Is there an on-going conflict between them and the Cuban government? I don't think there is. Besides, both the Cuban and US government control their own territory. Both have had people that the other wanted, were asked nicely for, and were denied for one reason or another. I don't see that changing anytime soon, at least as long as a communist government is in control of Cuba.
But to be more specific... since Cuba has yet to be liberated as nearly every other communist country has been, I'm not sure that I see a downside to Cuban aggression in this instance. Viva la Revolución!
There was no doubt that chemical weapons were used in Syria, there were moments of doubt about exactly who used them. That issue is behind us.
White phosphorus isn't considered a chemical weapon, it is an incendiary weapon. As to Vietnam, the US only used the equivalent of weed killer to thin out the jungle, and some tear gas, and that's it. The US didn't use lethal chemical weapons in Vietnam.
The metric that matters is that Republicans won a majority of the elections. In each of those district elections the Republican candidate won a majority of the votes. The "national popular vote" doesn't exist as either a constitutional concern, or as a practical political concern for the most part. Even the vote for the president isn't based on a national popular vote, although the results typically reflect the national popular vote. It is both possible and completely legitimate under the US Constitution for someone to be elected president with a minority of the national popular vote. So, bottom line, there isn't really any "national popular vote," and the Republicans hold the majority in the US House of Representatives, and not that it matters, but a majority of state legislatures and governors as well.
I'm going to play "junior mind reader" and guess that you are looking for a declaration of war? The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the US Congress in 2001 is legally equivalent to a declaration of war. That is well established law.
It is an interesting proposal, but to do it would take a constitutional amendment for which there is little support. There are attempts to bypass the existing presidential election system by multi-state compact. They will award presidential electors based on popular vote instead of the current winner take all system on a state by state basis as exists now. But as to the Congress, if anything there might be more support some something which is effectively the opposite of what you propose. Senators were originally appointed by the states in the manner they saw fit. It was changed to the current popular election in the state by constitutional amendment. There are people calling for it to go back. One reason is to redress the power imbalance between the state and federal governments. I doubt that will go anywhere either.
I understand completely what he is saying about the raw percentage of votes for the Democrats, and it is not only completely irrelevant, but specious to raise as an issue. As to your point, it is far from clear how US politics would look if it had a parliamentary system. Both main political parties are coalitions of multiple interests, and they might very well fall apart into several parties of a more pure ideological form. Exactly what a governing coalition would look like is nearly impossible to say. Parliamentary politics and micro-parties can result in some strange outcomes. And you may notice that several parliamentary elections in Europe and Australia have gone conservative. It is entirely possible that US politics would in fact move more to the right since there are a number of groups that aren't well represented by the Democrats. Even among those that are, there are tensions. There are growing splits in the interests of government unions versus public sector unions, for example.
I doubt that will have any meaningful effect as most "nullification" laws don't.
I doubt that much will come of it anytime soon anyway since the norm has been to use ordinary criminal law inside the US and the Law of War outside it when dealing with al Qaida. The only way I could see this having much impact would be during an internal insurrection unless there was a huge, undetected al Qaida attack being plotted in the US. That is huge in terms of numbers of attackers, not necessarily in body count. Of course with the Obama administration driving toward the cliff while strangling the economy, who can say what will happen. Perhaps it is all part of a Cloward-Piven Strategy.
You apparently don't really understand the unpopularity of the Congress. Most people think that their legislator is doing OK, it is all the other legislators that are the problem.
Republicans are winning at the national and state levels in that they are winning more elections. Perhaps you think that there is some obtuse aspect to that, but winning elections matters. The Senate is buffered by the longer term, 6 vs 2 years, and the incumbent advantage.
30 of 50 governors are Republicans.
Maybe the trend will reverse itself in the next election, maybe not.
It is convenient when you can declare wars on abstract concepts
The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the US Congress designated the perpetrators of 9/11 at the enemy. The "War against Terror" is symbolic language. There really shouldn't be any confusion on the point unless someone wants to be confused.
The German POWs were held as prisoners without trial since that is both customary and lawful under the Geneva Conventions. The only reason to have a trial would be if you wanted to change individual soldiers with a war crime. As long as they waged war lawfully they could kill countless people each and there would be no crime to prosecute them for. Nations that signed the Geneva Conventions agree on this.
There in fact was no predictable end to WW2. It could potentially have ended in a stalemate, or even a German victory. It might have gone on for decades. As it was the war in China lasted about 12 years.
Al Qaida members are being held under the same legal regime. It is unfortunate for them that they do not wage war lawfully.
