So you're saying that I should be able to say whatever I want, no matter what damages it causes, and who it may hurt?
I should be allowed to incite violence against minorities? I should be able to start a privately held corporation, and use that company's proceeds to fund the campaigns of politicians I like? I should be able to smear my competitors with lies and innuendo in order to ruin their business, and their personal lives? I should be able to tell lies about anybody I want, for any purpose I desire? I should be able to start a panic in a city by running down the streets screaming "The terrorists are coming, and they have a bomb! Run for your lives?" I should be able to get on the radio and spew right-wing lies and rhetoric 10x worse than anything Rush Limbaugh has ever said, or left-wing propaganda 10x worse than anything Rachel Maddow has ever uttered?
"George Bush lied, people died." Well he has free speech - shouldn't he be allowed to lie if he wants? After all, there are no limits on what a person can say!
"Bill Clinton said he never had sexual relations with that woman." Well he has free speech - shouldn't he be allowed to lie if he wants? After all, there are no limits on what a person can say, even under oath! Who is the government to come along asking someone to swear to tell *the truth,* when that restricts my free speech?
All this, in the interests of free speech? Friend, I'm frightened of your brave new world.
I'm quite familiar with it - enough so to say that it says absolutely nothing about "oh, and this stuff only applies to real, physical, individuals with the capacity to speak."
That is an INTERPRETATION of the amendment to suit your position, which ironically, states that the constitution must be strictly applied literally, as written.
The bill of rights and the constitution limit the power of the federal government, they weren't written with an intent of being a full and exhaustive list of rights that People possess. If you want a literal application, you cannot then justify that stance using your own interpretations of what you THINK they meant.
It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. A literal application of that says that limiting the speech of any body or organization or person is covered. Congress shall make no law. NO LAW.
And if you really want to be literal, as fyngyrz et. al. are trying to, why then, the first amendment only covers the physical act of speaking. Write something? Type something? Draw a cartoon? Sing a protest song? Sorry, that's not speaking, congress can limit that stuff as much as it wants.
So then you're arguing that there ARE limits on my free speech?
If I can be sued for saying something false, then I am being punished for saying something, even if it's only a civil case. (in point of fact, all federal defamation laws are civil, and only 17 states have any sort of criminal defamation laws, anyway).
Therefore, the original point That "there are, and can be, no limits on free speech under the constitution" is incorrect, and you've just acknowledged that by stating that damaging statements that are untrue (more or less the textbook definition of defamation) should be actionable offenses in a court of law. Thanks for the backup.
So to be clear, you're saying it's okay to defame/libel someone at any time for any reason, with no repercussions or penalties, because free speech shouldn't ever be limited in any way, and you're basing your entire line of argument on... A quote from MASH? The well-known documentary about CPL Maxwell Klinger, CPT Hawkeye Pierce (played by Alan Alda!), and the lovable scamp PVT Radar O'Reilly?
Yeah, That's totally reasonable.
I'll try again: I begin spreading vicious and unfounded rumors about your drug use, unethical business practices, and abusive behavior towards dogs, all untrue. As a result, the community stops doing business with you and shuns you, your wife leaves you and gets the kids, and the bank ends up foreclosing on your house because your income has dried up because your business is now failing. I've ruined your standing in the community, wrecked your business, cost you your family, and put you out on the street through my exercise of free speech.
But that's all a-okay with you, because, hey, free speech has no limits, right? You have no legal recourse either, because hey, no limits on speech means no penalties for saying anything, either!
In short, Your comment about "going after those who believe or act on it" makes no sense. Who do you go after in this scenario, and on what grounds?
It doesn't refer to the press, because a newspaper isn't a person, either
It doesn't? You might want to check the wording of the First Amendment again, because I'm pretty sure that they mention "the press" in there.
So now... what about mutes and infants - they don't possess the capability of speech. Do they have no freedom of speech until such time as they possess the "ability" to speak? Remember, we're talking about rights - not something that magically appears on your 2nd birthday, and not something that 30 year olds who cannot physically vocalize magically lose. Or are they not people under your interpretation of the Constitution?
