Those of us who take conservative politics seriously are hurt by association with such absolute idiocy.

JohnGalt23 on April 7, 2009 at 7:21 PM

LOL. Your concept of US sovereignty depends on what others think of the US. That’s brilliant … just brilliant. You sound like a lefty whose self-esteem is based on what others think of you. Pathetic and moronic beyond belief. Get a brain, man.

progressoverpeace on April 7, 2009 at 1:58 PM

I don’t know why I have to mention this, but I considered the amnesty bill to have been treasonous, you can figure out the reasoning, I assume, and said so many, many times.

So you are saying that you think that GWB and any MOC who voted for that bill should be jailed and/or executed on charges of treason? That it just wasn’t bad politics, but rather a deliberate attempt to levy war against the US, or giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US? Are we now saying the state of Mexico is the enemy of the US?

Once again, just stop. Those of us who take conservative politics seriously are hurt by association with such absolute idiocy.

You cannot stop individuals from wielding force against the US, and you can call them criminals all you want, but they are at war with the US in no way different than any nation with the same capabilities.

Re This and all your other talk about sovereignty:

They are clearly different from nation-states. We can make treaties with nation-states. Our State Dept. can maintain diplomatic relations with other nations, and maintain embassies there, as well as allow them to maintain embassies here.

We cannot do that with individuals or extra-national entities. Think about what happens if we start doing that. Are we going to grant Richard Branson an embassy? Open diplomatic negotiations with al Qaeda? And if we do that, do we grant the Microsoft Corp. the right to open an embassy in Moscow? Maybe you’d like George Soros to maintain a diplomatic office and engaging in foreign policy? Does that sound good to you?

US sovereignty, despite your fantasies, is dependent on an international system that recognizes and respects national sovereignty. If a new system develops that ceases to recognize the nation-state as the supreme entity in an anarchic system, then you can pledge allegiance to the US all you want, but you will be pledging allegiance to a corpse.

As far as calling the mythical dude with a sub and two nukes a criminal, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you presuppose that he was threatening the US with them? Sounds to me like that mythical guy was violating any number of provisions of the US Code… perhaps Title 18, Chapt. 5 (attempted arson), Chapt. 7 (assault), Chapt. 19, sec. 373 (conspiracy to solicit a crime of violence… unless of course he is operating that mythical submarine by himself).

The list goes on an on. Finding that guy to be a criminal is really no problem. Of course, the alternative is to recognize what he is doing as war… which arguably makes him a soldier.

I notice that you didn’t list your authorities on the relationship between sovereignty and the nation-state system, or lack thereof. Trust me, they are out there, and some of them actually have some cachet. But the fact that you won’t tells me that you don’t know who they are, or what their reasoning is.

Which makes me wonder just who it is that doesn’t understand national sovereignty.

Less than a year after the phrase “Peace for our time” was uttered on 30 September 1938, the world was plunged into one of the most devastating wars in history. Those of us who believe ignoring history is like skydiving without a parachute will recal…

None of the killings you just mentioned (Israelite or Islamic) are ‘murder’ because within those forms of government the killing is prescribed by the law.

YiZhangZhe on April 7, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Perhaps I should clarify: Those killings would be murder in the USA today because a different law applies in the USA … but in places where the law of the land did or does prescribe death as the penalty for blasphemy, apostasy or wearing odd socks then the resulting death cannot be murder.

People wank on and on about Islam being “submit or die” yet in the Bible God instructs people to kill people of other religions (who have not submitted to God), people who commit blasphemy (who have not submitted to God’s rules), etc etc etc.

The similarity is obvious if you have a shred of objectivity or common sense.

Dave Rywall on April 7, 2009 at 1:27 PM

There is a similarity between those things, I agree, and I think I understand the point you are trying to make. However you are rendering your argument ineffective by misusing the terms. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

None of the killings you just mentioned (Israelite or Islamic) are ‘murder’ because within those forms of government the killing is prescribed by the law.

Whether we think those laws or their penalties are justifiable or constructive, are different questions.