You might want to reflect on the fact that out of 330,000,000 Americans there have been only 4 that have been targeted for killing by drones. Why do you think that is? It is because they took up arms with al Qaida. It also isn't clear why you think that only one process is subject to abuse. If the process of designating enemy combatants is abused the criminal justice system could be abused as well.
Members of the military take an oath to support and defense the Constitution. Rounding up large numbers of innocent Americans might not sit well with that, and it would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which at least the officers would realize, if not everyone. At some point it would be clear that it was an illegal order, and things would sort themselves out. I have little doubt Congress would take action.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force designated the perpetrators of 9/11 at the enemy. The "War against Terror" is symbolic language. There really shouldn't be any confusion on the point unless someone wants to be confused.
The Red Cross already visits Guantanamo. The Law of War will do for much of the conflict. Ordinary criminal law is always available when appropriate.
There really isn't much of a problem with making war on al Qaida. Besides, they made it clear that is what they wanted. That brings to mind the old admonition, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it."
In most states you only get to redraw the district boundaries if your party is in the majority at the state level. So you care in effect complaining that Republicans are winning at the national level because Republicans are winning at the state level.
Besides that, there is no "popular vote" for House elections. Each vote is district by district. Excess votes in one district have no meaning in another. Excess votes in one state have no meaning in another. The Republicans have a majority in the House, period. They haven't lost any non-existent "popular vote."
As to shutdowns, the Republicans are still playing catch up.
Unfortunately you are overlooking a key piece of information: his status is determined under the Law of War, not under criminal statue. He can be held indefinitely as a prisoner of war, just as the Germans were in WW2 - at least until the conflict is over. No trial is necessary since it isn't a question of criminal law. That doesn't mean that he can't be tried, either for war crimes or criminal offenses under ordinary criminal law. Perhaps that will happen at some future date.
In summary, he can be held indefinitely, and it is perfectly legal and correct to do so.
Anwar al Awlaki's son said he hoped "to attain martyrdom as my father attained it" just hours before he was killed in a US Predator airstrike in Yemen in mid-October, according to a journalist who sympathizes with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Abdul Rahman al Awlaki, Anwar's 16-year-old son and an American citizen, made the statement to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's emir of the city of Azzam in Shabwa province. Azzan is one of several Yemeni cities currently under AQAP control.
Abdul Rahman was killed in a Predator strike in Shabwa province on Oct. 14. The strike targeted Ibrahim al Bana, AQAP's media emir.
So, you are quite wrong in multiple aspects. If you think that a 16 year old with a bomb vest or AK is less dangerous than an 18 year old, you would be mistaken again.
Two years after the Arab Spring revolution that toppled longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi, and one year after the assault on a U.S. compound in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others, Libya’s fragile government has little control over the nation’s security.
Even minor disputes escalate into frequent gun violence on the streets. Kidnappings and armed robberies are increasing, and government officials and others have been assassinated with guns and bombs. Militants and arms smugglers easily cross poorly protected borders shared with Niger and Chad.
The Libyan government doesn't in fact have anything like full control over the country of Libya. If a senior al Qaida member was living openly, he probably had militias around to protect him. It is doubtful that the Libyan government would have been able to do much. He probably would have either had warning in time to flee, or the government would have had a real battle on its hands.
The forces that captured him would have done so under the authority of the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the US Congress. The US is at war with al Qaida, and the Libyan government doesn't have control over its territory. So it is probably better to say he is captured rather than kidnapped. Being held under the Law of War would mean he isn't in the judicial system, but can be held as a Prisoner of War. To qualify for all the rights, privileges, and protections of the Geneva Convention, such as preparing your own food and not be subject to interrogation, you have to conduct war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Al Qaida doesn't do that.
Now it is only a question of time till protesters start claiming he is innocent and should be released.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I got that. I simply thought it was a stupid joke that wasn't worth the moderation.
Is there an on-going conflict between them and the Cuban government? I don't think there is. Besides, both the Cuban and US government control their own territory. Both have had people that the other wanted, were asked nicely for, and were denied for one reason or another. I don't see that changing anytime soon, at least as long as a communist government is in control of Cuba.
But to be more specific ... since Cuba has yet to be liberated as nearly every other communist country has been, I'm not sure that I see a downside to Cuban aggression in this instance. Viva la Revolución!
There was no doubt that chemical weapons were used in Syria, there were moments of doubt about exactly who used them. That issue is behind us.
White phosphorus isn't considered a chemical weapon, it is an incendiary weapon. As to Vietnam, the US only used the equivalent of weed killer to thin out the jungle, and some tear gas, and that's it. The US didn't use lethal chemical weapons in Vietnam.
just thought I'd like to toss that out there... those tosspots have got some 400 plus nukes at hand...