The amendments address the people unless they say otherwise.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? I see nothing in the Bill of Rights saying that "these only apply to people". Could it be that you are - gasp - interpreting the Constitution?
Corporations aren't people
The law would disagree with you on that fact. You may not *agree* with the law, but they are accorded legal 'person' status.
You see how difficult it becomes to hold to an absolute like "The Constitution was written to say X, therefore it only can possibly mean ?"
The law, and the constitution, are not either/or propositions. If you're looking for binary simplicity, you will not find it. Stating that "This one document says X, therefore that is ALL that is allowed, anywhere, at anytime," pretty much ignores the fact that our system is based on common law going back hundreds of years, with all kinds of philosophical underpinnings & precedents that feed into understanding & interpreting "Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech."
More properly stated, you're free to disregard all of that, but you'll arrive at a conclusion which is incorrect - namely, your conlcusion that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees anybody the right to say anything they wish, at any time, for any reason, regardless of the harm it does, the danger it creates, or the damage it could cause. Many legal minds far more accomplished than yours and mine have wrestled with this interpretation for a couple hundred years. If it were as simple and clear-cut as you suggest, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
"stating hearsay" is not necessarily libel, and "acting" on it has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Libel or defamation is me, saying "countertrolling diddles 5 year old boys. He also has a 500 dollar a day coke habit, and loves snorting meth off the hairy buttocks of his gay lovers."
Has nothing to do with whether or not anybody believes it, has everything to do with whether or not it's true (if it's true, I"m simply reporting a fact - if it's not, I'm defaming you). Does freedom of speech run that far? Anybody can say anything they wish, no matter the consequences to anybody else?
Money buys advertising for political candidates, and runs their campaigns.
This is why I specifically asked about campaign finance reform, as it's been an argument that restricting the spending of corporations (their ability to pay for ads & fund the campaigns of people they support) is very much a free speech question.
Go read up on the BCRA (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act), and think about what this does to the political landscape if you really want to argue for totally free and unfettered speech on all fronts.
You are, of course, wrong. The text of Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words:
"Just because a right is not written here doesn't mean it's not protected, and doesn't mean that the government can just take it away without any challenge."
I'll say again: The First Amendment, when declaring that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," does not say ANYTHING about what entities that restriction may or may not apply to, though it does specifically call out "the press" (not an individual person) later on, and other references to "the people" are sprinkled liberally throughout the document.
Certainly suggests that they omitted that specific qualifier re: speech for a reason, doesn't it? If you want to read it as written, you must read it as saying that Congress may make no law restricting free speech, period: meaning, no limits on what a corporation may say, no limits on libel, defamation, or any other sort of thing.
If you want to say that "No, well, some speech is disallowed, but only the really bad types," then you must also admit that you are hypocritical in advocating a strict constructionist view of the First Amendment.
You can't have it both ways: Either there is room in the FIrst Amendment for reasonable limitations, or there is NO room in the First Amendment for any limitation of ANY speech whatsoever.
It does NOT give them power to nullify laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President.
Not in those specific words, no. It does however give them authority for judging all cases under the Constitution (already cited), and sets forth (in Article VI), the following:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Please explain how you conclude, based on those two items, that the Supreme Court has no authority to strike down federal and state laws which violate the constitution?
I'll certainly agree that the *extent* to which the federal government reaches into state matters is a murkier area, but the Judiciary very clearly has the obligation & the power to adjudicate in instances where there is a question of the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority, or where state laws conflict with the Constitution: "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (In other words: "Judges and courts must uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, despite any laws or state constitution that may conflict with it.")
This means that, where legislation conflicts with the Constitution, it is the court's duty and obligation to declare the law null and void, because no law may break the constitution. Again, we can agree that the enforcement of this has been *spotty and uneven* in the past, but you cannot say that the court doesn't have that power with a straight face.
Are you really suggesting that we just take it on faith that everything the executive and legislative branches do abides by the constitution "because they say so," with no recourse possible, and strike Article VI from the Constitution, to say that the Constitution isn't the Supreme law of the land?
