Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Trump can be barred from holding office
That’s CNN’s headline anyway. We’ll have to wait and see what SCOTUS really decide. After all the legal question can certainly be narrowed to: “can CO block him from the ballot using the method they followed” might be all they do. This is not identical to “can [Trump] be barred from holding office”. There is a relationship, but legalities permit some dodging and weaving here.
Here’s what the body of the article says:
The US Supreme Court said Friday it will review the Colorado Supreme Court’s unprecedented decision removing former President Donald Trump from that state’s ballot.
Update: I’ve updated the theme because the old one didn’t work with php 8+. The theme will be changing, I’m trying to prioritize functionality first. I’ll change the theme later.
Continue discussion here
Steve,
Yup.
mark bofill,
.
Thanks.
.
I find the idea that states can ban candidates they don’t like not much different from the Confederate states declaring they would exit the union.
.
The SC needs to stop this, clearly and completely. Otherwise, we are doomed to undergo ever more complete division, left vs right, red vs blue, and maybe civil war. It is nutty. I hope mealy-mouth Roberts understands the gravity of the issue…. but I fear he is a complete coward, and have little confidence he will insist on a sane ruling.
SteveF (Comment #227767): “I find the idea that states can ban candidates they don’t like not much different from the Confederate states declaring they would exit the union.”
.
Excellent point. Of course, the objective of Section 3 was to give the federal government a say over the choices of states in filling offices. To say that is gives states control over running for national office is inane. As well as being dangerous and destructive of representative government.
It will be interesting to see how the unelected judges on SCOTUS reason to take away states’ rights re the ballot issue
The only other instance of -struck- s removing candidates from the ballot was in 1860 when 10 soon to be confederate -struck- s kept Lincoln off their ballots. Do modern dems feel comfortable following a Confederate precedent?
Insert by Lucia: This claim is evidently false. For more read
https://www.upworthy.com/abraham-lincoln-was-not-barred-from-the-ballot-by-10-southern-states-in-1860
Joshua,
I’m surprised to read you advocating states rights. Or are you just expressing sarcasm?
Mark –
.
Maybe more sardonic than sarcastic. But I don’t have a dichotomous take on states’ rights. I see advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the ledger and I see a carefully considered balance as least sub-optimal. What I find amusing is how strong advocates on both sides twist themselves into knots to convince themselves that they’re being consistent within a dichotomous framing in order to justify reverse engineering what’s actually flip-flopping, ends justify the means reasoning.
SteveF (Comment #227764)
“Apparently the SC justices are not completely disconnected from reality. Let’s see: hear the case February 8, rule on it…. June 8, July 8? March 1 would be sensible.”
–
The partisan divide in the Supreme Court means a 6/3 split in favor of trump is the most likely outcome.
The other options are 4/5 split with John Roberts also declaring an insurrection.
Or, in a bizarre move one of the 3 newly elected Judges going with Roberts and the Democrats to remove Trumps rights.
–
There is no chance of 9/0 recognition of Trump’s rights.
None.
This has been made clear in every politically correct decision raised . 6/3.
Roberts is a RINO and quite keen to get rid of Trump but also I hope astute enough to not rock the boat.
However if there is another turncoat then he will be leading the charge for a 5/4 against Trump.
This is one of the ways the establishment was hoping to take Trump down but his increasing popularity and the distaste of lawfare might overcome the plan..
–
As for Supreme Court judges being unelected there are elections for possibly half of other American Judges . The Supreme court Judges are nominated by the President and his party and confirmed by the Senate.
Since the People nominating them and confirming them are elected and exercising the powers that the electors gave them it is technically correct but churlish to mention that they are not directly elected.
angech,
I believe the most likely Supreme Court vote is 7/2 or 8/1 against Colorado, with at least Kagan (the most sensible and intelligent of the three liberals) joining the majority. I put the chance of 4/5 (removing Trump from the ballot in many states) at very close to zero. If it does go that way, I may purchase a gun for the first time in my life, because I think that outcome could lead to civil war.
Joshua:
The states do not have the right to change the date of election of Federal candidates. They do not have the right to lower the age of a Presidential candidate below 35. They do not have the right to allow a foreign born person run for President.
Do you think it would have been ok for 1/2 the states to remove Obama from the ballot – based on the evidence that Obama was not natural born? It was really only an opinion – and only backed up with hunches and speculation (kind of like Trump being an insurrectionist).
No – it is not flip flopping to allow the states to do what they are allowed to do – but allow the Feds to do what they are allowed to do.
Just one person’s opinion (of course).
angech:
I actually think there is a strong possibility of a 9-0 ruling in favor of Trump on the ballot issue. The democrat leaning justices only have to think about the shoe being on the other foot to see how dangerous the CO reasoning is.
It would be easy for any state to find insurrection or rebellion just be thinking the President was not faithfully executing a law. Think how often that happens – on both sides. Then you could prevent any President from running for a 2nd term. Or you could prevent any candidate who you think violated their oath of office from running. I remember when Congress failed to do a budget for like 6 years straight – I think it reasonable that one could find that a violation of their oath of office. Do we really want states removing people from a ballot based on political opinion? I think not – and I suspect all 9 justices would agree. We will see. I think this is an easy case against CO (and Maine).
If Trump was not convicted of insurrection by the Senate or under a law Congress passed, he cannot be removed. Period. A state supreme courts opinion that Trump should have been convicted of insurrection is just that – an opinion – and not legally binding on the USA. CO massively overstepped and will be shot down – hopefully 9-0.
RickA
The constitution gives the states legislatures the right to “direct” the way in which electors are selected.
.
CO hasn’t tried to do this. And if their rule tried to change the election date or insist that only foreign born people can be on the ballot, it would surely be thrown out.
.
Instead, they have organized their method of selecting electors (primary process and general election) to ensure that unqualified candidates cannot get on the ballot. That is: they have organized things to try to enforce the rules in the constitution.
.
And CO used that to keep a foreign born person from getting on the ballot. Maybe there is some reason they can’t do this, or they did it in a wrong way, or something. But the US constitution does explicitly give States the right or power (depending on how you look at it) to select electors as they see fit.
.
Heck, it may be the legislature could just write a law that says “We’ll vote to pick electors.” No State does that, but I think they could.
.
We don’t want it if it’s done arbitrarily. But I think it’s fair to allow them remove foreign born candidates who can’t serve. If Arnold were the candidate, I don’t think removing him would be controversial. Everyone would say “of coures!”
.
The issues are: due process? Is the president covered under the insurrection clause Is the clause in the 14th amendment self-whatever…. It’s not “do states have a right to organize how they pick electors”? The certainly have most of this right and you need an very good argument to take it away. “Do we want X” is not a legal argument, nor a constitution one.
.
It is flip-flopping to be for states rights and then utterly ignore an explicit statement in the constitution granting them a very broad right when you don’t like that outcome.
The “we are saving democracy by having partisans on our side kick opponents off the ballot” crowd has spoken, ha ha. Support for this seems to align nearly 100% with previous vehement opposition to a candidate and strongly voiced opinions supporting “democracy”. A very strange and conflicting correlation. What a farce.
.
The SC will need to rule on the law and its unclear how that will pan out. Overall the original agreement was states get to run their own elections. If there is enough ambiguity then they can thread the needle to their desired outcome. I suspect we will end up with verbiage about original intent, previous use, and so forth. My guess is we will see something to the effect that the execution of this clause requires a very high bar and they will set a standard to allow Trump to continue, but also allow Trump to be thrown out if certain conditions are met, perhaps conviction on insurrection charges in a federal court.
Tom Schasrf,
I think a lot of people in this country is suffering from Trump induced psychosis.
Tom
Well that’s ridiculous. All nine should sit.
It’s definitely not a slam dunk legally, it is at best legally ambiguous and untested. A “correct” outcome to prevent disastrous political consequences seems obvious but that is not the SC’s job.
.
I will also state again for the record that I would prefer an outcome where Trump loses but not through the acts of clever partisan lawyers.
I guess I should move this comment:
Rick –
.
I’m certainly not going to be able to add anything of value specific to the context beyond what Lucia already offered.
.
Here’s how I look at the situation more generally. It kind of reflects a general model that I use…
.
I think that the question of states’ rights versus centralized federal power is a fairly complicated one, that requires a delicate balance and a sophisticated evaluation in context.
.
I think that there’s at least some merit to the idea that the CO Supremes would at least evaluate whether someone, that a lower court ruled was involved in an insurrection, could or should be removed from the ballot as a presidential candidate.
.
When someone who is typically a strong advocate for states’ rights says this case is a slam dunk in the other direction, I get skeptical. I don’t have a terribly strong opinion one way or the other on this particular case; I haven’t studied the issues or the relevant laws in sufficient detail to develop a strong opinion. (That Lucia, who seems to have spent some time looking at it in-depth seems to think there’s not an unequivocal answer, reinforces my perspective that it isn’t a slam dunk.)
.
If someone who seems a serious analyst and who generally is at least somewhat equivocal about the balance between states’ rights and centralized federal power were to say this particular case is a slam dunk one way or the other, then I would be likely to attach more weight to such an opinion than if someone who typically is an advocate for states’ rights says that this is a slam dunk in the other direction. The same would apply if someone who is typically a strong advocate for limiting states’ rights were to say that in this case it’s a slam dunk that states’ rights should apply.
.
As I understand it, the CO Supremes didn’t argue that it was a slam dunk, but that this was a decision they didn’t take lightly.
Tom,
I still disagree with this. Literally speaking this is true, it isn’t the job of the court to make decisions solely on the basis of avoiding disastrous political consequences. But I insist that interpretations that lead to disastrous political consequences cannot possibly be correct, unless we’ve arrived at the point where we are willing to say that the only legitimate interpretations of our Constitution lead inevitably to disastrous political consequences, in which case we are already screwed anyway. Personally, I will cling to my faith that there is some legitimate interpretation that does not lead to ruin.
There is an important relationship or correlation between valid interpretations of the Constitution and the political health of our nation, is another way to say this. The two are not independent or exclusive. If they have become so, we’ve lost our way somewhere.
Tom
That could happen. But the idea that states legsilatures don’t have a general power/right to make rules about how candidates can get on the ballot or who can be on the ballot is not one that can pass constitutional muster.
.
Even if you want SCOTUS to make decisions based on outcomes, decreeing states don’t have rights to pick how electors are selected would be a big problem. If states legislatures suddenly don’t have this right or power all of them have been exercising since the founding, what happens to ballots in the other 49 states? Those were all created following rule established in their states. They certainly weren’t put together following some general rules set by Congress (who doesn’t have the power to make those rules anyway!)
.
Decreeing states don’t make rules about how to get the ballot would truly be trampling states rights and powers and wreak havoc. The general right has to stay in place– the issue will be that they still have to follow due process and/or be correct. Yada, yada….
.
mark/tom
The court questions to both sides during a hearing always asks hypotehtical and considers outcome to some extent. Those hypotheticals and outcomes do affect our understanding of what the law means.
.
Certainly, the 14th amendment did not mean that the mere accusation of participating in an insurrection was enough to disqualify a candidate. Nor that anyone and everyone can kick a candidate off. CO Supremes have explained their reasoning– I think it reads pretty well– but the due process dissent hardly ridiculous. Trum and the GOP are presenting their case. We’ll see.
.
But I would be stunned if SCOTUS decreed that States just have no say in who can appears on a ballot at all, nor what the process is for appearing on a ballot.
.
If I lose my bet with SteveF, I’m guessing it’s going to be the “due process” argument. But who knows?
Joshua
Obviously the didn’t take it lightly. The stayed their own ruling– and stayed it in a way it was almost 100% certain to remain stayed. Trump was going to appeal. The timing of his appeal was up to him. No matter what SCOTUS ultimately things, the Feds weren’t going to lift the stay in the 24 hours required to lift it– so Trump is on the ballot.
.
There are some legal issues to be ruled on. But the idea that the CO Supremes did not realize the gravity of this is clearly false.
Well, particularly if they say it’s a slam dunk because States don’t have this right. I mean… read the constitution. They decide how electors are chosen.
I think states have an unclear power to remove candidates regarding insurrection. It’s unclear as to what the requirements are for that to be executed. It’s unclear how much control the feds have over the states interpretation of the Constitution for state elections for federal office. Is it a criminal conviction or can an unelected appointee declare insurrection?
.
Can states just make up any rules they like? It is this last point where Trump can lose, the SC stating that the states are empowered to make this decision, another case of “who gets to decide”. See abortion.
Lucia,
I get this too. It would be appalling in some ways. I don’t know what the answer will be. I hope the Justices find a good one though.
It’s entirely possible, but not likely IMO, the laws on the books allow Trump to be removed from the ballot as is. It is not up to the court to “legislate from the bench” to resolve this. They can also state that Trump can be removed and make clear to the legislature how they can resolve this with new laws that will pass constitutional muster.
.
I suspect that the House and Senate will ultimately pass laws if necessary to allow Trump to run for office if it comes to that. Biden would have a really hard time putting a veto on that.
Lucia,
I am pretty sure the SC will reject the Colorado ruling on multiple grounds, including due process. BTW, I don’t think states have a free hand in ‘choosing electors’; if a state were to pass a law saying that the state legislature gets to pick the electors, not based on election vote totals, or simply refuses to have a presidential ballot at all (so no vote totals), then I expect the SC would block that law, in the name of, well, saving democracy. 😉
.
I really do not see this as a close case at all; 7/2 or more against Colorado. YMMV.
.
Since the Maine case is unlikely to reach the Federal court system any time soon, the ruling in the Colorado case will probably be the only one that matters. If the court rules against Colorado, any Federal judge who hears an appeal of the Maine case will surely put Trump back on the ballot.
Holy smokes! It’s Insurrection Day! I didn’t realize.
Happy Insurrection Day everyone!
I should have gone to the range to observe this day, but I forgot and the weather is icky.
Once again, I can’t seem to post.
.
Maybe I can post in pieces.
I didn’t realize this was the insurrection anniversary either! Ha ha. Aren’t we supposed to lay wreaths on the altar to democracy or something?
Looks like I am not able to post anything of substance. Weird.
There is absolutely no conflict between being a strong advocate for states’ rights and believing that the 14th Amendment does not give states the right to kick people off the ballot. The whole point of that Amendment was to restrict states’ rights and to increase federal power over the states. It is silly to argue that Section 3 expands states’ rights.
.
Section 5 clearly gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to say how the 14th Amendment is to be enforced:
Congress has not passed a law giving states the power to enforce the Amendment. So states do not have that power.
—-
In response to: Joshua (Comment #227800): “When someone who is typically a strong advocate for states’ rights says this case is a slam dunk in the other direction, I get skeptical.”
So, rearranging the post worked.
“if a state were to pass a law saying that the state legislature gets to pick the electors, not based on election vote totals, or simply refuses to have a presidential ballot at all”
.
Biden opponents respond to Florida Democrats canceling presidential preference election
https://flvoicenews.com/biden-opponents-respond-to-florida-democrats-canceling-presidential-preference-election/
“Florida election law specifies that the parties are responsible for submitting candidate names that have qualified for the primary ballot.
Although the secretary of state’s deadline was technically Thursday, the Florida Democrats reportedly sent a notice at the beginning of November detailing that they would only be submitting Biden’s name as an eligible candidate.
A Florida Democratic Party spokesperson told CNN that if only one candidate’s name would appear on the ballot, then the election is canceled.”
.
The parties can just throw people off the ballot in the primary. I wouldn’t expect a party devoted to democracy to make this move, unless of course they were being completely disingenuous and had only raw political motives. We always have the 4th estate to call them out, unless of course …
Lucia:
Yes – the states can either directly appoint electors (a few states did this early on) or set up a voting process for them. But where does it say in the constitution that the states get to pick the people that the party can run for their nomination? Remember – the person winning the Republican nomination is just a candidate in the general – not the winner of the election. Here the state is saying to the Republicans – you cannot even run this person for your nomination. It would be more understandable if they waited until Trump won the nomination – had a hearing to find Trump an insurrectionist and then removed him from the ballot for the general election – but they didn’t even wait to do that. Totally unconstitutional (in my opinion).
Here – the states have set up the voting process, in accordance with the constitution – and then precluded a particular person from running in a primary – not on the basis of an actual conviction of insurrection – but merely based on a feeling of insurrection. No due process was awarded Trump in this process. He didn’t have his day in court – hell Trump was never even charged with insurrection. Even in the 2nd impeachment it was incitement of insurrection and not the act itself. Did Trump urge his followers to overthrow the government? I missed that speech.
So I don’t think there is any conflict or flip flop in states rights here. Yes – states can set up an election. But they cannot then arbitrarily declare certain people cannot run for nomination by certain parties because they don’t like their politics. That is what CO did.
So I think CO will be overturned on this issue. Ditto for Maine (which is even worse – since it was the executive branch declaring it and not even the judicial branch).
But that is just one person’s opinion. I am hoping for a 9-0 for Trump.
It would be interesting if a state tested the theory that they can control who can run. It would be interesting to see how these restrictions would fair:
1. No people of a certain skin color can run in the Federal election.
2. No people of a certain sex can run in the Federal election.
3. No former single term President can run.
4. No people of a certain religion can run.
5. No people convicted of a felony can run.
6. No people charged with a felony can run.
7. Why not – no people of a certain party can run.
And so forth. I mean – where would it stop? I don’t think this is a tenable legal theory and I agree with SteveF. CO will be struct down on multiple grounds:
1. No due process to Trump – he didn’t have his day in court.
2. He is not an officer under the 14th amendment.
3. He was not convicted of insurrection – so the 3rd clause doesn’t apply.
4. Only Congress has the power under the 14th amendment – not CO.
That is all I can think of now – but I am sure there are other grounds.
Newsweek had an interesting article out. The CIA looks to be trying to spin the info war more to their benefit, ie: “it’s not our fault!”.
.
Exclusive: The CIA’s Blind Spot about the Ukraine War
.
https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html
.
Interesting commentary on this Newsweek article
..
Under the Radar: Major CIA Revelations Expose Secret Agreements and Boundaries in Ukraine
.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/under-the-radar-major-cia-revelations?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=140375775&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3NDAxMzM5NCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQwMzc1Nzc1LCJpYXQiOjE3MDQ1MTQ5MTMsImV4cCI6MTcwNzEwNjkxMywiaXNzIjoicHViLTEzNTEyNzQiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.W-pJPHuUnUrEJtTKmxbqvm2NdMeXBVTNTYf2DWH-YOs&r=182d3m&utm_medium=email
.
Both are highly recommended reading on the real world practice of realpolitik that is the basis of political agendas and agreements among nations.
.
One point:
“In fact, I’m fairly well taken aback that they’re even so openly making such large admissions. The CIA usually doesn’t talk about the CIA unless there’s an advantageous angle to it.
.
And that angle could very well be their attempt to distance themselves from an increasingly erratic and unpredictable Ukrainian ‘mad dog’, which has increasingly gone ‘off the leash’, refusing to play by those previously established rules. The article goes on to highlight this next:
.
One crisis was averted. But a new one was brewing. Strikes inside Russia were continuing and even increasing, contrary to the fundamental U.S. condition for supporting Ukraine. There was a mysterious spate of assassinations and acts of sabotage inside Russia, some occurring in and around Moscow. Some of the attacks, the CIA concluded, were domestic in origin, undertaken by a nascent Russian opposition. But others were the work of Ukraine—even if analysts were unsure of the extent of Zelensky’s direction or involvement.
.
Given the above, could the CIA have been using such publications to absolve itself? This would further play into the chief theme that the CIA is very diligently trying to signal its ‘gentlemanly’ intentions to Russia so that no misunderstandings or un-planned escalations can occur.”
.
Rick –
.
> And so forth. I mean – where would it stop
.
I would suggest that one place where it might stop is when someone is found by a court to be in a group of people (insurrectionists) who have been explicitly codified into law as being ineligible for the presidency.
mark bofill,
“I should have gone to the range to observe this day, but I forgot and the weather is icky.”
.
That gave me a laugh… thanks.
Joshua,
Finding someone to be a criminal always requires a trial and jury verdict. Trump is not going to be removed from any ballots.
More history. Gandhi, post-War continued to believe in not establishing a Jewish state on the backing of Western power but instead believed that they should appeal to Arab generosity. While one might find his positions ridiculous, this was also an observation of Nahum Goldmann, a Zionist leader, in the Jewish Paradox.
Steve –
I’m not going to support nor denounce the lower court finding. I’m neither informed on the broader legal issues nor informed on the particular court finding.
I’m not convinced that Trump (I tend to think not) was an “insurrectionist” but I also don’t think it’s a complete non-starter of a question. But given the lower court finding, there’s an obvious answer to Rick’s questions.
The qualifications to be President are enumerated in the Constitution. One of those is you can’t be an insurrectionist. It’s enumerated so it applies (to the extent that it applies to the President, due process, blah blah blah). If the alleged infraction is not in the list for or against then it doesn’t apply. Incarcerated sociopath serial killers who promise to nuke the world the first day in office can run for President. It just turns out many of the conditions are definitive in nature such as age, natural born citizen, etc. One of the actual points of democracy is a system to prevent the political machinery in power from using the levers of the state to fix elections because that is the known natural impulse of humans.
The idea that states can set any controls on election requirements that they wish is absurd and settled case law.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-4/clause-1/role-of-the-states-in-regulating-federal-elections
“But the Court distinguished state laws that go beyond “protection of the integrity and regularity of the election process,” and instead operate to disadvantage a particular class of candidates.”
.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 835 (1995).
“Respondent Hill filed this suit in Arkansas state court challenging the constitutionality of § 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibits the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The trial court held that § 3 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. A plurality of the latter court concluded that the States have no authority “to change, add to, or diminish” the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, and rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is constitutional because it is formulated as a ballot access restriction rather than an outright disqualification of congressional incumbents.
Held: Section 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution violates the Federal Constitution. Pp. 787-838..”
.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/
I will also add, as stated several times before, that the president is not an “officer” as noted for “insurrection”, also by settled case law.
Tom Scharf,
“One of the actual points of democracy is a system to prevent the political machinery in power from using the levers of the state to fix elections because that is the known natural impulse of humans.”
.
Indeed. Trump’s opponents are doing their best to use the “levers of state” to make it impossible for Trump to be elected. I understand the motivation (he is an asshole!), but the means are destructive and contrary to the need to preserve the union…. not to mention causing ever greater partisan division.
Ed –
.
> January 6th, 2024 at 3:03 pm
The idea that states can set any controls on election requirements that they wish is absurd
.
Based on that comment, it seems you’re suggesting someone here (elsewhere?) made that argument. Would you mind providing a link?
Joshua (Comment #227835)
January 6th, 2024 at 3:35
Link?
.
One of many, this is the latest. Again, states are very limited to control who can be on a ballet.
.
.
lucia (Comment #227805)
January 6th, 2024 at 11:54 am
Tom
My guess is we will see something to the effect that the execution of this clause requires a very high bar and they will set a standard to allow Trump to continue, but also allow Trump to be thrown out if certain conditions are met, perhaps conviction on insurrection charges in a federal court.
That could happen. But the idea that states legsilatures don’t have a general power/right to make rules about how candidates can get on the ballot or who can be on the ballot is not one that can pass constitutional muster.
.
Even if you want SCOTUS to make decisions based on outcomes, decreeing states don’t have rights to pick how electors are selected would be a big problem. If states legislatures suddenly don’t have this right or power all of them have been exercising since the founding, what happens to ballots in the other 49 states? Those were all created following rule established in their states. They certainly weren’t put together following some general rules set by Congress (who doesn’t have the power to make those rules anyway!)
.
Decreeing states don’t make rules about how to get the ballot would truly be trampling states rights and powers and wreak havoc. The general right has to stay in place– the issue will be that they still have to follow due process and/or be correct. Yada, yada….
Ed Forbes
I have the same question Joshua has. Ill go further: no one has made that claim here. So: Strawman.
RickA
I don’t see how those would be interesting at all. I think the more interesting one is “Can states keep someone under 25 off the ballot?”
Ok, Ed:
You are going to have to define what you mean by “any” in
WRT to one possible meaning:
I’d love to see your settled law that states can’t set any controls whatsoever on election requirements. They can set controls and all of them do. This has been going on for a long time.
WRT to the other: I certainly didn’t say they can set arbitrary controls. It appears they could just decree their process for picking electors is the legislature just picks them.
Lucia,
Ok, will go deeper on this
.
My statement “The idea that states can set any controls on election requirements that they wish is absurd and settled case law.”
is correct.
.
Your statement “Decreeing states don’t make rules about how to get the ballot would truly be trampling states rights and powers and wreak havoc. The general right has to stay in place– the issue will be that they still have to follow due process and/or be correct. Yada, yada….”
.
There is NO general right for the states to control who is on the ballot. For federal elections, the states MUST use federal and US constitutional rules on access to the ballot. The case cited is clear on this point.
Ed
First:
” The idea that states can set any controls on election requirements that they wish is absurd and settled case law.” != “There is NO general right for the states to control who is on the ballot.”
.
You can’t make your claims correct by making an entirely different claim.
.
Second: “There is NO general right for the states to control who is on the ballot.” I now have no idea what you mean by “general right”. Nothing in the case you cited said states couldn’t keep people younger than 25 off the ballot for the president of the US.
.
Sure. And the case did not say they couldn’t keep someone younger than 25 off the ballot.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/
.
What they say is the datens can’t “change, add to, or diminish” the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses”. The AK attempted to do this and wanted to “disguise” that they were doing this by making it a ballot access measure.
.
If they can’t do something, they can’t do it by making it a ballot measure.
.
But nothing in that case says States can’t enforce the the requirements in the US constitution, nor that they can’t enforce requiremetns actually in the constitution by means of ballot access.
.
Lucia,
Referring to
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
.
The states are only allowed to make rules in federal elections on powers given to them under the US constitution, and these state rules can be superseded by congress in any way congress requires.
Per the US constitution, the only items that states can make rules on
are “Times, Places and Manner”.
.
Note that “qualifications” is not on the list of items that a state my make rules on.
.
Federal elections are solely under the provenance of the federal government and the states only have power over federal elections to the extent that congress allows.
Tom Scharf (Comment #227831): “One of the actual points of democracy is a system to prevent the political machinery in power from using the levers of the state to fix elections because that is the known natural impulse of humans.”
.
Indeed. The key issue here is who gets to decide. The people are sovereign, so the people decide. The only exception should be if there is no question as to whether a qualification is met. But I would prefer to not even make that exception.
.
The Article 2 qualifications for President do not hand the power to decide to bureaucrats or courts. That does not mean they have no effect. If Arnold Schwarzenegger were to run, he would never get much support because most people would refuse to vote for him on the grounds that he is not eligible. Ditto for an underage candidate. The power to judge eligibility lies with the people.
.
We saw that happen after the Civil War. There was, in practice, no need to ban Confederates from the Presidency because there was no way they could get elected. So far as I know, nobody who grew to manhood in the South before or during the war ever got within shouting distance of the Presidency. A half century after the Civil War, a “southerner” finally got elected President, but he was a New Jersey Governor who had been a small boy in the Confederacy. Carter was the first full fledged southerner to become President without first succeeding to the office. That was a fairly big deal at the time, 110 years after the war was over.
Ed Forbes (Comment #227842):
.
Excellent points.
Ed Forbes
Times place and manner of elections has nothing to do with who is on the ballot. It also doesn’t limit the states method of chosing electors.
But in anycase, if it had anything to do with who can appear on the ballot, the states have this right unless congress has mad a rule otherwise which they have not done. So this doesn’t help you.
Your interpreting what you quoted incorrectly. States have the power unless congress has written some rule otherwise.
.
That hardly puts power solely in the Feds hands. They are clearly in the hands of the state unless the feds make a rule about something. But the FEDS haven’t made a relevant rule that says States can’t enforce the qualification in the constitution.
MIkeM/Ed
There doesn’t need to be a list. The State gets to make rules unless that rule is specifically prohibited by the constitution or whatever rule congress made
.
For your argument to begin to work, you need to find a rule that specifically prohibits the States from running the election the way they want.
.
lucia (Comment #227845): “States have the power unless congress has written some rule otherwise.”
.
No. States have certain powers unless Congress says otherwise. Controlling ballot access is not among them.
MikeM
Read the article ed quote”
Now parse it
The state legislatures shall prescribe the time place and manner of elections. That’s the default.
Congress may make or alter regulations. If they haven’t made one, that sets aside the ones the State made, the state choice stands.
.
Unless you can find a Congressional regulation that says States cannot do what CO did, then CO can. (Well also: unless it is otherwise unconstitutional.)
.
I’m pretty sure you can’t find a Congressionally made rules that says States can’t prohibit candidates who are disqualified by provisions in the US constitution from appearing on the ballot. And if they have not, at least with respect to what Article 1, Sect 4, Clause 1 says, the state gets to do that. (Well… except, of course, that it’s actually irrelevant because that’s not “time, place or manner”. At least I think it’s not “manner”– it’s certainly not “time” or “place”.)
.
Lucia,
Had Trump been charged and convicted of treason (another word for insurrection), then Colorado could obviously bar him, but he has never even been charged, never mind convicted. Some judge or bureaucrat doesn’t get to pronounce a guilty verdict. I will enjoy the wine. 😉
Lucia
The state can only make rules on federal elections for “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives”, per the constitution.
.
As these items are specifically listed, the state has no jurisdiction on any other category not listed.
.
As an aside, and as written , the state has no jurisdiction on rules pertaining to the president on the listed items as the president is not listed.
.
If a candidate for federal office is not eligible for the office due to constitutional disqualification, the action to remove the candidate from the ballot MUST be brought in federal court as state courts have NO jurisdiction on federal qualifications for federal office.
.
So no, the state cannot take action on its own behalf to rule Trump ineligible for the presidency due to “insurrection”. The state doesn’t have standing to try the case. Only the federal courts have standing to rule on federal election qualifications.
SteveF,
Yes– if he was tried and convicted, things would be clearer. CO clearly bar him. But Ed etc seem to suggest CO can do nothing.
The 14th amendment doesn’t say he needs to be convicted. Moreover, there are plenty of reasons to believe conviction of the crime of insurrection was not required. Those who fought for the confederacy were not charged and convicted, and they were precisely the people who the law intended to bar.
.
I know SCOTUS may over turn the CO ruling. I doubt they will read in the idea that a conviction was required.
Ed
You are inserting the word “only”. It’s not there.
.
And hyou are forgetting this is also in the constitution
This isn’t vanished by your preferred clause (which you interpret in a silly way anyway.)
.
I’m sorry, but you are over reaching wildly. If you were right, then the state of Illinois couldn’t pass or enforce anything in this:
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=001000050K7-41
And they couldn’t have a section in their constitution like this
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con3.htm
And they couldn’t make laws about printing ballots like this
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=001000050HArt%2E+17&ActID=170&ChapterID=3&SeqStart=62200000&SeqEnd=66200000
And none of the other states could either!
Even Trump’s legal team didn’t make the silly argument you are trying to make.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4392902-trump-warns-big-trouble-as-scotus-agrees-hear-colorado-case/
Uhmmm…. Uhmmmm….
These dang rhetorical questions. I’m guessing lots of people are arguing about what he’s saying.
We are now waiting to see when the announce
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-sidestep-key-trump-14th-amendment-questions/story?id=106144800
Will they move fast enough for either? I’m hoping for Feb 11.
This annotation is interesting:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-3/ALDE_00013800/
Especially this portion:
“The Court and Congress have imposed limits on state discretion in appointing electors. In Williams v. Rhodes,7 the Court struck down a complex state system that effectively limited access to the ballot to the electors of the two major parties. In the Court’s view, the system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it favored certain individuals and burdened the right of individuals to associate together to advance political beliefs and the right of qualified voters to cast ballots for electors of their choice. The Court denied that the Electoral College Clause immunized such state practices from judicial scrutiny.8”
Check that out and let me know what you think about the Williams precedent.
On election of the president, one needs to remember that the candidate is not actually on the ” ballot”. There is no direct election for the presidency. Its a slate of electors committed to the candidate that is being voted on. The presidency is not voted on until well after the general election by the seated electors.
.
This is why there is no provision in the constitution listing the presidency for “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives”.
Could you reword what you mean by this? Other than check out the link, I ahve no idea what you want me to comment on.
> “I just hope we get fair treatment,” Trump said at an Iowa rally Friday. “Because if we don’t, our country’s in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I’m saying?”
Gee. I wonder what he means by “fair treatment?” I’m sure that it wouldn’t mean, “if I don’t win our country is in big, big trouble,” (wink, wink), right?
Ed
Sure. We are actually voting for electors. And I will once again quote the constitution.
The State legislature gets to chose the manner in which the electors are selected. Not Congress.
As I told you: the clause you provided was irrelevant. The relevant clause is the one I’ve been quoted. And the State legislatures get to chose the manner. Not. Congress.
Lucia
The legal doc’s you linked pertains to either state offices, which the state has control, or “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives”. which congress has delegated to the state for federal elections.
.
If you have specific instances with examples outside of the scope listed, I would be happy to address these specific examples.
Lucia “The State legislature gets to chose the manner in which the electors are selected. Not Congress.”
.
The courts and congress both disagree.
.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-3/ALDE_00013800/
.
“The Court and Congress have imposed limits on state discretion in appointing electors. In Williams v. Rhodes,7 the Court struck down a complex state system that effectively limited access to the ballot to the electors of the two major parties. In the Court’s view, the system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it favored certain individuals and burdened the right of individuals to associate together to advance political beliefs and the right of qualified voters to cast ballots for electors of their choice. The Court denied that the Electoral College Clause immunized such state practices from judicial scrutiny.”
.
As it is the electors being voted on, it is the individual electors that needs to be disqualified by the state. A tall order indeed.
.
Trump’s qualifications for president is technically not an issue until the electors meet to vote on the presidency.
The main current issue is taking Trump off of the primary ballot,
.
The constitution does not directly address this issue as the constitution deals the the general election, not the elections where the different political parties vote on who to put forward in the general election. Its completely up to the individual political parties to either choose their candidate by election or by caucus and the rules under which these primaries are held.
.
If Trump is keep off the Republican ballot for the Republican candidate for president, the Republican party could quickly remove their party from the general election and move to a state caucus system of choosing their candidate.
.
As such, federal qualifications for the office does not apply at all with primaries. I have seen nothing in law that would disqualify a candidate from running for a position as their party’s candidate, even if he was disqualified from taking office. Election and seating are two different issues.
.
Fun discussion.. opens up lines of inquiry I haven’t looked deeply into for years
I can’t actually call up and get put on the Presidential ballot so there are other rules of some kind such as getting enough signatures or whatever to appear on the official ballot. These will need to need to be viewpoint neutral and adhere to Constitutional limitations. The Trump case is eliminating somebody who otherwise has met all the qualifications.
Ed –
.
I read as far as this from Lucia:
.
> Second: “There is NO general right for the states to control who is on the ballot.” I now have no idea what you mean by “general right”.
.
And I had the same confusion.
.
Rather than trying to read through all the other subsequent rather technical comments to see if you’ve correctly characterized what someone said, or whether I properly understood what now seems like fairly ambiguous syntax, why don’t you try again to clearly and succinctly indicate what “absurd” thing it is that you’re saying someone argued, and why it’s absurd?
I read Trump’s statement of “big trouble” as a prediction of political violence, not a request or incitement. I have already made the same prediction. You have a bad case of TDS if you can’t discriminate between incitement and predictions. If partisans in swing states remove Trump from the ballot without due process then political violence is both justifiable to a large segment of the population and should be anticipated. The people who engage in this justifiable violence should be prosecuted anyway but the citizens should not allow partisans to eliminate opponents on Civil War era legal technicalities.
.
People need to understand what they are asking for and what the likely consequences will be. This is more than an academic exercise. The legal process may end up being both correct in law and have dire consequences. 74M people voted for Trump and if 1% of them are enraged enough to show up in DC there will be a protest with 740,000 people. I would suggest an actual stolen election will get 1% of people there.
.
In the end I think sanity will prevail, and hopefully Trump will lose fair and square. Nikki Hailey already said she would entertain allowing DeSantis to be her running mate.
Lucia:
I meant what do think of the case. Seems pertinent.
Putting my self on the federal bench to make a ruling on a state disqualifying Trump from a primary ballot 🙂
.
I would rule that in general:
.
1. primaries are generally a state issue, not a federal issue
.
2. Disqualifying a candidate from a state run primary using a federal law as grounds for disqualification makes this a federal issue. Disqualifying a candidate for violation of a federal law to which the candidate has neither been charged or convicted is a due process error. Reversed and remanded.
.
3. As the state used the constitutional violation of “Insurrection” as disqualification of a candidate, first the state must prove the candidate is libel under the violation. The candidate was president at the time of the alleged violation. As the president is not an “Officer of the United States” as defined in the constitution, the president can not be charged with “Insurrection” . Reversed and Remanded.
Lol.
That’s a nice family you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to them.
Not that I’m predicting that, or nuttin.
Joshua (Comment #227864)
“Rather than trying to read through all the other subsequent rather technical comments”
.
If you are not willing to take the time to read “rather technical comments” , not sure why I should take the time.
.
This issue is nothing but “technical” arguments as far as I am concerned. I also tend to only deal with “technical”. Much I see discussed on legal matters tend to “pound the table”
.
“Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz shares with his students a strategy for successfully defending cases. If the facts are on your side, Dershowitz says, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.”
Ed –
.
Your characterization of an “absurd” argument that someone made shouldn’t be very technical.
.
If you don’t want to explain it again, that’s fine. But I see nowhere where anyone made the argument that…
.
>…states can set any controls on election requirements that they wish…
.
But maybe I missed it?
.
Lucia said it was a straw man. Then you went on to say something else that she didn’t understand and neither did I.
.
So it seems that either you can provide a clear example of where someone said that, or you can’t.
.
As near as I can tell you can’t. But maybe I didn’t fully understand your wording. So maybe then you could try again to explain the “absurd” argument that apparently someone made somewhere.
.
Or maybe you can’t. Totally up to you.
RickA (Comment #227786)
angech:
I actually think there is a strong possibility of a 9-0 ruling in favor of Trump on the ballot issue.
The democrat leaning justices only have to think about the shoe being on the other foot to see how dangerous the CO reasoning is.”
–
You are talking about rational people making rational decisions.
What you have is rational people with 3 of them motivated by TDS.
There is virtually no way anyone associated with or selected by the current and past Democrat parties is allowed to vote for any measure, no matter how sane, that allows Trump a walkover win.
They would loose all Democratic support and sympathy immediately.
6/3 is the exact ratio.
Roberts in my opinion is perfectly capable of tossing Trump out if he could get one more vote?? Kavanaugh, to get a 5/4 majority over the line.
There is a vague chance he would go on the minority side as a 4/5 to let the Establishment know he is with them.
This egregious judge took no steps to stop the insanity of the charges laid against Trump in his first term, as far as I can recall.
–
As for “Not that I’m predicting that, or nuttin.”
One has to remember that old quote,
“First they came for Trump and I did nuttin”
Joshua,
It is hard to imagine a bigger butthole than Trump, and many of his utterances since leaving office have been wildly inappropriate in my view. I do not excuse him for them in fact. Doubtless people have concluded I suffer from TDS as well. So be it.
Doesn’t change my concerns about the damage our political system seems likely to sustain by removing him from the ballot, still doesn’t justify that.
RickA
Why do you think it’s pertinent? I think it’s not pertinent and I didn’t bring the case up. But since you think it is, maybe you could explain your thinking.
Ed,
Do you not know the difference between “impose limits” on what the state does and saying they doesn’t do it? The constitution imposes limits on Congresses legistation– but Congress still legislates.
.
And the documents I link include regulations for federal elections.
Tom,
Yes. And the states make these rules.
Not quite. Because CO claims he does not meet all qualifications– unless you mean meets all the signatures and so on. But the argument is he disqualified because of insurrection.
Ed,
I have no idea why you think law like this pertain only to state offices
Obviously, that has to do with federal elections.
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=001000050HArt%2E+17&ActID=170&ChapterID=3&SeqStart=62200000&SeqEnd=66200000
And the other ones do too. For example, this applies to both providing booths for all elections– federal state and local:
As do other provisions — like the number of booths/voter or the rules against electioneering.
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=001000050K7-41
And the rules in the IL constitution also apply to federal elections.
In illinois, this rule applies to both state and federal elections. Different rules apply in different states. Whether a felon can vote in a federal election is dictated by the state.
.
You can’t just try to BS it and decree that laws IL (and other states) wrote regulating elections in their states only apply to state elections. That’s wrong. States write lots of rules about the manner of elections in their state. Congress can over ride those rules– for example, the State can’t just pick the date of the federal election. But unless congress write a rule– and there are tons of things they don’t make rulse about– the State writes that. Just as the constitution says.
Yesterday, Trump took a shot at deceased war hero John McCain:
“Donald Trump mocks John McCain’s injury sustained while a prisoner of war. McCain was unable to lift his arms above his shoulders.
“John McCain for some reason couldn’t get his arm up that day.”
Meghan McCain responds:
“Trump is a piece of shit, election denying, huckster whose own wife won’t campaign with him.”
Well said Meghan.
Lucia,
Remember your post on attrition vs decisive battle war? I had added that the Japanese tried for a great decisive battle at Midway and Leyte Gulf. I watched a documentary and the “Decisive Battle Doctrine” was Japan’s plan from before the war started. They have a name for it: Kantai Kessen [translates to “naval fleet decisive battle”].
“In the Decisive Battle Doctrine the Japanese navy would win a war by fighting and winning a single, decisive naval action. “
Full documentary video:
https://youtu.be/kss0X8oaeow?si=MJ7DoNOg0zmKuZyG
Cliff Notes version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantai_Kessen
angech,
I think you may not understand John Roberts’ motivation. He is an institutionalist, and wants to ‘protect the legitimacy’ of the court. You can see this in him working always to avoid controversial rulings, and when that is impossible, to make any contentious ruling as narrow in scope as possible.
.
He likely detests Trump, but allowing removal of Trump from many state ballots would arguably be the most consequential and contentious ruling the court has issued since Dread Scott, and perhaps provoking widespread civil unrest. That is the kind of ruling Roberts doesn’t want the Court to ever make. He will no doubt try to attract at least one vote from the liberals by issuing a narrow ruling (for example, limiting the ruling against Colorado to ‘lack of due process’), but there is almost zero chance Roberts will vote to allow States to remove Trump from ballots.
Thanks Russell!
SteveF,
Roberts’s tendency to make rulings as narrow as possible is not a good thing right now. I don’t think there needs to be much push to overbroad. But if Trump is disqualified from sitting, it would be much, much better to get a ruling on that than to say “We have to wait.”
.
One article I read had someone whose theory was that even people who are disqualified can run. That’s a terrible policy.
.
Having him run, win and then be decreed disqualified would be even worse.
.
It isn’t as if there is only one path to civil unrest.
You asked why I thought the case pertinent.
1. You said “The constitution gives the states legislatures the right to “direct” the way in which electors are selected.”
2. This case shows that the state legislatures right is limited by at least the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The Ohio law to obtain signatures totaling at least 15% of the votes from the last gubernatorial election for a new party to add its person to the ballot as a presidential candidate was not a “manner” which was permitted to the states.
3. In CO – it wasn’t even the state legislature passing a law which prevented Trump from being on the primary ballot. Instead it was the courts of – finding, based on nothing, that Trump committed insurrection. No trial, no day in court for Trump, no defense by Trump and so forth. So no due process, which is another 14th amendment violation.
So it seems pertinent to me – which is why I brought that Constitution Annotation section to your attention.
The US Constitution decides who is qualified to run for President. The states get to decide the manner in which the election is carried out – but the manner is limited to those not in violation with the US constitution.
So I do not believe the states get to decide qualification – that is a Federal question. Like many others – I believe the 5th clause of the 14th amendment means that only the Senate by impeachment or Congress by law can decide if a person is disqualified by insurrection or rebellion.
Even something simple like age might have to be tried and found by a Federal court (maybe). If a 34 year old ran for President, who gets to decide that person is 34 and not qualified? Any state or does it have to be a Federal court? I don’t know – but believe that CO doesn’t get to rule on insurrection. And maybe not on age or natural born status either. On the other hand age would be measured with a birth certificate which is a state document – so I could be totally wrong. But I am on much more solid ground on insurrection (I believe).
I should also say that I don’t believe Trump actually committed insurrection or incitement of insurrection. He gave a speech and called for peaceful protests. Politicians do that every day.
So in addition to all the other reasons of due process, lack of CO jurisdiction, President is not an officer, only Congress can find insurrection and so forth – Trump didn’t even engage in insurrection (in my opinion). That seems important to the issue also.
The crowd rioted and many were invited into the house and simply walked around. No weapons, no killing of officials, no kidnapping of officials. Of course the rioters were breaking the law and the ones beating the police with flag poles were breaking the law – but in no way could this protest be considered an insurrection (in my opinion).
It is interesting that Trump wasn’t charged with any act of insurrection under Federal law. I assume they didn’t because they couldn’t make the case. Especially after the Senate acquitted Trump for incitement of insurrection.
So I am very confident that CO (and Maine by implication) will be overturned. Hopefully 9-0 (we will see).
Of course, Trump didn’t mock McCain’s war injury, he mocked his voting record. The injury was irrelevant to the point being made (it did not affect his ability to vote), except as a deflection from the facts, which is a typical tactic for the “pieces of shit” that inhabit the political sphere.
.
Conversely, it is actually the widow who is dishonoring her husband’s name by suggesting he was simply too old and infirm to vote the way he wanted to.
I think this is an interesting contrast between views.
.
Steve says:
.
.
So the courts might provoke unrest through a legal ruling…
.
But Rick says this:
.
.
Where a sitting president didn’t incite a riot to prevent an election with constant rhetoric that the election was corrupt and stolen from him.
.
Maybe I’m being overly semantic.
Joshua:
Trump has a free speech right to bitch that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Stating his opinion in a speech is not insurrection.
RickA
Yes.
Which I’ve also said. All powers are limited. Just like the laws congress, state and local legislatures pass are limited to by the 1st, or 2nd and pretty much everything. Congress, States and local legislatures are still said to retain their power.
Yes. This is a detail related to what they were attempting to accomplish. The ruling has to do with what they were attempting to accomplish.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/543
You need to read the constitutional reason the detail violated to understand why what they were doing was wrong.
— continue…
‘continued
The action against Trump doesn’t impose an unequal burden on anyone. It’s merely an attempt to enforce the disqualification and prevent voters in CO from wasting their vote on someone disqualified. Any disqualified person would be prevented from being on the ballot, regardless of political position of message. (And this clause has been enforced againsts– at least– one person who went to court and lost.)
.
And if you read the William v. Oyez more fully, (by say reading the actual opinions
.reading the actual opinion), you’ll see that one of the big problems with Ohio’s law was the justification. Which was precisely to suppress any party other than the GOP or Dems. That was their intended goal. And the even argued it was ok to do it giving all sorts of reasons. One was this!
.
Like it or not, this is entirely different from a legislature writing a neutral rule to block disqualified candidates being on the ballot and creating a neutral process to enforce the disqualification.
.
The Williams v. Rhodes ruling does not say a state must allow anyone and everyone on the ballot– which seems to be your interpretation. It says you can’t do things to make it impossible for people or parties to be on the ballot merely because you want to make it impossible for anyone other than the GOP and the DEMs to be on the ballot!
Joshua,
“Where a sitting president didn’t incite a riot to prevent an election with constant rhetoric that the election was corrupt and stolen from him.”
.
Please explain how the efforts to block Trump from taking office after November 2016 didn’t involve people claiming the election was corrupt or stolen. (Or for that matter, most every time a Republican won the presidency in the last 30 years.) There is more than a bit of “kettle and pot” going on here. Yes, Trump was being a complete asshole after November 2020. So were Hillary and her many shills following 2016.
Rick A,
Like it or not, that’s not the only thing Trump did. You can read the details of the CO ruling.
Steve –
.
Please don’t saddle me with arguments I didn’t make. Although since you brought it up, there wasn’t a riot of people trying to disrupt the 2016 election, so I don’t think your point holds up anyway.
.
FWIW, I think the argument that Trump “incited” the riot is inherently weak because it’s essentially unfalsifiable. But I would apply the sane reasoning to saying that SCOTUS would “provoke” riots if they rule against Trump – especially if there’s likely going to be many who would find any ruling against him as tyranny and “unfair.”
SteveF
But like it or not, there was no insurrection in Nov. 2016. No one mob tried to prevent the inauguration, no one tried to prevent the VP from certificating of ballots etc.
.
Even if you think there were “efforts” to block Trump, they weren’t in the form of any thing that could be called an “insurrection”. There was no riot. No one was shot or killed. Local law enforcement was not overwhelmed.
Joshua
I honestly don’t think SCOTUS will provoke riots if they rule against Trump– especially not on the day they rule. But I’m not going to bet a bottle of wine on that. I’ve already got one bet going. I mean, who knows. If Trump gets up there and says something like “They better be fair to use or something will happen. You get my drift?” Who knows? 🙂
.
Lucia said “Like it or not, this is entirely different from a legislature writing a neutral rule to block disqualified candidates being on the ballot and creating a neutral process to enforce the disqualification.”
True. I would have no problem had CO written a neutral rule to block disqualified candidates. That is not what happened.
Instead they courts decided Trump was disqualified without giving him his day in court to fight back. Obviously the entire proceeding was unfair and partisan – like the Ohia scheme. Trump didn’t commit insurrection. He didn’t ask the crowd to bring weapons and he didn’t order them to charge the house. He asked them to peacefully protest. So this decision was not “neutral” but was instead totally partisan and biased. In my opinion, of course.
But yes – CO could pass a law saying only candidates who are 35 or older, natural born and not found to have committed insurrection by a Federal Court are qualified to run on their ballot. They did not do that.
Can someone explain to me how snippets of comments appear in the recent comments list, but when you click on the hyperlink the comment doesn’t appear in the comment thread. It seems like a time machine would have to be involved in that.
Joshua,
I’ve been having issues when I submit comments… Don’t know why.
(I’ll go in and turn wrap block quotes around some of your stuff.)
Lucia –
.
His rhetoric employs a mastery of overlapping rhetorical fallacies. “Argument from ignorance” might be one. There’s also this (from chatGPT)
.
.
This was from just one CNN article today:
.
The first re Haley’s comment about the civil war causes:
And
Trump said.
Lucia –
.
.
Thanks. That got really perplexing until I read that????
.
I have so many typos on my phone I avoid markup since I invariably screw it up. Interfaces that have buttons for block quotes are great, but I’d probably find a way to screw even that up.
RickA
.
Writing a neutral law to block disqualified candiates is
precisely what CO did. They wrote their ballot rules before Trump was even on the scene. The “rules” are called “Colorado’s Uniform Election Code of 1992,
§§ 1-1-101 to 1-13-804, C.R.S. (2023) (the “Election Code”),” (It’s named in the CO Supreme ruling https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf So it’s hardly a secret that a neutral rule was followed.)
.
Note: the 1992 refers to a year and that year precedes Trump being in office.
.
Also wrong. Following the rules in “Colorado’s Uniform Election Code of 1992”, someone lodged a complaint that Trump was disqualified. The election board had a hearing– which Trump participated in– the election board found him disqualified. Trump appealed. He actuall won that appeal. 🙂 The the election board appealed, Trump lost that one. Now Trump is appealing to SCOTUS.
The courts did not didn’t disqualify him. The election board did. After a hearing — which is the process laid out in “the neutral rules”.
.
Whether the hearing provided is sufficient is a worthy argument. But:
(1)There was a neutral rule, which was codified in 1992.
(2) The rule applied to all candidates.
(3) This is a civil action, not criminal. Civil actions don’t necessarily require courts.
(4) The process was followed (Though, actually, Trump was given extra time.)
(5) The result of the civil process was appealed to the courts.
.
Whether SCOTUS thinks the hearing allowed in this civil action is sufficient is something we may learn. One dissent in the CO Supreme ruling thinks it was not. (I hope we learn before Feb 11.) But mischaracterizing the fact pattern isn’t a good argument. And even the dissent in the CO ruling makes the wild sort of claim you are making.
Joshua,
I’d also left an open tag in my comment. I think WordPress autocloses some stuff, but it caused a readability glitch in mine too. (I found that error in my comment.)
Rick A
Uhhhmmm….You are aware that CO can neither add to nor diminish the qualification for president. The 14th amendment absolutely doesn’t say ” found to have committed insurrection by a Federal Court”. So that would be diminishing the qualifications.
.
I know you want the amendment to say the person was convicted of insurrection by a federam court. But, sadly for you, that was almost certainly not the intention at the time the rule was written. Confederate soldiers and officers were given a general amnesty. The rule is intended to block them from office even though they were not going to be tried and convicted.
.
What SCOTUS will now do, I don’t know. But there really is no reason why, when writing a neutral law back in 1992, CO would have thought, “While were doing this, let’s diminish the disqualification rule. Making exceptions to the rule will make it sooooooo much stronger!”
Lucia:
You have given me much to think about and obviously I need to read up on what happened more in CO than I have. I was not aware Trump had even participated. So sorry for that.
Thank you for your polite rebuttals – which I will take to heart.
Lucai,
“But like it or not, there was no insurrection in Nov. 2016.”
.
Nor was there one in January 2021. There was a riot, but relatively little violence and very little destruction of property. The protesters/rioters were unarmed…. insurrections involve weapons. Eventually we will find out how many “assets” the FBI (CIA? local police?) had in the crowd, information they have absolutely refused to disclose, and whether those assets urged the mob on, making things worse.
.
In any case, I completely disagree that the riot constituted an “insurrection”. This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion) was an insurrection, one finally put down by George Washington leading 13,000 armed troops to western Pennsylvania. What happened in Washington DC on January 6, 2021 was a political protest that turned into a riot. If Trump was guiilty of treason, tghen why has the DOJ not so charged him. The “insurrection” claim, is, IMHO pure garbage (and I don’t use that term lightly, I really mean zero merit).
SteveF wrote: “What happened in Washington DC on January 6, 2021 was a political protest that turned into a riot.”
.
Or in modern parlance, “a mostly peaceful protest”, undeserving of even the “fiery” prefix!
.
I can only imagine the pisstake from the media if the roles were reversed. One minute telling the people that you’re invulnerable with nukes, and planes etc and then the next explaining that an unarmed rabble was nearly the end of you, if only they hadn’t given up and gone away. What a sick joke.
.
Remember how they took the piss out of Trump after he was taken to the bunker when “peaceful protests” attacked the White House and burned down a guard post?
A three month old Boeing 737-9 Max had the door over the wing blow off at 16,000 feet.
.
Even after the two crashes of the 737 MAX, huge financial losses, and Boeing claiming to have “fixed its culture”, this kind of failure suggests Boeing still has problems. A door blows off mid flight? Not acceptable. Nobody died, but that was only pure luck. Maybe a good time to buy a few puts of Boeing stock.
SteveF
I consider what happened an insurrection. You can’t argue something remotely similar happened in 2016.
.
It’s fine to say “little violence”, but five people died and 140 police officers injured as a result of whatever you call it that happened on Jan 6. 1,265 defendants have been charged with various offenses.
Some of those charged were specifically charged with crimes that involve impeding the government proceedings — which in this case, involved certifying ballots. That is a step required in transition of power.
.
The fact that some insurrections are more violent and persist longer than the Jan 6 one doesn’t make it “not an insurrection”.
So, capitol police shot and killed a rioter, somebody died of a drug overdose, and three people died of natural causes, these are the five people who ‘died in the insurrection’.
[Edit: I object (and I think others do as well) to mischaracterizations of the riot that tend to exaggerate the affair, to make it appear more like an insurrection. ‘Five people died in the insurrection’ implies that they died in violent conflict. In fact the only one who died in violent conflict was the protester who was slaughtered by a capitol city police officer.]
Rick A
Many facts of the case are discussed in the CO Supreme ruling
.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
.
That’s one reason it is useful to read.
.
Lots of articles like to make it sound like the CO court just “jumped in” and identified Trump. Certainly Trump makes claims– but anyone ought to know better than to think Trump’s representation is the fair and balanced truth!! Or remotely complete.
The court just jumping in is just not what happened.
.
You can read the dissents in the pdf and see what the possible counter arguments persuaded some of the justices. (You could also get the lower court ruling.) Some of the arguments are just non-starters. But I think the dissent about due-process might be one that flies– I just don’t know if it will. The issue is that it is an abbreviated process and maybe that’s enough for deciding you are really, truly only 30 years old, but not enough for this question.
.
If you do want to read the argument that you like, read Samour’s dissent: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
.
But avoid making your argument hinge on fact that are just incorrect. There was a hearing. It did follow a set of neutrally written laws written in 1992. You can question if those rules were adequate to the question or other things. But they most certainly were neutral, they weren’t written just to get Trump, a process was followed, Trump got a hearing (possibly too abbreviated– but he got one.)
One of the few times I disagree with you: I do not consider January 6 events to be an insurrection; I consider it a riot.
Even if one does posit that it was an insurrection, can one say that Trump “engaged in insurrection”? I say he didn’t: he didn’t explicitly call for same, and he certainly wasn’t on the barricades that day. We have historical examples which are clearly on the “insurrection” side of the line; this doesn’t resemble those (to me, obviously).
My prediction is that SCOTUS uses the wording of the 14th Amendment to say that it excludes President & VP, including only Senators, Representatives, Electors, and other lower offices. I bet 10 quatloos — assuming that my account at the BoB (Bank of Blackboard) has that much on account. [By the way, the BoB has not been sending statements showing my balance — perhaps you could talk to the administration about that.]
CO had no choice but to provide their own definition of insurrection because one is not provided for them by the legislation. This is one of the major problems with this apparently not well thought out piece of law. The judicial system is tasked with interpreting laws so that is what they did. One of the things the SC can do it is provide clarity and tests for what is an insurrection and what is not.
.
What we get from most of those with TDS is * conclusions * that Trump was an insurrectionist without providing their own definition. This is the way most racism is reported in the legacy media. This is because once they provide an actual falsifiable definition it will invariably sweep up some people on their own side because it’s hard to thread that needle for this case.
.
I find a lot of the arguments along the lines of “Trump did nothing to stop the riot” therefore he incited the riot rather unconvincing. This case is weak, and most of those courageous enough to even try to define it are doing so post hoc and in a perfect world we would know those definitions pre-Trump and I’m betting they would be different. It’s another case of subtracting run of the mill Clintonian claims of “my election was stolen” from Trump’s and proclaiming that difference the threshold for incitement.
“I consider what happened an insurrection.”
.
Do you believe that to a criminal “clear and convincing” standard?
Charge Trump with insurrection and try to convict him with a politically diverse jury. If that standard is “clear and convincing” instead of “preponderance of the evidence” then I think there is zero chance of success. Allowing partisans to remove people from a ballot needs to have a high bar.
mark bofill,
“I object (and I think others do as well) to mischaracterizations of the riot that tend to exaggerate the affair, to make it appear more like an insurrection.”
.
Yup, and exactly what has been happening for 3 years. Seems to me mostly a TDS effect. Unarmed people wandering through the Capitol Building does not make an insurrection.
Tom
Nor the US constitution. Nor does congressional legislations specific to Section 3 of the 14th amendment– because Congress never thought it necessary to pass any defining the meaning of specific words in the 14th amendement. So CO courts were forced to use the dictionary.
Sure..that’s often a problem the constitution and amendments. They don’t draft a section defining each word. That’s why courts sometimes have to resort to the dictionary.
.
As for CO’s interpretation.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
.
.
This section discusses the definition of the word “2. “Insurrection” They look at dictionary definitions from the time the amendement was written (dicitionaries from 1860). They don’t consult definitions create by “those who want to rule in favor of Trump” vs. “those who want to rule against Trump”.
That’s the dictionary definition. Jan 6 meets it. (The ruling explains why. Note: death’s are not requried..)
So even Trump’s lawyers did not argue that an insurrection needs to rise to the level of rebellion to be an insurrection. The Wiskey rebellion was a rebellion.
This is what the CO justices concluded
.
If you think that “a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country” is not an insurrection, then you have to explain what specific additional thing is required to turn this into “an insurrection”. Presumably not launching nuclear weapons! Hopefully not “actually succeeding in preventing peaceful transfer of power”.
.
Yes. More likely they will tell us if this one met the bar or did not. That the way courts do seem to usually rule as narrowly as possible. (Sometimes they go broad…. but usually narrow). And it’s not just SCOTUS. We end up dealing with legal precedents that say Case A: “Two years is long enough”. Case B: “Two days is too short”. Thencase C comes in at 10 months. What will the call be now!!
Tom
That’s not the CO courts argument.
To throw someone in jail? Yes.
.
For civil actions: no. Preponderance of the evidence is enough. This is a civil case.
Tom Scharf,
“Allowing partisans to remove people from a ballot needs to have a high bar.”
.
Yes, and that is what makes the Colorado and Maine cases so pernicious. They have set an arbitrarily low bar, and then applied politically motivated reasoning to declare Trump, and the thousands at the Capitol on Jan 6, “insurrectionists”. This is about the craziest legal standard I have seen in my 73 years on Earth. Next, the 100+ elected members of the House who voted against certification on January 6 will be declared traitors. Not coincidentally, legal cases have already been filed to exclude some of them from ballots. It is 100% Orwellian madness and will lead to politically motivated violence if it does not stop.
Lucia,
“This is a civil case.”
.
No, this is insanity. The SC will not allow it to stand.
“To throw someone in jail? Yes.”
.
That is crazy if you are saying Trump is guilty to that standard by the definition, sorry.
SteveF
It may be insanity. It’s remains a civil case.
Tom,
No, that’s not what Lucia was saying. She wouldn’t say somebody is guilty to a criminal standard but not to a civil standard, that’s nonsensical. Miscommunication of some sort.
DaveJR (Comment #227885),
You made two points in this comment and both of them were wrong.
You wrote:
“Conversely, it is actually the widow who is dishonoring her husband’s name by suggesting he was simply too old and infirm to vote the way he wanted to.
Meghan McCain is his daughter, not his widow, Newsweek:
“Meghan McCain, the daughter of the former Presidential candidate and prisoner of war, John McCain, has lashed out at Donald Trump after he appeared to mock the Republican veteran.”
https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-mccain-blasts-donald-trump-mocking-her-father-john-mccain-1858451
And you wrote:
“Of course, Trump didn’t mock McCain’s war injury, he mocked his voting record.”
Numerous media reporters saw it the same way I did:
For example:
“Trump rekindles his rage against John McCain, taunting over POW’s broken limbs”
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2024/01/07/trump-mccain-feud-president-mocks-late-senator/72140337007/
“Donald Trump is slammed for mocking John McCain’s arm injury that he got while a prisoner of war in Vietnam for six years – as late senator’s daughter brands ex-president a ‘piece of s***”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12935725/Donald-Trump-slammed-mocking-John-McCains-arm-injury-got-prisoner-war-Vietnam-six-years-late-senators-daughter-brands-ex-president-piece-s.html
Mark –
.
> I object (and I think others do as well) to mischaracterizations of the riot that tend to exaggerate the affair, to make it appear more like an insurrection.
.
Sure. Inaccuracy isn’t useful. On the other hand, IMO, the important point isn’t only precisely what happened, but what the potential was. Numbers of people (I don’t know how many) screaming “Hang Mike Pence,” convinced that the greatest of crimes had been committed against the country, with weapons, clashing violently with police who were protecting the legislators who were present (including Pence). Say the police forces were less effective (at the risk of their lives and at the risk of serious injury)? What might have happened?
.
It was a violent outbreak against authority. What does it mean to say that it wasn’t an insurrection? Does it mean it was an attempted insurrection that wasn’t successful? Does it mean it was a violent outbreak against authority that could never have resulted in a total overthrow of the government but could have led to the serious injuries or even deaths of legislators?
.
Specific language can get tricky. People attach different meanings to words. What’s the accurate description and what does that mean, in your view?
Tom
Ahh… I misunderstood your question. I read quickly and thought you asked me if I believe in a clear and convincing standard. So I answered what I thought you asked. I do believe in that standard as applied to criminal trials. I don’t believe in that standard as applied to a civil case.
.
And this is a civil case. So I think whether Trump is guilty to a clear and convincing standard is irrelevant to any question of deciding if he needs to be on the ballot. I don’t think that standard is required.
SCOTUS may disagree– but you asked my opinion.
Joshua
Agreed. And I did fall for that. The five people who died…. well…
But the fact is: people don’t need to die for it to be an insurrection according to the dictionary. You can see CO’s discussion above, and go to the link.
.
“to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States.”
.
That is the overly broad part. We have DeSantis already opining that Biden needs to be removed from the ballot because he is threatening Texas who want to limit immigration using state law.
This law may be to civil standards, I don’t know, but the removal of people from a ballot needs to be a higher threshold for obvious reasons which we are seeing playing out. Perhaps it is not.
I’m also hunting a bit thorugh “LII U.S. Code Title 18 ”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383
Because some people insist you can only be disqualified if you are charged and possible found guilty under this code, I want to see if that makes any sense at all.
I did a word search on “insurrection” to see under what circumstances one can be charged with insurrection under that title. Bear in mind, the title doesn’t claim that it’s not insurrection if you can’t be charged.
I searched “insurrection” site:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/
That finds the pages where the word “insurrection” appears in that title.
There are exactly four hits:
First: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection
No one can be charged under this provision. It only says that if you are charged under title 18, you can’t hold office. So: people can’t be saying that you need to be charged under this to not hold office, because even someone who amassed a 100 tanks, along with 1000 pitchfork wilding fellow insurrectionists and stormed the capital, killed half of congress and took the president hostage could not be charged under title.
.
That is: even the someone who is absolutely, positively an insurrectionist could not be charged unless they (a) mailed something or (b) imported written materials!
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES This is just a list that happens to have a link to the above.
3. 18 U.S. Code § 1717 – Letters and writings as nonmailable
This just makes it illegal to mail things advocating insurrection. So only people who mailed stuff can be charged under this.
4. 18 U.S. Code § 552 – Officers aiding importation of obscene or treasonous books and articles
Only officers who helped people import written materials can be charged under this.
Unless the google search missed something about “insurrection” under that title, a person who actually engages in insurrection cannot be charged under that title..
.
I think it is a bit absurd to suggest one can only be disqualified from the presidency for insurrection if they are charged under that title when it appears litreraly impossible to charge someone who actually commits insurrection under that title.
.
(It would be equally absurd to suggest a that “President X” can only be charged with an insurrection if he decrees his own act an insurrection and calls in the armed forces to put down his own insurrection while it was occuring.” Someone seemed to suggest something similar to that in the past– though I don’t think they quite realized that’s the path they were suggesting.)
Lucia –
.
I don’t get value from discussing whether it was or wasn’t an insurrection unless I know (1) what people mean when they say it was or wasn’t an insurrection, (2) unless I know what it is that they think did or didn’t happen, (3) what they think the potential outcomes were, (4) how they see the potential implications of those potential outcomes. I think to have a useful discussion people don’t have to agree on all of that, but probably there needs to be an agreed upon definition or at least a mutual understanding of what the different definitions are, an agreed upon understanding of the range what people think happened, and an agreed upon understanding of the range what people think the potential to happen was.
.
Otherwise the discussion is probably mostly circular.
.
I realize as a legal matter there’s a more direct decision as to whether it was or wasn’t an insurrection. But there are two discussions here – one is legal and the other is, not sure the right word, maybe normative? And they overlap to some degree.
.
Tom
Yes. DeSantis is being whacky. I mean it could depend on what ‘threatening TX’ meant. But threatening to sue TX is clearly not “insurrection”.
Joshua,
The reason I posted what the CO Courts defined it as, with their basis along with the link is so people can have a starting point. Then they can explain why they think that definition is incorrect.
.
The legal discussion included a definition. Either someone agrees with it, or they don’t. If they agree, then they can proceed and explain why Jan 6 was not that. If they don’t, then they can explain precisely what makes something an “insurrection” rather than “a riot”.
Tom Scharf
The CO rules for elections are civil. Whether the standard used is sufficiently high will be something SCOTUS may address. It was something the CO Supremes addressed.
.
CO did not throw Trump in jail. They didn’t fine him. They kept his name off the ballot. If he had been under 30, I don’t think anyone would argue that this was somehow a “criminal” case or needed a “criminal” standard of a trial by jury.
.
Maybe this is a sufficiently large civil issue it needs more. But it’s still a civil case.
Lucia,
I haven’t read enough to determine this, or if I did run across this information I’ve forgotten it. How did the original court establish the facts of what happened on Jan 6’th? I presume local police did not conduct their own investigation, so I imagine they relied on .. ?
I read stuff like this:
And it gives me pause. Senior FBI guys apparently didn’t think this was an insurrection at the time.
After the Select Comittee stages a production, having literally retained the services of a TV producer to do so, everyone gets on the same page and decides this was an insurrection after all. It smacks of narrative games to me.
And in the end, maybe that’s actually what this amounts to; a narrative game. Who controls the definition of insurrection and the more compelling story about what actually happened that day.
All I can tell you is, I sure hope our system survives this over the long haul, whatever is decided, because it doesn’t look great to me.
Mark –
.
So if I read you right, for you a violent riot against an authority that could result in severe injury and possibly deaths of law enforcement and legislators and perhaps just other civilians (at the hands of rioters) would not be an insurrection per se if (1) the rioters couldn’t have realistically overtaken the government and/or (2) they rioters never actually believed they could take over the government.
.
I’m not being rhetorical. Would you agree with that?
Whatever the definition of insurrection, or what laws apply, or what the Supremes do, Trump’s actions after the election and before January 6th were appalling. That all by itself disqualifies Trump as a candidate that I would vote for.
mark–
The CO courts used dictionaries from 1860.
The mob was trying to prevent certification of ballots, which is arguably taking some control of the government. They were trying to interrupt a very important process (and prevent it from happening).
They were not trying to otherwise over throw. This isn’t like Lenin where they literally believed themselves to be wanting to over throw the constitution and replace it with something else.
Well… I’m afraid that doesn’t impress me at all. 🙂
.
Well… if only Thor could throw his mighty hammer in the direction of Trump. That would solve a lot of problems. But it’s probably not going to happen.
Joshua,
No, I haven’t put forward a definition of insurrection I personally endorse. Maybe I have an obligation to, I’ll grant that’s possible.
.
Lucia,
Yeah. It wouldn’t have prevented the peaceful transfer of power in any event, but it might have hampered or delayed it. Frankly, that seems like a poor definition of insurrection to me, that insurrection might include anything that hampers or delays. Climate protesters might have coincidentally been guilty of insurrection by creating a traffic delay. I’m sorry, I think that’s a silly definition of insurrection. [Edit: It seems like a fundamentally unserious definition to me.]
At least two of lawyers at volokh are all arguing about whether it’s an insurrection by the way
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/06/the-january-6-attack-was-an-insurrection/
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/06/january-6-2021-was-not-an-insurrection/
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/06/insurrection-rebellion-and-january-6-rejoinder-to-steve-calabresi/
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/07/the-january-6th-riot-was-not-like-the-civil-war/
Mark –
.
So are you agnostic on whether an insurrection took place? Maybe I misread because I thought you rejected the application of that term.
Joshua,
I don’t believe an insurrection took place. Having participated in the discussion here, I at least now entertain the possibility that my inexact, informal notions of what might constitute an ‘insurrection’ may differ from common usage. It may differ from the 1860 definition.
My reasons for [believing no insurrection took place] this are rather too complicated to explain in a comment or two here. Suffice it to say that I’m unable to integrate the idea that Jan 6’th was an insurrection that ought to disqualify Trump from office with too many other ideas I believe to be true to readily accept that. It doesn’t mean I’m right, but I think I must be wrong about a great many other things for me to also be wrong about this. I’m not going to assume that at this time.
Joshua,
Was what happened in Portland an insurrection?
Remembering 10+ years reading and commenting on this blog, I can honestly say there has never been a more divisive issue than Colorado removing Trump from the ballot. I do hope the SC issues a clear majority ruling, not a sniveling, mealy-mouth Roberts ruling.
.
If it goes against Trump, then I will be purchasing a gun (or two).
Steve,
You need about five. 😉
mark
Creating a traffic delay in NYC clearly is not trying to impede the government.
I don’t think “This was not well thought out and could never have worked” makes it not an insurrection.
mark bofill,
My business partner’s family used to own a gunsmith business… I have lots of options. 😉
FWIW -.
.
When I woke up this morning if someone asked me whether what took place was an insurrection, I probably would have said no. For 3 years I mostly felt the term was overly dramatic. I didn’t think at any point the rioters could realistically take over the government by force and I didn’t think the rioters ever thought they would take over the government (although it’s quite possible they thought they would, through violent resistance, overturn the election results and enable Trump to be president)
.
At this point I think I see it differently. It was a violent riot against authority. I don’t think it’s unrealistic that quite a few people – law enforcement, legislators, civilians – could have died at the hands of the rioters.
.
I don’t think the actual outcomes, nor whether it could have ever lead to a violent over-taking of the government, are requirements for it to be fairly called an insurrection.
.
Hmmm. I now think the term is applicable.
.
As to whether or not Trump was an “insurrectionist” would be another matter, imo.
Lucia,
I don’t buy that there was any plan at all. How many people need to be in on a plan for it to become a plan and an insurrection, I wonder. At any rate, this is one of the reasons I was curious up above about how the facts of Jan 6’th were established by the court.
Lucia,
““This was not well thought out and could never have worked” makes it not an insurrection.”
.
What makes it not an insurrection is that the participants never intended to overthrow the government and substitute some other government (neither locally nor nationally) for the existing one. Lots more baby strollers on Jan 6, 2021 than guns; an odd “insurrection” indeed.
Tom –
.
> Joshua,
Was what happened in Portland an insurrection?
.
When I woke up this morning I probably would have said no. I think now I would d
Say yes.
.
A violent riot against authority for (and I’ll add via Lucia, for the purpose of impeding government)… Fits the bill.
.
Maybe I’d have to think more re the Portland rioters as to whether their purpose was to impede government, and whether I need to integrate that criterion into my determination of yay or nay.
joshua,
“… could have died at the hands of the rioters.”
.
You mean, beaten to death by the fists of (unarmed) grandmothers?
.
Utter crap.
Steve –
.
> What makes it not an insurrection is that the participants never intended to overthrow the government and substitute some other government (neither locally nor nationally) for the existing one.
.
Determining intent seems pretty tricky, maybe especially from a legal standpoint. Further, I think it’s at least arguable they intended to overturn the election results (that they felt it was a crooked election doesn’t change that). I’m not sure how that’s different than intending to overthrow the government (of the president elect) and install a new one.
Steve –
.
> Utter crap.
.
Since you think my opinions are “utter crap” there’s probably not much point in further exchange. I’ll take note that you are of that opinion.
I’ll answer: If they set the court house on fire with the goal of seize control, yes.
If they shot ball bearings with the intention of preventing court proceedings, yes.
If they intended to hold the major captive with the goal of forcing him to change the budget, yes.
If their goal was to force the mayor to resign: yes.
I’m pretty sure my answer to whether it was an insurrection is yes. It didn’t succeed quite as well as Bastille Day did, but it was an insurrection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Portland,_Oregon
To clarify; I think a protest was planned. I think the protest got out of hand and became a riot. I think mob behavior can be spontaneous and unpredictable, and if there’s evidence that there was some plan to hatch insurrection, I’ve seen no evidence of it.
I don’t know what sort of imbecile it would take to conceive the plan [for] such an insurrection though, something that would only delay or hamper and actually accomplish nothing in the end other than tarring Trump as an insurrectionist. I get that Trump does really stupid things, but personally I’d like to see the evidence supporting this one.
SteveF
Well, at least now we are getting to a difference. I think attempting to significantly change the course of the transition to power is enough to make it an insurrection. They did that.
.
Irrelevant. Not everyone present on Jan 6 was involved in the insurrection. In fact, most people weren’t. Those people didn’t know an insurrection was going to occur.
Joshua,
“I’ll take note that you are of that opinion.”
.
Not all of your opinions, just the crazy ones.
mark bofill
A lot of mob behavior on Bastille day was unpredictable. I think most people would call that an insurrection.
Lucia,
The riots following the death of George Floyd were not “insurrections”. They were riots, instigated mainly by criminals who wanted an excuse to steal stuff without consequences.
Lucia,
“I think attempting to significantly change the course of the transition to power is enough to make it an insurrection.”
.
Again we disagree. They were protesting what they honestly believed was an election that was corrupted by unlawful changes in voting rules and regulations. Whether or not they were legally correct is irrelevant: they objected to what appeared to be unlawful (often bureaucratic) changes in rules which they believed lead to Biden being elected.
.
I did not hear anyone arrested suggest that they wanted to overthrow the Federal government.
Lucia,
If we’re calling an unplanned riot an insurrection, I don’t see how that makes Trump an insurrectionist.
mark
I’m calling a mob action that attempts to change the course of government action an insurrection.
.
The issue of planning isn’t in that definition.
.
The issue of planing could touch on whether Trump was engaged. And not every person in the mob needs to be in on or even know the plan. If I plan to control and release a heard of cattle into town to accomplish some nefarious goal, the fact that the cattle weren’t aware of mean the event wasn’t planned. It wasn’t planned by the cattle.
.
By the time people were swarming into the capital, at least some of them were motivated to interrupt the certification of ballots. And much of the crowd was influenced by Trump.
SteveF
Some were mere riots; some were insurrections.
Holding, or attempting to hold a mayor hostage to force changes in government actions is insurrection. It is one even if it happens to be done during a riot.
Hair splitting the details is not going to carry the day. The SC will not let the CO exclusion stand; I think that because I trust they understand the gravity of the situation. You simply can’t tell half the country their candidate is not eligible to be elected.
You need to work hard to connect the actions of some lunatics on Jan 6th (who believe they were saving democracy) directly to Trump through the 14th amendment while avoiding due process and juries and then banning Trump from running for office using Democratic judges and officials.
.
You need to have a broad definition of insurrection and you need to have a loose definition of incitement to have Trump haven taken part in the insurrection. You need to believe this can be rightfully accomplished without a trial by jury for the alleged crime, Trump shouldn’t have an opportunity to cross examine witnesses, this removal from a federal election can be done with almost no federal oversight and only by individual states.
.
This case can be argued with lots of if’s and then’s. So could the case of alternate electors to the letter of the law. What you were not going to get then and are not going to get now is the consent of the people that this is a legitimate process.
.
There was a months long show trial by the House that changed exactly nobody’s mind. Even some of the most activist progressives are uncomfortable with this process. They like the outcome but know this amounts to legal trickery.
.
What is the remedy? Let the people decide or have a government already heavily invested in one outcome decide it for the people? Let the people decide.
STeveF,
I think most confederates honestly believed they had a right to seceded. They decided to do it to preserve their “special institution”. But they honestly thought they had a right.
Tom
The CO court used dictionary definitions from 1860. They didn’t broaden.
.
Being a lunatic and being an insurrectionist is not an either/or proposition.
.
Trump is not being charged with a criminal violation. This is a civil action. And real question: What criminal statute could you apply to charge and convict someone of insurrection— like say someone who imitated Hitlers Beer Hall Putz. Title 18 can’t work because it only makes it illegal to use the mail or import printed material advocating insurrection.
.
You could say the exact same thing if a foreign born politician or 25 year old were running. That would make the disqualification clauses nullities
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
This describes the length of the civil trial:
Trump was involved. His team could and did cross examine witnesses.
.
(And by the way, he did not rebut factual claims about what happened on Jan 6. His team mostly advanced legal arguments.)
SteveF
Can you tell them he’s not eligible to take office?
.
I mean, setting aside Trump: If candidate X had clearly attempted insurrection, could a court tell people he can’t be on the ballot? Can can they tell him he can’t take office?
.
What if the candidate was only 23 years old?
.