Basically, I think you could argue more persuasively if you take a couple of steps back from your words and then think more precisely about the point you are trying to make.

The table was set for Obama to do so by GWB. And yet you call Obama a traitor, but not Bush.

It is this type of intellectual hypocrisy that allows the left to paint all conservatives as fools. And I for one do not like it.

JohnGalt23 on April 7, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I don’t know why I have to mention this, but I considered the amnesty bill to have been treasonous, you can figure out the reasoning, I assume, and said so many, many times.

My recognition that the US can be at war with non-states is not a globalist view (I don’t know where you get that from). My view of American sovereignty is quite independent of the construction of the rest of the world. They can do whatever they want. That has nothing to do with US sovereignty and its meaning, because we determine what sovereignty means and we have to fight for it (unfortunately many have been giving our sovereignty away for various, though equally idiotic, reasons).

Your claim: “And it is, BTW, at the root of what we would call sovereignty. Nation-states are the sole legitimate purveyors of force in the int’l system, a line of thought going back to the Treaty of Westphalia, and recognized by thinkers like Hans Morgenthau, Max Weber, George Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr.”

You cannot stop individuals from wielding force against the US, and you can call them criminals all you want, but they are at war with the US in no way different than any nation with the same capabilities.

When you said, “Even if he successfully uses those nukes, he does not threaten our national integrity.”

You cannot have a threat to our national integrity be the determining factor. There are nation-states that cannot threaten our national integrity (or can only do it with our consent, insofar as we don’t just take the threat out when we easily can) but that wouldn’t you stop even you from saying that if they declare war on us then we can be at war with them. You are fast and loose with the “criminal” label, especially as we do not have a police force whose jurisdiction is outside of the US, other than our military and spy operations. Further, a criminal violating what law? There is no such thing as international law. There are international treaties (most of which aren’t worth the paper they’re written on) but there is no “international law” to be a criminal in.

Finally, “So, when you said that Geneva is a joke that was never taken seriously by anyone, were you lying, or merely writing faster than your brain could keep up with?”

It was not taken seriously until power started seeping from the US towards international treaties and organizations that were not taken seriously during the Cold War. That wasn’t all that long ago, and it took a while until the real effect of this change started being felt, which was not until very recently – over the past few years. So, yes, they were never taken seriously until recently …

I’m not sure that you understand what national sovereignty means if you think that US sovereignty is dependent on any structures outside of the US. I mean, come on. I don’t care if the rest of the world is one big super-state, or is broken up into little chaotic bands with no real organization, or anything in between, US sovereignty still means the same thing.

It is a legal term, not a moral term, and there are THREE conditions that must be met:

(1) The victim must die.
(2) The death must be unlawful (not directed or permitted by law).
(3) The kill must have been intentional and planned in advance of the act (premeditated).

Most of your examples satisfy only conditions (1) and (3) and therefore cannot possibly be examples of murder.

Moreover, since ‘God’ as understood by Christians/Jews/Muslims and similar ideologies is the source and arbiter of the law it is rather tricky to rationally argue that such a God is guilty of murder since condition (2) can never be satisfied.

YiZhangZhe on April 7, 2009 at 12:11 PM
———-

#2 is most certainly satisfied over and over and over.

People wank on and on about Islam being “submit or die” yet in the Bible God instructs people to kill people of other religions (who have not submitted to God), people who commit blasphemy (who have not submitted to God’s rules), etc etc etc.

The similarity is obvious if you have a shred of objectivity or common sense.

progressoverpeace on April 7, 2009 at 6:15 AM

Of course I am using the word “war” as plain English and not in reference to a Congressional declaration of war.

Taking a term of foreign policy art, watering it down, cheapening it, and thereby expanding it to the point where anyone can make it mean whatever they want.

How wonderfully post-modern of you.

We haven’t had a declared war since WWII. Do you get all hot and bothered about calling all of the military actions taken in the meantime to have been “wars”?

You bet I do. I maintain vigilance against sloppy use of language, esp. where that sloppiness degrades us as a nation.