The entire bill of rights is directed to the people. Almost every one of the amendments in it (including the first, go read it if you doubt me) finds a place to specifically say so when there might be a question.
And yet, nowhere in the segment you quoted, does it specifically state that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of *PEOPLE* to speak. And at the same time, *throughout* the Bill of Rights, "the people" are referred to specifically, but not in the clause you cite. Why is that?
(Also, is "the press" a person? Hmm....)
The point is this:
You are 'interpreting' the First Amendment by saying it doesn't apply to corporations just as anybody else is 'interpreting' the First Amendment to say that there are certain types of speech which may reasonably be prohibited. Your interpretation of the "intent as written" is just that: an interpretation, of what you think the framers of the constitution mean.
Now if you can do that... why would you argue that the judicial branch may not?
Explain to me where the First Amendment says it only applies to "people"? It says simply that the Government shall make no law, it doesn't say which entities those laws must or must not be limited to.
By your own strict "as it's written" argument, all laws being passed by the government that restrict speech - any speech, by any entity - are unconstitutional, which means that corporations should also be exempted from any government restriction, as well.
Or, when you said that "all speech is protected, there are no exceptions in the constitution," did you really mean to say, "I think the First Amendment should mean what I want it to mean, in the specific circumstances I think it should apply in?"
What's your stance on campaign finance reform? After all - it simply says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" -- does that also apply to corporations funding the campaigns of favored candidates?
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Unless you'd care to argue that a court charged with applying the Constitution to all cases before it somehow precludes the court from interpreting the laws as written and applying them to the case under review?
2) No more filibuster. I don't see anything in this here Constitution that says you need a 60% supermajority to pass legislation, so why is it in our system?
It used to be (until 1975) that 2/3 of the chamber (i.e., 67 votes) were needed to invoke cloture.
Filibuster has a place - especially in making sure that a minority group has its views heard. However, the whole "gentleman's agreement" filibuster should be done away with: tou want to stall the process? You want to filibuster? Great. Make sure one of your supporters is on the floor of the Senate, speaking, and refusing to yield, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It shouldn't be a no-cost operation for any group that wants to do it, it should be a physically & mentally demanding exercise, not something you can phone in by "agreeing" that the filibuster is still going.
It seems that making a filibuster both easier to end (reducing votes required to invoke cloture), and making it easier to conduct (no need to *actually* be there speaking 24x7), it also increases the prevalence of the tactic. I think if they made it a costly operation again, you'd see people use it more sparingly, because both sides would know that it was such an extreme tactic that it would be more productive to actually sit down and try to compromise.
And when they arrive, they'll find a clean, neat, nicely designed city populated with apple users, who will all say, "jeez, what took you guys so long to get here?"
No, I'd like for you to actually show me that your wild-ass guess of 1% is any more accurate than my offhand remark.
You don't think that even a 1% increase in the number of patrols will improve security?
Funny, the "surge" technique which proved so effective in Iraq was an increase of ~15% (130k to ~150k troops), how many more combat patrols do you think that put on the street at any given time? And yet the surge was generally reported as having very positive results in stabilizing the situation.
Well put it this way, if you voluntarily join the military you shouldn't complain when you are ordered to kill people.
Killing does not necessarily equate to "murder," however. Having training in how to fire a handgun or shoot a rifle doesn't make one a murderer anymore than joining the military automatically makes one a murderer.
Yes, you may have to fight and kill someone if you join the military. There's a whole body of legal evidence beyond that that's required to make the case that a particular killing is murder.
While I think our elected officials should have a lot of power, the power to declare war without provocation seems like it should rest with the people.
I wouldn't disagree with that. There should be far more oversight - by Congress, and the people - in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that I should be able to say whatever I want, no matter what damages it causes, and who it may hurt?