These are honestly real questions. Because if it is literally true that Trump met one of the disqualification clauses, a court cannot say he’s disqualified? Or, more specifically, a court can decree that a state can’t do so? Because that makes no sense to me.
.
And just avoiding these hypotheticals doesn’t work. Because it’s necessary to see just how little you think a court can do. Otherwise we can’t understand why you think courts can’t do uphold CO’s ruling and know what else they can’t do.
Don’t misunderstand Steve, Lucia. Obviously, the court can rule in whatever way it pleases. The reason Steve says ‘You simply can’t tell half the country their candidate is not eligible to be elected.’ is that there is a significant possibility that doing so will tear this country apart. Who knows how far it will go. Riots? Attempts to secede? Civil war? Don’t know.
Nobody called the Portland riots an insurrection at the time as I recall, I don’t even think they were called anything other than protests, literally mostly peaceful protests ha ha.
.
It was run of the mill violent political protests IMO. Insurrection has always suggested a legitimate and serious attempt to overthrow a government, mostly a * system * of government, but I didn’t read the dictionaries and only take that from common usage.
.
If you now examine the UN’s definition of genocide you will find it has been broadened beyond recognition: “a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part”. The “in part” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for current accusations against Israel and others.
.
So maybe Jan 6th is a mostly peaceful insurrection using the new definition to some people.
“You could say the exact same thing if a foreign born politician or 25 year old were running. That would make the disqualification clauses nullities”
.
These can be definitively determined and are not judgment calls. Most people probably felt like insurrection wasn’t much of a judgment call either until recently. I had never even heard of this until this year. The age and natural born citizen requirements are somewhat arbitrary in nature and their inclusion was probably linked to some paranoia at the time.
.
That Trump is an insurrectionist is a judgment call and the fact people come to different conclusions primarily based on political ideology is a signal that it needs further clarification by somebody other than democrats.
It should be noted that although CO is the center of this debate other states have had other outcomes.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
Tom,
Yes, insurrection is a judgement call. Nevertheless, the disqualification is present in the 14th amendment. Saying it’s a judgement call can’t justify making it a nullity.
More on insurrection. People are pulling up these old timey definitioes
It can be an insurrection if
* the rising actively opposes execution of a law.
* even if the rising is limited to one city: DC.
It’s more than a sedition.
Insurrection does not require an attempt to over throw the goverment and replace it.
The crowd, i.e. “number of persons”, that rose up on Jan 6 were opposing execution of a law (certifications of ballots) in a city. That’s sufficient. If they had been trying to over throw the entire government and replace it with something else, that would have elevated this to rebellion.
Tom Scharf,
Point to an outcomes.
Different states have different rules for including someone on the ballot. If a state did not include a rule to block someone who is disqualified from the primary, they don’t block him from the primary. That’s what Minn said. But they people who brought the suit were told they can bring the suit if he gets on the presidential ballot. So the MN ruling neither contradicts nor supports the CO rulling– MN just doesn’t happen to have have a rule about blocking disqualified candidates from primaries.
(Note: MI is pretty much the same– they can’t kick his name off the primary ballot. But they may be able to kick it off the presidential one.)
.
There are lots of things in pipelines— but that’s not an outcome.
.
I am glad to read this “Oral arguments in the case are scheduled to be heard on Feb. 8.” The fact there are tons of things in the pipeline highlights how important it is SCOTUS rule fast.
.
We can argue and wag our chins endlessless. SCOTUS’s ruling will be what matters.
.
It will be seriously horrible for the GOP if Trump gets nominated but then is blocked from being on the presidential ballot.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
As I said up thread, the most divisive political issue ever explored on this blog (and I expect many others).
.
FWIW, I do expect the SC will (mercifully!) end this with a “you have to be kidding” ruling. I have been wrong before, but if I am wrong this time, the consequences could be very destructive for the USA.
Lucia,
I trust you will honor our bet.
Wow.
When a topic takes off like this there is obviously a lot of feeling, tension, excitement and disagreement at play.
At issue CNN
“The US Supreme Court said Friday it will review the Colorado Supreme Court’s unprecedented decision removing former President Donald Trump from that state’s ballot.”
For being a proven insurrectionist [my words]
–
As my mates say, words matter, Joshua (Comment #227931) and Socrates.
–
Governments consist of single leaders, Kings, despots, Dictators or groups of leaders a Junta, or of a party or group of parties.
Governments can be overturned by elections or force.
People are allowed to want to change the government.
Successful overturning is called a change of control.
All are legal by dint of having succeeded.
Various words exist .
A coup d’etat for instance- “the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group ”
A revolution.
–
An insurrection should be defined as a planned attempt by illegal or violent means to overthrow a government that fails.
If people revolt or protest or strike about a Governments actions or outcomes that is not an insurrection.
It is an expression of their distaste for outcomes they believe the Government is causing in their lives.
As such, unless an individual causes harm to another person or property, most sensible people would agree that a person has the right to dissent from other people’s views.
–
Trump did not plan or authorize a plan to use violence or illegal means to overturn the Government in any way, shape or form.
–
Many decent, honourable people who went to protest what they saw as an unfair election system installing a new President too quickly suffered on that day and continue to suffer.
–
Young Mums and Dads, Policemen, Army members, Shopkeepers and Government workers and Ordinary people.
Fingerprinted, abused, jobs trashed, families broken up, criminal records for life.
And in one case the only death on that day, Joshua, [Imagined ones aside] an unarmed young lady shot dead by the police.
Tens of thousands of lives wrecked forever by a perverted legal system persecuting them for daring to support Trump.
Real normal people one day, felons the next.
–
That is why, Lucia, it is not and cannot be considered an insurrection because in claiming that it is, or might be one is perpetuating the damage that innocent people are currently suffering.
–
Have I laid it on too thick? Yes.
” I don’t think it’s unrealistic that quite a few protestors could have died at the hands of the– law enforcement, legislators, and FBI agitators.
I don’t think the actual outcomes, people illegally chucked in jail and their lives wrecked are requirements for it to be unfairly called an insurrection.”
Lucia,
“I mean, setting aside Trump: If candidate X had clearly attempted insurrection, could a court tell people he can’t be on the ballot? Can can they tell him he can’t take office?”
.
Crazy discussion. Trump is NOT candidate X who attempted insurrection; that is someone’s wild eyed fantasy. No state court can say that the delusions of people who hate Trump mean he can’t be on the ballot, nor can they say he can’t take office.
.
I get that you hate Trump, OK. I too think he is scum. I wish he were killed by a bolt from on high before he could take office. But that is not the issue.
SteveF
It’s not crazy if you are advancing a legal theory. If your argument is merely outcome based… fine. But SCOTUS is going to either kick the can or advance a legal theory, and it’s got to also work in the case of “candidate X”.
.
My motivation is not anti-Trump. It is not wanting to destroy our government by having SCOTUS advance purely outcome based legal rulings.
SteveF
Of course! It’s a bottle of wine!! It’s a bet– I know there is a possibility of losing.
.
I do however, hope SCOTUS doesn’t just give an outcome oriented ruling that makes no sense at law. If the do that, it will be very destabilizing.
Lucia,
“My motivation is not anti-Trump.”
.
For the first time, I am disappointed.
Steve,
I wasn’t going to say it, because I [didn’t] really see the point. But since you’ve already expressed it. Me too.
SteveF,
I am anti-Trump. But that’s not my motivation. I don’t like outcome oriented rulings. I’m not reading you giving any reason why SCOTUS should over turn CO other than you don’t like the CO’s outcome. And I think if that’s the reason for a ruling, our country is in serious danger– and in not too long a time period.
Lucia,
I don’t know what to say to you, honestly. I guess you think the risks involved with taking Trump off the ballot are negligible somehow, and that Trump supporters are just going to say ‘oh well’ and go home.
I hope they do. I hope you’re right. It boggles my mind that you think the SC finding some BS legal pretext to leave Trump on the ballot is going to destroy our country but taking him off will not. Seriously. I have a hard time believing I’m reading this.
I’ll try to be done with this topic for awhile, before I damage long term relationships with an injudicious remark.
Ciao.
mark
I don’t think the risks of taking Trump off the ballot are negligible. I don’t. I think there are big risks either way.
.
But guess I think some of you think the risks involved in an outcome oriented ruling are negligible.
.
OK: What do you anticipate will be the outcome if SCOTUS finds that, if, after providing a neutral process, a state identifies a candidate as disqualified and takes him off? I recognize this is overlaid by “and the candidate is Trump”? Are you anticipating an armed uprising? I don’t anticipate that. I could be wrong, but I don’t.
.
I do think it would sweep a lot of Republicans into the House and Senate, but that doesn’t strike me as bad.
.
I guess you’re out of here. But if none of you will state explicitly what you think the danger is, I’m not going to guess what it is you think I”m not envisioning as being a high probability event. I’m also not going to assume it’s a high probability event nor that it is very, very bad.
.
lucia (Comment #227987): “I don’t like outcome oriented rulings. I’m not reading you giving any reason why SCOTUS should over turn CO other than you don’t like the CO’s outcome.”
.
The CO and Maine decisions seem like the ultimate in “outcome oriented rulings”. They are just finding a legal excuse to do what they want.
.
There are a whole bunch of principled reasons to think those rulings should be overturned. They have been out forward by multiple people here. I don’t know how you could have missed them.
Independent of whether people might riot, the big danger of upholding the kicking of Trump off the ballot is that it will be permission for open season on Republican candidates in general, which will lead to Democrats also being kicked off ballots. That will not end well.
.
Jonathan Turley reviews Dem efforts to bar Republicans from office:
https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/opinion/its-not-just-trump-democrats-are-moving-to-bar-republicans-from-ballots-nationwide/
Mark –
.
Lucia says:
.
> But guess I think some of you think the risks involved in an outcome oriented ruling are negligible.
.
And that touches on something I don’t get about your take. I keep reading what you say and it looks to me like you’re saying that judges should work back from potential outcomes to decide cases.
.
That looks to me like a classic left/right split where you’re taking the classic left stereotype position – I guess what might typically be called the “living document” position versus the “strict constructionism” position.
.
What am I not understanding about your view?
mark
I should add: I’m certainly not saying they should find a “BS legal pretext” at all. I’m saying they should not find one to achieve any outcome oriented ruling. That’s in either direction. A stand against any and all “BS legal pretexts” for outcome oriented rulings.
.
So lets look at the “arguments”:
Using definitions of insurrection that don’t make sense to keep him on or off the ballot? They shouldn’t do that; it’s BS to use a bogus definition of insurrection. The CO ruling gives definitions from the time when the 14th amendment was written. That’s the one that counts.
.
Saying Trump needs to have been charged and convicted when that’s not in the disqualification clause? And even though Jefferson Davis wasn’t even convicted of anything. (He was charged with treason, not insurrection. And the charge was dropped by the prosecution.)
They shouldn’t say Trump needed to be convicted when even Jefferson Davis was not; the disqualification clearly applied to him. Saying he needed to be convicted would be a BS legal argument. Heck… even charged would be a problem since all but 37 confederates were pardoned and so never charged. If SCOTUS made that argument, it would clearly be BS.
.
Trying to say states don’t have the right to pick electors when the constitution clearly says they do? They shouldn’t do that; it’s a BS argument.
.
Saying “It’s just a bad outcome, we don’t like it!” They shouldn’t do that. it’s a BS argument.
.
Saying the rule doesn’t apply to the President. That looks pretty BSy to me.
.
Not enough due process may be a good argument to keep him on the ballot. But it won’t last long. Some other state will change the rule to have enough due process to keep him off the presidential ballot.
.
I want to see an argument that is not BS— and that goes for any ruling. I think the argument not being BS is more important than the outcome.
.
I need to read a not-BS argument, and not-outcome driven argument for over turning CO. The only one I’ve read is “not enough due process”– and I’ve said that might fly repeatedly. But it’s hardly evident the standard for this process needs to be the same as for a criminal conviction because this is not a criminal conviction (which no one has rebutted. Because it’s impossible to do so. This action is civil.)
.
SCOTUS needs to find a NOT-BS argument either way. And people advocating them overturning CO need to provide NOT-BS arguments. Or, if you honestly are ok with outcome driven result provided it’s the the result you like and not one you don’t, say that.
MikeM
If you think so, tell me the specific part of the CO ruling that is “outcome oriented”. Identify which part is a “legal excuse”. Because otherwise, your diagnosis seems to spring entirely from not liking their outcome.
MIkeM
No. Not “principled”– or if “principled”, ones that seem seriously flawed.
.
A whole bunch of reasons that are either based on false claims of fact (like Trump didn’t get to cross examine witnesses), wild over interpretations of rulings (like “Williams” above), reading entire extra concepts into Section 13 (like Trump needs to have been convicted) and so on have been advanced.
,
This is likely nonesense pearl clutching. “for questioning the election of President Biden.” is not “insurrection”. And a properly reasoned SCOTUS ruling should make that clear. A kick the can one won’t. That’s why it shouldn’t be a BS ruling in either direction.
.
Will politicians grandstand? Of course They do.
Joshua (to mark)
Edit: I’m saying it sounds to me like some other people are saying judges should work back from outcomes., And they happen to favor the outcome “Keep Trump on the ballot no matter what BS legal argument you need to make”.
….
And I think they shouldn’t work backwards from either possible ruling. I think they also need to not kick the can.
.
And with respect to this from mark
I’m waying the opposite. I think the risks involved in an outcome oriented ruling are very large. I just happen to think the are large both if they rule to keep Trump on and if they keep rule to keep Trump off.
.
I will add my thoughts to the insurrection discussion here by listing my views on the matter.
1. Firstly, no court decision should be based on anybody’s opinion that it might lead to a violent reaction. That attitude would lead shortly to no law at all or an excuse for imposing a more authoritative government than we already have for the purpose of subduing the violence or even imagined threats of violence.
2. Trump attempted to overturn the results of an election outside the purview of available legal avenues of recourse. The fact that he failed is not the issue. The Confederacy also failed. His effort was unprecedented and many faceted. In my judgment that fits the definition of an insurrection.
3. There is a legitimate issue of insurrections bearing on the 14th amendment clause for disqualification needing a court verdict. Whether that would require a directed court case verdict or merely a court – and subsequent appeals to higher courts – rendering a verdict of insurrection in deciding a disqualification case, will perhaps be decided by the Supreme court.
4. However, this case plays out (I think it will require a more specific and detailed legislative act to pass muster with the Supreme Court), I have stated my opinion many times that we let our politicians off much too easily and most often with the “let the voters decide”. Of course, one could reply further that, yes, civilian cases are decided by a vote of the jury and thus that system is being applied to politicians. The argument might work if a vote for a politician also resulted in more punishment than removal from office that often results in a lucrative post-election career. However the insurrection case is decided we should be working to more directly hold our politicians accountable such that serving becomes a duty that causes the holder of office to want to move back to the private (real) world.
5. I believe that the two-party system we have and the lack of the voters pushing for accountability with their politicians leads to the dismal choices they will have in November. Look for the turnout to be huge with self-congratulations all around and all because the two-party system allows one to fanatically support some despicable one because of their more understandable dislike for the other candidate.
Lucia –
.
What’s confusing me is why no one is picking up on a reversal of the classic left/right split. It’s one thing to argue that this situation should be an exception, or perhaps why it’s not really arguing from an outcomes logic but just appears that way, or something. But I don’t see anyone doing something like that. It just looks to me like people saying the outcome would be dangerous, thus the ruling shouldn’t stand. Of course, there’s a parallel argument being made that the judges were working from an outcomes backward logic. Well, OK, but then why do people still reference why the ruling shouldn’t stand because of the potential outcome?
.
Also, I think you’ve made a good argument why the ruling may not have been merely an outcomes-based function of TDS, but I wouldn’t expect conservatives who think all libz are corrupt and all unelected judges appointed by Demz to only care about legislating from the bench to accept such an argument.
.
Probably not surprisingly, I would argue that a balance should be struck, in part because I’m skeptical of the putative objectivity underlying the “strict constructionism” framework.
For those who want to read it, this is the GOP appeal. (Both the GOP and Trump appealed. )
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-696/294416/20231227184621636_Colorado-Republican-State-Central-Committee-v.-Anderson-Cert-Petition%20PDFA.pdf
Lucia,
My objection IS NOT based on a desired outcome, save for a desire for sanity in outcomes. I loath Trump. He is a jerk. My objection is that the Colorado ruling is contrary to every historical prescient, and a purely politically motivated decision by a bunch of politically appointed judges, in a small population state that is overwhelmingly opposed to Trump. Of COURSE they want Trump off the ballot. Che’ shot anyone he believed disloyal in the back of the head with a pistol… very simple solution to ensure the outcome you want, much like removing anyone you strongly disagree with from the ballot.
.
Maine is even worse: a political decision by a single political hack who would oppose any Republican. These law fare decisions are bad for the country, and utterly dishonest for anyone who believes voters should choose their government. And at bottom, that is the issue: these are people who want to take the decision away from the voters. It is dishonest. It is destructive. It must be stopped, or the consequences could be horribly destructive for the future of the country.
Joshua,
I’m not overly concerned with people flip flopping in their method of interpreting the constitution. I do understand why you are noticing it.
.
How is that not an outcome oriented ruling? Real question. Because I don’t see the distinction between saying SCOTUS ruling should be driven by the possibility of a dangerous outcome should Trump’s name be left off and saying that the ruling is “outcome oriented”.
.
I think saying SCOTUS must overrule because otherwise there is some horrible danger is precisely an outcome driven argument.
.
In contrast I’m saying SCOTUS must provide a well reasoned argument for their ruling or else bad things could happen.. But I also think they should provide a well reasoned argument even if no bad things would happen otherwise.
.
SteveF
I don’t know what this means. Merely deeming the an outcome you seem to dislike “insane” doesn’t strike me as a legal argument.
In what way?
I’d like to know how you come to the conclusin it’s is a purely politically motivated decision? Can you point to reasoning that is flawed? Is this diagnosis based on something other than the outcome? Or the parties of the people who appointed the judges?
.
Maine may very well be that. I skimmed Maine’s stuff and it does seems to be regurgitating. So i don’t disagree as to Maine.
But that still leaves my questions to you about CO. Maine is also being appealed– so we’ll see what happens there.
.
Sure. But at the same time: the case can be made that Jan 6 was an insurrection, and Trump was engaged in it. And the fact remains that being engaged in an insurrection is disqualifying. And that disqualification is in the US constitution– by way of the 14th amendment.
.
The fact that some people very much want Trump off the ballot doesn’t change the other facts. And the fact that some people hate Trump and want him off doesn’t set aside the legal force of the US constitution. The 14th amendment doesn’t say insurrectinists are disqualified unless there are some people who really hate them and want them disqualified.
.
Setting aside the constitution is also horribly destructive. Setting it aside because someone predicts not setting it aside in a particular way is destructive (in unspecified way) is also very destructive.
.
SCOTUS needs a non-BS legal reason for setting aside CO’s legal argument. Not enough due process I can buy. Bit “it must be stopped” is a BS legal reason.
.
Consider a case where there are two ways plausible ways to interpret a law. The first is clearly destructive and unworkable; the second is not. I don’t see that as an argument against the non-destructive interpretation. And I don’t see why the destructive and unworkable nature of the first interpretation should be ignored.
.
Maybe I don’t understand lucia’s argument.
Lucia,
Being as that I reject that Jan 6 was an insurrection, I utterly reject all follows from assuming it was an insurrection.
.
But that said, that a bunch of politically appointed judges concludes Trump is guilty of treason is the weakest possible argument for removing him from the ballot. Who should decide on Trump’s ‘treason’: voters, or a group of politically appointed Democrat judges? This seems to me to have so obvious an answer that I am astounded you think the Colorado ‘legal process’ means anything at all. It seems to me nothing but pure crap.
.
I think there is no point arguing further, since we disagree 100% on basic premises. You think the Colorado process to exclude Trump is legitimate, while I think it is completely illegitimate and 100% politically motivated. Like those hacks in Colorado, you think Trump is guilty of treason, while I think he is just an asshole, nothing more.
.
You can consider that a legal argument or not, as you wish.
Lucia –
.
> How is that not an outcome oriented ruling? Real question.
.
I’m confused. It seems you’re thinking that I’m saying that wouldn’t be an outcomes-based ruling, but I’m agreeing that if would be.
> Because I don’t see the distinction between saying SCOTUS ruling should be driven by the possibility of a dangerous outcome should Trump’s name be left off and saying that the ruling is “outcome oriented”
.
I agree. I don’t see a distinction either. And I don’t instand why Mark, at least, seems to expect an outcomes-based reasoning for a judicial decision. That’s more along the lines of what one might typically expect from “the left.”
>
> I think saying SCOTUS must overrule because otherwise there is some horrible danger is precisely an outcome driven argument.
.
I agree. For some reason I don’t get you seem to think I don’t agree? Obviously, I was unclear somehow.
.
This all goes to Kenneth’a comment as well, which seems to argue the same logic (and a logic I would typically expect from someone on “the right”).
.
> In contrast I’m saying SCOTUS must provide a well reasoned argument for their ruling or else bad things could happen.. But I also think they should provide a well reasoned argument even if no bad things would happen otherwise.
.
Again, I agree. It’s not exactly that I think the outcomes are irrelevant to how a ruling should be reasoned (being on “the left”), but that a balance should be struck. Certainly, I think, there shouldn’t be a direct line from “bad things might happen because Trump supporters won’t like it and they would rebel” to a judicial ruling. But I do think that at some level, justices should try to integrate societal views on what is or isn’t “just,” for example
Otherwise how would we have gotten from SCOTUS rulings that allowed outright discrimination to those which later determined it is unconstitutional? At some point “outcomes” reasonably, imo, become a part of the mix.
.
>I’m not sure what this means.
.
Perhaps what I just wrote helps to explain.
.
> I think a good non-BS legal argument needs to be advanced for whatever they decide. I don’t know if that’s stirking a balance between two things.
.
I agree, except that’s not what I meant by a balance; by “balance” I meant a recognition of the tradeoffs and pluses and minuses on both sides of the “living constitution” vs. “strict constructionism” divide. But of course in top of that, most paramount is a kind of “balance” that can only come from non-BS legal arguments.
SteveF
Sure. But you don’t provide a definition of insurrection. SCOTUS needs one.
.
You continue to provide no legal arguments.
I don’t and haven’t said so. Insurrection and treason are different. Obviously, Trump didn’t try to kill himself the sovereign– which would have been himself. So that leaves that out. And also: insurrection doesn’t require overthrowing the government. That’s rebellion. Insurrection merely requires setting aside a law. So that puts aside the other definition of treason.
.
The 14th amendment lists insurrection or rebellion. It does not list treason, so I don’t understand why you are substituting that word. Each word has a specific meaning. Rebellion involves overthrowing a government; treason can involve overthrowing the government (or just killing the head government). Insurrection does not involve overthrowing the government. And insurrection is enough to trigger the disqualification clause.
.
I agree with you Trump’s an asshole. That is obviously not a legal argument for keeping him off the ballot.
.
Other than the accusation the judges are politically appointed, I’m not seeing any argument about their reasoning.
.
I’m basing my evaluation of the CO legal process based on the documents describing the process.
.
I basing my evaluation of the CO Supreme’s reasoning based on reading the opinion they issued. I prefer that to basing it on who appointed them. Notably, some of the D appointed judges did dissent which suggests judges are capable of some degree of independent thought.
Lucia –
.
I’ll add, in response to this:
.
.
Indeed, I think that the most power that SCOTUS has to affect whether bad things can happen is to provide a well-reasoned argument. Of course, it wouldn’t be a guarantee. What is guaranteed is that even if a well-reasoned argument on any matter went against Trump, he would proclaim it “unfair,” and his most ardent supporters would consider it tyrrany. And as such, bad things could quite possibly happen. But the answer to that threat isn’t to provide a poorly-reasoned argument to prevent such an outcome.
.
We might as well argue that violence in reaction to court ordered desegregation should have been avoided. i’m sure no one here would make that argument. But even if someone did, I would counter that badly-reasoned judicial decisions that would have avoided that violence would only have led to probably worse outcomes somewhere down the line. Justices have to, imo, believe that the best way they can affect outcomes is through solid judicial reasoning. Of course, such a view will always be tainted by their biases. But in the end, whether they are on one side of biases or the other (or one side of the “living document” versus the “strict constructionism” divide or the other), sound reasoning is the best way to affect outcomes.
Ken Fritsch (Comment #227997)
1. Firstly, no court decision should be based on anybody’s opinion that it might lead to a violent reaction.
Yes
–
2. Trump attempted to overturn the results of an election outside the purview of available legal avenues of recourse.
No.
–
It is 3 years since the events.
There has been no finding by a duly authorized* body in that time that has found your argument had any basis.
Your views on the matter carry no legal burden, implication or weight. That attitude [ judgement without trial and verdict] would, as you said previously lead shortly to no law at all.
That is the gist of what Mark and SteveF are arguing.
That is one of the most fundamental principles of law that the Colorado Court has misunderstood.
lucia (Comment #228006)
” But you don’t provide a definition of insurrection.
SCOTUS needs one.”
–
It seems to me we all need to provide our own definition of what we think an insurrection is as if we do not have any agreement the argument either way is pointless.
Either that a vote.
Or a Quatloo bet on the outcome of the Supreme Court.
–
BTW – SCOTUS does not need a definition of insurrection.
The Colorado court in undertaking its actions needs to have a clear definition of insurrection.
SCOTUS decides whether that interpretation is right.
As in correct.
As in just.
As in being applicable to the 14th amendment in general.
As in being applicable to the 14th amendment in this instance.
As in applicable to banning a legally eligible individual from running for President.
–
Lucia ” And insurrection is enough to trigger the disqualification clause.”
–
You did ask SteveF to provide a definition of insurrection.
Could I politely ask you to do the same?
You will note that I have provided a definition of Insurrection upstream.
It did not mention that the involvement of a certain person in any actions to question an election result was an automatic trigger of a guilty of insurrection finding just for this one individual.
–
“Each word has a specific meaning. Rebellion involves overthrowing a government; treason can involve overthrowing the government (or just killing the head government). Insurrection does not involve overthrowing the government”
–
IMHO a Revolution and a coup d’etat involve overthrowing a Government.
A rebellion is strictly an attempt to overthrow a Government, as is an insurrection: both share the same connotations.
Both have to fail for if they succeed they are given one of the first two names.
–
“Other than the accusation the judges are politically appointed, I’m not seeing any argument about their reasoning.
I’m basing my evaluation of the CO legal process based on the documents describing the process.
I’m basing my evaluation of the CO Supreme’s reasoning based on reading the opinion they issued. I prefer that to basing it on who appointed them.”
–
If you choose refuse to look at[basing it on] who appointed them then I guess you might never be able to see any argument about their reasoning being tainted by being political appointees.
The argument about their reasoning on the other hand is easy to explain and see.
A legal process can undergo any course those in charge of it choose to follow.
Documents describing such a process do not provide any guarantee of legal correctness in that procedure however. Basing your evaluation purely on the documents you read as gospel means your evaluation would be totally incorrect if, I repeat if, such documents are legally flawed and inadmissible.
The same argument applies to basing your evaluation of the reasoning of the CO Supreme Court by reading the opinions they issued.
I understand you have read up on all the legal definitions and that such opinions constitute a legally valid way of proceeding with such [ugh] opinions
–
“I don’t know what this means. Merely deeming the an outcome you seem to dislike “insane” doesn’t strike me as a legal argument.”
–
I think what Mark and SteveF are arguing for is the same as what you are arguing for but to produce opposite outcomes.
Due process is important.
Due application of the law without fear or favor is important.
Yet the law is bigger than this.
That is why we have judges.
Strict application of the law leads to unwanted consequences.
When the law has been misused, misapplied, as in the cases of persecuting Trump by applying the letter of the law to everything he does but not to everyone else, the Law has turned on itself and become unjust.
The only remedy available in such cases is to appeal up the line until the last judge or judges either cut the baby in half or offer leniency to the afflicted person and reproof to those who have misused the system.
On the way up it is important for all of us interested in justice to call out misguided and legally wrong arguments such as those of CO instead of reading and agreeing with them because…
angech
SCOTUS is going to make some sort of a ruling. If they are going to rule on whether an insurrection takes place, they are going to have to tell us their definition.
They gave one in their ruling. If SCOTUS rules on this, they will need to give their definition. It may simply be the same one, or it may be different.
I’m fine with this under inclusive definition from the CO Supreme court. I already gave it above, but since you missed it and now ask me politely to give it, voila!
.
Refused to look? I haven refused to look. I’ve looked. But I base my conclusion on whether some one is unduly biased politically from their reasoning.
.
Well, I agree it’s important for use to call out misguided or legally wrong arguments. That’s why I’ve been commenting on specific arguments. (I note: you have not been doing so.)
.
However, I also think if the arguments are misguided, one should be able to state them and explain what is wrong with them. Just saying they are misguided without stating what they are or what’s wrong with them isn’t useful.
.
I note that you have not described even one single argument advanced by CO nor stated why it is wrong. Not one.
.
Perhaps you know what the CO court arguments are and perhaps you have a persuasive argument for why the CO arguments are wrong. But based on what you write, it is impossible to distinguish that from you thinking they are wrong because you don’t like the outcome.
Joshua,
If SCOTUS takes Trump off the CO ballot, he will certainly say they are unfair. He has already stated pre-complainng about likely unfairness. Who’d expect otherwise. Anyway:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-asks-scotus-appointees-treat-him-fairly-colorado-appeal-2024-1
Trumps appeal
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24253189-trump-v-anderson-2024-01-03-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari
I hope SCOTUS doesn’t decide to rule that the CO Supreme court is wrong about CO law. But this argument makes me chuckle
.
Basically, Trump ‘s lawyers are arguing that, according to CO law, he can’t be kicked off the primary ballot because Haley, DeSantis, Ramaswamy etc. are qualified.
.
FWIW: I think on this point the CO law does read the way Trump’s lawyers say it reads. But if Trump presented that to the CO Supremes, they must have rejected it. And usually SCOTUS doesn’t touch a states interpretation of their own law. Still, who knows? Also still: SCOTUS rules based on this argument, it will just kick the can to the Presidential ballot. After all: of Trump is nominated, all these other people wouldn’t appear on the Presidential ballot.
I’ve never said the SC should base their ruling on a preferred outcome or the reaction to it, however the weight of disenfranchising about half the voters in the country means one cannot make this decision lightly or frivolously. The standard must be very high.
.
I reject the dictionary definition of insurrection used by CO as overly broad for these purposes because it can encompass too many legitimate protests and failed legal challenges (Portland was not an insurrection, it was a political protest) and I expect the SC to not use it. I also completely reject the premise that Trump has been proven to have taken part in the Jan 6th riot or incited it. This was a political protest that turned into an unplanned riot.
.
If enough clowns showed up on Jan 6th for a protest of a not-stolen election then one can reasonably expect a much more severe response to an actual stolen election, an election openly and proudly taken away by partisans of an opposing party by legal fiat using their appointees.
.
Convictions for capital crimes have to be unanimous because of the impact to the accused. People with prejudice to the accused or the outcome cannot serve on the jury. We allow many guilty people to go free because 50/50 is not the proper standard. A 2/3 majority is required for impeachment. Yet here we have a standard of a single person or a panel made up entirely of judges appointed by the opposing party can potentially take the vote away from half the country.
.
Prejudiced people declaring “Jan 6th probably was a technical definition of an insurrection and Trump’s actions might have risen to the level of incitement” isn’t good enough for the potential impact.
.
The SC likely understands the weight of this decision as they did in the year 2000. Since there aren’t any established standards for this type of case I would anticipate they will choose a high standard.
Lucia.
Voila. Perfect.
Thank you ever so much.
I did miss it by the way.
–
I doubt I will win any arguments with you.
But that is OK.
It encourages me to try harder at my research and putting up better arguments and that can only be a good thing.
–
–
Who you gonna’ believe, Lucia or Turley? https://jonathanturley.org/2023/12/22/yielding-to-temptation-colorados-supreme-court-blocks-democracy-to-bar-trump-on-the-2024-ballot/
.
I suspect Turley is closer to the thinking of the SC justices.
Tom Scharf,
Yes, those are some of the real issues. The ‘insurrection’ narrative is grasping at straws, and I think silly, but dangerous because so many people believe it.
I agree that Jan. 6 was more riot than insurrection. I think Trump and his cronies planning fake electors and encouraging the riot approaches insurrection, but probably does not cross the line.
I loathe Trump but I think he should be on the ballot–the precedent removing him would create would haunt us in years to come.
And I thought everyone would by this time agree that neither side was going to budge on their positions and call it a day.
.
Not going to go back and read the many pages of posts, but has anyone come up with a legal citation that refutes the 2 court rulings supplied way up this chain that specifically says the President of the United States is NOT an “Officer of the United States” ?
.
If the President is not an “Officer of the United States”, he cannot be charged with Insurrection. This is an easy out for the SC as its established case law.
.
Any way……its 5:30 am, its been a LONG day and I am going to bed. Good night or good morning… whatever 🙂
Ed
The CO Supreme ruling. I’ve posted links numerous times. I quoted relevant portions on another thread.
.
Meanwhile, what might the ramifications be of Trump getting “blanket immunity?”
Joshua,
From SCOTUS? Trump’s appeal doesn’t ask for immunity. I read it last night.
I assume briefs will be filed. I’d be pretty stunned if it asked for immunity from SCOTUS.
Who do you envision possibly giving him “blanket immunity”? The 14th amendment doesn’t actually say (or to my mind even imply) who decides if he is disqualified for insurrection. It does say who can set an existing disqualification aside. (“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” )
.
I don’t think anyone other than Congress can set aside the disability– and that needs to be by 2/3rd majority of each house.
We don’t need to analyze legal briefs to understand what is happening here. We have all been awake for the last 7 years and have been reminded of what happened on Jan 6th in overdose fashion, mostly one version of events.
.
Trump is a terrible guy whose bad behavior should easily exclude him from office by voter discretion. It hasn’t and those who don’t understand why would be wise to examine how this campaign against Trump has backfired and now leave him the leading contender for President.
.
My advice is stop being the people Trump says you are, stop persecuting him and making him a martyr. Stop.helping.him.
I think that executive immunity is at issue in a different case: Trump’s appeal of the Jack Smith persecution that Smith wants to begin in March.
Tom,
We know people are out to get Trump. But that doesn’t mean he did not do what the CO court says he did.
.
I agree that, unfortunately, many of these actions are helping Trump win votes in the nomination. I even thing some Dems know it too– and that’s part of the motivation.
.
I’m not doing anything to Trump. I’m just reading the legal arguments and evaluating them. I’m also hearing arguments that have nothing to do with the law– which is fine– but even if SCOTUS is influenced by those, they aren’t going to write an opinion that states those as their reason.
.
I mean, I’m reasonably confident the the ruling will not be “CO Supreme overruled because, honestly, we know people have just been out to get Trump for years!”
MikeM
Thanks. That helped me google.
I see this https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-denies-special-counsels-request-trump-immunity/story?id=105879323
I’m not sure why a defendant wouldn’t want his absolute immunity case established first. Maybe the position is he wants an opportunity for a “not guilty” without absolute immunity and knows that if he wins absolute immunity then he can’t get the “not guilty”? Dunno.
.
I think this would be separate from the insurrection issue. No matter what one’s view on the “Jan 6 [is/is not] insurrection”, I’m pretty sure being engaged in one would be outside official duties as president.
.
ULA’s (Boeing / Lockheed) Vulcan rocket lifted off for first time last night. It’s a long delayed competitor to the SpaceX Falcon 9. The launch went well but the payload not so much. A small lunar lander had an “anomaly” and looks like they lost a lot of propellant and can no longer land. Stuck valves are a common point of failure for this type of problem.
Tom
Nice to see more rockets launching.
.
I saw an article on Elon’s drug use in today’s WSJ. When I read the head line, I asked Jim… Interesting, I wonder which? He said “Evidently all of them.” The article did list quite a few different drugs!
lucia (Comment #228028): “I’m not sure why a defendant wouldn’t want his absolute immunity case established first.”
.
I think Trump does want the immunity issue decided first. What his lawyers opposed was letting it go straight to SCOTUS without stopping at the Circuit Court. Smith wanted that because he is in a hurry to get a conviction before the election. It seems that the Circuit Court worked overtime between Xmas and New Year’s to try to get a decision ASAP, but I don’t know if that has been handed down yet. One can speculate as to why the Circuit Court was in such a hurry.
lucia (Comment #228030): “I saw an article on Elon’s drug use in today’s WSJ.”
.
Based on the usual anonymous sources. In opposition, there is this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/01/07/elon-musk-claims-not-even-trace-amounts-of-drugs-in-his-system-after-report-detailed-drug-concerns-from-tesla-spacex-execs/
It does seem that he has a prescription for ketamine.
Elon is definitely a big drug experimenter. He smoked weed with Rogan a long time ago during a podcast, it’s never been much of a secret. However half the people I knew exited college with that list. LSD is pretty hard core for an older guy though. He’s getting more and more eccentric.
Ketamine is apparently effective against depression sometimes when SSRI’s don’t help. Kind of like Xanax is helpful against anxiety but can be abused because who likes anxiety ever?
From last night’s Golden Globes:
“Even though Prince Harry and Meghan Markle didn’t attend the Golden Globe Awards ceremony Sunday, they were on attendees’ minds”
Jo Koy got some laughs at their expense… He addressed the couple’s perceived struggles, sense of entitlement and lack of productivity, by saying that nominee Imelda Staunton had done such a good job playing Queen Elizabeth II in Netflix’s “The Crown” that “Harry had called her to ask for money.”
While Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos was caught on camera laughing and shaking his head uncomfortably, Koy also said: “Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will still get paid millions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing — and that’s just by Netflix.”
MikeM
I would think getting a quick trial would generally be a good thing particularly if that means the court works over time. Takes less time to clear your name.
.
It would also be good for the country to have these things out of the way one way or the other– especially if Trump is not-guilty.
MikeM
He obviously manages to run SpaceX one way or the other. He also doesn’t look glazed over with drugs.
(This would be unlike the guy at Batchatta last night who smelled like weed. I wonder if they can make weed without the smell? Now I’m going to have to google to see if anything tells me whether the active ingredient is the source of the smell. The guy seemed perfectly pleasant by the way, though he was having trouble mastering the hammerlock.)
Lucia, I have read the CO SC ruling. It makes many unsupported claims, then proceeds to take these arguments as facts.
.
Per the CO court, only the mere accusation for a crime is required. This will not go over well with the USSC.
.
“It cannot be read to mean that only those charged and convicted of violating that law are constitutionally disqualified from holding future office without assuming a great deal of meaning not present in the text of the law. ”
.
On the issue on who is an “Officer of the United States”, their ruling doesn’t address actual federal court rulings that do state the president is NOT an “Officer of the United States “. They go into the general dictionary terms and ignore court rulings on this specific subject.
.
“Indeed, even Intervenors do not deny that the Presidency is an office. Instead, they assert that it is not an office “under the United States.” Their claim is that the President and elected members of Congress are the government of the United States, and cannot, therefore, be serving “under the United States.” Id. at amend. XIV, § 3. We cannot accept this interpretation.”
.
“152 We therefore conclude that “officer of the United States,” as used in Section Three, includes the President. ”
.
With prior federal court rulings, including one from sitting federal SC Justice Roberts, stating plainly that the president is not an “Officer of the United States”, I see this state court’s ruling to be quickly reversed and remanded.
.
Anyway, this will quickly be addressed by the federals as it’s a federal question.
Well, there evidently is research into the odor of cannabis. Doesn’t seem to be the active ingredient
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9236214/
27 October, 1964. Ronald Reagan said this:
.
More applicable in 2024 than in 1964. At nearly 14, I watched that speech, and have never forgotten it.
.
In science, Feynman saw the future, in Politics, it was Reagan. (Of course before Reagan, it was Orwell).
lucia (Comment #228037): “I would think getting a quick trial would generally be a good thing particularly if that means the court works over time. Takes less time to clear your name.”
.
Except that a DC jury might be disinclined to clear Trump’s name. Some would say “might” is way too optimistic. And if the verdict is to be “guilty” than the closer it is to the election, the more political it will look.
Lucia –
.
I haven’t looked into the idea of a president (former or sitting) having “blanket immunity” or whether it’s even a thing but IMO, while I can understand why some forms of immunity for a president would make sense, the notion of a “blanket immunity” would be pretty close to the top of the list of judicial outcomes I think would be troubling should it ever be granted (to Trump, Biden, or anyone else).
.
I hope Trump’s demands for it are just his typical gaseous emissions and not an actual thing.
.
Tom –
.
I’ve been hearing a lot about ketamine (and psychedelics) as a very effective treatment for PTSD as well. I was going to add that it’s much less addictive than Xanax, which is extremely addictive, but apparently it actually runs a reasonable risk of addiction and not just because of dependency but there’s a physical addiction as well.
.
A lot of what I’ve heard about it comes out of the bio-hacker and heterodox contrarian podcast-o-spheres so it’s not very surprising to me that Elon would have an interest.
The cause for the smell of cannabis plants is a wide variety of mixed terpene compounds (https://floraflex.com/default/blog/post/understanding-the-science-behind-the-smell-of-cannabis-plants).
.
Terpenes are responsible to the strong odors of many plants, especially pines, citruses, and related species. The more volatile terpenes contribute to ‘smog’ in some places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terpene
Joshua,
“I hope Trump’s demands for it are just his typical gaseous emissions and not an actual thing.”
.
It is an actual thing. I doubt it will receive a warm review by Federal Courts, but the issue is more than a little complicated… something you usually seem to adore 😉 (eg “qualified immunity” for government employees accused of treating criminal suspects poorly). It will be seriously considered, even if rejected.
Lucia,
Sorry for the late reply. Miriam Webster says these are the synonyms for insurrection:
“insurgence
insurgency
mutiny
outbreak
rebellion
revolt
revolution
rising
uprising”
.
Here is what Miriam Webster says about insurrection in particular:
“REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.””
.
So if you actually believe the riot on Jasnuary 6, 2021 was an “armed uprising” (essentially with no guns, save for the Capitol Police), then there is little more to talk about. I think that is nonsense.
Mark –
.
> Except that a DC jury might be disinclined to clear Trump’s name.
.
I know that was prolly at least somewhat more a throw away line as much as anything else…
.
Buf I wonder about it.
.
It suggests to me what might be an unfalsifiable argument. Do we all just think that people who have different political orientation than ourselves return jury verdicts heavily corrupted by bias (is it true in DC but not Alabama or North Dakota)? Do we believe our own identity-groups are largely immune or maybe just less affected? Do we think it’s volitional jury nullification or a function of motivated reasoning more than a willful disregard for the evidence? Are our conclusions about this mechanism only a function of our own biases?
.
Maybe I’m just naive (and it wouldn’t be the first time some folks here would see evidence they would interpret that way), and I’m a big believer in the power of motivated reasoning, but I tend to think that most of our fellow citizens sitting on juries tend to strive pretty hard to reason on the actual evidence.
.
Of course I can think of notable cases where bias seemed obvious (the trial of Emmit Till leaps first to mind), but I’m struck with how often many people express little confidence in the integrity of our fellow citizens and our judicial system. I have to wonder if there’s not a kind of negativity bias or selection bias in play.
.
In my own small sample of experience sitting on a jury I was actually very impressed with the seriousness with which my fellow jurors looked at their responsibilities.
.
I wonder what empirical evidence there might be to assess these questions. I mentioned here once before that despite my own conclusions from my observations, some of the empirical evidence I’ve seen looking at bias among SOCTUS judges suggests less bias in play than is my reflexive assessment. Maybe judges would be less biased than citizens in juries? Or perhaps maybe less?
.
In the end, I just don’t like unfalsifiable logic. I got a family member very angry the other day when he claimed that Trump is clearly responsible for increases in violence and I argued that augment should only be made with a careful attempt to collect evidence. It’s not really an unfalsifiable argument, but it is effectively unfalsifiable if data aren’t assembled.
.
Steve –
.
Do you have a link that shows that “blanket immunity” is an actual thing?
.
[edit: I mean “blanket immunity” in the sense I think Trump intends – total immunity from any form of prosecution for anything. Or maybe he means something more limited than that? Is there even a way to know WTF he means? Does he have any idea what he means?]
Joshua,
Wikipedia (for example) says: “The president of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from many lawsuits while in office; it is legally untested whether they also enjoy criminal immunity from arrest or prosecution.”
.
Trump’s legal arguments are likely a stretch, but I think we need to remember that the acts causing so much conflict happened while he was acting as President. Representatives in Congress seem to have very broad immunity for their acts:
.
“The Senators and Representatives” of Congress “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
.
Which kind of throws a wet blanket on efforts to bar Republicans from state ballots who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 election of Biden.
Steve –
.
Here’s what I don’t understand from your comment.
.
“immunity from many lawsuits” wouldn’t line up with what I take Trump means when he demands “blanket immunity.”
.
Nor would “very broad immunity.”.
.
Now maybe they do line up with what Trump is demanding. Is there evidence that his notion of “blanket immunity” has limitations?
Joshua,
“I tend to think that most of our fellow citizens sitting on juries tend to strive pretty hard to reason on the actual evidence.”
.
Thanks, that gave me a laugh. Trump tried by a jury who voted 98+% against him and think he is in cahoots with Russia? Come on.. 😉
.
Which is not to say it would not go the other way if the trial were held elsewhere.
.
I rather suspect had the Jan 6 rioters been tried in Ohio or Nebraska, the results of jury trials would have been very different. WHich is why Federal prosecutors do their best to find a district which is most likely to give them the verdict they want.
.
As a matter of factual reality, OJ brutally knifed his x-wife and her boyfriend, but the jury was not EVER going to convict him of murder. Reality. Get over it. Trump can’t possibly win an acquittal in DC. Reality. Get over it.
Steve –
.
There was a reason I addressed my comment to Mark. Your opinion on the matter was entirely predicable. His take on what I said is of more interest to me.
.
That said, since you brought or up, I also thought of mentioning the OJ Simpson trial. It’s a fascinating example. The split in opinions re his guilt/innocence along racial lines was quite marked. Certainly suggestive of bias among juries.
.
But it also kind of reinforced my views in the other direction. My sense is that while jury nullification was likely a factor, I think another factor was mostly an evidence-based aspect. For many black people, evidence of a high degree of racial bias among cops, where they’d conspire to falsify evidence, especially those who had evidence of racist beliefs, was entirely credible evidence. For many white people, who had never experienced anything like that, it would be totally implausible.
.
Regardless, the OJ Simpson trial reinforces by view in another sense. People refer back to that one cass over and over, as if that one case from almost 30 years ago, proves a massive and widespread, widespread phenomenon of juries being unreliable and being indifferent to the evidence when they decide cases. Meantime, they ignore examining whether in the other side of the ledger, there might be millions of cases where no such bias was evident.
.
That’s exactly what I meant by selection bias, or availability bias, or observer bias, of the sort that imo, makes the widespread conviction about the ubiquity of biased juries seem largely unfalsifiable to me.
lucia (Comment #228023)
“Simply) who decides if he is disqualified for insurrection. It does say who can set an existing disqualification aside. (“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” )
.I don’t think anyone other than Congress can set aside the disability– and that needs to be by 2/3rd majority of each house.”
–
Two comments.
–
Before you can bar someone for insurrection you have to be found guilty of actual insurrection.
Presumably by that same 2/3 votes of Congress in both houses..
–
Not by wishful thinking of angech, Lucia, or a Co court.
Not by the that court declaring itself judge, jury and executioner when it does not have the power or authority to do so.
–
That is why the court will strike it down 6/3 TDS style.
–
Take a second to look at this chain of logic.
A qualified person wishes to run for President.
A State court deems him/her guilty of insurrection due to the flimsiest of connections.
Eg they once stayed at a hotel owned by Trump’s Company’s Trust.
Known as guilt by association so valid as a charge in some countries.
He is now banned from running for President but by a 2/3 majority in the Congress??
– How on partisan lines in a 50/50 to 66/37 distribution Could anyone be given back their Constitutional right in that scenario.
Anyone charged anywhere by any court or other de facto agency with a rubbish charge is effectively prevented for ever being able to run for President.
That is unconstitutional.
–
That is basically what is at stake and why, as others have said, Trump, and anyone else similarly charged outside of Congress voting an act of insurrection has occurred must be put on the ballot.
Joshua (Comment #228043
I haven’t looked into the idea of a president (former or sitting) having “blanket immunity” or whether it’s even a thing”
–
But please feel …….. to comment away anyway.
Joshua (Comment #228021)
Meanwhile, what might the ramifications be of Trump getting “blanket immunity?”
–
Joshua
Do you have a link that shows that “blanket immunity” is an actual thing? edit: I mean “blanket immunity” in the sense I think Trump intends – total immunity from any form of prosecution for anything.
Or maybe he means something more limited than that?
Is there even a way to know WTF ( nice touch, man) he means?
Does he have any idea what he means?]
–
Joshua(Comment #228050
Here’s what I don’t understand from your comment.
“immunity from many lawsuits” wouldn’t line up with what I take Trump means when he demands “blanket immunity.”
Nor would “very broad immunity.”.
Now maybe they do line up with what Trump is demanding. Is there evidence that his notion of “blanket immunity” has limitations?
What little I know is the President is granted a great deal of immunity by design to protect the administrative branch from potentially rogue versions of the legislative and judicial branches.
“Do we all just think that people who have different political orientation than ourselves return jury verdicts heavily corrupted by bias”
.
It depends on the case. A recent poll showed 80% of Democrats want Trump off the ballot and 90% of Republicans want him to stay. Independents were like 60/40 for him to stay on the ballot. This one happens to be particularly tainted by politics. Nobody really cared about Santos and I doubt people would care much if Menendez got removed.
Tom –
.
> It depends on the case.
.
Sure. It stands to reason those factors would vary by context.
SteveF,
I think the correct dictionary definitions are from the time the 14th amendment was written. I think that’s the way original intent and textual analysis usually goes. I also think interpretation of “A or B” in the constitution is that A must be interpreted to mean something different from B.
.
Also: some rioters were armed.
Joshua,
There needs to be a huge amount of immunity while a president is sitting and there is quite a bit. This came up for Clinton too. The role is important and lawsuits are a time sink. After? Well, there likely needs to be some sort of immunity for actions related to his duties in office. But it doesn’t need to be as large and doesn’t need to extend to actions unrelated to his office.
.
Court arguments, of course, would ensue.
lucia (Comment #228058): “Also: some rioters were armed.”
.
Armed with what? Pepper spray? Real questions.
.
I guess the guy in Pelosi’s office had a sword cane of some sort.
The Clinton v. JOnes case was about whether the president had immunity from civil actions before he was in office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
and
Trump isn’t claiming immunity for civil actions before he was in office. Clinton tried.
Lucia –
.
> There needs to be a huge amount of immunity while a president is sitting and there is quite a bit.
.
No doubt, that’s true. But just as the need for immunity is important, so would be, IMO, clarification as to where the limitations of that immunity lie. “Blanket immunity,” depending on where those limitations are, could be a pretty troubling prospect, iMO. I suspect that Trump’s concept of “blanket immunity” would be unlimited (maybe any other president would like the same, but I suspect likely his concept IS more expansive than most would think realistic).
MIkeM
Well, not nuclear weapons….
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used
It goes on.
Most people were likely unarmed. But some were armed and significantly so. Admittedly no tanks or nuclear weapons.
Angech –
.
> But please feel …….. to comment away anyway.
.
I already own two homes (one I rent out) and a rental property with 6 units. So I have plenty of places to live rent free as I might desire. I appreciate your generosity, but really, living rent free in your head is just superfluous at this point in my life.
.
Joshua
I’m sure Trumps concept is broad. Clinton’s concept was definitely expansive. I think anyone facing lots of charges and suits would like their immunity to be interpreted expansively.
I hope the SC rules quickly, because there is a whole lot of energy being expended here (and I am sure a thousand other places) over mutually exclusive views of reality; a complete waste of everyone’s time. The SC is not final because they can do no wrong, they can do no wrong because they are final. And the sooner the better.
Ten years ago this would have been a story.
https://www.semafor.com/article/01/07/2024/biden-campaign-brings-top-journalists-to-wilmington
“President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign has begun organizing a series of off-the-record trips for top political reporters and editors to the team’s headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware and meet top officials, including the campaign manager, deputies, and other senior advisors for background briefings on campaign strategy.
They’re also using it as an opportunity to tell them what they’re getting wrong. Two people with knowledge of the situation told Semafor that during meetings with reporters from outlets like The New York Times, the Washington Post, and others, campaign officials have invoked a coverage spreadsheet laying out areas where the team believes their reporting has fallen short.
In particular, campaign officials have chafed at some of the coverage of former President Donald Trump, feeling that outlets are too focused on his legal troubles and haven’t paid enough attention to some of his incendiary recent statements on the campaign trail. A source familiar told Semafor that with the exception of its recent meeting with the Times, the campaign meetings had been “substantive” and “productive,” and that Biden staffers were scheduled to meet in the coming days with political reporting teams from ABC, NBC, The Wall Street Journal, Fox, NPR, Reuters, Bloomberg, and others in Wilmington.”
Joshua,
Jury nullification has a long a storied history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
.
OJ Simpson’s case just happens to be a well known instance. There are many others, of course. Juries (surprise!) vote with their political values. Trump has zero chance of acquittal where the residents all loath him. Try the case in North Dakoda and the results will be different. Heck, try the case in Florida and the results will very likely be different. The frenzied rush to prosecute trump in DC while the (much earlier) case in Florida languishes is a pretty clear indication of the prosecution recognizing the reality of the respective jury pools in the two places.
lucia (Comment #228063): “Admittedly no tanks or nuclear weapons.”
.
Or guns. Or knives. The worst weapon seems to have been the stun gun walking stick. Then a few baseball bats. There were people in DC with guns (duh), but they were not part of the riot.
Lucia,
I am not certain if my last remarks warrant apology, I suspect they might, therefore I offer one. I’m sorry for insinuating there was something deserving of disappointment in the position you were taking. I appreciate your hosting discussions here and regret giving you abuse for doing so, that was a crappy thing to do.
I will remain opted out of this thread, but I thought I should at least say this.
MIke M
I think a loaded hand gun is a gun. 11 mason jars containing flammable liquid is concerning.
mark bofill,
No problem! I think we should all get to air our views. That includes me. 🙂
lucia (Comment #228071),
The guns were in his truck while he peacefully attended a protest. Maybe he is a crazy guy, but he was not an armed rioter.
The link I posted by Miles Lynch reviewed previous cases of actual disqualifications under this clause. Someone who incited but did not participate after the fact was not removed. There was no court trial, but trials in Congress as well as states did their own process.
Josh,
Without you the metaverse would be a lonely place indeed.
Please feel free to live inside my head.
Having you at home is like having Willard to tea except I do not have to worry about making a fuss over you.
Towels are in the lower cupboard on the right.
And toothpaste and brush.
Milk is in the fridge but I am sorry it is full milk, not almond milk, which you would probably prefer.
Gluten free bread and bikkies in the pantry will be appreciated I guess.
My only concern is that if I am too harsh on you you might run away.
Please stay.
As for the rent, forget it, I owe you more than you I would ever have been able to repay.
–
“I already own two homes (one I rent out) and . rental property with 6 units. So I have plenty of places to live rent free as I might desire. I appreciate your generosity, but really, living rent free in your head is just superfluous at this point in my life.”
–
So happy for you, that is great. Hopefully some grandkids as well as they are a blessing as well at this stage of our lives, if you have them.
lucia (Comment #228071)
–
Lonnie Leroy Coffman of Alabama (Not from Alabama, please)
was also arrested that evening after law enforcement found two firearms on his person,
–
So not at the Capital during the riot.
Never fired them never used them.
Not relevant.
–
People from Alabama are always demonised.
Country Hicks, Yokels, Hillbillies.
Always red necks, armed to the teeth .
Think Lil’ Abney.
–
Stereotyping people is a horrible thing to do.
But I guess if you want to tie him to someone like Hitler it’s the way to go.
–
Hey give him a pitchfork as well
There are only two bogies with pitchforks after all.
Lucifero and Alabama farmers.
Was he a farmer as well?
Proof, incontrovertible proof of insurection, I say.
Lucia –
.
> Trump isn’t claiming immunity for civil actions before he was in office. Clinton tried.
.
Trump isn’t in office. Give him time. Meanwhile, even while not in office he’s seeking “blanket immunity.” I’m not sure which I find more remarkable, that he’s willing to claim that he’s above the law or that so many people seem untroubled by his claim to be above the law or believe that such a claim would be consistent with their view of our government.
[edit: fortunately, thus far not even the most Trump-adjacent members of SCOTUS found his claims viable, although we’ll have to see what happens going forward]
.
Then again,
.
> Trump isn’t claiming immunity for civil actions before he was in office. Clinton tried.
.
The present tense there is critical.
.
.
Now I’d imagine that some would argue with how the ACLU describes the issue, but apparently everyone on SCOTUS was in disagreement that Trump’s views on his immunity were consistent with the constitution.
.
Kind of remarkable that the person most likely to be the next president is the very same person who while sitting as president tried to claim powers that no one on SCOTUS thought were constitutional.
.
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-correctly-rules-that-trump-is-not-above-the-law
It’s so interesting what happens with comments here. What I don’t understand is the delays between (1) when comments are submitted and when they appear in the recent comments list and then (2) a subsequent delay between when they appear in the recent comments list and when they appear in the comments stream. Then there’s a delay if you submit an edit and then want to make additional edits. If I’ve already submitted one edit, I have wait to make more. Before a certain point I click on the edit button and a window opens but it doesn’t populate the comment for editing.
.
All these delays make no sense to me. Obviously, it’s not like it takes time because someone is monitoring things and needs to take action seems to me any of these developments should happen at the speed of light. Rather like how chatGPT reads and returns a response to a question seemingly almost before you submit the question.
angech,
People “of” Alabama can still “be” at the capital
The Capitol is not in Alabama.
Joshua,
Trump is an A-hole and I’m sure he and his lawyers are willing to make tenuous claims about all sorts of things in court.
.
My point in bringing up Clinton is Trump is not unique in making claims about presidential immunity. The courts can sort out whether he has it or not. I’m really not worried the courts will consider him immune from everything he wants to be immune from. SCOTUS didn’t grand Clinton the immunity he wanted and ruled against him 9-0.
.
Reading legal briefs or appeals can sometimes be funny because they often list 100 reasons why they should get off hoping “which ever” sticks. You read some of them and just think, “really? really? That’s an argument. And of course, “I didn’t do it. But even if I did, I’m still innocent.” is routine.
.
Trumps appeal includes he didn’t take an oath to support the constitution– the presidential oath uses other words. That’s true– the presidential oath does not include the word “support”. Regardless of final outcome, I’ll be interested in reading what SCOTUS says about that one.
.
Joshua
This might have to do with the cache plugin? Dunno.
Fwiw:
.
.
.
Of course I knew that things like speed of posting are at issue, but that “user behavior” stuff is still a little creepy
Still doesn’t answer the question of why comments appear in the recent comments thread but when you click on them the comment stream still hasn’t been updated with those comments. Sometimes it takes a few minutes.
.
Even weirder is that there is no such delay for me to see my own comments.
Careful Joshua. That robot will BS you like a rug merchant.
Sweden ended its 200-year military neutrality yesterday when Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said Sweden has committed to sending “ground combat units” to take part in alliance operations along the Russian border.
He said:
“Sweden and its neighbors are living in the direct shadow of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” Kristersson said. “But Russia’s threats, disinformation and cyberattacks are an attempt to destabilize the whole of Europe.”
The troops will join a Canadian-led force on the Russian border in Latvia. Swedish Army Chief Jonny Lindfors told the newspaper the force could be deployed by early 2025.
Another formerly sheepish European nation stands up and spits in the eye of the Russian bear.
https://www.newsweek.com/next-nato-member-commits-troops-russia-border-after-200-year-neutrality-1858937
Lucia –
.
> Reading legal briefs or appeals can sometimes be funny because they often list 100 reasons why they should get off hoping “which ever” sticks. You read some of them and just think, “really? really?
.
Sure. But what’s remarkable about Trump is that he’s incorporated a strategy of foregrounding that sort of stuff. He’s running for office by loudly arguing that he’s above the law (although obviously not using that language)
.
I think it goes back to something that didn’t go over very well here when I brought it up years ago. Trump developed an explicit strategy years ago, in coordination with Roy Cohn and Roger Stine and the like. You take what might be considered a vulnerability and act as if it’s a strength. If you’re caught lying or saying something incredibly inane, double, triple-down by repeating the lies and inanity over and over. Foreground it. Pretend it’s a strength and eventually people will see it that way.
.
If saying the president should have “blanket immunity” would seem to disqualify a candidate because of the obviously troubling complications (“I’ll be able to do whatever I want”), say it over and over again as loudly as possible You’ll move the Overton Window to the point that many people won’t see it as dictatorial.
.
[Edit: my point being that Trump doesn’t just try to hide it buried in a legal brief, but instead also shouts it through a megaphone. It’s pretty remarkable.]
Joshua,
The reason people are untroubled by Trump’s immunity claims is that they are unremarkable. You are mischaracterizing them. Trump is not claiming immunity from all acts that he may have committed or might commit. He has claimed immunity of two specific forms. Neither claim is novel.
.
(1) While in office, he claimed that the President is immune from state actions while in office. I don’t think that he has made any such claim after leaving office, whether in the civil suits in NY or the criminal prosecutions in NY and Georgia.
.
(2) He has claimed continuing immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office. That would apply to the state prosecution in Georgia and the federal prosecution in DC. There are strong legal and policy bases for his claim. I suspect that if he loses, it will be a result of the court drawing a tight boundary around “official acts”.
.
With regard to (2), I note that even if the presidential immunity is very broad, the Constitution provides a way to remove it: via impeachment and conviction.
Mike –
.
> Trump is not claiming immunity from all acts that he may have committed or might commit.
.
Not explicitly, of course. But please feel free to elaborate on where in all his claims about immunity he expounded upon what the limitations should be.
.
> (1) While in office, he claimed that the President is immune from state actions while in office. I don’t think that he has made any such claim after leaving office, whether in the civil suits in NY or the criminal prosecutions in NY and Georgia.
.
Which is true as long as you ignore that he also claimed, while in office, that he should be immune from any investigations into anything he did prior to taking office.
.
An argument rejected, unanamously,, by the Supreme Court.
.
Mike –
.
> The reason people are untroubled by Trump’s immunity claims is that they are unremarkable.
.
Of course, that’s just false. SCOTUS unanamously rejected his immunity claims. Obviously they found them remarkable. That you might have found them unremarkable doesn’t make your statement accurate for others.
This should be edited (edit button is gone):
.
> immune from any investigations into
anythingthings he did prior to taking office.I guess Lucia already said it, but it is common for defense lawyers to give the judge a menu of possible defenses with some stronger than others. They don’t know what the judge might latch onto, but if the judge is predisposed to letting the defendant off then he actually likes these options. You see this sometimes in SC arguments as well. The judge might come in thinking of a best possible defense and you had better bring up the subject in arguments or it becomes a bit weird when the judge makes the argument himself without being prompted.
.
The judge will usually be inundated with motions to dismiss the case, restrict evidence etc. for high priced trials. Because of this I would discount the “look what Trump is arguing!” stories in the media. Longshot arguments cost almost nothing (see 14th amendment case).
.
The prosecution needs to tell one coherent version of the story for the most part because they have the burden of proof at list for criminal trials.
.
My expectation is Trump and his lawyers will do a bad job arguing before the SC because … Trump. It may end up being up to the judges to fill in coherent arguments here unfortunately.
Unremarkable and frivolous claims do not make it to the SC. They are almost always taken down in lower courts and the SC refuses the appeals of these cases. All the cases the SC hears are difficult or ambiguous legally by definition. The SC does need to step in when district courts come to different conclusions and it is when one of these courts goes bonkers that you tend to get 9-0 rulings more often. This tends to happen for the DC / SF district courts (liberal) or the New Orleans court (conservative). About 40% of SC rulings are 9-0 and most of these do not make the news.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/23/trey-wingo/despite-popular-misconception-supreme-court-9-0-ru/
It’s kind of remarkable how many people seem largely indifferent to our likely next president having lawyers argue on his behalf that he’d be above the law while in office:
.
Trump’s Lawyer just argued that if a president ordered the assassination of a political opponent, they couldn’t be prosecuted unless first impeached and convicted by the Senate.
.
The idea that it’s “unremarkable” for the likely next president of the US to do whatever he’d like (including having his lawyers argue that he could assassinate an opponent and not be prosecuted unless he got a 2/3 vote in Congress to have him removed from office) because the legal system might allow him to do so, is just kind of amazing.
.
The same would be true for Clinton.I found many of his behaviors in office pretty disqualifying, including what should be considered sexual harassment even with a consenting adult. But included in that were his attempts to be above the law.
Tom –
.
The frequency of unanimous votes on the SCOTUS is part of what I was referring to above, when talking about the evidence for why the bias there is less than how I tend to perceive it to be.
Joshua (Comment #228090): “Of course, that’s just false. SCOTUS unanamously rejected his immunity claims. Obviously they found them remarkable.”
.
Nonsense. They rejected one of his claims. Losing a court case does not, in itself, make one’s claim remarkable. Tom Scharf (Comment #228093) made that point for me.
Presidential immunity is not an argument, it is a fact. It can be abused, just like a corrupt legislature and judiciary could create retroactive laws after an election and have an unfavored President put behind bars while in office without immunity. Either a high bar for impeachment or the electorate is responsible for countering abuse of immunity. The President also has immense powers to pardon people that can also be abused. This is not a perfect system, but these are checks on the power of the other branches.
.
Imagine a world where a President or ex-President is being persecuted by political opponents who corruptly use the levers of state power to prevent them from gaining office. Opponents who invent novel untested legal theories just for political vengeance against a specific target.
.
Ultimately it is up to the electorate to counter this potential corruption through elections if the high bar to remove him cannot be met by the other branches.
.
What you have with Trump is the failure to make the case for impeachment and the failure to make the case to the electorate. This failure is not Trump’s fault, it is the failure of those trying to make the case.
Joshua (Comment #228094):
If you want to believe your remarkable claim, you are going to have to provide a link with a full quotation.
> Presidential immunity is not an argument, it is a fact.
.
Unless qualified, that is undoubtedly true. It’s also pretty meaningless.
Just imagine!
Your sense of humor is great Tom, but the dryness tends to leave me with grains of desert sand in my mouth…
Really, this is instructive for how corruption can happen. It’s not this group of merchants of evil against the forces of good. It is two groups who each believe the other is corrupt, believe the other side is abusing the tools of power, and conveniently come to the conclusion they need to match or exceed this abuse to allow “justice” to prevail. My corruption is not corrupt because I’m using it for the forces of good according to me. The end result is both sides are corrupt, the whole system looks bad, and people lose trust.
Mike –
.
> If you want to believe your remarkable claim, you are going to have to provide a link with a full quotation.
.
I think I got that wrong. It seems in response to that particular hypothetical he responded with a qualified yes that the president could be prosecuted for that.
.
With other hypotheticals, it appears, his response was different in nature. I haven’t actually found a suitable comprehensive source yet, although I’m sure one will be available soon. I shouldn’t have posted that quickly without a good source being available.
Joshua
Oh. Absolutely. I’d read the claim that he didn’t take a vow to support the constitution before I read the appeal. Then I saw it in the appeal.
As a matter of literal truth, this is the Presidential oath of office
The word “support” is not in there. So someone may need to decide whether doing all of “preserve, protect and defend” means someone has pledged to support.
.
He argued it so the opinion may engage that. I don’t have a 1789 dictionary or other sources indicating what “support” meant back in colonial times. We’ll see what comes of this. I think it’s fairly clear that “support” in the 14th amendment isn’t in the sense of structural. Military support generally means to protect and defend. We’ll see.
.
I’m pretty sure every argument in Trump’s appeal will be aired by Trump. That’s fine– he has a right to do that.
Tom Scharf
Or amicus briefs.
I did read both the Trump and GOP appeals and had a few eyerolls. Sometimes the eyeroll claimed when I googled the case cited for supposedly making a particular point. You go read the case and…. eyeroll….
.
But these are appeals, not briefs. And as I said, I often have eyerolls reading briefs. (I’m sure I would get eyerolls for both sides.)
.
The goal of the appeal is to persuade SCOTUS to take it– which was pretty likely no matter what. In this particular case goal might be rhetoric because they know these will be read. So the rhetoric is certainly high blown.
.
For those who want to read them
.
GOP appeal.
.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-696/294416/20231227184621636_Colorado-Republican-State-Central-Committee-v.-Anderson-Cert-Petition%20PDFA.pdf
.
Trump appeal
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24253189-trump-v-anderson-2024-01-03-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari
.
The CO Supremes don’t have an “appeal”, so there is nothing similar. For that you just read their opinion, which is lengthier.
Mike –
.
So here’s a quote from a not all too reliable source:
.
.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1
.
Yeah, understanding that a qualified “yes” is entirely appropriate, and that the judge is playing games there, I still find that a pretty remarkable argument that our likely next president allows to be made on his behalf. Particularly given the level of loyalty he expects from members of Congress.
Joshua
Did he? I want to read that!!!
lucia (Comment #228103): “The word “support” is not in there. So someone may need to decide whether doing all of “preserve, protect and defend” means someone has pledged to support.”
.
Or the wording in Section 3 refers to those officials required to take an oath as specified in Article Six. In other words, the wording could be taken as further evidence that Section 3 does not apply to the president.
Lucia –
.
As near as I can tell, in the section from BI where they step out of the direct quotes, Trump’s lawyer argued a qualified “yes” that a prosecution could take place. I’ll look for the full excerpt later
Obama claimed the power to order the assassination of US citizens. He exercised that power at least twice, killing three citizens in the process.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
Joshua (Comment #228102): “I think I got that wrong.”
.
My respect for you has gone up.
26 state attorneys general have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Colorado ballot case. https://www.scribd.com/document/697293707/Colorado-Amicus-Brief#from_embed
Mike –
.
> Obama claimed the power to order the assassination of US citizens. He exercised that power twice, killing three citizens in the process.
.
Do you have any links from back then where you supported Obama doing that?
.
I, for one, find a president making that argument remarkable and objectionable. And I wouldn’t object to a prosecution for what i would imagine some would argue is a war crime.
.
The fact that Obama makes such an argument or Trump isn’t the basis on which I assess the acceptability.
.
I suspect that’s one key aspect where you and I differ.
MikeM
I don’t take it that way. But we’ll see.
Joshua (Comment #228105),
Let’s assume that quoted exchange is accurate. A prosecution requires a crime. What would the crime have been?
.
If the order was refused, what is the crime? Not rhetorical, I am just noting that I can’t answer that question.
.
I the order was carried out, then the action would have been on foreign soil against a military target. What is the crime?
.
If the order was against a non-military target, then it would surely be an impeachable act, even if the order was refused.
.
The quoted exchange speaks worse of the judge than the lawyer.
If Trump barricaded himself in the Capitol behind an armed mob during a riot after Biden took office and Biden ordered security forces to retake the Capitol with necessary rules of engagement to use the minimum level of force where any armed insurrectionist could be killed if they resisted then can Biden be charged with the murder of the members of the unruly armed mob including Trump?
.
If Biden was taking part in a mostly peaceful political protest in a public government facility and the participating citizens were carrying legal self defense weapons and they decided to perform a peaceful sit-in protest can Trump order a heavily armed military to assassinate these peaceful protesters if they simply refused to leave?
The main issue with the Obama strike was no due process for the US citizen as I recall.
Actually, it was 27 states.
MikeM
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
.
It appears Obama did claim the power to target citizens for execution in specific circumstances.
.
I’d like to read what Obama actually said and know under what circumstances it’s ok to target an American for killing. Who got killed, what they were doing, why and how does matter. And the theory of who can be etc. matters too.
.
Fiction is fiction but it does gives us “limiting cases”. I can envision some circumstances where it is ok to target someone for killing and that person could, hypothetically, be an American. I mean… I think Dr. Evil in Austin powers threatens to destroy the world. It might be ok to target someone threatening to destroy the world, actually working to achieve that end, and looking like they had some realistic chance of doing it. It think it would be ok even if he were an American citizen.
.
I mean, I think it’s ok to shoot someone in self defense. You don’t need a trial for that first. There are limits– but you really need to read what was said.
.
Killing “dr Evil” seated next to his “launch the nuclear missles” button while sitting in his bunker would be different from just shooting a rival candidate whose only “threat” is to run for president of the US and win. Yeah… dr. Evil is fiction, but I have to read specific to know if I think some other case is on one side of a fuzzy line, inside the fuzzy line or on the other side.
.
As usual, the news article about Obama doesn’t quote exact words. ( News articles sadly don’t have footnootes, and other linkable articles don’t necessarily have quote either.) Presidents do often make claims that make me think “Yikes!”
.
Not withstanding what Obama said, I’d also like to read precisely what Trumps lawyers said.
I’m open to the possibility that both men made outrageous claims. Lots of presidents do. Obama making an outrageous claim wouldn’t make Trumps not outrageous.
Tom Scharf,
“The main issue with the Obama strike was no due process for the US citizen as I recall.”
.
That is what I recall as well. Judge, jury, executioner, all rolled up into one Barak Obama. He was never held to account, nor will he ever be.
Joshua,
Reads like a classic “limiting principle” case.
.
On the underlying issue: I’m dubious of the claim that impeachment vs. criminal prosecution is double jeopardy. Criminal prosecution and civil cases for the same crime are not. OJ was tried both in criminal and civil court (with opposite ruling.)
.
Also, if impeachment and criminal prosecutions are double jeopardy, is impeachment of the the president barred after being criminally prosecuted? That strikes me as implausible.
Looking here:
Harry Claiborne, a judge was impeached after being convicted.
I don’t see how double jeopardy could be order dependent. It seems to be impeachment and criminal trials are not double jeopardy.
Joshua (Comment #228113): “Do you have any links from back then where you supported Obama doing that?”
.
Huh? I don’t see a way to read that that makes sense.
.
I think you missed my point, which is that even a very broad claim of immunity is consistent with much recent practice.
——–
Joshua: “I, for one, find a president making that argument remarkable and objectionable. And I wouldn’t object to a prosecution for what i would imagine some would argue is a war crime.”
.
I also find it objectionable. But sadly, not remarkable. I suspect that Trump is the only recent president who would object. In the absence of a law prohibiting that (which I would support), I don’t see a basis for prosecution.
——–
Joshua: The fact that Obama makes such an argument or Trump isn’t the basis on which I assess the acceptability.
.
I am glad to hear it. I do the same.
——
Joshua: “I suspect that’s one key aspect where you and I differ.”
.
Why?
So here’s some more from another not particularly reliable source:
.
.
So still need to have more of the actual exchange to really intepret.
The “qualified yes,” is what the BI report left out – which I find pretty remarkable in it’s own right.
.
https://nypost.com/2024/01/09/news/trump-expected-in-court-as-he-seeks-immunity-from-2020-election-charges/
Lucia,
Obama clearly ordered the execution (without trial) of US citizens. This was while he was president. He was never impeached. Can he now be arrested and tried for murder? Not rhetorical.
Tom
.
Too bad Trumps lawyer didn’t answer “depends on what you mean by ‘assasinate’. Could you clarify?”
I mean, If all you mean it’s ok for Seal team 6 to kill someone under some circumstances, that depends on the circumstances. See my silly Dr. Evil thing above.
.
Normally, the verb “assassinate” sort of implies the guy might be just at the local Italian restaurant having a dinner with his family when Seal Team 6 barges and shoots him mafia style. I hope the president can be prosecuted criminally for that.
.
The way the exchange went– as quoted– sounds bad. Because if he order them to literally assasinate, I think that’s murder and should be tried. I don’t think the answer is “he has to be impeached”. That’s a bad answer.
SteveF
Maybe. You have to find a statute. The examples I saw were in Yemen, right? So, IL law and FL law aren’t going to work.
.
I think if he’d ordered a hit IL, he probably could be charged tried in IL. Whether IL prosecuters would do it, I don’t know.
lucia (Comment #228121): “On the underlying issue: I’m dubious of the claim that impeachment vs. criminal prosecution is double jeopardy.”
.
Is somebody making that argument? Because the Constitution makes it clear that impeachment is not a bar to prosecution.
.
The argument that I have heard is that impeachment and conviction is a required prerequisite to prosecuting a president for a crime. Seems dubious to me.
Lucia –
.
> As usual, the news article about Obama doesn’t quote exact words.
.
Greenwald is another source who I think is far from reliable (although I will say sometimes he’s better than many others). He’s an issue advocate, not a journalist, IMO, even though I agree with him on some issues.
SteveF (Comment #228124): “Obama clearly ordered the execution (without trial) of US citizens. This was while he was president. He was never impeached. Can he now be arrested and tried for murder? Not rhetorical.”
.
Maybe, if he were foolish enough to go on vacation to Yemen. 🙂
.
But there would be no legal basis for prosecution here.
Lucia –
.
> The way the exchange went– as quoted– sounds bad. Because if he order them to literally assasinate, I think that’s murder and should be tried. I don’t think the answer is “he has to be impeached”. That’s a bad answer.
.
It kind of reminds me of the recent testimony from the college presidents before Congress. I know it’s tough come up with smart stuff contemporaneously, and it’s easy to 2nd guess from an Monday morning armchair, but sometimes the questions should have been obvious and thus bad answers get kind of hard to explain.
Lucia,
So a President can order the executions of US citizens without consequence, so long as the executions take place outside the USA? Sounds dubious to me.
Tom
Of course, the question can be posed swapping Biden and Trump too.
.
What’s the insurrection act say? ( This guy says it’s dangerously vague. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained?shem=ssc )
Title 10 is here.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I/chapter-13
.
I think if the peaceful protesters are literally just sitting in a park, no.
.
if there is no federal hook, he has to get the state governor to ask?
.
If they’d peacfully taken over a federal building– say a federal court– and prevented court cases from being heard or even any other normal government business– he might be able to send in troops. Because then their behavior fits
.
But it look like he’s supposed to immediately order insurgents to disperse “immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.” He shouldn’t be ordering the military to “assassinate”.
.
Not sure what happens if they continue to hold the building.
So mafia don Corleone, living in New Jersey, issues an order for a US citizen to be executed while traveling in Bolivia. The target is killed, but the Bolivians can’t even find the guy who carried out the execution. So the mafia don has done nothing wrong under USA law?
.
I doubt that is the case. As a start, there could be a charge of “conspiracy to commit murder” filed in New Jersey where the don issued the order. Seems to me the same would apply to Obama killing US citizens abroad.
MikeM
Sorry, you are right. He’s just saying impeachment before prosecution. I’m also skeptical of that.
.
It’s also an interesting argument if in another case they are insisting prosecution must come before disqualification under the 14th (and possibly only Congress can do the disqualification). These are two different cases, but I’d like to read why in once case Trump’s lawyers think Congressional action has to come before prosecution while in the other ase, it has to come after prosecution.
.
I know… I know… you throw everything at the wall in a court case. It’s still interesting to read both as snippets.
You asked if he could be prosecuted. You didn’t ask if his actions seem right and just. Lots of people think what Obama did is not right and just. I haven’t read enough details to actually form an opinion.
.
.
Like it or not, you can only be prosecuted for something that has been made illegal in a statute. And then, only where that statute applies. If you find a statute he has violated, then I think yes, he can be prosecuted. I just don’t think you’ll find one. Or as MikeM said, maybe he shouldn’t vacation in Yemen. Because what he did might be illegal there.
.
On the subtext about whether the President can order and execution:
Even though my Dr. Evil fiction is an extreme limiting case, I do think there are circumstances where a president can order targeted killings and those could include US citizens who are actually in the process of doing something. I think these might be called “executions”, but there are circumstances where I think this might be done. I don’t know if Obama’s met those–the call might not even be close. Certainly, unlike Dr. Evil, those people weren’t about the destroy the world. But I don’t know enough about what they did do to make a call.