Really? Says who? Pakistan claims, itself, that it has no sovereign control of Waziristan, so what nation is that area? Of course you will say, “Pakistan”, but that nation claims that its sovereignty doesn’t extend to be able to control events in the Waziri area.

Brings up the “failed state” problem, much like Afghanistan (as will Somalia, sooner or later). That does presnt a problemm, I’ll admit.

However, that problem doesn’t cover claims of being at “war with Islam”, or “war on terror”. If you are going to claim that any nation that houses Islamists or terrorists (a definition , once again, without a bottom, as you have already admitted), is a failed state, then let’s chuck the whole notion of nation-states, and start pledging allegiance to something that makes some sense.

That bolded part is just incorrect. Period. If a guy gets two nukes and a sub and declares war on the US (as Bin Laden did, without the sub or the nukes, thank G-d) then that GROUP is at war with us and we need to respond to that group with a war.

Nonsense. That man is a criminal. That he has nukes may necessitate some extraordinary means to get him, but he is not a soldier, and he is incapable of waging war. Even if he successfully uses those nukes, he does not threaten our national integrity.

Just because you say that individuals and groups aren’t allowed to declare war (and act on it) on the US doesn’t stop them from doing so.

That’s not just me. That is the bulk of the foreign policy establishment in both the Us and much of Western Europe. And it is, BTW, at the root of what we would call sovereignty. Nation-states are the sole legitimate purveyors of force in the int’l system, a line of thought going back to the Treaty of Westphalia, and recognized by thinkers like Hans Morgenthau, Max Weber, George Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr.

Those are my authorities on the subject. Perhaps you would care to list yours?

People only really started entertaining some seriousness in Geneva (or the UN) after the fall of the Soviets

So, when you said that Geneva is a joke that was never taken seriously by anyone, were you lying, or merely writing faster than your brain could keep up with?

Bush Sr. idiotically empowered the UN with the first Gulf War (not a war, by your estimate, I guess – both for lack of the Congressional declaration and because who fights against a body of water … heh) and Geneva started making its way, later, into more serious aspects of our judiciary.

Not a legal war, because of the lack of Congressional declaration (maybe you are learning something). At least you are now backing off the idiotic claim that nobody took Geneva seriously.

Of course, our SCOTUS also got more favorable views of the laws of other nations, to back up their points, so this whole globalization was moving on all fronts.

And why shouldn’t they? People like you have accepted the globalist nonsense like waging war on non-state actors, so the SCOTUS naturally felt it could push globalist ideas like integrating laws other than US code into their decisions.

Do you see where your slippery slope is taking this nation?

BTW, since we are a party to Geneva, I have little (I won’t say none) problem with them using Geneva in their decisions. Whether I like it or not, legally binding treaties do become binding on our courts. Where i have problems with the SCOTUS is their use of laws that our Congress had no say in. That is, IMHO, the first step towards national destruction.

He took illegal campaign donations like they were going out of style. We know of some of the money that came from overseas enemies, but most is unknown, though likely also from the same types.

And you have proof that his campaign took money from “overseas enemies”, and that he knew about it and did not return it?!?!

My God, that’s big. Really big!! I mean Alger Hiss big!! I’m sure the RNC, not to mention career prosecutors at the Justice Department would like to know about that.

So why don’t you post a link to proof of those illegal donations from “overseas enemies”, and maybe we can bring the POTUS down.

Or failing the ability to prove that, why don’t you stop making unfounded charges that make conservatives look like dumbasses.

The Precedent is going to destroy the dollar. You’ll love that.

No, the Fed is going to destroy the dollar, as it has been in that process for years now, and was handed that ability by richard Nixon. And no, neither I nor any other American will love it.

First of all, Bush went to war over the objections of the UN

My error. I should have made clear I was referring to Bush I.

I was extremely disappointed that Bush ever went to the UN (which needs to be dissolved), but he didn’t let the UN determine US actions.

Bush I did.

The Precedent, now, will certainly turn US sovereignty over to the UN, more than Bush could ever imagine.

The table was set for Obama to do so by GWB. And yet you call Obama a traitor, but not Bush.

