4 ms·

This is an amazingly frightening comment. An ever expanding definition of "well it is better to just treat them as military targets" enabling the military to pu

This is an amazingly frightening comment. An ever expanding definition of "well it is better to just treat them as military targets" enabling the military to pursue unilateral mass death. And this follows decades of utterly disastrous strategy targeting terror organizations in this manner (who at least have an actual goal of killing civilians). You are one small step away from "gangs in US cities strike me as similar to..." and the US military just murdering US citizens on US soil based on unreviewed designations and classified intelligence.

rayiner 1y ago
There’s two different issues. First, can it work? Can you successfully defeat dangerous quasi-state actors by killing enough of them. I think the answer is “yes,” based on the experience of various moderate Muslim countries with Islamist groups, and the US’s experience with ISIS. My comment is directed to this issue. Second, can the U.S. constitutionally pursue military tactics against cartels? The answer is “sometimes.” The U.S. can pursue military responses against non-citizens in international water or foreign territory, as was the case here. Contrary to your assertion, it’s not a “small step away” from pursuing military action against “US citizens on U.S. soil.” It’s a very bright line, that’s been pretty easy to enforce for the 200+ years since Jefferson sent the U.S. navy to blow up the Barbary Pirates.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  The number of "bright lines" that extremely rapidly became not-so-bright in the past six months is outrageous. I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You'll have to excuse me when I don't have any confidence in your claim that there's a safe bright line that'll never be crossed. Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You’re talking about putative “bright line rules” in a made up version of the constitution that has four branches of government and with “independent” civil servants running the show. I’m talking about the real constitution here, as it was understood by the people who wrote it. > Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders. Judge Breyer’s recent order in the LA case upheld that the President can deploy the National Guard to protect federal property: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%20order.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%2... (“Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations. The injunction applies only to Defendants’ use of the National Guard in California, not nationally. Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial. See Task Force 51 Training Slides at 6. Thus, for example, federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.”). The judge found that the troops had acted outside the scope of that authority. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. At best, we’ve got 300 national guard troops in Los Angeles and we’re quibbling about exactly what they can and cannot do.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. Ah, 'OK so we shouldn't have done that but now that we have you shouldn't criticize how we go about it.'
matheusmoreira 1y ago
Any sufficiently organized armed group is indistinguishable from an army. Leave them to their own devices at your own peril. They will surprise you with just how much damage they can do. In my country, the drug gangs have grown to the point they dominate over 26% of our continental territory. They have infiltrated and corrupted every part of society, and they are showing signs of having subverted the government itself. They have a massive army of people. They are much better equipped than police. Cops cannot operate freely in their territory because they are executed on sight. As a result, our laws do not really apply to their territories. So are they really just common criminals operating in our territories? I don't think so. They pulled off a stealth secession. The government needs to recognize this fact, grow some balls and declare war on them. Just like they declared war on and crushed last century's secessionists. They have their own army, their own laws, even their own tribunals. They even collect taxes from their subjects and execute anyone who fails to pay them. They are a parallel government, a narcostate dictatorship made up of borderline terrorists. You don't "police" these people. You openly declare war on them. They are enemy combatants trying to literally take over the country. Anything short of this means total defeat. It's easy to not be radicalized if you live in a civilized nation. It's impossible when you wake up and take in the news that barbaric crime gangs dominate over a quarter of your country's territory. The thought of being at the mercy of these drug gangs is absolutely terrifying. I'm trying to raise a family here.

rayiner 1y ago

There’s two different issues. First, can it work? Can you successfully defeat dangerous quasi-state actors by killing enough of them. I think the answer is “yes,” based on the experience of various moderate Muslim countries with Islamist groups, and the US’s experience with ISIS. My comment is directed to this issue. Second, can the U.S. constitutionally pursue military tactics against cartels? The answer is “sometimes.” The U.S. can pursue military responses against non-citizens in international water or foreign territory, as was the case here. Contrary to your assertion, it’s not a “small step away” from pursuing military action against “US citizens on U.S. soil.” It’s a very bright line, that’s been pretty easy to enforce for the 200+ years since Jefferson sent the U.S. navy to blow up the Barbary Pirates.

UncleMeat 1y ago
The number of "bright lines" that extremely rapidly became not-so-bright in the past six months is outrageous. I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You'll have to excuse me when I don't have any confidence in your claim that there's a safe bright line that'll never be crossed. Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders.
- rayiner 1y ago
  > I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You’re talking about putative “bright line rules” in a made up version of the constitution that has four branches of government and with “independent” civil servants running the show. I’m talking about the real constitution here, as it was understood by the people who wrote it. > Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders. Judge Breyer’s recent order in the LA case upheld that the President can deploy the National Guard to protect federal property: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%20order.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%2... (“Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations. The injunction applies only to Defendants’ use of the National Guard in California, not nationally. Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial. See Task Force 51 Training Slides at 6. Thus, for example, federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.”). The judge found that the troops had acted outside the scope of that authority. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. At best, we’ve got 300 national guard troops in Los Angeles and we’re quibbling about exactly what they can and cannot do.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. Ah, 'OK so we shouldn't have done that but now that we have you shouldn't criticize how we go about it.'

matheusmoreira 1y ago

Any sufficiently organized armed group is indistinguishable from an army. Leave them to their own devices at your own peril. They will surprise you with just how much damage they can do. In my country, the drug gangs have grown to the point they dominate over 26% of our continental territory. They have infiltrated and corrupted every part of society, and they are showing signs of having subverted the government itself. They have a massive army of people. They are much better equipped than police. Cops cannot operate freely in their territory because they are executed on sight. As a result, our laws do not really apply to their territories. So are they really just common criminals operating in our territories? I don't think so. They pulled off a stealth secession. The government needs to recognize this fact, grow some balls and declare war on them. Just like they declared war on and crushed last century's secessionists. They have their own army, their own laws, even their own tribunals. They even collect taxes from their subjects and execute anyone who fails to pay them. They are a parallel government, a narcostate dictatorship made up of borderline terrorists. You don't "police" these people. You openly declare war on them. They are enemy combatants trying to literally take over the country. Anything short of this means total defeat. It's easy to not be radicalized if you live in a civilized nation. It's impossible when you wake up and take in the news that barbaric crime gangs dominate over a quarter of your country's territory. The thought of being at the mercy of these drug gangs is absolutely terrifying. I'm trying to raise a family here.