.
But to show context matters to me, I’ll give another example.
.
If person X has already killed three hostages after threatening to do so and is now is holding a gun to the head of a hostage and threatening to kill (i.e. ‘executes’) them and a cop shoots person X, I don’t have a big problem with that. The lack of “due process” or a “trial” doesn’t bother me too much. I need to read details to decide whether something bothers me.
.
I also need details to decide if the correct verb for what was done is “assassinate’, “kill”, “murder”, “execute” and so on. I get that people pick a particular verb, but I would want to ask “define what you mean by execute”. In the above cop example, I wouldn’t use the verb “execute”, I would use “kill”.
SteveF
Wrong is a moral judgement. But you didn’t previously ask if it was wrong; you asked if he could be prosecuted.
.
If you want Don Corleone prosecuted, you need to find a statute. There may be one. You still have to find it.
.
Mafia bosses do manage to evade being prosecuted. Sometimes they do so by knowing the law; sometimes by saying things indirectly to make things hard to pin on them. They got Al Capone for tax evasion, not all the other very wrong things everyone knows he did.
SteveF
You can try this one
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111
18 U.S. Code § 1111 – Murder
Maybe it works.
Then go back and find definitions of “unlawful killing” and also see if the title applies outside the US. I’m sure someone knows. I don’t happen to. I don’t even know where to look.
.
This is sort of funny
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1
“the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;”
““officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;”
My comment was just a non-obvious exercise in competing narratives for an identical event (tune as you see fit) and why we grant immunity in the first place. In this case if we allow a potentially corrupt judiciary to interpret events and determine liability one person gets prosecuted and the other doesn’t depending mostly on who that person is and the graciousness we grant them.
.
Police officers are given large immunity and it is clear it should not extend to blanket immunity. However before bodycams and smartphones became prevalent a he said/she said event would never be prosecuted. Bad judgement is still usually not prosecuted for the most part, it needs to be nearly malicious.
.
Ultimately we are saying police officers and Presidents are inside our circle of trust. This trust can be abused but they are put in positions as part of their job where disgruntled citizens and agencies may attempt to prosecute them in bad faith due to their normal day to day duties.
The problem with the ISIS guy is he obviously wasn’t going to cooperate to get his due process anyway. What is the burden on Obama to give him actual due process? The details matter. I only vaguely recall that they appointed a lawyer for him and I guess his lawyer didn’t do a good job. It can certainly be argued this is inadequate.
Tom
I agree.
.
And that’s why I say I also need context when someone says “should X be prosecuted” or “should they have immunity for X”, and then just gives a vague description of “X”.
Tom Scharf,
“Ultimately we are saying police officers and Presidents are inside our circle of trust. This trust can be abused but they are put in positions as part of their job where disgruntled citizens and agencies may attempt to prosecute them in bad faith due to their normal day to day duties.”
.
As clear a description as I have read. Members of Congress can’t be second guessed for their actions in Congress…. save for by the voters in their district, or in egregious cases, by Congress itself. Presidents seem also to enjoy considerable immunity, lest they be subjected to… oh say… harassment by politically motivated prosecutors for what they do in office.
.
Not that it would ever likely actually happen. 😉
Lucia,
“Wrong is a moral judgement.”
.
OK, substitute illegal.
Another prospective on Ukraine war casualty rates.
.
Ukraine Has Lost 500,000 Troops: Ex Prosecutor-general.
.
https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/ukraine-has-lost-500000-troops-ex-prosecutor-general/
.
“Ukraine’s leaders should acknowledge that they have lost 500,000 service members since the start of the country’s conflict with Russia, and that the monthly casualty rate is around 30,000 people, former prosecutor-general Yury Lutsenko said last week.
.
Volodymyr Zelensky’s government could persuade hesitant citizens to join Kyiv’s fight against Moscow by publicly conceding Kyiv’s heavy losses on the battlefield and declaring that the country’s very existence is in jeopardy, Lutsenko added.
.
Ukrainians “must know how many have died, and then all debates about the mobilization will be settled,” he continued.”
Imo, beyond the other considerations is the issue of transparency. That was the issue, AFAIAC, with drone stikes under Obama whether they were against US citizens or otherwise.
.
SteveF
But I already answered that. You need to find a statute that applies to what he did.
.
I know he’s not guilty of violating and Illinois statute because Illinois doesn’t have jurisdiction. I don’t have any idea if he violated
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111
18 U.S. Code § 1111 – Murder
.
The reason I don’t know is the full title is hellaciously long. There must be section on jurisdiction. I don’t know how to find it.
.
I’m pretty sure a Yemmeni killing someone in Yemen doesn’t fall under that law– for jurisdictional reasons. I have no idea if an American murdering someone in Yemen falls under the statute. When I say I have no idea I mean that literally. I just don’t know. I’m not going to decide it must apply based on morals. That’s not the way the law works with respect to prosecution. (It can apply in jury nullification or when the law is not applied.)
.
If Obama violated that statute or any statute and the statue and it applies to what he did, then yes, I think he should be prosecuted. I don’t think there is a blanket “but he’s the president” rule.
.
But I don’t know if that statue (or any) applies.
.
I’m sorry you don’t like that answer because it’s not the clear “yes” I think you want.
.
But if there is no applicable statute, then no he can’t be prosecuted. That has nothing to do with presidential immunity. It has to do with rule of law.
Lucia,
“… not all the other very wrong things everyone knows he did.”
.
Sounds like a moral judgement. 😉
Tom Scharf (Comment #228140): “What is the burden on Obama to give him actual due process? The details matter.”
.
The criteria used to decide if a strike is justified seem to be secret. As are the legal opinions on which those criteria are based. And everybody involved in the process is answerable to the President. So there is no independent oversight. The whole setup is an invitation for abuse of power.
SteveF
Sure. And he didn’t get prosecuted for them.
.
Though in Al Capone’s case, it may have been for lack of evidence rather than none of those things being illegal.
Ed Forbes
Ukrainians have access to newspapers, radio and the internet. I’m pretty sure they know how many people have died just as well as you do.
Lucia,
Here is the difference: Obama will never be prosecuted, no matter the existence (or lack thereof) of laws against murdering citizens outside the USA. Trump, OTOH, will be prosecuted for all kinds of things, under shall we say, ‘creative’, interpretations of law.
.
I get that you (and many others) don’t want Trump running for re-election. Fair enough. I just don’t think that is good enough reason for politically motivated prosecutions. And, yes, I think the (many) prosecutions are 100% politically motivated. I loath Trump, but I find the prosecutions he faces appalling.
Those who actually know the number of casualties on both sides in Ukraine, killed and wounded (and some people do for sure know that), are not saying. Nor will they until the conflict is long over…. and maybe not ever. The only thing that is clear is that the number, combining both sides, is at least tens of thousands killed and many more wounded. Typically, it is 3 or 4 wounded for each killed, although it depends on how much field medical care is available.
Lucia, the issue of Ukraine casualties is a bit muggy.
.
One example
.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-11-15/ukrainian-group-says-more-than-30-000-troops-have-died-in-russias-invasion
.
“KYIV (Reuters) – A Ukrainian civic group said it has confirmed the deaths of nearly 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers since Russia’s February 2022 invasion by using open sources, and puts the total toll at more than 30,000.
.
“Kyiv treats its losses as a state secret and officials say disclosing the figure could harm its war effort. A report in August by the New York Times, citing anonymous U.S. officials, put the Ukrainian death toll at close to 70,000.”
Mike M,
“The whole setup is an invitation for abuse of power.”
.
Exactly the situation Obama reveled in! Obama was, IMHO, the most lawless president ever, until… well, Biden, who has flipped the bird at the constitution without remorse since his first day in office.
.
I loath Trump. I loath Biden even more.
Ed Forbes
Ok… so before you want to be sure all Ukrainians know the specific number you claim. But now you want to say the number is a bit muggy.
As I wrote,
SteveF
Sure. I don’t think not wanting Trump to run is an excuse for politically motivated prosecutions. I haven’t been suggesting they should prosecute him most especially not for cases that are weak.
.
I would note issue of disqualification is not a prosecution.
Lucia,
“I would note issue of disqualification is not a prosecution.’
.
Fair enough. But the many, many legal actions against him, including the weakest, are in fact mostly designed to put him in jail, or at risk of jail, before November 2024. IMHO, the guy is being hounded because the prosecutors are politically motivated. I think it is destructive, foolish, and dangerous for the future of the country. YMMV.
.
I fully expect the SC in late February to not go along with the removal of Trump from ballots, but the many other prosecutions have close to zero chance of reaching the SC before the election in November. Which I think is the entire point: “Who could ever vote for ‘convicted felon’ Trump?” I have never been so discouraged about the future of the USA as today.
Lucia “Ok… so before you want to be sure all Ukrainians know the specific number you claim. But now you want to say the number is a bit muggy.”
.
Wow…you are really reaching mow. I didn’t “claim ” anything. I posted another prospective by someone who was a senior in Ukraine government.
Poor Donald. He’s such a victim. It’s not like he has any agency. It’s not like he’s done anything that merits legal scrutiny. It’s not like he deliberately provokes scrutiny so he can play the victim card. It’s not like he has power or influence.
.
Yup. I mean I don’t like him because sometimes he says not nice things. But really he’s justl a poor billionare victim of those bad people elitists. Poor guy.
The Russian government nurtures its people like they are mushrooms. It keeps them in the dark and feeds them horseshit.
The Ukrainian citizenry has access to the world’s news media.
Now Ed Fobes tells us that the Ukrainian citizens need more information.
This is a classic case of the Kremlin projecting the disinformation of its own people onto the Ukrainian people.
Joshua,
Who do you think is crying for Trump the victim here exactly? Steve? If so, I think you’ve got this wrong / doubt he is.
[Edit: I thought Steve was pretty clear here:
It’s not about Trump’s ‘victimization’.]
mark bofill (Comment #228161): ” It’s not about Trump’s ‘victimization’.”
.
Exactly right. Political prosecutions are bad for the country, even if the target is both a billionaire and a jerk. Or a Democrat.
Mark –
.
I was being hyperbolic, of course. And it’s not like I think there hasn’t been considerable overreach, I do. But I get tired of how much people act as if this is just all because of TDS or partisanship among Dems. He has agency. A lot of this is in direct response to real, deliberately provocative, often times totally irresponsible, and sometimes dangerous stuff he has done.
I repeat, nobody here is speaking out of sympathy for Trump. This isn’t about justice for or against Trump for us. We’re worried that politics in this country are on an express elevator to hell going down.
Mark –
.
Surely it was this remark that set me off.
.
.
I don’t see how you think that’s not saying that Trump is a victim.
.
Anyway, I consider it certainly true that there’s an element of political motivation on the part of prosecutors. But Trump has done a great deal to bring a lot of this onto himself. He has great agency. He’s not some innocent daisy. And I think much of it is a political stunt that he deploys because he believes that Dems’ reaction will benefit him politically.
Mark –
.
> We’re worried that politics in this country are on an express elevator to hell going down.
.
Well, at least there were in agreement. I think full responsibility is shared across the aisle. Anyone else is more than welcome to join in that belief with me.
People with high ethics don’t persecute people even if they are a-holes who might arguably deserve it. I think we can pretty much rule out the United States political class from the high ethics category.
.
That’s the test right? How you treat people in your outgroup. The test for blue tribe ethics is not how they treat minorities, it is how they treat the red tribe, and vice versa.
.
As for Trump, he acts out like a buffoonish clown primarily because it has worked for him his entire life. He’s probably the most famous person on planet Earth. Incredibly many people actually do sympathize with Trump because they personally know what getting dumped on by the “cool kids” is like.
.
Trump’s behavior is a master class in making opponents debase themselves. I don’t think this is by design, it is a natural instinct for him. His opponents would never previously consider themselves capable of persecuting political opponents for spite, but here we are.
Joshua,
Absolutely. Not disputed and not controversial here.
No doubt, much of the “outrage” is ridiculous, and politically motivated by outgroup antipathy. And “the right” has a point that weaponizing the legal system as a means to express outgroup antipathy is dangerous. It corrupts the system (and always has the potential to backfire anyway). I don’t dispute any of that.
.
My point is that Trump is more than just a buffoon or an asshole. Imo, there are real issues in play. Real dangers. And they shouldn’t be dismissed because some of the “concern” is over-wrought
Look man, you’re preaching to the choir. You’re welcome to of course, I won’t waste anymore time telling you you’re wasting your time. I used to support Trump, I don’t anymore. President’s can’t tweet about setting aside the Constitution and having a ‘do-over’ election and keep my support. Presidents can’t do all sorts of crap Trump did and keep my support. I agree that the guy is dangerous. There are real dangers on both sides.
Re loaded arms and insurrections, the use of forceProsecutors say Coffman was living out of his truck for several days in Washington, DC, before attending the January 6 rally but have no evidence that he illegally trespassed on Capitol grounds or entered the building.“
The Molotov cocktail devices had the tops opened (?] and had been filled with gasoline years before which had evaporated.
–
He was jailed, at 71 Yo for 46 months for possession of unregistered weapons.
–
He did not participate in the riot and it is wrong to say he entered the Capitol building with weapons during the riot as he was having a pizza with a lady he had met at an earlier rally.
–
My references to Alabama were ridiculing stereotyping him.
–
There were thousands of guns at the rally by the police and security services one of whom shot and killed an unarmed female demonstrator.
The only death from firearms and nuclear devices or any other weapon used that day on that day.
Can you find one reference to any protestor firing a gun in the Capitol that day?
Furthermore it is not illegal to carry arms in America or support a politician .
May be illegal to take them into the capitol though whether rioting or touristing.
Here Mark –
.
Maybe this will cheer you up:
..
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2024/01/07/fareeds-take-america-problems-gps-vpx.cnn
One undeniable consequence of the Ukrainian war is that Russian war material has acquired a reputation for inferiority. The Russia rocket launcher Is a prime example.
Image of Russian TOS-1a:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1745060134789763294?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
“The war in Ukraine exposed many Russian weapons as absolute failures. The TOS-1A is at one of the top positions of this questionable honor. Low firing range and slow loading time, combined with easily inflammable ammunition make it an ideal target for cheap commercial FPV drones. The fact that the launcher alone costs 6 million USD paraphrases the absolute atrocious cost-benefit ratio. But, they produce absolutely spectacular explosions when being hit.”
Explosion video:
https://x.com/tendar/status/1744866412793880800?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
My comment is, Buy stocks of the US defense industry. The world is coming, cash in hand.
Joshua,
No, Trump needs no sympathy; he is a very wealthy, arrogant jerk. But he is being pursued legally by prosecutors and judges with obvious political motivations…… desperate for Trump to not win the election in November, one and all, and willing to adopt most any tactic, no matter how extreme, to achieve that end. The damage I see has nothing to do with Trump, it has to do with voters and their right to choose who they want. It has to do with a large fraction of the population losing faith in the fairness of government…. perhaps better described as many people seeing the country descend into what appears little different from a banana republic. Yes, Trump is a jerk. No, the country should not stoop to his level… or worse.
Like I said in the comment above, I just saw this. The world wants to buy US arms:
“On January 8, 29 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, which Poland is purchasing from the United States on an accelerated basis, were unloaded in ?winouj?cie.
In January 2023, the Polish and US governments agreed to transfer 116 M1A1 Abrams battle tanks at a cost of US$1.4 billion. The tanks should be delivered before the end of 2024. The scope of delivery also includes twelve M88A2 Hercules and eight M1074 Joint Assault Bridge technical support vehicles, six M577 command post vehicles and 26 next generation equipment maintenance workshops (SECM) on the HMMWV chassis, as well as a training and logistics package.”
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1744747844622279139?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Joshua,
Nope. Not a bit.
Ed
You chose who and what “perspective” to post and what message that conveys and whether or not to add anything to modify the message or claim.
Mark –
.
Oh well, you can’t blame a guy for trying.
mark bofill
Totally tangent– didn’t someone give the name of a rhetorical device that means bringing attention to something by saying we don’t bring attention to it? This seems close.
.
I can’t search the word because I don’t know it. But I want to fully learn the word! It’s going to be a personal fave word!
Steve –
.
> The damage I see has nothing to do with Trump…
.
Right. That seems pretty consistent with that I said. You assign no agency to him, and no responsibility.
.
It’s simply a fact that he’s being prosecuted by partisans with political motivations. That doesn’t, imo, imply that he has no agency or responsibility. Those different elements aren’t mutually exclusive.
.
> It has to do with a large fraction of the population losing faith in the fairness of government….
.
Perceptions about the fairness of government seem to me to be pretty tough to measure. It’s a noisy dynamic. Seems to me that those perceptions have been pretty low for quite a long time, largely moderated by ideology, who’s in office, etc. That said there’s clearly been something if a shift in I how partisanshio contracts with those perceptions. I see that as multifactorial. One of those factors, a significant factor, imo, lands right on Trump’s doorstep. His responsibility, imo, is typically overestimated on one side and routinely underestimated on the other. Exactly as we should expect.
Lucia –
.
> didn’t someone give the name of a rhetorical device that means bringing attention to something by saying we don’t bring attention to it?
.
I didn’t really read Mark’s comment that way in that I don’t think he was using a gambit as a rhetorical device, just expressing frustration. Anyway…
.
Apophasis, or paralipsis.
More tangent…. I am now hunting rhetorical devices– hoping to find the word I want to know. But now I”m finding ones I also want to learn!
https://writers.com/common-rhetorical-devices-list#syntactic-rhetorical-devices
I found it!!!!
Paralipsis—Performative Refusal to Speak on a Topic
Lots of other cool words I will almost certainly never remember!
I’m full of filthy rhetorical tricks. It’s hard to keep them all inactive all the time. I’ll try harder. 🙂
It takes a variety of forms, in mixture with other devices/fallacies such as an appeal to ignorance. For example.
.
I don’t know if Trump is a narcissist buffoon who will bend any aspect of government simply for his own personal benefit. I’ve never met him so I can’t say. But people are saying that’s the case. And some people who have met him say that’s so.
Everyone uses rhetorical devices. There’s nothing wrong with that. What I love is learning the weird words for them. Paralipsis. Gotta remember that.
On the rhetorical devices: They aren’t inherently logical fallacies. They can be used as such, but can also be used in logical arguments.
.
This one for example:
Procatalepsis—Raising and Responding to Rebuttal
.
This one is often used by people who want to introduce a “strawman” as the counter argument to their claim, and then rebut the strawman. That can make it appear the claim is strengthened. But if you raise one of the strong and common counter arguments, it can just show you did think about it.
.
And here’s a word we all need to learn: Bdelygmia—Litany of Insults. They give an example from The Grinch, which is funny and great. But, of course, it is to be avoided if used as “an argument”. It is nearly always just a bunch of ad homs.
Lucia –
.
No doubt. As I see it, not all rhetorical devices are fallacious and not all fallacious arguments are rhetorical devices.
.
And imo, a given rhetorical device can be fallacious or not. Appealing to authority isn’t necessarily fallacious, nor is “directed against the person,” or ad hominem.
.
One of the problems with interwebs discourse, imo, is that people who are familiar with generic rhetorical fallacies don’t really understand them. Thus referencing expertise or noting a past history of unreliability necessarily become a fallacious appeal to authority or an ad hom.
As far as I’m concerned, arguments are only good to the extent someone has made a good faith and thorough effort to, what I call, interrogate the naysayer.
.
Of course our ability to do that can be limited. That’s why, imo, it’s a good idea to engage in discourse with people who disagree with you. Unfortunately, then you get into a kind of recursive problem where the benefits to be gained from such interaction are diminished if your interlocutor isn’t actually engaged in good faith exchange. I think you can get something out of engagement with someone who isn’t engaging in good faith, but the benefits, imo, become limited – sometimes to the point of only diminishing returns. A few names here come to mind but I won’t mention them. 🙂
Lucia,
Are rhetorical questions still banned? [or is that a rhetorical question?]
Joshua (Comment #228187): “Appealing to authority isn’t necessarily fallacious, nor is “directed against the person,” or ad hominem.”
.
Appealing to authority is fallacious if claimed to be proof or if the question is outside the authority’s realm of expertise. But citing an appropriate authority can be validly used as evidence.
.
So far as I know, ad hominem is always fallacious.
Joshua (Comment #228188): “A few names here come to mind but I won’t mention them.”
.
So what is the name for that disreputable rhetorical trick?
The best rhetorical question ever:
“Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?”
William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice
Mike –
.
> Appealing to authority is fallacious if claimed to be proof or if the question is outside the authority’s realm of expertise. But citing an appropriate authority can be validly used as evidence.
.
So you agree that appealing to authority may or may not be fallacious. Thanks for explaining to me that what I said is correct.
.
> So far as I know, ad hominem is always fallacious.
.
As I see it, if I say that your reliability is in question because you have often said things that were false in the past, and so your reliability is a factor that can be used to assess your arguments, that’s not fallacious even though it is “to the man.” If I say you’re necessarily wrong because you’ve been wrong in the past, that’s fallacious.
.
Imo, it’s very similar to appeal to authority. If I use appeal to authority or “to the man” as dispositive of a conclusion, it’s fallacious. If I use them as evidence to inform about probabilities, it’s not (necessarily) fallacious.
Mike –
.
> So what is the name for that disreputable rhetorical trick?
.
Apophasis, or paralipsis.
Joshua,
I think an argument is only an “ad hom” if the extent of the claim is something like “That’s wrong because X says it’s right.” Criticizing people is not an ad hominem argument nor is interrogating them.
.
The other possible form of ad hom is to just switch from discussing a topic to discussing a person. You are no longer discussing the topic.
.
I’m not sure “good faith” by itself makes an argument good. I know people who whole heartedly believe something and whole heartedly advance an idea “in good faith” and the argument is just bad.
.
Obviously, arguments advanced in bad faith often rely on logical fallacies. Equally or more often, rely on leaving out information or twisting stuff. That’s more a “tactic” than a “device”,
.
Actually, you can find quite few of these tactics in legal briefs and appeals (which is why, often, these trigger eyerolls.) I suspect they are “on purpose”. In our adversarial system, I think its even “ok”. Still… often, eye rolls. WRT to eyerolls I suspect appeals done quickly are generally worse than briefs.
.
Also I find though that some arguments– possibly initially created in bad faith– get adopted by people who then believe them. Then the person who believes it argues it “in good faith”. They think what they are saying is true. Often, they didn’t drill down into the background when they first read a story.
.
I know I am going to re-read all of the Trump-appeal arguments including the ones that triggered “eyerolls” when I read them. And I know some of the people will be advancing the “eyeroll” arguments in good faith. The arguments sound superficially ok, but sometimes leave out key bits of info or mischaracterizes what the CO Supreme court actually said.
.
(Doesn’t really matter if some things in there are eyerolls. I think we all wanted SCOTUS to take this. It was almost certain they would do so. I think: an appeal that said “HEY. Scotus. I’m appealing this against me. I think it’s wrong. This matter is important. Look you got to take this.” should be persuasive enough for SCOTS to grant it. Now, we all wait until Feb 8 for the oral arguments. Some may be extended some what or made more sound!)
.
Russell,
Yes. And Shylock’s speech is also an appeal to emotion. In a play, that is also very good. And the fact that the answer is clearly “yes” has great force with many people.
.
Russel,
Mostly. But I don’t watch so much because most people know the rule. So mostly people don’t ask them.
.
Also: if you answer it yourself, that’s acceptable.
.
Unfortunately while rhetoricals can be good in real life, they tend to be pernicious in blog arguments. Among other things: they point is never clear. The person making “whatever” point is avoiding providing any support. The person making “whatever” point often later claims their point was misunderstood. (This may or may not be the case. The sometimes appear to be used precisely to give plausible deniability– and can do so successfully.)
.
And of course, precisely for the above reasons, it is difficult to give a “counter argument” because (a) the point isn’t really made and (b) no argument was advanced.
Lucia –
.
I should note, I have an idiosyncratic definition of good faith. I really should use a different term.
.
For me, it means someone who’s really interested in sharing opinions, and engages with a mutual respect, that the discussants are interested in sharing views so as to explore and possibly resolve differences. It means someone who believes that at least volitionally, I’m trying my best to express what I actually feel and believe. And who accepts that I look at their participation in the same way. Good faith engagement for me is with someone who understand that sometimes I may express an opinion in a way that doesn’t actually reflect my true belief, or communicates my belief in a way that’s easily misunderstood. With someone who grants that sometimes I might, in a very human fashion, fail to fully hold up those principles of engagement, just as they might. But that with “good faith” interaction we can be accountable for those failings.
.
I will say that Mark and I have been able to have an extended, good faith engagement even though sometimes we screw up. I have found it useful for exploring my own views and adding nuance to them. None of us can fully escape motivated resoning, but imo, through that form of “good faith” exchange, I can minimize it around the edges.
.
I think 🙂
Here’s a thought.
Ultimately, while I get a brain chemistry boost from being “right,” and it sucks to be “wrong” and I’m largely driven by that brain chemistry, I like to think that I also benefit and derive satisfyaction from exploring issues independently of trying to be “right,” and learning more. Ideally, learning more will help to confirm that I’m “right,” but I know that won’t always be the case. And so I make an explicit effort to see that’s part of a (largely arbitrary) narrative that I can change. That I can maybe get some felt benefit from learning that I was wrong. I actually can point to experiences where’s that’s happened.
.
Engaging in that more aspirational model of exchange is just easier if I’m engaging with someone who fits into my model of “good faith” exchange, although it’s not a necessary condition.
.
[edit: Ultimately, I know that for me it feels sub-optimal to just seek confirmation that I’m right. (I’m not suggesting that’s 100% healthy.) But part that may be key is to not just fall into a narrative that being wrong is bad. That’s an imposed narrative to some extent. It’s a brain chemistry thing, but it may not be immutable.]
We are imo in some sense chaotic, self programming machines, at least to some extent. Where we find gratification (I believe) changes over time based on our habits and other factors, which to some extent is self determined.
[Not to be misconstrued as ‘arbitrary ‘]
Joshua (Comment #228194): “Apophasis, or paralipsis.”
.
That does not cover the disreputable part.
lucia (Comment #228195): “I think an argument is only an “ad hom” if the extent of the claim is something like “That’s wrong because X says it’s right.” Criticizing people is not an ad hominem argument nor is interrogating them.”
.
Exactly. So ad hominem is invalid.
Appeal to authority on historical events is stronger than an appeal to authority on predictions of future events. Increasing expertise isn’t that helpful when uncertainty is high. See covid or WSJ predictions on investment returns. Public “authorities” need to be careful how they express confidence, it has been pretty bleak for them lately.
.
If you have a rolodex of authorities you can always find an expert to appeal to. The NYT’s is especially guilty of this, with the opposite also occurring where they do not quote any authorities at all when it suits them because their argument is weak, mostly cultural issues. The cause of disparate outcomes is a sore spot.
Mike –
.
> That does not cover the disreputable part.
.
I added an emoji*. And since I didn’t name names, if someone takes offense then they might have a guilty conscience :-).
.
Anyway, if someone can’t take a joke, especially when they have a history of being insulting to me, I’m not going to worry about it. If you find that disreputable, that’s fine with me.
.
[edit: * my point being, the emoji was meant to make it clear I was directly referencing the previously discussed rhetorical gambit.]
I frequently see another phony argument style: “Appeal to complexity”, wherein a relatively simple issue, with not a lot of complexity, is described as “much too complex/subtle/multifaceted” (add other comparable adjectives as needed) to ever draw the direst conclusion that is obvious to most people. It is invoked when the arguer’s position is weak or indefensible.
“Appeal to complexity” is often linked to “appeal to (expert) authority”, since, you know, the subject is just so terribly complicated. That is very rarely true, of course.
Lol. Yeah, that’s a common one, Steve. So is the fundamental attribution fallacy.
Ah yes. The warm and fuzzies.
The appeal to complexity is used a lot, especially when the initial position of the expert was wrong. They don’t reverse their position, they first back down to “it’s complicated”. I have recently seen this with whether natural immunity is superior to vaccinated immunity and a host of climate change attribution subjects where there is no detectable connection to certain events. “We do not yet know the climate change connection to tornadoes”.
Joshua,
Check Pareto Principle. I’ve seen it a hundred times…. and very often is more like 90:10 or 95:5. Attribution actually is most often not very complicated. What complicates things is people throwing nonsensical “possible causes” which are about as likely as Trump being struck by lighting on the golf course. Once again, seen it a hundred times.
Tom Scharf,
“The appeal to complexity is used a lot, especially when the initial position of the expert was wrong.”
.
Sure. Consider the case of evil elf Fauci if one needs an example.
mark bofill,
“The warm and fuzzies.”
.
What? No idea.
Steve –
.
Good point. I’d say about 80% if the fallacious application of the fundamental attribution error is done by about 20% of people.
Sorry Steve. I was referring to the exchange between you and Joshua here where you are each suggesting the other is often guilty of fallacies without explicitly acknowledging that this is what is happening. Since nobody else was explicitly acknowledging it, I thought it would be entertaining if I made a sarcastic observation also without explicitly acknowledging the dynamic.
It was funnier before I tried to explain it I think.
Elon Musk says Boeing’s quality problems are a result of DEI…
“Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritized DEI hiring over your safety? That is actually happening.”
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1745158868676546609?s=20
Joshua,
“I’d say about 80% if the fallacious application of the fundamental attribution error is done by about 20% of people.”
.
And I would say 90% of the “everything is so damned complicated” arguments are made by 10% of people. Donno, maybe it is perfectly honest: everything, no matter how obvious, really does seem complicated to some people.
From the CBC (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-gaza-south-africa-genocide-1.7079001)
“Israel will face a new foe on a new front this week when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) hears arguments from South Africa alleging the Israeli military in Gaza is “genocidal in character” and intended to bring about the destruction of Palestinian people in the besieged territory.”
.
Genocide…. hummm.
.
So why drop leaflets warning people to leave their homes before the bombing starts? I assume that would be to maximize civilian deaths and more efficiently proceed with an effort which is “genocidal in character”, right?
.
The entire lefty commentary on Israel and Hamas is a lie. Yes, unfortunately, plenty of Gazans have been killed. No, it is not mostly due to Israel targeting civilians. It is due to Hamas locating all its military infrastructure in the vicinity of (or directly under!) civilian structures.
.
Another “it is so complicated” BS argument which is utterly disconnected from factual reality. Israel is going to destroy Hamas, no matter what. The left will have to get over this. The “International Court of Justice (ICJ)” is exactly the opposite in fact of what its name suggests… which is to say, the International Court of no justice at all.
Tom Scharf
Agreed.
SteveF
The CO Supreme court dealt with one of Trump teaches “appeal to complexity” arguments. That argument was pretty much that the state can enforce the age/location of birth disqualifications, but not the “engaged in insurrection” one because figuring out who engaged in insurrection is too complex, while the others are easy.
.
Often, in oral arguments SCOTUS justices will ask hypotheticals to find there is any limit to this argument. As in: Describe a case where it is absolutely clear someone engaged in an insurrection (e.g. Jefferson Davis?) , could they keep him off then?
.
And of cousre, sometimes even when most people draw the same conclusion, they are wrong. Or it turns out most people in a later generally all draw the opposite conclusion. And sometimes things are complex.
mark
I suspect everyone is often guilty of fallacies.
Except me, of course. 😉
.
Honestly, one of the main problems with the fallacies is people usually don’t recognize when they’ve resorted to them. They can recognize them in others. It is just a lot easier to spot a fallacy when you dislike a conclusion. Like it or not, you have a stronger incentive to try to find it. The same goes for tactics like leaving out facts that are relevant to a conclusion. These that aren’t “fallacies” per se. And you can’t tell if the fact was left out on purpose or because someone didn’t know it.
.
(Although, once again returning to briefs or appeals, I think leaving out some things is often “on purpose”– precisely because we have an adversarial system. This can lead to me rolling my eyes a lot. )
Steve –
.
The South African report gives a pretty authoritative opinion on the topic just as you do.
.
They don’t merely say “it’s complicated” but unlike your authoritative opinion, theirs is based on extensive research and well-articulated.
.
You might want to hear what Mearsheimer has to say about it – he’s far from what I’d call a flaming lefty and didn’t think the term “genocide” was appropriate until after their report:
.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5EmYpcxPdiPrWdO6yz5hOS?si=erElq7oHRk2dSbe34e9sJQ
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5EmYpcxPdiPrWdO6yz5hOS?si=erElq7oHRk2dSbe34e9sJQ
.
SteveF
Nah. Lots and lots and lots of people like this argument. Different people us it to advance different positions, but lots of people use it.
Lucia,
Yup. No arguments there.
Lucia,
As a tutor, I expect you are aware that people sometimes think things which are actually quite simple are terribly complex. I have seen it multiple times tutoring kids (including my own kids!).
.
I have been wrong before, of course, but I expect the SC will resolve this issue some time near mid February. And yes, I think it is a relatively simple question for the court to resolve.
.
“And sometimes things are complex.”
Sure, but my experience (in a wide range of questions) is that is very rarely true. Most of the time the answer to the question question is as simple as it first appears.
Lucia,
“Lots and lots and lots of people like this argument.”
.
Seems to me if your name begins with the letters Josh then you use the argument very often. I find it to be usually nonsense.
Josh,
“…unlike your authoritative opinion, theirs is based on extensive research and well-articulated.”
.
You mean like dropping pre-bombing leaflets to maximize civilian causalities?
.
Thanks, “well articulated” gave me a good laugh.
A few 16’s in the polls now, should improve to 24 but then head north again.
Newsome getting ready.
STeveF
Goes both ways. Somethings are complex.
Maybe. But they are still going to have to make an argument. And since Trump raised multiple issues of complexity as reasons why CO is wrong, they may need to address that.
Lucia,
The calculus of vector functions is (by many) considered complex. Basic algebra, not so much. Yet lots of people are perplexed by basic algebra. Sure, some things are indeed complex. But IMHO , most public policy decisions are actually not (eg, YOU MUST buy an electric stove… or else!). These questions reflect more values than facts.
SteveF,
I don’t know what SCOTUS will rule.
.
But I should add that the arguments by the CO Supreme court tend to lean on the “this is not complex” side in nearly all cases. For example: “engaged in insurrection” is a disqualification in the constitution. The president is an officer of the united states. (Someone put it this way “Anyone unburdened by law school would think that the person holding the office of the Presidency is an officer.” This is not an argument to complexity.)
.
There may be a large number of simple elements, but none are arguments to complexity.
.
This is a legal case. Like it or not, the arguments need to be based on law. That is also not an argument to complexity.
.
Some things have irreducible complexity. And with a legal issue, you can’t remove the law from the discussion. You might happen to guess the right outcome — especially if there are only two possible outcomes. But SCOTUS will almost certainly feel the need to make a legal argument. Because they can’t just rule “This is insane!!”
.
SteveF
I agree policy issues are often made overly complex.
.
Whether CO Supremes are wrong about putting Trump on the ballot is not a policy issue. It is a question of law.
.
Steve –
.
> Thanks, “well articulated” gave me a good laugh.
.
Well-articulated AND throughly researched.
.
You might want to (1) read it first and then (2) formulate your opinions about it. Kinda crazy, I know.
I’m not impressed with the UN’s dumbing down the definition of genocide.
.
“The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. It does not include political groups or so called “cultural genocide”.”
.
“To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.”
.
It’s not that these aren’t part of genocide, it is the same story that for a technical definition they can include way too many other legitimate actions by the literal definition. Similarly we have dumbed down white supremacy and racism. The intent is to claim the power of the derogatory term without telling anyone you expanded the definition for political purposes. They should just use another term.
.
Is Israel trying to destroy the Palestinians in part? Absolutely, the Hamas part. Is that a national or racial group? Meh. Is it justifiable? Yes, but that doesn’t seem to be relevant here. Are too many civilians being killed in order to destroy Hamas? In the abstract, yes, but this is due to them intentionally mixing civilians and Hamas. They don’t get immunity from attack nor an automatic qualification for genocide when they mix with civilians.
.
The UN has been overtly anti-Israel for a while now and I wouldn’t expect anything to change. The UN has been providing social services inside of Gaza for decades so it is not surprising they are sympathetic to their cause.
FWIW, in case anyone is interested, this is Mearsheimer’s substack on South Africa’s “application” to the International Court of Justice. He doesn’t go into much detail, but considers the report to be well-researched and extensively supported by evidence and documents.
.
https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/genocide-in-gaza
Joshua,
You may want to be a lot more critical about the things you read. Kinda crazy, I know.
Tom Scharf,
“Is Israel trying to destroy the Palestinians in part? Absolutely, the Hamas part. Is that a national or racial group? Meh. Is it justifiable?”
.
As usual, you cut through the BS.
Former head of Shin Bet, with whom I’m largely in agreement. But of course he’s just a no-nothing naive leftist terrorist lover such as myself (you can get past the paywall for free access with registering). Obviously, he needs to he more critical of what he reads also:.
.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-10/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-misconception-was-that-the-palestinians-arent-a-people/0000018c-eec3-d0b4-a7ce-ffe38ec80000
Chris Christie is out so that is good news. Haley and DeSantis need to team up, it’s the only hope. I don’t think Trump’s legal woes will be enough for these guys to have a “wait it out and pray” strategy.
Joshua,
I saw that too. Didn’t register, but I found this which of course reiterates the not-well-known fact in the West that the PLO and the PA had acknowledged the right of Israel to exist.
But it’s more convenient to believe that the Palestinians never wanted negotiations, where they are supposed to negotiate for their release. In reality, since the occupation in 1967 and the establishment of the first settlement at Kfar Etzion within 4 weeks, it is Israel that is completing a policy in place since founding. That is why they always preferred a strengthened Hamas that could delegitimize the resistance internationally than a PA with any stature, as Smotrich makes explicit here.
Palestinian civilians will continue to die and lose territory since no red lines will ever be established. It is very clear who the superpower is in this relationship. Palestinians by now must come to the realization that they are on their own.
Broken link:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1744790763093782750
The Russian people are fed nothing but lies…
TASS: “Russia becomes largest economy in Europe, ‘being right in hot pursuit of Japan”
And it’s not just TASS. The Kremlin has ensured all traditional and new media is flooded with this crap.
https://tass.com/economy/1726681?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com
This flat out rejection (seemingly from a place of ignorance) of the South African report on what’s happening in Gaza has raised some questions I find interesting.
.
People often point to a relative lack of focus on the treatment of Muslims in Northwest China – as compared to the focus on treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem – as an indication of a double standard and hypocrisy.
.
I think it’s certainly a question that merits interrogation. Is it merely hypocrisy and a double standard? Is there a double standard towards Israel that reflects antisemitism as is often asserted? Does it reflect some kind of affinity or sympathetic bias towards China? Would it be because of strategic reasons, and access to oil, that the ME gets so much, seemingly disproportionate, focus? Is it because of the long history of direct involvement by the West in the ME? Is it because the US is directly involved in massive support for Israel, and thus the medias has an obligation towards accountability for Israel’s policies that doesn’t exist with respect to China’s policies? Is it because there’s a large mass media profile of Muslim voices in the ME, whereas there’s zero mass media profile of Muslim voices in China? Are there other possible reasons I haven’t thought of?
.
Perhaps a related, interesting question is whether there’s a broader acceptance of international human rights organizations designating China’s policies as genocide and war crimes, compared to the large amount of push back against those same organizations making similar designations of Israel’s policies. I think in part that difference may well be because there’s less ambiguity with respect to the atrocities happening in China (complicated by the greater difficulty in reporting there, and a lack of representation of Chinese Muslim voices in mass media). Forced sterilizations, mass internment camps, etc. seem less ambigiously genocidal than dropping 2,000 bombs on buildings where Palestinian families are harboring, to possibly kill a few Hamas terrorists. In China, (so far as I know) there’s no military opposition, no Muslims killing non-Muslim, non-combatants. While the CCP claims that Muslims in China are dangerous extremists, I don’t think there’s any documentation of Chinese Muslims committing terrorist acts.
.
So here’s a couple of questions I have. I’ve often heard people arguing that what’s going on in Gaza isn’t genocide because if Israel wanted to, they could be killing far more Palestinians than they currently are doing. If so, would the same logic be applied to reason that what’s going on in China isn’t genocide?
.
Also, I’ve heard it argued that there’s a moral distinction between Israel-perpetrated violence that kills Palestinian civilians and Muslim-perpetrated violence that kills Jewish civilians, in that the Muslim civilians being killed are effectively captured by the fundamentally evil precepts of the Muslim religion (as well as a distinction related to explicit targeting). It’s not exactly that killing Muslim civilians is just flat out a non-issue, but that there’s a moral hierarchy in play where it’s effectively a battle of the enlightenment good against the medieval evil, and thus deaths caused by the good fighting evil are in a higher moral tier. Would it stand to reason, then, that the same logic would apply to reasoning about the deaths of Chinese Muslims?
Hmmm. Can’t seem to edit my previous comment.
.
I realized a logical problem with that last part. The good vs. evil frame wouldn’t work because China wouldn’t be considered representing the “enlightenment good.” But…still, the Chinese Muslims could be considered as the “medieval evil.” So then would it work that evil killing evil doesn’t benefit from the moral elevation of good killing evil? I guess it would.
Two reasons:
1. October
2. 7th
Hamas went too far and many people feel the response is justified. They see exactly what is happening and understand a government’s first priority is the safety of its citizens. If only Hamas cared about its own civilians.
.
People see Israel’s intent as stopping Hamas from killing its civilians through direct attack on Gaza and an unacknowledged campaign of punishment and retribution for deterrence. Call that genocide if you wish but that is a mutilation of the term as commonly understood.
.
They see a clear moral distinction here with intent. Everything is up for debate but when you cross the border with a horde of barbarians and kill 1000 civilians in a surprise attack then there will be a price to pay for that. This was a monumentally stupid act and will not be forgotten. Playing the victim card now is inappropriate and not going to get very good reception except from Palestinian hard liners.
Joshua,
Oh, the profound complexity of moral equivalency! It is almost too much to understand. It sure helps that beacon of freedom, justice, and good government, South Africa, is there to clear things up for the deplorables, morally, I mean.
.
To help simplify: When Chinese Muslins take up arms and kill about 140,000 non-Muslim Chinese civilians, and especially if they do so with lots of rape/knife-murders, and take 30,000 or 40,000 hostages at the same time, that is when China’s actions against Chinese Muslins will be on the same moral level as Israel’s actions against Hamas.
.
See, not complicated at all. Just do the arithmetic of proportions.
Joshua,
I genuinely enjoy talking with you. You asked, by my count, 10 complicated questions in that last comment. That is too much to address. If you break this down into more manageable chunks, you might get better engagement. For my part, I’m not even going to try to reply to that.
Mark –
.
Fair enough. Makes sense.
mark bofill,
“You asked, by my count, 10 complicated questions in that last comment.”
.
I would argue that most of those questions are not complicated AT ALL for most fair-minded people.
Steve,
So maybe I’m a dumbass. I think engaging and answering those questions honestly and thoroughly wouldn’t be trivial. I notice that for all that you say those questions aren’t complicated, you didn’t appear to address most of them in your response.
Mark –
.
I find it hard, really, to lift anything from the larger context. But maybe if I just lift this out..
.
> I’ve often heard people arguing that what’s going on in Gaza isn’t genocide because if Israel wanted to, they could be killing far more Palestinians than they currently are doing. If so, would the same logic be applied to reason that what’s going on in China isn’t genocide?
.
Clearly, the CCP could be wiping out far more Chinese Muslims than they’re currently doing (even though claims are that a very large % of the Chinese Muslim population are being targeted in war crimes).
.
So would you apply the same logic for excluding the Chinese government from war crimes? Or maybe the surrounding context makes it misleading to lift just that one criterion as an inclusion/exclusion pivot point?
Those who do care about the human rights denounce the treatment of Uyghurs as does the US intellectual class in general. In this case, a recent equivalent is the Russia/Assad coalition in Aleppo, perhaps much worse. Of course, if Assad stepped foot anywhere in Europe, he would be immediately arrested and we currently sanction the hell out of Syria. Internationally, the non-West recognizes that human rights and other values are selectively used by the US when it aligns with the national interests and jettisoned when it doesn’t.
As South Africa convincingly lays out the arguments, what is done by Israel in Gaza after 10/7 is a more extreme version of what was already taking place in the decades leading up to it. In 2023, before 10/7, Israel had already killed 234 people and dispossessed many in the West Bank. Those of us who are against targeting civilians are against the terrorism by both sides – the 700+ civilians killed on 10/7 including the many killed by Israeli fire, and the tens of thousands in Gaza who are targeted for retribution delivered remotely via the sky. Reality is that this will be ascribed to Islamism when in fact under similar circumstances, we had people do similar things in Ireland, the most recent colonial experience in the West. It is the occupation that is the root cause.
There is no excuse for willful starvation of a population. There is plenty of documented evidence that the bombing is taking place in supposedly safe areas where there was no terrorist activity. It doesn’t matter what one wants to call the mass killing, injuring, starvation and displacement of non-combatants.
Off the cuff, I think this is the case. Was there some Oct 7’th equivalent committed by Chinese Muslims that I’m unaware of? Real question. If not, then the two cases have very different context and aren’t really comparable, IMO.
RB –
.
> Internationally, the non-West recognizes that human rights and other values are selectively used by the US when it aligns with the national interests and jettisoned when it doesn’t.
.
I think this is pretty critical. This is starting to have an unambiguously significant impact on the US (using BRICS as an obvious indicator).
.
Is there any point at which, despite self-justification on moral grounds, defenders of US foreign policy see this as a matter of self-interest? You often hear people who ask “what is America’s interest?” in one case fail to apply the same question to others.
Mark –
.
> Off the cuff, I think this is the case. Was there some Oct 7’th equivalent committed by Chinese Muslims that I’m unaware of? Real question. If not, then the two cases have very different context and aren’t really comparable, IMO.
.
I’m sure not. But the basic structure underlying this question predates 10/7. Not to mention (rhetorical device alert!), I don’t see 10/7 as some kind of starting point, but as a (very significant) event along a continuum.
.
So if I understand correctly, you’d argue that 10/7 changes the equation and deconstructs my parallel? I’m not trying to be rhetorical here, but asking for clarity. Israel isn’t guilty of genocide because it could wipe out all Palestinians and isn’t, but China is guilty of genocide even though it isn’t killing at it’s capacity, because 10/7 would justify killing Palestinian non-combatants whereas nothing would justify China killing non-combatants?
.
I’m not sure that works for me regardless, but I’m trying to understand if that’s a fair summary of the logical framework.
You guys are funny.
.
> Internationally, the non-West recognizes that human rights and other values are selectively used by the US when it aligns with the national interests and jettisoned when it doesn’t.
.
Everybody does this. This is human behavior, not US behavior. Show me the nation with any power that has clean hands please.
Joshua,
Israel needed/needs to respond to a severe terrorist attack, and innocents are getting killed because of that response.
China IS NOT responding to a severe terrorist attack, and thus lacks the justification that Israel has.
The ‘could be killing more people’ has no bearing on this distinction.
RB –
.
> Those who do care about the human rights…
.
FWIW, my frame for this is that pretty much everyone involved (even a fair % of the combatants) care about human rights generally, but that the concern about human rights breaks down or becomes selective in context.
.
To a large extent, I think that “context” is mostly identity-based cognition, that mediates how concern about human rights affects how people view policy.
.
IOW, ‘the left’ and “the right” care about human rights, but because they hate each other, different views on a complex human rights frame like Gaza/Israel translates into “the left doesn’t give a shit about human rights” and “the right doesn’t give a shit about human rights” because thinking that way serves identity-based group affiliation.
.
Of course for combatants who are more directly affected, there’s a whole other element to the mechanism.
Mark –
.
> The ‘could be killing more people’ has no bearing on this distinction.
.
I’m not sure I understand how you lift it out from one context and apply it in the other…but I’ll mull it over. Thanks for answering the question.
Mark –
.
> Everybody does this. This is human behavior, not US behavior. Show me the nation with any power that has clean hands please.
.
Two points here. The first is that everyone does it, but no one thinks they do it, and via “American exceptionalism,” there’s clear operational mechanism by which the US operationalizes that view to justify a massively disproportionate profile of interference internationally.
.
The second is that even if we buy the American exceptionalism argument, I think it’s pretty clearly a fact that over time there’s been an erosion in the acceptance internationally that American exceptionalism actually applies to some extent. Maybe it’s a relatively short-term phenomenon, but I think it’s pretty clear that the US is losing support because of a growing focus on America’s hypocrisy.
FWIW, I think it be more useful if people to gravitate towards telling me how little I understand or how my views are based in a moral bankruptcy [edit: or how I’m not “fair-minded” – (a comprehensive list of my demerits would be quite long)]would instead make more of an effort to express their views and the underlying logic than lecturing me.
.
Of course, no one is obliged to do anything because I would find it useful. And if people derive some kind of pleasure from lecturing me about how stupid/immoral I am, I wouldn’t want to deny them that pleasure. It’s not like them lecturing me causes me any harm. It’s more a matter of opportunity cost.
Agreed. Also means that the West does not occupy a moral position, for instance, to tell Russia not to bomb hospitals, civilian areas etc in Ukraine. That’s not what the goal of international humanitarian law, geneva conventions etc are, but that’s the consequence.
Is genocide, as technically defined by the UN, ever justifiable?
.
It can be argued the Allies practiced genocide against the Germans or Japanese. One can only imagine what would have happened in Japan without the bomb. If intent or moral distinctions don’t matter then I think claims of genocide don’t carry much derogatory weight.
.
Claims that Israel’s campaign is unnecessarily severe are worthy of debate. Attaching the term genocide (and arguably redefining it) is where people are losing the argument.
.
Not that it is worth discussing, but Hamas could surrender tomorrow and the “genocide” would stop. That’s what happened in Japan.
> If intent or moral distinctions don’t matter then I think claims of genocide don’t carry much derogatory weight.
.
Are you thinking of certain people in particular who don’t consider intent (or moral distinctions)? The South Africa document, for example, lays out an extensive argument regarding intent, how it is assessed, etc.
The case before the court is for genocide based on intent, not after the fact. South Africa has made a case . The court decision is not binding and there are political considerations on both sides. The on-the-ground misery has to stop, it is a bad look for Israel to be tried for genocide, but it doesn’t matter what judgement is delivered as far as the victims are concerned. If this results in an improvement for their conditions, good, otherwise this whole case will not have been fruitful.
I am not claiming there is no reason to care about this, but I will state that I’m not aware of what that reason might be. It’s not a given that thos should be a high priority or any sort of priority at all.
[Edit: nor is the remedy clear. Perhaps we need better international propaganda, might that remedy this? I think I miss your point.]
Basing a case of alleged bad behavior on only after the fact evidence is ludicrous. They can make that argument but I find it pretty uninteresting.
.
“Well the perpetrator came into my house and shot my family, so I killed him.”
.
“So you admit you are a murderer then?”
.
The closer analogy here is that the person in question shot the perpetrator and also then killed the perp’s entire extended family. Justified? There is not a global justice system to adjudicate the original act and hold Hamas accountable. Hamas should be thrown in UN jail and taken out of power by the UN. Barring that, nations necessarily act with caveman vigilante justice.
.
It is not lost on anyone that those bringing charges against Israel seem uninterested in bringing charges against Hamas. In any event the UN is toothless. The goal is to use these charges to sanction Israel. If the US can veto these sanctions then they undoubtedly will.
“Tens of thousands of Poles took to the streets in Warsaw on Thursday to protest the new globalist government of Donald Tusk after it illegally jailed two conservative politicians from the former ruling Party.
Braving freezing temperatures, demonstrators descended on the Polish capital waving Polish flags and chanting. The mass protests come in response to the Tusk government’s decision to jail two members of the Sejm from the Law and Justice (PiS) Party, which formerly governed Poland, despite the fact they had received presidential pardons.”
.
https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/01/11/watch-tens-of-thousands-flood-warsaw-streets-in-protest-of-globalist-governments-jailing-of-political-opponents/
.
Its looking like a preview of what might be in store for the US.
Joshua, (and RB),
Is it fair to say that your problem with Israel is that you don’t believe they’ve ever sought a good faith solution to the problem [of peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians] in the first place, or is this an oversimplification, or does it miss the point entirely in your view?
This whole blog discussion is trying to analyze the Israeli/ Hamas war using modern Western mores and without a historical perspective. By established regional standards, this current offensive by Israel is quite restrained. The murderous rampage by Hamas on October 7 is in keeping with the historical norms. The only times [I think] this region has been free from genocidal violence has been when it was under foreign control, like the Romans 2,000 years ago. If you want to run this region by your standards you will have to conquer it militarily and establish martial law. Short of this I expect the 3,500-year history of genocidal violence to continue unabated.
Since I never got an answer to my question…
.
> If intent or moral distinctions don’t matter then I think claims of genocide don’t carry much derogatory weight.
.
It’s one thing to make the argument that the South Africans didn’t make a compelling argument of genocidal intent on the past of Israel, but it would be just wrong to argue that they didn’t make a case regarding moral distinctions (of that’s what was being).
.
Apparently they offered 9 pages and videos of examples of what they argue are examples of Israeli genocidal intent, including Netanyahu’s biblical references about remembering Amalek.
.
.
Now of course Israelis have said many things. And no doubt some of what they’ve said would conflict with a characterization of genocidal intent. But such language from the commander of troops actively engaged in an assault of Gaza, warrants more than just a blanket dismissal without even consideration, imo.
Mark –
.
> Joshua, (and RB),
Is it fair to say that your problem with Israel is that you don’t believe they’ve ever sought a good faith solution to the problem [of peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians] in the first place, or is this an oversimplification, or does it miss the point entirely in your view?
.
Not speaking for RB…
.
That’s not an accurate characterization of my view. As much as some people disagree, I think the conflict with the Palestinians is extremely complex. Included in that complexity are (1) a desire by many, if not most Isrealis to live in a peaceful coexistence with Palestinians, (2) at times in the past a good faith effort by Isreali officials to negotiate such a peace while trying to reconcile complex oppositional goals within Israeli society as well as, obviously, across the Israeli/Palestinian divide, (3) at times bad faith engagements with the Palestinians which were manifestly not directed towards peaceful resolution, but instead to provide cover for domination and occupation and at times and locactions, ethnic cleansing.
.
The recent context that I think is most relevant to the charge of genocide is that Israelis, in some important ways understandably (given the violence of the 2nd intifada), had more or less completely abandoned a push towards peaceful resolution, and instead willfully ignored the fate of Palestinians or worse in some cases sought to deliberately advance policies that would make a two-state solution so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. That is not, if course, a defense of the butchery of 10/6, but it is relevant information as to genocidal intent.
.
I might add that I don’t think it’s a slam dunk case that Israel has engaged in genocide. But I do think that an unwillingness to even examine the issue, particularly from behind an aggressive stance that even to examine it is depraved or inherently antisemitic or terrorist-loving, is only harmful in all respects. I think it’s important to consider the context in which and reasons why the Geneva Conventions were developed. Simplistic, blanket dismissals of their application, imo, has a net negative effect. If you believe they don’t apply, take it seriously and make that case why they don’t. Explain why, as just one of many examples, the leader of a powerful military force pointing to a biblical depiction of putting to death and not sparing “men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” to justify unitary engagement. doesn’t show genocidal intent.
Joshua,
1) Thanks for the considered response.
2) Regarding this:
“I think it’s important to consider the context in which and reasons why the Geneva Conventions were developed. Simplistic, blanket dismissals of their application, imo, has a net negative effect. If you believe they don’t apply, take it seriously and make that case why they don’t.”
No. I do not feel obligated to spend my time doing this, nor will I abandon my views that the Geneva conventions and the whole concept of ‘war crime’ is a crock from start to finish. It is fine by me if others (including you) disagree about this.
Generally speaking adherence to the rules of war to the extent they exist at all is a bilateral agreement. When one side openly abandons them then the other side is free to do so. Arguments that only one side should be held accountable doesn’t make sense.
Mark –
.
So I should amend what I said.
.
If you believe they don’t apply, and you care about whether or not they do take it seriously and make that case why they don’t.
.
Of course you’re not obligated to do anything in particular with respect to the Geneva Conventions. That said, unlike you or other non-signatories, both the US and Israel are signatories to the Geneva Conventions and both refer to them in justification of their policies. I think there’s a problem with anyone if they sign on to conditions of an agreement and then just dismiss those conditions. As such, I think signatories to the conventions do have an obligation to treat those conditions with respect.
.
That doesn’t mean that I think that future outcomes will be significantly affected by charges and defenses re the Geneva Conventions. I’m not sure what the full range of differential outcomes might be regarding these charges and I expect there isn’t realistically a wide range.
Joshua,
If you want to use the Hebrew bible to condemn the current Israeli retaliation, I think it is fair to use the Quran to condemn the Hamas treatment of women on October 7:
“Although the Law has fixed the maximum number of wives at four, it has set no limit with regard to slave-girls. The Law does not lay down a limit in order to encourage people to accumulate huge armies of slave-girls, and thereby turn their homes into dens of sexual enjoyment. Rather the Law does not define the limit because the effects of war and the total number of female captives that would have to be disposed of after a certain war are unpredictable.”
Surah 4. An-Nisaa, Towards Understanding the Quran
https://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=4&verse=24&to=24
Tafheem ul Quran, Surah 4 An-Nisa, Ayat 24-25
https://islamicstudies.info/reference.php?sura=4&verse=24&to=25
I don’t think you want to learn more about what the Quran advocates.
What was that we were saying about argumentative fallacies?
Russell –
.
> If you want to use the Hebrew bible to condemn the current Israeli retaliation,
.
I didn’t use the the Hebrew Bible to condemn the Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
.
I was referring to the Israeli prime minister who did that. I wrongly referred to him as the being the leader of the Israeli military, which isn’t the case. But there are similarly “genocidal” statements by Israeli military officials.
.
But by all means, bring statements from Hamas leaders referencing the Quran to the table. One thing I really don’t get is why people treat this like a football game with teams..
Tom,
Yes, those are some reasonable objections. In fact my objections are numerous, difficult to easily recall or summarize in totality and intractable to simple categorization. The shortest broad summation I can offer is that war is not a civilized affair to be conducted by agreements and rules; the whole idea is absurd and leads to absurd conclusions in my view.
And this:
.
> I don’t think you want to learn more about what the Quran advocates.
.
What a bizarre thing to say.
.
I often wonder what it is that leads people to make assumptions about my mindset that way. I have to assume that jn part, it’s a reflection not only of their ignorance of what I think, and a bizarre confidence in (wrongly) characterzing my views even though they’ve never bothered to ask, but also perhaps a window in to their mindset.
.
If someone thinks I don’t care about depravity among Palestinians because they’ve seen me be critical of the Israeli prime minister referencing biblical slaughter to explain Isreali military policy, does it mean that’s because they’re limited to a binary mindset? That they can’t get past one side flawed = other side not flawed, or something like that? That they’re not capable of nuance?
.
I have to assume that’s not the case, and what’s in play is just run of the mill tribalism and motivated reasoning that leads people to argue against cartoonish straw men rather than engage with real people. But I can’t exactly rule the other possibilities out
Mark –
.
Re your question to me and RB earlier:
.
> For instance, a 2021 Pew Research poll found that only one-third of American Jews believe the Israeli government is making a sincere effort towards peace with the Palestinians.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/misunderstanding-antisemitism-in
Hmmm. Edit button gone again.
.
Anyway, I recommend that slowboring article. It presents a lot of evidence (about opinions on the left, among Jews, etc.) that might conflict with some (not evidence-based) opinions floating about. Of course, caveats about opinion polling notwithstanding.
Thanks for that link Joshua.
Drilling down, I arrive here:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/04/PF_05.11.21.Jewish_Survey_Topline.pdf
It’s quite interesting. In fact Jews don’t think either side is sincerely seeking peace, not the Israelis, and not the Palestinians.
Mark –
.
That would make sense. Certainly at this point, if not necessarily always in the past. In fact, I’d say definitely not always in the past (in varying degree, of course).
The survey seems to be from back in 2019-2020 from the title of it.
Just another Jewish Israeli scholar of genocide and the holocaust who doesn’t see how simple it all is.
.
https://x.com/GlennLoury/status/1745455082383311183?s=20
Mark,
There has been an ebb and flow. But I believe never a sustained effort. And an evolution in the stance of the PLO as well from opposing to acknowledging the right of Israel to exist. Once the Oslo talks got started, there appears to have been an effort which was derailed on the Israeli side by Rabin’s assassination, on the Palestinian side by Hamas bombings, Barak initially making a bad faith proposal, on the Israeli side Sharon leading a provocation that triggered violence, Barak running out of time, Arafat not making any counter offers, Olmert and Abbas trying to restart negotiations, Olmert forced to resign on a corruption charge and his successors effectively halting proceedings. Through this all, left or right, the settlements never stopped. This was Jimmy Carter in an NPR interview about the time while he was governor, still early stages of the settlement.
Today I don’t believe many people believe that two state is possible any more given 700,000 settlers all over the West Bank.
Since Camp David is supposedly the big opportunity lost according to popular wisdom, this is what Clinton’s negotiator Aaron Miller said in a podcast with Ezra Klein
Thanks RB
Interesting. I haven’t listenes to the Loury pod yet (it’s in my feed), but I came across this interview specific to the South Africa application. In it, at the very beginning Bartov explains that what SA is doing is making an appeal to prevent the ongoing level of violence as it is now from being perpetrated while deliberation takes place as to whether it meets the bar of genocide (which he says could take a year). I would imagine that might include allowing for targeted military action against Hamas without an accompanying mass slaughter of civilians:
.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2024/01/11/amanpour-icj-israel-south-africa-genocide-charges-omer-bartov.cnn
To add, through the intervening years, I believe Netanyahu did everything possible to prevent the two state solution from happening, by his own admission. Gideon Levy of Haaretz believes the two state process was never sincere
https://www.newstatesman.com/international-content/the-international-interview/2024/01/israel-palestine-one-two-state-solution
It is a bit odd to believe South Africa and a UN court is going to tell Israel to stop its war and Israel would comply. Exactly nobody has ceded their sovereignty to the UN yet. Good luck with that.
Russell Klier (Comment #228268)
“This whole blog discussion is trying to analyze the Israeli/ Hamas war using modern Western mores and without a historical perspective.”
–
I think most people here do have a decent historical perspective.
Analysing the war is independent of modern western mores unless you are referring to those who want to pretend to care about both sides ..
–
Is it a war?
Yes that seems obvious both sides are armed and attacking each other
Is it a conventional war trying to take over another sides land and people.
No.
What are its aims?
On the Arab side a lot of sabre shaking and attempting to give Islam a current enemy to unite against precisely because other Arab states were neglecting Palestine.
–
The Israeli response is not genocide but it includes killing as many young and middle aged Gaza’s men as they can, from ages 15 – 55 I would guess, who are the ones most likely to be Hamas operatives or ssupporters.
–
Such a policy is horrifying but not genocide.
It will not eliminate Hamas
It will scare and subdue enough people to make the Gazn side “safe” for a while.
A deeper motive might be to drive all Gazans out of Gaza.
–
If they were Norwegians instead of Jews and Arabs one could speculate they are both trying to bring on Ragnarok.
Coaching kids soccer many years ago, 8-9 year old level I was amazed at how many times the ball would be miskicked by both sides to the opposition before one kid would be left before an open goal and kick it in.
I called it winning by mischance because I had 1 kid who could do exactly that.
Watching the Trump and Biden camps lining up for goal and looking about to kick that winning shot and then fluffing it for the other side
to take the initiative reminds me of those days.
–
I have the feeling that this election will be won and lost by who produces that single goal
–
Shots missed to date by the Democrats include a huge list in the first term and so far their Lawfare attempts which might just work, sort of group rush the ball over the line.
–
Every time Trump seems to be winning the pulls a bizarre step and goes back to square 1.
–
The Ace in the hole though for Trump is Biden junior.
Everyone knows what a real sleazebag he is compared to the Donald[Lucia] from his computer.
He should have pulled his head in and disappeared from public view for 4 years.
Biden would have romped it in.
–
In Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series, a black swan event, the appearance of the mutant called the mule, causes all the best laid plans to go awry.
In the soccer analogy Hunter would slide in and break his own teammates attempt at goal, and leg.
SteveF never took Biden Jun into account in his posts saying that Trump would win the Republican nomination and lose the election 3 years ago.
angech,
The depth/breadth/involvement of Joe Biden in his son’s (and brother’s) influence pedaling has become a lot more obvious since Republicans took control of the House. I t is clear to a substantial majority of voters (including many Democrats) that Joe Biden is neck deep in the scheme, and that the amount of money involved ($millions) significant. All that has increased Trump’s chance of beating Biden in November. After all, that both candidates have very low approval ratings is a relative plus for Trump.
.
Could Trump win? Sure, it is possible. But there remains a huge block of voters who would elect virtually any one who is not Trump. So, no matter how corrupt, dishonest, and obviously demented Joe Biden is, and no matter how little he campaigns and actually functions as President, his floor of support is pretty high (all the ‘absolutely not Trump’ voters). It is not clear that floor of support will give Biden another term, but the election is likely to be very close, and will hinge on 6 or 7 states in which either candidate might win by a few thousand votes.
.
The Democrats were far better at targeting those swing states than Trump in 2020, leading to Trump’s narrow loss. It is unclear if that will happen again this year, but Trump being, well, Trump, does suggest he is unlikely to learn much from that experience. I still put his chances under 50%.
Snow so deep…. texted my dance teacher to cancel my 11 am lesson. NO WAY are we getting the driveway shoveled in time (and even if we do, I’m going to be beat!)
WRT Israel, Hamas, Court of Justice, etc: Meh.
.
Israel is going to pretty much wipe out Hamas, and they are most deserving. Sad they surround themselves with civilians, but they are after all terrorists. All the talk in the world will not change reality on the ground.
Lucia,
No snow blower? You guys are tough!
I may have mis-remembered some of this experience, but in 1979 we were living in La Grange (western Chicago suburb) in a 1911 house whose driveway passed from the street, by the house, to a parking area in the rear which could hold our fleet of vw rabbit, vw bus and an Army M-725 ambulance. The drive was a lot longer than the previous residence so I bought a blower with what turned out to be insufficient understanding of the important issues.
.
There was a lot of snow in 1979 and it eventually reached a depth of over 4 feet at our place. Initially I blew it off the driveway and parking area, but then I found that there was no place for it in the part of the drive running past the house so the ambulance which was 24 volts, had non-directional mud and snow tires, 8 speeds, could start in -25F and was quite ugly went next to street with Rabbit in front. idea was ambulance couild be relied on to start and could extract Rabbit from whatever it might be stuck in.
.
I had bought a blower which wasn’t up to the job when the snow banked too high for the blower’s discharge.
.
Nuts.
.
I got complaints from the neighbors about how the ambulance was degrading to the neighborhoods supposedly prestigious ambiance.
.
Advice is to find out how high the discharge is on any blower you consider. We ended up shoveling by hand for about a month.
SteveF (Comment #228294): “But there remains a huge block of voters who would elect virtually any one who is not Trump.”
.
I seems like that ought to be true, but I see no evidence for it in the polls. So I have become skeptical of that claim.
.
In the RCP averages against Biden, Trump gets 45.4%, DeSantis gets 45.0%, and Haley gets 42.8%.
Nah…. We used to have one. I’m not even telling the story….. Not my fault we got rid of it….
It wasn’t just Hamas. They formed a coalition of terror groups. From the BBC:
‘Five armed Palestinian groups joined Hamas in the deadly 7 October attack on Israel after training together in military-style exercises from 2020 onwards, BBC News analysis shows.’
‘Three groups – PIJ, the Mujahideen Brigades and Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades – claim to have seized Israeli hostages, alongside Hamas, on that day.’
‘Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Gaza’s second largest armed faction
Hamas statements repeatedly stressed the theme of unity between Gaza’s disparate armed groups.’
Link:
How Hamas built a force to attack Israel on 7 October
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67480680
Some of you seem to be unaware of the depth of the depravity of the Islamic terror groups Israel is facing:
“ U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, after viewing evidence of the attackers’ brutality, said that it “brings to mind the worst of ISIS.”1 The Secretary was painfully blunt in describing the attack: “Babies slaughtered. Bodies desecrated. Young people burned alive. Women raped. Parents executed in front of their children, children in front of their parents.”
”Who’s Who” of terrorist organizations operating inside Gaza:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/major-palestinian-terror-organizations
John….
This is not 1978-1979 level yet. But there are planes grounded at Ohare. I hope Vlad and Brianna get off the ground. They are scheduled to dance in the UK this weekend!!
(I think it’s this– which would mean they dance Wed or Thurs
https://www.bic.co.uk/events/uk-dance-championships-2024 )
Re examining intent. A clip from the SA presentation, including Israeli soldiers echoing Netanyahu’s call to the slaughter of Amalek and singing of how there are no innocent civilians.
.
https://news.sky.com/video/south-africa-brings-genocide-case-against-israel-at-icj-13046226
.
Also, a video where the numbers of civilian casualties are discussed. At some point in time, as those numbers extend over time, and given that death from starvation and death from disease will almost certainly rise, I think those numbers must be reflective of intent:
.
https://news.sky.com/video/south-africa-brings-genocide-case-against-israel-at-icj-13046226
[edit: So Israel does something over and over that has a specific result (along with other results, but a specific result nonetheless). They do it for months. Over and over with a specific result. And they continue to say they don’t intend that result. I guess for me it makes sense for a while to do something with a specific result and to say you don’t intend that result. But at some point I don’t see how that works.]
Joshua,
I don’t agree with much of that, but I don’t see new ground to cover by engaging that.
Lucia, John,
Too much snow for the snow blower reminds me of the first “Minnesotans for Global Warming” video from years ago…. now apparently taken down for copyright issues.
.
When I lived in Maine for a couple of years I shared a very long driveway (>1000 ft) with a neighbor who had a farm-tractor with a giant snowblower… discharge at >8 ft, and could throw it much higher. The winter before we escaped from Maine (to Florida) there was so much snow the farm tractor blower could not throw it high enough to keep the long driveway clear. Only a hired front loader worked. The driveway became like a 12 foot deep narrow tunnel, allowing only one car at a time…. so two cars meant someone had to back out of the drive. It was a nightmare.
.
Just remember… snow will soon be a thing of the past. 😉
Joshua,
You are getting to spam level now. The existence of extremism proves nothing, especially in a heated generational conflict. It’s not lost on anybody that Hamas had as their official government charter the elimination of Israel. Perhaps you might take a look to see if there is extremism against Israel in the neighborhood, but it’s a pointless argument now. Enjoy screaming into the void.
Florida may have hurricanes, but I don’t own a snow shovel.
Tom, It snowed in Miami around Christmas 1986. The temp dropped below 32 which made the succulent but now frozen leaves fall off the trees onto the patio with an incredible racket. The Iguanas in the trees also froze and fell to the ground sometimes fatally. I write this last line believing it to be true but didn’t see any muself.
Coverage on ground was less than an inch – no shovel needed.
Youtube thinks this is true as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOatfu4n7yo
Mark –
.
It’s all good.
.
Tom –
.
If you think that screaming “they’re bigger ones” and “they did it first” suffices as anti-spam defense against genocide that’s just fine with me.
.
Meanwhile, I’ll continue to think that war crimes aren’t justified by war crimes, that at some point saying “we don’t intend to kill massive numbers of civilians” as they continue to kill massive numbers of civilians loses its punch.
.
How lame that you suggest I “look to see” if there’s extremism “in the neighborhood” – as if any of my opinions don’t recognize the fact that there is. As if I’m not aware of Hamas’ charter. Etc. I’ve got absolutely no problem with people disagreeing on these issues. I think they’re complicated. I respect many views counter to my own because I think answers here aren’t straightforward. But it’s unfortunate when people base their disagrement in such shallow and juvenile rhetoric and straw men. I’ll still hope you can do better.
When did our country turn into such a strange place?
From here: https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/4297471-when-will-frozen-iguanas-start-falling-from-trees-in-florida/
I’d no clue. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to eat an iguana.
Florida did not have an Iguana problem in the 1980s [when animal control was part of my realm]. Then I started seeing them in the Florida Keys when I went fishing. They have worked their way slowly North and are now falling out of trees frozen in Sarasota. The warming climate may be expanding their habitat Northward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iguana_meat
.
Clearly you all need some good iguana recipes.
Maybe I’ll try iguana in the smoker
Russell,
Evidently those warning against eating iguana are concerned they dine of plants that have been treated with pesticide. It appears they may want you to find some organically raised iguanas. (Evidently, the green iguana are tastier.)
Looks yummy:
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/the-ultimate-guide-to-cooking-an-iguana-13825120
.
Or, maybe not. I’ll stick with dorado or grouper.
Lucia,
Another problem with Florida living… today we are suffering with blowing and drifting beach sand. (It’s 77 degrees on our porch)
There was a wild green iguana that lived close to where I used to dock a boat; would hide in the nearby mangroves, but sometimes I would see it sunning itself on a cool day. Maybe 3-4 ft long. I never though about eating it. There were lots of wild green parrots around as well. Never thought of eating them either.
Tom Scharf,
I would not go so far as to describe it as ‘spam’, but I think just ignoring those who are contributing nothing of much value is the easiest course.
Tom Scharf,
Some discussions are never going to be productive. Like trying to get a ‘liberal’ (eg, Hillary) to describe a reasonable maximum marginal income tax rate. Just not going to happen. Only the true crazies (like Alexandria Occasional Cortex) will sometimes give an answer…. at it will usually be north of 90%. ‘You didn’t build that.’ is the general view.
Since were talking exotic cuisine… A favorite local delicacy is swamp cabbage. (I first had it cooked at a lunch in a cowboy line shack during a roundup ….they used horses, dogs, and a jeep). The downside is you have to kill an entire palm tree to harvest the heart.
Some discussions are unlikely to end in agreement, but I wouldn’t dismiss all discussions that are unlikely to end in agreement as without potential profit. YMMV.
Marc,
“but I wouldn’t dismiss all discussions that are unlikely to end in agreement as without potential profit”
That is a very anti-echo chamber thought!
Russell,
Don’t read to much into it.. much into it… ..nto it… it… itt..
😉
Your Mileage May Vary.
SteveF (Comment #228320)
Some discussions are never going to be productive.
Joshua (Comment #228310)
“Meanwhile, I’ll continue to think that war crimes aren’t justified by war crimes,”
and just continue to insult people
“How lame that you suggest”
and use the term strawman ad infinitum, as a strawman [heh,heh],
“such shallow and juvenile rhetoric and straw men.”
–
“I guess for me it makes sense for a while to do something with a specific result and to say you don’t intend that result”
Ah.
. But at some point I don’t see how that works.”
Contradicting your own modus operandi?
–
So Joshua, you put forward, seemingly, the proposition that Israel is evil for continuing the war and is in effect promoting genocide?
That it should be found guilty at the UN.
That Egypt and the other Muslim nations supporting Hamas are also serious about the peace accords they were negotiating.
I am not sure if it is your actual position or you are merely putting it up as bait and switch.
What are your real opinions, mate?
I will leave them on the hall table for you.
–
I should make it perfectly clear that I expect Joshua will never give clear, direct true and pertinent answers to these 3 questions.
I am going to go out on a limb here, and I hope you don’t let me down Joshua.
If this is Joshua’s position, I will eat an iguana. That’s how sure I am that he is not in fact claiming that Israel is evil. I have never heard him say that, anywhere. Moreover, I generally don’t hear Joshua claiming people are evil. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard him say that in fact.
What’s wrong with taking little steps and ASKING him his position, instead of accusing him of things without supporting evidence? I strongly recommend the little steps / asking approach.
[Edit: and this:
People have this way of living up to your expectations of them, particularly when you have crappy expectations. Maybe put a lid on the hostility and try to adopt a neutral or even (gods forbid) a friendly attitude. Give it a try.]
Test
Mark –
.
Lol. Thanks. Yes, you’re right about my views. What would it mean, anyway, to say that “Israel is evil?” Where do people come up with this childishness? What is this, Star Wars? As for the other issue….
.
The goal doesn’t have to be agreement. Agreement would be nice sometimes but that’s obviously not my goal here. When I’m just seeking agreement, I go elsewhere. I’m here to read people lay out reasonable arguments of disagreement so I can expand my own views. You’ve done that. Andrew Sullivan does that also below – relevant to the question of good vs. evil (apologies for the length, I’ve actually clipped some out…but of course anyone not interested can just not read):
.
Having trouble posting. Maybe because it’s so long. I’ll break it into parts.
.
Hmmm. Something in the the piece the filter doesn’t like. Just as well, since it’s so long. Here’s a tweet that has some screenshots in case anyone’s interested:
.
https://x.com/OsitaNwanevu/status/1745902476413256019?s=20
Joshua,
That dude is speaking my language. Exactly right, I’d say, except what the heck do I know? Exactly my views, would be more like it.
Joshua,
I’ve had trouble with long comments too.
Lucia –
.
Thing is, it failed to post when I broke it up also. I’m guessing there was a particular word that tripped a filter and usually I can do a kind of “bubble sort” to find the word, but it’s time intensive.
Joshua,
I do have a spam filter. Let me look to see if it trapped anything.
I’ll try again:
.
.
I’ve put your email in the explicit “allowed email” list. Stop spammers only saves reports on the past 150 comment attempts– and I didn’t see any negative reports on your email. So I don’t know…. But putting your specific email in the allowed email list may help.
Lucia –
.
It was one particular paragraph:
.
Lucia –
.
So here’s what’s weird. Replacing the “e” on the last work of that one paragraph seems to have gotten it through the filter. Even though THE SAME WORD is in the previous sentence. Go figure.
There’s a limit to how much hell you can raise in one comment, maybe.
Josh,
The spam filter has a message
“URL Shortener: x.co in comment”
(Let’s see if mine gets through”
That’s evidently a url shortener. I’m taking it out. The problem was x.co was inside x.com
Mark.
” Maybe put a lid on the hostility and try to adopt a neutral or even (gods forbid) a friendly attitude. Give it a try.”
“If this is Joshua’s position, I will eat an iguana”
“What’s wrong with taking little steps and ASKING him his position”
–
Happy to oblige you in this Mark and to be clear everyone else including Joshua.
–
I thought I did ask him his position
” 1. So Joshua, you put forward, seemingly, the proposition that Israel is evil for continuing the war and is in effect promoting genocide?
2. That it should be found guilty at the UN.
3. That Egypt and the other Muslim nations supporting Hamas are also serious about the peace accords they were negotiating.
I am not sure if it is your actual position [*or you are merely putting it up as bait and switch].”
What are your real opinions, mate?
–
* hostility? meh.
I do not deny anyone the right to state their opinions in an open manner. I do expect that I and others can ask questions when people put up views with hopefully courteous replies.
I did call out some replies in his comments Joshua (Comment #228310) that I felt were at the least discourteous and rude, as have others if you read back. Josh and I have a healthy combativeness over the last 8 years at least and I do let him live rent free in my head so spare me some slack, or not.
–
“That’s how sure I am that he is not in fact claiming that Israel is evil. I have never heard him say that, anywhere.
. What would it mean, anyway, to say that “Israel is evil?” Try
Joshua (Comment #228328)
It’s Not Genocide. But It Is Infanticide.
At some point, a civilized country has to ask how many children it is prepared to kill.
It therefore looks and feels like a relentless massacre
– Or Joshua (Comment #228334)
And that is what is in front of our noses right now: thousands of dead children.
Joshua (Comment #228336)
” *Netanyahu’s invocation of Amalek last October summons this passage from Scripture: “Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.”
There is no genocidal intent in these various statements;
Can we even imagine the psychological impact of 9,000 dead children?
–
Mark, I find it hard to read these words and believe that Joshua is not doing the old Marc Anthony burying Caesar routine.