It is this type of intellectual hypocrisy that allows the left to paint all conservatives as fools. And I for one do not like it.

Murder, murder everywhere.

Dave Rywall on April 7, 2009 at 7:56 AM

Murder is defined as premeditated unlawful killing.

It is a legal term, not a moral term, and there are THREE conditions that must be met:

(1) The victim must die.
(2) The death must be unlawful (not directed or permitted by law).
(3) The kill must have been intentional and planned in advance of the act (premeditated).

Most of your examples satisfy only conditions (1) and (3) and therefore cannot possibly be examples of murder.

Moreover, since ‘God’ as understood by Christians/Jews/Muslims and similar ideologies is the source and arbiter of the law it is rather tricky to rationally argue that such a God is guilty of murder since condition (2) can never be satisfied.

right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 10:41 AM
———
God loves sending you guys mixed messages.

Murder, murder everywhere.

Dave Rywall on April 7, 2009 at 7:56 AM

Which makes Jesus all the more significant figure…
Love, Love, everywhere.

My Brother and I against My Cousin; My Cousin and I against the Stranger. Egyptian proverb The longer version of the proverb is even more pointed: I against my brother. My brother and I against our cousin. My brother, my……

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16)

You shall not delay the offering of your harvest and your press. You shall give me the first born of your sons. You must do the same for your oxen and your sheep. (Exodus 22:28-29

The LORD issued the following command to Moses: “Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel.” So Moses ordered Israel’s judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man’s body and into the woman’s stomach. So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9)

You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.’ (Numbers 1:48-51)

Etc

etc

etc

etc

Murder, murder everywhere.

“Let me say this as clearly as I can,” Obama said. “The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical … in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”

“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country,” Obama said.

Combine these statements with this image, as yet unpublished in the MSM, and one gets a very disturbing picture of our president and our country’s future.

The Washington Times notices, the first major news outlet to do so:

The president shows fealty to a Muslim king

Who’s being silly here?

We were at war in WWII. We were at war with Germany, Japan and Italy. Pretty clear, since we actually had A DECLARATION OF WAR!! Written down, in black and white, naming the appropriate parties.

Now, where is the Declaration of War against this amorphous concept known as “terror”? Who are the appropriate parties?

You are tossing around the term “war” as a concept without a bottom. Such naked manipulation of language is usually a tool of the left. You are more like Obama and his crowd than you would care to admit.

Of course I am using the word “war” as plain English and not in reference to a Congressional declaration of war. We haven’t had a declared war since WWII. Do you get all hot and bothered about calling all of the military actions taken in the meantime to have been “wars”? What about the other “undeclared wars” from further back in our history?

Good. So you admit that we use terror.

I have no problem with strategic bombing, or similar sorts of tactics. The US’ oncern in war is to win, not to worry about enemy civilians. I understand the use and reason for our strategic nuclear arsenal and make no bones about the need for it.

Now, should we wage war on ourselves?

Dumbass.

You’re kidding, right? I guess the Cold War must have a been a war declared on cold. Do you have to practice to be this obtuse? I explained how the term “terror” got to be used with respect to arab/persian/muslim enemies in some earlier post. I don’t have the energy to type it all up, again.

and I have news for you, wars can exist without nations). Any two groups can be at war.

No, they can’t.

Yes they can. The word “war” has existed far longer than the notion of nation. I mean, come on, already.

You are talking about using US military might to affect foreign policy. To do so, they must use it against other nations.

Really? Says who? Pakistan claims, itself, that it has no sovereign control of Waziristan, so what nation is that area? Of course you will say, “Pakistan”, but that nation claims that its sovereignty doesn’t extend to be able to control events in the Waziri area. That presents your idea with a bit of a problem, as many nations make these same claims about terrorist organizations (which are many of a large number of independent arab/persian/muslim groups, with a smattering of communists and other misfits). If you want to just hold those whole nations responsible, then I would agree (as that is the price of sovereignty), but no one is doing that – yourself included.

BTW, how do our covert operations fit into your theory?

If you grant the right of extra-national entities to “wage war”, then you have, by definition, degraded the power of the US… that power being the sole entity able to legitimately use force.