I should be allowed to incite violence against minorities? I should be able to start a privately held corporation, and use that company's proceeds to fund the campaigns of politicians I like? I should be able to smear my competitors with lies and innuendo in order to ruin their business, and their personal lives? I should be able to tell lies about anybody I want, for any purpose I desire? I should be able to start a panic in a city by running down the streets screaming "The terrorists are coming, and they have a bomb! Run for your lives?" I should be able to get on the radio and spew right-wing lies and rhetoric 10x worse than anything Rush Limbaugh has ever said, or left-wing propaganda 10x worse than anything Rachel Maddow has ever uttered?
"George Bush lied, people died." Well he has free speech - shouldn't he be allowed to lie if he wants? After all, there are no limits on what a person can say!
"Bill Clinton said he never had sexual relations with that woman." Well he has free speech - shouldn't he be allowed to lie if he wants? After all, there are no limits on what a person can say, even under oath! Who is the government to come along asking someone to swear to tell *the truth,* when that restricts my free speech?
All this, in the interests of free speech? Friend, I'm frightened of your brave new world.
And why does anybody need a new device with a new operating system to access gmail in a browser again?
This is a solution looking for a problem, and those kinds of devices almost always appeal only to geeks.
I'm quite familiar with it - enough so to say that it says absolutely nothing about "oh, and this stuff only applies to real, physical, individuals with the capacity to speak."
That is an INTERPRETATION of the amendment to suit your position, which ironically, states that the constitution must be strictly applied literally, as written.
The bill of rights and the constitution limit the power of the federal government, they weren't written with an intent of being a full and exhaustive list of rights that People possess. If you want a literal application, you cannot then justify that stance using your own interpretations of what you THINK they meant.
It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. A literal application of that says that limiting the speech of any body or organization or person is covered. Congress shall make no law. NO LAW.
And if you really want to be literal, as fyngyrz et. al. are trying to, why then, the first amendment only covers the physical act of speaking. Write something? Type something? Draw a cartoon? Sing a protest song? Sorry, that's not speaking, congress can limit that stuff as much as it wants.
How sensible does a literal application look now?
So then you're arguing that there ARE limits on my free speech?
If I can be sued for saying something false, then I am being punished for saying something, even if it's only a civil case. (in point of fact, all federal defamation laws are civil, and only 17 states have any sort of criminal defamation laws, anyway).
Therefore, the original point That "there are, and can be, no limits on free speech under the constitution" is incorrect, and you've just acknowledged that by stating that damaging statements that are untrue (more or less the textbook definition of defamation) should be actionable offenses in a court of law. Thanks for the backup.
So to be clear, you're saying it's okay to defame/libel someone at any time for any reason, with no repercussions or penalties, because free speech shouldn't ever be limited in any way, and you're basing your entire line of argument on... A quote from MASH? The well-known documentary about CPL Maxwell Klinger, CPT Hawkeye Pierce (played by Alan Alda!), and the lovable scamp PVT Radar O'Reilly?
Yeah, That's totally reasonable.
I'll try again: I begin spreading vicious and unfounded rumors about your drug use, unethical business practices, and abusive behavior towards dogs, all untrue. As a result, the community stops doing business with you and shuns you, your wife leaves you and gets the kids, and the bank ends up foreclosing on your house because your income has dried up because your business is now failing. I've ruined your standing in the community, wrecked your business, cost you your family, and put you out on the street through my exercise of free speech.
But that's all a-okay with you, because, hey, free speech has no limits, right? You have no legal recourse either, because hey, no limits on speech means no penalties for saying anything, either!
In short, Your comment about "going after those who believe or act on it" makes no sense. Who do you go after in this scenario, and on what grounds?
What If I said it in the context of a roast?
Why, then, he would be free not to press charges and claim that I had defamed him in court!
Or did you think the police were spending their days fact-checking every word uttered by everybody, everywhere? Really now, do try to keep up.
So congress can make rules that dictate the time, manner, and distribution of your speech, just not what you say?
How does jive with the idea of completely unregulated speech?
It doesn't? You might want to check the wording of the First Amendment again, because I'm pretty sure that they mention "the press" in there.