He claims no genocidal intent to Israel on one hand and gives repeated examples of saying they are.*
–
So, do you think that what he has said above is claiming Israel is not evil because he said they practice infanticide but did not actually say the exact words Israel is evil?
I prefer Joshua commentating here than non commentating as I do not want to live in an echo chamber
Electronic warfare in Ukraine has been a nightmare for both sides. It’s an ongoing war trying to crack the radio spectrum on both sides to both gather signals intelligence and target opposing command centers. Jamming the electronic spectrum for drone defense is also causing massive headaches for communications.
.
In response I am seeing reports that WWII issue field telephones are being dragged out of storage. Wire laid between command and their out laying strong points are much harder to detect, intercept, or jam.
.
Talk about “Back to the Future “. I wonder if carrier pigeons are the next “new” innovation in the fast changing dynamics of modern warfare.
angech,
Thanks for taking the time to write 228343. “Friends, Romans, and countrymen” indeed.
.
Israel is not going to stop until Hamas in Gaza is wiped out, even if that leads to 50,000 civilian deaths. There will be more targeted killings of Hamas leaders who live outside Gaza. There will be many complaints of ‘war crimes’, and endless calls for a ‘ceasefire’ (AKA calls to not wipe out Hamas) during the entire process, of course, but nothing is going to stop it.
.
As Bill Maher might say: “New rule, organized murdering, raping, and butchering of Israelis is a big mistake.”
.
.
Oy
.
Angech –
.
I want to ask you a simple question and get a simple yes/no answer. No prevaricating, no nuance, no conditionals. Just a simple yes/no answer to a simple question.
.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
.
Now I predict you won’t give me a simple yes/no answer to that question because I have construed what you’ve said in the past to indicate that in fact, you haven’t stopped beating your wife yet, and a simple yes/no answer would make it obvious that you haven’t done so.
.
So you’ll prevaricate. You’ll give a nuanced answer. You’ll pretend that my question is a leading question, that my condition of limiting your response to a yes/no response is effectively misleading and setting you up for a disrespectful engagement. That it’s just a disrespectful way for me to try to put you on the spot. That it’s not really a question to get information, but merely a rhetorical trick. Let’s see if I’m right.
.
And if you try to add conditions, or not just give a simple/yes no answer, you’ll prove that I’m right about you, that actually you believe whatever it is that I construe that you believe and that even if you haven’t said that it’s what you believe, I’m correct and you’re just trying to hide that I’m right.
Angech,
You thought you did ask him a question, huh. Let me ask you some similar questions to illustrate my point.
1) Where do you get off accusing Joshua of antisemitism or supporting the mass murder of Jews?
2) Is it because you are morally depraved, or is it because you are an imbecile that you do this?
3) How much money are the right wingers paying you to be a butthole?
These are bad faith questions. They are hostile, they don’t actually relate to any position you have taken, they make negative assumptions about you in the absence of evidence, and they lead nowhere productive. These are analogous to what you are asking Joshua. [D]on’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining.
It is not his point to call Israel evil, is what I am saying. But heck, since you seem insistent on getting onto this point, what do YOU call the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the military? do you call it Good? I don’t think so. At best, it’s a regrettable unavoidable necessity. But it sure as heck isn’t some shining noble example of virtue.
Joshua,
Sorry, cross post.
Mark –
.
No problem. Kind of unfortunate that either of us had to make that point.
mark bofill,
“It is not his point to call Israel evil, is what I am saying.”
.
Agreed. Maybe more accurate is he thinks the situation is so morally complex, with a lot of very bad behavior on both sides, that there should be a ceasefire.
.
I think plenty of people simply reject that framing; it is not complex at all: Hamas has to be eliminated before anything else happens. The position might be summarized as: it is unfortunate Hamas sacrifices civilians to try to protect itself, but it still has to be eliminated.
“What goes around, comes around”
After Philippines rudely kicked US out of the Subic Bay navy base 20 years ago, now they need us back. Some recent news stories:
“Rising Tensions between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, Tangible U.S. support to the Philippines will be required to check Chinese escalation.”
https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/12/rising-tensions-between-china-and-philippines-south-china-sea
“In the Past Week, the U.S. Navy in Coordination with the Filipino Government has reportedly begun the Pre-Deployment of Support Assets including Fuel from Bases in the Pacific to Former Naval Base Subic Bay in the Northern Philippines in anticipation for the Results of the ongoing Taiwanese Elections, which some Officials are worried may cause “Aggressive or Hostile Actions” by China against Taiwan.”
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1745958743265759338?s=20
“US Navy edges back to Subic Bay in Philippines”
https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/World/Asia-Pacific/2015/1112/US-Navy-edges-back-to-Subic-Bay-in-Philippines-under-new-rules?cmpid=mkt:ggl:dsa-np&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAhomtBhDgARIsABcaYykoc-ZJiHx1kkIcdpPuozJPmzl7XlaKckt5J-IRhbhtD2ogwKz7uPwaAouOEALw_wcB
I have a personal interest… My dad was stationed at Subic Bay Navy base at the end of WWII. He was with the army engineers and they were modifying LSTs for the invasion of the Japanese home islands. They were retrofitting M2 .50 cal machine guns and small rocket launchers so the landing craft had offensive firepower as they hit the beaches.
Image:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1746174209888251949?s=20
Does anybody dispute that children and civilians are getting killed by IDF in Gaza?
I don’t think noting and discussing this fact automatically constitutes some sort of attack against Israel. It’s almost as if people’s consciences are bothering them.
Steve,
I agree with you there. It’s what I mean when I say the Israeli’s are not Gods. If they had infinite powers, they could come up with a better solution. They don’t.
Steve –
.
> Agreed. Maybe more accurate is he thinks the situation is so morally complex, with a lot of very bad behavior on both sides, that there should be a ceasefire.
.
That’s certainly closer than Angech’s bad faith nonsense, but you’re outlining a causality there that doesn’t march with my view.
.
> Hamas has to be eliminated before anything else happens.
.
As a matter of a theoretical “should,” as if just air-lifted out of the context, I don’t really disagree with that. As extracted, it’s certainly consistent with what I think Israel has a “right” to do. I certainly don’t think it would make Isreal “evil” to do that. But that statement, imo, only exists in a fantasy and isn’t grounded in a full context. Questions such as how Hamas is eliminated, what conditions prevail depending on the answer to that question are all important elements of the context.
.
As an analogous situation (with all the problems with analogies), what “should” the US have done in response to 9/11? While I had no particular problem with responding militarily to al Queda, I thought the response we did make was ill-conceived and in all likelihood counterproductive. I had a lot of reactions similar to Angech’s (and yours) in response to my views on responses to 9/11. I find it instructive that now, many people who reacted similarly to my views then as you and Angech react to my views now, have come around to agreeing that our response to 9/11 was ill-conceived.
> The position might be summarized as: it is unfortunate Hamas sacrifices civilians to try to protect itself, but it still has to be eliminated.
.
Read Sullivan’s comments on that point. What do you think of his opinion on pinning all the responsibility for civilian deaths on Hamas? I thought he was inconsistent on that point, and that his inconsistency on that question is because it’s an inherently complex question.
Joshua,
I don’t mean to be repetitive, and I know I’ve expressed this before. IMO the government of Israel and the IDF’s first obligation is to protect the people of Israel. Hamas did not surrender or cease hostilities after Oct 7’th. They remained a threat, and one that had just successfully carried out a brutal attack that cost a lot of innocent Israeli horrific deaths. An acceptable baseline in my view is that the IDF do what is necessary to destroy the threat.
Are we simply haggling about how many civilian lives are reasonable to write off as IDF carries out its obligation to destroy the threat that just devastated Israel? It seems to me we might be.
Ed Forbes (Comment #228344)
You wrote “In response I am seeing reports that WWII issue field telephones are being dragged out of storage”
This is an interest of mine, could you please provide the links to the reports?
If I may, and I get that maybe this is unnecessary,
I don’t feel like I’m making this up. This is what governments and militaries do. It’s part of what they are for. It’s how our societies work and have always worked. I don’t feel like this ought to be a controversial point.
> IMO the government of Israel and the IDF’s first obligation is to protect the people of Israel.
.
Sure, that’s generally what government’s see as a primary responsibility.
.
> Hamas did not surrender or cease hostilities after Oct 7’th. They remained a threat, and one that had just successfully carried out a brutal attack that cost a lot of innocent Israeli horrific deaths. An acceptable baseline in my view is that the IDF do what is necessary to destroy the threat.
.
The problem there, imo, is that “what is necessary” is vague and insufficient.
.
> Are we simply haggling about how many civilian lives are reasonable to write off as IDF carries out its obligation to destroy the threat that just devastated Israel? It seems to me we might be.
.
I think that’s one question, but certainly not the only important aspect to consider. What happened prior to 10/6 is important (in other words, what were the factors that led to 10/6, including the security failures of the Israeli government. If its the government’s failure to protect it’s citizens and they didn’t through obvious incompetence, then the government has responsibility beyond merely “destroying Hamas,” particularly since (1) “destroying Hamas is, imo, vague and pretty much unachievable and (2) you still have to consider the costs and benefits of different ways of “destroying Hamas.”
I think another thing we may disagree about is what might constitute Israels ‘optimal’ response, so to speak. In other words, I get the impression from what you say about 9/11 above that you think there is a better option than the baseline retaliatory one I outline above from the perspective of long term solutions to the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.
We can probably agree on this, that there is tension between the short term objective of destroying the ability of Hamas to conduct terror attacks against Israel and eventual peaceful coexistence or long term solution to Israelis and Palestinians living in close proximity. I think some of our disagreement probably stems from the opposition between these two things.
Mark –
.
> We can probably agree on this, that there is tension between the short term objective of destroying the ability of Hamas to conduct terror attacks against Israel and eventual peaceful coexistence or long term solution to Israelis and Palestinians living in close proximity. I think some of our disagreement probably stems from the opposition between these two things.
.
I do agree. Just to add, there is no optimal response here. That’s a given. At best, there’s a less sub-optimal response.
.
A critical issue here is the choice between “destroying Hamas ability to conduct terror attacks,” and degrading Hamas’ ability to conduct terror attacks. I have heard Israelis saying that “degrading” can’t be a reasonable goal, that only “destroying” can be a reasonable goal.
.
While I understand the motivation behind that view, particularly but not only given the horrors of 10/6, i think “destroying” isn’t a realistic or achievable goal to begin with. But further, it needs to be entered into the equation, whether the differential costs associated with a “destroy” goal as opposed to a “degrade” goal, would be worth it.
Hamas did not act alone on Oct 9. There were at least 5 other Palestinian terror groups that cooperated in the raid. “Three groups – PIJ, the Mujahideen Brigades and Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades – claim to have seized Israeli hostages, alongside Hamas, on that day.” Israel must not only wipe out Hamas but the other terror groups as well.
Palestinian terror groups are woven into the fabric of civilian life in Gaza. I don’t know how to extricate them with or without civilian damage. Also, civilians support the terrorists hidden among them, and the support is growing:
“RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — A wartime opinion poll among Palestinians published Wednesday shows a rise in support for Hamas, which appears to have ticked up even in the devastated Gaza Strip, and an overwhelming rejection of Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas, with nearly 90% saying he must resign.”
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
Russell “This is an interest of mine, could you please provide the links to the reports?”
.
Here’s one, the latest I have read. About 1/2 way into the post it talks about wired field telephones being brought back for tactical battlefield com
.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/us-launches-strikes-on-yemen-and?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-01aaa99b-7715-4c4a-ad4e-1cdb492b5e0b
.
Com issues have been a problem from the start and has seen a number of articles commenting on this issue. Sorry, no other links to what I have read in general.
.
Search comes up with a number of articles on com issues. Here’s one at random.
.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-military-leaders-need-rethink-battlefield-intelligence-smartphone-era
.
The US has not had to worry about tactical battlefield com security since WWII. Tactical US command posts are said to light up the spectrum like a Christmas tree due to poor signal security habits. This will have very bad outcomes if the US does find itself in a direct shooting war with either China or Russia.
Russell –
.
> Palestinian terror groups are woven into the fabric of civilian life in Gaza. I don’t know how to extricate them with or without civilian damage.
.
This seems to presume that “extricating them” is a realistic, achievable goal. [edit- actually on re-reading, I see I prolly misunderstood what you wrote. And perhaps you agree that it’s not a particularly realistic, achievable goal. If so, apologies]
.
Connected to that point, and to the polling you referenced, part of the critical issue is that support for terrorism against Israel amongst civilians is likely exacerbated by Israel’s response to 10/6, as seen by the increases in popularity/decreases in popularity in Hamas and the PO, respecitely.
.
And of course, it’s relevant to consider the explicit policy of the Netanyahu government to boost Hamas and degrade the PO, as a way to undermine any potential progress towards a two-state solution. One of the interesting aspects of this whole discussion is to see people who typically focus on cynicism about the self-serving nature of politicians pretty much flatly ignore the self-serving nature of the Netanyahu administration – which obviously panders to ultranationalist religious fanatics who violently oppose any Palestinian state and who actively engage in violent ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Armenian Quarter – at the expense of any potential progress towards a negotiated solution.
Joshua,
“Just to add, there is no optimal response here.”
.
I think you must have a strange definition of ‘optimal’.
.
Most people accept the dictionary definition: ‘Most favorable or desirable’, or ‘Best possible; most desirable’. I think to say there is no ‘best possible’ response is a bit disconnected from reality; there must objectively be a ‘best response’ even if that is only a “least negative” option.
I don’t know what Joshua’s position is. He doesn’t ever state it in a clear manner. He posts a bunch of opinions that take one side of an argument and doesn’t post or state any steelman for the opposing position. It is reasonable to infer this is his position and it is also reasonable to have him make clear what he is actually arguing.
.
AFAICT tell he feels the level of civilian death is too high in Gaza to justify the ongoing operation and that they need to stop the war or alter tactics. Where it gets complicated and confusing is radio silence on exactly what Israel is supposed to do alternatively, specifically if the goal of Israel stopping (or more likely just delaying) future attacks is to be achieved. There is plenty of performative worrying in the intellectual class. This is going to met with “OK, what is your plan?” by the Israeli war cabinet. They have to actually do something and make hard decisions.
.
Israel can alter tactics (and they have in the past month) but this also brings in the other side of this calculus. How much more do you endanger soldier’s lives to spare opponent’s civilian lives? Soldiers are humans and have families too. How much do you endanger future Israeli civilian lives if you do not achieve your objective of removing Hamas? I would argue this is the main issue.
.
Hamas can be minimized or removed from power by force with enough effort. See Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Nazis, Japanese imperialism, Saddam, etc. It doesn’t always work, especially if the long term commitment is not present, and it can backfire, and it is never without a heavy cost.
.
The Taliban circa 2023 are not the same as the Taliban 2001 but it is important to understand that no matter what happens a bunch of Palestinians who hate Israel will always be in Gaza. A kinder, gentler government of Israel haters would be an improvement.
Steve,
Yes. I took Joshua’s words as a reminder that sometimes all options involve bad outcomes. I like to object to the trolley problem in ethics as an example of this; in my view, the root cause of the ‘wrong’ lies in whomever might be responsible for setting up the situation. There is no ‘right’ at that point.
I thought this might be applicable in some sense and that Joshua might be referencing this or a related idea, although perhaps I misunderstood Joshua, or perhaps he spoke poorly and is mistaken.
Steve –
.
> I think to say there is no ‘best possible’ response is a bit disconnected from reality; there must objectively be a ‘best response’ even if that is only a “least negative” option.
.
First, referencing dictionary definitions usually equates to a weak appeal to authority. Language exists in a communicative context. Referring to dictionaries is useful, but isn’t dispositive because they’re inherently simplified.
.
That said, you’re skipping over the first part of the definition to get to “best possible.” I think the “most favorable or desirable” explanations are problematic as I don’t see anything favorable or desirable about the realistic solutions here. IMO, to call a solution “optimal” fits with the unrealistic conception of something like “eliminating” or “destroying” Hamas.
.
So that’s why I prefer something like ‘least sub-optimal.” I don’t think it’s a hugely big deal. I get that maybe I’m being overly-semantic here. Obviously, “optimal” is pretty close to “least sub-optimal.’ Still, imo, it’s more descriptive of what’s a likely outcome.
.
Part of the context there was what Mark said above:
.
> “what do YOU call the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the military? do you call it Good? I don’t think so. At best, it’s a regrettable unavoidable necessity. ”
.
That’s similar to what I was getting at with preferring “less-sub optimal” to “optimal.”
Is it possible for Israel to go to far? I think we would agree that it is. If Israel were to setup camps and begin a program to gas all the remaining Palestinians and cremate their corpses, nobody would say they had not gone too far.
I think nuking the [Gaza strip, sorry] and killing every living soul there would be going too far. I think using traditional warfare methods to kill every living soul there would be going too far.
This said, it’s sort of like abortion. Up to some point it’s OK. One civilian death? We should be so lucky, that’d be great! A few dozen? A few hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? At some point it does become excessive. Apparently tens of thousands is where we are right now, if reports are to be believed. Maybe the reports are not to be believed, I don’t know.
Tom –
.
> I don’t know what Joshua’s position is.
.
There’s a simple solution to that. You could try asking rather, hopefully without leading questions and with questions that are specific in nature and reasonably limited in scope, rather than making incorrect assumptions.
You can also just state your position. I know what everyone else’s position is without an interrogation required.
Mark –
.
> Is it possible for Israel to go to far? I think we would agree that it is. If Israel were to setup camps and begin a program to gas all the remaining Palestinians and cremate their corpses, nobody would say they had not gone too far.
.
Part of the complicating factor here is that “going too far” isn’t static. The response on the part of Israel, in this particular moment, has led to X’s thousands of deaths of women and children (and terrorists).
.
But the tactics they’ve used have also created conditions of a near complete lack of medical care and conditions that will likely lead to starvation and deaths from disease on a much larger scale. Perhaps that’s not inevitable and it’s not necessarily Israel’s responsibility if other parties involved don’t step up to help avoid those outcomes. But neither is Israel unaccountable for such outcomes at any level.
.
BTW – I tried to post essentially the same thing that you posted in your #228348, but for some bizarre reason it kept getting caught in the filter. Defies logical explanation.
.
Anyway, gotta run. Will be back later.
“WWII issue field telephones are being dragged out of storage”
.
Apparently people were getting lost in the desert during the first gulf war because not everyone had GPS. That had to be a pretty lonely feeling. Battlefield awareness is a gigantic advantage which is one of the reasons the US has gotten used to disproportionate outcomes. Try as they might, the Taliban was never able to overrun US positions in Afghanistan (there were some close calls) because we always saw them coming and they pretty much gave up trying. The unblinking eye of surveillance.
.
If this advantage can be disabled things will be much more even. I suspect the US would perform poorly if asked to read paper maps.
Tom “If this advantage can be disabled things will be much more even. I suspect the US would perform poorly if asked to read paper maps.”
.
In a hot war between the US and either Russia and China, GPS satellites would instantly become targets. Bad situations all around even without going nuclear.
Israel’s number one concern with going too far is losing future US support. Israel also has to worry about sparking a region wide war that could go badly. They have been treading a fine line here and are going much further than in the past.
Tom,
I agree. One of the lessons I think we can take from Oct 7’th is that Israeli tech and intelligence doesn’t make them invulnerable, and the Jews in the region are outnumbered more than 50 to 1 by Muslims. Also, I read reports that Iran will remain about a week away from having nuclear weapons capabilities, probably until such time as we discover they’ve had nuclear capabilities for a few months..
https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/how-quickly-could-iran-make-nuclear-weapons-today
My link actually says a week away from having enough material and six months away from a crude device, but I’m skeptical. Enemies have this way of surprising us sometimes.
Iran going nuclear is a foregone conclusion at this point IMO. I imagine we will detect a nuclear test within a few years. It is rational for Iran to go nuclear since they perceive the US to be an existential threat just like the Norks. I don’t think it changes anything with respect to the US as we weren’t likely to invade Iran anytime soon. It protects their regime from outside influence but it seems the greater threat is their own people getting tired of the religious zealotry.
.
Iran for all their bluster seems to be pretty rational in their international behavior. They slowly escalate poking the bear with proxies until the bear smacks them down, then they start over. Constantly testing the boundaries and probing for weakness, and it is necessary to demonstrate to them where those boundaries are. Every President is tested. I find it easy to believe they didn’t authorize Oct 7th. They don’t want a war with the US today.
.
Israel and Iran with nuclear weapons though. Bad news for everyone.
Tom Scharf,
You wrote:
“I don’t know what Joshua’s position is. He doesn’t ever state it in a clear manner. He posts a bunch of opinions that take one side of an argument and doesn’t post or state any steelman for the opposing position. It is reasonable to infer this is his position and it is also reasonable to have him make clear what he is actually arguing.”
I seem to notice that periodically commenters drop in out of the blue, post long-winded article about controversial topics and have many of the same attributes you put on Joshua above. Sometimes in the past I have noticed these posters use similar sentence structures to each other. I think maybe some of these guys are all the same guy. I have expressed that though to Lucia in the past.
Mark, “trolley problem” ??
John,
The Trolley Problem goes like this:
Somebody is going to get killed, that’s a given, so in my view the moral failure is already given. The decision point is at the wrong place, essentially is what my answer is. Prevent the situation from being setup.
John,
It’s actually used to illustrate a completely different point. People’s moral intuitions tell them that diverting the trolley is committing murder, and that it’s better to do nothing, if my memory serves me, even though more lives are saved by diverting the trolley. I might remember this wrong, so buyer beware, but I thought it was something like that anyway.
[Edit: it opens lots of different cans of worms, when you get right down to it.]
Russell –
.
> I think maybe some of these guys are all the same guy.
.
Yikes!!!!
.
You must be one of those many smarter- and more erudite-than me commenters here that Steve referred to a while back. I could only hope some day to posses the logic skills than enabled you to suss out that I’ve posted here under multiple sock-puppets.
.
Could I prevail upon you to tell me which other sock-puppets I’ve used here? i’ve lost my super-sekret master file of names and I want to make sure I can keep track for when I get my compensation from the climate police.
Joshua,
My post was purposely crafted to not include you.
However, if the shoe fits…..
“Not having a position” is a perfectly acceptable position if clearly articulated. I don’t really have a position on immigration. I can take it or leave it. This is not to say I don’t make fun of sanctuary cities for my own entertainment.
.
I just can’t figure out what people are saying sometimes. The reasons can vary from people are still exploring the subject to the position is controversial and it might come back to haunt them in their career or peer group. I think most people here are probably old enough that they just don’t give a f*** anymore about peer groups and career sabotage, ha ha.
.
Look, you can change your mind. I don’t support Trump anymore.
Now Joshua, don’t be mean. He was just saying.
.
How much you getting from the climate police anyway? Those big oil guys have been stiffing me lately…
.
Is that ‘mark bofill’ guy another one of your puppets? You may think you just have dissociative disorder, but I assure you, it’s really demonic possession. Call me Nefariamus.
😉
[Edit: Well, I thought it was funny at the time. There’s no need to call a psychiatrist I don’t think..]
Mark –
.
> How much you getting from the climate police anyway? Those big oil guys have been stiffing me lately…
.
Yah, the big oil guys are cheapskates. That’s why I switched over. Plus better benefits. [edit: of course, because it’s government funded]
How do you know when you don’t have a position?
.
One clue is that you don’t get emotionally wound up when reading arguments from either side. Another clue is that you don’t find it hard to write arguments or counter arguments in a discussion. If it really irks you to write something then you probably have a position.
.
Aid and comfort to the enemy, arguments as soldiers. The two party system in the US is not helpful here.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the trolley explanation. It may be a basis for why the ususal luddites are against automobile autopilots, namely that they would be unable to solve the choice of either running over a woman with baby carraige or an old woman.
.
When I first heard this as a reason not have autopilots, I was astounded that anyone would take it seriously. There were 10 guys in the room and a couple of women. I asked for attention, got it, and repeated our hero’s reasoning, then asked if anyone in the room had ever faced anything like this situation. No-one.
.
Then total driving experience? maybe 500k miles for most of them, for me 1,300,000 based on totaling mileage on cars I’ve owned – it helps to be 80 for this.
.
I’m not a big supporter of automotive autopilots thinking that it is very difficult to devise a reasonably safe one, but eventually….
Russell,
There have been posters who created sock-puppets in the past. I was able to detect them. I have never suspected Joshua of creating sock puppets.
Obviously, I can’t be certain, but the same could be said of anyone.
John,
Yeah, I’ve always had mixed feelings on self driving cars. On the one hand, I maintain that humans are poorly suited to the task and that it’s really quite a wonder we manage as well as we do, so maybe autopilots would be good. On the other hand, I’m a software engineer specializing in embedded systems, and on a professional level it’s a little bit terrifying. I’d have a difficult time trusting such a system. I think AI’s gotten to the point in recent years where I might imagine it possible that a robot driving the car more safely and reliably than a human could finally be a doable thing. So – I think I’m on the same page with you on that.
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1455:_Trolley_Problem
LOL. The case John mentions:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1925:_Self-Driving_Car_Milestones
john ferguson
You actually heard someone give this as an objection?!
.
Did they know the “right” answer?
.
“This is not a relevant real world problem” is one of the objections to the trolley car problem. So much in the set up makes it not particularly relevant. The trolley car problem as stated literally requires knowing the state of the track. Why would you know? Then not knowing if Superman or Dudley DoRight is in their way. (More plausible.) Then deciding fast.
.
See “The Trolley Problem Will Tell You Nothing Useful About Morality”
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/the-trolley-problem-will-tell-you-nothing-useful-about-morality
.
And it requires an individual to make the actual decision– it’s not like an algorithm. Algorithms aren’t moral agents. An algorithm at the switch would probably not have a detector. So it would not flip the switch because, even if it had moral agency it “doesn’t know”. It’s honestly unlikely someone would engineer anything to be able to tell one track had one person tied to it and the other five tied to it. If there were detectors that indicated “someone dies” in either direction, someone probably knew something else and the decision might have been coded based on something else.
.
If you change the trolley car into “If we kill innocent person A to harvest their organs to save people C-G who happen to have the same tissue type” I think most people say, “No. Don’t kill person A”. (Maybe they kill hated person Z? )
mark
I very much would love to have a self driving car, once they are perfected. I don’t especially love driving, would rather be dropped of door to door conveniently. Having a person do it is not an efficient use of human time. (Not that there aren’t worse jobs. But I’d also love to have a self cleaning house or having dinner just magically appear with no human having to do anything if they don’t want to. And, of course, baby’s diapers should just magically change themselves.)
.
I think you’ve captured the issue though– can it be perfected. Can it even be made “adequate”.
A feature of Tom Tom GPS’s for cars is the choice of voice. Our choice is Sybil, a very nice sounding english lady who intones “join the motorway” for example.
.
When we bought the first one, a Hungarian Grandmother was a choice. I suspect that the Hungarian part was a dodge to not more correctly name her as a Jewish Grandmother from Brooklyn.
.
I was only able to handle a week of her. Her best was to say “Slow down, slow down, you missed the turn which was two blocks ago, whatever will we do? etc etc.” all in a voice Iand accent think most of you can imagine. She had not suggested the turn two blocks earlier either.
.
Tom tom is a Dutch company and it seems possible that no-one at Tom Tom actually appreciated what a menace the Grandmother was.
.
When we got a newer Tom Tom, Hungarian grandmother was no longer a chice. and besides we’d come to love Sybil.
.
Why Tom Tom? It was the only system at the time which had good maps of the area around Galashiels in Scotland where we were planning to visit an old architect friend who to prove how clueless architects can be had bought and was restoring a castle.
Apple maps and my Iphone pronounce my name incorrectly. I don’t know how to override this.
This is a much bigger problem than not handling the trolley car problem well.
Autopilots still look a decade away or more. What existing systems can do is limited, and the truly autonomous cars are limited in where they can function. Like Lucia, I would very much want one if it was demonstrably equal to or better than a competent (non-drunk) human, and especially if equal to or better than a competent human at compensating for the bone-headed moves of, well, incompetent humans. It would be a bit like flying private (although much slower 😉 ). Like Mark Bofill, I see it as a monumental programming challenge, and equally monumental hardware problem. Early systems will likely be expensive, so I will be surprised if they become common in the next 15 years.
My car has lane keeping with different levels of auto-correction. I was driving the other day and pulled into the center of the lane so I could pass some bikers. It about corrected me right into them.
.
I could use my signal to stop this behavior but that is not something I normally do in that case.
.
I expect self driving cars will be a litigation nightmare for a while even if they prove to be substantially safer. The companies behind these have deep pockets. Congress may need to exclude them if negligence can not be proven.
Well, Lucia, if you don’t like what the Iphone is telling you, you can always say the message must have been for somone else.
Lucia,
Change the spelling to Luceea or Luseea?
My god Lucia, thank you so much for linking this:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/the-trolley-problem-will-tell-you-nothing-useful-about-morality
It’s been awhile. I’d forgotten how much I’d enjoyed reading it!
I think the main lesson from the trolley problem is that the brain may be hard wired in weird ways.
Instead of designing cars to handle immeasurable different road situations competently why not design the road to make it easy for a computer to drive on it? Mandatory IR reflectors etc.
.
My understanding is Tesla’s system already exceeds human capability in safety but has some problems where humans wouldn’t. Flashing ambulance lights and driving under a trailer truck at full speed being recent examples.
.
To really get over the top on safety it will be necessary for the cars to communicate with each other to signal evolving road hazards to each other.
Tom,
Some things might be hardwired.
.
I think in real life people acting on impulse will save a drowning child rather than the drowning adult. (Note: you are saving and absent your help both die.) In some sense the “reason” is that your gut says the adult can help themselves. Might not be true. But the ‘gut’ isn’t really judging “worth”.
.
In real life, you tend to save whoever you come across first. Or someone you can save. Or someone you know.
.
Very few of us end up, untrained, in the surrounded by a bunch of wounded in the Battle of Atlanta. (She goes to try to bring the doctor to deliver Melly’s baby. The doctor stays to deal with the wounded and tells her to leave. She leaves to deliver Melly’s baby. All Melly’s other relatives had left Melly behind to protect themselves.)
Tom
Nice idea… but some of the roads “down state” are gravel. And “down state” is less than 40 minutes drive from Chicago.
I cannot remember where, but I saw a presentation 5 years ago of road environments which the autonomous systems couldn’t grok. They were all european. Some weren’t obvious to me but maybe to europeans.
.
And there were a lot of them and mostly it wasn’t difficult to understand the challenge.
.
We had no cars for the last 4 years of living on a boat. we rented them when we needed them but not often. we bought one when we sold the boat and moved ashore. It took me almost 6 months to bring my situational awareness back up to where I was comfortable driving again. I was astonished that it didn’t stick during the car-less time, but it didn’t.
Lucia,
I need a new copy of Gone with the Wind. My wife wanted to watch the movie again not long ago and I watched with her. It was OK, but mostly the movie just makes me want to reread the book.
Did the Trolley problem at our U3A, University of the third age.
Sensible presenter.
What I took out of it is that I would refuse to be put in the situation artificially of making any such fixed choices.
In other words, if it was an exam say, I would put in a blank piece of paper and walk out rather than let myself be put in a situation of having to choose worse or worser.
I just do not agree with that.-
–
Similarly I would say to Joshua that since I have not beaten my wife or ever intend to beat her except at chess and tennis that his question is simply meaningless.
Worse it displays extremely poor taste on his part.
–
In regard to my questions to him I put no double negative implications in my questions to him [ unlike his sally].
My questions did not depend on context.
They did ask or a yes no answer that was reasonable and sensible.
–
Joshua chose to play several cards rather than answer a simple question. Does he regard Israel [and its leaders I guess] as evil.
The correct answer, as Stefanik says, is simple and easy.
No.
But Josh does the Professor Gay route.
He refused and still refuses to answer the question.
Which is what I stated he would do.
Now I do not mind if he says I will not state my positions even when you asked me politely because I do not want to do what you asked.
But he returns to his bad faith comments etc.
Fine.
He just proves point by refusing to engage when politely asked a simple yes no question that everyone would expect a simple, no pressure answer to.
–
.
Angech didn’t answer my yes/no question with a simple yes/no answer.
.
Exactly as I predicted.
mark bofill (Comment #228347)
“Angech,You thought you did ask him a question, huh.”
–
Yes I did.
If you choose to read more into it that is your right but I would say you are wrong in this case.
It is all written there as clear as day to me and others.
No hostility.
Simple questions based on his comments.
We will have to disagree.
I would not expect you to have to eat an iguana at this stage but if future events work out as they always do and you end up agreeing with me but then I would not demand it of you anyway.
–
Let me ask you some similar questions to illustrate my point.
1) Where do you get off accusing Joshua of antisemitism or supporting the mass murder of Jews?
–
Is this a wife beating question?
–
2) Is it because you are morally depraved, or is it because you are an imbecile that you do this?
Ah , a wife beating question.
–
3) How much money are the right wingers paying you to be a butthole?
A straight question with a little bit of hostility in it?
Getting paid would be a bonus.
–
‘These are bad faith questions.
They are hostile,
they don’t actually relate to any position you have taken,
they make negative assumptions about you in the absence of evidence,
and they lead nowhere productive.
These are analogous to what you are asking Joshua.
[D]on’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining.”
–
Some days both things actually happen at once.
It’s raining Mark.
–
“It is not his point to call Israel evil, is what I am saying.”
–
Wrong.
You just do not know what Joshua is thinking when he seemingly accuses Israel of infanticide and genocide.
I think Joshua would caution you at this point along the lines of him saying “don’t put words into my mouth and don’t tell me what I am thinking”.
P
But heck, since you seem insistent on getting onto this point, what do YOU call the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the military? do you call it Good? I don’t think so. At best, it’s a regrettable unavoidable necessity. But it sure as heck isn’t some shining noble example of virtue
mark bofill (Comment #228347)
–
But heck, since you seem insistent on getting onto this point, what do YOU call the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the military? do you call it Good? I don’t think so. At best, it’s a regrettable unavoidable necessity. But it sure as heck isn’t some shining noble example of virtue.”
–
I am not insistent on getting to this point you mention.
I wanted answers to simple questions
In regard to your question, which I am happy to answer since you asked.
I would call it Evil.
I would call it war.
I would not call it Genocide.
I would not call it infanticide..
I still do not know Joshua’s position on 3 simple questions that are not hostile and are easy to answer.
Joshua has already said here that I was correct about his views. You appear to be arguing that you know what Joshua is thinking despite what he says to the contrary. Am I understanding you correctly?
Joshua (Comment #228413)
–
“Angech didn’t answer my yes/no question with a simple yes/no answer. Exactly as I predicted.”
Well done, Joshua.
You are remarkable, morally correct and not an imbecile.
See, so it is actually you who is telling us that what Israel is doing is evil. I suggest you own your own evaluations instead of projecting them onto other people.
angech,
Josh seems to most always hide what he truly thinks. You are right about the “You don’t know what I think” retort, which is quite frequent. Aside from dismissing most clearly stated positions as simplistic or wrongheaded, he seems to prefer laying out the pro’s and con’s of every issue, endlessly analyze the terrible complexity, but rarely actually say what he thinks beyond “it’s complicated”. That leads to people attempting to divine what he thinks…. leading to more “You don’t know what I think”. Rinse and repeat.
.
It’s an shtick which I find tiresome. The ‘Hamas is terrible but Israel has brought this on themselves’ is particularly tiresome.
The allies did far worse than Israel is doing in WW2 to secure victory. War is hell. Nobody comes out of it with clean hands. The only winning move is not to play but that is not always your choice alone . Once involved, the only smart move is to respond with as strongly as possible to guarantee a win. What do you think our reaction to Mexico be if instead of migrants they did a similar attack across our borders?
Andrew,
Who are you asking, me?
.
I have no issue with what Israel is doing. To answer your question, I think we would visit devastation upon the parties responsible beyond their wildest nightmares.
> The ‘Hamas is terrible but Israel has brought this on themselves’ is particularly tiresome..
.
Never ends.
.
So much (wrongful) speculation about, and characterization of, what I believe and yet no one asks me a reasonably answerable, non leading question, not for the purpose of serving as a rhetorical device. It seems that people are much more interested writing numerous comments about what I believe than they are interested in actually finding out. Ask Mark if I have EVER, in the many long convos I’ve had with him, not answered a question posed to me about my beliefs. Or even if I’ve EVER seemed less than interested in and forthcoming with explaining my views even when not explicitly asked. EVER. And the reason that it’s never been an issue (I’m pretty sure, anyway) is because he makes the effort to discuss issues in good faith.
.
This whole notion that I don’t explicate my views is particularly ironic coming from you, you, Steve, as fairly recently you asked me two (as I recall) direct, what appeared to be good faith questions and I answered them both in detail. And I didn’t even get the courtesy of an acknowledgement in response let alone any response at all let alone one that responded in any detail about what I wrote.
.
I’m quite happy to explain what my beliefs are to pretty much anyone who asks a reasonable question. Based on past experience I’d guess that Angech isn’t capable of doing so, but even if did I admit I wouldn’t answer because he has in the past, time after time, demonstrated that he’s not interested in good faith exchange with me. I’ve crossed him off the list of people I have any interest in good faith exchange with.
Hi Lucia. I just got a message that a comment ended up in moderation. If you would be so kind, I’d appreciate if you’d take it out of comment jail.
Andrew –
.
> What do you think our reaction to Mexico be if instead of migrants they did a similar attack across our borders?
.
Perhaps that question is for me? If so – my previous comment which is on a related aspect about answering questions is in moderation. If Lucia liberates it, it will give some context for my answer but….
.
I’d be happy to discuss that question but my sense is that it isn’t a good faith question. I don’t have the sense that you’re asking because you’re curious about my view, and in sharing an exchange about how our views related to the question might differ. Even if it may not technically be considered as a rhetorical question, my sense is that you’re asking that question to make an argument. Not that there’s anything in particular wrong with that, imo. But I’m not interested in answering questions that are asked to me only to make a point.
.
So if you’re really interested in my answer and will confirm that you’ll engage in a discussion related to my answer (at least a bit) do me a favor and confirm that’s the case, and then I’ll answer (if it was directed to me to begin with).
The US was in Afghanistan for 20 years, Israel has been in Gaza for three months. We spent ten years of hard looking for Bin Laden and sent special forces into Pakistan to kill him. We would have kept looking forever. Hamas’s leaders probably don’t understand this will never end for them.
.
I read today that they plan to control the Rafah crossing into Egypt for quite a while. They are coordinating this with Egypt.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-plans-risky-mission-to-seize-last-gaza-border-it-doesnt-control-026e4f0a?st=zgztjqj8k9ckefh&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“Right now in the near term, in the next few decades, Israel needs to control the borders because of the security issues”
Lucia,
“Russell, There have been posters who created sock-puppets in the past. I was able to detect them. I have never suspected Joshua of creating sock puppets.”
I have no proof either and wrote that to Joshua. I wrote my post because a post from Tom Scharf reminded me that Joshua has a characteristic in his posts that is similar to a couple of sock puppets from the past.
Here is his post:
“Tom Scharf (Comment #228367) I don’t know what Joshua’s position is. He doesn’t ever state it in a clear manner. He posts a bunch of opinions that take one side of an argument and doesn’t post or state any steelman for the opposing position. It is reasonable to infer this is his position and it is also reasonable to have him make clear what he is actually arguing.”
I also carefully read his long posts and have no idea what his position is when I finish.
mark bofill (Comment #228418)
I would call it Evil.
“See, so it is actually you who is telling us that what Israel is doing is evil. I suggest you own your own evaluations instead of projecting them onto other people.”
.
In trying to defend the indefensible one can only end up like a twister game tied in knots.
–
Where is the good commentator.
Someone who tries to give people on both sides the benefit of the doubt.
Someone who does not project their own evaluations onto other people.
Someone who uses the words said by others clearly and legitimately
The old Mark.
–
Still there I imagine.
Prepared to give both sides a fair listening to hopefully.
–
I did not mention Israel.
Nonetheless I would not resile from adding that anyone including Israel killing 10000 civilians/Hamas is evil.
As was killing hundreds of thousands with Nuclear bombs
and millions in world wars.
–
So eloquent in defense and delighting in it was Gay that she mistook smartness for commonsense.
–
“what do YOU call the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the military? do you call it Good? I don’t think so. At best, it’s a regrettable unavoidable necessity. ”
–
So seriously Mark, fair being fair, is it Evil?
–
No one doubts the regrettable necessity of it for the survival of the the Israelis.
None of us want this war.
–
I would predict, not project, that you will say that yes it is evil.
You can add caveats and context as you want.
I would not know if you are speaking for Joshua as well because I do not know his mind.
Plus his questions were different and not hostile in intent on my part.
He might of course not agree with your answer but that we might never know.
Of all the armor getting the acid test on the battlefield, the star performer continues to be the US M2A2 Bradley. The Bradly’s main function is to transport troops but it is being used as an offensive weapon. Here is another video of a Bradley taking out a Russian T-90M, [top-of-the-line main battle tank].
https://x.com/Tendar/status/1746158061129982243?s=20
“The M2A2 Bradleys of the Ukrainian Army continue to wreak havoc against the Russians and even Russia’s most “modern” MBTs as this T-90M are not safe.”
angech,
1. I assure you, I’m the same guy I have always been.
2.is it significant somehow that you did not mention Israel?
3. If you think what Israel is doing is evil, why are you attacking Joshua for purportedly arguing the same thing you actually think?
4. Personally, I don’t think Israel’s response is evil or unacceptably excessive SO FAR. There does eventually come a point however when it would be too much.
It is not useful to discuss moral opinions. Everybody gets their own and that is the end of that. I would not expect anybody to agree with any moral opinion I have and visa versa.
Hamas broke a cease fire on Oct. 7, 2023 and deliberately killed many civilians, including babies and using rape as a weapon of war. That is a fact.
Israel is responding to this act of war by wiping out Hamas. So far so good. Much work still needs to be done.
Hamas is hiding under and among a civilian population, which widely supports Hamas. Every location Hamas is hiding is a proper military target.
Israel has warned of locations it will be bombing – which is nice.
The numbers of civilian dead in Gaza are provided by the enemy – so not to be trusted.
So with all that – I support Israel (as I am sure you can tell) and hope they can keep flushing out Hamas members and killing them until they are all gone. Probably they will have to keep their current actions up for decades – but that is on Hamas. They could all gather in one place away from civilians so they could be killed without civilians losses – but they choose to violate the rules of war by using civilians as human shields.
Cries of genocide are factually incorrect and so if I were Israel I would ignore them.
Whatever I or you think about whether Hamas and/or Israel is evil (or not) doesn’t matter.
Just my opinion.
Rick,
I agree with literally every bit of that except for the part where you say that there is no use discussing morals. When people like Angech pop out of the woodwork claiming that people discussing the situation are making moral pronouncements, in my view it behooves people discussing the situation to think that claim through and maybe talk about it a little. That’s what’s happened here.
No, you know what – that’s inadequate.
.
There is nothing wrong, in my view, with discussing our moral views and making moral decisions. There has been a 20’th century philosophical trend to view morality as subjective and arbitrary that I believe has been used to disqualify or undermine moral consideration in our culture. I think this has led to nihilism and a destruction of mores in our culture that has been detrimental in many ways. This is one of them. We can’t call evil evil anymore, just a matter of opinion? I disagree, and I won’t cooperate with that.
So nobody can complain that I haven’t articulated my position plainly:
1) I believe what Israel is doing is necessary from a practical standpoint,
2) I believe what Israel is doing is within the moral boundaries of necessity so far
3) I do NOT believe that Israel is morally infallible, or that there are no actions it could take that would be wrong and that I would denounce.
4) I think killing most of the civilian population of Gaza would be an example of Israel and IDF going too far.
Hamas claims that the Israelis have killed over 20K civilians in Gaza. It is reasonable to assume that they exaggerate. Even in the unlikely event that the number is correct, it surely includes combatants and civilians killed by Hamas, either accidentally (such as errant rockets) or deliberately (to enforce compliance). And of course the number killed by the Israelis is much higher than it would have been if not for Hamas using civilians as shields.
.
I have no problem with what the Israelis are doing even if they sometimes err. It is perfectly clear who the bad guys are. Mark bofill (Comment #228433) sums it up nicely.
I too agree with Mark and Rick
.
Now that it’s greed from comment jail (thanks Lucia) this comment was largely in response to Steve and is relevant to Andrew’s comment.
.
https://rankexploits.com/musings/2024/looks-like-scotus-doesnt-plan-to-dodge/#comment-228422
mark bofill,
“So nobody can complain that I haven’t articulated my position plainly”
.
I agree with your four points completely, and thank you for stating them without equivocations, arms waves, etc.
.
I think it is clear Israel is going to pretty much wipe out Hamas (and unfortunately many civilian ‘human shields’ in the process). If anyone a) thinks that won’t happen, or b) thinks it is immoral for them to do that, I sure hope the state their thinking as clearly as you did.
Joshua,
You’ve always answered my questions about your beliefs, certainly.
Of course.
‘
I generally make that effort in speaking with you, I don’t make that effort with everyone. There have been times I haven’t been at my best where I didn’t do a particularly good job. Shrug.
Thanks Steve
Killing 1% of a population is a pretty high number, especially in 3 months. Russia lost somewhere around 10% of its population during WWII, but many of those were indirect due to famine and disease.
.
It’s unclear whether these numbers are exaggerated, the early hospital “blast” was definitely an example of disinformation. If I was Hamas I would not exaggerate the numbers because the scale of carnage is high enough that the exact numbers don’t really matter much for propaganda purposes. If it was 10,000 instead of 20,000 then the same people would say the same things. Getting caught exaggerating gives your opponents the ability to dismiss the numbers completely.
.
A 15 year old wearing a green bandana and black pajamas with an AK-47 will be considered a child here. It’s hard to say but probably half of the deaths are collateral damage. Hamas makes no effort to identify non-combatants because it suits their needs. Most are likely wrong place / wrong time affairs. Those who chose to stay in northern Gaza have some responsibility for not heeding clear warnings. They may have believed Israel was going to use the previous protective rules of engagement instead of the much more aggressive version that appear to be in place today.
.
Israel’s tactics here are viscous. It amounts to collective punishment of a population (regardless of why) for their government’s actions. It is justifiable because of the chosen objective, the eradication of Hamas, and Hamas’s decision to use the population as a shield. The eradication of Hamas is justifiable based on Oct 7th and their subsequent asinine statements that there will be many more Oct 7th’s to come. It’s like a cartoon of an evil government.
.
Hamas chooses to use human shields because it is their only viable option against a vastly superior opponent. Use your opponent’s morals against them. It’s the only way they can survive and it has worked to their advantage in the past. Not surprising.
.
I will end with same way I started 3 months ago after the scale of Oct 7th became clear. Hamas went too far, they crossed a bright red line recognized by most of humanity. This has allowed Israel to justifiably change its rules of conduct from jihadi maintenance to annihilation. Hamas has to go and Israel needs to do whatever is necessary to make that happen. They could arguably do it less viciously but this wouldn’t change a thing with the pro-Palestinian groups.
Afghanistan is an interesting analog.
.
The US spent 20 years in Afghanistan, spent how much in resources, money and blood?
.
I’m not clear that the goal there was ever really defined. Whatever it may have been was probably never achieve able, imo. And then after all of that the US pulled out with, whatever the goal was, if it was ever even defined, never achieved. I say all of that with great sympathy for the idea of protecting women and girls in Afghanistan from the horrors of the Talaban. I have no blanket objection to the US considering the use of military force to protect them. But I think there needs to be minimal standards of articulating a clear goal before launching such a war, a clear and transparent process of changing goals midstream should it seem appropriate, and a clear articulation of well-designed plans. None of that happened, imo. And I see those failures reflected in Israel’s war in Gaza. Our failure there was easily predictable because those standards were not met. And many, many people such as myself made such predictions.
.
On October 5th Israel was complacent. Their government convinced Israeli citizens that risks were managed. Such that they eschewed any significant effort at a negotiated settlement. In fact, they deliberately engaged in strategies that made any negotiated settlement, as unlikely as it might have been, almost certainly impossible. They promised that their military superiority and an iron dome would provide them security. They helped hundreds of millions of dollars go to Hamas. They pulled security from the border with Gaza.
.
So now with the passage of time, that same failed Israeli government spends more resources. More of its youth die in battle. More Palestinian civilians die. More are injured. More face starvation and death from disease. More are displaced. No accountability whatsoever for the failures and no actual attempt to fix the problems. How competent is a government that makes security promises one day and then says that one days events mean that what they’ve been promising for 20 years was all totally empty?
.
Israel will be more isolated on the world stage as 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 Palestinians die. Maybe millions will be without homes.
.
I certainly hope that Israel’s goals are more coherent and achieveable than the US goals were in Afghanistan. That their medium- and long-term plans for how to achieve those goals are more coherent and effective. But I haven’t seen evidence of such.
.
I can certainly understand what caused Israel to react as it did to 10/6. However, in my estimation their response has been mistaken in many significant respects. Understanding the reaction doesn’t mean I think they haven’t made huge errors. The goal of degrading Hamas as a military and political entity is entirely appropriate, imo. I agree with Mark that doing reflects a fundamental. responsibility for any government to protect its citizens.
.
Basically, the line of demarcation there for me anchors into the difference of degrading Hamas as a military and political entity, and “eradicating Hamas” as a political movement or a threat to Israel. I’d be happy to go into more detail there about my views (if someone actually asks coherently out of actual interest in my view) but I suggest this interview with someone with long-standing, deep roots and connections in the Israel defense community as a more credible person for commenting on that subject.
.
A Different Path Israel Could Have Taken — and Maybe Still Can https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-nimrod-novik.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
.
Now part of what’s important here is the whole “water under the bridge,” aspect. What’s done is done and my views on what they should have done differently earlier are related to but not the same as what I think they should be doing differently now.
.
The war has played out in stages and actually, at some levels what they’re doing now is closer to what I think they should have been doing earlier. But because what they did earlier was so far from what I think they should have done, what they’re doing now, imo, is still far away from what I think they should be doing now.
.
Tom Scharf,
“It’s like a cartoon of an evil government.’
.
I would go further: it is not a cartoon, it is in fact evil government. Can the residents of Gaza choose a less evil government? Donno. Each time, given a chance, they have chosen the wrong one. I hope that changes.
.
To amplify a bit: IMO, any government which financially rewards the families of suicide bombers is purely evil.
SteveF,
Did the Gazans really choose Hamas? Maybe it was a choice between the corrupt and possibly incompetent PA or less corrupt and possibly more competent Hamas? or more likely, Hamas chose itself?
The comparison to 9/11 in this case is primarily for how committing a planned atrocity unites and motivates your opponents at a scale that becomes very detrimental to your own stated goals. It is very bad tactics.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan
“The stated goal was to dismantle al-Qaeda, which had executed the attacks under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, and to deny Islamist militants a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by toppling the Taliban government.”
Hamas won an election in Gaza around 2006 and never held another election for various “reasons”. It’s really hard to gauge the population support of Hamas in Gaza. It’s fair to say they like Hamas more than Israel.
john ferguson
.
Yes the Palestinians chose Hamas, at least once. With Hamas, as with all despotic regimes, it only takes once (and sometimes no vote at all!) to guarantee endless unrepresentative government.
.
Hamas has stated very clearly (for decades) that their goal is the complete destruction of Israel. If the population of Gaza agrees with that goal (which basically means voting for Hamas), then there is no easy way forward. I hope the people of Gaza see this is not a productive approach, but so far, there is nothing to suggest that is the case.
On 10/6, Israelis thought they were relatively secure. They had massive military superiority. An Iron Dome. A security infrastructure probably considered 2nd to none across the world. The had largely unarmed youth partying on the border to Gaza. It’s a bizarre example of an incompetent government.
.
Then on 10/7, the attack occurred. Israeli’s found out that their border to Gaza was easily infiltrated. Did they find out anything else new? Did they suddenly find out that there was a terrorist force across the border out to kill Israelis? Did they suddenly find out that there was some massive military force or infrastructure that they previously didn’t know existed? Of course not.
.
So in response, Israel could have reinforced the border. Brought more troops there. They could have expanded their security infrastructure. They could have addressed all their failures. Addressing those failures they would have been in the same place security-wise, as when they had kids having a rave on the Gaza border on 10/7. Except, of course, emotionally and psychologically the conditions were entirely different. Rage and shock and horror and a desire for vengeance were unleashed
.
They could have made their country just as secure as they thought it was on 10/6, and from that platform gone about a measured and targeted approach to degrading Hamas’ military and political viability. Without displacing 1.5 million Palestinians, killing thousands and thousands of women and children. Without making Northern Gaza and quite likely Southern Gaza an inhabitable wasteland, without completely destroying any medical infrastructure. Without setting conditions for famine and massive outbreaks of disease. They could likely have leveraged support from even Arab countries like the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, support that it will take years to ever rally again, if ever.
.
And what do they have now? Could someone who’s told me that they think Israel did what they should have done, explain what they should do now, with a parking lot in the Gaza strip littered with rubble and dead bodies? People say to me “If you’re going to say that what they did was wrong, you have an obligation to say what should they have done” But they think that somehow they can say “What they did was correct,” without addressing what’s the sensible and “optimal” plan going forward given what it was they have done. What they did with nothing apparent in their plans except chaos.
.
During the Iraq war we heard much about how these kinds of engagements shouldn’t be taken without an “exit strategy.” I fail to see how anyone says that a recommendable plan could have an exist strategy that amorphous as “eradicate Hamas.” So then, what is it?
.
I agree that allowing a force that massacred its citizens to continue to exist on its border was a non-starter for Israel. Of course it was. I just think that something more than that “eradicate Hamas” is needed.
.
I’m afk on my phone. I will respond when I get back.
Tom Scharf (Comment #228444): “The stated goal was to dismantle al-Qaeda, which had executed the attacks under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, and to deny Islamist militants a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by toppling the Taliban government.”
.
Yep. And had we stuck to that, we’d have spilled a whole lot less blood and treasure. But once that job was done, our foreign policy establishment apparently decided to try to turn Afghanistan into a modern liberal democracy. Hopeless, at least on any time scale less than a generation or two.
“So in response, Israel could have reinforced the border. Brought more troops there. They could have expanded their security infrastructure. They could have addressed all their failures.”
.
Sure, and turned the other cheek since well… wait, meh, way too Christian.
.
I can suggest: an eye for an eye…. maybe times times 10 to focus the attention of idiots.
.
Or maybe what happened to Carthage, which was way worse than anything Israel plans.
Mike M,
“And had we stuck to that, we’d have spilled a whole lot less blood and treasure. But once that job was done, our foreign policy establishment apparently decided to try to turn Afghanistan into a modern liberal democracy.”
.
And I think that is the ONLY legitimate argument for why Trump is a better candidate for president. The ‘elites’ have made HORRIBLE damaging mistakes, and paid nothing for their failures, and I include Nikki Haley in that group or warmongers.
Nation building was a failed effort in Afghanistan to be sure, but the original goals were arguably met. Sometimes people live in what is perceived to be dysfunctional societies from the outside by choice, and they are naturally untrusting of foreigners to change that.
.
I think we gave the Taliban an ultimatum prior to the invasion with predictable results. Ultimately we toppled their government with a bunch of CIA agents running around with bags of cash buying off tribal leaders.
Steve –
.
> Sure, and turned the other cheek since well… wait, meh, way too Christian.
.
Now there you go again. I didn’t suggest anything remotely like “turn the other cheek.”
.
I suggested to address the actual failures. Address the threat. Without creating a disaster and a humanitarian crisis with zero plan how to deal with the predictable outcomes of their actions.
Tom
.
>…but the original goals were arguably met.
.
Yeah, I would argue that a viable Talaban in control of the country, after spending precious lives and massive resources [edit: after the longest ear in our history], isn’t consistent with the original goals. [edit: but of course, YMMV]
tom Scharf,
“Ultimately we toppled their government with a bunch of CIA agents running around with bags of cash buying off tribal leaders.”
.
If true, very unfortunate. Better to just kill the bad guys as quickly and efficiently as possible, then leave with a warning: “If you force us to come back, it will be 10 times worse for you (AKA you will likely die) and 10 times worse for the country.”
Joshua,
“I suggested to address the actual failures. Address the threat.’
.
And I suggest you actually address the threat Israel faces. There are millions of Palestinian Arabs who want to ‘drive Israel into the sea’. (yup, already talked to them). Oh… and rape, murder, and mutilate Jews.
.
When you are sure they have changed their minds, let me know.
> Yep. And had we stuck to that, we’d have spilled a whole lot less blood and treasure.
.
We didn’t “stick to that” because there was no coherent exit strategy. Even the stated entry strategy is a fantasy because the goals weren’t actually specified in such a way that an exit strategy would have made sense.
.
By definition, to make sense, entry goals should (usually) have some degree of sustainability. Going in and toppling the Talaban (and killing Bin Laden) and then just leaving wasn’t a sustainable goal. Because Afghanistan could then just immediately return to a place where terrorists trained to attack the US. That’s why there was no actual exit strategy. Because to make that goal sustainable, more needed to be done.
> When you are sure they have changed their minds, let me know.
.
Same bullshit form of rhetorical engagement.
.
Have they changed their minds because of the bombing campaign?
The evil murderous Canadians can cross the border into Detroit in a surprise attack and kill lots of people at any time. What stops that from happening is not a secure border but the Canadians choice to not do it.
.
The blood lust from Israeli citizens had to be met or it was not politically survivable. I doubt the current government will survive once the war winds down.
.
I’m sure they will heavily militarize the border anyway but the way to stop this from happening again is by replacing the Gaza government with one that will choose not to take these actions. It is debatable how achievable this is but we can only see what happens. Deposing murderous governments has been achieved in the past but it is not guaranteed.
joshua,
“Same bullshit form of rhetorical engagement.”
.
I could not disagree with you more, Sr. Bullshitter.
.
Fortunately, the Israelis will not listens to you and your sullen ilk. They will, in fact, destroy Hamas. You can complain all you want, of course.
.
After that is more difficult to determine. We might hope the people of Gaza choose rational government that actually helps them. But there is no guarantee. Sometimes people make really bad choices.
Steve –
.
You didn’t engage with that I said.
.
> You can complain all you want, of course.
.
And yet more. As if I’m “complaining” about Hamas being destroyed
.
I know, I know, just another Hamas supporter. Same crap I got when I suggested that the invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived. Back then I just wanted support groups for Al Qaeda.
Well that didn’t take long. Nevermind, doesn’t look like this is the place for a discussion about ‘what next’.
Maybe not, Mark. I should had kept my mouth shut and waited. My bad.
joshua,
“I know, I know, just another Hamas supporter. Same crap I got when I suggested that the invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived. Back then I just wanted support groups for Al Qaeda.”
.
Really?
.
I think Bush the younger was completely INSANE to invade Iraq. I think the occupation of Afghanistan was the stupidest foreign policy decision in US history. What should the US have done post 9/11?
.
We should have destroyed most of the infrastructure of Afghanistan, especially targeting the people who gave bin Laden sanctuary (AKA Taliban), and making as plain as possible that any similar future behavior would lead to MUCH WORSE consequences, with no limits of how bad it could be.
.
In Iraq? Leave the (evil) government in tact, with the clear warning: if you help terrorists, really bad things will happen to you.
Briefly, what next:
1) They need to complete the eradication of Hamas to the extent that is feasible. They need to finish discovery and elimination of tunnels and hidden terror infrastructure. They need to find and destroy sleeper cells.
2) They can’t take the same hands off approach they had in the past. They need to maintain a presence in Gaza. Ultimately, they will need to run / administer Gaza for the foreseeable future.
3) I think they would be well advised to formulate and adopt policies that incentivize the behavior they would like to see and that discourages the behaviors they would like extinguished. Perhaps this is easier said than done, but if they administer Gaza Israel ought to be reasonably well positioned to make this happen, if anyone can actually come up with any incentives.
4) Israel is going to need to start rebuilding the place. There ought to be a way to work the incentive process in there.
5) Netanyahu ought to step down as a symbol that Israel is willing to put the conflict behind them and begin new policies aimed towards eventual peace. Netanyahu probably isn’t the right guy to be running that show.
6) Efforts need to be resumed to get other Arab nations to recognize Israel.
7) Some plan to counter active Iranian interference needs to be aggressively pursued.
If some genius could come up with a policy or incentive that results in substantially increased intermarriage between Palestinians and Jewish men and women, I think that guy would deserve a peace prize and then some. It’s not going to happen, but it’d sure be nice.
This is my first cut response. I invite everyone to knock down my proposal. It shouldn’t be difficult to do. Lets see what if any part of that stands.
Mark –
.
Thanks
.
What do you think is going to happen with the 1.5? million Palestinians in Gaza with no homes to go back to? No infrastructure. No medical care. Very tight restrictions on what can get in. Little food. Little water. Tens of thousands of injured. No Arab states willing to help with the fallout.
.
Occupying and administering all of Gaza will be a huge undertaking. If they don’t provide services, likely illness and deaths will mount up at an astonishing rate. There’s no evidence of an actual plan to affect this process. That doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. [edit: but seems to me, the likelihood of such a massive undertaking being affectuated with no plans readily apparent, seems low to me.]
.
Meanwhile, in your conceptualization, status quo in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Continuum of the expanding settlements and expulsion of Palestinians in those territories?
Mark –
.
> Israel’s religious authorities — the only entities authorized to perform weddings in Israel — are not permitted to marry couples where both partners do not have the same religion; the only way for people of different (or no) faith to marry is by converting to the same religion.
.
Wikipedia.
.
Also, fwiw –
.
> Israel’s parliament has passed a law denying naturalisation to Palestinians from the occupied West Bank or Gaza married to Israeli citizens, forcing thousands of Palestinian families to either emigrate or live apart
I doubt Israel is going to rebuild anything, but they will allow the Arabs to fund it and the people in Gaza to do the work. Israel will likely make it slow and painful. They wouldn’t allow concrete to be imported in the past because of it being used for alleged tunnel building.
.
The Iran influence is a big problem. The only hope here is that the people of Gaza will recognize that they are being used as pawns and might want to find better friends. A subset of Gaza is always going to be open to being handed weapons to go attack Israel.
.
The rebuilding of trust such that Israel can allow Gaza to build a functioning autonomous society and release control again seems a long way off.
Tom –
.
>…but they will allow the Arabs to fund it and the people in Gaza to do the work.
.
Do you see any indication Arabs will fund it and that the people in Gaza will do that work? [edit: Particularly when there will be no functioning infrastructure, political or governmental or otherwise.]
.
Seems to me your suggesting a plan of allowing something to happen that won’t happen.
mark bofill,
‘
“intermarriage between Palestinians and Jewish men and women, I think that guy would deserve a peace prize and then some’
.
Whooooo.
.
Sounds positively Carthaginian. 😉 Here is the thing: some forms of government absolutely refuse to accept reality, some accept reality.
.
I am sure there are many Israelis who could accept intermarriage with Palestinians, and at least some Palestinians who could accept this kind of intermarriage with Jews. But not many. The point is: these are all people who descend from a common distant (5000 year) past. (Indeed, we humans are all people who descent from a common distant past!)
.
I think it obscene that so much of humanity strives to find differences, not our common humanity.
Steve, I wholeheartedly agree.
.
Joshua and Tom,
Maybe I misunderstood the parameters of the question. I don’t think much of what I proposed will happen, I thought the question was what do we think should happen.
Joshua, what is it you were actually asking?
[Edit: Once this is clarified I will better know how to address your subsequent questions]
Mark –
.
Last comment then I’m out of pocket for a while.
.
My point, whether you agree or not, is that it doesn’t make sense to me to say “Israel has done what it should have done” without a clear concept of at least to some reasonable degree how they’re going to deal with the fallout of the actions they took.
.
I gave a very broad outline of what I think they should have done, where the outcomes would have been far less challenging and demanding. And, imo, without taking a significant hit to their security above what they’re going to face in the fallout from the actions they’ve undertaken.
.
The problem with saying they did what they should have done is that imo, then you are also saying that they have a way to deal with the consequences of the actions they’ve undertaken. You should have a plan going forward and an “exit strategy” as it were, before expending lives and massive resources in a military action. Of course “exit strategy” for Isreal doesn’t really exist as there’s no real exit for them given the existential threats they face. I’m speaking of within reason in an inherently untenable situation
OK, one more before I close up shop.
.
Of course a response might be that the US didn’t have an exit strategy before entering wwii. Which of course is true. But I would argue that was a different situation because the US had no choice. I guess some would argue that Israel had no choice other than to try to “eradicate Hamas” in the fashion they have. I disagree. I’ve offered some broad outlines for how they could have approached a somewhat different goal of “degrade Hamas,” with I think, less disastrous fallout.
I was going to say that. It doesn’t seem reasonable to require that they have a plan to solve problems that they didn’t have any plan to solve before the attack, if that makes sense.
But I see that I did in fact misunderstand the point of your question.
Sometimes, IMO, when emergencies have to be dealt with and disasters strike, one’s timeline and goals need to shrink. Would it have been better for Israel to have a more comprehensive plan, certainly. There’s an arbitrarily large number of things that would probably have been better. Maybe they didn’t have a better plan. I don’t think I agree with you, if what you are suggesting is that merely because they didn’t have a good comprehensive long term response planned that they not retaliate with military force. I’ll think about it.
I should have waited for your other comment. Heh.
So maybe you’re right. Maybe their response was sub optimal. I’ll think about it.
Palestinians and Israelis are almost indistinguishable genetically. They are divided by their religion and their culture.
“The closest genetic neighbors to most Jewish groups were the Palestinians, Israeli Bedouins, and Druze“
https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2015-10-20/ty-article/palestinians-and-jews-share-genetic-roots/0000017f-dc0e-df9c-a17f-fe1e57730000
The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/
The problem with comparing the [hypothetical] with what happened is always that we don’t really know what would have happened. Could Israel have accomplished the same results without blowing up Gaza, I guess is the question. Color me skeptical, but maybe I’m wrong. I don’t think they blew it up just for fun – seriously. I expect there were tactical reasons each step of the way, if their military is anything like ours. Maybe it isn’t, I have no way of knowing that.
SteveF (Comment #228451): “And I think that is the ONLY legitimate argument for why Trump is a better candidate for president.”
.
If you mean that Afghanistan is the only reason, then I disagree. If you mean that the many ways that our incompetent, self-serving elites have screwed the country is the only reason for Trump, then I wholeheartedly agree.
.
We need to wrest power from the “elites” who have been making a mess of things. Trump seems to be the best tool for doing that. So I will vote for him next November without hesitation, even though I’d rather be voting for DeSantis.
.
If business-as-usual were an acceptable option, I would not vote for Trump. But that is not the way things are.
mark bofill (Comment #228465): “Briefly, what next:”
.
A very reasonable list, given the limitations on what we know.
There was a lot of intermarriage in Bosnia before their war. It is not a guarantee of peace.
Mike M,
Thanks. Yeah, if you knew my in-laws, you could be sure I know that. 😉
I think there will be rebuilding funds for Gaza if Hamas is removed. The EU and US have provided most of the aid historically with Arabs in and out at different times. A lot of funding goes through the UN because Hamas is designated a terrorist group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians
“Since April 2021, the United States has provided over half a billion dollars in assistance for the Palestinians, including more than $417 million in humanitarian assistance for Palestinians through UNRWA, $75 million in support through USAID, and $20.5 million in COVID and Gaza recovery assistance.”
“Israel has allowed Qatar to give hundreds of millions of dollars in aid through Hamas, and Hamas has collected revenue for years by taxing imports. Iran provides around $100 million annually to Hamas and other Palestinian groups.”
mark bofill (Comment #228429
angech,
1. I assure you, I’m the same guy I have always been.
2.is it significant somehow that you did not mention Israel?
3. If you think what Israel is doing is evil, why are you attacking Joshua for purportedly arguing the same thing you actually think?
4. Personally, I don’t think Israel’s response is evil or unacceptably excessive SO FAR. There does eventually come a point however when it would be too much.
Phew.
I was worried I had kicked the can down the road so far that I might have upset everyone too much.
Thanks for your considered responses to my tactlessness.
–
“mark bofill (Comment #228433)
So nobody can complain that I haven’t articulated my position plainly:
1) I believe what Israel is doing is necessary from a practical standpoint,
2) I believe what Israel is doing is within the moral boundaries of necessity so far
3) I do NOT believe that Israel is morally infallible, or that there are no actions it could take that would be wrong and that I would denounce.
4) I think killing most of the civilian population of Gaza would be an example of Israel and IDF going too far.”
–
I agree with all 4 of your second comments completely as do most others upstream.
Do you want me to address any of your concerns in the first 4 points further or could I please let it slide?
angech,
I have no power to compel you, and I had no particular interest in your position in the first place. I would be glad to quit wasting my time and energy pursuing the fallacies you were indulging in by attacking Joshua. We can be done with that as soon as you decide you are done with initiating it, for as long as you decide you are done.
Mark –
.
OK, Dallas getting killed. That what I like to see.
.
> Could Israel have accomplished the same results without blowing up Gaza,…
.
Well, I’m not sure what they’ve accomplished thus far. And it’s not at all clear what they will accomplish. But again, my main point is that if the goal were to degrade Hamas (not eradicate it as they say) maybe it wouldn’t necessitate blowing up Gaza.
.
They basically knew what Hamas was before 10/7. That didn’t change after 10/7. What changed was that they realized that their security measures were inadequate. That they made mistakes. That they shouldn’t have pulled troops from the border with Gaza to aid settlers displacing Palestinians in the West Bank. They realized they blew it by being complacent and not devoting energy to a negotiated settlement. They realize they shouldn’t have been undermining the PA and instead facilitating millions of $ to Hamas..
.
So focus on strengthening alliances with Arab nations. Focus on creating a vision that Palestinians could prefer to what they got with Hamas. And focus on addressing the errors and on a targeted effort to cripple Hamas’ capacity to operate.
.
Did they need to kill thousands of civilians and level the whole place in order to degrade Hamas on 10/8, when they didn’t need to do that on 10/6? Why would that change in one day?
.
There are different end points to the counterfactual scenarios. One might be destroying Gaza and killing thousands and thousands of civilians and trashing their relationship with other Arab nations in order to “destroy Hamas” whatever that means.
.
Another might be far fewer civilians deaths and injuries, far less destruction in Gaza, less disruption in their relations with Arab nations, fewer of their own soldiers dead and injured. And maybe more of a chance at a negotiated settlement. And in return, fewer dead Hamas, Hamas more capable than if they’re all dead, but maybe crippled enough that all the other differential benefits would be worth it.
It’s a good question. Answers occur to me, but I’ll take a little time to think this through if it’s all the same to you.
Did the Israeli’s really level all of Gaza? If so, how did they manage to do it while killing only 1% of the population? Real questions, but I suspect there may be no real answers.
I was being hyperbolic.
.
You assume that only 1% have died, but you don’t actually know if that’s the case – especially given how many might be missing and still burried under rubble. How many will still succumb to unjuries? Many, many more have serious injuries, lost limbs. And it’s not nearly over yet. I haven’t seen anyone actually estimate that all of Gaza was destroyed. What I’ve seen estimated is @50%+, something that can be independently estimated and not something where the estimation is dependent on reports from Hamas or Israel, neither of which has a good track record on reliability of reporting.
Joshua,
It’d take a lot more reading for me to give a confident answer, but tentatively I’d offer this as my hypothesis:
What changed was that Israel decided to remove Hamas. Before the attack, I read in multiple places that the IDF always strove to maintain an equilibrium where it did not actually change the status quo, because it did not have any strategic goal of replacing Hamas. Apparently, the attack on 10/7 was sufficient reason for Israel to change their opinion regarding this.
I get that you don’t think Israel can actually destroy Hamas, but maybe that doesn’t matter. What’s important might be that the Israelis seem to think they can do it.
Also, I didn’t really make this clear: This lack of a strategic goal appears to be the reason they haven’t attacked [large scale] long ago. I don’t think they are worried about the damage to Gaza, or a number of civilian casualties, or the impact on their relationship with other Arab nations all that much. I think what chiefly stopped them in the past was that they actually didn’t want Hamas removed. I think 10/7 changed their mind about that, and the all of these other considerations (civilian casualties, damage to Gaza, damage to relationships with Arab countries) are a lot less important than we might think they are to the Israelis.
Now, I get that in a sense I’ve just shoved your question back one step. Why did they change their minds? That gets difficult to answer. They had enough, maybe. The brutality and carnage was sufficient to persuade them that Hamas is a worse reality than they were pretending, perhaps. Who knows exactly? While I don’t believe there is enough information to nail down the actual answer, I think we can identify possible reasonable explanations. I don’t think it’s that mysterious that 10/7 might cause the Israelis to rethink the idea that living with Hamas is tenable and decide it actually isn’t.
[Edit: I think this is all I have for now.]
Mark –
.
No doubt 10/7 convinced most if not all Israelis that Hamas must be destroyed and not just contained. But my question is why did that change? Did they find out that Hamas had more capabilities than they realized? I suppose to some extent, but I have seen extensive reports that there were warnings from the security community that attacks like the one that happened were a possibility and in fact being planned.
.
Mostly what they found out was that they had become complacent and lax, that they made enormous mistakes.
.
I don’t see reason to believe that if Israel concentrated on addressing their errors, in one or two weeks after 10/7 they would have been in any more risk than they thought they were in on 10/6. 10/7 didn’t prove that Hamas had weapons or military skills that Israel didn’t already know about.
.
Israelis say that 10/7 “changed everything” and no doubt, their level of fear and shock and dread and embarrassment and humiliation and trauma all changed dramatically on 10/7. The state of Isreal meant to Israelis that never again would there be pogroms like those my great grandparents fled from. It meant that they had a place of safety. And all of that crumbled on 10/7. I fully understand a desire for vengeance and to “eradicate Hamas,” I can even understand the reaction for many Isrealis that “there are no innocent civilians” in Gaza. It’s an entirely understandable reaction. I don’t think that’s “evil.”. It’s a “normal” human response. My belief is that it’s not the best response even for Israelis, let alone the response that minimizes the proportionality of loss of innocent life in proportion to the safety benefits gained.
Mark noted:
” I think what chiefly stopped them in the past was that they actually didn’t want Hamas removed.”
.
I think this idea has merit. Politically, I suspect Hamas was useful to Biby. But the same rhetoric around the Hamas threat meant that a measured response was going to be politically unacceptable too. Also interesting is what Hamas expected to gain. I think there is merit in the proposition that they wanted an over-the-top response because it played well for undermining Arab-Israel detente and gaining international sympathy. That is working but I guess that they also expected to survive. That is less certain. Unfortunately, i think there will be a lot of children growing up with a massive grudge against Israel to fuel a new Hamas look-a-like in the next generation.
Crossed again.
Sure, it could be that. But it could be other things as well. For example, maybe the Israelis, while realizing this was possible, deep down assumed that Hamas would never dare such an attack, knowing that they would be annihilated in response. Having demonstrated a willingness to conduct this horrific attack regardless of the likely consequences, it might be that Israel has finally realized they had never taken the true measure of Hamas and how far they were willing to go.
Well, it’s hard for me to answer, because honestly it doesn’t make sense to me either. The best I can do is suggest that the Israelis seem to think differently, and they don’t appear to me to be fools. I’m willing to suppose maybe they know more about the details of this than you or I do.
Phil –
.
> Politically, I suspect Hamas was useful to Biby.
.
As you may know, he’s on record saying effectively that. He’s on record saying that he was the one person m who could prevent Palestinians from ever having a state. Clearly, one way to do that was to keep a strong but not too strong Hamas as favored by Palestinians over the PA.
.
From the Nytimes:
.
> Sure, it could be that. But it could be other things as well. For example, maybe the Israelis, while realizing this was possible, deep down assumed that Hamas would never dare such an attack, knowing that they would be annihilated in response. Having demonstrated a willingness to conduct this horrific attack regardless of the likely consequences, it might be that Israel has finally realized they had never taken the true measure of Hamas and how far they were willing to go.
.
That seems reasonable. And it seems not inconsistent with what I’ve heard Israelis say. I’ll give that some thought.
Joshua,
Reluctant as I am to utter these words and provoke further ridicule, I’ll say that motives are often complicated (cough cough) and IMO there’s probably a combination of factors. I’d guess the things you suggested play some role, and probably lots of other things we aren’t thinking about played a role, and so on. We’d need information we don’t have to nail this down, all we can do is speculate with what we have.
Joshua,
When it was just the NYTimes telling me that I was still pretty skeptical, but since I’ve started looking into it, I don’t think I’ve found any credible source that really disputes this. People who talk about strategy, people who talk about policy, what have you- it seems uncontested as far as I’ve found so far that Israel was at least tolerating Hamas for lack of any better solution. It might be as you suggest that Israel was actively promoting Hamas as a counterweight to the PA, that doesn’t seem as farfetched to me anymore as it originally did.
Mark –
.
I agree. But it’s easy for me because once you get ridiculed a certain amount, additional ridicule only adds such a marginal amount more it’s not really noticeable.
Mark –
.
I understand your skepticism. There’s an implausibility factor. And it’s a convenient portrayal for his enemies.
.
But there are recordings of him saying this stuff.
Multiple OSINT sites are reporting the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and the remainder of Carrier Strike Group 9 (CSG-9) suddenly and unexpectedly left San Diego yesterday. There is no official info from the Navy about leaving harbor or the mission. Speculation is it has to do with either the Houthis in Yemen or the new Presidential Election in Taiwan. Stay tuned.
Russian blogger:
“At night over the Sea of Azov, our IL-22M air command post was shot down, the plane crashed, and several crew members were wounded. In the same area, an A-50 airborne early warning and control aircraft was reported to have been shot down. The preliminary cause was friendly fire.”
Ukrainian sources are claiming two Russian jets were shot down by Patriot missiles in this area.
These are two expensive and sophisticated aircraft, their loss would be a big deal if it happened.
No official word from either government. Stay tuned
OSINT sites and Ukrainian government are confirming the loss of two high vale Russian aircraft. The A-50 was downed and the IL-22M was heavily damaged but made an emergency landing. Who shot them down is still murky.
The losses were a big deal, from the Kyiv Post:
“The A-50 [NATO reporting name: “Mainstay”] airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft is based on the Ilyushin Il-76 transport. The aircraft serves a role similar to the US and NATO E-3 Sentry, commonly just called AWACS (Airborne Warning and Command System), though with fewer capabilities. It’s reported cost per aircraft is a massive $330m.”
“the current Ilyushin Il-22M [NATO reporting name: “Coot”] is a turboprop powered airborne command post and radio relay aircraft based on the Il-18 airliner. The Il-22M is part of a small fleet of up to 12 aircraft, used for both airborne command and control, and radio relay tasks, has played an important role in controlling Russian forces in their war against Ukraine.”
https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/26748
Also, the US Navy confirmed USS Roosevelt set to sea, but did not explain why.
Iowa Caucus today. It’s minus what outside? Jim says maybe turn out will be low. I said: Nah. Gives them all something to do on a cold day.
I will hazard a guess on what happens in Iowa. Trump voters will turn out because they are enthusiastic and really care about the result. DeSantis voters will turn out because he has built an awesome ground game (or so we are told). Haley voters will be discouraged by the weather combined with the result being a foregone conclusion.
.
So Trump will win easily with over 50% of the vote, DeSantis will be a distant second, and Haley a disappointing third.
.
OTOH, my record as a forecaster really sucks.
Iowa? Who Cares!
Us Steeler fans are watching the weather in Buffalo.
The Bills have been paying fans to shovel the snow out of Highmark Stadium. An army of 200 of them worked all night.
Video:
https://x.com/FOS/status/1746910008271405102?s=20
Incredible vid!
Mike,
That’s my expectation too, and yup, my track record is also abysmal.
Trump dominates. We got some strange politics in the US now. This will be the third election where everyone hates both the contestants. How does that happen? Can we change the Constitution and allow for a “None of the Above” option? Maybe I will legally change my name to that and run for office.