Among the causes of action against Saddam in Iraq was that he was a ruthless dictator that used chemical weapons to attack his own people.
Among the causes of action against Assad in Syria is that he is a ruthless dictator that used chemical weapons to attack his own people.
Israel is a parliamentary democracy that isn't nuking their own people.
Maybe I'll just toss this out there. If the shoe fits ...
PS: We're really super jealous of your elected senate up here.
Do you want 'em? I'm sure a deal could be arranged. ;)
Is the problem "not getting it" or "forgetting it"? The US has been down this path before under the leadership of Democrats.
When Tip Did It - Tip O’Neill presided over two-thirds of the government shutdowns since 1976
The metric that matters is that Republicans won a majority of the elections. In each of those district elections the Republican candidate won a majority of the votes. The "national popular vote" doesn't exist as either a constitutional concern, or as a practical political concern for the most part. Even the vote for the president isn't based on a national popular vote, although the results typically reflect the national popular vote. It is both possible and completely legitimate under the US Constitution for someone to be elected president with a minority of the national popular vote. So, bottom line, there isn't really any "national popular vote," and the Republicans hold the majority in the US House of Representatives, and not that it matters, but a majority of state legislatures and governors as well.
I'm going to play "junior mind reader" and guess that you are looking for a declaration of war? The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the US Congress in 2001 is legally equivalent to a declaration of war. That is well established law.
It is an interesting proposal, but to do it would take a constitutional amendment for which there is little support. There are attempts to bypass the existing presidential election system by multi-state compact. They will award presidential electors based on popular vote instead of the current winner take all system on a state by state basis as exists now. But as to the Congress, if anything there might be more support some something which is effectively the opposite of what you propose. Senators were originally appointed by the states in the manner they saw fit. It was changed to the current popular election in the state by constitutional amendment. There are people calling for it to go back. One reason is to redress the power imbalance between the state and federal governments. I doubt that will go anywhere either.
I understand completely what he is saying about the raw percentage of votes for the Democrats, and it is not only completely irrelevant, but specious to raise as an issue. As to your point, it is far from clear how US politics would look if it had a parliamentary system. Both main political parties are coalitions of multiple interests, and they might very well fall apart into several parties of a more pure ideological form. Exactly what a governing coalition would look like is nearly impossible to say. Parliamentary politics and micro-parties can result in some strange outcomes. And you may notice that several parliamentary elections in Europe and Australia have gone conservative. It is entirely possible that US politics would in fact move more to the right since there are a number of groups that aren't well represented by the Democrats. Even among those that are, there are tensions. There are growing splits in the interests of government unions versus public sector unions, for example.
I doubt that will have any meaningful effect as most "nullification" laws don't.
I doubt that much will come of it anytime soon anyway since the norm has been to use ordinary criminal law inside the US and the Law of War outside it when dealing with al Qaida. The only way I could see this having much impact would be during an internal insurrection unless there was a huge, undetected al Qaida attack being plotted in the US. That is huge in terms of numbers of attackers, not necessarily in body count. Of course with the Obama administration driving toward the cliff while strangling the economy, who can say what will happen. Perhaps it is all part of a Cloward-Piven Strategy.
You apparently don't really understand the unpopularity of the Congress. Most people think that their legislator is doing OK, it is all the other legislators that are the problem.
Republicans are winning at the national and state levels in that they are winning more elections. Perhaps you think that there is some obtuse aspect to that, but winning elections matters. The Senate is buffered by the longer term, 6 vs 2 years, and the incumbent advantage.
30 of 50 governors are Republicans.
Maybe the trend will reverse itself in the next election, maybe not.
The Communist Party USA begs to differ with you about the lack of an American Left. The American far Left exists, it just has little support.
It is convenient when you can declare wars on abstract concepts
The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the US Congress designated the perpetrators of 9/11 at the enemy. The "War against Terror" is symbolic language. There really shouldn't be any confusion on the point unless someone wants to be confused.
The German POWs were held as prisoners without trial since that is both customary and lawful under the Geneva Conventions. The only reason to have a trial would be if you wanted to change individual soldiers with a war crime. As long as they waged war lawfully they could kill countless people each and there would be no crime to prosecute them for. Nations that signed the Geneva Conventions agree on this.
There in fact was no predictable end to WW2. It could potentially have ended in a stalemate, or even a German victory. It might have gone on for decades. As it was the war in China lasted about 12 years.
Al Qaida members are being held under the same legal regime. It is unfortunate for them that they do not wage war lawfully.
You might want to reflect on the fact that out of 330,000,000 Americans there have been only 4 that have been targeted for killing by drones. Why do you think that is? It is because they took up arms with al Qaida. It also isn't clear why you think that only one process is subject to abuse. If the process of designating enemy combatants is abused the criminal justice system could be abused as well.