So now... what about mutes and infants - they don't possess the capability of speech. Do they have no freedom of speech until such time as they possess the "ability" to speak? Remember, we're talking about rights - not something that magically appears on your 2nd birthday, and not something that 30 year olds who cannot physically vocalize magically lose. Or are they not people under your interpretation of the Constitution?
How do you arrive at this conclusion? I see nothing in the Bill of Rights saying that "these only apply to people". Could it be that you are - gasp - interpreting the Constitution?
The law would disagree with you on that fact. You may not *agree* with the law, but they are accorded legal 'person' status.
You see how difficult it becomes to hold to an absolute like "The Constitution was written to say X, therefore it only can possibly mean ?"
The law, and the constitution, are not either/or propositions. If you're looking for binary simplicity, you will not find it. Stating that "This one document says X, therefore that is ALL that is allowed, anywhere, at anytime," pretty much ignores the fact that our system is based on common law going back hundreds of years, with all kinds of philosophical underpinnings & precedents that feed into understanding & interpreting "Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech."
More properly stated, you're free to disregard all of that, but you'll arrive at a conclusion which is incorrect - namely, your conlcusion that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees anybody the right to say anything they wish, at any time, for any reason, regardless of the harm it does, the danger it creates, or the damage it could cause. Many legal minds far more accomplished than yours and mine have wrestled with this interpretation for a couple hundred years. If it were as simple and clear-cut as you suggest, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
"stating hearsay" is not necessarily libel, and "acting" on it has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Libel or defamation is me, saying "countertrolling diddles 5 year old boys. He also has a 500 dollar a day coke habit, and loves snorting meth off the hairy buttocks of his gay lovers."
Has nothing to do with whether or not anybody believes it, has everything to do with whether or not it's true (if it's true, I"m simply reporting a fact - if it's not, I'm defaming you). Does freedom of speech run that far? Anybody can say anything they wish, no matter the consequences to anybody else?
Money buys advertising for political candidates, and runs their campaigns.
This is why I specifically asked about campaign finance reform, as it's been an argument that restricting the spending of corporations (their ability to pay for ads & fund the campaigns of people they support) is very much a free speech question.
Go read up on the BCRA (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act), and think about what this does to the political landscape if you really want to argue for totally free and unfettered speech on all fronts.
You are, of course, wrong. The text of Amendment IX:
In other words:
"Just because a right is not written here doesn't mean it's not protected, and doesn't mean that the government can just take it away without any challenge."
I'll say again: The First Amendment, when declaring that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," does not say ANYTHING about what entities that restriction may or may not apply to, though it does specifically call out "the press" (not an individual person) later on, and other references to "the people" are sprinkled liberally throughout the document.
Certainly suggests that they omitted that specific qualifier re: speech for a reason, doesn't it? If you want to read it as written, you must read it as saying that Congress may make no law restricting free speech, period: meaning, no limits on what a corporation may say, no limits on libel, defamation, or any other sort of thing.
If you want to say that "No, well, some speech is disallowed, but only the really bad types," then you must also admit that you are hypocritical in advocating a strict constructionist view of the First Amendment.
So libel and defamation are okay?
You can't have it both ways: Either there is room in the FIrst Amendment for reasonable limitations, or there is NO room in the First Amendment for any limitation of ANY speech whatsoever.
Not in those specific words, no. It does however give them authority for judging all cases under the Constitution (already cited), and sets forth (in Article VI), the following:
Please explain how you conclude, based on those two items, that the Supreme Court has no authority to strike down federal and state laws which violate the constitution?
I'll certainly agree that the *extent* to which the federal government reaches into state matters is a murkier area, but the Judiciary very clearly has the obligation & the power to adjudicate in instances where there is a question of the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority, or where state laws conflict with the Constitution: "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (In other words: "Judges and courts must uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, despite any laws or state constitution that may conflict with it.")
This means that, where legislation conflicts with the Constitution, it is the court's duty and obligation to declare the law null and void, because no law may break the constitution. Again, we can agree that the enforcement of this has been *spotty and uneven* in the past, but you cannot say that the court doesn't have that power with a straight face.
