibility to the political judgments of their contemporaries and to the moral judgments of history.

Re the bolded bit: hey, it could happen. Imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Instead of blindly setting goals for how many ships the navy should have and how much the military should spend, decide what we want our forces to do and be able to do

Although he has similar powers, I don't think it's appropriate yet to refer to Trump using the royal "we."

Once he decides what he wants our forces to do and where, I'm sure he'll let us know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Blue Crab said:

We're all waiting. The male leaders aren't providing what we paid for.

 

It's not a sex thing. It's a bipartisan Duopoly thing, which is why this thread is of so little interest. No partisan points to score.

TeamR doesn't want to take war making power from Trump, even if it means the next TeamD Prez will have it. TeamD doesn't want to take war making power from the next TeamD President, even if it means Trump will have it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2018 at 1:17 PM, Hard On The Wind said:

Image may contain: text


Not everything...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

There was a US Army officer that sued the Obama admin for sending him to an illegal (unauthorized by Congress),  and he was right to do so . .

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/politics/judge-lawsuit-war-isis.html

Obama did ask for a Congressional resolution to fight ISIS, but the GOPPERS refused to even hold hearings. Sad!! 

...

Even more sad is that he didn't need one to just go right ahead anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC Circuit Court says that continued detention of combatants is still authorized under the 2001 AUMF.

More precisely, they said it's not any court's job to decide when a war has ended. That's true. The endless war is a political question, just not one of very much interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if we're going to have unlimited war powers, we need to re institute the draft.

Checks and balances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Defining Speech on Senate floor before obamacare repeal vote:

Quote

 

“Mr. President:

“I’ve stood in this place many times and addressed as president many presiding officers. I have been so addressed when I have sat in that chair, as close as I will ever be to a presidency.

“It is an honorific we’re almost indifferent to, isn’t it. In truth, presiding over the Senate can be a nuisance, a bit of a ceremonial bore, and it is usually relegated to the more junior members of the majority. 

“But as I stand here today – looking a little worse for wear I’m sure – I have a refreshed appreciation for the protocols and customs of this body, and for the other ninety-nine privileged souls who have been elected to this Senate.

“I have been a member of the United States Senate for thirty years.  I had another long, if not as long, career before I arrived here, another profession that was profoundly rewarding, and in which I had experiences and friendships that I revere. But make no mistake, my service here is the most important job I have had in my life. And I am so grateful to the people of Arizona for the privilege – for the honor – of serving here and the opportunities it gives me to play a small role in the history of the country I love.

“I’ve known and admired men and women in the Senate who played much more than a small role in our history, true statesmen, giants of American politics. They came from both parties, and from various backgrounds. Their ambitions were frequently in conflict. They held different views on the issues of the day. And they often had very serious disagreements about how best to serve the national interest.

“But they knew that however sharp and heartfelt their disputes, however keen their ambitions, they had an obligation to work collaboratively to ensure the Senate discharged its constitutional responsibilities effectively. Our responsibilities are important, vitally important, to the continued success of our Republic. And our arcane rules and customs are deliberately intended to require broad cooperation to function well at all. The most revered members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress on solving America’s problems and to defend her from her adversaries.

“That principled mindset, and the service of our predecessors who possessed it, come to mind when I hear the Senate referred to as the world’s greatest deliberative body. I’m not sure we can claim that distinction with a straight face today.

“I’m sure it wasn’t always deserved in previous eras either. But I’m sure there have been times when it was, and I was privileged to witness some of those occasions.

“Our deliberations today – not just our debates, but the exercise of all our responsibilities – authorizing government policies, appropriating the funds to implement them, exercising our advice and consent role – are often lively and interesting. They can be sincere and principled. But they are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than any other time I remember. Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we’d all agree they haven’t been overburdened by greatness lately. And right now they aren’t producing much for the American people.

“Both sides have let this happen. Let’s leave the history of who shot first to the historians. I suspect they’ll find we all conspired in our decline – either by deliberate actions or neglect. We’ve all played some role in it. Certainly I have. Sometimes, I’ve let my passion rule my reason. Sometimes, I made it harder to find common ground because of something harsh I said to a colleague. Sometimes, I wanted to win more for the sake of winning than to achieve a contested policy.

“Incremental progress, compromises that each side criticize but also accept, just plain muddling through to chip away at problems and keep our enemies from doing their worst isn’t glamorous or exciting. It doesn’t feel like a political triumph. But it’s usually the most we can expect from our system of government, operating in a country as diverse and quarrelsome and free as ours. 

“Considering the injustice and cruelties inflicted by autocratic governments, and how corruptible human nature can be, the problem solving our system does make possible, the fitful progress it produces, and the liberty and justice it preserves, is a magnificent achievement.

“Our system doesn’t depend on our nobility. It accounts for our imperfections, and gives an order to our individual strivings that has helped make ours the most powerful and prosperous society on earth.  It is our responsibility to preserve that, even when it requires us to do something less satisfying than ‘winning.’ Even when we must give a little to get a little. Even when our efforts manage just three yards and a cloud of dust, while critics on both sides denounce us for timidity, for our failure to ‘triumph.’ 

“I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to trust each other again and by so doing better serve the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the Internet. To hell with them. They don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood.

“Let’s trust each other. Let’s return to regular order. We’ve been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. That’s an approach that’s been employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that requires.

“We’re getting nothing done. All we’ve really done this year is confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Our healthcare insurance system is a mess. We all know it, those who support Obamacare and those who oppose it. Something has to be done. We Republicans have looked for a way to end it and replace it with something else without paying a terrible political price. We haven’t found it yet, and I’m not sure we will. All we’ve managed to do is make more popular a policy that wasn’t very popular when we started trying to get rid of it.