Members of the military take an oath to support and defense the Constitution. Rounding up large numbers of innocent Americans might not sit well with that, and it would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which at least the officers would realize, if not everyone. At some point it would be clear that it was an illegal order, and things would sort themselves out. I have little doubt Congress would take action.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force designated the perpetrators of 9/11 at the enemy. The "War against Terror" is symbolic language. There really shouldn't be any confusion on the point unless someone wants to be confused.
The Red Cross already visits Guantanamo. The Law of War will do for much of the conflict. Ordinary criminal law is always available when appropriate.
There really isn't much of a problem with making war on al Qaida. Besides, they made it clear that is what they wanted. That brings to mind the old admonition, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it."
In most states you only get to redraw the district boundaries if your party is in the majority at the state level. So you care in effect complaining that Republicans are winning at the national level because Republicans are winning at the state level.
Besides that, there is no "popular vote" for House elections. Each vote is district by district. Excess votes in one district have no meaning in another. Excess votes in one state have no meaning in another. The Republicans have a majority in the House, period. They haven't lost any non-existent "popular vote."
As to shutdowns, the Republicans are still playing catch up.
When Tip Did It - Tip O’Neill presided over two-thirds of the government shutdowns since 1976
Most shutdowns have resulted in budget concessions.
Unfortunately you are overlooking a key piece of information: his status is determined under the Law of War, not under criminal statue. He can be held indefinitely as a prisoner of war, just as the Germans were in WW2 - at least until the conflict is over. No trial is necessary since it isn't a question of criminal law. That doesn't mean that he can't be tried, either for war crimes or criminal offenses under ordinary criminal law. Perhaps that will happen at some future date.
In summary, he can be held indefinitely, and it is perfectly legal and correct to do so.
I think your answer is here:
Anwar al Awlaki's son hoped 'to attain martyrdom as my father attained it'
Anwar al Awlaki's son said he hoped "to attain martyrdom as my father attained it" just hours before he was killed in a US Predator airstrike in Yemen in mid-October, according to a journalist who sympathizes with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Abdul Rahman al Awlaki, Anwar's 16-year-old son and an American citizen, made the statement to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's emir of the city of Azzam in Shabwa province. Azzan is one of several Yemeni cities currently under AQAP control.
Abdul Rahman was killed in a Predator strike in Shabwa province on Oct. 14. The strike targeted Ibrahim al Bana, AQAP's media emir.
So, you are quite wrong in multiple aspects. If you think that a 16 year old with a bomb vest or AK is less dangerous than an 18 year old, you would be mistaken again.
Nothing can beat the NSA in the surveillance event competition!
I don't know man, the Jamaicans are always tough and the Russians are not to be dismissed. Not sure how China's team is this year.... but I hear they are big.
This might help. ;)
I think we have the answer to a lot of questions here:
Two years after Libya’s revolution, government struggles to control hundreds of armed militias
Two years after the Arab Spring revolution that toppled longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi, and one year after the assault on a U.S. compound in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others, Libya’s fragile government has little control over the nation’s security.
Even minor disputes escalate into frequent gun violence on the streets. Kidnappings and armed robberies are increasing, and government officials and others have been assassinated with guns and bombs. Militants and arms smugglers easily cross poorly protected borders shared with Niger and Chad.
The Libyan government doesn't in fact have anything like full control over the country of Libya. If a senior al Qaida member was living openly, he probably had militias around to protect him. It is doubtful that the Libyan government would have been able to do much. He probably would have either had warning in time to flee, or the government would have had a real battle on its hands.
The forces that captured him would have done so under the authority of the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the US Congress. The US is at war with al Qaida, and the Libyan government doesn't have control over its territory. So it is probably better to say he is captured rather than kidnapped. Being held under the Law of War would mean he isn't in the judicial system, but can be held as a Prisoner of War. To qualify for all the rights, privileges, and protections of the Geneva Convention, such as preparing your own food and not be subject to interrogation, you have to conduct war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Al Qaida doesn't do that.
Now it is only a question of time till protesters start claiming he is innocent and should be released.
LOL. You are either trolling, or practically never read what I write.
You have to work to get there, it isn't bestowed freely.
I wonder what Snowden has to say about this? Since The Moscow Times says that Spying Is a Sovereign Right, and a key spokesman for Snowden in Russia is the head of public council for the Federal Security Service (FSB), I would guess not much. Just as well: NSA Is No Match for the FSB
A Kalashnikov isn't that high tech, it's made mainly with stamped metal and wood. Sarin takes quite a bit more technology to create.