.
If Trump wins the nomination I predict he will not take part in the Presidential debates either. The more he can get the usual suspects spitting mad, the better his outcomes.
Mike M., with regard to Iowa turnout, I think you have it nailed.
.
I suspect that Trump supporters more than the others consider themselves self-sufficient and would die of shame if they didn’t turn out. Maybe the Desantis gang too, but likely not so mcuh with Haley.
.
CNN: “A Houthi anti-ship ballistic missile struck a US-owned and operated vessel on Monday, US Central Command said in a statement.”
.
Typical Iran behavior. Slowly escalate to force a reaction, and hopefully an overreaction. Then claim you are the victims of American aggression. Ironically not overreacting can be a problem as Iran knows the response will be proportional and measured so their actions are low risk.
According to reports, about 70% of the 24000+ killed are women and children. That mirrors their share of the population. The Euro-med human rights monitor estimates a 9:1 civilian casualty rate which is not surprising based on the loose targeting described in testimonies . The IDF reports 186 Israeli casualties which indicates a campaign that mostly relies on aerial bombardment. Given that Israel views this as existential and has a blank check for operations that include the obstruction of civilian aid, the world can do little but watch and wait.
RB,
“According to reports, about 70% of the 24000+ killed are women and children”
Those reports have been supplied by Hamas and are meaningless.
Tom Scharf (Comment #228511): “This will be the third election where everyone hates both the contestants.”
.
Not at all true. Pretty much everybody hates ONE of the candidates and 10-20% hate both. That will be pretty much true for any match up you might name. OTOH, 40% are very happy with Trump and 40% seem at least satisfied with Biden. There are few, if any, candidates who could match that.
Russell Klier (Comment #228515)
Yes, there are an estimated 7000 still missing under the rubble who are not counted in the casualties of Palestinians whose IDs are issued by the population registry maintained by COGAT and are essential for employment in UN orgs etc
https://twitter.com/jaffoneh/status/1721178879585653101
Thank you very much indeed RB. I wasn’t aware of any of that and will certainly look into it. But I will confess I have a problem as well just trusting Hamas numbers. Heck, I don’t like trusting anybody’s numbers when the party counting has an interest in the matter.
Hi Mark, we’ll find out when the war ends. To my knowledge, the Israel govt hasn’t raised a fuss about the numbers so far though they might have their version of who the civilians are.
I hadn’t seen that either. But to be fair I haven’t specifically gone looking. Here I read that 9K Hamas members have been killed according to Israel, so. The numbers aren’t hugely different. We probably really do have ten thousand or some tens of thousand dead in the Gaza strip.
Mark
If what IDF claims is true, we would have problems resolving the 70% who are supposedly women and children, depending on how those women and children casualties are classified. Maybe all men who died are terrorists plus some women and children whose casualty count somehow mirrors their population share.
Euro-med seems like a completely unbiased source of information according to their press releases. I mean, they haven’t put out any press releases or coverage for the activities of Oct 7th inside of Israel or anything but they have probably been very busy with other things. After all humans rights are only for humans, not Israelis. I find this common in UN connected humans rights organizations.
.
They have no special insight to the numbers of combatants vs civilians. AFAICT those numbers are just not tallied by anyone.
Yes. And maybe neither set of numbers is true. As you say, we will learn eventually.
[Edit: Tom, thank you for throwing this lifeline to those of us who were feeling Poe’d:
After all humans rights are only for humans, not Israelis. . I got it now.]
.
> Those reports have been supplied by Hamas and are meaningless..
.
I love that people are sure that they know what is or isn’t “meaningless,” when they couldn’t possibly know that with such certainty, and in fact prolly haven’t even really looked. Just a blanket assumption based in ignorance.
.
I found this from a month ago which seems like a reasonable overview of numbers from different sources.
.
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18c5111/cmv_gaza_death_toll_numbers_are_generally_reliable/
.
I have zero idea if it is accurate, but at least it provides links for those interested. Note it says that US officials generally regard the Hamas numbers as reliable. And it suggests that reports from Isreali newspapers and Israel officials are pretty much in Lome with Hamas reports.
.
I’d imagine since then that those directly looked by the IDF would be trending towards adult men and Hamas fighters relative to women and children (as Isreal has moved away from serial bombing), whereas indirect deaths from disease and lack of medical care…well who knows?
It’s difficult to figure out and nobody really knows. One can estimate a number from assuming random indiscriminate bombing and what percent of the population is of fighting age or Hamas. It’s not random. It’s targeted, however loosely, and it’s primarily into areas that have been told to evacuate. This will increase the Hamas concentration considerably to: impossible to estimate number.
.
One could look at the percentage of fighting age males arriving at hospitals if we had numbers we could trust.
.
Hamas could count their own casualties, but like other war zones this is a closely held secret. Why? Propaganda purposes. Ukraine and Russia have wildly different estimates.
I think a relevant part of the context, also, is that IIRC Israeli officials estimated the number of Hamas fighters at around 30k total at the start of the bombing and incursion. Given that 75%? of the population has had their home destroyed and 75% of the population is women and children (of course some think it’s important to reduce that number to pull out young males older than 14?), at some point the numbers lead to an inevitable conclusion that many, many, civilians are dead and many, many more have been injured with virtually no access to medical care and even less with safe access to medical care.
> Hamas could count their own casualties, but like other war zones this is a closely held secret. Why? Propaganda purposes. Ukraine and Russia have wildly different estimates.
.
Yes, as is pointed out at the link I provided above, the Isreali reports on civilian deaths from 10/7 changed markedly over time, first growing and growing over days, then lowered and lowered, particularly as it became obvious that the total numbers reported by Isreal included IDF and other non-civilian as well as civilians.
Mark –
.
> hadn’t seen that either. But to be fair I haven’t specifically gone looking. Here I read that 9K Hamas members have been killed according to Israel, so.
.
According to that link i provided, Isreal reported a 5k/15k ratio of Hamas deaths to civilian deaths in early December. I guessed that ratio might have changed as large-scale bombing became less prevalent. Nonetheless, if Israel is reporting 9k Hamas deaths now we can assume 16k civilian deaths can’t be that wide of the mark even by Isreali reporting and largely in line with Hamas reporting. So why are people so convinced that the Hamas numbers are wildly inflated? Curious, that.
As I recall they also lowered the number by several hundred for Oct 7th when they subtracted out Hamas soldiers killed and left in Israel after they had been ID’d. I think there were approx. 300 IDF soldiers killed. Some civilians were likely accidentally killed by the IDF or other friendly fire.
.
The original plan was apparently for Hamas to also hold hostages in Israel for a big drawn out crisis but Israel just killed everyone on-site ASAP instead which probably increased civilian casualties if Hamas took them out before dying. I’m sure a final accounting will be very messy. We probably won’t see that for a while.
Tom –
.
>… if Hamas took them out before dying…
.
Perhaps you’ve seen that there have been a lot of reports that some number of Isreali civilians died directly from “friendly fire” IDF action. Of course those reports were given within a political contexts – mostly from people who oppose Isreal’s policies – but then again it seems entirely plausible to me that friendly fire deaths could have happened given what we know about the chaos of that day.
Yeah. They are the bad guys. We can point at information they reported that was probably wrong before. It’d be convenient.
.
As I understand it, it’s actually really hard to fight in a city without wrecking the place and killing everybody. I know everybody thinks 20K is high, but for my part I’m a little surprised it’s not more. Many fewer wouldn’t strike me as realistic, frankly.
It’s almost a certainty there was a bunch of friendly fire. The counter attack was very disorganized composed of small units and individual soldiers. They had to separate out other IDF, Hamas, and armed civilians. The chances of stressed out armed civilians shooting at IDF was pretty high. I would speculate maybe 10% of casualties at the high end though, probably more like 2% because a bulk of the deaths were pretty clear cut such as at the music festival and on the roads.
Oxfam claims the daily casualty rate is the highest of any recent conflict.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/daily-death-rate-gaza-higher-any-other-major-21st-century-conflict-oxfam#:~:text=Deaths%20per%20day%20statistics%20are,far%20in%20the%20West%20Bank.
Tom Scharf,
Apparently the Hannibal directive was in force leading to additional deaths
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/01/12/718093/Israel-ordered-Hannibal-Directive-killing-captives-held-by-Hamas-on-Oct-7
RB,
Yup. Civilians sometimes flee before large scale urban conflicts elsewhere though. The Gazans didn’t have the same options to leave that the residents of other cities have had faced with attacks. I think that has to have an impact.
RB –
.
Yikes. I think you’ll likely get some comments regarding that source.
Mark,
No doubt that is a huge factor. I may be naive but there seems to be land in the Negev, if not the West Bank, to create a temporary refugee camp for evacuation.
Yes. Here is just such a proposal. Unfortunate that Israel did not avail itself of this.
Thanks, first time I’ve seen a proposal.
Yeah. Apparently Egypt suggested this back in mid October.
https://thearabweekly.com/sisi-rejects-displacement-palestinians-sinai-suggests-transfer-israels-negev-desert
“During Hamas’s operation against the occupied territories, the resistance movement successfully captured a great number of Israeli forces and settlers.”
“In the event of Al-Aqsa Storm Operation, which was carried out in response to the regime’s unabated campaign of bloodshed and destruction against Palestinians”
.
Ha ha. That’s one way to put it, but they write for their own audience. Just because it’s biased doesn’t mean it’s wrong but it means to verify elsewhere.
.
Had they limited their effort to soldiers there would still be a war, but it wouldn’t be this punishing IMO.
Iran has apparently attacked the US consulate in Iraq today and taken credit.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/explosions-reported-us-consulate-iraq-iran-claims-responsibility/story?id=106390671
A digression. A regrettable unavoidable necessity.
mark bofill (Comment #228486)
“I have no power to compel you, and I had no particular interest in your position in the first place. I would be glad to quit wasting my time and energy pursuing the fallacies you were indulging in by attacking Joshua. We can be done with that as soon as you decide you are done with initiating it, for as long as you decide you are done.”
–
Words matter.
“Power to compel.” A simple yes would have sufficed.* (really).
“ No interest in the first place” ……….*
“Attacking Joshua” *this is a place for open debate, I thought.
I asked 3 questions to clarify his views.
–
You appear to have taken umbrage.
mark bofill (Comment #228418)
“See, so it is actually you who is telling us that what Israel is doing is evil. I suggest you own your own evaluations instead of projecting them onto other people.”
–
So I asked you basically the same question thinking the Mark I knew would answer it as willingly as I answered it for him.
Instead.
“what do YOU call the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the military? do you call it Good? I don’t think so. At best, it’s a regrettable unavoidable necessity. ”
–
So seriously Mark, fair being fair, is it Evil?
–
I got the Joshua response. Not what I predicted.
Total evasion of the answer.
The right answer by the way is Yes.
–
I got context instead.
In case you missed the argument context is what you add after you say Yes.
Sadly you did not ask me for my context.
–
mark bofill (Comment #228429
1.” I assure you, I’m the same guy I have always been.” OK
2.”is it significant somehow that you did not mention Israel?” Yes.
3. If you think what Israel is doing is evil, why are you attacking Joshua for purportedly arguing the same thing you actually think?”
–
This was the avoiding of the answer by using context instead of saying Yes. Having cake and eating it too.
Projecting hostility onto me.
Joshua projects evil onto Israel over and above the regrettable unavoidable necessity we all see in his comments.
Though you will not see it his constant references to genocide and worse infanticide by the Israelis only, this allows him keep slandering them in his comments and yet claim compassion.
That is the issue I am raising and not in a hostile way.
–
4. “Personally, I don’t think Israel’s response is evil or unacceptably excessive SO FAR. There does eventually come a point however when it would be too much.”
RickA (Comment #228430)
It is not useful to discuss moral opinions. Just my opinion.
Perhaps we could think the claim through as you say.
mark bofill (Comment #228431
“I agree with literally every bit of that except for the part where you say that there is no use discussing morals. When people like Angech pop out of the woodwork claiming that people discussing the situation are making moral pronouncements, in my view it behooves people discussing the situation to think that claim through and maybe talk about it a little. That’s what’s happened here.
–
Or perhaps you could fulfill your promise here in this comment.
–
mark bofill (Comment #228432)
“There is nothing wrong, in my view, with discussing our moral views and making moral decisions. There has been a 20’th century philosophical trend to view morality as subjective and arbitrary that I believe has been used to disqualify or undermine moral consideration in our culture. This is one of them. We can’t call evil evil anymore, just a matter of opinion? I disagree, and I won’t cooperate with that.”
angech,
What in actual fuck are you trying to say?
[Edit: See if you can give me two or three clear sentences outlining what you are trying to convey.]
The closest I can come to torturing meaning out of that incoherent, rambling mess is to extract this bit:
So, the issue you are raising is that you think Joshua is slandering the Israelis while [claiming] compassion, is this actually the issue you want to discuss with me? Or is it some other part of this gibberish?
I am done with you, agnech until you get your head out of your rectum, or out of the bottle, or the drugs, or wherever it is you thrust it before you comment here. I have read coherent comments from you before and I know you are capable of them. Until you give me something that makes some sense, you will get nothing further from me but well deserved scorn and contempt.
angech/mark
I usually want to be nice. But I agree that angech is impossible to understand above. I also don’t know what point he thinks he is trying to make.
I usually want to be nice too Lucia. I just get so sick of it.
Angech –
.
I might offer that you keep it simple and just be clear just that you don’t like what i have to say. I’m not sure there’s much point in trying to read much into it other than that. I don’t think the specifics really matter (as indicated by the fact that people are having trouble deciphering a coherent explanation).
.
The one thing about specifics that I got was this:
.
>Though you will not see it his constant references to genocide and worse infanticide by the Israelis only,
.
Where apparently you think I criticized the Israelis of infanticide. Perhaps you should go back and re-read where infanticide was raised, and who raised it.
Re: Joshua (Comment #228526)
Approximately 24000 are reported dead by the MoH so far. Of these ~30% or 7200 are adult males. We can now compare the Euromed estimates vs the IDF ones. According to Euromed, the civilian casualty rate is estimated to be 9:1 which translates to 2400 Hamas fighters. Assuming they are all male, Hamas would constitute 1/3 of the adult male dead.
IDF reports 9000 Hamas dead out of ~24000 total or 37.5%. Assuming the 30% of adult males dead are considered Hamas, we still need 1800 more males or 7.5% of the total casualties. Males aged 10-19 are about 11.5% of the population. All males aged 12-18 then constitute ~7.5% of the population.
So, a conclusion is that IDF considers all males 12 and above to be legitimate military targets. Coupled with the disease, injury and destruction this would make South Africa’s case on genocidal intent rather strong.
RB,
Clever. But even assuming the numbers [and ratios] are that accurate [and consistent], the discrepancies could be explained in any other number of ways besides IDF targeting males 12 years old and up. That’s an awfully specific thing to deduce from the numbers. For example, it’d seem just as likely to me that Hamas placed a disproportionate number of military targets at middle schools, or whatever the equivalent of middle schools might be over there.
But it was a clever idea, I’ve gotta give you that.
Mark, yes one can fill the vacuum 🙂
Joshua
“Where apparently you think I criticized the Israelis of infanticide. Perhaps you should go back and re-read where infanticide was raised, and who raised it.
–
First 3 postings mentioning it are all yours.
Since they are yours, you did raise the issue here.
You referenced the remarks of Andrew Sullivan re the Israelis committing infanticide, saying..
“so I can expand my own views. Andrew Sullivan does that also below ”
Joshua (Comment #228328
Joshua (Comment #228334
Joshua (Comment #228336
–
Note constant referencing not criticising were the terms I used.
Mark.
“See if you can give me two or three clear sentences outlining what you are trying to convey.”
–
Sometimes one gets worked up in discussions.
Good because it means one is really sincere and committed to one’s beliefs.
What I tried to convey is all there but impossible to explain in just 3 sentences.
–
I gave you several barrels in that last exchange which I apologise for as I was feeling Old Testament rather than New Testament manners at the time.
Your reactions are justified, mine were not.
Several barrels of sewage.
If you truly feel such dedication to your beliefs, perhaps you should honor them by investing a little time and effort making your comments comprehensible. Certainly you show no such consideration for your interlocutors or readers.
It isn’t a question of who is justified. You continue to display a frightening inability to grasp what I am saying.
Pay close attention:
Your comments make no sense.
Do you grasp what I just said? THAT is my issue.
.
Angech –
.
That was beautiful.
.
.
Now maybe you didn’t undersgand that I was explicitly saying that Sullivan made a reasonable argument I disagreed with, (and that I seek out such argumrbts to expand my beliefs).
.
Or maybe you did and deliberately lifted that quote from the immediately preceeding context that made what your did excerpt like subodrdinated clause.
.
I can’t know, but having interacted with you before my impression is that you bizarrely cut the previous context so as to obscure what I intended to convey.
.
Motivated reasoning or deliberate musportrayal? I can’t know that either. But whether dishonesty or lack of comprehensive effort to interrogate the naysayer, it’s a perfect example of why exchanging views with you has no benefit to me.
This may help:
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/paragraphs/
To the extent that your problem is one of undisciplined, stream of consciousness style writing. I begin to think its deeper than that though and that the real issue may be one of comprehension.
Lucia –
.
Not sure where this question should go or if you’ll see it here but I’m wondering if you ever thought it worth your time to complete the effort to run that Greek guy’s theory about temperature driving higher atmospheric CO2 through your meatgrinder?
I started… then stalled when I had a competition. So…. I keep planning to restart but haven’t.
angech,
You know what, my earlier link might have been somewhat too ambitious. How about we start here:
https://layers-of-learning.com/teaching-kids-to-write-their-first-reports/
Some important concepts to look out for are contained in the ‘sandwich organizer’ diagram, but the heart of the process is captured simply as follows:
Do this. Develop the same clarity and coherency that seven year olds master, and come back. We can talk then.
Lucia –
.
I hope to see the results but get that it may just not be worth the work.
.
Mark –
.
I think the concepts of coherence and cohesion might help:
.
https://www.cob.calpoly.edu/handbook/cohesion-and-coherence/
.
That said, I suspect there may be more fundamental issues in play.
Joshua,
Those would help too, yes. But I find it absurd that anyone commenting here cannot explain after the fact what the main idea (or at least one of the main ideas) of their comment was. I think he can’t summarize because there were no ideas, he wasn’t actually expressing any. It appears to have been simply random verbiage that occurred to him as he reacted to what someone else had written. It is an exaggeration to say that he might as well have been barking at his computer rather than typing for all the meaning he conveyed, but maybe not a huge one.
Joshua,
My reading of that sentence was that you agreed with Sullivan. It’s ambiguous with multiple references. In any event it’s unlikely you disagree with everything Sullivan said so it’s also ambiguous as to what part of that essay you were in disagreement with.
Tom –
.
> My reading of that sentence was that you agreed with Sullivan. It’s ambiguous with multiple references. .
.
I can see how that would work. The syntax was ambiguous. But my larger point is that’s why it makes sense to ask someone questions about their views to confirm understanding rather than just saddling people with your interpretation without confirmation.
.
> In any event it’s unlikely you disagree with everything Sullivan said so it’s also ambiguous as to what part of that essay you were in disagreement with.
.
Yes! Exactly!
..
That’s why you should confirm how you interpret someone’s views in that kind of situation before saddling them with your interpretation.
.
Thanks for reinforcing my pont.
Joshua,
It’s something of an issue of order of operations…. what to talk about first? How far along should I be in checking details before posting? Etc. Then I stalled.
mark bofill
If asked, people should be able to say what their main idea was.
.
Angech really also needs to learn how to use blockquotes. Some other people can get away without using them, but he really needs to learn to use them. He likely needs to make his comments shorter. I often can’t figure out if they are supposed to be one point with support or multiple points.
.
Sorry to jump all over you angech, but I’ve sort of been ignoring your posts because I frequently don’t know what you are trying to communicate. I honestly have no idea what point or points you are trying to make in Angech (Comment #228543)
Just started listening to this interview with David French
.
The Constitution Says Insurrectionists Can’t Hold Office. So What Is Trump? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-french.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
.
Now I know that Ezra tends to rankle Mark and I imagine he might do so to others here as well. Regardless, something that Femch says I found pretty interesting.
.
So French makes the point that the insurrectionist exclusion clause is anti-democratic in that it’s basic structure is based on a “counter-majoritian” notion of disabling a “tyranny of a majority,” and limit the “voice of the people” to choose whomever they want to be their president.
.
Aside from the specifics of his argument, what interest me here is the basic reversal in how people across the “left/right” divide typically view “counter-majoritian” provisions of the Constitution. “The left,” which in some contexts (the electoral college) don’t like such provisions, putatively on a basis of democratic principles. While “the right,” who often say “this is a republic not a democracy” to defend the outcomes of the electoral college (at least when it works to their favor, Trump famously sang a different tune as did more consistently RWers when it looked like it would work against their favor), are now very upset about the counter-majoritian implications of the CO Supremes ruling.
Lucia,
That would be a huge improvement, yes. I struggle with this myself. Not only are long, epic posts often less clear and less coherent, but they are more difficult for others to meaningfully address.
Joshua,
I don’t think my problem with the ruling has a whole lot to do with it being counter-majoritarian. Is it really the case that right wingers are very upset about this? I guess it’s possible. Who are we talking about? [Who is Klein talking about, I should have said]
Lucia,
“Angech really also needs to learn how to use blockquotes. Some other people can get away without using them, but he really needs to learn to use them.”
Do I need to learn how to use block quotes? I use Google Docs and Apple Pages and I find block quotes cumbersome.
Thanks
Mark,
Your longer posts are fine. Lengths is sometimes required to develop or support. Often, someone taking time to reorganize and make something shorter would improve a comment- but the comment is still readable and coherent.
.
But Angechs seem to be just a bunch of isolated ideas separated by snipped quotes– but he doesn’t use block quotes so I can’t tell which are quotes and which are his own statements. While the comment over all is long, the individual ideas are often given to few words.
.
The formatting is almost non-existant and certainly unconventional. I can’t tell how the quotes relate to anything said before or after. Things preceding question marks are often difficult to parse.
.
They are just one big blob of text, so I usually ignore them.
.
Right now, other than him criticizing you and mark for …. something… and having some statements that include ?s at the end, I have no idea what point Angech is trying to make or which things are actual questions. Also, when I see a question, it seems to refer back to some previous statement– which is not quoted. And I have no idea where the chain of thought is.
.
Angech, you do need to work at improving your comments. Because numerous people don’t understand what you are writing.
Joshua,
One alternate response is to concisely say “I disagree with Sullivan on X, Y, Z”.
Mark –
.
Neither Klein nor French have linked directly to my point yet I what I’ve listened to. French says that the clause is counter-majoritarian, which I think it clearly is by design.
.
I’m the one saying I’m struck that “the right” is objecting to the application here as being counter-majoritarian, by saying that the CO Supremes are ruling to disempower the will of the majority to decide who should be president.
In what way do you disagree with that?
.
Interestingly, in the beginning of the interview, Klein and French reference this article by icons of the Federalist Society which apparently argues in favor for applying Section 3 to Trump.
.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
The anti-insurrectionist clause seems a bit arbitrary. We can elect avowed communists, socialists, fascists, people who overtly want to end democracy, or alter the Constitution (by legal means). They cannot change democracy when elected because of the system in place. It’s an ideology free for all except for “insurrectionists”. I suspect this was just a one-off for their specific needs at the time. But it’s in there so it applies until it is removed.
.
One can argue that prosecutorial discretion should be applied as it is for many obsolete laws on the books.
Joshua,
Ok, so you say:
Look, I’m not saying your wrong. I am saying, what are you looking at that makes you believe ‘the right’ is objecting to the application as being counter-majoritarian? What’s your evidence?
I’m not saying you don’t have any. I’m just saying I’d like to know what it is, so I can go look at it.
Tom –
.
> One alternate response is to concisely say “I disagree with Sullivan on X, Y, Z”.
.
Point taken, and no doubt true. However, I have found that sort of response to be usually a waste of time if people have a history of misinterpreting my views and then not being accountable for having done so.
.
I have found Angech to be a repeat-offender in that regard. Sometimes he offers platitudes of apology but never shows actual accountability, and then just turns around and does it again.
.
Even worse, imo, is that he regularly says that either I don’t mean what I say or that he knows what I believe better than I. So I don’t take the time, and I will admit don’t want to play into his disengenuous pretense, by taking the approach you offer.
.
Don’t misconstrue that as a defense. I’m not defending that; if I were a better person I would do as you advise all the time. There’s no harm in doing so and responding as I do may well perpetuate the useless form of exchange more than if I followed a more principled approach. A better form of response might have a more constructive exchange with onlookers as well.
.
I’ll think about it more and try to do better. In the other hand, I would appreciate it if those same onlookers, would try to ask me questions about my views when they think it’s possible the don’t understand them or might be misconstruing them. If they think I’m hiding my true beliefs or displaying moral depravity if I say I think a situation is “complicated” they should think as they like, but if they want to assert what it is that I believe they should at least try to confirm that they’re right.
Mark –
.
> I’m not saying you don’t have any. I’m just saying I’d like to know what it is, so I can go look at it.
.
.
Fair enough. I don’t really have anything particular in mind. I thought my interpretation was a rather uncontroversial characterization of the objections I’ve read from “the right” to the CO Supremes ruling.
.
Clearly I was wrong, at least in your viewpoint.
.
So without wanting to ask you a leading question, can you explain why your view about the CO Supremes’ ruling isn’t consistent with my characterization? It seems to me that your objection was twofold, one that it disempowers the will of the people the second is that the outcome could be disastrous. Am I just wrong about the first “fold?”
Joshua,
I am beginning to question my impressions actually. It is my impulse to tell you that if you had asked me what my problem was with the ruling in the first place, I would have said something to the effect of ‘I think it will be damaging to our country long-term’ and I think I would have started talking in detail about why; that already red states are looking for means to retaliate and knock Dem candidates off the ballot. But now I wonder if I am misleading myself or rationalizing?
I wouldn’t say that I have no regard whatsoever for democracy in the first place, I mean, generally speaking yes. It’s not something I think is wonderful that we are going to prevent half the country from voting for they guy they want. But this said, I really didn’t think this was what my earlier arguments were all about.
To be sure, I probably made some remarks mocking what I perceive to be the ‘Danger to Democracy’ crowd. But that was mockery for perceived hypocrisy and not meant to be indicative of any strong personal conviction.
Does this seem reasonable? Do you think I’m fooling myself? I might be. I’m going to go review my earlier remarks.
[Edit: I’ve gone back over my comments on the last couple of pages. I don’t see what I’ve said that would support the idea that my problem with the ruling has anything to do with anti-majoritarian rulings. Let me know if you disagree!]
Mark –
.
What you said makes sense.
.
So then the question would be whether despite you having a different viewpoint, it might still be accurate to characterize objections on “the right” as primarily [or at least significantly] coming in the form of objection to counter-majoritarian, anti-democratic application of the Constitution, or whether I just made the whole thing up.
.
Irrespective of that, I do think that French’s basic point seems correct (or at least interesting) and that Section 3 does reflect the anti-majoritarian side of the ledger that the constitution was designed to balance against the principles of a pure democracy.
.
If you’re interested in giving any time to French’s arguments I’d be curious about your response. Ezra does try to give voice to a Trumpian naysayer interrogator and I’d say does a better job than he usually does although obviously not perfect.
Too late to edit – but I want to correct my usage of ‘two-fold” as I realized that it does’t mean two-part, but two times….
Joshua (Comment #228575):
The part I disagree with is the implicit claim that the position of conservatives is somehow inconsistent.
.
I don’t think that many on the right are “counter-majoritarian”. We support the idea of a suitable restraint on the majority, via a system of checks and balances combined with protection of constitutional principles.
.
No decision of ANY portion of government can EVER be justified on the grounds of being “counter-majoritarian”. If you think that statement in any way permits the tyranny of the majority, you need to carefully reread it and think about what you read.
.
The place for judges in that system is to protect fundamental individual rights. Kicking Trump off the ballot violates those rights. Not his rights, but the rights to free speech and free association of those who wish to vote for him. As to that last sentence, I have prior Supreme Court decisions on my side. So the Colorado court did not protect fundamental rights, it violated them. That is not permissible.
Tom –
.
.
FWIW, French makes a brief argument, referencing the Federalist Society article, that supports a view that it wasn’t intended as just a one-off, bounded by the context of the Civil War – as indicated in the text itself:
.
A system that allows partisans and political appointees of one party to remove political opponents from another party from the ballot is ripe for abuse by both sides. A very high and clear threshold needs to be in place for this behavior.
.
Hypothetically since Portland is now technically an insurrection, who is on the list for not be able to run for office now? Any politician who tacitly supported the protests? Bad idea, bad process.
.
What we have today is people on the left wrapping themselves around an axle trying to justify to themselves throwing Trump off the ballot. Mostly this is just the usual ugly political power plays, but it is especially hypocritical from a party running on a “democracy” platform.
.
See the NYT’s opinion podcast run right into this trap and how they handle it here at time 16:10, December:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/01/opinion/trump-milei-wilders-strongmen.html
Note especially: “… there is nobody buying that argument Ross”.
.
On a recent podcast the same “very serious people” were open to this line of political attack. Many people like the outcome and almost every person comes down on the side based on whether they like this outcome. (Well I like the outcome, Trump gone, but I do not like the outcome of partisans having that kind of power).
Mike –
.
.
It wasn’t implicit. It was explicit. Now I think what I’ve seen in the application of “the idea of a suitable restraint on the majority, ” in this context is absolutely hypocritical against the backdrop of the oft’ heard “It’s not a Democracy, its a Republic” arguments I’ve heard so often. If you don’t make that argument, then exclude yourself from my point.
.
But anyway, “suitable” is inherently in the eyes of the beholder.
.
That’s my point. And I always find it ironic when people argue that hypocrisy is distributed in association with views across the left/right divide. I don’t know if you’re doing that here or not, but a view that it is disproportionately distributed across that divide is exactly what I would expect, as a believer that motivated reasoning and identity-protective cognition are basic human characteristics.
Tom –
.
> What we have today is people on the left wrapping themselves around an axle trying to justify to themselves throwing Trump off the ballot.
.
That’s pretty funny.
.
I’ll offer the link again. From renown legal scholars at the Federalist Society
.
Disagree as you will, but this is how French describes it:
.
.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
Joshua,
There are also plenty of classic liberals on the left who disagree with taking Trump off the ballot. Somehow people are always “esteemed scholars” and “renowned experts” when they agree with one’s position. Praise for the Federalist Society has been a bit thin on the left recently, it might even be subject dependent, ha ha.
.
The intellectual class is not on Trump’s side. They have been throwing spaghetti against the fridge for several months now and are starting to coalesce around a fantasy they can tell each other and still maintain their admonishing pro-democracy lectures to the rubes.
.
The problem is even high school dropouts know double standard BS when they see it. “But the Federalist society” isn’t going to work. Trump leverages these conflicts from the self-clowning expert class and and all of sudden he is leading the polls.
Tom –
.
Prevaricate all you like, but
.
> What we have today is people on the left wrapping themselves around an axle trying to justify to themselves throwing Trump off the ballot.
.
is of course true, except it’s surely not, then, just “people on the left” (as in the example I provided).
.
Regardless, while certainly “subject dependency” is ubiquitous, application of that reasoning as a counter against serious work by serious scholars who have looked into the issues deeply for decades is unfalsifiable, and IMO, only weakened when it’s thrown around by people who aren’t serious scholars and who haven’t looked at the issues deeply for decades.
.
Of course, YMMV.
.
[edit: anyway, it’s “people on the left” except when it isn’t “people in the left” in which case it’s “people I disagree with.”]
Anyway, what’s much more interesting to me than that they’re leading “conservative” legal scholars is that it’s reasoned from an “originalist interpretation.”
.
Of course, some folks who constantly stress the superiority of originalism will just armwave away the originalist aspect of their reasoning because they don’t like the outcomes of that originalist doctrine in this particular case.
.
It will be interesting, imo, to see what SCOTUS does with that aspect.
The western intelligence agencies are losing its collective mind. On one hand the Russian army in Ukraine is losing, has taken catastrophic casualties, and is totally inept.
.
On the other hand, Russia is planing to invade NATO in the next year sometime in the fall of 2024/spring 2025 after the destruction of the Ukraine army.
.
Planning a Russian invasion of NATO starting for the fall of 2024? Who knew that Putin was such a supporter of Biden”s reelection that he would go to such lengths in support? ( I know, rhetorical ). No love lost between these two, so the obvious conclusion is that the 3 letter agencies are all in supporting the current administration in the next US national elections.
.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12964575/Germany-preparing-Putin-attack-against-NATO-2025-Leaked-secret-plans-reveal-step-step-Russia-escalate-conflict-war-18-months.html
.
“Germany is preparing for Putin attack against NATO in 2025: Leaked secret plans reveal step-by-step how Russia will escalate conflict to all-out war in 18 months”
Joshua (Comment #228586):
.
Wow, you are a really slippery SOB.
.
You made no reply to the substance of my argument. Instead you cite an unstated argument as evidence of hypocrisy on the right. Rubbish. I can only conclude that you are noting an inconsistency between some characterization of conservative opinion and actual conservative opinion.
Mark –
.
You say:
.
> To be sure, I probably made some remarks mocking what I perceive to be the ‘Danger to Democracy’ crowd.
.
Not to make too much of that, and I get what you’re mocking there. But something else I found interesting in the French interview (transcript here, btw: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-french.html?showTranscript=1)
.
So my understanding is that you’re concerned about the chaos that could result from Trump being barred from the ballot. Makes sense to me (even if I might differ from you at some level about whether courts should backwards from that concern).
.
So French and Klein share that concern also, but question other inverse concerns.
.
(1) That Trump would remain on the ballot and win the election (perhaps with a minority popular vote), and then carry out plans he has referred to rather frequently to get revenge, doing things like invoking the insurrection act (as many of his supporters have advocated for) without any mitigating forces as a part of his administration like TIllerson or Mattis or other establishment Republicans – what Klein refers to as a “coalition government.” Now let’s assume that Trump II would be largely ineffective like Trump I. No problem. But what if Trump II is radically different because there are no governing agents as there were before? How destabilizing will that be? What if he wins after saying that there are times when we should suspend the Constitution?. I mean sure, if he were to win i that would mean it’s the will of the people. But if the governing criterion re the ballot issue is the potential for chaos and violence, then is it merely crazy librul alarmism to think that maybe the potential of him remaining on the ballot is even greater than if he’s taken off the ballot?
.
(2) Trump loses the election. Given what happened on Jan. 6th. Given how much angrier his supporters would be if the election results again showed him to lose. Given the last 4 years of rhetoric about how the election was stolen from him. Given that there’s basically nothing left of any dissent to Trump in the Republican Party (remarkably, even the other candidates running against him for the nomination are extremely reluctant to criticize him). How much more crazy would it be if he’s taken off the ballot than if he remains on the ballot and loses the election. I mean I hope Trump II would be not terribly more disruptive than Trump I, but how confident of that can we be?
.
I point all of that out not as a justification for taking him off the ballot. My argument is that decision should be made primarily on a legal analysis. But I’m just sayin’. The concern for chaos isn’t only with him being taken off the ballot.
Mike –
.
> unstated argument
.
I was pointing to the subjectivity of your argument about “suitable restraint of the majority..
.
Meanwhile:
.
>If you think that statement in any way permits the tyranny of the majority,
.
You refer to some “you” who hasn’t been a party to this conversation.
.
> The place for judges in that system is to protect fundamental individual rights. Kicking Trump off the ballot violates those rights.
.
So says you, in an argument by assertion. I’ve provided you with a link to strict originalists who make a deeply explicated argument for why they think your argument from assertion is wrong.
.
Why don’t you look at their reasoning and explain why your argument from assertion is more valid than their deep and heavily researched explication?
.
Forbes: “The American-made M-2A2 Bradley is the best infantry fighting vehicle in Russia’s 23-month wider war on Ukraine—all thanks to its balance of protection, optics and firepower.”
I have posted this idea several times. Forbes articulates it much better. The surprise to me is that it is a troop carrier with incredible firepower:
“The M-2’s primary weapon is an M242 25-millimeter auto-cannon that can fire armor-piercing sabot and high-explosive rounds. The M242’s maximum range is 1.2 miles. It fires 200 or 500 rounds per minute at a muzzle velocity of 3,600 feet per second.
The M242 is fully stabilized, so the Bradley can fire accurately while on the move. In one recent skirmish outside Avdiivka, in northeastern Ukraine, Two Bradleys used their auto-cannons to disable one of the Russian army’s best T-90M tanks.”
The US defense industry’s superiority is on full display.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/15/the-american-made-m-2-bradley-is-the-best-fighting-vehicle-of-the-ukraine-war/?sh=6c9f09a960e7
Ed Forbes,
I saw that too….. “Russia is preparing to invade NATO next year.” Incredible, I figured it must be fodder for some parochial political feud in Europe.
Russia has its hands full with Ukraine and Ukraine has no navy, a rag-tag air force, an army cobbled together with hand-me-down arms, and no nuclear weapons. NATO is probably 100 times stronger than Ukraine.
Joshua,
Does linking to 126 page legal brief (not directly accessible there BTW) and asking for a refutation strike you as a good faith argument in a general purpose forum?
Joshua,
Of course [NOT] taking Trump off the ballot doesn’t magically solve for all of the possible ways the situation can go sideways. But I think taking Trump off the ballot will lead to bad outcomes with what I estimate is high probability.
.
I think if Trump wins, fears of him abusing his powers in office are overblown, in my view. The military would never support Trump in a coup. The intelligence agencies all oppose him. Let Trump commit a clear and unambiguous abuse, it might well be the end of him and his populist movement. Is there some risk he might succeed? Of course, no paths forward are completely clear and safe.
.
If Trump loses, certainly his supporters will grumble. I hope there is no appearance of irregularity to cast doubt on the outcome. People like me will argue that of course Trump lost. He already lost against Biden once, there was no reason to expect any other outcome. I hope people see reason. I hope people see where their self interest lies; it wouldn’t be on doubling down once again on this two time loser has been.
.
I could be wrong of course. These are my opinions and personal evaluations of the options and possible outcomes and associated risks.
I could argue my positions to much greater depth I think, but maybe this suffices for now.
I’ll content myself with this final observation – if we are already so far gone that revolution is inevitable if Trump loses, then we have already lost our Republic. It’s just that we haven’t realized it yet, if that is the case. A similar argument if Trump wins, if we really expect a coup or some other flagrant abuse of power; I don’t see how Trump would get away with any of that, and if he does I’d take that as evidence that our system was already broken beyond repair. But removing Trump from the ballot will cause lasting damage and there will be lasting negative repercussions in all cases, IMO.
Every election, people on both sides go off the deep end about the President and act as if the end of our country is at hand. So far it has never been the case. Let’s not further degrade our system in a panic over this populist clown, for goodness sakes. He will be irrelevant either way within a few years and yet the damage we do to our system will endure for as long as our country does.
70% of the people supporting Trump in Iowa think he won the 2020 election. If Trump falsely claims he won next time a lot of people will believe him again. The case that there won’t be increased chaos in that event is best made that nothing happened after Jan 6th even though the beliefs remain, and Jan 6th was a one-off event.
.
If Trump wins the nomination then I just hope the general election results are clear and convincing.
.
The anger level of not be allowed to be on the ballot by perceived partisan lawfare is going to be higher than disputed results IMO.
Russell “Forbes articulates it much better”
.
Thank you for your support 🙂
.
Seriously though, I believe it was the TOW launchers on the Bradly that scored the kill, not the 25mm auto cannon.
Main
armament
25 mm M242 Bushmaster chain gun
2× BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile
.
At 33tons, a Bradly is better considered as a med tank than as an APC.
.
The APC M113 weighs in at about 11 tons
.
The T-72 MBT weighs in at about 44 tons
.
M1A2 SEP v3:at about 67 tons
I’ll take a modern tank over a Bradley any day of the week.
Russel,
I don’t have trouble understanding your comments. I know what is a quote and what is not. Using blockquotes is always helpful but the criteria for “gotta use them” is: Do people understand your comments? Or are they so dense that it’s impossible to figure out what’s a quote vs. what you write? At last as far as I go: you are ok.
Russell,
Even when I have been at odds with you, I have never struggled to understand what you meant, FWIW. Not as far as I can recall anyway.
Mark –
.
I tend to agree with most of what you said in #228598, with regard to fears of what might happen if he loses or wins being overblown. IOW, his lawyer arguing that he could assassinate an opponent as an offical act and only be prosecuted if he were first impeached (by a likely loyal Repulbican-dominated Congress) is troubling, but I think it is obviously not a plausible likelihood.
.
That said, while I think chaos if he’s removed from the ballot might be more likely than chaos if he’s elected or loses the election, I don’t really think that’s true by a huge margin. I tend to think that the logic you applied to the other scenarios applies to a situation where court rulings stand – especially the ruling of a conservative, Republican-dominated SCOTUS.
.
IOW, if we’re going to go down in flames because he’s removed from the ballot, that pretty much means we’re already a shot country, IMO. Just as i think him being elected or losing the election won’t likely be the end of us, neither do I think him being taken off the ballot will be the end of us. I see threats in all 3 scenarios, real threats, actually. But I don’t think any of the threats are surefire doom.
.
Again, maybe him being taken off the ballot is a more plausible threat for chaos, but I don’t think by a huge factor and certainly I don’t think it’s enough of a difference to use reverse engineering outcomes with that scenario as reason to not allow that possibility, any more than I think we should use reverse engineering the other scenarios to prevent those possibilities. I hope that makes sense.
Tom –
.
> Does linking to 126 page legal brief (not directly accessible there BTW) and asking for a refutation strike you as a good faith argument in a general purpose forum?
.
Feel free to skim. Look for summaries of the paper. Or just read French’s summary of what they argued. It’s not long at all.
.
Or just wing it if that’s what you want to do. Tell me your opinion on why an originalist argument in favor of removing Trump from the ballot is wrong.
.
Any of that would be more interesting to me than just stamping feet and arguing by assertion. But making something interesting to me is certainly no obligation that you or anyone else has.
Joshua,
.
I think you misunderstand me. I am not worried about civil unrest over Trump being removed from the ballot, although we might see some. Nor am I particularly worried about that this will only give strength to Trump’s populist movement and spawn other, potentially worse future candidates, although I suspect that might happen.
.
What I am actually worried about is that removing candidates from Presidential ballots by lawfare will have become a mainstream [and permanent] feature and tactic of US politics. I also worry about further unforeseen consequences to this innovation.
.
This is all just my opinion, and I certainly don’t expect anybody to find this persuasive. I’m just explaining my views to answer your question (I think is how I got started on all this).
In a stunning surprise, Hunter Biden’s 2020 contract with an art gallery included a provision that he would receive the names of buyers of his “art”, which turned out to be (surprise) wealthy Democrat political donors. In 2021 another contract with the gallery was signed, where Biden did not receive the names of buyers from the gallery; of course nothing would stop those byers from informing Hunter Biden of the purchases.
.
The owner of the gallery was asked if any of the other artists he worked with had ever asked for the names of buyers. Answer: none. Oh, and Joe Biden, as president, spoke to the gallery owner face to face twice….. you know, the usual pleasantries about the weather.
.
With the Bidens, you can never seem to get to the bottom; it is pure political corruption, all the way down.
Mark –
.
Re 228608. My bad. Sorry for my confusion.
.
Sure, I think there’s a real danger in slippery slope “normalizing” taking a candidate off the ballot.
.
French addresses that issue, although I didn’t find his response terribly persuasive.
.
Basically, I read his argument as that as written the law allows a broad interpretation but only with respect to insurrection per se. He says it’s not that he thinks that best possible legal construction, but that it is what it is and so you can’t just decide you don’t like it because of the implications. It could be changed by Congress if they saw fit to do so.
.
I guess it depends on whether you think he’s being honestly consistent with his originalist legal worldview or crafting it to fit with being an anti-Trumper. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other but his originalist arguments seem to hold water, imo. I’m skeptical of the whole originalist framing to begin with, although it’s not like I think “original intent” is anywhere near irrelevant.
.
But what I find interesting is to read an originalist argument for why Trump should be booted off the ballot. I’d like to see a loyal originalist argue why the analysis French presents is wrong.
Before hearing French I hadn’t realize how deeply this issue inverts the standard left/right posture on the “counter-majoritarian” frame as well as the “originalism” frame (except for with French and I guess some others such as those to Federal Society legal scholars).
Joshua,
So – you got me there. Generally I favor an originalist reading of the Constitution, sure. This is an exception. I will say that I believe I would feel exactly the same if this device was being used against a Democrat candidate, FWIW.
If Lucia (and Colorado SC) are correct about the applicable definition of insurrection, then I have never properly understood this bit of Constitutional law. I think it was shortsighted, foolish, and destructive to introduce this into our Constitution. I think it was a mistake. It may be that SCOTUS upholds Trump’s removal from the ballot and we may yet get to see the consequences in our lifetimes. We shall see.
Like I said, I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t find this compelling. This is all just my opinion.
Joshua,
Also, I’m unable to give satisfaction, as it were, regarding legal theories and legal arguments. I don’t like this bit of it [insurrection disqualifying candidates from the ballot] because I think it doesn’t work and messes up our government. That’s not a legal argument and I get that. I’m not a lawyer and don’t have the same amateur interest that some such as Lucia and Mike have in legal arguments. So. Shrug.
Joshua,
You openly asked for responses on this topic and I and Mike M. specifically gave you responses. #228585. You then responded with rhetorical tangents avoiding the thrust of the arguments, followed by appeals to esteemed scholarship and so forth. This paper is a legal argument, nothing more. I’m sure esteemed scholars argued Biden could have a vaccine mandate through OSHA and student loan forgiveness by executive order.
.
The paper:
“Importantly, it is also wrong to shrink from applying Section Three on grounds of “democracy,” whether on the premise that Section Three should be ignored or narrowly construed because it limits who voters may choose, or on the premise that only the voters should enforce Section Three. It is true, as we have said, that limiting democratic choice is not something to be done lightly, but it is something the Constitution does, and for serious reasons.452 The Constitution cannot be overruled or disregarded by ordinary election results.”
.
I disagree for the reasons I stated and think there needs to be a high bar (and/or narrow ruling). This may happen because of lack of precedent. The paper argues a literal reading, which is not a bad argument, but the court limits literal readings sometimes when there are major impacts (see major questions doctrine). The SC dreamed up Constitutional protection for abortion on a right to privacy without any supporting text and an originalist world in which abortion was socially unsupported. There are other technical legal arguments on the Trump issue I have no opinion on. It’s already been extensively discussed.
.
If the SC does rule the way I favor, I only ask you to refer to me as “Esteemed Scholar Tom” from that point on.
Mark –
.
FWIW, I thought French’s description of the originalist argument related to the context for the insurrectionist clause instructive. I’m always skeptical of originalist constructions of history, but what French says does seem to me to kinda work.. Maybe read it? Let me know if you do.
Tom –
.
If you want to argue what the constitution should have said, be my guest.
.
But simply arguing what you think the constitution should day and stomping your feet and saying that’s what the law is because you think that’s what the constitution should say looks like a funny argument coming from people who typically critical of thsr kind of legal reasoning.
.
And it doesn’t address the question I’m interested in, which is why people who typically argue in favor or strict originalism reject the argument being presented by legal scholars in good standing with the originalism community, why an originalist interpretation supported removing Trump from the ballot.
..
[edit: so if you’d like, give your argument for why the originalist position that is argued is wrong. Hopefully, from an originalist angle. Or don’t. Fine with me either way.]
“Never complain, never explain” Disraeli.
Lucia and others thank you for your tact.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
I continue to learn faster than I forget.
Luckily everything is written down on the internet and we can look at ourselves and our comments as well as others in the light of later days.
No regrets
Ed Forbes,
Here is a link to the Bradly IFV battle with the Russian T-90M tank. It looks like it was the Bradleys’ chain guns doing the damage, not the TOW. The source, Special Kherson Cat, is a reliable OSINT source.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1745933354845815034?s=20
Lucia,
Yes, a cat owner, check the homepage.
mark bofill
I on the other hand am not worried about this and consider it pearl clutching “worry”.
.
I’m more worried that if the legal reasoning in the SCOTUS decision is not even remotely sound, then SCOTUS really will lose support. If it’s not sound, Trump is on the ballot and loses, there will be a huge move to undermine SCOTUS– and it will happen.
.
I’m also worried that Trump on the ballot will sweep in tons of DEMs bringing in policies I dislike– though that is not a reason for SCOTUS to rule one way or the other.
Joshua,
Do you have a link to whatever French wrote– in writing. Not at the NYT, and preferably not a podcast? I never listent to podcasts. Transcripts of podcasts are slightly better than podcasts, but really not so great.
Lucia –
.
The only transcript I know of is at a nytimes link. I could copy it and email it if you’d like?
Weird stuff happening with my posts.
.
Another issue is what happens if Trump is convicted on one of the cases and then gets elected. The president is by definition a criminal. Then he goes about pardoning a bunch of political allies who have also been convicted.
.
Trump is a chaos agent. No matter what scenario you have involving him, you get chaos. You might like the chaos he creates. You might think that all those criminal convictions were frame jobs. OK. But that won’t change that what we’ll have is chaos.
Lucia,
I’m sorry you feel that way. I assure you, my concern is genuine. But it’s no real concern of mine I suppose if you think I’m faking my concern. [Edit: LOL. Poor idiom to use there. It’s not a problem for me, I should have said I suppose.]
Joshua,
The problem is it’s going to be the transcript of a podcast. I generally find those…. barely readable. They tend to be diffuse. I know it’s less work for the authors to put their ideas that way. But I’m less interested if it’s a podcast.
.
I’m fine with diffuse comments at blogs– we can talk and clarify. But I really wish pod casts and videos were less common.
markbofill
I don’t women are faking concern when they clutch pearls. I just think it’s usually an over reaction to something implausible.
.
(Ok… I looked up. I guess the idiom does imply faking. I guess my experience with women who literally clutch pearls is they really are concerned. It’s just often unrealistic.)
.
Now I need to find an idiom that means what I thought pearl clutching meant.
Lucia,
Well, that is some comfort. I am pleased to hear you think I’m merely mistaken rather than dishonest. [Or rather, merely overreacting.]
mark,
I guess I’ve been misinterpreting “pearl clutching” for years now….
.
But yes, I think if the legal argument goes along the lines of CO Supremes, the likelihood of parties trying to kick people off the ballot for no good reason is very small. Will some blowhard politicians “call” for things? Sure. But they will be knocked back by the court. It’s easy for a court to say “Sorry, no. Voting for higher taxes is not ‘insurrection’.”
.
We need to rules for identifying insurrection, for having sufficient due process and which entities can enforce disqualifications and how to be identified. But if the way those pan out means Trump is off, so be it. If he’s on, so be it.
.
This shouldn’t be a results oriented decision and I think the danger or taking people off just because Trump was is over blown.
.
I mean…. sure. Richard Nixon being investigated for impeachment and resigning shows the power of the threat of impeachment to get someone out of office. But it didn’t make congress constantly try to impeach everyone. And it didn’t cause Clinton’s impeachment. Clinton’s behavior did that. And Trumps behavior caused his impeachment.
.
(If Trump ends up in office again, we will continue to have a circus in DC. But that is also not relevant to the legal issue about his qualification for office.)
I understand what you’re saying I think. I guess we will see.
“Russian President Vladimir Putin continued to demonstrate that Russia is not interested in negotiating with Ukraine in good faith and that Russia’s maximalist objectives in Ukraine – which are tantamount to full Ukrainian and Western surrender – remain unchanged.” …ISW
There’s more:
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-16-2024
Ed Forbes,
Russell, no argument from me on Russia now being intransigent on peace terms.
.
Russia had the easy way out for Ukraine on the table at the start of the war, but the US and the British convinced Ukraine to pass on the terms.
.
At this point with the west in a full undeclared war against Russia, Russia thinks they are now required to go to the full partition of Ukraine along with the total demilitarization of Ukraine as they believe Russias entire existence is at stake.
.
Russia is now looking at Ukraine in a similar fashion as the US did with Cuba at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.
.
Sucks to be Ukraine, but thats what happens to small states that take sides in major power conflict. They get ground up like wheat between two millstones.
.
It was a FrankinSAM [Frankenstein Surface-to-Air Missile]
Lots of speculation about how Ukraine shot down Russia’s $500 million air defense duo. I have an analogy; shooting down this air defense system is like a thief going to a bank and stealing the alarm system. There have been a lot of WAGs about how it happened, but one plausible scheme has developed.
And, it’s a good read:
“Ukrainian Crews Set A Complex Missile Trap For Russia’s Best Radar Plane”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/16/ukrainian-crews-set-a-complex-missile-trap-for-russias-best-radar-plane/?sh=65cb3c843566
Lucia,
“But if the way those pan out means Trump is off, so be it. If he’s on, so be it.”
.
He’ll be on, with an opinion issued in record time…. since it will be close to cut-and-paste from amicus briefs.
.
The court will give multiple reasons, starting with the absurdity of politically appointed judges drawing a politically motivated conclusion about an ‘insurrection’ which was clearly not one, continuing with Congress has to make provisions to enforce exclusion, and that on top that, the process manifestly lacked due process. There will be lots of admonitions about courts entering politics and ‘damage to the republic’ as well, but those will mostly be legal scolding, not legal determinations.
As of yesterday, there have been 10 amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court, all 10 saying that Colorado does not have the constitutional authority to remove Trump from the ballot. The cut-off for filing amicus briefs is tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if any briefs are filed in support of Colorado.
.
The most surprising amicus is from one of Trumps primary opponents: Vivek.
SteveF,
Why is Vivek filing an amicus surprising? I think it’s not surprising. He wants to be popular with republicans. It’s a good political move.
Ed Forbes
I don’t see how it is even possible to see what happened to Ukraine being “happens to small states that take sides in major power conflict”.
“Chinese lab crafts mutant COVID-19 strain with 100% kill streak in ‘humanized’ mice: ‘Surprisingly’ rapid death”
.
Unbelievable that you would not only do that, but publish the fact for extra credit after what just happened! At least it’s receiving condemnation from experts.
lucia (Comment #228627): “I guess I’ve been misinterpreting “pearl clutching” for years now….”
.
I don’t think so. Pearl clutching refers to an excessively shocked reaction. It need not be in bad faith. Wikipedia is out of line with all the other sources I have checked.
On casualties in Gaza – a Lancet study correlating with UNRWA deaths to show that the Ministry’s numbers are if anything, understating the casualties. The most recent breakdown suggests ~73% women, children and elderly dead. Assuming ~1/3 of the males are combatants, one arrives at a civilian to combatant ratio of 92:8 which is similar to the euromed estimate. Or less than 3K Hamas dead. The Euromed estimate is apparently based on field documentation and also includes the people currently missing.
There was a study published in the Haaretz by an Israeli academic based on a 2 week period in October claiming 61% civilian casualties which might be the basis of the 9000 out of 24000 Hamas dead claim. The methodology assumes all males aged 18-59 as military combatants. This is apparently not uncommon in academic studies, so note to self for conflicts in the future.
Given that Hamas fighters are ~2% of the population, a 9:1 civilian casualty ratio indicates that the bombing is not entirely random. As time goes by, the number of indirect deaths due to disease, starvation, lack of medical care, hypothermia etc will increase. With 5% of the population killed or injured to perhaps kill less than 10% of Hamas, eliminating Hamas would perhaps require population scale damage that is unimaginable. Or, the goal may also be to make Gaza unlivable. Still though one side doesn’t throw gays off rooftops.
lucia (Comment #228627): “We need to rules for identifying insurrection, for having sufficient due process and which entities can enforce disqualifications and how to be identified. But if the way those pan out means Trump is off, so be it. If he’s on, so be it.”
.
Exactly. But in the absence of such rules, which must be made by Congress, it is not permissible to make up rules to fit Trump.
.
The only such rule extant is a piece of the Insurrection Act that is still in force. That is the only basis for applying Section 3.
Vivek is sucking up to Trump for a spot in his administration. He endorsed Trump when he dropped out. Haley also refuses to say she won’t be Trump’s VP so I’m guessing that might happen as well.
Regarding pearl clutching, I didn’t actually know what it meant either. Google led me to this:
From the Cambridge English Dictionary apparently.
[Edit: I don’t really have a dog in this fight either way and don’t care about the general usage. My only immediate interest is understanding what Lucia meant, which I think I now do. So. Shrug.]
Mike –
.
> Exactly. But in the absence of such rules, which must be made by Congress, it is not permissible to make up rules to fit Trump.
.
You’re just making up rules to exclude Trump.
RB –
.
> RB –
.
> With 5% of the population killed or injured to perhaps kill less than 10% of Hamas, eliminating Hamas would perhaps require population scale damage that is unimaginable.
.
Let’s assume a wide uncertainty range and tip the range towards numbers favorable to Israel’s campaign.
.
Let’s say they’ve killed or captured 10,000 Hamas fighters. Let’s go with the low end of the estimated total of 30,000 Hamas fighters. We can factor in that perhaps the ratio of fighters to civilian deaths will increase as tactics lean away from large-scale bombing to more targeted attacks. But I’d guess that will be way more than canceled out as civilians die at a higher rate from injuries already sustained and disease spread and famine widened (the UN reports on food security are dim).
.
So a projection of 3 X the current casualty numbers among civilians would be a conservative estimate. And that would be at some putative inflection point where Hamas was “eradicated” but the civilian deaths from this incursion, no doubt, will continue on. All of Gaza effectively a parking lot. No infrastructure. Effectively no healthcare remaining. Effectively no fully functioning hospitals, crippled ability to treat for disease. Outbreaks among masses of homeless people. And at that moment that Hamas is “eradicated” no doubt a constant stream of those affected by watching their family members die will redouble in their desire to kill all Israelis. And as far as I can tell no one has any realistic idea of what’s to happen next. There’s zero evidence that I’ve seen that Israel is putting in place any kind of plan for what happens on the day after.
.
Meanwhile, there are many reasons to think that escalation of violence with Hezbollah at Israel’s northern border are increasingly likely. Now there seems to be a low scale equilibrium of violence. Apparently the US has played a big role in convincing Israel to not engage on a larger scale. The longer the mass killing of civilians in Gaza, I’d guess the more likely escalation with Hezbollah. So I’d say, in a sense, to some degree, what happens if that conflict escalates could be considered another cost of the policy re Gaza.
.
Here’s a different study looking at number of deaths per strike as reported in major western media. Compared to similar studies by AOAV in the past, the current conflict has 4X the number of casualties per strike. An 8:1 civilian casualty rate is quite possible. Given that Gaza hospitals, universities, administrative buildings, etc are being systematically destroyed, the goal must be to convince the population that they have no future there. Israel has also destroyed a majority of Gaza agricultural areas and their fishing fleet. I recently watched the Ken Burns documentary “American buffaloes” where the army tacitly encouraged the killing of bison by commercial hunters to starve the Indians whose population after disease and starvation dropped by 90%. This is probably the 21st century version of expelling the indigenous population.
It’s interesting to me how there’s a range of whether or at what point “Well, it’s a shame Hamas attacked Israel on 10/7” is no longer a sufficient response against the level of misery in Gaza.
.
For some, no level of misery in Gaza renders that response insufficient. For others, I guess there would be some inflection point where it becomes insufficient, but doubt for many people it’s a clear or even coherent calculation. For yet others it was never sufficient.
.
For the most part I tend to think it’s not an answerable question unless there’s a serious attempt to investigate and weigh costs and benefits, at least with some effort to project that analysis with counterfactual thinking. That’s why it doesn’t make sense, to me, to proclaim that Isrealis policies are advisable without at least trying to address what comes next. Of course that’s within a range. I think a minimal incursion would have been “worth it.” But the horse has already escaped out of that barn. I think killing and/or “cleansing” everyone in Gaza wouldn’t be “worth it.” But that doesn’t seem to me (and I hope isn’t) a plausible outcome.
Joshua,
It would be a full time research project for me to try to investigate and weigh the cost and benefits. Why would I bother? [Edit: I see no reason to.] Israel will do what it will do regardless. I see no benefit that would justify the enormous expenditure of my time and effort doing that.
RB –
.
>…the goal must be to convince the population that they have no future there.
.
It was a stated objective early in the incursion to convince Palestinians to reject and expel Hamas. Looking beyond the unrealisticness of such an objective (predictably, it has had the opposite effect thus far, although I’ve read that interestingly, the popularity of Hamas in the West Bank is higher while the popularity of the PA is higher in Gaza), and the fact that attacking civilians for the political purpose is the definition of terrorism, I’m not sure how to separate a goal of convincing them expel Hamas from a goal of convincing them to flee Gaza.
.
Isreal knows they have no place to go. So how could the rationalize a goal to have them flee Gaza. I mean of course some Israelis just want them gone, and don’t care if it’s because they’ve left or because they’re dead. But certainly not all, or is say even a large minority, feel that way. Not ignoring that a relatively high percentage of people influential in the government might feel that way, this is a other indication to me that this whole Gaza policy hasn’t been an outcome of a rational development process. Factors like shock and rage and trauma and embarrassment and a desire for vengeance, imo, seem like the more likely drivers of these policies.
I don’t have to conduct a cost benefit analysis anytime I want to form an opinion. I have heuristics for that that are much simpler and serve adequately most of the time. Rule of thumb — enemy sneak attacks you and escapes with hostages. Hit back!
Much quicker. I can move on to the next thing now. Perfect? Obviously not. But I don’t think it makes a difference if my heuristics lead me into mistakes every once in a while, since I’m just gabbing my opinions on a blog anyway.
Joshua,
West Bank is not paying the same price, so there is greater support for Hamas there. Prior to 10/7, Hamas was unpopular in Gaza though the support was also not negligible. At the same time, more than half of Israelis support the expulsion of Israeli Arabs (2015 poll) including 36% of secular Jews, so that is the nature of this conflict.
Mark –
.
For you to bother would only be an academic exercise, or perhaps to be able to argue on blogs.
.
I find it tragic that as far as I can tell, Israel has not based its policies here on a careful consideration of costs and benefits. It’s not surprising. Imo, it was no different for us after 9/11. But that doesn’t make it any less tragic, imo. In parf, for me, because I care about Isreal and I’m concerned about the existential threat faced by Jews in Isreal. There’s even an element where it’s a concern for me as Jew in the US. I think it’s likely that as the civilians deaths pile up antisemitism may well increase. Of course, antisemitism isn’t a justifiable response to Israel’s policies. But that just does seem to me like an important cost to consider.
Mark –
.
Looks like we sorta crossed yet again.
Sure. We use heuristics all the time. But there’s nothing mutually exclusive here. We can use analysis mixed with heuristics and heuristics mixed with analysis.
This is an interesting legal theory discussed by Jason Reilly– it’s by Paulsen and Baude. I haven’t found a brief. (Sounds like I need to hunt for “National Republican Senatorial Committee”.)
.
Reilly’s post is here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-disqualified-trump-could-still-appear-on-the-ballot-2024-colorado-maine-14th-amendment-1e9c2c00?mod=opinion_lead_pos9
It seems to amount to Trump is discqualified. However, since Congress does have the power to lift disqualification, he can’t be taken off the ballot. Instead, SCOTUS could rule him disqualified. He’d still be on the ballot. Then if he is elected, the question of lifting the disqualification is up to Congress. If they lift it by 2/3rds majority, he gets sworn in. If they don’t lift it, the VP candidate is sworn in.
.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-disqualified-trump-could-still-appear-on-the-ballot-2024-colorado-maine-14th-amendment-1e9c2c00
.
I kinda like it in the sense it seems to hang together as an idea. But I’d like to see an amicus brief is one is filed. For it to happen this way, SCOTUS would have to rule he is disqualified. (If they rule he’s absolutely not disqualified they have to let him on. If they rule he may or may not be, depends on other things they say.)
RB –
.
> At the same time, more than half of Israelis support the expulsion of Israeli Arabs (2015 poll) including 36% of secular Jews, so that is the nature of this conflict.
.
Do you have a link for that? I have a hard find believing that many.want to expel all Israeli Arabs (of only because of the huge economic impact of doing so).
Lucia –
.
That is an interesting idea. I don’t have a key to unlock the WSJ paywall. How does this fit with what French talked about, from the same authors where they wrote that the originalist perspective justifies taking him off the ballot?
.
[edit: what a mess that would be if he were elected and didn’t get a 2/3 majority]
AFAICT there was no genetic modification in the mice study. They took an existing virus and studied it in mice. The threat here is that they are force introducing it into a different species where it might then naturally mutate in the mice to something far more dangerous to humans and escape the lab. This type of thing needs to just stop.
The brief mentioned in the WSJ article is here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-696/294844/20240103183952480_23-696%20tsac%20NRSC.pdf
Joshua, anyone interested in the Amicus brief above
The brief is silent on a lot of other questions. It’s a brief, not an appeal. So it doesn’t have to deal with everything. It’s also a brief written by the CO GOP central committee, so the are obviously going to avoid certain legal questions if they aren’t relevant to their main argument. (I mean… why delve into whether Jan 6 was or was not an insurrection, if it doesn’t matter to yoru argument.)
I think the brief is silent on precisely how according to their theory congress decides the disqualification– but I assume by simple majority?
Sorry Joshua,
I guess I don’t understand what you are saying here:
I read this as saying ‘it doesn’t make sense in your view for people to suggest the way that Israel is prosecuting the war is or is not advisable without trying to address what comes next, because without a serious attempt to investigate and weigh costs and benefits, we can’t know if the suffering being imposed in Gaza is worth it’, approximately.
I don’t know that I am parsing this correctly. If you feel like it’s worth it, could you rephrase your point?
Joshua
I’m reading… I thinkbased on the WSJ article, the general idea is:
1) On or around time between now and innaugration (or actually, even after innauguration!!), Congress votes to disqualify Trump.
2) If majority votes he is disqualified, he is disqualfied. For that period, VP would be acting president or acting president elect.
3) Unless or until Congress votes to lift disqualification, VP is pretty much president.
.
But so far, I’m not seeing how exactly disqualification would work called out in the amicus brief. I would really hope we could know what the precise mechanism is before election. They do say Congress decides. But details, details…. It might be nice if they were filled in! Otherwise we are at risk for potentially endless lawsuits about questions like: Can the current congress vote before the next recess? Is simple majority ok? If current Congress votes and does not disqualify, can the entering congress vote and get the opposite result? (That works for statues.) Can Congress vote any old time they please? (Like, say in Feb there is a GOP majority of 1 but two GOP guys get hit by a bus so they temporarily can’t vote, can Congress rush to he’s disqualified then?)
.
This argument at least holds somewhat together as far as I can see. I don’t think the lack of details on the other questions makes it wrong– I’d just like to know those!!
Lucia –
.
> majority votes he is disqualified, he is disqualified.
.
Based on French’s discussion, I got the impression (based on the wording of Section 3) he would be disqualified unless Congress voted 2/3 to exempt him from disqualification. IOW, from section 3:
.
.
Maybe I’ve got that wrong, though. Maybe that’s not the aspect that applies?
Joshua,
French didn’t write this amicus brief, he didn’t write Jason Riley’s post. I have no idea what French has to do with this theory.
.
I haven’t read French’s pay walled pod cast and don’t plan to because it’s a podcast. So I have no theory on French’s ideas (whoever he even is.)
.
But beyond that
No idea about French’s discussion. And what I quoted above us is silent on how we would know Trump is disqualified in the first place.
.
Section 3 doesn’t tell us anything about who decides that, nor how we can tell. Courts? Which one? Congress? etc.
Mark –
.
I don’t understand what you don’t understand.
.
That is what I was saying, (although more clearly stated).
.
Is that so far wide of the mark that you’d be confused how I could have that crazy opinion?
Lucia –
.
Lol. OK, let’s just remove any mention of French. I won’t even eat French fries as I type. There’s no direct link to French.
.
My point was merely to raise the question of whether that wording of section 3 would suggest that a 2/3 vote would be needed to exclude him from disqualification rather than to disqualify him.
Joshua,
Ok. LOL.
I don’t see how that would work. I could assign my own subjective arbitrary value to a Palestinian child, and a Palestinian woman, and a small building, and a power substation. Hmm. Maybe 10 kids are worth a power substation? Maybe the other way around. I’ll try to be careful of rhetorical questions but the point I’m trying to make is that I don’t see how anybody can do this objectively. How do I compute the value of an increase of 25% risk for an IDF soldier vs an increased probability of needing to demolish and fully rebuild 4 concrete highway overpasses, for example. And so on and so on.
I don’t see how anyone could do this in principle. It makes me think I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Possibly I still don’t understand what you are talking about.
Joshua,
“You’re just making up rules to exclude Trump”
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/20/14th-amendment-doesn-t-bar-trump-from-presidency-alas/b36a93e8-3f54-11ee-9677-53cc50eb3f77_story.html
“The Supreme Court as a whole has never directly interpreted Section 3. But in 1869, the chief justice of the United States, Salmon P. Chase, issued a circuit court opinion in Griffin’s Case interpreting Section 3. (At the time, it was normal for Supreme Court justices also to work as circuit court judges.) In it, Chase held that Section 3 was not automatically enforceable — what lawyers call “self-enforcing” — but rather could only go into effect if Congress passed a law directing its implementation. Such legislation is not today in existence.
A circuit court decision, even one written by a sitting chief justice, doesn’t formally bind the judiciary or even the other courts of appeal. Nevertheless, the opinion is overwhelmingly the most important precedent interpreting Section 3. It has not been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court or the other courts of appeal since it was set down more than 150 years ago. Because it is still on the books, ignoring it would be an act of legal irresponsibility.”
.
The self executing debate is unresolved. It is deep into the legal weeds but it isn’t making things up.
https://lessig.medium.com/why-trump-should-not-be-removed-v3-8f3b07f740a8
lucia (Comment #228659): “1) On or around time between now and innaugration (or actually, even after innauguration!!), Congress votes to disqualify Trump.”
.
What gives Congress the power to disqualify a presidential candidate? Nothing that I can see.
.
The text in the 20th Amendment is interesting:
That is similar to what was done in the only recent (circa 1940) case of an underage Senator. The Senate refused to swear him in until his 30th birthday.
“the goal must be to convince the population that they have no future there”
.
The goal stated over and over is to remove Hamas from power. This can easily be tested by returning the hostages and Hamas surrendering. The war stops the next day.
.
That’s not going to happen. Knowing that, the secondary goals are more likely to influence Gaza to elect a more rationale government themselves (one that doesn’t willfully initiate this kind of punishing war) or even further down the road to convince Hamas that their policy of using human shields will no longer be honored tactically. If Hamas truly believed the human shield policy wasn’t useful they wouldn’t implement it.
.
What is probably true is Oct 7th gave Israel license to ignore the human shield tactic, at least for a while. They still didn’t have to be this vicious, but it was now an option, and they took it. The pressure to stop this level of carnage will now be high enough for them to change tactics but the message of deterrence has been sent.
FrankenSAM is still a bastard but it is an orphan no longer. The US and Ukrainian governments have fessed up that they are the parents.
“FrankenSAM is a hybrid air defense system jointly developed by the Pentagon, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, and the Ministry of Strategic Industry”
“These are three anti-aircraft missile complexes: the Soviet Buk air defense system with American RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles, AIM-9M air-to-air missiles in combination with Soviet radars and air defense systems based on Ukrainian old systems with Patriot elements and missiles.”
Further reading:
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/26861
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1747594297304645815?s=20
https://babel.ua/amp/news/102928-v-ukrajini-vpershe-zastosuvali-sistemu-ppo-proyektu-frankensam-zbili-shahed-na-vidstani-9-km
https://www.wsj.com/world/china/chinese-lab-mapped-deadly-coronavirus-two-weeks-before-beijing-told-the-world-documents-show-9bca8865?st=6omdgtfztjj8nt9&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“Chinese researchers isolated and (genetically) mapped the virus that causes Covid-19 in late December 2019, at least two weeks before Beijing revealed details of the deadly virus to the world
…
The first known publication of the sequence of the Covid virus, called SARS-CoV-2, came on Jan. 11, 2020”
.
I don’t think this changes much of anything but reinforces the fact that the Chinese have not been forthcoming on the origins of this virus. It’s possible they were also very worried it originated from the lab for obvious reasons and they didn’t want to release the info.
MikeM
I’m saying that would appear to be the theory under this amicus brief
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-696/294844/20240103183952480_23-696%20tsac%20NRSC.pdf
I said some details are left open under that theory.
.
(I do think anyone’s theory about Section 3 needs some theory where someone could be disqualified– and that theory can’t be “the public didn’t elect them.)
Joshua
Section 3 is very clear that 2/3rds of each house is required to remove the disqualification. It is silent about what is required to identify or enforce it.
.
.
A spot must exist before it can be removed. There’s no difference with a “disqualification”. But I don’t actually see anything that tells us which entities ore persons get to decide it exists nin the first place.
.
The theory under this GOP amicus is that “only Congress” can identify or enforce it. But it is silent how Congress does that. It seems to think they can do disqualify him under Section 3 whenever they want.
The theory under this GOP amicus also seems to think the 20th amendement somehow buttresses that Congress can enforce the disqualifcation– but I don’t see how. And they really don’t elaborate. The only thing I see is the VP serves if the President has “failed to qualify”.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xx
MikeM,
I think we are agreeing? Neither the 14th amendment nor the 20th give specifically give Congress power to disqualify? But you do have a case where they enforced an existing disqualification (one related to age.)
.
Do you know the name of the Senator from the 1940s so we might be able to find out exactly how the organized waiting for his birthday?
Tom Sharf
Did you read that case? Because you aren’t quoting text from the case. Chase was discussing a specific way in which it was not “self-enforcing”. And all he did was the court orders of a defacto judge judge would apply even if he was not a judge dejure. So even though the judge might not be in his office legally his orders stand.
.
Chase didn’t actually say the judge was not disqualified. Only that to get him out of office required action. That action hadn’t happened. So he was– defacto– still in office– and his ruling stand.
.
The case was not about kicking the judge out of office but about setting aside his rulings.
.
And it also wouldn’t bind them to something that was not quite what Chase meant.
I read the article that I posted the text directly from. I don’t have opinions on these technical legal arguments, only that they are significantly above the threshold of “making things up” and there is significant legal disagreement which 1000 hours of investigation won’t help me predict a SC outcome. The same for issues such as standing. We shall see what happens, furious opinions will have little bearing on the outcome.
.
If the SC can get a unanimous agreement then I expect it will rule narrowly on technical legal grounds from the list of possibilities. I don’t expect the liberal justices are going to sign up to “Trump isn’t an insurrectionist”. If they don’t get this then it may end up being a 6-3 clear smack down.
States and localities have done disqualifications under the 14th amendment.
I think people are assuming too much in saying the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Trump and against Colorado. I think there is a majority that does not want Trump to be President.
FWIW.
What I was referring to earlier is that with respect to the question of being self-executing, the person who shall not be named – presumably to a large degree based the article written by originalist law scholars – says, starting with quoting from secriin 3:
.
.
So that kinda makes sense to me. The argument is that the application of disqualification for insurrection was deliberately broad. The context was that a specific application could have been written to specify people who tried to secede from the union in violation of the Constitution. But that wasn’t the goal. The goal was to have a broader application and that’s why it wasn’t explicitly drawn, in order to protect against situations like where someone who was involved an an attempt to violently prevent the constitutional process of transfer of power would be barred from the presidency unless Congress by a 2/3 majority chose to deem otherwise.
Tom,
I read the ruling, not just selective quotes.
.
I agree that reading a 1000 things won’t make us know what Scotus wrote. But sometimes you do have to read a thing to know what it says. What it actually said may have some force if SCOTUS cares about that ruling.
Tom –
.
You referenced a case to say it’s not clear if it’s self-executing. Which is entirely in line with my point that if you think it’s “making things up” to apply it to Trump then you’re also “making things up” if you’re going to exclude him.
.
My point is that deciding which way is “making things up” requires an actual argument (as the one made by the originalists) and just stomping your feet and arguing by assertion leaves something to be desired.
The Chevron Doctrine is under fire at the Supreme Court. This is important. It might reign in out-of-control federal bureaucrats.
AI:
“The Chevron doctrine, also known as Chevron deference, is a legal principle that requires federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute. The doctrine is based on the idea that judges should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguities in the laws they implement, as long as those interpretations are reasonable.”
The petitioner’s attorney:
“I think it’s really as simple as this: which is when the statute is ambiguous, and the tie has to go to someone, we think the tie should go to the citizen and not the government,” Clement added. “And one of the many problems with the Chevron rule is it basically says that when the statutory question is close, the tie goes to the government, and that just doesn’t make any sense to us.”
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1224939610/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine
Tom –
.
>…but the message of deterrence has been sent.
.
One thing that puzzles me is how many people have great faith in the benefits of sending messages of deterence even in the face of a lack of evidence of how effective it is.
.
Israel had been sending messages if deterrence for over seven decades prior to 10/7. 10/7 might be considered an indication of how well that worked. Disproportionate response has arguably only made the existential threat to Israel worse. It certainly hasn’t eliminated it. Not that there are any easy answers. There aren’t any. But they do say that trying the same thing over and over while expecting different results… well…may not be the best policy.
lucia (Comment #228673): “I think we are agreeing? Neither the 14th amendment nor the 20th give specifically give Congress power to disqualify?”
.
I don’t know if we agree or not.
.
Each House has the power to judge the qualifications of their members and to refuse to seat someone. Other than that, the 14th gives Congress power to write the rules, which they did in the now-repealed Enforcement Act.
.
The 20th Amendment suggests that the people have the right to elect a President who is not qualified, since it says that the VP then serves as president until the disqualification is removed.
—-
lucia: “But you do have a case where they enforced an existing disqualification (one related to age.)”
.
Yes, and there was no suggestion that the people had no right to elect the guy or that there was any role for the courts to play in the process.
.
lucia” Do you know the name of the Senator from the 1940s so we might be able to find out exactly how the organized waiting for his birthday?”
.
I do not recall the name. He was from West Virginia, elected sometime around 1940. He had to wait a few months to be seated.
——-
There have been multiple cases of both the House and Senate not enforcing age requirements, mostly from the early 1800’s. The most famous might be Henry Clay who was already a former Senator on his 30th birthday. Nobody knows who the youngest House member was since people then often did not know their birth dates.
.
Albert Gallatin was elected to the Senate from PA in the early 1790’s. He was seated, but then the PA legislature flipped from Federalist to anti-Federalist and the Federalists in the Senate saw a chance to pick up a seat. So he was unseated on a strict party line vote on the grounds that he had not been a citizen long enough (he was a few months short) and a Federalist was elected to take his place. Again, no role for the courts.
The qualifications for president is a federal issue, not a state issue.
.
First consider that the constitution deals with the ability to “hold office”, not “run” for office.
.
Even dead or under age is not a disqualification to be elected to the office. Examples exist of both dead and underage elected to office. In the case of underage, the Senate refused to seat the elected candidate until reached the age of majority.
.
Again…the issue under the constitution is to “hold” office, not the eligibility to “run” for office. Once elected, its up to congress consider eligibility to serve in the office, not the states.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy
.
“In 1964, Congressman Jed Johnson Jr. of Oklahoma was elected to the 89th Congress in the 1964 election while still aged 24 years. However, he became eligible for the House after turning 25 on his birthday, 27 December 1964, seven days before his swearing in, making him the youngest legally elected and seated member of the United States Congress.”
.
“In 1934, Rush Holt of West Virginia was elected to the Senate of the United States at the age of 29. Since the U.S. Constitution requires senators to be at least 30, Holt was forced to wait until his 30th birthday, six months after the start of the session, before being sworn in.”
Article II
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
.
Fourteenth Amendment
“Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
“I think there is a majority that does not want Trump to be President.”
.
