3 ms·

You're conflating drone strikes with uniformed soldiers killed on the battlefields of WWII, and I'm being truthy? Well. OK. Likewise your other thin comparison

You're conflating drone strikes with uniformed soldiers killed on the battlefields of WWII, and I'm being truthy? Well. OK. Likewise your other thin comparisons. They lack a certain depth that cause them to ring of disingenuousness. For instance, our actions in the past at least attempted to provide some pretext of military aggression against the U.S. or its allies. You yourself called them "interventions". But, you could not call Iraq an intervention, as there was no military pretext. It was unprecedented because we didn't even attempt to trump up the military pretext. We simply went to war based on what they "might do". Your attempt to dismiss such an obvious departure from American doctrine speaks for itself. In fact, it's so obvious that I actually feel silly responding. I also wrote Bush's adherence to the strong unitary executive principle, which acknowledges its pre-existence. It was his extensive application of the principle that represented the power grab, per the examples I gave. Much of my comment was about the expansion of existing power vs. the "raw creation" of it. In general, your citing examples of past abuses are just straw men. I never said that the U.S. has a perfect record or that there has never been abuse of power. But, we are living in a time wherein the Executive has more accepted power than in the history of our nation, and much of it has been enshrined into law. Again, the PATRIOT Act alone is unprecedented in the degree and scope of rights and protections that are given over to the Executive. To ignore these realities and attempt to rationalize this power grab by spurious comparisons to the past is, at best, non-serious.

rayiner 14y ago
I am bringing up historical context because you keep using the word "unprecedented." We did attempt to justify the Iraq war: WMD's. No less justifiable than many of our other interventions in Latin America, Asia, etc. Spanish American war anyone? Also: since when is justification required to go to war? The test has never been more or less than "protecting our interests." I don't think its a stretch to compare an American citizen going to Yemen to fight against America with Arab terrorists with Americans going to fight with Nazis. Indeed, the former is worse. American nazis weren't fighting against the US necessarily. They were fighting for Germany (Germany had no beef with us). People like Al Awalki are actively fighting against us and refuse to submit themselves to the criminal justice system. What due process rights should they have? "due process" has always been very flexible, not hard and fast.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  It's not that you're bringing up historical context. It's that your analogies overreach and don't make your points. Of course we go to war for our interests. However, prior to Iraq, there was typically an existing conflict. Further, especially in more recent history, we at least attempted to manufacture some military pretext (Gulf of Tonkin, etc.) The difference with Iraq--and it's hard to believe that you really don't see this--is that there was no conflict and Iraq was not engaged in any hostile military action. We simply attacked them because of what the Executive declared they might do (WMDs or no). The point is that it represents a new thinking and acceptance of the degree of power vested in the Executive. Even the architects of this power grab acknowledge this fundamental difference. See "Pax Americana" from the Project For The New American Century. Edit: More specifically, see the report: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" Your rebuttal regarding drones and Nazis falls down even more. Of course if a U.S. citizen is taking up arms with a nation that is openly at war with the U.S. (as eventually was the case), and is actively engaged on the battlefield, then the U.S. is justified in making no distinction between him and the enemy. But, that the Executive has the right to declare that a U.S. citizen is an enemy combatant and may be killed with impunity is vastly different. You may take comfort in your degree of confidence that Al Awalki was a bad guy. However, the policy does not limit the Executive to targeting only those whom you believe to be deserving. And, that is the very problem with your brand of thinking. Nearly everyone who ascribes to it does so under the belief that these policies and laws are necessary for "security" and will apply to only the bad guys. But, that is the very point of our form of government and the Constitutional rights that we once held dear. The government (and worse, the Executive alone) doesn't get to decide unilaterally who is guilty or not. We are all entitled to due process, as "flexible" and inconvenient as that may be at times. It is our protection against the inevitable abuse that will arise in its absence, and it is one of our most powerful protections against tyranny. None of this makes your case in any event. Your initial argument was that the Executive has no more power than they've had in the past. The minutiae of drones vs. Nazis into which you've waded just speaks to whether you think the Executive should have such increased power. In doing so, you are actually acknowledging that they do, in fact, have it, thereby making my point. Something else that you may not have noticed is that your historical comparisons--invalid as they are--point to various incidents across centuries in your search for precedent. But, notice that these did not all take place at one time. It is, in part, the sum total of all of these powers and abuses invested in our Executive at once that represents such a vast increase in power.

rayiner 14y ago

I am bringing up historical context because you keep using the word "unprecedented." We did attempt to justify the Iraq war: WMD's. No less justifiable than many of our other interventions in Latin America, Asia, etc. Spanish American war anyone? Also: since when is justification required to go to war? The test has never been more or less than "protecting our interests." I don't think its a stretch to compare an American citizen going to Yemen to fight against America with Arab terrorists with Americans going to fight with Nazis. Indeed, the former is worse. American nazis weren't fighting against the US necessarily. They were fighting for Germany (Germany had no beef with us). People like Al Awalki are actively fighting against us and refuse to submit themselves to the criminal justice system. What due process rights should they have? "due process" has always been very flexible, not hard and fast.

unclebucknasty 14y ago
It's not that you're bringing up historical context. It's that your analogies overreach and don't make your points. Of course we go to war for our interests. However, prior to Iraq, there was typically an existing conflict. Further, especially in more recent history, we at least attempted to manufacture some military pretext (Gulf of Tonkin, etc.) The difference with Iraq--and it's hard to believe that you really don't see this--is that there was no conflict and Iraq was not engaged in any hostile military action. We simply attacked them because of what the Executive declared they might do (WMDs or no). The point is that it represents a new thinking and acceptance of the degree of power vested in the Executive. Even the architects of this power grab acknowledge this fundamental difference. See "Pax Americana" from the Project For The New American Century. Edit: More specifically, see the report: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" Your rebuttal regarding drones and Nazis falls down even more. Of course if a U.S. citizen is taking up arms with a nation that is openly at war with the U.S. (as eventually was the case), and is actively engaged on the battlefield, then the U.S. is justified in making no distinction between him and the enemy. But, that the Executive has the right to declare that a U.S. citizen is an enemy combatant and may be killed with impunity is vastly different. You may take comfort in your degree of confidence that Al Awalki was a bad guy. However, the policy does not limit the Executive to targeting only those whom you believe to be deserving. And, that is the very problem with your brand of thinking. Nearly everyone who ascribes to it does so under the belief that these policies and laws are necessary for "security" and will apply to only the bad guys. But, that is the very point of our form of government and the Constitutional rights that we once held dear. The government (and worse, the Executive alone) doesn't get to decide unilaterally who is guilty or not. We are all entitled to due process, as "flexible" and inconvenient as that may be at times. It is our protection against the inevitable abuse that will arise in its absence, and it is one of our most powerful protections against tyranny. None of this makes your case in any event. Your initial argument was that the Executive has no more power than they've had in the past. The minutiae of drones vs. Nazis into which you've waded just speaks to whether you think the Executive should have such increased power. In doing so, you are actually acknowledging that they do, in fact, have it, thereby making my point. Something else that you may not have noticed is that your historical comparisons--invalid as they are--point to various incidents across centuries in your search for precedent. But, notice that these did not all take place at one time. It is, in part, the sum total of all of these powers and abuses invested in our Executive at once that represents such a vast increase in power.