3 ms·

> 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 state

by 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
  The AUMF is an extreme case of executive overreach? It passed the House and Senate 1 vote shy of unanimously.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > Please point me to the Congress vote on the authorization of military force towards N. Korea. That's why I said "quibble" :) Congress eventually appropriated funds for North Korea and increased the size of the Army to match, but certainly got blindsided by the Truman Administration (who even tried to claim at first the Congress didn't need to approve at all). It is at least certain that Congress has decided to treat it as a declared war (e.g. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/benefits/a/vetbenefits.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/benefits/a/vetbenefits.htm where they talk about Veteran's Preference programs, they specifically list out the time during the Korean War). > 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. The military is very much not an extension of law enforcement, as that is illegal per the Posse Comitatus Act. (Edited to include the right law; I said ex Parte Milligan before because I've been up too long) In fact the Navy's surface ships will take a US Coast Guard task force with them to handle law enforcement duties when they are involved in interdiction operations (since the DoD requires Navy to obey the provisions of Posse Comitatus even though it strictly speaking only applied to the Army). There's no need to worry about shooting missiles at U.S. citizens after 2001 though. We've attacked American citizens on military grounds since the Whiskey Rebellion.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/425.pdf http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/0... is an excellent summary of the (lack of) legal basis for the Korean war.
    - ordinary 14y ago
      A plain-text version: http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/06/msg00262.html http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/06/msg00262.html
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by mpyne 14y ago

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
The AUMF is an extreme case of executive overreach? It passed the House and Senate 1 vote shy of unanimously.
mpyne 14y ago
> Please point me to the Congress vote on the authorization of military force towards N. Korea. That's why I said "quibble" :) Congress eventually appropriated funds for North Korea and increased the size of the Army to match, but certainly got blindsided by the Truman Administration (who even tried to claim at first the Congress didn't need to approve at all). It is at least certain that Congress has decided to treat it as a declared war (e.g. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/benefits/a/vetbenefits.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/benefits/a/vetbenefits.htm where they talk about Veteran's Preference programs, they specifically list out the time during the Korean War). > 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. The military is very much not an extension of law enforcement, as that is illegal per the Posse Comitatus Act. (Edited to include the right law; I said ex Parte Milligan before because I've been up too long) In fact the Navy's surface ships will take a US Coast Guard task force with them to handle law enforcement duties when they are involved in interdiction operations (since the DoD requires Navy to obey the provisions of Posse Comitatus even though it strictly speaking only applied to the Army). There's no need to worry about shooting missiles at U.S. citizens after 2001 though. We've attacked American citizens on military grounds since the Whiskey Rebellion.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/425.pdf http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/0... is an excellent summary of the (lack of) legal basis for the Korean war.
  - ordinary 14y ago
    A plain-text version: http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/06/msg00262.html http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/06/msg00262.html

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]