Are they willing to have partisans and the judiciary do it instead of the voters? I doubt the majority wants that, but they might decide the strict reading of the law allows the banning of candidates in this way.
The level of suffering in Gaza is orthogonal to the fundamental issue: Hama must go. Framing the war as some kind of ‘payback’ is just silly, as is suggesting the war should end when the suffering reaches a certain level. Nope. It ends when Hamas is gone. This isn’t even a hard thing to understand.
Joshua,
You are allowed to name whoever you are quoting. It makes things clearer. There is no prohbition to quoting French or Klein if that’s who you are quoting. I’m just not going to go read a paywalled transcript of a podcast because (a) it’s paywalled and (b) it’s a podcast. If you quote from it and give us context along with your argument, that’s fine.
.
What’s “this” that’s operating? Section 3? Trump’s disqualification? Something hypothetical in a hypothetical even that Congress votes to lift the disqualification? All sort of real.
.
Because yes, it is true that Congress is not going to bother to lift a disqualification unless it already exists or is operating.
.
But that tells us nothing about whether it “exists” in Trumps case, or who gets to decree it exists.
But what do we need?
The GOP brief I’ve been linking seems to think only Congress can put it in place. But they really don’t cite anything to tell us that is so. They just seem to infer that if only Congress can lift the disqualification, they are the only one’s who can put it in place. That’s a ginormous leap of logic.
.
Maybe everyone can throw logs in the way. Or maybe they can’t. I don’t know. We’ll see.
.
Mark –
.
> I could assign my own subjective arbitrary value to a Palestinian child, and a Palestinian woman, and a small building, and a power substation. Hmm. Maybe 10 kids are worth a power substation? Maybe the other way around. I’ll try to be careful of rhetorical questions but the point I’m trying to make is that I don’t see how anybody can do this objectively.
.
I’m not suggesting that it can be done objectively, nor that it can be done perfectly even if you could be objective. There’s a lot of subjectivity and uncertainty involved.
.
But neither as I think one shouldn’t move in such such circumstances until you’re sure you have the perfect analysis, nor do I think it makes sense to just not even try to consider outcome pathways into the future.
.
> I don’t see how anyone could do this in principle.
.
I’m quite sure that typically policy makers employ “experts” for planning scenarios to game out likely future outcomes before most military action. Of course “experts” are often wrong in these things, sometimes more wrong than right. I don’t think that obviates the widsom of government officials using input and their own reasoning to try to think in advance of action about potential future outcomes and their likelihood. Just responding out of reflex emotions or political expediency don’t seem logical to me. I know you’re prolly sick of me referencing 9/11 but I think that’s a good example of how a lack of attention to outcomes planning proved to be a huge mistake.
Joshua, when Israel invaded Lebanon, they took out 1500 Hezbollah fighters. The disproportionate response bought them time while Hezbollah had to rebuild.
Steve,
Innocent children are the collateral damage in the fight. Different tactics can increase or decrease the collateral damage and decrease or increase the risk to IDF soldiers.
If the lives of innocents are of no concern, I wonder if you feel comfortable with the suggestion that tactical nuclear weapons might be the most efficient way to make sure Hamas is gone. Would that be OK in your view?
[Edit: ARE innocent lives of any concern in your view?]
Oddly… I seem to have hit a non-paywall version?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/opinion/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-david-french.html
“This” has the usual lack of clarity from transcripts of podcasts.
But when French said “Does this operate without Congress doing anything?”. He means “does section 13 disqualification operate without Congress doing anything”. And he says yes. But that sidesteps the question because it doesn’t give any hint of the mechanism for operation. It doesn’t tell us when Congress might need to bother to vote to lift the qualification.
.
The podcast is…. well… a podcast. When I read it, I am reminded why I find podcasts pretty worthless. And why I never seek out the Ezra Klein show.
Joshua,
No, that’s fine. I think I didn’t really understand what you meant then and I’m glad I asked. Thanks for answering.
[Edit: I know you firmly believe this:
That Israel acted this way. You may be right. I’m not convinced, personally, either way.]
Joshua,
5 years from now you are on the Gaza government planning committee and someone recommends another Oct 7th type of attack because … reasons. What is your feedback for that recommendation?
.
It’s not assumed to be a permanent solution, although sometimes it is.
.
Deterrence: the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.
Lucia –
.
> It doesn’t tell us when Congress might need to bother to vote to lift the qualification.
.
Why does there need to be a need to vote? My take is just that French was saying that Congress can choose to have a vote to lift the disqualification as it sees fit. Of course if there’s no specification of a triggering mechanism for a vote, and no procedural description, yeah that could create problems.
Mark –
.
> I’m not convinced, personally, either way.]
.
I think at baseline, shock, a desire for vengeance, etc., is a fair presumption. In this particular context we have a history to look at, and a population characterized by generational and likely inherited trauma. And I’ve been hearing from many Israelis how they were shocked and teainirized, and humiliated that their sense of security was undermined by what is effectively a ragtag collection of terrorists against their vastly superior military.
.
But on top of all of that, I see no indication at all that they’re executing this action within a context of a long-term or medium-term plan. They responded almost immediately, arguably squandering a chance to capitalize sympathy from around the world and in particular the Arab nations with which they were in the process of negotiating working relationships. And then there’s the lost opportunity to communicate to Palestinians that they had a viable plan for them that offered them something better than what Hamas offers them. This is what that Israeli defense insider discussed in that podcast (sorry Lucia) that I linked for you. It’s not like I’m out on some kind of a radical limb here.
I’m going to risk double-posting as I may have deleted this comment:
.
January 17th, 2024 at 4:59 pm Edit Delete
Mark –
.
> I’m not convinced, personally, either way.]
.
I think at baseline, shock, a desire for vengeance, etc., is a fair presumption. In this particular context we have a history to look at, and a population characterized by generational and likely inherited trauma. And I’ve been hearing from many Israelis how they were shocked and teainirized, and humiliated that their sense of security was undermined by what is effectively a ragtag collection of terrorists against their vastly superior military.
.
But on top of all of that, I see no indication at all that they’re executing this action within a context of a long-term or medium-term plan. They responded almost immediately, arguably squandering a chance to capitalize sympathy from around the world and in particular the Arab nations with which they were in the process of negotiating working relationships. And then there’s the lost opportunity to communicate to Palestinians that they had a viable plan for them that offered them something better than what Hamas offers them. This is what that Israeli defense insider discussed in that podcast (sorry Lucia) that I linked for you. It’s not like I’m out on some kind of a radical limb here.
.
Why didn’t Israel address the immediate sixdoru failure to prevent any chance of a similar attack in the near term? Take a few weeks to think things through? Work closely with their Arab nation allies to discuss how they could reasons without destroying their binding alliance? Build support around the world? Work on a plan to communicate with Palestinians about a way forward? Work to increase the viability of the PA? And work to build a plan for a targeted response that wouldn’t cause the same massive number of civilian casualties?
Joshua,
Your position is plain, I get that you think that. Yet you said earlier:
I’m glad, I think this too. I hadn’t raised it yet because I haven’t been able to find any supporting documentation to link that Israel rolls this way, but yes. This is the way sophisticated militaries operate. I think Israel had already gamed out contingency plans about what they would do come the day they decided to remove Hamas. Seriously, how not?
I really don’t think they gave it as little thought as you seem to think. I think that you disagree with the decisions / conclusions they came to, but that’s not the same thing.
I could be wrong, I often am.
Tom –
.
> 5 years from now you are on the Gaza government planning committee and someone recommends another Oct 7th type of attack because … reasons. What is your feedback for that recommendation?
.
I’m not sure I jnsstsns the point of this question. My recommendation would be to not launch the attack of course. For many reasons but among them because the medium- and long-term consequences would likely be disastrous. But my recommendations are kind of irrelevant. Hamas has chosen to launch terror attacks in spite of and prolly to some degree because of what has happened in the name of “deterrence.”
.
> It’s not assumed to be a permanent solution, although sometimes it is.
.
“it” being deterence?
.
>Deterrence: the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt.
.
So are you saying you should follow a deterence strategy irrespective of whether there’s evidence of any benefit?
Mark –
.
> I really don’t think they gave it as little thought as you seem to think. I think that you disagree with the decisions / conclusions they came to, but that’s not the same thing.
.
Could be for sure. Obviously I can’t know for certain.
.
But I think you may be underestimating the polical aspect and the influence of the Jewish religious fanatics on Bibi’s administration
Certainly a possibility.
There should always be a deterrence strategy, what that is exactly depends on the situation. It can be economic and other things.
.
The question remains why Hamas chose to do this on Oct 7th when it was plainly obvious what the response was likely to be. Any idea? We have the rightful revenge against the colonial settlers narrative which doesn’t seem very persuasive.
.
To give Hamas some minimal grace that they aren’t just Hitler level murderous maniacs to both Israel and Gaza my speculation is that it turned out to be much more catastrophically successful than expected due in part to Israeli incompetence. In order to maintain operational security Hamas’s soldiers weren’t trained well enough to not slaughter a bunch of unarmed civilians and the chaos got way out of control. And they filmed it on GoPro cameras, brilliant operational plan.
.
I would say Israel has been properly deterred from allowing Hamas from governing Gaza in the near future.
.
Hamas definitely now knows what is going to happen next time a genius tactician comes up with a similar plan, the deterrence effect is self evident assuming a minimal level of a rational actor.
.
As far as turn the other cheek and just militarize the border this runs the risk of the exact opposite of deterrence, emboldening them that there will not be a price to pay. My idea was for Israel to line up on the border and give Hamas 30 days to release the hostages and call for UN brokered elections (otherwise carnage). At least then the population would have a minimal ability to give proper feedback to their wise leaders. I don’t think either of these was realistic because the level of atrocity demanded a response.
.
Israel left Gaza in 2005(?) but that didn’t demonstrably work either. Middle East culture seems to respond more to the stick than the carrot. I don’t expect any of these ideas to solve this problem, only try to keep the destruction minimized for a period of time after this war is over.
Tom –
.
First, I should apologize for what I realize in retrospect was a rhetorical question above. I’ve come to like the prohibition of rhetorical questions as while I think they aren’t inherently a bad thing, they aren’t typically as productive as alternatives. And the prohibition makes me realize how easily I can gravitate towards them.
.
> There should always be a deterrence strategy, what that is exactly depends on the situation. It can be economic and other things.
.
Indeed. In fact, as I thought about it I realized that pushing towards a negotiated agreement is also a form of deterence.
.
But it’s interesting how often, many of the same people who talk about Hamas as a “death cult,” where it’s members desire and value death (counterposed to Israelis who cherish life), also make what I think are facile assumptions about the power of violence, even more so disproportionate violence, as an effective means of deterrence.
.
[Edit: so what’s the logic? If you believe that someone is motivated by death, than how is threatening them with death a “deterrence?” Seems if anything, logically, it would be an encouragement. And indeed, seems to me that’s pretty much EXACTLY how it works out.]
.
Seems to me that one thing that the history of this conflict shows, it’s that that is a weak strategy. I’d say that if anything, disproportionate violence in response to the terrorist attacks may even have the opposite of the assumed effect with Hamas, and there’s even solid evidence that it has the opposite effect with the civilian population in Gaza.
.
> As far as turn the other cheek…
.
Where does this notion come from? I mean it seems that your sometimes unaddressed responses are intended to address something I’ve said, but I can’t assume that’s the case. But when you speak of “turning the other cheek,” are you referring to anything I said? If so, could you provide or point to the excerpt? I can tell you that in no way do I think, or did I ever intentionally want to convey that I think a “turn the other cheek” concept is remotely applicable here. I think it’s completely off the table (for a variety of reasons). Steve seemed to think that I’m suggesting peaches and cream and Kumbaya also. Perhaps you and he are reacting to the same thing that I said that resembles such a belief in your view?
.
>As far as turn the other cheek and just militarize the border this runs the risk of the exact opposite of deterrence, emboldening them that there will not be a price to pay.
.
The evidence over 8 decades arguably suggests that disproportionate violence is what “emboldens” them. I’m not flatly rejecting the logic you present. I’m just saying that applying the logic based on some kind of assumed law of war or conflict, or some assumed behavioral calculus, seems far from a smart thing to do, IMO. And I find it perplexing how many people seem to do just that as seemingly an article of faith.
.
> Israel left Gaza in 2005(?) but that didn’t demonstrably work either.
.
There were a variety of factors that complicate a simple logic there.
.
Certainly, the pullout of Gaza was not a ‘turn the other cheek” move on the part of Israel. The situation was very complex and this wouldn’t be the place to get into an in-depth discussion, but if you’re offering that as counter evidence to a negotiated settlement it fails because it was famously unilateral. If you’re offering it as counter evidence to “turning the other cheek” I guess in a sense it might be closer but I would argue it’s far from the mark and if your comment was directed at me, then I never suggested “turning the other cheek.”
.
Middle East culture seems to respond more to the stick than the carrot.
.
I remember an interview with Tom Friedman saying that “the stick” was the only thing that Arabs understand, in justification for the invasion of Iraq. IIRC, he later came to acknowledge that his thinking in support of the invasion was fault. Even if not, I think that’s a pretty weak justification for using disproportionate violence now when it hasn’t worked over some 80 years – not the least because Israel could be considered a part of “Middle East Culture.”
.
Again, I don’t reject the thinking completely, but I think it fails as a very useful frame. People in the “Middle East Culture,” I’d say, are in general motivated largely by many of the same drivers that explain non-Middle East Culture. Peace. Agency. Security. Prosperity. Freedom. Family. No doubt, we can characterize the forms of governance that predominate in the Middle East, but methinks going from that to conclude that “the stick” is uniformly more beneficial than the “carrot” (freedom, prosperity, agency, security, peace – aren’t they all “carrots”)…well, I dunno. I think your absolute proclamations that seem to embed total confidence about “Middle East Culture” might bear some benefit from nuance that could come from more scrutiny. Just one person’s perspective.
Joshua,
It seems to me there needs to be some way of deciding there is a disqualification in the first place. I mean, if only one person thinks a candidate is disqualified, why would you need to vote to lift the disqualification? I know more than one person in Congress thinks Trump is disqualified. But I don’t think 10 would be enough. And so on.
.
Now if a court or state had decided he was disqualified, maybe that triggers the need for a vote. But something needs to “establish” his disqualification in the first place.
.
There needs to be some way to figure out a disqualification exists in the first place. We don’t just have Congress “lifting” non-existent disqualifications every election.
Other than by voting, I don’t see how Congress would chose to have the vote to lift a disqualification. That would still be a vote– presumably to degree it exists in the first place. (Well, unless there is some other mechanism to decide it exists.)
Turn the other cheek as opposed to over the top retribution. Early calls for a cease fire from many people are basically that. A proportionate response would be seen as weak. Your comment #228447 seemed to propose a militarizing of the border and skipping the civilian carnage or else I misunderstood it. I don’t yet really know what plan you are proposing other than you don’t like what you see now.
.
The plan appears to be:
Invade Gaza. Remove Hamas using brutal military tactics. Occupy Gaza for years (I don’t agree with this part). Leave. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
.
I expect a government that looks and smells like Hamas and connected to Iran at the hip will be there 10 years from now. I don’t think any plan stops that from happening except a long term occupation which is not worth it.
From that very comment:
.
> They could have made their country just as secure as they thought it was on 10/6, and from that platform gone about a measured and targeted approach to degrading Hamas’ military and political viability.
.
I fail to understand how you get from that to “turn the other cheek.”
.
And although I never mentioned anything about ceasefire (so why are you bringing it up on this context) I would disagree that it is the same thing (or at least necessarily the same thing) as “turn the other cheek.” I associate turn the other cheek with pacifism. A negotiated agreement to (temporarily) suspend hostilities is not the same thing as advocating for pacifism as the answer.
..
[edit: it would be useful for me if you would except something I’ve said when you them go on to characterize what I’ve said. Maybe that would help me to see how “targeting Hamas” becomes turning the other cheek]
Lucia –
.
> Now if a court or state had decided he was disqualified, maybe that triggers the need for a vote. But something needs to “establish” his disqualification in the first place.
.
But isn’t a court determining that he participated in an insurrection essentially like a proxy?
.
A court found he participated in an insurrection. The constitution says an insurrectionist can’t be on the ballot. The originalists say what he did fits with the definition of insurrectionist that was intended. If Congress sees fit, by 2/3 vote then can exempt him from being treated as the Constitution says insurrectionists should be treated.
.
Of course, the court ruling can be subject to appeal up to SCOTUS. SCOTUS has the final say. They can reject that he fits the definition or they can reject that opinion about what the definition is.
.
What am I missing?
Joshua
Maybe. One state court doing it is something SCOTUS might need to decide. Or SCOTUS deciding that would be.
One state court. I’d be fine with that; we’ll see what SCOTUS says.
Tom –
.
Wait. Now I see it. Maybe a “targeted approach to degrading Hamas” doesn’t seem like “targeting Hamas.”
.
So I’ll clarify. I meant targeting Hamas in a considered manner. I’m other words, focusing more specifically on Hamas with military engagement..
.
Perhaps I’m making assumptions from having read military experts describing how more targeted attacks on Hamas can be a more effective way to degrade their abilities (and in fact, likely also to kill them). So to me a “targeted approach to degrading Hamas” means targeting Hamas with military attacks in a smarter, more focused way.
Joshua,
Like [for] most interesting things, opinions differ as to the best approach to handle Hamas. Here a military expert explicitly contradicts this idea of a more ‘targeted approach’, although at the end you may notice he shares in some of your other criticisms of Israel’s apparent lack of a long term plan for after Hamas is removed.
Obviously, this guy could be wrong and your experts could be right.
Joshua (Comment #228653)
You can find the poll results here including some others such as that 97% of Jews oppose intermarriage with Arab Muslims and 82% the other way. There are also divisions within Jewish groups.
You are unduly triggered by turn the other cheek for whatever reason, ha ha. You tend to sometimes attribute phrases as personal attacks when they are not intended that way. I retract that phrase and substitute with something like “lesser kinetic options or negotiation”. I’m not writing carefully crafted research papers (see endless typos) nor am I scrutinizing the exact wording of mine or other’s words for perceived implied menace. I try to avoid personalizing intent, it’s “the idea” not “your idea”, etc. because that is the way I see things.
.
I think Israel assessed they cannot remove Hamas without a (brutal) ground invasion which is supported by lots of military history. Hamas would camp out in the tunnels and you can’t smart bomb them out of power from there. Some of their tunnels are very deep. If you knew where leadership really was then maybe you can special force it but I don’t think they have that kind of intelligence or we would have already seen it in addition to the ongoing ground invasion. I’d be interested to see that plan.
.
It’s not clear you can do it even with the current ground invasion. The level of destruction is over the top, so maybe they would be 90% as effective with half the civilian casualties but take more casualties themselves. They are never going to admit it but an argument that generational blood lust is playing a role in tactics from both sides seems obvious to me.
Mark –
.
Sure, it’s a given that not all military experts would agree on that. I’m not saying that I’m right because some military experts say X or Y.
.
I’m saying this is how I see it and I’m asking for people to engage with how I’m wrong about that. It doesn’t help when people think I’m saying things I haven’t intended to say. I offer a reference to military expertise to say that what I’m saying isn’t likely just off the wall and a non-starter that can only come from someone who’s ignorant of military realities.
Fair enough.
Tom –
.
> You tend to sometimes attribute phrases as personal attacks.
.
Can you quote where I attributed your attribution to me of a “turn the other cheek” philosophy as personal attack?
.
I first asked if you attributed that belief to me. I then asked you if you did, could you show me what I said that gave you that impression. I then pointed out that no, in no way did I intend to convey a belief that turn the other cheek would be appropriate.
.
How is any of that interpreting it as a personal attack? If you misinterpret my words or my intent to convey something., that’s not a personal attack. It’s a mistake on your part, or perhaps a lack of clarity on mine.
.
I didn’t take it as a personal attack. Someone misinterpreting my words isn’t a personal attack. It’s either a mistake on their part or a lack of clarity on mine. None of that is a personsl attack.
.
Even there, if someone does attack me personally, for something I said, I don’t take it personally. It’s just someone going off. It rarely actually has much of anything to do with me. It says more about them, imo. They don’t actually know me. Why would I take it personally if someone who doesn’t know me attacks me for something I said?
The amount of verbiage you are applying to the phrase implies a sensitivity. Why? I don’t know. If you didn’t care you wouldn’t be talking about it so much. I already explained what I meant by the phrase. I’m not interested in these type of diversions.
Mark –
.
Thanks for that link. I’ll spend more time on it. Two things jump out. The first is that while he links to an article that talks of military experts recommending a more limited approach, he doesn’t actually engage with what those experts say and kind of actually goes on to imply that there aren’t actually any such military experts. Hmmm.
.
Second, he seems to think that rebuilding the Gaza defense border and increasing surveillance and replacing the defense forces that are withdrawn from that border and relying less on automated defense processes wouldn’t effectively prevent more 10/7 attacks because…well basically because tunnels.
.
I don’t think that tunnels is the reason that Hamas was able to pull 10/7 off. I mean sure, the ability to use tunnels was no doubt a critical factor, but there were a lot of other critical factors as well that seem to me to definitely be addressable. Unless someone can point to new things about Hamas capabilities that were leaned from 10/7, and that explained 10/7, and that can only be countered by mass bombing, I don’t see how that guy’s logic holds up. If there were, then I think it would hold up.
.
I mean it’s not like Hamas unveiled some new weapon that Isreal didn’t know they had, that they used on 10/7 and that can only be destroyed by bombing. In fact, I’ve read about intelligence reports prior to 10/7 that Perry much predicted the very capabilities of what Hamas pulled off, and that weren’t responded to by the Israeli military and government.
Tom –
.
> The amount of verbiage you are applying to the phrase implies a sensitivity. Why? I don’t know. If you didn’t care you wouldn’t be talking about it so much. I already explained what I meant by the phrase. I’m not interested in these type of diversions.
.
Lol. OK Tom. Have it your way. Your argument is unfalsifiable. I was “triggered” and the evidence is that I asked you if you were attributing the belief to me (on an jnadreessed comment) and if you were, to show me what I said that led you to that conclusion, and by being explicit that wasn’t my belief.
.
And as further proof of being” triggered,” when you said I was triggered I explained why I wasn’t.
.
Yup. I was in obviously triggered no doubt.
.
This is obviously pointless. But I’ll finish by pointing out that by your logic, you were clearly “triggered” by me explaining why I didn’t believe in “turn the other cheek” and why I wasn’t triggered.
.
Have a good night.
Joshua,
Arguments could be made. A big problem I have with the guy’s examples is that it has never in the past been a strategic goal of Israel to remove Hamas, so it seems dubious to me to point to past targeted examples and say those didn’t accomplish much. Israel wasn’t trying to accomplish much, they were mowing the grass.
Still. I don’t think it is a slam dunk either way.
As I’ve already said, I don’t think anything changed except that Israel has decided to remove Hamas from power. I think this is how they believe they will best accomplish that objective. It is what they have decided on at any rate.
Mark –
.
> Still. I don’t think it is a slam dunk either way.
.
I will recognize that I’m probably indicating I think it’s a slam dunk. I don’t. There’s no clear, easy answer IMO. I recognize that there are valid reasons to want to eradicate beyond merely a desire for Palestinian blood or a desire for vengeance. I think it’s legitimate to ask whether brutal force or a targeted force would best mitigate the threat against Israel. But I’ll counter that because I think these are tough calls, there need to be structural processes for evaluating policy and not blanket assumptions about questions like deterrence (that could go either way, that maximum brutality is the best deterrence or that maximum negotiation is the best deterrence).
.
I thought of another way this morning that might help explain my thinking that I’m having difficulty getting across clearly: the concept of tactical success (short term) without strategic progress (longer term). Or even tactical success along with strategic loss. A continuous process of tactical success without strategic progress means endless war, endless security threat.
.
So then the problem can become whether the strategic goals are even clearly defined. What are the strategic goals that accompany the tactical goal of mass bombing with mass civilian deaths? At best, there seems to be a variety of strategic goals. For many in Isreal, and more importantly in the Israeli government, it’s expanding Jewish complete control over all of historic Israel.
.
Isreal recently passed the Nation State Law, which says in part:
.
.
Now it’s not entirely clear what the full implications of that law are. But when there are many people in the government and in Isreal who want current day Israel to comprise all of historic Israel (i.e., “from the River to the Sea”), then I think to the extent that might be that strategic goal, you have to ask about the tactic of mass bombing.
.
It’s clear that mass bombing would be a tactic towards that strategic goal. The important question for me is whether a different strategic goal of increased security is consistent with the tactic of mass bombing. And as I’ve been arguing I think 75 years of history suggest “no” as an answer.
.
Now you might argue as with your recent comment that this tactic is different in that it’s the first time the tactical goal is to completely wipe out Hamas. I’m not sure if that’s true. It’s an interesting question. But even if it is true then I still ask, what does that mean and how is it measured? Hamas represents an ideology. That ideology won’t be wiped out through mass bombing. Let’s say that all members of Hamas are killed (which I doubt is an achievable goal). Has Hamas then been wiped out when there are thousands and thousands of Palestinians who are ready to pick up the Hamas flag to continue with Hamas’ ideology – perhaps even under a different name?
.
Or is the goal to cripple Hamas’ ability to function politically and militarily? That seems to me to be a more realistic goal and then my question is whether achieving that goal really requires, or to what extent it requires, mass civilian deaths.
.
I know it’s not productive for me to ask a bunch of questions. So just realize I’m mostly thinking through putting out ideas. I’m not really asking you to respond to all or even any of my questions, although any answers would be welcome.
You’re good. Interesting points in there. I’ll get back to you on some of them.
Mark, that may be one objective which proponents also seem to think is a short-term solution. Hostage rescue was probably not very high in priorities as released hostages recount how fearful they were when the IDF was bombing Gaza.
But universities are being destroyed as are other infrastructure simply to make Gaza unlivable. There should be no justification for blocking food, water etc even if some of it were to fall in the hands of Hamas.
The initial controversy about the Al Shifa courtyard seems almost quaint in retrospect. In the meantime, we’ve had decomposed babies in neonatal care, documentation of indiscriminate bombing, massive attacks and destruction of hospitals, women shot in a church by a sniper on the way to a restroom, Israeli hostages gunned down after they spoke in Hebrew, etc. As each new piece of information comes to light, it is clear there is no red line. Gaza could even be nuke bombed except that it is too close to the Israeli population.
Could they have tried to evacuate civilians? Could they not allow humanitarian aid to flow in? We won’t know the answers. Israel holds all the cards. Palestinians too see that the world powers are trying to bypass them.
RB,
While I disagree to some extent, I understand your sentiments. Hamas was operating out of hospitals, it doesn’t seem improbable that they were present in some way in the universities as well. I understand the sentiment about food and water. As unpleasant or barbaric as it might seem, I can not agree that there can never be any justification for withholding food or water or medical supplies in times of war. The best I can do is tell you that it seems counterproductive in this situation, in my view.
It all boils back down to the same question; what is the proper balance of restraint and force for the situation. Israel indeed holds the cards.
Mark, much of this infrastructure such as the Parliament, universities etc are getting blown up not with aerial bombing but with fuses set. This type of controlled explosion is not about Hamas in university buildings. You have soldiers posting TikTok videos over the ruins about how nobody will become a doctor or engineer here again.
Interesting. Thanks. I’ll go see what I can find out about it when I have time.
Just so happens, this was the top of my timeline when I logged in to Twitter:
.
https://x.com/phl43/status/1747994182038286467?s=20
Joshua
The nation-state law is a good indication of the underlying attitudes. Arabs in Israel have it better than in apartheid South Africa while those in the West Bank experience worse conditions. In some ways, they experience systemic racism similar to what African-Americans do here. But Arabs in Israel are second class citizens, who are not equal in the eyes of the law.
This goes to the larger goal in all of Mandate Palestine that Israel wants to be a purely Jewish ethno-state. In that sense, it is a Middle eastern country that masquerades as a western one for western consumption. This is why Israel has never been sincere about the peace process.
Critter video, two coyotes. They are about 10 seconds apart, wait for the second one.
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1747880024860975515?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Russell,
I think I need a critter cam. Is it movement activated?
Lucia,
My oldest son has three mounted on his house. Yes, movement activated (North Jersey) and need minimal light. Many animals show up at night near his house.
Mark –
.
This is interesting. A perspective of an anti-Hamas Palestinian from Gaza. Accused in the comments of being mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda.
.
Obviously, I have no idea how credible his reporting is but it seems entirely plausible. I’m not sure how it interacts with our discussion. Of course, for me, at one level it strengthens my perspective that the “collective punishment” aspect is not acceptable.
https://x.com/afalkhatib/status/1747850334066937896?s=20
Lucia,
Yes, motion activated. This one is $23.00 at Amazon
WYZE Cam OG 1080p HD Wi-Fi Security Camera – Indoor/Outdoor, Color Night Vision, Spotlight, 2-Way Audio, Cloud & Local storage- Ideal for Home Security, Baby, Pet Monitoring Alexa Google Assistant
6 hours later one of the stray cats wondered by
Lucia,
I spend about $3.00 per month per camera for Wyze cloud storage and remote access. The camera will work off a local SD card but not as well. It connects via your home Wifi.
Ok…. I need to see the local critters. (I know we have possums, coyotees, foxes, ducks in spring time.)
We have great fun. Alexa will announce when the camera sees a car, pet or person.
Even some Democrats are seeing that ‘open boarders’ is not workable: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/01/17/congress/house-gop-biden-border-rebuke-dems-00136221
.
I had the unhappy experience of going through passport control yesterday: slow, stupid, tedious, and a terrible waste of everyone’s time. Apparently, the US government believes it must closely question each and every US citizen returning home, as if all were smugglers. But illegal liens? No problem… just wave them through. It is all so incredibly cockeyed stupid as to beggar belief.
Joshua,
Yes, interesting. US Green Berets understand well the value of such people in conducting operations, how to build and utilize relationships with locals. It’s definitely a serious and often useful approach to warfare to build rapport with local civilians and fighters.
I’m not sure if IDF has units with similar doctrine and training. Seems like a missed opportunity if not.
Odd, SteveF
We went through passport control at MIA last week without any more hitch than not understanding that our Global (whatever) meant that once the machine had recognized us – compared to images on-file, that was it, no more processing.
Ed Forbes,
Video of another Russian tank getting mauled by a Bradley chain gun. One of the comments is that it is shooting depleted uranium rounds, but I have no way of telling that. It’s putting a world of hurt on that tank.
https://x.com/thedeaddistrict/status/1747823568983904618?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Mark –
.
Lol. I meant that his report plausible. Although thees days things are so nuts. It’s also plausible that he’s a mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda.
.
So this is interesting. Regardless of how you feel about the merits of “ethic cleansing,” or two states or whatever, this is pretty unambiguous.
.
https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1748045086812692757?s=20
HI SteveF,
Maybe it’s where you’ve been.
.
When I did a project in Ireland, I was very politely intercepted on arrival in Dublin by two very nice gentlemen and asked if I wouldn’t mind talking with their superior. I was led to an office with a desk, driven by the “superior” and three chairs for the rest of us although only I sat down.
.
There was no messing around. The superior was looking at my passport. He asked what I had done on the two trips to the Bahamas prior to each of my last two trips to Ireland.
.
Jan and I had flown over to stay a few days with friends who were staying on their Krogen 42 anchored at one of the islands.
.
“Which one”
.
“Green Turtle Cay.”
.
A couple more questions, and then the answer to my question of how I’d come to their attention.
.
You have the travel profile of a gunrunner.
.
SteveF??
Joshua,
Do you think Netanyahu is likely to hold onto power much longer? Not rhetorical, genuine question. I don’t really understand Israeli politics and don’t have a feel for this either way.
Hi John,
I was in Brazil for a couple of days.
.
It wasn’t my profile than made it painful, it was a sulking passport agent who would call someone, closely question them for a few minutes, then stare at his computer screen for another few minutes before calling the next. It was a line of US passport holders, not Arab terrorists! Almost 40 minutes for me to pass, with only 7 people in front of me when I walked up.
.
I once made the mistake many years ago of not pre-informing US Customs that I was taking my boat to the Bahamas for a couple of weeks. Upon my return, the agent I talked to by phone was unbelievably pissed that I didn’t have the required pre-registration number, and he put a “please screw this sucker” notice on my passport number. For the next year, each time I came into the USA, about 6 times in total, I was stopped and placed in a “holding area”, and questioned by a supervisor about if I had come in illegally by boat…. even when I was arriving from Europe or Brazil by air. I finally pleaded with one of these supervisors to free me from this torment, which he (reluctantly) did.
.
Power corrupts.
I’m looking for various amicus briefs in “the case”. This one is vivek ramaswamy’s
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295491/20240111125114383_23-719%20Amicus%20Brief%20Ramaswamy%20Supp.%20Pet..pdf
Reading…
SteveF,
Maybe if you’re 80 you don’t get this treatment because if you died in their care, there would be ubnbelievable paperwork. Accordingly, they want you out of there, pronto.
.
Can’t you do Global Entry, which for use required only to stand in front of a camera while the system determioned whether they knew you?
.
When we applied for Global Entry, there was a 6 month ++ delay at Tampa, but we could be handled in about a week in Fort Pierce. So we drove over and were taken care of with a guywho turned out to share one of my hobbies.
.
As I suspect you have, Jan and I both had clearances for earlier activites so I suppose it wasn’t that hard to figure out who we are.
.
As to age, when we arrived at immigration in Santiago, we joined a line of maybe 200 people being “served” by two guys in booths. It was early in the day, but we soon realized that at the speed they were going, it would be about 4 hours.
.
Suddenly, this woman appeared and asked us to follow her. We then found ourselves second in line at another booth and were quickly blessed and released. We asked around. Apparently there is some sort of legislation in some of the SA countries which requires compassionate treatment of old people.
.
Claro, you are not old enough for this wonderful arrangement.
john ferguson,
BTW, Green Turtle was my favorite island in the Bahamas….. I have many fond memories of the place. We stayed there one year over New Years, and drove our (rented) golf cart to the town center for New Years festivities. The restaurant at the Green Turtle Club Marina was world class… great food and great wines.
.
I was put off by the complexity of getting the Global Entry, but maybe I should reconsider if it truly eliminates sulking agents.
john ferguson,
.
I get preferred plane boarding in Brazil, but nothing else I know of, certainly no shortcuts on passport control.
I think this has links to all the amicus briefs
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/
Lucia,
I skimmed them all submitted until yesterday. They are mostly repeating the same arguments, but a few have slightly different takes. AFAIK, no briefs yet filed in support of Colorado. I am still predicting 7-2 to 9-0 against Colorado.
john ferguson,
The Global Entry process looks a little easier than in the past. If I can get it for myself and my youngest daughter (USA/Brazil dual citizen) it would make travel a lot less of a hassle.
If you find as we did, that some of the Global Entry granting sites are backed up, check around. We likely never would have gotten them if we’d had to do it in Tampa.
.
At MIA when we came through at 6:30AM inbound from Sao Paulo, we had no wait whatever and were blessed on the spot. The line for everone else with maybe 6 to 8 botths running looked like 45 minutes.
.
I don’t think we look all that decrepit but the gate agents tend to pull us out of Group 1, tell us to sit over there, and then board us first. We do only carry-on so our main cases tend to be heavy. I wonder what the flight A’s think when I hoist up the bag with some dispatch and no help (which they cannot give anyway) after boarding as an old person.
SteveF,
Viveks read’s more like a polemic than a brief. That’s the 2nd I read.
I think the reason there are no amici on the other side is the CO ruling was pretty thorough.
I don’t know which way they will rule. It just better be based on some reasonable legal theory either way.
Lucia,
“I think the reason there are no amici on the other side is the CO ruling was pretty thorough.”
.
I think there are no amici for Colorado because it is utterly indefensible nonsense. 😉
.
We will see what the Court says. Like I said: 7-2 to 9-0 is my guess.
Lucia,
Want to bet again? My second $30 says 7-2 or more against Colorado.
.
Rather than wine, I suggest a one time contribution to my wife’s Haitian support non-profitable…. and you can deduct it as a charitable contribution!
If the rule that way, it won’t make the CO ruling not well argued. And it won’t make Vivek’s well argued.
.
I have a bet with you– but I’m pretty sure I just said, “Sure. It’s only a bottle of wine.” It could go either way.
.
I’m interested in the reasoning.
The court will state it’s reasoning. I think there will be three stated reasons. Of course, the conservatives may be willing to narrow that to one or two reasons if they can get a unanimous ruling.
.
But for the conservatives on the court, I think accepting a “finding of fact” of criminal acts by Trump, thus barring him from office, by a group of Democrat Colorado judges, is a bright line they will not cross, even if they must sacrifice a larger majority.
.
The weird thing is: we are not usually that far apart on key legal issues, but here we could not be further apart.
This is from a fairly reliable source:
“ CAN’T MAKE THIS UP: Wagner PMC mercenaries uncovered a giant drug trafficking ring originating out of the Defense Ministry and the FSB in Moscow when they caught one of their own with drugs and had him lead them to the dealer, and so on, up the chain.
They are attached to Russia’s 331st Guards Parachute Airborne Regiment in occupied Luhansk.
In response, Moscow sent SOBR and MoD spetsnaz to hunt them down and kill them. They say they will fight to the death.
They sent this video to Vladimir Osechkin for publication and are appealing for help.”
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1747934377437475279?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
SteveF,
SCOTUS isn’t going to say “by a group of Democrat Co Judges” because that’s not a legal basis. I certainly don’t think the DEM SCOTUS judges are going to think the fact that the CO judges were appointed by Democrats is a legitimate issue.
.
The thing is: as far as I can tell, you aren’t providing any legal reasoning. It seems your entire argument is you don’t like the outcome and deem it “crazy”, so think it must fail on that basis.
.
I don’t like outcome based reasoning. Outcome based reasoning falls under the category of “purely activist ruling”. I don’t think SCOTUS should do that; I think it would be very dangerous.
Mark –
.
What I will say is this: I wouldn’t bet against Bibi’s political acumen, especially when he’s desperate to say in office so he can stay out of jail.
Lucia,
“Outcome based reasoning falls under the category of “purely activist ruling”. I don’t think SCOTUS should do that; I think it would be very dangerous.”
.
Agreed, they shouldn’t do that. And the Court will correctly say that is exactly what Colorado did, and it must not happen. Really, we could not disagree on this more.
.
“It could go either way.”
.
Not a chance.
Whether or not Bibi stays in office, Israel will not stop until Hamas is gone. What happens after that is uncertain, but I do expect Israel will not allow the militarization of Gaza again for a very long time, if ever.
.
Whatever the court says, SCOTUS won’t say CO Supremes indulged in outcome based reasoning!! That’s just not something they do.
.
I don’t think CO’s ruling was outcome based.
.
I think they followed their own law and a pretty reasonable reading of Section 3 of the 14th amendment. SCOTUS may disagree with the interpretation of insurrection, or the level of due process etc. But they aren’t going to say CO’s reasoning was “outcome based”.
.
From “the Conversation”:
“Both sides are also short on manpower. Zelensky has said he wants to be able to field an additional 500,000 troops this year, and has introduced more stringent measures to clamp down on draft dodging.”
.
Ummmm… I rather suspect the shortage is greater in Ukraine. “clamping down” on 45 year old ‘draft dodgers’ is probably not a productive approach. May I suggest: exchange territory for peace?
Lucia,
You keep trying to speak for the US Supreme Court.
.
“SCOTUS won’t say CO Supremes indulged in outcome based reasoning!!”
.
They are not going to listen to you. The Colorado ruling seems to me to be the quintessential case of outcome based ruling… ‘we hate Trump, get him off the ballot’. (see J Turley’s arguments about the Co court accepting multiple extreme judicial interpretations to reach that absurd and destructive conclusion).
.
The SC will for sure stop this nonsense.
Russell, here is another view of the same action between the Bradley and the Russian MBT.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKvmpcLbZFA
.
The main takeaway is that the Russian tank was operating single and unsupported. Always a bad idea.
.
The tank does looks to have been damaged by the Bradly 25mm. Lucky hits with “golden bb’s” happen. The tank was destroyed by a combination of the Bradley and drone hits. Without the drone hits, it would be VERY unlikely for a Bradly to take out an MBT with only its 25mm gun.
.
The Bradly is a very good infantry fighting vehicle, but no where good enough to stand up to MBT’s other than in ambush at range or as acts of pure desperation. Aluminum armor doesn’t stand up well to hits by 120mm high explosive, let alone armor piercing.
SteveF
Come on, you wrote this
I tell you they won’t say what you decree they will say, and now your objection is that I am trying to speak for them? Am I supposed to respond “Pot, Kettle, Black?” 🙂
.
Nor you! And I’ve certainly never thought they were listening to me!
.
Whether or not the members of SCOTUS secretly visit my blog listen to either of us, they still aren’t going to say that CO Supremes indulged in outcome based decision making– which is what you claimed they will say!!
.
That’s not the sort of thing SCOTUS writes in rulings!
.
Even if SCOTUS overrules the CO Supremes, even if all of them think the ruling is outcome based, they aren’t going to say that. Even if the CO Supreme ruling is an outcome based ruling, they aren’t going to say that. (And the Dem members are definitely not going to think CO Supremes made an outcome based ruling– not even if it is one.)
.
I perfectly well admit– and have admitted all along– that I don’t know what SCOTUS will rule on the substance. But sorry, they ain’t gonna write a ruling given their reasons for overruling (a) The CO judges are all democrats and appointed or (b) The CO ruling is “outcome based”.
.
Even the Amicus briefs I’ve read don’t try to advance that as a theory for why they should overrule the CO court! It’s not a legal argument.
Beyond the question of whether Bibi will survive this, I’m not sure how Israel will survive this:
.
https://x.com/amanpour/status/1748078175567909249?s=20
SteveF: “May I suggest: exchange territory for peace?:
Sure. We’ll take Belgorod and Rostov on Don.
Might I suggest an alternative? Russia can get the hell out of Ukraine.
Thomas W Fuller,
I think you live in a world of dreams. The world of reality is a bit more harsh.
.
Russia is not going to ever give up Crimea, and they are very unlikely to give up de facto control over the Donbas region, even if that were to remain, at least in name, part of Ukraine.
.
There will ultimately be either a negotiated settlement, the exact terms of which are to be determined, or a ‘frozen conflict’, a la Korea, with political control based on where the lines are when the fighting stops. How long the war goes on depends mostly on how long Europe and the USA will spend $150+ billion per year, and how many soldiers Ukraine will sacrifice. As Ben Stein said: something that can’t go on forever will stop.
Lucia,
I referenced J Turley, who has laid out a detailed critique of the extreme legal arguments the CO SC accepted to reach what is obviously an outcome motivated ruling.
.
Of course the US SC is going to shoot down the extreme legal arguments, not talk about the CO court being a bunch of Democrats desperate to keep Trump off ballots…. even if that is exactly what they are. The CO court split 4/3, even though they are all Democrats, and they clearly recognized their ruling was unlikely to survive review. The four probably just said ” What the Hell, it’s worth a try, even if it doesn’t work.”
I’m not certain Europe isn’t content with a frozen battle line. As long as Russia is engaged in Ukraine, Russia can’t attack the rest of Europe or rebuild its military. It is a cheap way for Europe to defend itself with out spilling any of its own blood while literally bleeding Russia dry.
Russell –
.
> while literally bleeding Russia dry.
.
What is your evidence for that over the last almost two years?
SteveF
I read that. There wasn’t much legal argument in it!
Ok… But you actually said otherwise, and complained that I was trying to speak for them when I contradicted you and said they would never do that!
Joshua,
You wrote:
“ while literally bleeding Russia dry.
What is your evidence for that over the last almost two years?”
Russian losses are reported to be staggering. For one, US intelligence, from Reuters:
“ U.S. intelligence assesses Ukraine war has cost Russia 315,000 casualties”
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-assesses-ukraine-war-has-cost-russia-315000-casualties-source-2023-12-12/#:~:text=Since%20then%2C%20the%20report%20found,in%20Ukraine%2C%20the%20source%20added.
A quick Google shows me that Turley objects to the CO ruling because it’s anti-democratic.
.
I’m wondering if someone who thinks this ruling is objectionably anti-democratic but things like any or all of the electoral college, gerrymandering voting districts, bans on abortion, loosening or disallowing legislatively created gun regulation, banning books in Florida, expelling legislators for protesting for gun control, etc., aren’t, can outline for me the guiding principles they’d used to draw the inclusion/exclusion criteria for what is or isn’t objectionably anti-democratic.
Russell –
.
Granted lives cost isn’t something that can go on a ledger sheet, so if that’s the reference and by bleeding Russia dry you meant racking up casualties, no argument from me.
.
But my point is that from what I’ve seen, the Ukraine war has largely revitalized their economy. Do you disagree?
SteveF (Comment #228768): “Russia is not going to ever give up Crimea, and they are very unlikely to give up de facto control over the Donbas region, even if that were to remain, at least in name, part of Ukraine.”
.
My guess is that if Russia were to offer the status quo ante, Ukraine would accept.
Mike –
.
> My guess is that if Russia were to offer the status quo ante, Ukraine would accept.
.
Why would Russia offer that at this point?
.
And seems to me the Ukranian government hasn’t shown any signs of accepting status quo ante. Can you point to some?
Newton didn’t say what you think he said.
“We’ve Been Misreading a Major Law of Physics For The Last 300 Years”
“Virginia Tech philosopher Daniel Hoek wanted to “set the record straight” after discovering what he describes as a “clumsy mistranslation” in the original 1729 English translation of Newton’s Latin Principia.
Based on this translation, countless academics and teachers have since interpreted Newton’s first law of inertia to mean an object will continue moving in a straight line or remain at rest unless an outside force intervenes.
It’s a description that works well until you appreciate external forces are constantly at work, something Newton would have surely have considered in his wording.
Revisiting the archives, Hoek realized this common paraphrasing featured a misinterpretation that flew under the radar until 1999, when two scholars picked up on the translation of one Latin word that had been overlooked: quatenus, which means “insofar”, not unless.
To Hoek, this makes all the difference. Rather than describing how an object maintains its momentum if no forces are impressed on it, Hoek says the new reading shows Newton meant that every change in a body’s momentum – every jolt, dip, swerve, and spurt – is due to external forces.
“By putting that one forgotten word [insofar] back in place, [those scholars] restored one of the fundamental principles of physics to its original splendor,” Hoek explains in a blog post describing his findings, published academically in a 2022 research paper.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/weve-been-misreading-a-major-law-of-physics-for-the-last-300-years
Russell Klier (Comment #228778),
Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference.
Joshua,
You wrote:
“and by bleeding Russia dry you meant racking up casualties, no argument from me. But my point is that from what I’ve seen, the Ukraine war has largely revitalized their economy. Do you disagree?”
I am not a financial person but I have tried to answer your question for myself. After a full year, I became convinced I was watching a shell game. Russia is intentionally running a confidence game on the true effect war is having on its economy. Sources outside Russia paint an entirely different picture of the Russian economy. I just gave up on trying to figure it out.
Mike M. (Comment #228779)
“Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference.”
Apparently, the vast majority of physicists agree with you. Maybe only the purists will adopt the new translation.
Mike M,
I agree Ukraine might accept the status quo ante for territorial control, but they will balk at Russia’s other demand: Ukraine not being part of NATO. So the fighting will go on. I hope there is a negotiated settlement, but I think the longer the war continues, the more likely the ending will be a ‘frozen conflict’, with lines set by the front of fighting when a cease-fire is agreed to.
SteveF (Comment #228782): “I agree Ukraine might accept the status quo ante for territorial control”.
.
But that won’t lead to a peace deal since Russia won’t accept that, at least not unless the other terms are crushing for Ukraine. So there is not much hope for a peace deal unless something changes.
.
A frozen conflict seems more and more likely. I continue to worry that the Biden administration and much of NATO would be satisfied with that.
The Volokh Conspiracy has a brief description of 30 of the of the 40 Amicus briefs filed in the Trump v Anderson (Colorado ballot) case. A handful of briefs support neither side, but all the rest support Trump; all the 30 descriptions are briefs in support of Trump. Josh Blackman offers no separate analysis of the case, just the summaries of the briefs.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/19/overview-of-amicus-briefs-supporting-petitioner-in-trump-v-griswold/
Russell Klier (Comment #228781): “Maybe only the purists will adopt the new translation.”
.
Sounds like you are on the side of the purists. If so, them maybe you can explain to me the difference between (1) and (2):
(1) an object maintains its momentum if no forces are impressed on it
(2) every change in a body’s momentum is due to external forces.
.
I don’t see any difference in meaning.
Mike M,
“I continue to worry that the Biden administration and much of NATO would be satisfied with that.”
.
Sure, I think that is pretty obvious. The puzzling thing for me is that the Biden administration seems OK with a future where the world is split into “the righteous” and the “evil”, where they (the Biden administration) make the righteous/evil determinations. One need only look at the list of countries that refuse to get involved in sanctioning Russia to see the problems that vision of the future presents.
.
I would have hoped after the debacles in Iran and Afghanistan US leaders would evaluate the world with a bit more humility. But that seems exactly the opposite of what is happening…. only ever more sharply demanded “it’s either us or them”; black and white, no grays. It seems the best possible way to exclude the possibility of diplomatic accommodation.
Russia is evil. There is no grey area.
Steven –
.
> I agree Ukraine might accept the status quo ante for territorial control, but they will balk at Russia’s other demand: Ukraine not being part of NATO
.
Zelensky has apparently made statements that NATO membership is not a bottom line to end the war.
.
Further, it is my recollection (I may be wrong) that it never was a bottom line before the war started. What was more the focus was membership in the EU.
SteveF (Comment #228784),
Thanks for the link. Out of ~30 briefs arguing for overturning the CO decision, I see only one (Vivek Ramaswamy) arguing that the decision is anti-democratic and one (Landmark Legal Foundation) using consequences as a primary argument. Several (Peter Meijer, Judicial Watch, Ted Cruz et al., Indiana et al., Missouri et al., Christian Family Coalition (CFC) Florida, Meese et al.) use consequences as a secondary argument in that they argue that te decision is wrong and then point out the bad consequences of upholding it. I have no problem with that.
Seems my edit is gone. Zelensky said this, not exactly consistent with that I said:
.
“Therefore, we understand that we will not be members of NATO while this war is going on. Not because we don’t want to, but because it’s impossible,” Zelensky added.
.
I would think the door might be open for security guarantees short of NATO membership.
Joshua,
Russia began building up troops at the Ukraine boarder just a short time after this agreement was signed on November 10, 2021: https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/
That agreement specifically calls for Ukraine being allowed to join NATO, exactly what Russia had stated clearly for multiple years was a bright line they would not tolerate Ukraine crossing. The USA signing that agreement seems to me the last of a long string of actions leading to war, independent of whether or not anybody thinks Ukraine ought to be able to joint NATO.
.
As to what Zelenskyy has said about NATO: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/zelensky-demands-nato-membership-at-davos-but-rejects-freezing-war/ar-AA1n4BRU
.
His position seems pretty clear to me.
Joshua,
It is Stephen.
Zelensky rejects a long ceasefire or “frozen war”, even though that may be the only way Ukraine gets NATO membership any time in the foreseeable future.
Mike M,
“I have no problem with that.”
.
Nor do I. The issue is that the CO supreme court made a series of legal choices to throw Trump off the ballot, some of which are at best highly dubious and others just flat wrong. The US SC will hammer those choices, but I expect there will be some comments about bad consequences as well.
Ukraine and NATO are joined at the hip. Legal membership is a formality; it may even be a fait accompli.
If Russia sees stopping Ukraine’s NATO membership as vital to the defense of its homeland, then Europe sees ensuring Ukraine’s NATO membership as vital to the defense of its homeland. The battlefield flows both ways. The same vast Ukrainian planes that open Russia up to NATO’s invading tank armies open Europe up to Russia’s invading tank army. And we all know of Russia’s expansionist recent history.
More importantly, the Ukrainian people have rejected being Russian; they have chosen to be European.
Yikes!
https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Them-vs-Us_CTUP-Rasmussen-Study-FINAL.pdf
.
The elites were defined as people earning more than $150,000 per year and living in zip codes with population densities above 10,000 per square mile. This group represents approximately 1% of the US adult population.
Russell, without US military aid to Ukraine, Ukraine is toast.
.
With the Republicans finally growing a pair on securing the boarder, votes to continue such aid is looking more and more unlikely as the Democrats have totally lost their minds on US border security.
.
Don’t get me wrong though, if aid to Ukraine comes with repeal of immigration presidential parole ability to open the borders to invasion, another $100 B+ or so to Ukraine would be cheep at twice the price.
.
Otherwise, not our problem, not our fight. Another 100k+ dead on both sides of the Ukraine war doesn’t affect me or mine in the least. The only winners in this war are the defense contractors, who are making a $ killing.
.
SteveF,
I suppose self-identified elites. The survey sampled people living in zip codes with more than 10,000 people per square mile. If you look up which zip codes they are, you’ll see that we already knew who they were. These places are where it was possible for someone to say that she couldn’t possibly understand how Nixon could have won. She didn’t know anyone who would vote for him.
.
I’m skeptical about the “too much individual freedom” Maybe it is an accurate characterization, but having lived amongst these folks most of my adult life – you can tell from the scars from biting my tongue – I cannot imagine any of them buying that idea per se. Maybe we need to see how the question was put.
.
On the other hand most of them would have no problem condemning pick-up trucks, gas-guzzlers, gas ovens, etc.
Now go get a Global Entry pass so that you too can be an Elite.
john ferguson,
I am probably richer than the average “elite”, Global Entry or no. 😉
.
I just don’t live in a high population density zip code.
.
The Rasmussen report is pretty detailed, although I did not read all of it. Maybe they show the actual questions asked.
Geography hates Russia. In Western Ukraine, the Carpathian Mountains form a pinch point to the South. To the North is Belarus and the Baltic Sea.
“In the past 500 years, Russia has been invaded several times from the west. The Poles came across the European Plain in 1605, followed by the Swedes under Charles XII in 1707, the French under Napoleon in 1812, and the Germans—twice, in both world wars, in 1914 and 1941. In Poland, the plain is only 300 miles wide—from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Carpathian Mountains in the south—but after that point it stretches to a width of about 2,000 miles near the Russian border, and from there, it offers a flat route straight to Moscow. Thus Russia’s repeated attempts to occupy Poland throughout history; the country represents a relatively narrow corridor into which Russia could drive its armed forces to block an enemy advance toward its own border, which, being wider, is much harder to defend.”
Russia needs Ukraine to block open access to Moscow.
“Russia and the Curse of Geography
Want to understand why Putin does what he does? Look at a map.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/
Ed Forbes,
“Don’t get me wrong though, if aid to Ukraine comes with repeal of immigration presidential parole ability to open the borders to invasion, another $100 B+ or so to Ukraine would be cheep at twice the price.”
.
Finally, something on which we seem to agree. A country without a border is soon not a country any longer. But don’t worry, the Biden administration will NEVER enforce the border, even if it means Ukraine has to be sacrificed.
Steve –
.
Sorry about the name error (autocomplete).
.
As for this:
.
That agreement specifically calls for Ukraine being allowed to join NATO…
.
That’s part of what I was saying. Part of the problem with this war is that (IIRC) Ukraine might possibly have accepted EU membership (which of course was highly connected to the whole Euromaidan revolution) and security promises short of NATO membership where the US provocatively pushed NATO membership even though it was well known that Russia considered it a red line.
.
And that’s part of the reason that I think it’s conceivable that Ukraine would accept security promises and EU membership whereas Russia simply won’t accept NATO membership.
.
Happy to be shown I’m wrong about that.
Biden isn’t against enforcing borders, just not ours. Ukraine’s maybe?
SteveF,
Did you find the survey or the post processing? (I want to read the zip codes. I don’t know how “high density”, “high density” is. )
Lucia,
I was able to google area codes with more than 10,000 people per square mile.
.
I got a list which I found quite believable. And that is without the querying the income component.
I just ran across this discussion of an amici brief to the Trump case
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/19/ideologically-mixed-amicus-brief-stresses-need-for-s-ct-to-resolve-merits-of-the-trump-disqualification-case/#more-8262128
I’m on my way out and only skimmed, but I think it is interesting. It emphasizes the need for SCOTUS to decide whether Trump is or is not disqualified under Section 3 now not later.
I’ll be reading more later (but Friday night social Latin nights starts in 10 minutes.)
(For the record: this is not an amici in favor of Trump being on the ballot, nor against it. It is an amici that says “Decide if he’s qualified, damit!” With legal arguments why the courts have a right to do so and why they consequently have an obligation.)
Ok… I’m not in one of those. 🙂
https://zipatlas.com/us/il/zip-code-comparison/highest-population-density.htm
Geopolitics and the European Plain.
Pardon my verbosity in Comment #228800 above.
I used 1,000 words to describe the European plain when a picture would have been better.
From Brittanica:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1748616148898271619?s=20
The historical invasion route into the heart of Russia is via the European plain. In the age of blitz mechanized warfare, it’s definitely the only way to go. Look at how the plain narrows as you go West. Putin’s ultimate best defensive line is Western Poland, and that is probably the long-term plan.
As an aside, it explains Poland’s recent huge military buildup.
Another aside, the plain extends into Finland, giving NATO another attack route.
Final aside, this map explains the location of the Battle of the Bulge.
Fulda Gap? Battle of Bulge, Ardennes Forest?
Thanks Lucia
John,
Hitler tried to sever the allies lines at the Bulge by crossing through Belgium to the sea at the narrowest point of the European plain.
Russia has been waging a war of attrition on the Ukraine army for a number of months now. The goal seemed to be focusing on the wearing down Ukraine forces over battlefield land gains. This is made much easier by the very short Russian supply lines vs 1000 km + Ukraine lines that start at the Polish border.
.
Reports are increasing that Ukraine is suffering an acute shortage of manpower and loosing their ability to rotate their combat units off the frontlines to allow the units time to rest and resupply. This inability to rest and recover leads to a major loss in unit combat effectiveness.
.
Russia looks to have started offensives along the entire 800km + front. The war of attrition may be coming to an end and a more mobile phase of the war may be beginning.
.
Current state of the front lines
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq3U8Nzg56U
.
Hey, I know there’s been discussion here about the razing of Gaza by IDF. Apparently the IDF is using a suite of AIs, one of which is named The Gospel to rapidly select targets.
More here
Ed Forbes,
Russia’s supply line stretches 6,000 miles to Korea and China and Iran.
That YouTube link you posted is atrocious. Never heard of him, a guy in an old t-shirt trying to learn English, terrible lighting and graphics, he’s a joke. I’m not gonna be learning anything from him.
Sounds like something out of a geopolitics sci-fi novel. An AI called ‘The Gospel’ directing targeting in Gaza…
Mark,
The habsora is described in the article I had posted here a while ago:
https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/
RB,
Oh. Sorry!
Mark, RB –
.
> Sounds like something out of a geopolitics sci-fi novel. An AI called ‘The Gospel’ directing targeting in Gaza…
That aspect connects to what is most concerning to me about this whole concept of “collateral deaths” when targeting terrorists: a lack of transparency.
.
Not that it was necessarily better when some military operative reviewed intelligence and applied a ratio of “acceptable” non-combatant deaths to combatant deaths to approve targets. Not that there weren’t horrendous mistakes and horrendous outcomes when that process was applied. And not that it was always transparent, not the least during the Obama administration. But when AI is doing it, it seems to me, it necessarily becomes that much less transparent. Pretty sci-fi fantasy dystopian, IMO.
Russell, you don’t like the site I posted addressing the large increase in Russian assaults across the entire front?
.
Ok, here is a very pro Ukraine site that confirms the large numbers of Russian assaults across the entire front.
.
https://deepstatemap.live/en#10/49.5060/37.9070
.
Ukraine manpower issues
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/19/europe/ukraine-difficulties-in-military-recruitment-intl/index.html
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/13/ukraine-casualties-pessimism-ammunition-shortage/
.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67748813
.
And the links go on and on.
I know that many folks here don’t see much of anything of value coming out of the NYTimes, but I find this op-ed from almost 30 years ago sadly applicable today to what Bibi has been openly saying as of late (and obviously been putting into practice for much longer):
.
> “In fact, the extreme right is not opposed to this particular peace but to any kind of peace based on the recognition of the existence of two peoples living on this land.”
.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/11/opinion/the-hamaslikud-connection.html?unlocked_article_code=1.O00.OBeF.v6nxi3fPSlwN&smid=tw-share
Joshua
Wheeling back to lucia (Comment #228702) (on the Trump thingie)
this amicus (which is neither in favor of Trump being on the ballot nor off) says something interesting.
Turns out it may not be just a state court that has deemed Trump committed insurrection to the threshold required for Section 3. This points out one can argue that Congress already did just that. They voted to indict for insurrection reaching a simple majority in both houses.
Now, to impeach requires 2/3rds majority which they did not get. They only got 57% “guilty” in the Senate. So he wasn’t impeached– but if the rule for disqualification was “majority” — he would have been found guilty. If, in Jan 2025, Trump looks on the way to getting the majority of the electoral votes, this will be argued.
.
But to lift the disqualification /i> also takes 2/3rds which they also would never get. But Section 3 doesn’t say they need the same threshold to invoke or recognize the existence of the disqualification in the first place. It doesn’t say anything. But I think it’s plausible that the disqualification has to be easier to detect than to lift. Otherwise, just say you need 2/3rds to disqualify in the first place.
.
The brief goes argues that if SCOTUS does not address disqualification directly now and Trump does win, the electoral vote majority, SCOTUS is likely to face this question after Jan 6, 2025. That’s a much worse time to face this question that Feb 2024.
.
They have a bunch of other “If this happens, then this very bad thing will happen arguments” type discussions and also “And you’ll also have to decide this other thing.”
.
Their main point is: If you overrule CO but don’t address the disqualification issue, and Biden doesn’t win resoundingly we are going to be in a world of hurt in Jan 2025. (Heck, if they even uphold CO, but Trump is on enough state ballots, we would face many of the same if/then scenarios and more.) So don’t kick the can.
.
(At the beginning they have discussion of why SCOTUS does have jurisdiction to not kick the can. But they also recognize that SCOTUS often has flexibility to kick the can. So the parade of hypothetical horribles is explain why they really shouldn’t take the “kick the can” path this time.)
.
(There are also a few interesting links to some historical events, and other interesting arguments.)
.
In most ways, this is my favorite brief because it discusses why SCOTUS should not kick the can. (As you can see from the title of my post, the “kicking the can” issue is one that bothers me much, much more than whether they keep Trump on the ballot or off the ballot.)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/297014/20240118112848137_23-719.Amicus.Foley.Ginsberg.Hasen.pdf
Lucia,
I expect (and hope) the SC will put a complete stop to it, by taking the 13th off the table absent Congressional legislation, and so not kick the can down the road.
.
Of course, with a politically divided court and a mealy-mouthed chief justice, even a kick-the-can ruling remains possible, though it seems unlikely based on the composition of the court.
Lucia –
.
>But I think it’s plausible that the disqualification has to be easier to detect than to lift. Otherwise, just say you need 2/3rds to disqualify in the first place.
.
That’s a good point. Seems logical to me that what would be needed is a majority in, I would guess, both houses, to disqualify.
.
So then what would be needed, seems to me, is for SCOTUS to rule on (1) what the definition is for insurrection and (2) whether Trump meets that bar.
.
I have to say that it’s pretty interesting that we have originalists arguing that (2) is true based on an originalist interpretation of (1).
.
So for SCOTUS to go prevent Congress from voting on this, they’d have to (1) given that there are so many “originalists” on the court, explain a from an originalist perspective why those other originalists were wrong and (2) explain why judges who regularly argue (selectively, I’d say) that unelected judges shouldn’t be overriding the will of Congress, believe that in this case they should not allow Congress to make the call.
.
Good thing that per Steve, only librul judges rule based on political ideology – otherwise if they rule that Congress shouldn’t be allowed to vote because those originalists were wrong, I might be tempted to think that such a finding might just be a tad politically influenced.
lucia,
What is the basis for the claim that Congress could disqualify Trump with simple majority votes in both Houses?
So what would constitute “kicking the can” and what decision would not do that?
.
Not kicking:
(1) Ruling that Section 3 does not apply to the President.
(2) Ruling that only procedures established by Congress under Section 5 may be used as a basis for disqualification.
(3) Ruling that Jan 6 was not an insurrection. I don’t expect SCOTUS to touch this.
(4) Ruling that Trump did not participate in Jan 6. I don’t expect SCOTUS to touch this.
(5) Ruling that Trump is disqualified. I don’t expect SCOTUS to touch this.
——
Kicking the can:
(6) Overruling the CO decision solely on First Amendment grounds. That might leave the door open to attempts to disqualify Trump after the election.
(7) Overruling the CO decision based on procedural grounds.
(8) Upholding the CO decision on the grounds that it is a state ballot question.
——–
I have probably missed possibilities. If not, then not kicking the can would seem to bar disqualification unless they choose to do it themselves (option 5). That ain’t gonna happen.
SteveF
Do you mean the 14th? We’ll see. But the problem is that– as this brief points out– some will certainly argue, that Congress already indicted. You don’t pass legislation for this sort of thing because it’s not a bill or law. Bills of attainder are also not allowed– so they can’t pass a law that is specific to Trump.
But maybe you mean something else?
Joshua
That’s one path.
.
But given what this amicus discusses, they could also rule about whether Congress has already voted that he is guilty of insurrection on Jan 6– by simple majority. That would take Trump off the ballot.
.
There are a lot of things they could do– don’t know what they will do.
Lucia,
Yes, the 14th, not 13th.
Trump was ‘acquitted’ at his ‘trial’ by the Senate, and has never been criminally charged for incitement nor for insurrection, never mind convicted. I doubt the court is going to entertain such nonsense. I believe they will reverse Colorado and block all such actions based on the 14th absent legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president.
.
The over-reach of prosecutors (Legislation targeting Enron’s fraudulent financial behavior used in most Jan 6 prosecutions? Please.) puts Trump’s charges in Washington DC in real danger. A law to prohibit fraud by companies like Enron is used against protester/rioters? Classic misuse of legislation, contorted beyond recognition by Democrats for purely political purposes; the effort by Democrats to use laws in ways absolutely never intended by Congress is pretty much a constant over the past couple decades. I hope the Court smacks down Mr Smith…. effectively blocking his ‘fraud’ charges against Trump in DC. We will have to wait a while for that decision.
Lucia –
.
> lucia,
.
> they could also rule about whether Congress has already voted that he is guilty of insurrection on Jan 6– by simple majority. That would take Trump off the ballot.
.
Ok. I didn’t get it when I first read it. I get it now. But can SCOTUS decide their definition of insurrection necessarily wasn’t correct by coming up with their own definition and determining that Trump didn’t meet that definition? It would be pretty outrageous if they did.
Joshua,
Nah, even conservative (not just ‘librul’) judges are often influenced by their political views. I wonder: do you think those who fundamentally disagree with ‘librul’ policies don’t know how to spell? If so, makes you sound more than a bit arrogant.
Lucia,
Congress could pass a law declaring the Jan 6 riot was an insurrection, and stating those involved are disqualified from holding office under the 14th. I doubt that would fall under the bill of attainer prohibition. But the bigger point is: no such legislation was ever passed, nor will it be.
.
Trump will not be removed from any state ballots. I get you really want him to not be elected. But I believe the harder Democrats try to disqualify him, the greater the chance he will win in November. The desperation is becoming obvious.
MIkeM
Actually very good question. I’m going to make a stab below– because the amicus brief doesn’t really flesh that out. (Presumably it would be fleshed out if this particular branch of an “if/the” change of “horribles” happens.)
But first: The amici say if Trump wins the electoral college, someone will argue it— in Congress and in legal filings. So this is going to come up. I think that’s a pretty fair claim. They might be right or wrong, but they certainly will argue it.
.
Now if the argument does come up I’m pretty sure it’s going to need to be resolved. And that means someone is going to have a basis for saying Congress can’t enforce the disqualification by majority vote.
If this goes to court, someone is going to have to answer both questions– different people will argue on each side.
.
I don’t know the basis for saying they can’t. I’ve read no one advance any argument. As far as I can tell, the people who think Congress is the only one that can do something– like pass enabling legislation– don’t deny that Congress would pass said said legislation by simple majority.
.
Points in favor that Congress can disqualify Trump by simple majoritycan involve these points:.
1. Congress is given the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th amendment. (There are arguments about whether they are the only entity that has that power. But even if other entities can also do it– Congress is certainly granted that power.) They do have this power. (I don’t think saying they don’t could fly.)
.
2. If Congress can act to enforce the disqualification, there must be a way for them to do so. There could be multiple ways, but there cannot be zero ways. So, those who just say Congress is the only one who can, but then go silent of how the do itneed to provide a plausible way. (Those who say only Congress can do it really really need to suggest a way. And the argument for why that way is the only way better be strong. )
.
3. Normally. Congress does most things by vote with the outcome dictated by majority rule: censures, disqualification, passing legislation, indictment for impeachment, blah, blah, blah. In some specific circumstances set out in the constitution they do things by majority rule. There is no rule in the constitution that says they figure out disqualification by anything other than majority. So majority is plausible. (And Congress has never passed a law saying any other level of majority is required.)
. ‘to be continued…
‘continued
4. The hurdle for getting disqualified must be lower than the one for lifting it. Because otherwise they should just write a person can be disqualified by 2/3rds vote in each house. Instead, it says the disqualification can be lifted with 2/3rds vote. Normal rules of communication dictate this is not also the bar for creating it.
.
5. In fact: it may very well be that requiring a majority vote to disqualify is actually more than enough, and that in fact, no legislation or vote (i.e. law) is required to disqualify a person. And there are historical reasons to think it is not. For example: the 1868, Congress voted to lift section 3’s disqualifications from 100s of Civil War supports without ever passing a law to say who was an insurrectionist nor describing how they would figure it out. But just assumed the people who they lifted disqualification from were insurrectionsts. (Perhaps it’s unfortunate they didn’t take the step of figuring out how to prove these 100s were disqualified in the first place. But there must have been a feeling that someone, they just knew!)
.
6. The method can’t really be the method of passing bills or the budget because it’s important that this can’t be vetoed by the sitting President– who might be the person who is being disqualified. So this is more like “censure” or “impeachment”.
.
The citation for congress removing disqualifciation given in the brief is “See Gerard N. Magliocca, Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth
Amendment, 36 Const. Commentary 87, 112 (2021)”. (I haven’t read it. I should also note, I would think that something needs to be done to enforce the disqualification–but that applies to the ones for age and natural born as well. )
.
There may be other prongs to this logic, but those are the ones I can think of. But I think each plank is strong enough that SCOTUS would need to address them. I think 1-3 are slam dunks. Argument 5 isn’t even necessary– it’s just even stronger than 4 if they buy it. I think since we are discussing disqualifying a Presidential candidate, you really need a method that can’t be vetoed by the President. (Obviously Biden wouldn’t veto it. But, at least in theory, this could come up with a sitting president.)
.
Now: As I wrote: I haven’t read any counter arguments to why the disqualification imposed by Congress would not be by simple majority– this may, perhaps be because this amicus brief was just filed and these particular authors aren’t bloggers or columnists. So those who see flaws in it haven’t had a chance to think about it. The one counter I can think of is “Well, what does this do to the 2/3rds requirement for impeachment for a “high crime and misdemeanor” ” ? Well…. it makes actual insurrection a special case that is different from other “high crimes and misdemeanors”, like say, perjury, obstruction of congress, and etc.
.
Of course, that would still leave: Did Congress already, in fact, disqualify him by voting to indict, and also by having a majority of “guilty” votes. This amicus at least says someone will argue it. I think it’s a strong enough argument for SCOTUS to address if brought before them
SteveF
They could.
.
There isn’t much reason to think they must. But that method of enforcing Section 3 could be suggested to SCOTUS and SCOTUS would be able to decide.
.
One problem with that method is: What if said law were passed by both the house and senate, the sitting president would be barred and the president vetoed it?
.
I think that has the potential problem of being “the” method that I listed under 6. If it’s a method, I think it really can’t be the only method because it could, at least hypothetically, be set aside by the pen of a person who Congress intended to disqualify. That’s unworkable.
Joshua
It seems to me that if the argument is that Congress does get to vote on disqualification and the impeachment votes “count” as them having already done so, it would be difficult for SCOTUS to then decree that they can substitute their definition of “insurrection” over the one Congress used in their indictment. Congress did use the term “insurrection” in the 2nd impeachment indictment.
.
So.. well… presumably more than the majority of Congress think it was an “insurrection”. As long as they didn’t go hog wild with definitions and call something like mere jaywalking an insurrection, Congress calling it an insurrection might kinda, sorta, might even trump “the dictionary”.
.
I mean, to some extent, to say “it wasn’t an insurrection”, SCOTUS sorts of has to add “It’s not an insurrection not even if Congress called it that in an indictment and the majority of congress critters in both houses thought it was.”
.
Yep. At least they won’t say it wasn’t. ‘Cuz… well, to say it wasn’t, they have to say what the majority of congress thought was an insurrection was not an insurrection.
Also: they would have to say that he didn’t participate even though a majority in Congress pretty much voted to say he did.
So many machinations! It is not that complicated. The SC will almost certainly end all the 14th amendment based efforts to eliminate Trump when they rule on Trump V Anderson.
MikeM
I think I mostly agree with you on what’s “kicking the can”.
But I think you missed the one in this amicus brief. Not kicking the can would also include:
(9) Ruling that Congress already disqualified him by having greater than majority votes to indict and convict him of “insurrection” in the 2nd impeachment.
.
That takes him off the CO ballot. Any state that wants their electoral votes to count would pretty much want to follow suit somehow. Of the GOP would want to do it.
.
I guess Congress could vote to lift that disqualification so it’s a “hypothetical kick of the can”. But they would never reach 2/3rds to overcome it.
.
Maybe I can think of other “don’t kick the can” options. *I can go see if this amicus brief suggest any.*
SteveF
I know that’s your prediction. And your argument (and Turley’s) seems to just be any other outcome is bad. And since the outcome is bad, SCOTUS will rule the way you prefer. Or possibly since most of them are GOP they will rule for Trump. Or something.
.
I think the basis for the ruling is more interesting than the outcome. I get discussing the basis doesn’t interest you. That doesn’t mean the reason I’m interested in the basis is I want Trump off.
.
That said: as far as I can tell, the basis for over ruling CO Supremes is not strong. That doesn’t mean SCOTUS won’t overrule them. SCOTUS made ruling based on poor law in the past, and they may again. Or, they may be able to provide a basis for overruling CO that is strong– I just haven’t read one.
.
And I’m actually reading them.
lucia (Comment #228833): “If Congress can act to enforce the disqualification, there must be a way for them to do so. There could be multiple ways, but there cannot be zero ways.”
.
Definitely true. But any way they do it must pass Constitutional muster. So it can not be an ex post facto law nor can it be a Bill of Attainder. A law making Jan 6 and insurrection would be ex post facto and a law declaring Trump guilty of insurrection would be a Bill of Attainder.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder
lucia (Comment #228834):
.
But that assumes that Congress has the right to disqualify an individual. Nothing in the 14th gives them that right; it only gives them the power to set the rules. Disqualifying an individual would seem to be a Bill of Attainder. The fact that Congress has the right to lift disqualifications for individuals does not mean they have the right to impose it on individuals.
But it makes sense that they can’t disqualify a sitting President. There is already a procedure to be used in that case: Impeachment.
.
Your argument would seem to imply that Congress could depose a sitting president by simple majorities in both Houses.
lucia (Comment #228838): “(9) Ruling that Congress already disqualified him by having greater than majority votes to indict and convict him of “insurrection” in the 2nd impeachment.”
.
That one is just silly. Congress did not vote on disqualifying Trump via the 14th Amendment. And that argument would imply that Congress could depose a sitting president by simple majority votes.
MikeM
I didn’t suggest they pass that law. SteveF did in (Comment #228832).
When he suggested it, didn’t disagree because I didn’t see the problem you identifed. I guess you’re right: They can’t do it that way.
.
Since there must be a way, and that one isn’t possible, there must be a way. They pretty much have to go with the idea that what an insurrection is is already defined. The 14th amendment wouldn’t be a bill of Attainder wrt to Trump’s involvement in whatever happened on Jan 6 since it was certainly not passed after Jan 6.
In re the impeachment votes: When the House refused to seat Adam Clayton Powell, the vote exceeded the 2/3 majority required to expel. When SCOTUS struck that down, they rules that since the vote was not to expel it could not be treated after the fact as a vote to expel.
lucia (Comment #228843): “The 14th amendment wouldn’t be a bill of Attainder wrt to Trump’s involvement in whatever happened on Jan 6 since it was certainly not passed after Jan 6.”
.
True. But a bill declaring Trump guilty of insurrection would be a Bill of Attainder.
.
The 14th Amendment WAS an ex post facto law. But since it was an amendment, it would not fall under the ban on Congress enacting such laws.
MikeM
But that’s not the claim.
.
The claim is they voted to indict him for engaging in insurrection. And the majority in the Senate voted he was guilty of engaging in insurrection. This is indisputable.
.
The 14th amendment then says what it says. It happens to disqualify those engaging in insurrection from from certain offices. This is also indisputable.
.
If all that is required to disqualify from those offices is having engaged in insurrection, they don’t have to add “and is thus is disqualified under the 14th amendment” when voting for the disqualification to exist. Or at least, I don’t see how you can just say they had to have added that magical incantation to an indictment and guilty verdict for the disqualification to apply.
.
Maybe SCOTUS would buy they needed to add that. I think that sounds pretty silly. That sort of rule doesn’t apply generally. If someone is convicted of a felony, they are barred from voting in most states for at least some period. But sentence doesn’t say “two years in jail and you are barred from voting”. It just says “two years in jail”. Then the disqualification from voting simply applies because another statute exists. So I don’t think the penalty of disqualification needs to be added to the indictment or conviction. The indictment and conviction only lists the crime.
MikeM
Ok. So it can’t be a bill. If I understand you correctly, you are saying Congress CANNOT do it the way SteveF suggested.
.
I saw a different problem with it– that the actual person found guilty might– hypothetically– veto it. Which would be… just weird and unworkable. But such a bill being a bill of attainder is a more serious flaw.
.
Yes. You are right with respect to it’s passage and application to the Civil war. (Which is pretty important!)
I was thinking: it’s not expos facto with respect to Trump. But yeah…You are totally right: it was a bill of attainder relative to its initial targets– civil war insurrectionists. Absolutely.
SteveF,
I know you want Trump to not be removed from state ballots and predict it will not happen.
But I have some real questions for you in particular:
If Trump is not removed from any state ballots and wins the electoral vote, what do you think will happen on Jan 6? Will someone bring up the idea of disqualification? Or not? Etc. And if they do, what do you think will happen? Court cases? No court cases?
.
Anyone else can also answer. But other than predicting he might win, I’m wondering if you have predictions about what happens if he does not get removed?
Lucia,
“as far as I can tell, the basis for over ruling CO Supremes is not strong.”
.
As far as I can tell, the basis for over ruling is so strong as to be obvious. And, yes, I have read the amicus briefs, and the Colorado ruling (which I think is politically motivated garbage, top to bottom). You keep suggesting that it is a close legal case that will be difficult for the SC to resolve. I completely disagree; I think it is a slam-dunk case against Colorado’s over reach, and will likely go 7-2 or more.
lucia (Comment #228848): “But I have some real questions for you in particular: If Trump is not removed from any state ballots and wins the electoral vote, what do you think will happen on Jan 6? Will someone bring up the idea of disqualification?
.
Yes, someone will bring it up and it could be a real mess *if* SCOTUS kicks the can. But I think they won’t do that, most likely in one or both of two ways I suggested in (Comment #228826):
(1) Ruling that Section 3 does not apply to the President.
(2) Ruling that only procedures established by Congress under Section 5 may be used as a basis for disqualification.