Are you really suggesting that we just take it on faith that everything the executive and legislative branches do abides by the constitution "because they say so," with no recourse possible, and strike Article VI from the Constitution, to say that the Constitution isn't the Supreme law of the land?
And yet, nowhere in the segment you quoted, does it specifically state that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of *PEOPLE* to speak. And at the same time, *throughout* the Bill of Rights, "the people" are referred to specifically, but not in the clause you cite. Why is that?
(Also, is "the press" a person? Hmm....)
The point is this:
You are 'interpreting' the First Amendment by saying it doesn't apply to corporations just as anybody else is 'interpreting' the First Amendment to say that there are certain types of speech which may reasonably be prohibited. Your interpretation of the "intent as written" is just that: an interpretation, of what you think the framers of the constitution mean.
Now if you can do that... why would you argue that the judicial branch may not?
Explain to me where the First Amendment says it only applies to "people"? It says simply that the Government shall make no law, it doesn't say which entities those laws must or must not be limited to.
By your own strict "as it's written" argument, all laws being passed by the government that restrict speech - any speech, by any entity - are unconstitutional, which means that corporations should also be exempted from any government restriction, as well.
Or, when you said that "all speech is protected, there are no exceptions in the constitution," did you really mean to say, "I think the First Amendment should mean what I want it to mean, in the specific circumstances I think it should apply in?"
Thought exercise:
What's your stance on campaign finance reform? After all - it simply says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" -- does that also apply to corporations funding the campaigns of favored candidates?
That'd be Article 3, Section 2:
Unless you'd care to argue that a court charged with applying the Constitution to all cases before it somehow precludes the court from interpreting the laws as written and applying them to the case under review?
Think new laws might be needed to cover things like... oh, I don't know:
Net Neutrality?
Copyright?
Patents?
I mean, those are three off the top of my head where I can think of people clamoring for new laws for here on Slashdot.
It used to be (until 1975) that 2/3 of the chamber (i.e., 67 votes) were needed to invoke cloture.
Filibuster has a place - especially in making sure that a minority group has its views heard. However, the whole "gentleman's agreement" filibuster should be done away with: tou want to stall the process? You want to filibuster? Great. Make sure one of your supporters is on the floor of the Senate, speaking, and refusing to yield, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It shouldn't be a no-cost operation for any group that wants to do it, it should be a physically & mentally demanding exercise, not something you can phone in by "agreeing" that the filibuster is still going.
It seems that making a filibuster both easier to end (reducing votes required to invoke cloture), and making it easier to conduct (no need to *actually* be there speaking 24x7), it also increases the prevalence of the tactic. I think if they made it a costly operation again, you'd see people use it more sparingly, because both sides would know that it was such an extreme tactic that it would be more productive to actually sit down and try to compromise.
And when they arrive, they'll find a clean, neat, nicely designed city populated with apple users, who will all say, "jeez, what took you guys so long to get here?"
Unfortunately, this concept will only really appeal to geeks, even if it's not being marketed and made "for us."
Probably had nothing better to do, so they figured they'd launch a product almost guaranteed to be a stinking money sink?
That's my guess.
No, I'd like for you to actually show me that your wild-ass guess of 1% is any more accurate than my offhand remark.
You don't think that even a 1% increase in the number of patrols will improve security?
Funny, the "surge" technique which proved so effective in Iraq was an increase of ~15% (130k to ~150k troops), how many more combat patrols do you think that put on the street at any given time? And yet the surge was generally reported as having very positive results in stabilizing the situation.
Huh. Go figure.
Killing does not necessarily equate to "murder," however. Having training in how to fire a handgun or shoot a rifle doesn't make one a murderer anymore than joining the military automatically makes one a murderer.
Yes, you may have to fight and kill someone if you join the military. There's a whole body of legal evidence beyond that that's required to make the case that a particular killing is murder.
I wouldn't disagree with that. There should be far more oversight - by Congress, and the people - in the process.