Wednesday Highlights

Good talk talk talk day, eh?

  1. Apparently there is a filibuster going on … approval here
  2. Droney lawers discuss as well.
  3. More grist for the drone conversations. Woops.
  4. So, why do liberals trust Obama with the power to kill whomever for whatever reason. Trust. Why trust? Beats me. Ask a lib.
  5. In a discussion on phone regulations … this was firmly denied. Alas, data seems to indicate otherwise.
  6. A book to lead you back to the garden.
  7. So, why oh, why did Obama cut what he did for the sequester? He cut aid to babies … and here’s why. His goal is government growth, nothing more, nothing less.
  8. Wait wait, what day is it tomorrow? Oh, my.
  9. Statistics and bunnies.
  10. Talking Turkey, not turkey.
  11. Think about this too hard out loud and you’ll be accused of racism.
  12. The first word is the most important. Happy is good. Remember that.
  13. Snort. Don’t click through with anything in your mouth. You were warned.
  14. Grist for talking about evil, ethics, and such. Did Josef think he was acting unethically or not? Or did he follow an ethical code with which you happen to disagree strongly?

10 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. 4.So, why do liberals trust Obama with the power to kill whomever for whatever reason. Trust. Why trust? Beats me. Ask a lib.

    What power? The only power I’m aware of vests commander in chief status in the President. If he violates that power then mount an impeachment.

  2. Boonton,
    The point of Mr Paul’s filibuster:

    There was much discussion about the benefits and downsides of drone warfare, but Paul was laser-focused on the problem being that the Administration wouldn’t rule out as unconstitutional a drone strike on an American on U.S. soil who is not posing an imminent national security threat. He was principled, charming, engaging, thoughtful, and solid as a rock.

    Let me know why you approve. And btw, for the record the Senate is a Dem majority and you knuckleheads won’t even take exception to the above. Impeachment is not a real option. You know that. I know that. Why mention it?

  3. 5.In a discussion on phone regulations … this was firmly denied. Alas, data seems to indicate otherwise.

    Nothing was denied, it is perfectly legal to buy, sell and use unlocked phones. When you buy a phone from from Verizon, though, they sell it to you locked. Your contract says you can’t unlock it. In exchange they give you the phone at a deep discount.

    All the law says now is that it’s a crime to unlock something sold to you as locked. In other words you can’t ‘descramble’ your cable TV signal even if you’re not ‘stealing cable’ or helping anyone steal it. Likewise it’s also a crime for me to, say, steal your bank logon and password info even if I don’t do anything with that information to directly steal from you. What is being proposed then is trying to use regulation to prevent phone companies from ‘locking’ you into their phones.

    That’s fine with me but I can’t get how you spin ‘too much regulation’ out of examples where an industry isn’t regulated. Carriers lock their phones because they think they can get away with it in the market, not because the law says so (and not all carriers do, as I pointed out if you switch to AT&T you can enjoy phones that use sim cards and swap your cards around as you please).

  4. wouldn’t rule out as unconstitutional a drone strike on an American on U.S. soil who is not posing an imminent national security threat.

    I’m sorry show me where in the Constitution a drone strike is illegal but, say, a strike by Delta Force is?

    And show me where in the Constitution there’s a difference between strikes on non-Americans and on Americans? The Constitution simply says all persons cannot be deprived of life without due process of law.

    That means if there’s an Al Qaeda cell deep in the mountains in the US trying to attack, the US gov’t can use the military to take them out. If it happens that some members of the cell turn out to be American citizens, that makes no constitutional difference.

    What you’re really asking then is how can one trust the President to use his power as commander in chief to not misuse the military? Paul’s answer here seems to be to ask the President to declare he won’t use the military on US soil. Errrr that sounds like it’s based on simply ‘trusting him’ to me. More importantly such a pledge is totally unconstitutional.

    Multiple times in US history the military has been used domestically to put down insurrections. The most notable example was, of course, the Civil War. But less remembered examples included the Whiskey Rebellion, conflicts with Indian tribes, raiding parties from Mexico and so on. The Constitution didn’t prohibit any of that and the fact that today’s military uses drones from the air rather than men on horses doesn’t alter the Constitutional analysis in any way I see demonstrated here.

  5. Boonton,

    I’m sorry show me where in the Constitution a drone strike is illegal but, say, a strike by Delta Force is

    A strike by “Delta force” on an American on US soil not posing a risk is … also not Consitutional. Due process. Habeas. You need more?

