Can't you point to pretty much any program that successive administrations have force-fed to the American people and demonstrate how it's all about the money.

Defence? Certainly doesn't go to the troops, no it goes to incredibly expensive experimental projects that never seem to pan out. Yet somehow the companies that fail to deliver time after time keep getting more money to spend on new projects.

Law and Order? Yeah, that's all about locking people away for the maximum time possible in corporate-run penitentiaries, not about reducing crime at all.

School reform? Charter schools baby! They may not be any better for kids (in fact they're worse) but it's finally an opportunity for Corporate America to make some bucks off of public schooling, yee ha!

History has proven that the law is NOT sacrosanct, especially with regards to certain groups. You talk about slavery; well for decades after slavery it was against the law to kill black men, yet they were murdered often, with the killers not serving a day. In Florida, it is this history that people remember when they think of Martin.

It's already Mad Max time with people like Zimmerman walking around, and those two characters in Tulsa that killed several random black men just because they were black. The question is, can the so called justice system in our country get things back to law and order.>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^longde:
I don't think he will walk due to that law unless you have a cowboy of a judge. It's simply the easy path to send the case to a jury. And Zimmy has told so many lies to the police and to the public, he will be he will look very bad in front of a jury.>> ^cosmovitelli:
He's going to walk. It's the law in Florida that if you're frightened you can kill someone. He only has to say he was, and they can't touch him for it.


Yeah but this is my point.. Even a jury trial can't just decide to punish someone, the judge has to rule that they have broken the law first. You might not like the guy in the dock and have numerous reasons for wanting to lock him up but THE LAW IS SACROSANCT. You have to demonstrate that he broke it. During slavery, it was in some places and at some times not against the law to kill a black person. Therefore, no matter how outraged the jury, they COULDN'T TOUCH HIM.
So this is the problem - if they go against the law to send him to jail they've destroyed the sanctity of the law that 300 years of liberal intellectuals have created and protected, sometimes with their lives.
If they let him go it's Mad Max time and there'll be a hundred more of these in the next few years.
This is what happens when men of low character get to write laws. It's happened many times before. And it's never led to anything that lasted long afterwards.
Here's hoping they can figure it out.

GM - You appeal to convention to convey a message then reject what that convention is in favour of your own definition.

If you feel so strongly about Obama that you feel the need to co-opt the ill sentiment behind a historical political movement without adhering to the content of that phenomenon then it is futile to try to communicate with you in any meaningful way.

Internal violence directed against dissent and political adversaries is an essential element of fascism. Militarism is ubiquitous throughout developed nations and as such it is a comparative term. Is the USA more militaristic that other nations? Externally it is but internally it is not. The civilian police force maintain law and order. Is it authoritarian? Hardly. The US's fetishisation of liberty makes that near impossible. Social unity? You are way off there.

You need to read your history more in order to understand why things are the way they are and why terminology is the way it is. You can't just use words to convey a meaning without knowing what it will mean to other people.

I knew this would happen.

Also, Law and Order: SVU is a primer for child molesters and rapists.

I will get back to you on this soon. Some good points to address.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.

When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.

However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.

Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@NetRunner
@bcglorf
I think it might be useful to look at the case of Jose Padilla. Remember him? Accused of plotting a radiological bomb attack in the U.S., later classified by Bush as an enemy combatant, later again return to the criminal court system (and subsequently convicted of conspiring to engage in terrorist activity).
The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court. In other words, although the AUMF grants the President wide powers in determining who is associated with the attacks on 9/11 (or future attacks), those powers don't trump the Constitution.
As far as I can tell in this case, al-Awlaki was never given the chance to challenge his status in court. He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.
BUT, as @NetRunner point out, in the current judicial climate, if this were ever to make it before the courts (it never will), it is a crap shoot as to which way the cards will fall on the issue. The courts seem to be leaning more towards strengthening Presidential authority than weakening it, in particular when it comes to the area of National Security.
EDIT: Originally typed "civil court" when I meant "criminal court."