Not at all. Recognition of reality does not do anything to degrade the US, in any way. There are trans-national groups that operate out of many nations, with the command structure of the group not being that of any of the individual nations and yet getting certain amounts of help from each of these nations, ranging from extensions of free movement to active military support.

It does not matter to the US what the exact organization of our enemy is, only that we are able to remove the threat posed by that enemy. In that pursuit, US citizens are to be valued above all non-citizens and the interests of the US are not to be interfered with by extra-national parties, of any type. Unfortunately, the US has long moved away from this simple idea, last shown in WWII and only hanging by a thread in the ultimate threat of strategic nuclear arsenal (though the idiot messiah is dying to get rid of it – which he’ll do by showing that it violates the moronic Geneva Conventions, which it does though anyone with a brain knows that those Conventions describe play war unrelated to what happens in reality).

But, to get back to your idea that recognition of non-state entities degrades the US, I would simply state that the whole of the world outside of the US can change into whatever systems they desire and that would not change the nature or power of the US, as it is derived from the Constitution.

But, generally I would agree with you. Any country that harbors or helps terrorist orgs that are enemies of the US should have war declared on them. The fact that that is not going to happen doesn’t change the fact that WAR is being waged against us. Call it whatever you want, but that’s what it is.

Now, that may be fine for the globaloney crowd in London, New York and Zurich, but those of us who believe in US sovereignty respect the current nation-state system. As such, the authority to “wage war” properly belongs solely to nation-states.

So, which side are you on?

That bolded part is just incorrect. Period. If a guy gets two nukes and a sub and declares war on the US (as Bin Laden did, without the sub or the nukes, thank G-d) then that GROUP is at war with us and we need to respond to that group with a war. If they go into nations that help them, or hinder us, then those nations are part of that war.

Just because you say that individuals and groups aren’t allowed to declare war (and act on it) on the US doesn’t stop them from doing so.

Geneva is a joke that was never taken seriously by anyone.

Yeah… that’s why there were debates in Congress, and cases filed all over federal courts using Geneva as their basis. A joke that nobody only dumbasses never took seriously.

Dumbass.

Brilliant, galt. Name one country that has ever followed the Geneva Conventions. Our strategic nuclear arsenal violates them, though only a total dumbass would side with Geneva over our nukes. People only really started entertaining some seriousness in Geneva (or the UN) after the fall of the Soviets (before which the interaction of us and the Soviets decided the rules, as it was a duel on the edge of annihilation). Bush Sr. idiotically empowered the UN with the first Gulf War (not a war, by your estimate, I guess – both for lack of the Congressional declaration and because who fights against a body of water … heh) and Geneva started making its way, later, into more serious aspects of our judiciary. Of course, our SCOTUS also got more favorable views of the laws of other nations, to back up their points, so this whole globalization was moving on all fronts.

That’s all true, but this is a level well beyond anything before. You do understand the big difference, here?

No, I don’t. Did he give foreign governments a seat in Congress, or in his cabinet?

He took illegal campaign donations like they were going out of style. We know of some of the money that came from overseas enemies, but most is unknown, though likely also from the same types. The illegal nature of BHO’s campaign financing is no secret. There were threads here with people talking about how they had just donated money with all sorts of names and addresses to the campaign.

Did he change our monetary standards like Truman and Nixon did?

The Precedent is going to destroy the dollar. You’ll love that.

Did he hand over war-making decisions to the UN like the Bush cabal?

First of all, Bush went to war over the objections of the UN. I was extremely disappointed that Bush ever went to the UN (which needs to be dissolved), but he didn’t let the UN determine US actions. Unfortunately, Bush was a lover of the UN and did empower them more, especially during his awful left-leaning second term.
The Precedent, now, will certainly turn US sovereignty over to the UN, more than Bush could ever imagine. He just handed much of our financial regulatory framework over to the Euros.

Once again, stop the partisan histrionics. Hold Obama to the same standards you would hold members of your own party to.

more after supper

JohnGalt23 on April 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM

I do.