—
In practice, I think they is essentially zero chance that Trump would win the election without Republicans gaining control of the Senate. So an attempt to disqualify him will be DOA.
MikeM
Interesting.
I think the important issue is not whether they voted to disqualify him under the 14th
but whether the charge was insurrection. So I don’t think the “seat/expel” distinction is what matters– at least not to the argument in the amicus brief which is “By simple majorities, both houses already voted that he engaged in insurrection” .
From:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24,
This is the text of what they voted on:
Shown Here: Passed House (01/13/2021)
This resolution impeaches President Donald John Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Specifically, the resolution sets forth an article of impeachment stating that President Trump incited an insurrection against the government of the United States.
The article states that
• prior to the joint session of Congress held on January 6, 2021, to count the votes of the electoral college, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the presidential election results were fraudulent and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by state or federal officials;
• shortly before the joint session commenced, President Trump reiterated false claims to a crowd near the White House and willfully made statements to the crowd that encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the Capitol;
• members of the crowd, incited by President Trump, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol and engaged in other violent, destructive, and seditious acts, including the killing of a law enforcement officer;
• President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the presidential election, which included a threatening phone call to the Secretary of State of Georgia on January 2, 2021;
• President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government, threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of government; and
• by such conduct, President Trump warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold U.S. office.
Lucia, if he wins (which I still put at less than 50:50) he will take office in January, 2025. Yes, Democrats will attempt to stop that by any means available (just as they did in 2016). The SC will reject those efforts as well.
.
Here is the fundamental issue: Some people (likely including you) think it obvious Trump was part of an insurrection on Jan 6. More people think that is mistaken; they think it was a political protest that turned into a riot, not an insurrection. If Trump wasn’t part of an actual insurrection, everything on ‘disqualification’ that has happened in Colorado, Maine and elsewhere is absurd on its face.
SteveF
Since you are so sure DEM judges are biased, I’m surprised you are confident that at least one of Kagan, Sotomoyor and Brown Jackson will all vote to overule CO Supremes. I’m even more surprised you think it likely all three of them will!
.
Maybe they will, but I don’t know why you think they would share your opinion the CO ruling is garbage.
Lucia,
If you believe the “counts” against Trump from the Dems in the House, then we are wasting our time discussing this.
Lucia,
“I don’t know why you think they would share your opinion the CO ruling is garbage.”
.
Maybe because 3 of 7 Dem judges in Colorado showed a bit of sense and voted against barring Trump. Or maybe because Dem judges in other states also refused to bar trump. I suspect at least Kagan has the sense to vote against politically motivated madness, so I say 7-2 or more is likely.
I agree with SteveF. I will be surprised if the decision to overturn CO is not at least 7-2. I won’t be as surprised if it is 9-0.
Too many things going on.
I am helping coordinate a talk on the meaning of life tomorrow.
Trying to engage with my friends and family and still wanting to comment here on Trump Co and insurrection.-
–
Treason and Insurrection run hand in hand and are legislated in both state and federal law.
The terms go way back to Roman law.
There is an awful lot of military connections and military courts being able to finding people guilty of insurrection.
The President also might be able to charge people with insurrection.
–
The idea being that to overthrow a Government basically means overthrowing the head of state be it Caesar, King Charles the first or Trump.
Usually by force and usually by members of that country..
–
So first up as Trump was still President at the time of the fuss, Lucia, he could not be guilty of insurrection in any way shape or form until Joe Biden was actually made President.
Only actions taken after this time with force or illegal means could count as insurrection.
–
In other words the immunity of the President is not an immunity from his actions but that his actions cannot constitute insurrection in any way shape or form at the time he took them as he was not opposing himself.
–
Of interest one of the people charged with State Insurrection twice and not found guilty and murdered in jail in American History was also the leader of a fierce band of actual armed militia that wanted to establish their own state by taking over Mexico.
His name, Joseph Smith.
Another
William Bruce Mumford (December 5, 1819 – June 7, 1862)[1] was a North Carolinian native and resident of New Orleans, who tore down the U.S. flag raised over Confederate New Orleans after the city was captured by Union troops during the American Civil War. In response, Union Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler, the commander of the Union ground forces, had Mumford court-martialed and executed for treason.
–
I think you have to be found guilty by a properly appointed court of the land appointed by the President at that time or the army?
Mike M
I find the argument for both those things really, really, really strained. But who knows?
On (2)
Section 3, right? Whichever section doesn’t say “only”. And historically, courts have interpreted rule (like the 14th amendment) and determined facts. They don’t like to give up powers like that. Not saying they would be biased against giving up their own power… but… They will point out that where the constitution doesn’t say “only” we generally don’t read in “only”, and the constitution doesn’t say “only”.
.
There are other arguments that cut against the idea it’s only Congress. States generally have the power to interpret and apply the US Constitution– subject to review by Federal courts. And they have specifically been allowed to interpret other disqualification clauses. And they have been allowed to interpret complicated constitutional laws. (State courts make rulings about the bill of rights. ) It’s a bit disorderly that they might all come to different views. But that happens all the time– in circuit courts and so on. The fact that something is disorderly is not an argument against them doing it. The order is reimposed by having these things be subject to interpretation by SCOTUS.
.
So it strikes me as quite a stretch for SCOTUS to rule your (2). But who knows, SCOTUS might do it.
.
The lower court in Colorado bought your (1). We’ll see if SCOTUS does. (“Ruling that Section 3 does not apply to the President.”)
MikeM
MikeM
Which of Kagan, Sotomoyor or Brown-jackson do you predict will overturn CO?
SteveF
I’m not sure what you think I believe.
.
What I believe is:
1) There was an resolution to indict Trump and to impeach.
2) The resolution stated the indictment was for “incit[ing] an insurrection against the government of the United States.”
3) The house voted on; more than 50% voted to indict.
4) A trial (or what passes for a trial in Congress) was held.
5) After the trial the Senate voted. The majority voted guilty. However the fraction of guilty votes was less than 2/3rds.
.
None of these beliefs amount to me making any judgement about whether what the DEMS alleged was true or not. I’m just observing what actually happened.
SteveF
Other states have completely different state laws and procedures for deciding who goes on the ballot. They happened not to have the provision barring disqualified candidates from being on the primary ballot. The different outcomes in different states doen’t suggest anyting other than “Minnesota state law is does not apply in Colorado and vice versa”.
.
MInnesota said based on their laws they can’t keep him off the primary ballot because there is no law in Minn that says you can’t put an ineligible candidate on a primary ballot. They add: feel free to come back when we are putting together the presidential ballot. At that point, if Trump is nominated, the issue will be ripe.
.
https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/A23-1354/Order-Dismiss-Not-Stipulated,-Entire-Case.pdf
.
Like Minnesota, Michigan law also doesn’t prohibit disqualified candidates from being on a primary ballot. The GOP could put a 16 year old on the ballot and MI would have no law against that.
.
It is simply the case that many states allow disqualified candidates on the primary ballot. So the issue is moot because, following their laws a 16 year old, illegal immigrant could be on the primary ballot, and that would just be that.
.
None of this makes CO ruling unsound either with respect to CO law nor US Constitutional law.
Some of the other reasons states didn’t take Trump off are actually funny:
New Hampshire told an obscure candidate named Castro from Texas that he didn’t have standing to sue over the New Hampshire ballot because he wasn’t from New Hampshire. (Additionally, New Hampshire says, like MI and MN, they don’t have law requiring candidates on the primary ballot to be eligible for office. )
.
Castro is also being told to bound sand in numerous other states because, not being a resident of those states, he lacks standing. He’s still got 7 suits pending in 7 states. I bet he will be rebuffed for lack of standing in all except in TX. I have no idea what will happen in TX.
.
None of these rulings reflect in any way on CO’s ruling. If Castro had file a suit in CO, CO would probably have told him he lacked standing too because you need to be elegible to vote in CO to file a suit. But that wouldn’t have blocked the suit that actually went forward; the complaint was filed by people eligible to vote in CO.
lucia (Comment #228859): “Which of Kagan, Sotomoyor or Brown-jackson do you predict will overturn CO?”
.
Possibly all three. Kagan more likely than not.
lucia (Comment #228858): “Section 3, right? Whichever section doesn’t say “only”. ”
.
Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce. Of course states could set up their own similar laws and enforce those laws with regard to state officials, but they are not given any power to enforce such laws against national office holders.
lucia (Comment #228862): “Castro is also being told to bound sand in numerous other states because, not being a resident of those states, he lacks standing.”
.
Castro was claiming standing as a candidate who would be harmed by Trump being on the ballot. The court in NM rejected that on the grounds that he provided no evidence that he was actually a candidate: no organization in NM, no campaign contributions, and not actually on the ballot. My understanding is that other states have rejected his suits on similar grounds.
MikeM,
I stand corrected. I know it’s been lack of standing, lack of standing…. So I guess different reasons for lacking standing in different states.
.
Main thing: State laws vary. So why a particular suit was thrown out in other states doesn’t necessarily have bearing on CO’s ruling– which is based on a State law with particular provisions. Those do have federal consequences, but the other states don’t seem to have those particular provisions.
.
Oh… I was googling to find out about more and…
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4400782-trump-14th-amendment-political-challenger-arrested-on-federal-tax-charges/
“Trump 14th Amendment political challenger arrested on federal tax charges ”
[…]
….
Quite a character.
MikeM
Evidently, Castro pretty much admits he’s not really running…
lucia (Comment #228866): “Main thing: State laws vary. So why a particular suit was thrown out in other states doesn’t necessarily have bearing on CO’s ruling– which is based on a State law with particular provisions.”
.
But it is not state law at issue. It is federal courts in NM and elsewhere that have ruled that Castro did not have standing.
In the NM case, NM District Judge Matthew L. Garcia wrote:
and
MikeM,
Ok– I assumed they were all removed to Federal courts? [I guess not?]
By the way, this one is on going in Mass. This is at the state level– but for now at a panel (not court):
https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/18/massachusets-trump-primary-ballot-challenge
This is evidently Trumps lawyers argument– vis-a-vis Mass law.
In contrast, CO’s law (as interpreted by the CO supremes) said you had to be qualified to be on the primary ballot.
(I don’t know if Trump’s lawyer is right or wrong. I read a filing here
https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/massachusetts-trump-ballot-objection.pdf
The argument is, evidently, over what “certificates of nomination” or “nomination papers” are vs. just nomination. (I have no idea how these differ.) But Trumps lawyers argument seems to be that provided the GOP nominated him, he can be on the primary ballot even if he is totally and utterly unqualified to be president.
.
If that’s true for Mass law, then Mass law is different from CO law.
This one is interesting. There’s Cenk Uygur, sort of video blogger guy, suing South Carolina the DEM party and state officials because they won’t let him on the ballot. The article does say “federal court”.
Cenk Uygur is a a naturalized citizen and not natural born.
Uygur is evidently arguing the the 14th amendment removes the requirement of being a “natural born citizen”.
He evidently plans to take this to SCOTUS too. I have no idea where his legal filing is nor, other than the 14th amendment and US constitution he mentions in the suit.
https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/2-presidential-candidates-excluded-sc-ballots-sue-one-wants-trump-too
(So far a federal judge pushed back on Cenk. But since Cenk says he’s going to appeal all the way up, I assume there will be an appeal.
He has managed to get on ballots in 6 states.
https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/federal-judge-rejects-effort-by-progressive-pundit-born-in-turkey-to-appear-on-sc-presidential-ballot/article_ad65d0c2-afdc-11ee-898d-bf2e3b7e0b98.html )
(In the same article: Castro is suing to get on the ballot and also to get Trump off. The reason he’s not on it appear to be that he filed, sent a $50,000 check, but then cancelled the check so it bounced. Also, evidently, in SC, “In South Carolina, unlike other states, the political parties themselves — not the state election agency or a lone elected official — decide who’s eligible for their primary ballots.” )
” It largely rests on the 14th Amendment, which says all persons “born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens and no state can diminish the rights of citizens.
But Uygur argues it also overturns the Founding Fathers’ requirement that presidents must be a “natural born citizen.”
–
Are they contradicting each other?
The rights of citizenship being naturalized does not overcome the technicality that a President still has to be a naturally born citizen, which a naturalized citizen ain’t.
The rights of citizenship do not extend to choosing your place of birth.
angech,
I’d have to read his full argument to know his full argument. Yes, it supposedly rests on the bit you quoted.
I doubt he is going to prevail.
.
The interesting thing about his suit and it’s timing is that many of the “sub questions” need to be resolved similarly for both Uygur and Trump. And even if this isn’t at SCOTUS at the same time SCOTUS probably read papers are will be aware other suits exist and would be affected. (And future requests would be affected.)
.
Some are the same. Some aren’t. Similar, and answer has to be the same for both:
.
* Can States decide or diagnose whether a candidate is disqualified? If yes, on what basis?
* Can States keep “disqualified” candidates off the ballot? If yes, on what basis?
* Can a disqualified candidate run for office? Does it matter which disqualification? If yes, why?
* Does the process insist on letting people run, “let the voters decide” and then having Congress identify disqualifications if the voters do vote in a disqualified candidate on Jan 6, 2025?
.
Note: Application of basis might lead to different outcomes for the candidates, but the stated bases have to be the same. If the reason is they can’t keep disqualified candidates off the ballot because of “first amendment rights of voters”, it seems to me they would need to let both candidates on. If the rule is “let voters decide and we sort it out on Jan 6”, that would seem to apply Cenk Uygur also. Uygur would almost certainly lose, but I think that’s irrelevant to the legal decision about ballot access.
The Castro decision about letting him on SC primary ballot is likely easier- – his check to the GOP bounced after he cancelled it. The GOP even had to pay a $35 fine for trying to deposit a check that bounced! He’s not on the primary ballot because he didn’t pay the required filing fee. )
.
There may be others questions that are similar. To the extent they are similar, they have to be answered the same– and in real time.
.
There are plenty of questions that are different. So the answer to whether they are on the ballot could be different. Cenk Uygur’s is certainly naturalized; Trump is natural born. Cenck is not accused of inssurection. Cenk;s is theory for why that doesn’t disqualify him is totally different from Trumps arguments about the entire ‘insurrection’ business and rests on a different part of the 14th amendment.
.
But even if Uygur is disqualified for an obvious or easy to interpret reason, if this got to court, the answers to the starred questions need to be answered.
.
Cenk Uygur is an example of why the legal answer can’t just be “this is ridiculous! Keep TRUMP on the ballot!” SCOTUS legal answer does have to answer stuff like the starred questions. (If it’s going to rest on Section 3 is not self executing, they are going to have to explain why that particular section is an exception, because the rest of the amendment has been interpreted to be self executing.)
lucia (Comment #228872): “need to be resolved similarly for both Uygur and Trump …Application of basis might lead to different outcomes for the candidates, but the stated bases have to be the same. If the reason is they can’t keep disqualified candidates off the ballot because of “first amendment rights of voters”, it seems to me they would need to let both candidates on. ”
.
I don’t think that is correct. SCOTUS has ruled that blocking ballot access is an infringement of the First Amendment rights of voters. As such, any such restriction must survive strict scrutiny. So it must serve a compelling state interest and must accomplish that in the least restrictive possible manner.
.
So far as I know, the only compelling state interest that has been subject to judicial scrutiny is the need to keep the ballot manageable and understandable for voters. Blocking a vanity candidate on the grounds of ineligibility serves that purpose with minimal infringement of voters’ rights. Blocking the most popular candidate would not serve that compelling interest.
.
Of course, one could argue that there is a compelling state interest in not electing an ineligible candidate. But as regards a viable candidate, that is a different reason for blocking access. So the Uygur and Trump decisions need not be the same.
lucia (Comment #228872): “If it’s going to rest on Section 3 is not self executing, they are going to have to explain why that particular section is an exception, because the rest of the amendment has been interpreted to be self executing.”
.
There is no reason why parts of the Amendment might be self-executing while other parts might not be. If it were entirely self-executing, then Section 5 would be superfluous.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1852),
This seems to be “the” SCOTUS ruling that discusses whether granting a power to Congress means taking that power away from the States. (This would be germain to MikeM’s idea that SCOTUS could rule that only congress can identify a disqualification.)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/53/299/
.
Overall, the ruling seems to be interpreted that even though Congress has the power to do something, that doesn’t mean the States cannot also do it. The states can do it unless Congress enacts legislation that describes how it is done.
.
The argument then is– under long time precedent (which has been cited since that time) the constitution saying “Congress has the power to do A” does not mean states cannot do A. And the only way it might become “states cannot do A” is if congress also has the power to write legislation to prohibit states from doing A.
.
With respect to Section 3 of the 14th amendment, Congress has not written legislation prohibiting states from enforcing disqualifications under the 14th amendment..
.
So: looks like saying “only” congress can enforce X (e.g. disqualification under Section 3) would be a deviation from Stare decisis. Or the ruling would have to explain why it’s not.
.
Kagan, btw, likes “stare decisis”. Or at least she claimed to really, really, really likes stare decisis when people were arguing Dobbs. If she was telling the truth about liking that, I don’t know why she’d change her mind now. That’s not to say she couldn’t but it seems unlikely she would give “only Congress can enforce” as her reason.
lucia (Comment #228872): “Does the process insist on letting people run, “let the voters decide” and then having Congress identify disqualifications if the voters do vote in a disqualified candidate on Jan 6, 2025?”
.
As I have said before, I think that is the correct procedure except for who gets to identify a disqualification after the voters have their say. The Constitution is clear on that. For a Senator elect, that is the Senate. For a Representative elect, that is the House. For a President or Vice-President, it is the Electoral College.
.
I know the last is unsatisfying since Electors are no longer independent actors. But the rules were set up on the assumption that Electors WOULD be independent actors and have never been changed. So those rules still apply.
Mike M,
In addition to the two reasons you suggest (doesn’t apply to President and VP, must be enabled by Congress), in a 7-2 or greater opinion I suggest they may also reject the Colorado process as lacking adequate due process, and being unconstitutional interference with free political speech.
.
If the split is 6-3 or 5-4, then the subject of applicability is likely to be addressed (Was Jan 6 an insurrection? Can Colorado make that determination? No.) and how the CO courts were in error when they applied the 14th to Trump based on partisan “beliefs” about January 6. Matters of fact (how old is the candidate?) are very different from wildly differing beliefs about what Jan 6 was, and I expect any 6-3 or 5-4 majority opinion to touch on that. They may avoid words like ‘stupid’ and ‘dangerous’ when describing the Colorado ruling, but I expect the message will be the same.
.
Roberts probably will want the simplest possible per curium opinion which will make the issue go away permanently, but I think it more likely than not he won’t be able to get that.
MikeM
I’m saying it has to be explained.
.
This is Section 5:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
.
I don’t see how Section 5 becomes superfluous if Section 3 is self executing. Section 5 also gives them power to enforce sections 1. That means they can flesh out details of what sort of due process might be etc.
But my understanding is section 1 is considered self executing. If congress didn’t explain the correct form of “due process”, states can step in. Congress could create a federal process that they consider “due”.
.
If the the fact that section 1 is self executing doesn’t make Section 5 superfluous, then section 3 being self executing doesn’t either. Or if someone think it does, that has to be explained. Because my understanding is all the other sections are considered self executing in the sense that states could enforce them without Congress passing enabling legislation to explain how.
(And my undestanding is all the other clauses are considered self executing also.)
.
The interpretation of “Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1852),” seems to be when a power is granted to congress, it is still retained by the states. IF congress has the right to take that power away from the states, then they have to do it.
.
Under this interpretation “not self executing” means the states also have the power to disqualify unless Congress writes and act that says otherwise. Congress hasn’t done that.
.
That is: Section 5 gives the Congress some rights to say how things will be done. That might include saying “we do it”. But if they don’t states can act.
.
That makes “not self executing” cut against the idea that only congress can do it because of “5”– because they haven’t written any such act!
This is funny on Chase
https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2023/08/what-it-means-to-say-that-section-3-of.html
So, I guess we could have a debate of “Chase vs. Chase”.
Dorf (above link) also discussed more on self-execuging
Somewhat random thought on Tuesday’s primary. In 1992, Pat Buchanan, who had never run for office, decided to challenge incumbent President Bush for the Republican nomination. In the New Hampshire primary, Buchanan got 38% of the vote and lost by 15 points. It was the high water mark of his campaign.
.
I will be interested to see if Niki Haley can match Buchanan’s performance.
Mike M,
“I will be interested to see if Niki Haley can match Buchanan’s performance.”
.
Since registered Democrats can vote in the Republican primary (and the Boston Globe is urging them to do just that!), I don’t think how Haley does in NH will mean very much. Maybe she does better than Buchanan, maybe not, but she will lose her home state of SC badly, and will then drop out. DeSantis is likely to do the same after SC, where he will come in third. The fat lady hasn’t sung, but I think it is just about over.
Yep. I rate Haley’s chances of winning the nomination as being exactly the same as Buchanan’s.
.
I think this is how most Trump supporters see Haley:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2024/01/IMG_9076.png
.
At least Buchanan had principles.
lucia (Comment #228879): “So, I guess we could have a debate of “Chase vs. Chase”.”
.
I have seen it argued that the there is no contradiction in the two opinions by Chase since the one contrary to Griffen has been misquoted. I think that was in one of Josh Blackman’s articles at Volokh Conspiracy, but I can’t find it.
lucia,
Even if states do have the power to enforce Article 3, they must not have the power to make up the rules ex post facto. And only legislatures, not state bureaucrats. must be allowed to make such rules.
.
Could the State of New Mexico rule that a federal judge for the District of New Mexico engaged in insurrection and that therefore that judge’s rulings are null and void? I think not. Any state level enforcement of Section 3 must be only applicable to state and local officials. States surely have the power to do that.
Mike M,
Very funny photo. 😉
.
But ya, that is about it. Haley is believed by many to be a RINO who will shepherd continuing ‘progress’ toward a country with an ever growing Federal bureaucracy, controlled by incompetent ‘elites’. But just a bit slower than Biden would. Close the boarder? Nope. Avoid foreign wars? Nope. Adopt America first policies? Nope. Cut Federal spending? Nope. She is George Bush in high heels.
.
Trump may be tempted to choose her as VP candidate, but I think he would be better off with Elise Stefanik; smart as a whip, tough, principled, and disciplined.
.
(Well, as principled as a politician can be….)
Mike M,
The MSM have begun to run many very negative stories on Stefanik; that suggests she may be Trump’s choice.
Trump has said that Haley is not presidential timber. Something on which Trump and Christie agree!
.
Haley will not be the VP pick. Trump has lots of good choices. If he wants to play the “diversity” card, he could go with Stefanik or Tim Scott or Noem or Ramaswamy or a number of others. If not, he has many more choices. One thing we can be sure of: his VP choice will be demonized by the press and Democrats. Just like Romney and McCain were.
Mike M,
“Noem”
.
As the say in Brazil “Deus me-livre!” (God free me!) Noem is another Haley-like RINO.
.
The rest are all fine, but yes, whoever Trump chooses (even the RINOS) will be demonized by the MSM as nothing but the right hand of the Devil himself. Maybe not quite as bad as Hitler reincarnate, but displaying even worse judgment than Hitler by accepting Trump’s offer.
.
That is why I think the nominee needs to be someone as tough (and as difficult to intimidate!) as a 15-pound bucket of 16 penny hot-dip galvanized common nails, and that is most certainly not Noem.
Russell “a guy in an old t-shirt trying to learn English, terrible lighting and graphics, he’s a joke. I’m not gonna be learning anything from him.”
.
You just described about 1/2 of my professors and lab TA’s
MikeM
I didn’t mean to suggest you did. I just didn’t previously know that about Chase v. Chase. So it made me chuckle.
Since I referenced Bibi’s comments about Amalek here, it’s only appropriate that I link to this article which makes a compelling case that my interpretation of Bibi’s statement was wrong because of my lack of understanding of the full context. I think that there’s a glaring omission in the case presented – that Israeli troops were on video chanting about Amalek and how there are no civilians in Gaza – but still that argument presented as well as others in the same article do complicate SA’s genocide case, IMO:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/israel-south-africa-genocide-case-fake-quotes/677198/
There are indeed plenty of civilians in Gaza. After all, ~40% are children, and ~20% young children. The problem is that the children are constantly, formally trained to hate Jews. The age at which that hatred becomes a big problem seems to me difficult to determine. What is clear is that the majority of the adult people in Gaza do indeed want to destroy Israel.
MikeM
Sure, they can’t make up rules ex post facto. But CO had the rules they used in place before Trump was every elected. The statute is like from… the 90s? I posted the date before and don’t quite remember. But it’s well before Trump was even in office.
To your question: probably not with respect to his past actions. That’s actually what Griffin is about. Since no one has acted to enforce the disqualification, the judge was still a defacto judge and his rulings stand.
.
But your conclusion doesn’t follow.
.
Because the fact that state officials can’t make the rulings null and void doesn’t necessarily mean state officials can’t suddenly notice he is disqualified and remove him. This law review article suggest they can.
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/438_q54sjnwz.pdf
.
.
Obviously it’s not a court case and I have no idea if anyone else buys that argument. I’m sure whatever they tried to do would be subject to review by the federal courts– ultimately SCOTUS.
.
I don’t have any idea if any states have tried to remove federal judges and been blocked.
.
DeSantis is done.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ron-desantis-planning-drop-presidential-bid-sunday-rcna134953
Mark,
Damn. Too bad.
That said, I prefer Halley.
I thought that Haley had a chance of finishing closer to Trump than Buchanan did to Bush. But not with DeSantis out.
OK, that posted, let’s try my previous message again.
.
Are you referring to a statute regarding insurrection and Section 3? Because I was saying that such a statute would have to have been in place before Jan. 6 in order to use ii. If they had such a statute, that is news to me.
—-
Above referring to lucia (Comment #228893): “But CO had the rules they used in place before Trump was every elected.”
Weird. It seems that stuff can only be quoted in edits.
.
I am certain that states can not remove federal judges. The only accepted means to remove federal judges is impeachment and conviction. It can be argued that the framers intended something else with the “good behavior” clause in Article 3 but that has not been the case in practice. And that practice was established in the 1790’s, if memory serves.
.
Even if courts could remove judges, it would have to be an equal or higher court doing the job. So a federal judge would have to be removed by federal courts.
—–
Above referring to lucia (Comment #228893): “doesn’t necessarily mean state officials can’t suddenly notice he is disqualified and remove him.”
Mark –
.
Interesting that he didn’t endorse Haley. Because he’s ideologically closer to Trump? Because he’s thinking of the political outcomes of not falling in line with Trump?
Your guess is as good as mine.
On policy, DeSantis is MUCH closer to Trump than to Haley. And DeSantis supporters much prefer Trump to Haley.
Mike –
.
> DeSantis is MUCH closer to Trump than to Haley.
.
How so? And how critical has he been of Trump as a candidate versus Haley as a candidate?
So, lemme see.
.
Everyone except Haley has given up. Maybe (just maybe) Nikki! should do the same.
.
Trump is an ugly, indeed horribly grotesque, person to present the case for intolerable government over reach in the USA. But present it he will. I suspect many voters will believe him.
.
Whether or not nationwide voters will accept that is to be seen.
MikeM
The law review article I linked claimed otherwise. Their view is a state could set up procedures and carry them out under state law. Then their state laws could apply the procedure– so “ordinary court”. It also said it was trying to clarify the misconception that the only way you can remove them is impeachment and conviction. It claimed.
.
That said: Law review article– so theoretical law. Not a court case. But the claim the president is not an officer of the United states was “theoretical law review law” until it was advanced in a brief.
The law review article does say any such removal would have to be reviewed in federal court. But that’s just saying SCOTUS gets to say yeah or nay.
.
I think the law review article doesn’t discuss any state trying to remove a federal judge. So there are no US precedents to test this legal theory.
.
I’m just pointing out: it has been argued states could remove federal judges.
…. —- tangent ——
(On a weird tangent– triggered by the thought of “legal ideas that have no precedents”). I thought I’d read there were no real precedents on 3rd amendment jurisprudence testing the idea of quartering soldiers. Wikipedia says this “Since its ratification, the Third Amendment has rarely been litigated, and no Supreme Court case has relied on the Third Amendment as the basis for a decision.” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey )
Joshua
My main answer is the same as marks. But… another guess: Maybe because he knows this primary has potential to get even weirder and might want to step back in. (He can… right?)
Lucia –
.
> Maybe because he knows this primary has potential to get even weirder and might want to step back in.
.
That’s an interesting idea. Of course, he could also have just not endorsed. Not only did he endorse, but he did so immediately.
.
The word “fealty” comes to mind given Trump’s position as the party’s overlord, but I haven’t followed their campaigns at all and for all I know his endorsing Haley based on policy positions could be a no-brainer.
DeSantis wants a prominent position in the 2024 Trump government. (I suggest Secretary of State). Will that actually happen? Who knows? The current betting is: yes, if Trump will return, Washington is f*cked. But who knows? Who would be appointed? Not me to guess.
Joshua
Ok… but here are two BIG if/then branches:
IF SCOTUS leaves Trump on ballot, endorsing Trump can put DeSantis is a good position to get position in Trump’s government. (Or be VP?)
IF SCOTUS says he’s disqualified, DeSantis jumps back into the void created. And now he jumps in as someone who endorsed Trump.
I think the key date for SCOTUS hearing oral arguments is Feb 8.
I mean… DeSantis isn’t a bad guy. But he is a politician. I’ve got no idea if these are considerations. Just if we are guessing… might as well be creative and think of all possible branches.
Lucia,
“DeSantis isn’t a bad guy. But he is a politician’
.
OK,I guess being a politician makes him automatedly a bad guy. DeSantis screwed up abortion,OK. Beyond that, he seems to me impeccable. He was IMHO, trying much too hard to get the extreme of Trump’s supporters to switcvh.. It will cost him.
Lucia –
.
Makes sense. No downside to endorsement of Trump. Potential upsides either way to the endorsement: Can jump in if something takes Trump off the ballot. Doesn’t incur Trump’s wrath if he Trump stays on. Even if Trump were to lose in the election he’s still the Republican power-broker. Potential downside and no real upside to endorsing Haley. So he might just as well go for it.
.
I don’t get the sense that Trump would give DeSantis anything in his administration. DeSantis looks to me like a big flop – so what’s in it for Trump? But obviously I’m not a Republican party candidate whisperer.
Again an edit lost in the ether.
.
I shouldn’t have said “big” flop. Just a flop.
.
My sense before the campaign was that he was a strong candidate who had a real shot. As it turned out it looks to me like he ran a weak campaign and was largely ineffectual. Seems to me he’s worse off now than before the campaign started. His brand had been damaged. Haley looks to me the opposite. Someone who never seemed to have much of a shot, and still doesn’t really, but her status has improved over the course of the campaign. Her brand is boosted.
.
But again that’s all from someone who hasn’t paid much attention at all.
Hmmm.
.
> “DeSantis said Trump has his endorsement “because we can’t go back to the old Republican guard of yesteryear – a repackaged form of warmed-over corporatism – that Nikki Haley represents.”
.
.
OK, if that’s representative of how he ran his campaign (I wouldn’t know) a Trump endorsement makes sense from a policy angle.
SteveF
I wouldn’t go that far. But it means he sort of has to “calculate” things or think about strategy.
We have our own problems to solve in Florida. I’ll be glad when our Governor gets back to work. He can start by working on the homeowner insurance mess.
Joshua,
Brand is all well and good. But who ends up president ends up affecting future trajectory of the brand for at least 4 years. People forget who politicians are after 4 years on the “outs”.
I think what hastened DeSanctis’ departure from the race might have something to do with forgetting to file papers for the NY primary. Kind of a big oops and pretty much dooming his candidacy.
The noted US intelligence assesses that 20-30% of Hamas is dead. With a 1:2 killed:wounded ratio as in the overall population and 60-90% Hamas incapacitated, Hamas threat must have been effectively eliminated. Meanwhile the assault continues with the same intensity. I suppose this is how, with compliant journalists, we got the “WMD in Iraq” war.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-toll-thus-far-falls-short-of-israels-war-aims-u-s-says-d1c43164
DeSantis was Trump with respect to policy but without the drama. Many Trump supporters apparently prefer the drama first and the policy second.
.
We have talked about thinning the herd early to give someone a shot against Trump and that happened, but it may not be enough. Haley needs to stay in for at least a little while but I suspect many DeSantis supporters will go to Trump.
In modern combat the wounded to killed ratio is usually much higher than 2:1. Closer to 10:1 in Iraq for the US.
https://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2016/10/27/wounded-to-killed-ratios/
.
An important category is those who are taken out of the war and cannot return versus minor wounds and a return to battle.
.
All these numbers continue to be meaningless unless Hamas discloses actual numbers. If it’s true 30% of Hamas has been killed then that will not be a morale booster.
Tom Scharf,
“I suspect many DeSantis supporters will go to Trump.”
.
Yes. I don’t think many DeSantis fans will be supporting Nikki!
RB –
.
> “Meanwhile the assault continues with the same intensity.”
.
I think the intensity has stepped down.
.
Still, 3 months of massive bombing with thousands and thousands of civilian deaths and multiples more of injuries and yet nothing approaching “eradicating” Hamas.
.
At what point after failure to “eradicate Hamas” do people revisit whether mass bombing was justified by a goal of “eradicating Hamas?”
.
Unfortunately, I think for some, never.
.
Joshua,
“At what point after failure to “eradicate Hamas” do people revisit whether mass bombing was justified by a goal of “eradicating Hamas?””
.
Why do you think Israel will fail to eradicate Hamas? If RB is correct (~20-30% killed), then serious injuries to Hamas fighters (limiting future ability to fight) would be expected to at least double that number. Seems to me 40% – 60% or more permanently out of action is already a long way toward eradication.
As of today, Israel claims to have killed ~9,000 Hamas fighters. Israel says their losses are:
“188 were killed and 1,113 were wounded during the ground offensive in Gaza”
.
or almost 6 wounded for each killed. Israel might be publishing intentionally false (low) figures for the number of Hamas killed, but I don’t see any reason to.
.
Israel estimated a total of about 30,000 Hamas fighters in Gaza before October 2023, so they are claiming ~30% have been killed.
You’ll likely only see this headline at NPR: “Why the war in Ukraine is bad for climate science”
.
No temperature data from the Russian arctic, don’t ya know. Of course, there is still satellite based data. NPR is good for a laugh once in a while. 😉
Steve –
.
> Why do you think Israel will fail to eradicate Hamas?
.
My guess is that a relatively smaller % of the leaders have been killed. I think that not killing the leaders and creating the conditions whereby many, many more people would be likely to replace the fighters killed, perhaps just under a group with a different name, and even there under the massively costly conditions of occupation, wouldn’t be a meaningful attainment of a goal of “eradicating” Hamas. Keep in mind that Hamas started and became a viable threat when Gaza was being occupied, and Isreal pulled out in part because occupation was massively costly and didn’t prevent Hamas from operating let alone existing.
.
So I guess in part this is a matter of definitions.
Joshua,
Donno. Israel claims to have killed many commanders. But the fog of war is thick. Israel has never attempted this level of warfare in Gaza, so how it will turn out is unclear to me, save for that they want Hamas out of power and as many of them as possible killed. If they actually do kill most all of the Hamas fighters, that would presumably include commanders.
Tom Scharf (Comment #228919)
“In modern combat the wounded to killed ratio is usually much higher than 2:1. Closer to 10:1 in Iraq for the US”
.
This wounded to kill ratio is very situational dependent.
.
The US in Iraq was not engaged against an enemy equipped with effective and plentiful anti air defense. Helicopter medical evacuation tended to be onsite in minutes to a forward aid station and on the way by air to major hospitals within hours after being stabilized at the aid station.
.
Hamas being a largely irregular force has a very limited medical support, so their ratio would be lower. 2:1 would not be unlikely.
.
The situation for the war in Ukraine also varies quite a bit on where one is wounded.
.
If off the frontlines, both sides have very competent medical facilities and quick access to medical care. This would give a large and higher ratio.
.
If wounded on the frontlines, just getting to the aid station is a dangerous journey. Any wound beyond initial treatment by attached unit medical corpsmen will have a much worse outcome. Medical transport off the frontline is targeted by both sides by the heavy drone concentrations seen in this conflict. Helicopter transport is impossible due to the wide spread use of MANPADS. Survival rates for this group is likely no better than WWI as the badly wounded can face a significant time delay before getting to a forward aid station or hospital.
From Willis E.:
“Undeniable facts:
Gaza is only 141 square miles (365 sq. km.)
If Israel actually wanted to commit genocide, they have enough firepower to easily turn the entire country into glassy slag and kill every living being.
They haven’t. Case closed.
w.”
He has interesting graphics comparing WW2 genocide and whats happening in Gaza.
https://x.com/weschenbach/status/1749496638010482861?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Russell –
.
Snowflake Willis blocked me because I criticized his analysis where he said that no more than 0.085% of any population would die of COVID (this was when population fatalities in some countries were already close to that level, so his estimation going forward was off by orders of magnitude).
.
So I can’t comment on his post. Maybe ask him for me whether he thinks China is committing genocide in Western China.
.
Total deaths from covid are dependent on demographics (lots of old people —> more deaths). In the USA total deaths work out to about 0.36% of the population, so Willis was clearly mistaken. Had the vaccines not become available, the number of elderly deaths would have been considerably higher (maybe 0.7%?).
.
In places where essentially 100% of the elderly population was immunized before the spread of the virus (like New Zealand) the death rate was only about 0.1%. So the the vaccines reduced the risk of death among the elderly by a significant factor. The complication of the virus evolving to be more infective but less deadly clouds any estimate of how many would have died absent vaccines, as well as a clear estimate of the actual effectiveness of the vaccines.
Who will win a larger portion of his/her party’s vote in New Hampshire tomorrow?
(a) Nikki Haley
(b) Dean Phillips
.
On the basis of zero data, I will go with (b).
Speaking of vaccines: Pfizer and Moderna are sucking wind; sales crashed to very low levels. Moderna has increased the price to $140 per dose. Add distribution and medical cost and it will now likely cost $200, but give you only a couple of months of greater resistance to infection (ignoring any possible side effects). Not many are willing to pay that. Pfizer stock peaked at $61, now hovering around $28. Moderna peaked at $449, but is now ~$106.
Steve –
.
Willis looked at some lines on his screen and projected forward, absent knowledge of many of relevant considerations like new variants or demographic confounders or seasonality or many other factors. Same with Nic Lewis with his determination in May 2020 that herd immunity had been reached and infections and mortality were effectively over.
.
Not that I’m some genius, but I thought at the time that the likelihood of them being wrong was pretty high.
.
The problem isn’t that they were wrong. That happens. The problem was their confidence in their modeling of a complex matrix of uncertainties (sound familiar?) and then a failure in accountability. Willis thought just saying he was wrong, as if it weren’t abundantly obvious, was enough. He didn’t seem to agree that what was important was for him to address the obvious underlying problems in his analytical approach (and that made it reasonably likely that he was likely wrong).
.
Nic wasn’t much better on the accountability front, as I recall.
.
Ok. Cheap shot over.
Joshua,
There were plenty of people who made glaring errors with predictions of death rates during the pandemic, and unlike Willis, they had influence which lead to terrible policies. People were being terrorized by outlandish estimates of risks, and especially terrorized by outlandish estimates of risks to the non-elderly. Unlike Willis, they won’t even fess up to the very costly errors (in terms of money and human suffering) that they made. Those are the folks who should be ridiculed, not Willis.
.
OK. Cheap shot over.
Steve –
.
I know you have reasons to want to rationalize Willis’ poor analysis (so poor even not particularly informed or intelligent people such as myself – in distinction from many readers here – could see it was erroneous), but we could go back and forth with this.
.
Such as.
.
There were plenty of people who made glaring errors with predictions of death rates during the pandemic, and unlike Willis, they had influence which lead to terrible policies..
.
People were being terrorized by outlandish estimates of risks, from the vaccines and from NPIs and especially terrorized by outlandish estimates of risks from vaccines to the non-elderly. and perhaps worse, terrorized by outlandish estimates of the harms from masks, and ridiculous estimates of harms from a “plandemic” and a “great reset” and a massive cabal of scientists and researchers working in cahoots with “big pharma.”
.
Unlike Willis, they won’t even fess up to the very costly errors (in terms of money and human suffering) that they made. Those are the folks who should be ridiculed, not Willis.
.
There, fixed it for ya.
Joshua,
Very funny. Very false.
Insurance was still paying for covid shots a couple months ago. Not clear if the government is still paying any part of that. You still cannot get a shot at a doctor’s office. It’s still effective enough to have some value but it is ineffective enough that insurance companies are probably running the numbers now.
.
Paxlovid coverage is now via private insurance but Medicare covers it. It’s $1400 MSRP but I think if you are over 50 and get a doctor to prescribe it then it will be covered as a normal prescription, but it varies.
.
More people got flu shots recently than covid shots even though covid is still a bigger mortal threat. Only about 20% got recent covid boosters.
Tom –
.
> More people got flu shots recently than covid shots even though covid is still a bigger mortal threat.
.
Do you have any links on the relative IFRs are at this point, given T cell/memory cell immunity to covid at this point is quite prevalent. Many interesting questions raised. Is T cell and memory cell immunity as protective for the flu as for COVID? Is antibody protection from previous infection more durable with covid or the flu? Some stuff on the list to look up.
.
> Only about 20% got recent covid boosters.
.
Big age gradient there. Kind of like with mortality rates, an overall average is not very informative, imo. I believe there’s a higher uptake of boosters in some other countries. I wonder if that is reflected in morbidity and mortality rates. So hard to know because of so many confounds across countries.
They seem to be saying that you need a booster every 5-6 months. It is no wonder that people don’t do it.
The CDC is also appears to say 10 year olds need boosters.
.
They are nuts. The risk from covid among kids is miniscule.
The US booster recommendations are not in line with the rest of the world (or Florida, ha ha) which just recommends them for seniors and some other immunocompromised categories. I suspect this is because the rest of the world with national health systems have to pay for them with government funds.
.
Pretty much useless against infection port-omicron (I can attest to that) and ~50% effective against serious illness depending on how you parse the data. They like to study immunocompetent people now and compare to the group who haven’t had a recent booster because so many people have acquired infection immunity which cause data processing complications.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccine-effectiveness
.
Bottom line: Some short term value for seniors especially if you are heading to a high risk event, but nowhere near the protection of the original strain.
Covid vs flu vaccine uptake:
https://www.statnews.com/2024/01/22/flu-vaccine-demand-covid-vaccine/
“73% of people 65 and older have received a flu shot, but only 41% have taken the Covid booster”
.
https://www.ahcancal.org/News-and-Communications/Blog/Pages/Flu-or-COVID-19—Which-is-Worse.aspx
“Among individuals over 65 they are 3-4x more likely to die from COVID-19 compared to influenza”
.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm
Flu vaccines are ~50% effective against infection and ~75% against hospitalization so they work better than covid shots currently. Flu shot effectiveness changes year to year, sometimes significantly.
SteveF
I don’t think anything is “obvious”.
.
You seem to want to imagine what I think rather than reading what I actually post.
Joshua (Comment #228921)
Daily deaths have been at ~60% of the November peak for nearly a month at ~180 per day (30-day average). This is still intense. If indeed 20-30% are dead per US analysis, and IDF claims a 2:1 injured:killed ratio at 16K:9K, this should already be enough to incapacitate Hamas with a claimed 30K force. Alternately, if the 70% women/children composition holds for the 25K dead+7K missing, killed/injured would be 10%/20% of Hamas and overall casualties would need to be 2-3X current number for the IDF to achieve their stated goal.
MikeM
I waited past the recommended time– but then got one when the booster targetted a new variant. I’ll probably do the same– I’ll get another booster when thenew booster targets a varient I haven’t been vaccinated for.
.
Whatever the length of protection or how long, I don’t see any point in getting a booster for the same variant over and over. I can’t help but think mutation may be a more important that time per se when figuring out why the immunity “doesn’t last”.
.
I mean, we know one reason flu vaccines aren’t super effective is that there are lots of circulating variants, the flue mutates and the vaccine protects better if it matches the variant you end up exposed too. It matches less well if you run across a different variant.
.
Every season when I get it, but it’s quadravalent. While this years cover pretty much the same four as last year, they are different variants from 2020-2021. So over time, I’m accumulating immunity for a broader set of varients. I figure that has some utility. Maybe I’m wrong. But I’d be less interested in the vaccine if they weren’t making some attempt to match currently circulating viruses and if the targetted ones weren’t changing.
.
These are for example the targetted variants for 2023 and 2020-2021. One of the targets is the same, but some in this years vaccine are new relative to 5 years ago.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/faq-flu-season-2023-2024.htm
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/lot-release/influenza-vaccine-2020-2021-season
.
I am now officially aging. So I figure I should get these. I got my first shingles vaccine too. 🙂
test2
Joshua
I don’t know– but I would tend to think it can’t be Covid specific.
The first google hit I got
https://www.uab.edu/news/research/item/12268-memory-killer-t-cells-are-primed-in-the-spleen-during-influenza-infection
” Memory killer T cells are primed in the spleen during influenza infection by Jeff Hansen ”
The answer seems to be that T cell and memory cell immunity is protective for Flu. No comparison to Covid is discussed in the article.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4339101/
This also says the body generates memory T-cells.
Researchers want to develop vaccines that generate more memory T-cells
https://www.uab.edu/news/research/item/13485-memory-b-cell-marker-predicts-long-lived-antibody-response-to-flu-vaccine
I got the latest COVID-19 booster with no copay on November 30. It was billed as “Spikevax Inj 50/0.5ml” AETNA paid Publix $152.09. I have a Medicare Advantage plan. My PCP recommended it. [He had recommended against some of the previous boosters.]
I had about 24 hours of feeling unwell, but I had the Flu shot the same day, so I don’t know which one caused the side effects.
Two weeks later I got the new RSV Vaccine, again on the recommendation of my PCP. It was billed as “Arexvy Inj 120mcg”. AETNA paid Publix $322.95. I had a $0.00 copay and no side effects.
I hate it when I can’t post stuff. I’ll try to break it up.
.
There’s a split in recommendations. I heard Paul Offit and others talking about it. Scientists (and some public health officials) in the name of full transparency, stress the uncertainties in the risks and communicating the benefit gradients.
Russell,
My arm hurt after the RSV vaccine and I was tired for a day. The pharmacist warned me of both. Maybe that was just the power of suggestion.
Others feel that conditional recommendations will…
result in more of the most vulnerable not getting vaxed…
EDIT: The flu shot cost AETNA $81.68 and was billed as “Fluad Quadri Inj 2023-24”
and/or more higher rates
Wow. Just impossible to get some things through the filter, even when I completely change it up. Just bizarre.
Joshua,
If I were you, I would start taking it personally.
Seriously though, I go through spates where I get blocked when I cut and paste out of a word processor [Apple or Google] but can successfully type the same words directly. It usually rights itself in a few days.
[But it may just have an attitude filter.]
Russell –
.
I don’t take it personally. But it’s really weird.
I’ve been having trouble too….
I’m not sure what it is. When I do it, it seems like a “time between comments” thing, but I don’t have one of those running.
Lucia,
You wrote:
“My arm hurt after the RSV vaccine and I was tired for a day. The pharmacist warned me of both. Maybe that was just the power of suggestion.”
Sometimes my side effects start while I’m driving to the pharmacy to pick up up my Rx.
Public health just needs to communicate concisely and accurately and skip the psycho-analysis. I cannot stress enough how they need to be clear what they do not know, even if they think it hurts their self imposed messaging goals.
.
I think the CDC website does this well but the rest of the “professional communicators” in the media way overthink it and have done themselves a disservice. Their long term credibility has suffered.
To be disqualified, someone would have to participate after the insurrection started. Speaking in favor is not enough.
Meanwhile Mann v Steyn trial has started. Somehow, Bill Nye was talking with the jury pool.
Tom
I agree. Especially as their “worry” about what motivates individuals seems to often not address what motivates or those non-vaccinated I actually know.
.
And for sure, the politicization that happened during the main Covid period created a batch of people who you can’t motivate to get vaccinated. The recommendations kids get vaccinated is making lots of people just not take those urging vaccinations to not take them seriously.
.
It really would be better if they were clear about how age matters. It’s been obvious a long time. I’m 65. I go out dancing. I encounter lots of young people who could potentially carry thing thing with few symptoms. I not vaccine avoidant. But, I want the vaccine to cover new strains!
Bizarrely, still can’t get my comments through.
.
I understand the pulls between transparency and conveying all the relevant information on the one hand, and on the other hand messaging to avoid more spread and more vulnerable people not vaccinating if there isn’t a blanket recommendation to vaccinate.
.
A critical sub-question there is whether the blanket recommendations “create” vax hesistency. I’m sure they do to some extent. But I think that much more of the vax hesistency is “created” by ideological forces in play whereby vaxing becomes another battleline in the culture wars.
.
Part of my take on this comes from observing the climate wars. Some say climate change “skepticism” was “created” by alarmist climate scientists making inaccurate claims. I don’t rule that out to any extent. But I think the evidence shows that the more dominant causal chain is where preexisting political drivers influence how people filter and digest how information is perceived.
.
Of course, that argument won’t go over well here. But people need to be circumspect, imo, when they look to generalize from their own experiences and their own direct observations.
.
Well, that one got through.
.
I do think that one clear messaging error took place in the reaction to “breakthrough” infections after the vaxes were first introduced. The established science indicated that a respiratory virus where infection started in mucosal tissue wouldn’t be stopped by an intramuscular vax injection.
.
Over-hyping the effect of the vaxes on infection spread wasn’t just a decision that doing so, as opposed to accurately communicating the limitations in that regard, would increase vax uptake. It happened mostly because of bad science where people who should have known better believed the early data about the effect of the vaxes on transmission. That’s understandable to some extent because the lower efficacy in stopping transmission didn’t really occur before new strains developed, but clearly they should have known as scientific “experts” that new strains were going to happen.
.
CDC officials have said they made mistakes there. I suppose it’s understandable from a human perspective. It was a fast-moving pandemic from a novel virus in a context of huge uncertainties. But the damage, imo, was quite large and entirely preventable. Public health officials allowed their optimism to negatively influence their clinical analysis.
.
One issue with public health is that they can never win. If their policies prevent disease they were “draconian” and if their policies don’t prevent disease they’re ineffectual bureaucrats.
Joshua,
I do need to sort out my php thing. I’ve been lazy about that. It might be related to that because i know I get server errors. That’s not a WordPress issue.
Joshua,
“A critical sub-question there is whether the blanket recommendations “create” vax hesistency.”
.
Ummm. What Lucia said.
.
When you look at the risk of covid for healthy young people (not immune compromised, not with other serious health issues), it is clear the suggestion from the CDC that they all get vaccinated is stupid, and a terrible waste of money to boot. The risk of serious illness from covid for healthy males, puberty to 30 YO, is far smaller than the risk of heart damage from the vaccine; I would NEVER suggest an otherwise healthy 18 YO boy get vaccinated, and I am shocked the CDC would. It strikes me as madness. It is the kind of thing which casts doubt on everything else they say. That is what causes vaccine hesitancy, not some imagined political issue.
Joshua,
The medical community in general tends to resort to some rather twisted communication on lots of stuff. And there has been a tendency to use “uncertainty” in whatever way the communicator prefers. Examples: If I don’t like proposition X, “there’s is no evidence in favor of X”. If I do like Y, “there is no evidence against Y”. That’s all well and good, but if these are the structure for official public messages…. well…. we all see that when we visit the CDC pages.
.
I mean…. it’s visible on the CDC pages for alcohol in breast milk. It’s clear they don’t want to say “well… really… there is no evidence that alcohol in breast milk of women who have an occasional drink causes any harn at all”. But the messages mostly comes off as if women breast feeding should really, really, really not drink or wait quite a bit of time after even one drink. ) You really look at the page, click the evidence– including going to the pages written by Pediatrics to see that… well… sure. We haven’t proven it’s not a problem if you only have a drink on Sunday and then feed your kid. But the evidence we have is that… well.. alcoholic mothers have trouble breast feeding — including specifically letting down milk–and their kids don’t gain wait. And also, even if the mother is passed out drunk and about to die of alcohol poisoning, breast milk has hardly any alcohol in it– less than 1/10th that of a light beer. This is not like fetal alcohol syndrome. But the tone really comes off as if women should definitely avoid drinking any alcohol ever while breast feeding — and that’s really a rather severe and limiting message when there’s really no evidence they should be anywhere near that cautious.
.
I’m sure their reasoning is “fear” alcoholic mothers will use actual true balanced advise as a reason to keep drinking a 5th of vodka a day while breast feeding. But… really….? I think alcoholic mothers present other dangers to their kids besides alcohol in the breast milk.
,
We’ve also all been treated to over-certain recommendations on diet, heavily promoted “guidelines” that were supposedly “simple”.
.
The food pyramid was an “improvement” on some sort of “four food groups” thing I saw when I was a kid. Should there have been quite as much grain in the food pyramid? Should fats have all been lumped together and advised against quite a much? When the food pyramid came out, the messages was “clear”. And yet… we don’t really see the pyramid anymore. We now see “My plate” which is different from the old “four food groups”, but resembles that old fashioned 50s thing more than the food pyramid.
.
.
The difference between my plate relative to my recollection of the “four food groups” is that veggies and fruits are separated into two categories so they take up 1/2 the plate. And dairy was put to the side, to make the 5th category. I think “protein” used to be just called “meat” too.
.
Is “communication by icon” goes, my plate is simpler than the food pyramid.
.
It just doesn’t take much reading to see that “medical communications” is…well…. weird and often misleading in the way those who work in “messaging” like to mislead. This way is similar to the way people in “advertising” write copy. That’s because “messaging” is advertising. It’s just often advertising that doesn’t admit to being advertising.
Lucia,
Honesty in messaging from the CDC is indeed lacking. Nowhere do they say, “Well, really, if you have a perfectly healthy 12 YO kid, they are at very close to zero risk from covid, vaccinated or not, and it is very likely they have already had the illness anyway.” But that is the truth. Hiding or ignoring the truth to ‘advance’ the desired ‘message’ is just dishonesty.
.
And it is not just covid, it is many subjects: diet, weight, alcohol, etc. all presented in ways which do not inform, only obscure.
Steve –
.
> . The risk of serious illness from covid for healthy males, puberty to 30 YO, is far smaller than the risk of heart damage from the vaccine
.
So you say. That’s not consistent with the evidence I’ve seen. From what I’ve seen, the risk of serious heart damage alone from infection, in that demographic, is marginally greater than the risk serious heart damage from the vax.
.
Of course then the question is whether the risks are additive (risk from vax + risk from infection anyway if the vaxes don’t fully prevent infection), but from what I’ve seen they aren’t completely so. Apparently vaxng reduces the heart risk from infection in that group.
.
Of course people will argue about the evidence here. And you can argue as you have with great certainty that I’m wrong. But I don’t studies these issues with expertise so I do consider what someone like Offit – who studies these issues deeply with a high level of domain-specific expertise and domain-specific experience – has to say. Some dude in blog comments, not so much. (You might like that he’s far from some librul wokester). He didn’t recommend boosters for his son in that age group and IIRC didn’t get a booster himself because he’s healthy and has immunity from previous vaxes and at least one infection. But he also recognizes that these are close calls. He is also critical of the “blanket” messaging, but he at least recognizes that at some levels these are judgement calls and the calls from scientists such as himself (who focus on the uncertainties and technical aspects of the differences) and the calls from public health officials can understandably be different.
.
Part of the problem, imo, is that people tend to be highly certain such as you are when you’re looking at questions where the “events” you’re evaluating are rare enough, the sample sizes are small enough, that they don’t provide enough statistical power to provide meaningful levels of certainty.
Lucia –
.
I agree it’s a weird situation. I’ll get to a response to your comment later when I have time.
SteveF/Joshua
I think blanket recommendations certainly don’t reduce it. They almost certainly increase it when enough people are interested enough in the subject to read further and see that the recommendation should be tailored to groups. That is the case with Covid.
.
Whether they “create” it ab-initio? Dunno. But that’s not particularly relevant at this point. We know vaccine hesitancy already exists. So the relevant question is “does it increase or reduce vaccine hesitancy?”
.
I think it is unwise for medical groups to communicate in ways that increases vaccine hesitancy among the population, including increasing it in the group who is likely to strongly benefit from vaccine. I think the blanket recommendations are doing that– because I know my mom hears advice from her kids at this point.
.
I like this graphic which shows moretality risks for groups over 30. (And we all know the risk is even lower for the truly young.)
.
Vaccination is correlated with lower mortality for the 30-49 age group. But really, the risk is already so low for the young, it’s hard to really “recommend” people under 50 take it. I mean…. you can die of tetanus. How many of us keep track of our tetanus vaccination status?
https://healthpolicy-watch.news/fda-chief-warns-us-immunity-is-at-risk-as-more-people-decline-vaccinations/
These guys advise:
It might be nice if they added: And by “accurate scientific we mean….” But I bet they don’t.
Lucia –
.
One quick comment before I go, because I saw this:
.
> I think blanket recommendations certainly don’t reduce it.
.
Well, imo, the most relevant question is whether they reduce vax uptake (via increasing hesitancy, perhaps in people who don’t particularly benefit) or increase net uptake (particularly in those who benefit). If they don’t they don’t reduce vax hesistency or even increase it to some extent, how many people are there who would benefit from a vax but wouldn’t get it without a blanket recommendation? And I’m willing to speculate that it could go either way. I won’t make an assumption either way. I know that I have a personal preference for communicating uncertainties upfront. But as a matter of public health policy I think the issue merits careful analysis beyond personal preferences.
Lucia,
Thanks for that graphic. I think a couple of things worth noting: 1) There is a 10 fold change in the y-axis. Had the same data for April 2023 been present with the x-axis scale for October 2021, the true drop in risk for all age groups would be clearly presented; it wasn’t. 2) The people who die from covid in the younger age groups usually have other serious health problems. An honest presentation of the mortality risk would establish risk level for people without other serious health issues, which would (of course) be much lower. Most people do not think about risks in the range of a few deaths in a million per year… there are lots of other things that present greater risks. 3) Look at the drop in risk for the unvaccinated: a reduction of a factor of 10 to 30 across the board! Most people have already had the illness, and the current strains are not a deadly.
Jushua,
“But as a matter of public health policy I think the issue merits careful analysis beyond personal preferences.”
.
I am sure Big Brother would agree with you. It might be called the mushroom method of public policy: Keep them in the dark and feed them manure.
I think the vast majority of people in this country didn’t let the government tell them what to do about healthcare. We here at this blog were hanging on every word the CDC and scientists were saying, but most normal people [like my wife] were skeptical. They could see who was leading the parade. Remember Trump and his daily zoo conferences. Then Biden took over. People recognized these two clowns as clowns.
I think people who had easy access to healthcare got advice from medical people they trusted. Many rational people talked to trusted friends and family. I was asked a number of times by people looking for guidance. And the Luddites didn’t follow the CDC either, they had Joe Rogan, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson.
Most people have a life; they don’t follow these things like we do.
“Especially as their “worry” about what motivates individuals seems to often not address what motivates or those non-vaccinated I actually know.”
.
Yes, right. I suppose we should be grateful how spectacularly bad they are at changing their messaging to motivate people. It does look like they simply don’t know how people think and I would suggest they didn’t try very hard. The bulk of them aren’t getting boosters for righteous reason now, ha ha. The plan:
.
1. Shame them publicly
2. Censor opposing views
3. Mandate a vaccine through OSHA * after omicron *.
.
I can’t think of a better plan for reducing trust in science.
As a public institution you cannot let yourself be ideologically captured by any entity. Climate science, academia, and possibly public health (and some on the right of course). This takes some serious commitment and leadership to avoid and sacrifices have to be made to stay neutral.
.
This was the beginning of the problem:
Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Distance
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534
.
What needed to happen was leadership needed to disavow this message and make it clear they were not a political entity. Instead they were silent. It’s hard for an organization to be perfect when there is uncertainty, but these kind of missteps were correctable.
Tom Scharf,
“1. Shame them publicly
2. Censor opposing views
3. Mandate a vaccine through OSHA * after omicron *.”
.
With one small change, we can be far more general WRT governance by ‘progressives’:
.
1. Shame them publicly
2. Censor opposing views
3. Mandate ***** by law.
.
Where ***** is whatever ‘progressives’ think ‘deplorables’ should do.
😉
Avoiding ‘vaccine hesitancy’ was the language being pushed by government censors in meetings with social media companies. I wonder if Lucia got an invite.
The court did not allow Judith Curry to testify on behalf of Steyn, and now Mann is asking the court to disallow McIntyre and McKitrick.
So much for the call to focus on being a top performer in Canada’s math contests.
SteveF (Comment #228973): “The people who die from covid in the younger age groups usually have other serious health problems.”
.
I think that is true across all age groups. But older people are more likely to have other serious health problems.
Mike M,
Sure, other serious health issue are always, a factor.
.
But when considering if vaccination makes sense for any individual, their health status ought to be part of the consideration. If the CDC hides this issue (as they have from the beginning!), they are doing a terrible disservice.
.
Healthy people below age 40 (and probably below age 50!) get minimal benefit from ever more boosters…. and maybe net harm. Which is (of course) sensibly reflected in the big drop in booster uptake nationwide: get a shot with considerable cost, pain, and inconvenience, for no significant reduction in risk? Most people say ‘nah’. If the CDC wants to change that: show us the data! Don’t bullshit us, prove it makes sense to each individual.
.
For those over 80? Boosters may make perfect sense, no matter their other health issues. But kids? Forgetaboutit.
“The Congressional Budget Office estimates that border officials witnessed but did not catch 860,000 illegal immigrants crossing into the United States last year, more than double the number of “gotaways” who entered when President Joe Biden entered office and dismantled border policies.”
.
You got to love it. Lemme see. 860,000 gotaways plus, oh say, 1.3 million “people needing asylum”, puts the flux of illegal immigration at over 2 million for the year. A country without boarders is soon no country at all.
.
I believe this may well cost the utterly demented Biden his re-election chances, as well it should.
The Dems are caving on immigration according to the NYT. They have agreed to changes in asylum and parole as well as increased funding and they are fighting over what that would be spent on (more security or more processing). It would then go to the house where these may not survive.
.
As always it may collapse because either both sides or one side find it advantageous politically to not have a deal. In this case the right wants to use it against Biden in an election year and Biden wants to pretend he offered a reasonable deal.
.
My prediction is nothing changes.
.
The most recent stunt where the Feds had to sue Texas to remove razor wire on the border that Texas installed is not a good look for the “we aren’t for open borders” crowd.
Tom Scharf,
‘My prediction is nothing changes.”
.
A low risk prediction if there ever was one.
.
Of course, those who think nation-states are essentially illegitimate political constructs by ‘colonizing’ people (and, worse, are blocking the path toward the nirvana of global socialist governance) will NEVER allow a restriction on illegal immigration.
.
Should he be elected, Trump will put a stop to most of it, of course, restricted only by the sensibilities of lefty federal judges. Should Biden be re-elected, the onslaught of illegals will continue without stop for the next 5 years… perhaps another 10 – 20 million.
Here is the craziest part of the unprecedented illegal influx: a flood of illegal immigrants, mostly from desperately poor countries, will inevitably depress wages in the USA, hurting African Americans and those Hispanics who are resident via legal immigration. Will that change the level of support for the demented Joe Biden? Donno, but I think it should. It is nuts that black Americans support policies which reduce their economic prospects.
Steve –
.
>…I am sure Big Brother would agree with you.
.
I always love it when people reference a meme created by a democratic socialist to argue against my political viewpoint. I was raised in the spirit of Orwell’s volunteerism in the Spanish Civil War.
“Sweden ends 200 years of military neutrality, joins Finland in seeking NATO membership” PBS
Today, Turkey’s parliament approved Sweden’s application.
Putin invaded Ukraine to halt NATO’s eastward advance. That had to be the biggest boneheaded move in the history of boneheaded moves.
Because of that Ukraine and NATO are inseparable. In addition, Finland joined NATO on April 4, 2023, ending its seven-decade military non-alignment and Finland shares a 1,300-kilometer border with Russia.
And most importantly NATO is united, armed to the teeth, and hostile toward Russia.
24 Israeli soldiers killed today.
A bit sloppy on someone’s part.
Expect a tough week of bombing ahead.
–
3 step solution
Give all hostages back.
Declare a truce .
UN to send in a force to remove all weapons, missiles and tunnels in Gaza.
That would fly, I think.
Lucia –
.
So back to this
.
> “does it increase or reduce vaccine hesitancy?”
.
I don’t know the answer. The, background, imo, is that there are many other forces increasing vaccine hesistency. Some of them I see fundamentally political in nature. Fomenting vaccine hesistency can be leveraged for political gain through marshaling opposition to “big brother.” It can also bring healthy financial returns. On the other side I see the real problems of “regulatory capture” and the inherent inefficiencies and inevitable mistakes made amidst the matrix of imperfect research science, funding of research science, and marketing of research science. Those two loops overlap and create a nasty brew, imo.
.
> I think it is unwise for medical groups to communicate in ways that increases vaccine hesitancy among the population, including increasing it in the group who is likely to strongly benefit from vaccine.
.
In a sense that’s unarguable. The problem is whether to measure that effect against any benefits gained.
.
One view would be even if being up front with all the uncertainties and limitations would cause a net reduction in uptake among those the most at risk, as a matter of principle it’s always important to communicate the uncertainties clearly and transparently. A failure to do so is a slippery slope that leads to an inevitable corruption of the scientific endeavor. I tend to agree but I can also see where someone on the ground, developing policy to try to advance vaccinations in the American public would think it’s more important to increase the numbers than to stand on principle with the result of more morbidity and mortality.
.
> I think the blanket recommendations are doing that– because I know my mom hears advice from her kids at this point
.
I don’t doubt it does that to some degree. The question is whether (1) at any point there’s a better return on the other side of the ledger and (2) whether that’s only a temporary condition at best, and eventually that positive return will turn negative.
.
Again, I don’t really know. I know that I’m uncomfortable with the idea of being less than fully transparent for the sake of a net benefit. But sometimes I’m OK with it. Say if you have a relative who has a fatal disease and informing them of that condition could cause them stress and reduce their life expectancy as well as their quality of life before they die. Again, I would err on the side of transparency and have been fully transparent when such situations have cropped up in my life (my “wife” is a hospice nurse who knows how to be there for people adapting to such news), but I also recognize that there’s not necessarily just one valid answer.
.
> Vaccination is correlated with lower mortality for the 30-49 age group. But really, the risk is already so low for the young, it’s hard to really “recommend” people under 50 take it. I mean…. you can die of tetanus. How many of us keep track of our tetanus vaccination status?
.
Sure. But at some point it comes down to a measure of relative risk and benefit with vaxing and not vaxing, respectively, across different ages. Yes, there’s risk from the vax. Is it greater than getting infected without the vax? I’ve seen data presented on both sides of that argument across a wide variety of age ranges. I’ve looked at the issue quite a bit. I used to listen to TWIV regularly. In the end, I don’t think there’s a clear and unambiguous answer. And in my view there are good reasons to be skeptical of the arguments presented on both sides.
.
We are grandparent primary caregivers. My 7 year old granddaughter got a booster about a month ago. I had mixed feelings about it, but in the end when her pediatrician recommended it and she got it (I wasn’t there) I was fine with that. I worried about her getting very ill from an infection (despite her existing vaccine-induced and infection-induced immunity) just as I worried about harm from getting vaxed. In the end my worry was probably outsized on both sides as the probabilities on both sides are enormously small (she’s very healthy)
.
I think there are problems with mandates just as there are problems with a lack of mandates and with a lack of blanket recommendations.
.
The objection I have is with how it gets policized on both sides.
And part of that politicization, imo, is unrealistic expectations for public health officials on one side and failures in transparency and control for “regulatory capture” and CYA for poorly executed NHST research on the other.
.
> “We believe that the best way to counter the current large volume of vaccine misinformation is to dilute it with large amounts of truthful, accessible scientific evidence,”
.
In general I agree but I think in specifics sometimes it’s just more complicated than that general solution
.
> Clinicians who provide care are the most trusted source of information about health decisions, while retail pharmacists perform this role for people who lack a primary care clinician or who are uninsured.
.
That is, perhaps, the most pernicious aspect of the less transparent blanket messaging because in effect it undermines the role to be played by clinicians and pharmacists. On the other hand, there just is a lot of incompetence out there in pharmacies and among clinicians.
.
So Haley us behind by 12% or so. To those who have been paying attention – if she finishes at around that mark, is that better/worse, about what was expected?
Haley finishing 12% behind would be neither very good or very bad for her. But I think the early returns were expected to be from areas where her support is stronger so we shall see.
About as expected, but small enough to pretty much doom her. If she can’t win her home state next (not looking likely) then she is very likely done according to “experts”.
Joshua
Fomenting of vaccine “hesitancy” did not start during Covid. Measles outbreaks happened back in the 90s. I don’t think the hesitancy (i.e. refusal) to get vaccine was due to conservatives worrying about “big brother”. This article at the gender policy discusses how and why there is greater “hesitancy” (i.e. refusal) in women than men — and one reason is perceived misogyny and racism of the medical community.
https://genderpolicyreport.umn.edu/to-overcome-womens-vaccine-skepticism-take-its-roots-seriously/
.
Although there was a GOP/DEM divide in vaccine “hesitancy” during the Covid period, it’s not the case that it’s all caused by conservatives worried about conservative issues.
.
Note– I’m not putting “hesitancy” in scare quotes because it’s actually a euphemism for pretty much refusing to be vaccinated. It isn’t something different.
.
When I say I think the inappropriate blanket recommendates increase vaccine “hesitancy”, I mean that I think it increases the number of people who do not get vaccines.
.
When members of the public realize that some “messaging” is deceptive, they stop trusting the messenger. That you can come up with all sorts of “nuances” in the full story doesn’t make them gain trust in the messenger.
.
I’m generally pro vaccine. I wish I could get a pneumonia vaccine. I’m glad I had a small pox vaccine even though that’s not raging. When monkey pox was “a thing” I was glad I was vaccinated. I mean… there are gay guys in ballroom dance. And… well, we all wear clothes, but sort of unsettling. Turned out to be more or less a nothing burger, but I was still glad they thought small pox vaccine was protective.
.
But even being pro-vaccine, I find it unsettling when I read recommendations that don’t make sense. It makes me suspicious.
.
But here you are straying to a different subject: You are debating whether a person should or should not be vaccine hesitant.
.
That’s a separate issue from “Does a particular type of messaging increase of decrease hesitancy.”
.
Sure. And then the question is, if the “medical/cdc” side over hypes, by, for example, giving inappropriate blanket recommendations including saying it’s really important to vaccinate children for covid, what is the net effect on uptake? I think in the current climate, with people who resistant vaccines for all sorts of reasons, the net effect of inappropriate blanket recommendations is likely for less uptake of vaccines.
Or at least less uptake for vaccines that the public elects to take voluntarily.
Some people might take them if forced to do so– but we’ve backed off that for Covid now.
.
Maybe I’m wrong about the effect of blanket recommendations. But very few people are getting Covid boosters. This Oct 2023 article says fewer than 7% of adults are getting the shot; 40% said they absolutely won’t get it. 40% say the reason they aren’t getting the vaccine is they already had Covid. 23% were like me and said they didn’t think the vaccine would protect against a new coronavirus. (Recall: I said I wanted until the vax was for a new strain. I’ll get another one when they have one for yet another strain.)
With an uptake at 7% that low, it’s not just conservatives worrying about “big brother” not getting shots. There are a heck of a lot of liberals not getting the shots.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/vaccine-data-shows-rates-for-latest-covid-19-booster-is-abysmal-only-7-percent-of-u-s-adults-with-shot
https://www.altonmemorialhospital.org/Health-Library/View-Content?contentTypeId=6&contentId=1665786297
Jim read that exit polls indicate 30% of NH voters who voted for Trump in that primary say they will never vote for Trump as president. That suggests Dems crossing over to vote in the NH primary. If they are doing this thinking they’ll get the weaker candidate for president so Biden can win, it’s a very dangerous game.
lucia (Comment #228994)
“I’m generally pro vaccine. I wish I could get a pneumonia vaccine.”
Pneumonia 23 protects 23 types of strep pneumonia bacteria only.
Prevnar 23 USA alternative.
Gives some people a swollen sore arm for a few days.
Do not have in leg!
Worthwhile adults especially> 60.
Biden’s not on ballot in NH. Haley’s strategy is to have Dems and independents to vote for her. SC does not have party registration. However, Democrats who prefer Haley to Trump will prefer Biden to Haley, and many will thus vote for Trump.
Lucia –
.
> don’t think the hesitancy (i.e. refusal) to get vaccine was due to conservatives worrying about “big brother”.
.
Well, Alex Jones was on it from back in the day. But no, it was pretty equally divided along the left and the right. Anti- pharma and anti-western medicine certainly had a left-wing stream, no doubt. Like anti-GMO, there wasn’t that much of a political signal although “big brother” was long a part of it. “Big Brother” just didn’t have as clear a political signal.
.
I’ll look at the rest of your comment tomorrow. It’s late
MikeN
That may be her strategy. It doesn’t mean those groups did what she hoped– especially not Dems.
.
If it’s true 30% of those at exit polls said they voted form Trump but will not vote for him for president, that would be consistent with Dems vote for Trump. That would not be because they like Trump nor that they link Trump better than Haley.
.
I haven’t googled to see if the stat Jim read is repeated in papers. I can look tomorrow.
US tankers are training with Polish tankers 65 miles from the Ukraine border. Both are using US Abrams tanks:
“Polish tankers of the 1st Armored Brigade trained alongside the soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 35th Armored Regiment, 2nd ABCT of the US Army at Nowa Deba, Poland. Polish tank crews used their M1A1FEP tanks, US Army crews used M1A2SEPv2 tanks.”
The Poles are building an incredible mechanized army and supporting air units. In January 2022, Poland ordered 366 Abrams M1A1 tanks. 366!
Image:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1750140593550819600?s=20
Full article [use Google translate]:
https://defence24.pl/sily-zbrojne/certyfikacja-plutonow-czolgow-z-1-brygady-pancernej-foto?utm_source=defence24.pl&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=belka
The last piece of the puzzle….
Orban:
“ Just finished a phone call with @NATO Secretary General @jensstoltenberg. I reaffirmed that the Hungarian government supports the NATO-membership of #Sweden. I also stressed that we will continue to urge the Hungarian National Assembly to vote in favor of Sweden’s accession and conclude the #ratification at the first possible opportunity.”
If Nikki! stays in the race after S Carolina that will be a shocker.
.
I will not be surprised if she drops out between now and the S Carolina primary (Feb 24) due to dwindling campaign funds. Betting markets now have her at 5% and falling fast (she peaked at 10.4%); bettors now have Michelle Obama (AKA a third term for Barak) above Haley. Of course, Democrat donors might give Haley enough money to stay in the race to harass Trump.
lucia (Comment #228999): “If it’s true 30% of those at exit polls said they voted form Trump but will not vote for him for president, that would be consistent with Dems vote for Trump.”
.
No way is that true. Detailed exit polling here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/new-hampshire-exit-polls-2024-primary-election-results-analysis
.
“If Donald Trump were to be convicted of a crime, would you consider him fit to be president?”
6% answered “Democrat” and almost all voted for Haley.
.
Note that the percentages in the Tables are % of those who gave that answer not % or those who voted for the candidate.
.
“If Donald Trump won the nomination, would you be:”
About 99% of Trump voters said they would be “satisfied”. But over 90% of Haley voters said they would be “dissatisfied”.
.
“If Donald Trump were to be convicted of a crime, would you consider him fit to be president?”
Over 90% of Trump voters said “yes”. Over 80% of Haley voters said “no”
MikeM
Glad to see it’s not true. Voters do sometimes lose their minds, but it’s better when they don’t.
Correction to my (Comment #229003):
“No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a:”
6% answered “Democrat” and almost all voted for Haley.
That looks like about 12-13% of the Haley voters.
I think convictions will only matter if it can be determined if the jury was politically diverse. I think this is critical to credibility but there are no easy ways to determine this except the juries self reporting. For NY and GA a single Trump voter (who is going to see this as persecution) will likely take down the trial and leave a hung jury.
.
As usual the media is singularly obsessed with a single outcome here, what happens if Trump is found not guilty?
It’s important to know how these trials can be “fixed” here. In most cases determining potential juror bias is difficult, not so in these cases. According to this NY allows 20 preemptive challenges in a jury pool.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-270-25
.
If the jury pool in Manhattan is already 85% anti-Trump according to the 2020 election results then it may be possible to remove all registered Republicans from the jury pool. The prosecution may be able to get this from publicly available data (I don’t know the specifics) and I don’t think it is illegal to blanket reject jurors like this: “A peremptory challenge is an objection to a prospective juror for which no reason need be assigned. ?Upon any peremptory challenge, the court must exclude the person challenged from service.”
.
The prosecution wants to win cases and any $2 jury consultant will tell the prosecution to remove Trump voters first. Duh.
Tom Scharf,
The situation in Washington DC is even worse for Trump; he got 5.4% in 2020. Under federal criminal rules, when the potential penalty is 1 year of prison or more, the defense gets 10 peremptory challenges and the prosecution gets 6. So if the jury pool is randomly selected, there is a very good chance there will be no Trump voters on the jury, and a conviction is very likely.
.
Which is why the earlier Florida prosecution languishes, and the the Washington DC prosecution is being pushed by the DOJ for immediate trial, looking for a guilty verdict before the election. They probably won’t get a trial before the election, but they are sure going to try. Of course, if the Supreme Court tosses the use of the anti-Enron statute the DOJ is using as not applicable to Jan. 6 cases, then the whole case may collapse.
6% of voters identified as Democrat, and 44% independent. Likely much higher as people are more likely to label themselves independent, even if they vote 100% for their party every election.
17% were Independents voting for Trump and 26% were independents voting for Haley, 5% were Democrats voting for Haley and .3% Dems for Trump. Republicans were 37-12 towards Trump.
William Barr in the WSJ describes the latest from the pro-democracy crowd. This time trying to keep independents from running via lawfare.
.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-conspiracy-against-no-labels-third-party-kept-off-the-ballot-suppression-corruption-92e4ccf2?st=kz3izwvzfgrynfr&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“Recently, No Labels filed a complaint with the Justice Department detailing what the nonprofit described as a “highly coordinated, conspiratorial, partisan, and often unlawful conspiracy,” involving “individuals both inside and outside government,” to interfere with the group’s effort to get on 2024 voting ballots. The complaint also describes brazen efforts to destroy the reputations of No Labels donors and candidates who might run on a No Labels presidential ticket, as well as the livelihoods of No Labels employees and consultants.
…
Although I am a committed Republican and not part of No Labels’ effort, I believe the campaign to disenfranchise the group is profoundly wrong. Poll after poll shows American voters want a choice beyond Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I don’t know whether a No Labels candidate would help or hurt either. But that calculus should make no difference. Blocking ballot access to a qualified organization doesn’t enhance American democracy and civic life. It extinguishes First Amendment rights and makes our elections less meaningful.”
Tom Scharf,
“Recently, No Labels filed a complaint with the Justice Department”
.
They will be ignored by the DOJ, since the DOJ is a very big part of the lawfare efforts. As with nearly all thinking on the left: the ends always justify the means.
The Russian advance in Avdivka bypassing the main Ukraine defense line in the south by using an abandoned 2.5m dim drainage pipe is more like something out of an action movie plot than what one sees in real life. See the attached link for more details.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZOiGD2XXzA.
.
The interesting part of the link dealing with this pipe starts at 16.04.
.
The author of the link is generally correct on the facts of a situation, but tends to get a bit overboard in his speculations.
.
Mike Mann testified to Mike’ Nature Trick was putting proxies on the same chart as actual temperatures. This is a clever technique.