I think all of us that don't outright oppose the death here are ALL agreed a court hearing and prosecution would have been infinitely preferable. We are saying the reality is that was NEVER going to happen, ever. In that reality, what do you do about a man supporting the murder of people from the safety of a lawless region of a country where anyone even suspected of sympathizing with our idea of law and order would be killed?

As was pointed out up thread, if you oppose this, propose an alternative?

Presumably not killing him, no? That means owning and accepting that he can act from Yemen's fringes with impunity trying to murder innocent civilians abroad, and the right course of action for us is not to act, even though we have the ability to stop him with a drone attack. Own that and we at least have a disagreement on the principles and not the fundamental facts and nature of the problem.

5. Mariska Hargitay - Law and Order SVU

>> ^longde:

One thing that I pointed out to a former professor, is that the threat of retaliation is never accounted for in the simple game theory model. For the prisoner's dilemna, I called it the "threat of being shanked" if one chooses to squeal.
As we see in the video, the emotional response to being played is a deep one that can lead to a Law and Order episode.
As mentioned above, repeating the game a few times would somewhat account for the consequences of uncooperative behavior.


The threat of being shanked is truly a part of more sophisticated game theory - "Reiterated Prisoner's Dilemma" is what you're referring to and it's much more biologically accurate, most notably for predicting whether organisms will cooperate or not in mutualistic or commensal associations whereby they have to interact over and over, so something like you saw here would NOT go unpunished.

One thing that I pointed out to a former professor, is that the threat of retaliation is never accounted for in the simple game theory model. For the prisoner's dilemna, I called it the "threat of being shanked" if one chooses to squeal.

As we see in the video, the emotional response to being played is a deep one that can lead to a Law and Order episode.

As mentioned above, repeating the game a few times would somewhat account for the consequences of uncooperative behavior.

Scahill summarizes my problem with him early on at the 2 minute mark: I don't care that Muammar Gaddafi is gone.

Let me be clear, I care very deeply that Gaddafi is gone. In fact, that aside most of Scahill's assessment of Libya is agreeable. Of course, the importance of Gaddafi's presence or removal to Libyans can hardly be understated. You simply can not care about the Libyan people and at the same time not care whether or not Gaddafi remained in power.

Scahill goes on to ask how forced regime change fits into international law and order.

The real question is how failing to force regime change against convicted war criminals like Gaddafi and Omar al-Bashir can be justified under international law and order. Every signatory to the convention on genocide is obligated to act to prevent or punish those responsible for committing genocide. Where is the outrage with all the nations that FAILED to support the mission in Libya to stop Gaddafi's promised genocide? Where is the outrage with all the nations STILL FAILING to punish Omar al-Bashir for what he order done in Darfur?

The fallacy here is that only actions should require justification, while inaction never requires any justification at all.

>> ^jwray:

In a state of anarchy there is very little freedom due to mob justice, tribal warfare, etc. Governments "provide" freedom by preventing people from hurting other people, and possibly subsidizing the bare necessities of existence so that adhesion to the will of an employer is not backed by the threat of death. The starvation of the homeless is murder by omission rather than murder by comission. A minimum of safety net is necessary to enable having a truly free market without burdening the conscience. Here in the USA we have it backwards, focusing on chastizing employers for layoffs, even if those jobs were obsolete or inefficient and the economy would be better served by employing those people elsewhere. When a layoff is less ruinous for the individual, employers are under less pressure to diverge from doing what is necessary to be maximally efficient.


You're not talking about freedom; you're talking about law and order. No angry mob or rival tribe can take away freedom of speech. I can be censored, threatened, bribed, assaulted or even killed, but my freedom can not be taken away. Only I can choose not to speak freely.

If you want to argue that certain governments are more freedom-friendly, then yes, that's absolutely true, but they do not give anyone freedom.