4 ms·

I know you're trying to be a realist about this, but there's honestly no excuse for backing down on your morals. We are not CONSTITUTIONALLY at war with any na

I know you're trying to be a realist about this, but there's honestly no excuse for backing down on your morals. We are not CONSTITUTIONALLY at war with any nation. In fact, we are not even in the process of congressionally (i.e. CONSTITUTIONALLY) authorized military engagements. So, then. If we are proper citizens of this Earth and respect the rights of our fellow man, who we all believe to be equal, do we allow the use of pre-emptive force, even non-lethal, outside of our borders? I honestly don't see any other answer than an emphatic "No". Any other answer leads down a slippery slope, no matter the incline (if you will). I don't plan on supporting any slippery slope that I'm standing at the bottom of.

tptacek 14y ago
I do not require an excuse to tell you what I think is actually going on in a public policy dispute.
- pdeuchler 14y ago
  Apologies, I don't seem to understand your response. I'm not asking for an excuse, I'm trying to state that your framing of the debate implies a tacit consent to the status quo. The fact that you are even advocating someone ask the questions you posted boils my blood (not that you're advocating it, that we live in a world where it's realistic to ask those questions of our leaders!). A strong moral stand is required and, whatever the motivations or political machinations, someone is making a semblance of that stand. But you seem to dismiss it, calling Paul's question "stupid" (this filibuster is mainly based on that question). You then go on to assume the answer to that question is "yes"! Once you begin implying it's to be accepted that any answer besides "No" to the question "Would you target and kill someone outside of the U.S.'s legal borders without a Congressional affirmation of agression?" is acceptable we begin to fall down that slippery slope I mentioned.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Whoah! That line worked! I'm going to use it more often. :) I have a problem with the status quo, but it is not the problem Rand Paul has today. My problem is that we haven't found a way to rescind the 2001 AUMF against "any organization" involved in the 9/11 attacks, because the amorphous term "organization" has allowed us to declare war against a label. Rand Paul's problem --- charitably (I think this has much more to do with partisan politics) --- is that he believes US citizenship should be a talisman exempting people from the war. It is not a good idea, I think, to make long-term wars against labels more sustainable and less threatening to US citizens. So, we make it infinitesimally harder for a citizen terrorist to be stopped. Woopity-doo! That's cold comfort for the wedding party guests in Waziristan who are being incinerated by airstrikes against actual guns-and-explosives- carrying al Qaeda militants that happen to be attending. I also think Paul's original stance defies common sense. But that's O.K., because I think he knows that too; he was just setting a trap.
    - pdeuchler 14y ago
      Our thinking may be more in line than I believed, especially with the 2001 AUMF (So pleasant to discuss this with someone who knows what that is!). However I think you're quick to dismiss Mr. Paul's actions. Even if it's 100% partisan politics (I'm more of the thought that this issue is at a nice intersection of convenience and personal belief for Paul) isn't any action better than no action? Since 2001 the stage has begun to be set for widespread drone and autonomous warfare, free of pesky human flesh and the laws that constrain it. Finally, we are getting some real, publicized (trending on twitter!) action to stem that tide. I say regardless of the motives, at this point support the cause as heartily as possible. We may not get another chance if this is swept under the rug (politics or otherwise). If congress poops out a diamond I'm not going to turn my nose at the sight of a little shit, pardon my french.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        If you reread the last two grafs of the comment you just replied to, I made a case for why fiddly restrictions on drone strikes are actually counterproductive (they forestall the fix to the real problem, which is that we have to stop being in a war with a brand).
        pdeuchler 14y ago
        I guess we simply disagree then. I am of the opinion any action is beneficial at this point, though I can see (but not agree with :) ) your point.
        tptacek 14y ago
        Thank you for not calling me a statist thug. :)
        jahmed 14y ago
        This is a perfect example of emoticons clarifying tone. Way to go people. :)
mpyne 14y ago
> We are not CONSTITUTIONALLY at war with any nation. You could quibble about North Korea, but either way we are at war with the military elements of the stateless group known as Al Qaeda. The relevant law (2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force [1]) does not say "The U.S. declares war against Al Qaeda", but it does specifically mention that the law implements the War Powers Act, which is one of the ways by which Congress has pre-determined how it will handle its right and responsibility to handle who the U.S. is at war with. > do we allow the use of pre-emptive force, even non-lethal Uh... yes? That's the only correct answer. Imagine if Churchill had been Prime Minister in 1938 and not Chamberlain. Imagine if France had managed to bring down Hitler's government by rebuffing his action to remilitarize the Rhine basin? Imagine if the Allies had refused to allow Czechoslovakia and its formidable defenses and military forces to be simply absorbed into the Reich. Imagine if a military jet had been flying point behind the United 175 before it hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. How many thousands of lives could have been saved by shooting down that airliner before impact? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175 Absolutely it can be appropriate to use pre-emptive force when there is a clear and present danger. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
- pdeuchler 14y ago
  Please point me to the Congress vote on the authorization of military force towards N. Korea. Also, the AUMF is an extreme case of executive overreach, and in a perfect world would be struck down, so using it as justification for your argument is suspect at best. I fail to see where those examples you give involved pre-emptive force. A declared war was going on in each of them, isn't that exactly the situation where pre-emptive force is justified? And the shooting down of Flight 175 would have happened within our border so I fail to see how that applies. The U.S. Government has the appropriate branches of government (Law Enforcement, and by extension, some parts of the Military) to deal with such situations perfectly legally without any AUMF or drones. You can call a slippery slope a fallacy all the way down to the bottom. If I called it a slippery slope in 2001, and posted hypotheticals about us shooting missiles at U.S. citizens extra-judicially would it still be a fallacy?