“I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered. I will not vote for the bill as it is today. It’s a shell of a bill right now. We all know that. I have changes urged by my state’s governor that will have to be included to earn my support for final passage of any bill. I know many of you will have to see the bill changed substantially for you to support it.

“We’ve tried to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then springing it on skeptical members, trying to convince them it’s better than nothing, asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition. I don’t think that is going to work in the end. And it probably shouldn’t.

“The Obama administration and congressional Democrats shouldn’t have forced through Congress without any opposition support a social and economic change as massive as Obamacare. And we shouldn’t do the same with ours.

“Why don’t we try the old way of legislating in the Senate, the way our rules and customs encourage us to act. If this process ends in failure, which seem likely, then let’s return to regular order. 

“Let the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray hold hearings, try to report a bill out of committee with contributions from both sides. Then bring it to the floor for amendment and debate, and see if we can pass something that will be imperfect, full of compromises, and not very pleasing to implacable partisans on either side, but that might provide workable solutions to problems Americans are struggling with today.

“What have we to lose by trying to work together to find those solutions? We’re not getting much done apart. I don’t think any of us feels very proud of our incapacity. Merely preventing your political opponents from doing what they want isn’t the most inspiring work. There’s greater satisfaction in respecting our differences, but not letting them prevent agreements that don’t require abandonment of core principles, agreements made in good faith that help improve lives and protect the American people.

“The Senate is capable of that. We know that. We’ve seen it before. I’ve seen it happen many times. And the times when I was involved even in a modest way with working out a bipartisan response to a national problem or threat are the proudest moments of my career, and by far the most satisfying.

“This place is important. The work we do is important. Our strange rules and seemingly eccentric practices that slow our proceedings and insist on our cooperation are important. Our founders envisioned the Senate as the more deliberative, careful body that operates at a greater distance than the other body from the public passions of the hour.

“We are an important check on the powers of the Executive. Our consent is necessary for the President to appoint jurists and powerful government officials and in many respects to conduct foreign policy. Whether or not we are of the same party, we are not the President’s subordinates. We are his equal!

“As his responsibilities are onerous, many and powerful, so are ours.  And we play a vital role in shaping and directing the judiciary, the military, and the cabinet, in planning and supporting foreign and domestic policies. Our success in meeting all these awesome constitutional obligations depends on cooperation among ourselves. 

“The success of the Senate is important to the continued success of America. This country – this big, boisterous, brawling, intemperate, restless, striving, daring, beautiful, bountiful, brave, good and magnificent country – needs us to help it thrive. That responsibility is more important than any of our personal interests or political affiliations.

“We are the servants of a great nation, ‘a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.’ More people have lived free and prosperous lives here than in any other nation. We have acquired unprecedented wealth and power because of our governing principles, and because our government defended those principles.

“America has made a greater contribution than any other nation to an international order that has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. We have been the greatest example, the greatest supporter and the greatest defender of that order. We aren’t afraid. We don’t covet other people’s land and wealth. We don’t hide behind walls. We breach them. We are a blessing to humanity.

“What greater cause could we hope to serve than helping keep America the strong, aspiring, inspirational beacon of liberty and defender of the dignity of all human beings and their right to freedom and equal justice? That is the cause that binds us and is so much more powerful and worthy than the small differences that divide us.

“What a great honor and extraordinary opportunity it is to serve in this body.

“It’s a privilege to serve with all of you. I mean it. Many of you have reached out in the last few days with your concern and your prayers, and it means a lot to me. It really does. I’ve had so many people say such nice things about me recently that I think some of you must have me confused with someone else. I appreciate it though, every word, even if much of it isn’t deserved. 

“I’ll be here for a few days, I hope managing the floor debate on the defense authorization bill, which, I’m proud to say is again a product of bipartisan cooperation and trust among the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“After that, I’m going home for a while to treat my illness. I have every intention of returning here and giving many of you cause to regret all the nice things you said about me. And, I hope, to impress on you again that it is an honor to serve the American people in your company.

“Thank you, fellow senators."

 

 

Interesting speech but I'd point out that bipartisan unity can be found. We have a bipartisan consensus that Trump should have whatever warmaking powers were given to W in 2001. This issue is, I think, the most important, but there are others.

Bipartisan unity prevailed in renewing section 702. We still have the bipartisan consensus that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin on the books. No partisan points to score in amending our asset forfeiture laws, so the looting goes on as usual.

There are lots of reasons to love gridlock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a hijack in a thread about Senator McCain, but I think it's worth discussing here:

On 8/26/2018 at 7:15 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 8/25/2018 at 11:35 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 8/25/2018 at 11:26 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I appreciate your intent. That intent is ignorant of the myriad real threats we face as a nation. You may want to think about some of those the next time you fuss. Queations? Lemme know

Well, OK.

The main one would be how much of a threat warrants a preemptive war to deregime/reregime a place?

I'm also still wondering what the Mission in Niger is.

Related to the first one, I'm also wondering when credible threats do not justify a preemptive deregime/reregime operation? If ever?


Since Trump is the one making those decisions at the moment, rational prediction isn't really possible. But with another President, they might be questions that have answers.

To the first, I would say "the certainty of an imminent attack." By imminent, I mean within a day to a week at most.

To the next, I still don't know what the mission in NIger is, but that's another thread.

To the last, I'd say all other threats not covered by the answer to 1.

Anyone else have thoughts? If it helps you develop an urge to comment, I should note that the Israeli Defense Forces have used Ruger 10-22 assault weapons. The only interesting kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now