    That means if there’s an Al Qaeda cell deep in the mountains in the US trying to attack, the US gov’t can use the military to take them out. If it happens that some members of the cell turn out to be American citizens, that makes no constitutional difference.

    You fail to read. “not posing an imminent national security risk.”

    Again, “That means if there’s an Al Qaeda cell deep in the mountains in the US trying to attack, the US gov’t can use the military to take them out. If it happens that some members of the cell turn out to be American citizens, that makes no constitutional difference.” all security risks.

    Keep trying.

  6. Boonton,
    Before you continue to defend the undefensible. The AG has caved.

  7. Boonton,
    Remember however, you’re the one who thinks China has authority to strike those alleged (by them) to be members of anti-Chinese militia on US soil.

  8. A strike by “Delta force” on an American on US soil not posing a risk is … also not Consitutional. Due process. Habeas. You need more?

    Yes absolutely! So why the need for a pledge to ‘not use drones’? As you point out there’s no constitutional difference between blowing a house up with a drone and blowing it up with Navy Seals.

    You fail to read. “not posing an imminent national security risk.”

    Well let’s look at Mr Yoo, torture enabler, who you cited:

    In his latest misstep, Attorney General Eric Holder is refusing to rule out the possibility of using armed drones against American citizens within the United States. According to a letter he sent to Senator Rand Paul, as Charles C. W. Cooke noted, Holder said that the use of lethal force would be “entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront,” but might be necessary to stop a “catastrophic attack” like the December 7, 1941, or September 11, 2001, attacks on the homeland. Holder may have the right idea, but because of his misunderstanding of the law and his political tin ear, he is only frightening the American people — though this seems to be the administration’s preferred approach to politics these days.

    In a totally bizaar post, Yoo talks about Holder’s ‘mistakes’ while citing stuff he agrees with and failing to cite anything he disagrees with. His one disagreement is:

    Holder’s first mistake is that he thinks that the use of force by drones, no matter where or against whom, is governed by due process.

    But this is what critics of the President are demanding. They are demanding that some type of special court system review proposed drone strikes in general or whenever American citizens might be among the targets. This represents a serious misunderstanding of the value of ‘due process’. A court cannot issue death sentences ‘in absentia’ against either American citizens or non-citizens anywhere. Asking that courts do so in order to ‘review’ military operations only degrades the courts. You complain about trust but that and impeachment are the only real defenses against misuse of military power and drones are nothing new about that. What prevented Richard Nixon from ordering a military attack on the Democratic National Convention? What prevented Lincoln from having the man running against him in the inter-war Presidential election from being locked up by military police?

  9. Before you continue to defend the undefensible. The AG has caved.

    Caved!? You are aware that every drone strike against suspected terrorists in the Middle East is defined as an attack on people engaged in a ‘combat situation’. A ‘combat situation’ is not only a bunch of men running around in a hotel gunning people down like what happened in Mumbai. It also would include a group deep in the mountains who can’t be easily captured by law enforcement planning or directing attacks but not engaged in an attack at the moment the bomb hits them.

  10. 5.In a discussion on phone regulations … this was firmly denied. Alas, data seems to indicate otherwise.

    So in prep for an international trip, I’ve learned I was mistaken about AT&T. AT&T phones are ‘locked’ too in the sense that you can’t just take out the sim card and use someone else’s service in them. You can, however, use your AT&T sim card in other phones so you can swap them around. So they are partially unlocked I suppose which is unlike Verizon where the dealer has to enter a bunch of codes in a phone for you to use it on your network. We’ve exploited this by buying prepaid AT&T phones on the cheap to replace phones that broke for the kids.

    This doesn’t help much with the argument about regulation, though. What’s the point of being able to legally ‘jailbreak’ your phone if carriers insist that they will only let you use their phones on their networks? That doesn’t seem like a regulation problem but a lack of regulation problem (namely a regulation forcing cell phone companies to open up and stop selling locked phones). It’s also not at all clear that the law itself is really a regulation. The phone companies are pointing out that their ‘locked phones’ are being sold at a deep discount. Part of that deal is the users don’t jailbreak them. Sounds less like regulation and more like property rights to me. Phone companies aren’t selling consumers full rights to the phone so hacking them is a type of theft.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>