tptacek 14y ago

I do not require an excuse to tell you what I think is actually going on in a public policy dispute.

pdeuchler 14y ago
Apologies, I don't seem to understand your response. I'm not asking for an excuse, I'm trying to state that your framing of the debate implies a tacit consent to the status quo. The fact that you are even advocating someone ask the questions you posted boils my blood (not that you're advocating it, that we live in a world where it's realistic to ask those questions of our leaders!). A strong moral stand is required and, whatever the motivations or political machinations, someone is making a semblance of that stand. But you seem to dismiss it, calling Paul's question "stupid" (this filibuster is mainly based on that question). You then go on to assume the answer to that question is "yes"! Once you begin implying it's to be accepted that any answer besides "No" to the question "Would you target and kill someone outside of the U.S.'s legal borders without a Congressional affirmation of agression?" is acceptable we begin to fall down that slippery slope I mentioned.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Whoah! That line worked! I'm going to use it more often. :) I have a problem with the status quo, but it is not the problem Rand Paul has today. My problem is that we haven't found a way to rescind the 2001 AUMF against "any organization" involved in the 9/11 attacks, because the amorphous term "organization" has allowed us to declare war against a label. Rand Paul's problem --- charitably (I think this has much more to do with partisan politics) --- is that he believes US citizenship should be a talisman exempting people from the war. It is not a good idea, I think, to make long-term wars against labels more sustainable and less threatening to US citizens. So, we make it infinitesimally harder for a citizen terrorist to be stopped. Woopity-doo! That's cold comfort for the wedding party guests in Waziristan who are being incinerated by airstrikes against actual guns-and-explosives- carrying al Qaeda militants that happen to be attending. I also think Paul's original stance defies common sense. But that's O.K., because I think he knows that too; he was just setting a trap.
  - pdeuchler 14y ago
    Our thinking may be more in line than I believed, especially with the 2001 AUMF (So pleasant to discuss this with someone who knows what that is!). However I think you're quick to dismiss Mr. Paul's actions. Even if it's 100% partisan politics (I'm more of the thought that this issue is at a nice intersection of convenience and personal belief for Paul) isn't any action better than no action? Since 2001 the stage has begun to be set for widespread drone and autonomous warfare, free of pesky human flesh and the laws that constrain it. Finally, we are getting some real, publicized (trending on twitter!) action to stem that tide. I say regardless of the motives, at this point support the cause as heartily as possible. We may not get another chance if this is swept under the rug (politics or otherwise). If congress poops out a diamond I'm not going to turn my nose at the sight of a little shit, pardon my french.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      If you reread the last two grafs of the comment you just replied to, I made a case for why fiddly restrictions on drone strikes are actually counterproductive (they forestall the fix to the real problem, which is that we have to stop being in a war with a brand).
      - pdeuchler 14y ago
        I guess we simply disagree then. I am of the opinion any action is beneficial at this point, though I can see (but not agree with :) ) your point.
        tptacek 14y ago
        Thank you for not calling me a statist thug. :)
        jahmed 14y ago
        This is a perfect example of emoticons clarifying tone. Way to go people. :)

mpyne 14y ago

> We are not CONSTITUTIONALLY at war with any nation. You could quibble about North Korea, but either way we are at war with the military elements of the stateless group known as Al Qaeda. The relevant law (2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force [1]) does not say "The U.S. declares war against Al Qaeda", but it does specifically mention that the law implements the War Powers Act, which is one of the ways by which Congress has pre-determined how it will handle its right and responsibility to handle who the U.S. is at war with. > do we allow the use of pre-emptive force, even non-lethal Uh... yes? That's the only correct answer. Imagine if Churchill had been Prime Minister in 1938 and not Chamberlain. Imagine if France had managed to bring down Hitler's government by rebuffing his action to remilitarize the Rhine basin? Imagine if the Allies had refused to allow Czechoslovakia and its formidable defenses and military forces to be simply absorbed into the Reich. Imagine if a military jet had been flying point behind the United 175 before it hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. How many thousands of lives could have been saved by shooting down that airliner before impact? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175 Absolutely it can be appropriate to use pre-emptive force when there is a clear and present danger. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

pdeuchler 14y ago
Please point me to the Congress vote on the authorization of military force towards N. Korea. Also, the AUMF is an extreme case of executive overreach, and in a perfect world would be struck down, so using it as justification for your argument is suspect at best. I fail to see where those examples you give involved pre-emptive force. A declared war was going on in each of them, isn't that exactly the situation where pre-emptive force is justified? And the shooting down of Flight 175 would have happened within our border so I fail to see how that applies. The U.S. Government has the appropriate branches of government (Law Enforcement, and by extension, some parts of the Military) to deal with such situations perfectly legally without any AUMF or drones. You can call a slippery slope a fallacy all the way down to the bottom. If I called it a slippery slope in 2001, and posted hypotheticals about us shooting missiles at U.S. citizens extra-judicially would it still be a fallacy?