He also affirmed what Steyn was saying about the trees stopped representing temperatures.
angech (Comment #228989)
My 3 step solution suggestion
Give all hostages back.
Declare a truce . UN to send in a force to remove all weapons, missiles and tunnels in Gaza.
–
Breitbart today. Some people agree.
The Arabic-language spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Lt. Col. Avichay Adraee, revealed footage Wednesday of a protest by Palestinian residents of central Gaza demanding that Hamas release its Israeli hostages so that the war can end.
Step 2 is not a truce. UN would be providing weapons to Gaza.
The Israelis have only blinked once in 2011.
And that was a mistake.
Hamas has only ever freed one soldier hostage.
The taking of hostages has long been a feature of the Israel-Palestine conflict. “They know the value Israel has always placed on every single life and the explicit promise between the government and the people that they would never leave anyone behind enemy lines. The state’s “unwritten contract” with its people also has origins in Jewish law.
And safely returning hostages, even those not alive, means the appropriate burial rituals in Judaism can be respected.
Munich massacre Israeli hostages was during the Munich Olympic Games in 1972.But in a failed rescue attempt all nine hostages and five of the assailants were killed.Israel launched a military offensive, which they named ‘Wrath of God’, in response four days later. PLO bases in Syria and Lebanon were bombed and 200 people were killed.
Entebbe 27 June 1976, an Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris was hijacked disembarking in Entebbe, Uganda, at 4am the next day
The Israelis refused to negotiate and instead, with the help of Mossad intelligence and the Kenyan authorities, they organised a rescue operation. Codenamed Operation Thunderbolt, it was led by Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother Yonatan.***
The raid was successful -The only Israeli casualty was Yonatan Netanyahu.
Gilad Shalit high-profile Israeli hostage was in 2006.
Mr Shalit was taken into Gaza via Hamas-dug underground tunnels.
He was held by members of Hamas, over a period of five years.
Mr Shalit was released on 18 October 2011.
It was the first time an IDF soldier had been returned alive since 1985.The prisoner exchange was also the largest in history – . One of the prisoners exchanged was current Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.
Consequently the Israelis have no option but to keep up the fighting until every last hostage is dead as Hamas is only taunting them with the promise of release on terms.
Hamas wants no option but to twist the knife as far as they can.
When the last hostage is free or dead there will be no more need for fighting.The only question is how much of a blood price Hamas will have to pay afterwards.
.
The win, win scenario of freeing the hostages , forlorn though it is , is that the hostage takers, that is the whole of the Gazan population who delighted in the pain they are causing, might feel that the reward is after all not worth the cost.
angech,
“Consequently the Israelis have no option but to keep up the fighting until every last hostage is dead as Hamas is only taunting them with the promise of release on terms”
.
I suspect that the remaining leadership of Hamas will recognize the need to free remaining hostages when it becomes clear the Israelis will not stop, and their own sorry lives are soon to end.
.
Facing the prospect of heaven (and the 20 virgins surely awaiting their arrival) has away of focusing minds. My bet: when a full hostage release is offered by Hamas, it will come with a requirement that Hamas stay in power. Israel won’t take the deal. Hamas is going to be wiped out and any remaining members imprisoned. The fighting will continue until then.
Palestinians, their leaders in particular, want to be martyrs. Dying as martyrs is glorified as their deaths serve to advance what they truly care about – driving all Jews out of Israel and extermination of all Jews from the planet.
.
Bombing and killing and maiming Palestinians, especially their leaders, will teach them to end their violence against Israelis. Their fear of death and injury will cause them to abandon their violence towards Israelis and Jews. It is only through policies that kill and maim them, that they will learn to give up their fight. The only thing they understand is force.
Joshua,
Close. Some will give up the fight. Many or most will be dead, at which point what they understand or don’t understand becomes irrelevant.
The optimal strategy, as far as we have been able to determine, for iterated prisoner’s dilemma is tit for tat. The idea that there is something suboptimal about retaliation is not only not supported by our day to day experiences and intuitions, but it’s not supported in theory either.
[Or some strategy closely related to tit for tat.]
Mark –
.
I think there’s diversity in how Palestinians view the situation. That’s part of the reason why I think that collective punishment isn’t a well-conceived strategy. It’s also considered a war crime. In fact, using strategies like collective punishment (in which civilians are killed and injured) to achieve political goals (getting civilians to turn against their government) overlaps quite a bit with the definition of terrorism.
.
This is an interesting read regarding India’s response to that terrorisf attack in Mumbai in 2008:
.
An insider account by the former foreign secretary on the restraints shown by the UPA government towards Pakistan after the terror attacks
.
https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/29lXP57cHDAloqUf2uJOHM/Why-India-didnt-attack-Pakistan-after-2611-Mumbai-attacks.html
.
That’s not to suggest that the situations are exactly parallel. They clearly aren’t in many important respects. But I do think it underlines how response to terror attacks can integrate more than a simple conceptualization about cause and effect.
Steve F, William Barr’s op-ed in the WSJ was remarkably light on details. The only thing he mentions specifically is Colorado’s efforts to have Trump removed, which had nothing to do with the critics of No Lables.
He broadly mentions efforts to tarnish the reputations of No Label-ists, something that I believe is called politics and something not exactly foreign to Mr. Barr in other contexts.
He also broadly refers to efforts to limit access to the ballot, which again should be nothing Republicans don’t recognize. Their efforts to limit access to both the ballot and ballot box are far more extensive.
I don’t like the No Labels movement, but neither you nor Mr. Barr have cited anything their critics do that their critics don’t do themselves, in spades.
Joshua,
When we are talking about millions of people it is for all intents and purposes certain that there is diversity in how those people will view all sorts of things, I agree. I expect you recall that we disagree about the significance people ought to attach to the term ‘war crime’. Similarly, I am unimpressed with the notion that Israel’s behavior is terrorist. We have walked across this field many times from many different starting points, but the ground remains the same each time.
.
Real life situations that are interesting enough to merit discussion are inevitably complex enough to cast doubt on simple and seemingly obvious solutions, I agree. It is not my position that the Israeli response is obviously the only possible response that might succeed. However, it seems to me to be a reasonable response, and I think the burden is on people who think the response is unreasonable or suboptimal to demonstrate that some specific alternative would be better. So far, I haven’t heard that case from anyone.
Mark –
.
> The idea that there is something suboptimal about retaliation is not only not supported by our day to day experiences and intuitions, but it’s not supported in theory either.
[Or some strategy closely related to tit for tat.]
.
I don’t think a theoretical construct of prisoner’s dilemma overlays onto the reality of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict very well. All we need to see is that there’s been 75 years of basically a repeated pattern of retributative violence up to 10/7 to see that responding within the same behavioral pattern isn’t likely to net a result different from what has transpired for the previous 75 years.
.
So I disagree with not only your theoretical analysis, but also your conclusions about what we’ve learned from our day to day experiences. I think that applying simple models, whether they be purely theoretical or simple models based on a reconstruction of what day to day looks like, has a limited utility as well as a high vulnerability to what I’ll call sampling and observer biases.
.
Much better, imo, is to work hard to carefully input as much of the context-specific information as can realistically do. Of course, even there people are likely to construct differing models that net differing results. But I think it’s usually a better practice. Maybe that’s a process that’s just as subject to the influences of bias. But I think it at least allows for a kind of increased transparency about the assumptions you’re making about the inputs your using.
.
You say: “idea that there is something suboptimal about retaliation…”
.
Right there I think essentially what you’re saying is that an assumption about outcomes, without careful evaluation, isn’t a good idea. With that I would agree and I’d say that works both ways here.
You’re not your. I hate homophones.
In fact death spirals such as the ones that you describe are indeed captured by the example game and theory. It’s why I edited to say ‘or a closely related strategy ‘
But I agree overall that a simplistic appeal to game theory is insufficient to settle the matter, as I believe there are important distinctions that are not well captured by the game. I return to this:
My appeal to game theory is merely a supporting piece of evidence that suggests that the Israeli response isn’t crazy or completely unreasonable, and that they could do worse.
Mark –
.
> However, it seems to me to be a reasonable response, and I think the burden is on people who think the response is unreasonable or suboptimal to demonstrate that some specific alternative would be better.
.
That looks a bit to me like being asked to prove a negative. Of course I can’t demonstrate in some objective sense that a counterfactual specific alternative would be better.
.
But if you look at that article I linked, I think it illustrates a critical parallel. Just as India’s considered response to the terrorism in Mumbai allowed the room for India to strengthen and build strategic alliances that could help them in the long run fight against Pakistani terrorism, I think that Israel’s response to 10/7 tragically set back its opportunity to build strategic alliances that could have significantly helped to build upon long term strategic alliances with partners that could help provide a pathway out of the simplistic model of a cycle of retributative violence.
Mark –
.
> My appeal to game theory is merely a supporting piece of evidence that suggests that the Israeli response isn’t crazy or completely unreasonable, and that they could do worse.
.
I don’t think it was crazy. There’s a logic to beliefs in the value of retributative violence. It’s a common pattern of response throughout human history. Probably for a variety of reasons, but I would say that logically at some level it aligns with an “evolutionary” logic/heuristic (you know I’m skeptical about reverse engineering evolution, but still).
.
And I don’t even think it’s completely unreasonable. I think it’s understandable.
.
What I don’t believe is that it was well-considered. I think there’s clear evidence of that and little evidence that it was well-considered. I also think there’s abundant evidence that the policy of the specific response was heavily influenced by the self-serving motivation of corrupt politicians (at the behest of religious fanatics) who demonstrated clear evidence of stunning incompetence and a long history of failed policies. Further, I think there’s a great deal of evidence that response was heavily informed by a desire for vengeance and retribution. In general, I don’t think those desires mix well with policy deliberation.
.
Always appreciate the engagement. Gotta go for a while.
Joshua,
I don’t mean to be unreasonable. Am I being unreasonable? It’s my impression that you are arguing that Israel’s actions are suboptimal and something else would be better. You’ve even sketched bits of that something else I think – you’ve mentioned more focused or closely targeted strikes for example. I don’t mean to ask you for proof if proof [is impossible in principle]. I am saying, it’s deceptively easy to spitball what Israel is doing when one doesn’t have to propose a concrete better alternative, because I don’t think there’s any clear evidence that a concrete better alternative exists.
.
I will look more closely at the Indian Pakistani example you provide and think about what you are saying. I agree incidentally that cycles of retributive violence are part of the problem (and it’s a known theoretical problem that these cycles can occur for rational actors adhering to tit for tat).
.
Thanks.
[Edit: Crossposted, but good stopping point.]
mark bofill
This is the main reason I don’t get into arguments about what the best course is in either the Ukraine/Russia situation or the Israel/Palestine situation. In both situations: bad things are happening to all sorts of people right now. But it’s not clear that any particular choice doesn’t result in just as many bad things happening to just as many or more people– though it might change who.
.
And I know in my life it does make a difference to me if I get killed/maimed/harmed vs the other guy get killed/maimed/harmed. Maybe it shouldn’t– but how I sit here in my secure home and tell one side in those conflicts that they shouldn’t subscribe to “whether I get killed/maimed/harmed” matters more? I don’t even see how I can tell them which type of harm they should prefer.
.
If I could think of concrete alternatives that are clearly better and were certain or almost certain to ‘help’ I could suggest those. But as long as all I can’t really think of something that’s clearly better, I just can’t really jump in.
.
It’s interesting to read people thoughts. But just can’t add to them.
Israel using its military might to occupy desired territory is game theory. Palestinians using guerrilla warfare against a military superpower is game theory. Israel responding each time with extreme violence to establish deterrence is game theory. Palestinians trying non-violent March of Return and BDS was game theoretically not successful. It remains to be seen what their next moves are besides resilience.
I don’t think the bulk of Palestinians buy into martyrdom for Hamas, which is what they would need to believe in this case. Even for zealots there is a difference between fighting for your religion/cause and fighting for your (corrupt) government. If they did all believe in this then they could simply mass rush the Israeli army and win via overwhelming numbers. Most of them probably just want the whole thing to end and raise their families without mortal threat walking down the road. They still hate the Israelis and the only people doing anything about it is Hamas so there is a mental conflict here.
lucia (Comment #229031): “This is the main reason I don’t get into arguments about what the best course is in either the Ukraine/Russia situation or the Israel/Palestine situation. In both situations: bad things are happening to all sorts of people right now. But it’s not clear that any particular choice doesn’t result in just as many bad things happening to just as many or more people– though it might change who.”
.
Well said.
.
I have largely tuned out those debates. It seems to me like endless replowing of the same infertile ground.
Curious…..
The US Navy has a carrier-based spy plane cruising off the west coast of Florida.
Screenshot at 12:25 PM:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1750572318437277801?s=20
Live track if it is still in the air:
https://www.flightradar24.com/GRYHK01/33bf0a96
From AI:
“The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is a carrier-based aircraft that provides early warning and command and control. It is an airborne aircraft with advanced detection and information processing capabilities. The E-2D’s radar and identification system can detect targets at ranges of over 300 nautical miles.”
As far as I can tell there are no carriers in the Gulf of Mexico. The Flight originated at Boca Chica NAS near Key West.
Official US Navy post of carrier deployments:
http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html
Israel is building a new 1 km barrier on the border.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-border-gaza-buffer-zone-4131020d?st=xj1mprgprz9ejn0&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
.
Unsurprisingly this will be inside the Gaza border. I would expect this will literally be no man’s land for the near term. Israel had a smaller buffer zone previously but there were Palestinians protests right at the fence line that Israel tolerated. Speculation is that allowing this was one reason why Hamas was able to so easily penetrate the border wall on Oct 7th. The rules will change now.
Curiouser ….
The spy plane has a buddy, a marine F-5N Tiger fighter plane with the call sign BANDT26.
Screenshot at 12:40 pm:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1750574610767130639?s=20
Live Track:
https://www.flightradar24.com/BANDT26/33bf20b4
It also originated from Boca Chica.
I think they are just playing.
AI:
“The F-5N Tiger II is a single seat, twin-engine, tactical fighter and attack aircraft that provides simulated air-to-air combat training. The F-5F is a dual-seat version, twin-engine tactical fighter commonly used for training and adversary combat tactics. The F-5 aircraft serve in an aggressor-training role with simulation capabilities of current threat aircraft in fighter-combat mode.”
“I don’t like the No Labels movement, but neither you nor Mr. Barr have cited anything their critics do that their critics don’t do themselves, in spades.”
.
Only one side is putting themselves on a vastly holier than thou podium for defending democracy as a centerpiece for their election strategy. This particular effort is a lawfare effort to make sure No Labels complies with every single idiosyncratic requirement by the states to get their candidate on the ballot. They are worried it might split some of the vote to Biden’s disadvantage. So yeah, danger to democrat-cy!
.
This blatant hypocrisy needs to be pointed out but it certainly won’t be the first time a party put its own outcomes above its stated moral position. There’s a reason I only examine politicians behaviors and not their words. All the rest with gerrymandering and voting requirements are business as usual since about forever.
.
If you substitute democracy with “my side winning” then all their verbiage and behavior is completely consistent and logical.
Collective punishment against the opposing tribe is a time honored strategy since caveman picked up rocks and sticks. About the only thing we have learned in the interim is that many times there are more effective and less destructive means to an end.
.
There seems to be confusion with this not always working and it never working.
Israel doesn’t appear to be approaching this in a simple manner, it is a multi-pronged strategy.
1. Remove Hamas from power
2. Destroy the Hamas army.
3. Demilitarize Gaza (tunnels, weapons, infrastructure)
4. Collective punishment of the population (unacknowledged)
5. Building a robust keep out zone on the border
6. Multi-year occupation / improved surveillance
.
Any of these might work by themselves, but it is the combination of all of them that shows this is a serious effort, but it is abandoning negotiation and a political solution. It’s all stick now.
Tom,
Yes. I am of the opinion that if there is ever an appropriate time to go ‘all stick’, it’d be after an event like 10/7. A more opportune time to escape death spirals is bound to present itself later; this ain’t it.
Just my opinion.
Although:
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/22/israel-hamas-gaza-ceasefire-hostages
Israel offered a 2 month ceasefire in exchange for the release of all hostages. That’s a little bit negotiating slash political looking.
Apparently Hamas said nay nay to this.
Mike M,
“It seems to me like endless replowing of the same infertile ground.”
.
Yes, endless boring replowing. Israel is going to do what they are going to do, and they are just about immune to outside influence at this point. Debating if this is ‘optimal strategy’ or less than ‘optimal’ is a mug’s game. They are going to do everything they can to destroy Hamas; end of story.
BORDER SHOWDOWN: Texas’ Constitutional Right to Defend Against Invasion Supersedes Federal Law, Says Governor
.
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2024/01/24/border-showdown-texas-constitutional-right-to-defend-against-invasion-supersedes-federal-law-says-governor/
.
“[ Texas ] Governor lays out his rationale for signing a declaration of invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3, invoking Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. Abbott says, “That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.” ..”
.
Article I, § 10, Clause 3
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
.
Texas has declared an invasion with imminent Danger. Interesting times
.
https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1750235544951349275
Looks more and more like the illegal immigration/Ukraine deal is not going to happen. The sticking point: Biden seems to insist on having the option to allow north of 700,000 illegal immigrants per year admitted via “presidential parole’ and issued work visas, while Republicans see this as an obvious end-around to avoid actually limiting illegal immigration, in spite of any other provisionjs in the deal.
.
So, as is pretty much normal WRT high levels of illegal immigration, most Democrats are for it, and most Republicans opposed. Nothing new.
.
I think the prospects for a deal that actually limits illegal immigration and simultaneously provides money for Ukraine are now approaching 0% chance. It is good for Ukraine this is happening in the dead of winter, when less fighting is happening, but come May, things could get ugly for Ukraine.
Is there a legal definition of what constitutes an “invasion”? Specifically, for the purpose of Article 1, section 10 and Article 4.
.
What is happening at our southern border definitely fits the common definition of “invasion”. But I suspect that courts will hold that, for the purpose of the constitutional provisions, an invasion would have to be by a military force. I don’t know how narrow the term was in 1787.
.
But I am sure that millions illegally crossing our border is more like an invasion than Jan. 6 is like an insurrection.
An unarmed “invasion”?? Come on.
John Ferguson,
No, clearly not an invasion. But still a very big national problem, for which the Biden administration is obviously responsible. I believe the issue of uncontrolled illegal immigration is a huge risk for Biden’s re-election chances.
Steve “It is good for Ukraine this is happening in the dead of winter, when less fighting is happening”
.
I’m not sure that “less” is correct. The Russians are attacking across the entire front and the Ukraine defense of Avdiivka in the south has been cracked open. Casualties are running high for both sides.
.
The weather is cold enough to freeze the ground solid, so armor can move easier now than even sometimes in May. May does get rain at times, making off road movements difficult when it does.
.
https://deepstatemap.live/en#10/48.4397/37.8465
Southeast Alabama is under attack. About 50 US Army helicopters are in the air at this moment.
Screenshot:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1750614686884581797?s=20
Live track:
https://www.flightradar24.com/RANDO77/33bf7d61
Most are designated Eurocopter UH-72A Lakota
Seem to be originating from Ft. Novasil.
The invasion argument will not be successful legally, although I suppose I could get out my dictionary, ha ha. The Feds get to exclusively control the border, but to be clear the intent there is the Feds would … uhhh … control the border. It is a bit unclear what happens if the Feds abandon that responsibility but so far it seems that is their choice. Arizona passed some state laws to enforce immigration laws and they were shot down by the SC a while back.
.
Strategy wise this is just an escalation of bussing “irregular migrants” to places that don’t want them (that is the new and improved euphemism). The spectacle of the Feds using force against states to allow border crossing instead of preventing illegal immigrants is something that will end up in a political disaster so it is curious to watch how the Feds react.
Russell, so are we seeing the second battle for Vicksburg ? 🙂
Hi SteveF,
Of course I agree that the arrival within our borders of millions is a real problem.
I was surprised to see on 60 Minutes that last year’s crop included 31k Chinese.
there are likely a whole lot of others who are not fleeing various Central American countries and Venezuela.
we had some discussion both in Peru and Chile about if the Venezuelan arrivals were a problem. I suspected political point of view influenced whether it was a problem in either place and whether the respectiv governments were handling it well.
Peruvians claimed yes, and Chileans were not sure.
Tom Scharf,
“The spectacle of the Feds using force against states to allow border crossing instead of preventing illegal immigrants is something that will end up in a political disaster so it is curious to watch how the Feds react.”
.
The Biden administration is ~100% committed to open boarders; between “get-aways”, “asylum” and “parole”, there is effectively no upper bound for illegal immigration (~2-3 million a year?) under Biden. It might indeed be a spectacle if that were to ever change, but my guess: never, so long as Biden is in office.
.
The philosophical divide between left and right on illegal immigration is as deep as with any other policy issue, but this is one that I suspect will be an electoral catastrophe for the Dems, especially in states where the number of illegal immigrants is large.
“..unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
.
With “Chevron” looking to being overturned, the feds won’t have the presumption of interpreting the terms “invaded” or “imminent “.
.
This will go to a Texas judge and a Texas based court of appeals.
.
“On Dec. 19, a federal appeals court in New Orleans issued an order that, except in cases of medical emergencies, temporarily barred Border Patrol agents from cutting or moving the wire in the area around the city of Eagle Pass.” Stayed by USSC.
.
If both the circuit and appellate both found in favor of Texas on cutting the wire, I would give high odds they both find in favor of Texas on both “invaded” & “imminent”. It will take quite a bit of time before this reaches the USSC.
.
Ed Forbes,
The US Supreme Court has been deferential to the President on immigration enforcement for a very long time. That is unlikely to change (and has NOTHING to do with Chevron, which is indeed likely to be reversed this year).
.
Were it Trump attempting to restrict illegal immigration, there would be a huge pushback from Democrat appointed judges in lower Federal courts, blocking every change in the rules, but ultimately the SC is likely to continue to defer to the President, and even to Trump if he is elected in November.
.
It is a shame… since IMHO Biden is simply thumbing his nose at immigration law, in violation of his oath of office…. but that is the way it is.
I am kind of shocked this appears in a sort-of-MSM publication: https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-boondoggle-must-end-opinion-1863389
.
Is the end of funding for Ukraine nigh? We will have to wait a bit, but Zelinsky may want to carefully consider his options to end the fighting.
Steve, what did I post to suggest that the USSC would side with Texas?
.
The USSC stayed the appellate review and is presumed to also stay any such appellate ruling on this issue. But it will take time to reach the USSC.
.
And “Chevron” does play a role. Under “Chevron”, federal agencies can interpret laws and courts MUST defer to the agency for any “reasonable” interpretation. Thankfully use of “Chevron” has been trending downward and likely to be gone totally shortly.
Ed Forbes,
Chevron is unconnected; really. Chevron is all about over-reach of agencies like the EPA, OSHA, etc, and has nothing to do with immigration.
.
If you agree the US Supreme Court will reject the Texas suit (as I am sure they wiil), then we have no disagreement on that.
Ed Forbes,
General Grant traded in Cincinnati for a new ride…. A Lakota helicopter.
Joshua, the attack by Hamas on 10/7 was to break up a strategic alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia. To say they’ve only done the same thing over and over is incorrect. Israel allowed Arafat to return from exile. Israel withdrew from Lebanon, and certain Palestinian areas, when they could have just kept control. Israel gave up the Sinai Peninsula in the 70s, to get peace with Egypt.
Tom Scharf (Comment #229033)
No doubt Palestinians will not want the destruction that Hamas enables. But in the absence of it, their life will not be normal anyway, at least in the West Bank where there is a slow annexation.
In the West Bank, the violence is more of a daily grinding one. Israel makes life difficult enough that Palestinians may try to leave or retaliate violently, which provides the cover for more annexation. This includes detentions with no trial, demolition of houses, refusal of permits etc. Plus the forbidden roads and settler violence which is supported by the IDF and the judiciary. No doubt this is why a weak and corrupt Fatah has 8% approval and Hamas is seen to be the only one doing something.
Palestinians have a weak hand though. Arab rulers like what they can get from Israel and are likely to normalize with a wait period. The occupied territories have long been a proving ground for spyware and weapons. Pegasus is a boon for preventing another Arab spring. Besides, there are many battle-tested arms that Israel can provide e.g. missile defense. Now AI-based warfare is also getting beta-tested in Gaza.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/algorithms-war-military-ai-war-gaza/
In light of all this, 10/7 was a remarkable intelligence failure.
This is an illustrative story about the kind of daily violence that West Bank Palestinians face via the detentions without trials including of teenagers. Apparently, 40% of all males have been arrested since the occupation began.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/21/a-hidden-universe-of-suffering-the-palestinian-children-sent-to-jail
I can’t imagine why people would voluntarily want to live under such conditions.
Mike –
.
> Joshua, the attack by Hamas on 10/7 was to break up a strategic alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
.
Not that I rule that out as a potential factor, but methinks that your estimation of your Hamas mind-probing abilities might be just a tad overconfident. Besides, I’m not sure what your point is there. I’m quite well aware that many have speculated that undermining the developing relationship between Isreal the Saudis was a goal of Hamas. Yes, many people have talked about how Hamas has been increasingly concerned that the Palestinian cause has lost focus in the growing cooperation between Isreal and various Arab nations. It’s curious that you think that might be news to me. But regardless, how is that relevant to what we’ve been discussing?
> To say they’ve only done the same thing over and over is incorrect.
.
You may have missed my point. I’m saying that what has been the repeated pattern is one of retributative violence. Of course there have been other elements of the 75-year conflict. Of course there have been a series of related events, such as periodic negotiations. Tom Friedman describes it thusly:
.
.
Unlike Friedman’s description, what I’m describing here is the conflict part of the pattern. Isreal has responded to Palestinian attacks the same way over and over – with retributative violence – somehow expecting different results. It’s a shame that 10/7 didn’t help them to realize the failure of such thinking.
.
> Israel allowed Arafat to return from exile. Israel withdrew from Lebanon, and certain Palestinian areas, when they could have just kept control. Israel gave up the Sinai Peninsula in the 70s, to get peace with Egypt.
.
Do you even realize what a selective list that is? Do you even know that you’ve left out such obvious factors such as the constant building of settlements, found to be illegal even by Israel’s courts, that. Is comprise some 750,000 Jewish Israeli inhabitants? Not course there is much else thst you left out – seemingly, I must say, conveniently and rhetorically and not by coincidence.
.
Your description would be tantamount to describing only the PLO and Arafat changing their stance and renouncing terrorism and accepting a state of Israel, and Hamas changing their charter re acceptance of Israel, and non-violent protests by Palestinians, while not mentioning the violent attacks.
.
What a strange way to discuss an issue.
RB –
.
> I can’t imagine why people would voluntarily want to live under such conditions.
,
Your comment reminds me of what Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was reported to have said, that if he were a young Palestinian, he might have joined a terrorist group.
.
I think there was a very similar comment I’ve heard from a former Isreali military official but I can’t quite remember which one. Perhaps the one who called Gaza an open air prison, or the one who referred to the West Bank as an apartheid state?
.
Joshua,
Based on everything I’ve read, the former generals/security officers sound more like the left wing of Israel.
RB –
.
Some of them, no doubt. Which is part of what makes it strange why so many Americans seem to have rather unquestioning faith in the policies of self-serving politicians like Bibi.
.
Especially given the obvious failure of his policies for decades, including the absolutely and unarguably catastrophic policies in the run up to a massive failure like 10/7.
Joshua
No doubt. Gadi Eisenkot recently made a statement about the ‘absolute defeat’ of Hamas being a tall tale, a goal which many Americans seem to defend.
More coming out highlighting on why I have zero trust in a CDC that is totally captured by the large pharmaceutical corporations.
.
Email Reveals Why CDC Didn’t Issue Alert on COVID Vaccines and Myocarditis: CDC officials were worried about causing panic
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/exclusive-email-reveals-why-cdc-didnt-issue-alert-on-covid-vaccines-and-myocarditis-5571675?utm_source=epochHG&utm_campaign=rcp&src_src=epochHG&src_cmp=rcp
.
“U.S. authorities identified myocarditis and a related condition, pericarditis, before the vaccines were cleared as events that could be caused by the vaccines. People who received the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines began reporting myocarditis and pericarditis to health authorities and the vaccine manufacturers shortly after the vaccines were rolled out in December 2020.”.
.
“Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s director at the time, first addressed the issue publicly in April 2021. She falsely said the agency had seen no reports and that no signal had triggered, while disclosing the CDC was in touch with U.S. military officials on cases among service members.
In reality, hundreds of cases had been reported to the CDC, including some that resulted in death; the CDC either missed or ignored the signal in VAERS; and the CDC helped hide a signal that emerged from a Department of Veterans Affairs system, internal documents and other data reviewed by The Epoch Times show.”
“This page isn’t working
rankexploits.com is currently unable to handle this request.”
I’m trying to cut and paste two paragraphs out of a Google ‘Documents’ page and keep getting the above error message.
Tom Scharf,
“There seems to be confusion with this not always working and it never working.”
.
Indeed. Just ask the people of Carthage.
Once again, it is very easy to criticize Israel without having to offer a better specific alternative plan and evidence that some specific alternative plan would be better. Mocking us for supporting Israel serves no useful purpose without this, it merely generates antagonism
Mark –
.
I have offered a general alternative.
.
Immediately after 10/7, I think they should have focused on mourning the dead and providing immediate help to the victims and families.
.
They should have addressed the security breaches that 10/7 exposed. For example, bringing back the defense forces they had moved away from the Gaza border.
.
They should have worked with the Arab nations they have and were building relationships with, to try to build support for a response that would strengthen those relationships (and support within those countries for a response).
.
They should similarly have taken time to build support in other nations around the globe. The point being, to allow time for sympathy for the attack to grow and deepen.
.
They should have worked on developing a plan for what comes next, that could clearly be communicated to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, that would make it clear to them how Israel envisioned a future where Palestinians would have a state.
.
The should have announced a change in focus, away from supporting more settlements, to move away from supporting the violent, ongoing process of displacing Palestinians in the WB and making life virtually impossibly there.
.
They should have worked to build support within Palestinian communitues for leaders and organizations that would support two-state plan.
.
They should have worked on developing a plan for a targeted military response against against Hamas and its leaders. Perhaps even creating a demilitaruzed zone as they are now focused on. Perhaps even building support with the UN or Arab nations or other allies to implement such a zone with international troops before starting a bombing campaign in civilian areas. Perhaps creating demilitaruzed zones where civilians could go as military action was taken against Hamas.
.
They should have made it abundantly clear how their military response was going to be strictly limited, but also made it clear that they were going to engage in a systematic and deliberate process of limited military actions to degrade Hamas’ military capabilities, including a systematic process of dismantling the tunnel system. Undoubtedly such a process would result in some civilian casualties but far, far less casualties among non-combatants than what is occurring currently.
.
They should have focused heavily, and perhaps above everything else, on negotiations to free the hostages.
.
They should have worked as a country ilon replacing the corrupt and failed government that led them in the path to 10/7, and in holding them responsible for their obvious failures. That would include making it abundantly obvious that no longer would they allow the conflict with Palestinians to be held hostage by religious the extremists that is so catered to by the current government.
.
I’m not suggesting that any of that would have been easy, or even necessarily attainable. But that those goals should have been loudly and conspicuously engaged to grow support and to make it abundantly clear to Palestinians how they could look forward to an outcome far superior to the violence perpetrated by Hamas.
.
.
Perhaps with an all out effort along those lines, if it seemed nothing was working, they could conduct a campaign not entirely dissimilar to the one they’re currently conducting, after making it more clear how civilians could be more safe over a period of months. Israel had for years been living more or less contentedly in a state before 10/7, that that could have worked to reconstruct in 10/8, where they addressed the immediate vulnerabilities that allowed 10/7 to occur. I don’t think there’s any logical explanation why they needed to launch a massive bombing campaign so immediately after. There was nothing learned on 10/7 about Hamas’ capabilities they didn’t know about and that needed to be immediately addressed. What they learned about were their failures and vulnerabilities that could have been immediately addressed. Of course Bibi avoided accountability and didn’t want that to be the focus and did everything he could do to avoid accountability.
I have given you a link to an interview with someone from an organization of ex military and defense leaders who propose a much more detailed plan among similar lines, and asked you for your response to that interview and/or the plan they have put forth. I’ve also given you links to other people who discuss alternatives to the massive military force campaign being conducted, that has resulted in so much destruction and civilian casualties and zero details about “the day after” regarding what Israel plans to do with millions of displaced Gazans left to live in a massive bombed out parking lot with practically zero infrastructure such as healthcare and ways to get food and shelter and the basic needs of life.
.
That’s a start. I’ve given you links to people far more equipped to weigh-in on these issues who have made similar suggestions.
.
I welcome critique.
.
What I don’t think is preferable is a response that says that military force works, that Israel has a right to defend itself, that Hamas needs to be completely eliminated, that Arabs only understand force, that any criticism of Israel’s policies are antisemetic, etc. I’m not saying that you have responded with all of such statements but just that those are easy and unapproachable responses that I’ve heard in response to calls for a more measured and targeted response.
.
That’s also all basically of limited value at this point, because it’s not exactly a suggestion for what Israel should do now given what has already transpired, but it might be a starting blueprint for a plan for what they should do now.
.
> Mocking us for supporting Israel serves.
.
Sorry. I get frustrated when people don’t respond on issues such as the corruption of Bibi’s government, how it has been held hostage by religious fanatics, how it has for years undermined any viability of a two-state solution, how it undermined any legitimate alternative leadership to Hamas among Palestinians, how it failed to work with Arab nations to build a policy for dealing with Palestinian concerns and grievances, etc. I actually don’t understand what seems like unquestioning support for the policies of such a failed government.
.
I get that you or others may think that a sufficient response to all of that is that Israel must destroy Hamas, that it has a right to defend itself, and that Hamas is responsible for the civilian deaths. But just as easy as you think it is to criticize Israel, I think such answers are easy. I don’t take it personally if someone seems to be mocking of the idea that a targeted and measured and more multi-pronged approach such as that I very broadly outlined would have been preferable. I hope you know that I’m not mocking you if I express uncredulity at the level of support that I see for Bibi’s government (and by extension the policies of a corrupt and failed government which, imo, should necessarily NOT get the benefit of the doubt).
.
I will be off line for most of the day and will try to respond later if you have a response.
RB –
.
> Gadi Eisenkot recently made a statement about the ‘absolute defeat’ of Hamas being a tall tale.
.
A tall tale, or a fantasy, or just ill-defined. I certainly get an absolute goal of degrading Hamas. Given that Hamas largely represents an ideology that certainly won’t be defeated or eradicated, I don’t get why people think that degrading Hamas’ military and political viability isn’t considered an acceptable goal.
mark bofill,
“Mocking us for supporting Israel serves no useful purpose without this, it merely generates antagonism.”
.
Sure, but it is also a waste of time. The government of Israel is not going to change course on this subject. That a single member of the ruling coalition (in a party which holds 10% of the seats in the Knesset) makes statement about “tall tales” is quite irrelevant. The fighting will continue, and when it ends, Hamas will no longer be in charge of Gaza.
Joshua,
I appreciate your response. There is a lot there. I am going to break my response into pieces for better manageability.
(1)
It’s not my impression that you think this is a critical or central point of failure, correct? I haven’t verified, but I suspect that Israel did indeed mourn their dead and provided immediate help to the Israeli victims and families. But even if they did not, I don’t really see how this connects to anything larger. If a failure occurred here, I don’t understand how it impacts the larger conflict of Israel vs Palestine in any meaningful way.
[Edit: But for the sake of amiable discussion, if they did not do this, I agree that they should have.]
(2)
Agreed. If they did not address the security breaches, they should have done so. Like (1), I think we can agree that this is neither here nor there regarding the larger operation Israel is conducting in Gaza. In other words, they should do this regardless of other considerations. I strongly suspect they have.
Mankind may have just crossed the Rubicon. Ukraine claims its Saker Scout autonomous drones with AI have completed several missions, all without human interaction.
(3)
I’m not sure I know what you are saying exactly. Has Israel ceased diplomatic engagement with Arab nations? This was not my impression, but maybe I’m ignorant here or I’m not understanding you.
(4)
Now we are cooking with gasoline! [Edit: This expression is a self deprecating idiom and is not intended as mockery of anyone other than myself.] I find substance here that we can discuss. I would prefer to finish a breadth first response to your post and we can return to discuss this after if that’s ok.
(5)
.
(6)
Ok, good. Clear and substantial. I will return to these.
(7)
Hmm. Beats me man. I think you are overestimating our level of awareness and engagement in Israeli politics. I don’t support Netanyahu in particular, I support Israel. This is an argument to make to Israelis perhaps instead of Americans discussing the conflict? Or at least Americans who are solid Netanhayu supporters. Incidentally, and I would hate to derail our conversation badly by mentioning this, but you might be exhibiting a bias against theists here. I know you personally care about such things just like I do, so I mention it in passing in the hope that you will find the observation useful instead of indicative of a personal attack.
I also am out of time right now. I’ll get back to this. Basically though I think 4-6 is the meat of what we could discuss, and maybe 3 and 7 although I’m not clear those are as important. Agree?
From “The Hill”:
.
So lemme see… nothing really changes unless the rate of illegal entries is more than 1.46 million or 1.825 million per year. That sounds like basically no change in current policy, or more accurately, blessing the Biden administration’s policies. No surprise that the speaker will not take up the Senate bill, should it ever pass the Senate, which it very likely will not.
I’m leaving for a competition. (Jim is home with the cats.) I was going to post and start a new thread…. failed. It tells me I’m probably off line when I’m online.
.
Next week, I’ll schedule updating stuff here so that we are on php8.0 and blah… blah…. Sorry all. I wanted to give you all a new thread.
.
I suspect many of the glitches are because of this.
Ciao for now.
I do wonder: will the House refuse to take up a stand-alone (no change in illegal immigration) bill if it is attached to a “must pass” bill to continue funding the Federal government? I hope they make it clear to the Senate and the Biden administration that Ukraine gets no more funds unless illegal immigration is restricted, so that the Senate has time to develop a bill with actually reductions in illegal immigration. But I suspect House may be rail-roaded and Mike Johnson forced to fall on his sword to continue government funding. I think Republican Senators are willing to accepting horrible, destructive illegal immigration policies in exchange for funding for Ukraine. IMHO, it is a bad deal for the USA.
lucia,
Good luck. Don’t fall! 😉
Mark,
Sorry if that came across badly. Just a random inconsequential blogger. But not much to add about the inhumane conditions created by the way in which the war is waged as I’ve talked about in the past or as may be documented in the ICJ case – the practically indiscriminate bombing perhaps in part a result of AI taking away the agency, lack of safe zones, lack of food/water/medicines, deliberate destruction of essential infrastructure to name a few.
So far, it is negotiations that have resulted in the release of hostages.
The claim that Israel is doing nothing wrong and can continue doing what it is currently has not been upheld by the ICJ. They are legally required to now change course. It is not enforceable but they cannot also then claim that they are fighting this war in compliance with international law.
“They should have worked as a country ilon replacing the corrupt and failed government that led them in the path to 10/7”
.
It’s Israel’s fault, ha ha. That’s a hard sell, good luck. It was equally unconvincing that 9/11 was the US’s fault but plenty of people made that argument too. Terrorist organizations don’t get to veto government policy by ruthlessly killing civilians. There’s always reasons for these things but it is simply bad tactics by people who do this.
.
Alternately what Hamas should have done differently only takes 3 words: Don’t kill civilians.
Tom,
Well, I DID ask what specifically Joshua thought ISRAEL was doing wrong. I mean, we all know what Hamas did wrong.
Shrug.
[Edit: No, actually I misspoke. I specifically asked Joshua what he thought Israel should have done or should be doing differently.]
From ‘FDD’s Long War Journal’:
.
“Israel has seen a significant reduction in rocket fire from Hamas and other terrorist groups inside Gaza over a 72-hour period. Sirens sounded on the border of Gaza on January 21 in the afternoon, but since then an app that tracks sirens shows there have been no sirens along the border as of the evening of January 24 in Israel. This is an unprecedented calm along the border and for Israeli cities since the war began with Hamas firing thousands of rockets on October 7.”
.
The report goes on to say some 9,000+ rockets were fired from Gaza until the present ‘calm’. Maybe Israel is taking away Hamas’ ability to fire rockets. Funny how that works.
I suspect the UN’s decision to not charge Israel with potential genocide has a lot more to do with “never give an order you know will not be obeyed” than anything else. It would also have cheapened the definition and people would have disregarded these type of tribunals in the future as unserious like they already view a lot of UN work.
Tom Scharf,
“…..people would have disregarded these type of tribunals in the future as unserious like they already view a lot of UN work.”
.
I would go much further. MOST of what the UN does is unserious, and nearly all actions of the International Court of Justice are unserious. That is one of the reasons the USA rejects that the court has jurisdiction over international disagreements. No country actually takes it seriously. It’s a joke.
This seems like a pretty accurate assessment of the current situation.
.
Israel’s War With Hamas Has No End in Sight
Existential stakes and ambitious goals point to a long conflict, however the current fighting culminates
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israels-war-with-hamas-has-no-end-in-sight-898f2b19?st=ga4wepqylxfdq5i&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
RB,
Thanks for your response. I’d like to explain that I am not personally offended by your remarks or Joshua’s. I find some enjoyment in engaging different viewpoints and I’d like to help, if I can, keep the discussion as amicable as is feasible. This was the reason for my comment 229072 earlier.
Steve,
I apologize, I missed your comment 229075 to me earlier.
Certainly, nothing we discuss or conclude here will impact what transpires in the world in any way regarding the Israeli Palestinian conflict. In fact this is true of the vast majority of topics we discuss here, as far as I can tell. For example, we discuss the 2024 elections. Obviously, our discussions are not going to impact the 2024 elections. What will happen will happen.
I’m not clear on why this subject (Israel / Palestine conflict) should be avoided as a waste of time when all of the others we discuss are fair game.
Joshua,
My criticism could be broadly outlined this way:
1) I think you believe Israel has operational capabilities that it actually does not, and that these fictional capabilities are what you would prefer Israel to rely on.
1a) Israel cannot perform a targeted elimination of Hamas leadership because they don’t know who they all are, where they all are.
1b) Even if they did, how specifically could Israel eliminate them with less damage to the civilian population? The current method is aerial bombardment followed by ground troops, I think this is standard modern military doctrine. How else can Hamas be eliminated in a way that damages the civilian population less?
1c) Even if they did, how specifically could Israel eliminate them without an unacceptable increase in IDF casualties?
1d) Hamas could flee to tunnels and hide or take refuge in civilian areas if less sudden methods than airstrikes were used.
2) There is no systematic and deliberate process of dismantling Gaza tunnels that substantially reduce civilian casualties. What precisely do you propose they do differently here?
3) There is a general, overarching problem that it is extremely difficult to separate Hamas from civilians:
3a) It is hard to identify who is Hamas and who is civilian.
3b) It is hard to kill Hamas without killing civilians, because Hamas embeds operations in civilian infrastructure.
3c) This problem impedes the ability of the Israelis to provide safe zones for the civilian populace without also providing safe zones for Hamas.
3d) This problem impedes the ability of the Israelis to permit humanitarian aid and resources for the succor of the civilian population without also providing succor for Hamas.
4) Hamas will not come to terms Israel can accept regarding the hostages even now, after a severe Israeli response. Why should anyone believe Hamas would have come to terms Israel could accept regarding the hostages if Israel had engaged in a milder response?
Looks like US politicians pressuring Israel are treading on thin ice. According to a recent poll (5 days ago), Israel has the support of 80% of US voters.
Interestingly, older voters support Israel by larger margins than youngers, though there is majority support across all age groups. I venture that older voters have a greater awareness of the history of the region, which may explain their greater support for Israel.
I have read Secretary of State Blinken’s apparent anonymous leaked advice to the Israelis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/04/us/politics/israel-gaza-deaths-bombs.html
Use smaller bombs, well, OK. The US has increased the number of smaller bombs and precision guided munitions they are giving to the Israelis, I’m sure the Israelis have been putting them to good use. Increased US intelligence, great. Once again, I’m sure the Israelis are taking advantage of that. I also read though that the US military advisors seem to think the same tactics that were used in Iraq 16 years ago could be used in Gaza. The Israelis seem to disagree about that. I will read up on what exactly we did in Iraq around 2008 that the US is recommending here.
There were many reasons for the success of the various Task forces associated with McChrystal. Here some are highlighted. Not sure how these translate to Gaza or fewer casualties in Gaza.
The question is always why they (intentionally) leak that type of info. This is probably an exercise in showing the world how the US is wagging their finger at Israel or something, maybe to appease the left wing. I think the US should keep this entire thing at arms length and have little to no comment on tactics publicly.
Tom,
I agree, but I didn’t want to go there. It complicates things if we have to speculate why the discussion was leaked and (by implication) if it was actually sincere or just meant to appease some faction. I’m willing to try to take it at face value until doing so leads me someplace completely stupid, just to keep things simple.
Joshua (Comment #229073)
“I have offered a general alternative.
I welcome critique.”
– And I’m no angel.
In regard to your priorities and emphasis which are well laid out this did not gel.
-“I don’t think there’s any logical explanation why they needed to launch a massive bombing campaign so immediately after.”
– Perhaps over a 1000 unarmed people killed and hundreds taken hostage
is not a logical explanation but I do think you could clarify this comment.
Your response strategy seems to be measured but woke
-“Immediately after 10/7, I think they should have focused on mourning the dead and providing immediate help to the victims and families.”
Security failure, protection against further attacks, reaction to the hostage taking and informing the public were less important and immediate foci?
-“They should have focused heavily, and perhaps above everything else, on negotiations to free the hostages.”
-Security failure, protection against further attacks and informing the public were less important and immediate foci?
These in particular are all good ideas, if they were achievable.
-“They should have worked on developing a plan for a targeted military response against against Hamas and its leaders.”
They should have worked with the Arab nations they have and were building relationships with, to try to build support for a response that would strengthen those relationships (and support within those countries for a response).
-“They should similarly have taken time to build support in other nations around the globe. The point being, to allow time for sympathy for the attack to grow and deepen”.
However I do not see how strictly limited as a term allows the objectives you state.
-“They should have made it abundantly clear how their military response was going to be strictly limited, but also made it clear that they were going to engage in a systematic and deliberate process of limited military actions to degrade Hamas’ military capabilities, including a systematic process of dismantling the tunnel system.”
Corrupt and failed are pejorative terms and indicate a mindset against against Israel per se.
-“They should have worked as a country on replacing the corrupt and failed government that led them in the path to 10/7, and in holding them responsible for their obvious failures.”
One could level similar accusations against Hamas itself, the USA and Mossad intelligence organizations, The other Arab nations you wanted Israel to work with and the United Nations. The nation of Israel did not initiate the initiate the massacre events which would have taken place in any event with the most perfect government the Israelis could elect.
The obvious failure in all this was that of Hamas in initiating and launching the massacre.
“I’m not suggesting that any of that would have been easy, or even necessarily attainable. But that those goals should have been loudly and conspicuously engaged to grow support and to make it abundantly clear to Palestinians how they could look forward to an outcome far superior to the violence perpetrated by Hamas.”
The Palestinians are Hamas
-“Perhaps with an all out effort along those lines, if it seemed nothing was working, they could conduct a campaign not entirely dissimilar to the one they’re currently conducting, after making it more clear how civilians could be more safe over a period of months.”
The campaign, plus killing civilians is OK after all? OK
Note this is a critique, not an attack.
It would be lovely if all people interacted in rational ways in this world.
We just have different priorities.
Matt Taibbi on Democrat plans to subvert democracy:
https://www.racket.news/p/is-the-electoral-fix-already-in
Mostly Taibbi describes the way the Dems are accusing Trump of planning to do the things that the Dems have done, are doing, or plan to do. It is shocking stuff.
.
His closing:
Trump’s behavior 3 years ago bothered me deeply. As a result, I had been hoping that Republicans would reject him. But lately, that has bothered me much less and I have been trying to understand why. The above brought it into focus: Trump’s violation of norms pales in comparison with the way Biden and the Dems violate norms. So although I still don’t like Trump’s behavior, I no longer see it as such a big deal.
Tom Scharf (Comment #229094)
I agree too with much of that assessment. As of now, 26K confirmed dead + 8K missing. As I’ve said before, 10% of those being combatants is more likely than the nearly 40% that Israel claims. What then? Biden’s position is already precarious although Bibi may be OK with that.
There are no perfect solutions from Israel’s perspective here ignoring everything else before 10/7. They can either get all of Hamas at great human cost or get the hostages released, but these two goals are in conflict with each other.
BTW, not sure of the legalities, but I think ICJ did not make a ruling on genocide, to my knowledge, which will take upwards of 10 years for a ruling. The provisional measures agreed upon, including by the US and Israeli judges, just don’t call for a ceasefire.
Tom Scharf (Comment #229101)
Indeed, these leaks are likely performative for domestic consumption to try to have it both ways.
“Voters, by voting, “protect democracy.” A politician who claims to be doing the job for us is up to something.”
.
All the ridiculous grandstanding against Trump does make me more sympathetic to him, but I won’t cross the line to vote for him (again, again). I do completely understand how this backfires for the intended effect and wonder how others don’t comprehend this when it happens over and over. Let’s go interview Trump voters to see if this one changes their minds! Have you morons changed your mind yet, well have you? Trump’s a clown so you should change your personal value system to the left’s. Wait, what?
.
Some of this is just team building for the home team and not really intended to convince others of anything. Certainly Trump is a gift that never stops giving for an opponent’s campaign manager (easiest job on the planet) but there appears to be a ceiling to that effect. CNN can’t figure out if the best strategy is never showing Trump or always showing Trump, ha ha. I won’t know because I can’t watch CNN anymore.
.
The very serious people disgrace themselves and start saying silly things they never would have said 10 years ago when it used to simply be “that guy is Hitler”. Now it all amounts to strutting peacocks with Homer Simpson masks. Have any of these people said anything remotely interesting with regards to Trump lately? About anything? I think not. It’s become random noise.
My understanding is the first stage of the genocide trial is like an emergency hearing and the prosecution only needs to show it is plausible a genocide might be occurring and the burden of proof is on Israel to prove it is not. After this stage then the burden of proof reverses and the prosecution must prove to a very high standard that a genocide occurred which will take approx. forever. I don’t think they can meet that standard but we shall see, ultimately it is unlikely to have any real world effect beyond some useful propaganda for one side.
Alleged Senate border deal:
“Under the soon-to-be-released package, the Department of Homeland Security would be granted new emergency authority to shut down the border if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span. If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week, DHS would be required to close the border to migrants crossing illegally not entering at ports of entry. Certain migrants would be allowed to stay if they prove to be fleeing torture or persecution in their countries (1400 per day).
Moreover, if crossings exceed 8,500 in a single day, DHS would be required to close the border to migrants illegally crossing the border. Under the proposal, any migrant who tries to cross the border twice while it is closed would be banned from entering the US for one year.”
.
We had ~10K average per day last month. This is actually the Dems caving on this issue AFAICT. I’m sure there are some objectionable parts to the bill but the Republicans should just take it and move on. They probably won’t get a better deal and the only payment is Ukraine and Israel aid. It takes the issue off the table for Biden so it is kind of a gift but I don’t care. The Republicans probably can’t tell a win when they see one.
Mark Steyn early in the trial said ClimateGate was not a hack but a leak and that he knew the name of the whistleblower.
Tom: This is actually the Dems caving on this issue AFAICT.
.
Let me rephrase the proposal: “it’s ok if less than x people do illegal stuff. We won’t bother attempting to enforce the law if it’s less than this number.”
.
What border are they being empowered to close? The one that is already supposed to be closed to people wondering over it? What crossing numbers are they counting? The illegal ones that just happen to never top 4999? How do these emergency powers suddenly close a border which is already closed?
.
The problem with the legislation is that it tacitly agrees that the US has open borders unless some fudgeable numbers can be produced. This doesn’t sound like capitulation. More like a trap.
.
Ironically, the lefty side were already using the semantic argument that the border is not actually open, therefore the whole argument about closing them just doesn’t make any sense.
Tom: This is actually the Dems caving on this issue AFAICT.
.
Let me rephrase the proposal: “it’s ok if less than x people do illegal stuff. We won’t bother attempting to enforce the law if it’s less than this number.”
.
What border are they being empowered to close? The one that is already supposed to be closed to people wandering over it? What crossing numbers are they counting? The illegal ones that just happen to never top 4999? How do these emergency powers suddenly close a border which is already closed?
.
The problem with the legislation is that it tacitly agrees that the US has open borders unless some fudgeable numbers can be produced. This doesn’t sound like capitulation. More like a trap.
.
Ironically, the other side were already using the semantic argument that the border is not actually open, therefore the whole argument about closing them just doesn’t make any sense.
Tom Scharf (Comment #229110): “This is actually the Dems caving on this issue AFAICT.”
.
No, it is the Dems pretending to give a bit of ground to gain cover for what they are doing. It will permit 2 million illegal crossings a year, plus gotaways, plus illegitimate asylum claimers. Shameful. And that is if Biden and Mayorkas keep their word, which they won’t.
.
It is not the Dems caving. It is the Republicans getting rolled. As usual.
Tom Scharf,
Capitulation by Democrats? I don’t think so. Emergency power to close the boarder kicks in at 5,000 per day illegal migrants, a rate of nearly 2 million a year…. and it is an option, not an obligation. Count get aways, and it is effectively no change in policy at all. The obligation to close the boarder starts at a rate of 3.6 million per year…. far higher than it has been for most of the last year. IOW, Biden would not actually be required to not admit illegal migrants except very rarely. And I don’t expect it would be anything more than the Biden administration counting noses and when approaching 10,000 a day for a week, telling the crossers to “wait for a few days, then we can let you in”. And what about get-aways?
.
I think it is a terrible deal, and one that will not actually reduce the flow of illegal migrants. Biden could at any time drastically reduce the number of illegal migrants allowed into the country under existing law, but absolutely refuses to; he clearly wants them to enter the country. That is the real problem.
That should have been: “approaching 8,500 per day”, not 10,000.
Mark –
I think there’s a basic disagreement that in some ways makes a deeper discussion mis-aligned. I think that “eliminating Hamas” is an ill-defined, vague, unrealistic, unachievable, basically meaningless goal. It sounds great. It would be a great thing to be able to do. I can understanding wanting to reach that state. But as a motivating goal that enables a killing thousands and thousands of civilians it makes no sense to me.
.
I think a goal of degrading Hamas’ ability to launch terror attacks, to function militarily, is an entirely doable, realistic, viable goal. I think that goal would likely be achievable without the same massive among of civilian causalities, without the same degree of destroying infrastructure and the basic things that Palestinians in Gaza need to live reasonable lives.
.
I have heard many of the families of hostages speak of their deep disappointment at the lack of focus on mourning the dead. I have heard of many of families of hostages speaking of a lack of focus on the hostages, a lack of full engagement in negotiations. In general, there is a great deal of disappointment and anger at a lack of focus on the hostages. Of course, there are some in Israeli society who disagree, and there is in general very wide support for the idea of “eradicating Hamas” and how the war has been prosecuted.
.
I think that there was zero reason that even if they ultimately decided that a massive bombing campaign was necessary or the best path forward, they couldn’t have addressed the immediate security failures (perhaps focused on a demilitarized zone), and (1) worked closely with Arab nations to move forward in a way that minimized damage to their ongoing and developing relationships and (2) worked diligently to present to Palestinians a vision for what they might look for going forward that would provide them with an alternative to Hamas. The point for me, is that irrespective of whether the massive bombing campaign was the only way to address Hamas, conducting this bombing campaign wouldn’t have to be mutually exclusive with other policies that would mitigate the fallout and work towards addressing many critical issues, long-term.
.
So it seems that you don’t think any of that is particularly relevant to addressing the viability of a massive bombing campaign versus the viability of a more measured and targeted response. I think that those other factors are necessarily linked to that choice between those two broad options. So then we have a basic structural problem at a couple of levels going forward with the discussion – where I think we’d be chunking off the discussion from aspects that are critically linked.. I don’t see how that basic problem could be resolved. Still, I’ll respond in some detail to what you’ve written. Although I think there’s a circular problem here that responding won’t get past, I’ll respond nonetheless because it would be disrespectful not to.
Immediately after 10/7, I think they should have focused on mourning the dead and providing immediate help to the victims and families.
.
.
Actually, I think it is a critical failure in that it’s an indication that the path they took was rushed, and ignored a variety of important issues that should have been addressed before a massive military response was initiated.
.
I think I’ve addressed that. It’s a part of a critical failure. Not a critical failure in and of itself. A delay to take the time to mourn the dead would have allowed time for many other developments – including taking the time to strengthen relationships with Arab allies and other allies across the world. To build sympathy within Palestinian communities and build durable connections within Palestinian communities to build a context for a military response no matter which form it took.
They should have addressed the security breaches that 10/7 exposed. For example, bringing back the defense forces they had moved away from the Gaza border.
.
.
The importance of this element, again, is necessarily linked to the larger context – not a stand-alone consideration. If all of Hamas could actually be destroyed (even without massive civilian casualties), of course there wouldn’t be a need to address the security failures immediately proximate to the 10/7 attack. My point in saying that should be done is necessarily connected to the other things I think should have been done with an eye towards long-term, sustainable improvement. Again, for decades prior to 10/7, Israel was complacent in basically ignoring the Palestinian situation and thinking it didn’t need to be addressed. If that was true on 10/6, he only reason it wasn’t true on 10/8 was that there were identifiable security failures. Again, my larger point was that it would have been possible to address the proximate causes for 10/7 and then work on addressing that mistaken attitude of complacency. Again, I’m not sure we can get anywhere if you don’t think it’s worthwhile to address the complex web of long-term issues that led up to 10/7.
They should have worked with the Arab nations they have and were building relationships with, to try to build support for a response that would strengthen those relationships (and support within those countries for a response).
.
.
I don’t know that they’ve “ceased” doing so. But my point is that they should have made a concerted effort to build a way that their response wouldn’t undermine those relationships. There’s zero evidence that happened, and there’s great deal of evidence of large ruptures in those relationships. Of course it’s hard to know have much of what’s on public display matches what’s going on behind the scenes. There’s much talk that actually some Arab governments are perfectly fine with Israel undertaking a massive military campaign because in contrast to their citizens, they want to see Hamas gone and they don’t particularly care about the plight of the Palestinians. That all needs to be factored in. But still, I don’t think you’re addressing my point and that’s probably because you don’t think it’s important to address the long-standing and on-going issues and that what really matters is eliminating Hamas. Again, I don’t know where to go with that. My belief is that the more logical and sustainable and achievable goal is to degrade Hamas in a way that wouldn’t alienate Arabs generally and Arab governments at least on the surface, and that would lead to a more sustainable outcome. But we just get stuck in a recursive loop here that just goes back to a fundamentally different approach.
They should have worked on developing a plan for a targeted military response against against Hamas and its leaders. Perhaps even creating a demilitaruzed zone as they are now focused on. Perhaps even building support with the UN or Arab nations or other allies to implement such a zone with international troops before starting a bombing campaign in civilian areas. Perhaps creating demilitaruzed zones where civilians could go as military action was taken against Hamas.
.
.
I won’t respond here. Same for 5 and 6.
They should have worked as a country ilon replacing the corrupt and failed government that led them in the path to 10/7, and in holding them responsible for their obvious failures. That would include making it abundantly obvious that no longer would they allow the conflict with Palestinians to be held hostage by religious the extremists that is so catered to by the current government.
.
.
Again, this reaches to a fundamental disagreement that then just becomes circular. I support Israel as well, and that’s why I think it’s critical to address the problem of Bibi. It’s like that CNN poll someone referenced, that frames the issue as if it’s a choice is between supporting Israel and supporting Hamas. No, it’s a question of how to support Israel and minimize the impact of Hamas.
.
No. Not at all!!!! It’s a bias against fundamentalism, and even at that a particular kind of fundamentalism. That would apply to Islamic fundamentalists of that type as well as Jewish fundamentalists of that type. I don’t take it as a personal attack for you to observe that I’m expressing a bias towards a particular kind of fundamentalism
Mark –
.
I’ll stop there to see if I should respond to what else you wrote. Then I’ll see if I can work out a more general level response to what else you wrote.
.
I think with respect to what I just wrote, it would be too complex for you to respond at an itemized level to my responses to your response to what I wrote!! Maybe just summarize a response.
.
To others, sorry for taking up so much space and interrupting ongoing convos; I trust that while annoying, it won’t be an insurmountable problem.
With regard to the Texas controversy, Article Four, Section 4 of the Constitution says:
What obligation does that put on the federal government? Obviously, it must protect states against an army rolling across our border. But I think it must be broader than that. Which of the following must states be protected from, to the extent possible?
-artillery lobbing shells across the border
-missiles fired at targets in the US
– a naval blockade of a US port
– foreign saboteurs infiltrating the US to blow up bridges
– cyber attacks against our electric grid
——
I say that the answer must be “all of the above”. The protection from invasion should be interpreted as protection from foreign threats.
I’ll be out this morning; range time with my brother and my son. I scanned your comments but I must confess I don’t really follow much of what you are saying when you tell me these items are all necessarily connected. We can try to sort this out later.
Thanks.
Mark –
.
> but I must confess I don’t really follow much of what you are saying when you tell me these items are all necessarily connected.
.
Right. That’s what I mean by a fundamental structural problem. On the other side, I do’t really follow how you can’t see how they are necessarily connected.
.
Again, we have a differing viewpoint right at the start. You think that eradicating Hamas is a coherent and achievable goal, and I don’t. Everything else pretty much follows from that. You think that focus can be cleaved off from the rest of the issues in play and I think it can’t. And that’s without even addressing the myriad “day after” aspects that I think are necessarily inseparable from a decision to engage in a massive bombing campaign or some other strategy.
.
I guess it’s a kind of appeal to authority, but I was just reading statements by former prime minister Olmert who says that it’s time to end the campaign and address “day after” kinds of issues (and focus on the hostages) – with the basic premise that Hamas can’t be completely eliminated but it has been significantly degraded (despite it’s leaders largely being left alive). (He also says that he doesn’t know how the response could have been conducted differently, notwithstanding).
.
Point being, if what I am saying were some kind of extreme outlier then I could see how it could not make any sense at all. But it’s not remotely an extreme outlier. So I don’t think its reasonable to say that it doesn’t make sense. I know that you’ve only said it doesn’t make sense to you – but I think that’s a function of our fundamentally different starting premises. That might be the place to focus further discussion. Failure to understand what comes after that is probably just a function of that fundamental divergence.
.
https://www.newstatesman.com/international-content/the-international-interview/2024/01/former-israeli-prime-minister-stop-war-ehud-olmert
The “capitulation” on immigration looks very similar to the captiulation on theft: stealing x amount doesn’t count. The results of all such incentives are entirely predictable.
mark bofill,
I think mostly it is that he hates Bibi, and wants him removed from office. Doesn’t seem surprising that someone on the left wants someone on the right removed from power.
.
I doubt that will happen any time soon. Based on recent polls, 75% of Jewish Israelis seem satisfied with the conduct of the war.
Wall Street Journal today:
“Polls confirm Mr. Netanyahu’s assertion and indicate that Israelis, far from clamoring for a two-state solution, are adamant that the war should be fought with intensity. In late December, 75% of Jewish Israelis opposed U.S. demands to reduce the heavy bombing then under way in Gaza.”
.
Seems (again no surprise!) most Jewish Israelis really do want Hamas gone from Gaza. Most Muslim Israelis no doubt want to see Hamas stay in power in Gaza and Israel to be destroyed. Some people might have guessed that without any surveys.
.
.
Ah. Argument ad populum. Based on a one-time snapshot of polling in a population still experiencing shock, trauma, embarrassment, existential fear….
.
What a great way to decide policy. It always works out so well. What could go wrong?
.
.
.
.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx
The Republicans can pass even stricter border bills later if they get their chance. They should take what they can get now. You can have nothing, or you can have something. Choose wisely.
.
The “power” to close the border is a bit of misdirection as the president can probably do that without this deal as it is. I think this only means the usual suspects will have a much harder time challenging a border closure and tying it up in courts. My reading is this will give a Republican president an easy way to close the borders without months of court action. The mandatory closures are also something that I don’t think the left will be able to overturn with executive action. If that is the case (the details matter and I don’t know what they are) then it is an improvement over what is now open borders.
.
Allegedly they have also made major changes to asylum law which would be a big deal depending on how it is written.
.
Will the left just declare another border “emergency” later and say we need to ignore this law for humanitarian reasons? Maybe, but how the law is written is important and it needs to not allow that to happen.
Tom : You can have nothing, or you can have something. Choose wisely.
.
It seems to me this is the option between having nothing, and pretending you have something. The difference is, you’re agreeing to move the goalposts to have less than you already had, essentially legalizing what was previously already illegal, but simply not enforced in any meaningful way. It only ties the hands of those who respect the rule of law.
It really depends on the details. If the whole thing is an illusion then I agree it’s not worth it. If it puts actual enforceable hard limits on border crossing and firms up asylum laws (which is now just declare it without any evidence and you are released) then it is an improvement.
.
We effectively have economic immigrants claiming political asylum en masse and everyone knows it.
.
What I believe has happened is that the current laws allowed for asylum exceptions and that all the clever lawyers have twisted it to allow anybody making any asylum claim to just be released. They all know what to say. Then it takes years and years just to have an asylum hearing which they don’t show up for most of the time and where the burden of proof is so low that lots of the time they can get asylum anyway. This can be firmed up.
.
I just think this is an opportunity because the left for the first time in forever is also asking for action because they are feeling the impacts. If Biden wins it will be 4 more years of the status quo.
Tom Scharf,
“If the whole thing is an illusion then I agree it’s not worth it.”
.
Sure, but I think it is telling that Senate Republicans do not even have the courage to leak the details (as a trial balloon if nothing else). That says to me it is almost certainly a nothing burger…. giving Biden what he wants, along with generous funding for Ukraine, but with essentially no mandated reduction in illegal immigration. If that is the deal, the Republicans would be nuts to accept it. As I noted up thread, I think it is likely Ukraine funding will be attached to a bill to keep the Federal government running in early March. The doubt I have is if the Republicans will go along with that (AKA, cave yet again), or continue to demand a reduction in illegal immigration in exchange for Ukraine funding. Sadly, I bet they will cave, and the Speaker will be tossed from office yet again.
.
I am beginning to think the Republicans really are the ‘stupid party’; they get rolled every time on illegal immigration, with nothing to show for it.
Joshua,
Fair enough I guess.
Joshua,
Since this comes up, I should clarify for future reference. When I say something doesn’t make sense, all other things held equal I am saying that that something doesn’t make sense to me. If I meant that something was nonsensical, I’d try to be explicit about that.
I may have lost the specific thread you were referring to, because we had a lot in the air at the same time. I didn’t think I was suggesting that there was no sense in what you were saying, exactly? I was suggesting that I believe people think Israel has capabilities to successfully prosecute the war differently that they don’t actually have, I think is the closest thing.
At any rate. Shrug.
Mark –
.
That’s how I took what you were saying.
.
Besides as you know I don’t take offense to that kind of thing anyway. If someone says “That makes no sense” to something I’ve said I almost always look at it a poor reflection on the person who said it. Brandon was a famous example and saying “that makes no sense” to obviously smart people (ibtbjnk it was JimD or Pekka) making an argument he didn’t agree with got him the nickname “Chewbacca” as in the “Chewbacca defense.”
.
Anyway, to summarize – my point was that as far as I’m concerned the best course of action was to degrade and diminish Hamas and as such the best option would be to pursue policies that would best achieve that goal – such as reducing the likelihood that Palestinians would support Hamas and increasing support for a response among Arab nations, and avoiding the chaos of twenty, thirty, who knows how many years of occupying Gaza without ever really being able to “eliminate Hamas.”
.
Of course if you think that eliminating Hamas is the only viable goal then a full complement of policies that would further the cause of degrading Hamas and encouraging Palestinians to move to a viable alternative wouldn’t likely “make sense.”
An acknowledgement of the reality is a start. Olmert’s framing of a victory should be encouraged. It does seem like Israel is winging it without any clear strategy.
Oh. Thanks. I think I see what you are saying now.
I do not incidentally think that eliminating Hamas is the only viable goal. I think that it’s the goal Israel has chosen, and I support them in that. [Edit: I think it is a reasonable goal.] I don’t take ‘eliminating Hamas’ quite as literally as I suspect you do. As far as I am concerned, ‘eliminating Hamas’ means killing most of their current leadership and members and removing the remaining members from a position of authority over the day to day life in Gaza. So – degrading, destroying, eliminating – in my view, these are all just different degrees or points along the same spectrum.
.
Regarding ‘reducing the likelihood that Palestinians would support Hamas’, you have a point. Israel is going to have to do this eventually if they want peace. Maybe they will not and do not, in which case these incidents will continue until either the Israelis are exterminated or the Palestinians are, or until the next human extinction event occurs planetwide. But I don’t think Israel has to do this right now. It’s going to take time in any event, and more so now that Israel has lain waste to Gaza. They’ve already paid the price, they might as well get what they paid for and finish off Hamas as completely as they can manage over the next few months, IMO.
Never underestimate the likelihood of a politician to place his own career first.
https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/israelpalestine/israel-in-paralysis
One of the best outcomes for * Israel * is to go in and break Gaza, leave, and have two or more factions in Gaza have a long drawn out fight over the rubble. I doubt that is the plan but it is one possible outcome and I could see Israel encouraging it indirectly. Syria seems to be pretty busy lately with internal affairs.
What can Hamas do to encourage Israel to behave better from their view?
RB –
.
> Never underestimate the likelihood of a politician to place his own career first.
.
I would think that typically that would be a very popular sentiment at this site. It’s certainly a view that entirely fits with Bibi’s policies. Of course it’s possible his policies are the best ones regardless of them serving his interests. It’s also possible that he has put his own interests aside and is motivated to enact the best polices for the sake of Israelis. But very few Israelis support him at this point ( nonetheless, as I’ve said here before I don’t think it’s a good idea to bet against Bibi’s acumen). And regardless, I’d say that in light of 10/7 it’s unarguable that his policies have been a phenomenally tragic failure.
.
The argument that I only criticize his policies because he’s a RWer looks to me like the sign of a broken epistemics.
mark bofill,
“I don’t take ‘eliminating Hamas’ quite as literally as I suspect you do. As far as I am concerned, ‘eliminating Hamas’ means killing most of their current leadership and members and removing the remaining members from a position of authority over the day to day life in Gaza. So – degrading, destroying, eliminating”
.
Agree 100%.
.
When Israel modifies bombing protocol, they are still going to do their best to kill Hamas operatives. They will (inevitably) kill innocent civilians in the process, which is unfortunate, but inevitable. Since somewhere north of 80% of Gaza residence support Hamas attacking Israel, it is very hard to see that civilians in Gaza have all that much to complain about.
.
My humble advice to Palestinian Arabs: stop supporting Hamas, and good things will happen. Will they do that? IMO… not an ice cube’s chance in Hell. I suggest the people in Gaza look at the history of Carthage after Hannibal did not defeat Rome, and think very clearly about the future.
Palestinian Arabs can accept a state within Israel’s security perimeter, or reject that possibility. It is up to them. What they can’t do is reject the right of Israel to exist.
Hamas issues 16 page report to explain their motivations:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/01/21/hamas-says-october-7-attacks-necessary-step-but-admits-to-faults_6453082_4.html
“Palestinian militant group Hamas said Sunday, January 21, its October 7 attacks in southern Israel were a “necessary step” against Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. But the Islamist group admitted in a 16-page report justifying the attack that “some faults happened… due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the border areas with Gaza.”
.
“If there was any case of targeting civilians it happened accidently and in the course of the confrontation with the occupation forces,” Hamas said in the report. “Many Israelis were killed by the Israeli army and police due to their confusion.”
.
Somebody has to try to apply lipstick to that pig. BTW if anyone thinks that is true, I invite you to examine the South First Responders telegram channel. Perhaps Hamas should review their GoPro footage.
There was this article from 2021 that eliminating Hamas would solve nothing so long as Palestinian rights were denied. There was resistance before Hamas and there will be resistance after Hamas. Initially, Israel in 1981 funded the Muslim Brotherhood because they thought that they would be more pliable than Fatah. But these are organizations which have and can evolve and use violence to achieve political aims. The PLO did. The counterfactual of what would have happened had Israel and allies not immediately instituted a full blockade when Hamas was voted in with 42% of the vote on a moderate and anti-corruption platform will not be known. Hamas treated this a declaration of war. After nearly 17 years of full blockade, in September 2023, unemployment among young graduates was 70% – fertile grounds for extremism.
https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/if-israel-eliminated-hamas-nothing
RB,
(1) Do you think that Israel’s ‘denying Palestinian rights’ (in single quotes because I don’t pretend to know exactly what that entails, but whatever you meant by this is what I mean) is the cause of the violence against Israelis?
(2) If Israel would quit ‘denying Palestinian rights’, do you believe the violence against Israel would cease?
My answers are: (1) No, at best that’s a contributing factor, and (2) No, at best it’d be necessary but not sufficient in and of itself.
.
I am also interested in how others here would answer these two questions if anyone cares to hazard their opinion.
Mark
(1) – Yes, I believe that is the root cause. I am also of the opinion that this is too far gone that Israel will never offer a true sovereign state, so I don’t know how this gets resolved unless there is a confederation of states maybe a hundred years from now I.e. the “Land for All” proposal. Or Palestinian expulsion. Arab rulers are fine with normalizing merely with a two-state pathway.
(2) – Not immediately. The good Friday agreements for the IRA needed a referendum where people had to make hard choices, like letting the murderers of their families go free. It took a while for the violence to cease and the peace remains uneasy.
As ugly as Hamas’ 10/7 was, there was the Nat Turner revolt of 1831 where black slaves beheaded babies among other things. Things turned out well for African Americans eventually a hundred years later. The difference of course being that Israel doesn’t need Palestinians as they now import foreign labor.
Joshua (Comment #229073)
“I have offered a general alternative.
I welcome critique.”
–
“I don’t think there’s any logical explanation why they needed to launch a massive bombing campaign so immediately after.”
Joshua (Comment #229139)
If someone says “That makes no sense” to something I’ve said I almost always look at it a poor reflection on the person who said it.
– the “Chewbacca defense.”
–
I never noticed before but if you rearrange the letters angech you get Brandon. Amazing.
RB,
Thanks for your interesting response!
Mark,
If you haven’t come across this before, take a look at this (to me a captivating proposal) which is a utopia for this sorry conflict and would also address the thorny 1948 right of return.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Land_for_All_(organization)
RB,
I had not seen that, thanks for linking it.
This article by a top journalist
“Opinion Netanyahu and his bloody logic must go
By Karen Attiah”
–
Seems to sum up all your points accurately, Joshua.
Plu she does martial arts and owns a cat.
I am not going to argue with her, that is for sure.
Mark –
.
> I think that it’s the goal Israel has chosen,
.
Well, of course. It’s also the goal that is in line with what i consider to be decades of failed policies, that led up to the slaughter on 10/7. That is not to suggest that Hamas didn’t have agency on 10/7. Of course it did. But the policies in place for decades prior were based on the same underlying logic that underlies the approach to “eliminating” Hamas. Worse even than that, IMO, that approach of “eliminating Hamas” isn’t accompanied by ANY of the other policies that I suggest could potentially lead to some progress within the larger picture frame.
.
> [Edit: I think it is a reasonable goal.]
.
Well I think it’s a reasonable goal in a theoretical sense. “Eliminating Hamas” should certainly be a goal. But is it realistic? What are the costs, short and long term? is it a more reasonable goal than degrading Hamas accompanied by the range of other policies I described?
.
> I don’t take ‘eliminating Hamas’ quite as literally as I suspect you do.
.
I take it to mean things like “completely eradicating” Hamas as I have heard coming from those who are implementing the policies. As Bibi was quoted in that article, a “total victory.” This kind of rhetoric has been constant. And along with that, I’ve heard Israelis and Israeli officials explicitly saying that “degrading Hamas” would not be sufficient.
.
> As far as I am concerned, ‘eliminating Hamas’ means killing most of their current leadership and members and removing the remaining members from a position of authority over the day to day life in Gaza. So – degrading, destroying, eliminating – in my view, these are all just different degrees or points along the same spectrum.
.
Well, sure, they’re different points along a spectrum. But I think that there is abundant evidence that as explicitly described by Israeli officials, it means something at the far end of that spectrum.
.
Part of the problem is that despite the goal of “eradicating Hamas” being put forth over and over, it has not actually been defined. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying over and over. It’s vague and ill-defined. As such, given the most clear interpretation of what they’re saying in the full context of all they’re saying, I would say as I’ve been saying over and over that it’s an unachievable goal.
.
> They’ve already paid the price, they might as well get what they paid for and finish off Hamas as completely as they can manage over the next few months, IMO.
.
Well, to me that seems similarly vague and ill-defined. “As completely as they can manage” could mean basically killing the entire population or at least displacing the entire population with many, many more civilian deaths – especially as famine and disease take an ever increasing toll. At the bottom line, I think it’s critical for officials in such a situation to be clear about that they mean. They need to have articulated exit strategies.
.
If you doubt what I’m saying, consider that Olmert says it’s time to end the war now, yet Bibi promises that this is far, far from over and that they haven’t nearly accomplished the bottom line goal. We might assume that’s just political bluster and there’s an advantage to be gained from announcing maximalist goals and then settling for less. I can’t rule that out but on the other hand there’s plenty of evidence that Bibi is completely aligned with power political forces in Israel who undoubtedly have maximalist goals. Whether bluster might be effective in some sense, I think it’s part and parcel of a total failure to implement policies that might lessen the appeal of Hamas to the Palestinian population. With ambiguity, it’s not all all unreasonable for Palestinians to think that “total victory” would mean wiping out or displacing all or nearly all Palestinians.
Joshua,
Can you explain to me how the goal of degrading Hamas is less vague or ill defined than eliminating Hamas?
Mark –
.
hmmm. Perhaps a rhetorical question? But as such, rhetorical point scored.
.
Sure, it is likewise vague. It also explicitly allows for a variety of states to meet the description. It allows for an ongoing process whereby there would be flux. “Eradicate Hamas” suggests a single end state. A final state. Hamas has been eradicated. Eliminated.
.
That said, there absolutely should be some form of measurable cut-off points for “degrade Hamas.” I would say, roughly speaking, a Hamas that would be causing significantly less Israeli casualties than it was causing on 10/6 and say, the decade prior. Keep in mind, that a Hamas functioning at a 10/6 and decade prior level was considered acceptable for Israel. But given 10/7, lower that level. Establishing exactly what those metrics would be would require some work, but wouldn’t be impossible. As Hamas causes casualties above that level, targeted, measured incursions are initiated.
.
Again, part of my point is that 10/7 didn’t cross some border into a significantly more capable Hamas – with the exception of a more extensive network of tunnels than previously known. It opened up a window into Israeli vulnerability, not a window into Hamas capability, for the most part.
No, I didn’t mean for it to be rhetorical. I’m trying to understand you. If you had explained how one was better defined than the other I would have tried to follow that to see if it helped me follow your overall argument. I am at a considerable loss right now.
To be fair, maybe I need to give what you’re saying my undivided attention for a little bit and think about it more carefully.
Thanks.
Mark –
.
I’ll add, that to the extent that metrics are linked to “eradicate Hamas” it starts to make more sense, to be a “reasonable” goal.
NYT:
“A written draft agreement calls for the release of captives held by Hamas in exchange for a cessation of Israel’s military offensive for two months.”
.
I would be pretty surprised if this actually happens, but who knows? Perhaps Israel is getting a bit too close to Hamas leaders.
“The CIA’s new recruitment video targeting Russian intelligence officers offers stunningly good messaging that resonates with the intended audience by piercing to the very core of their psyche.”
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1751372540923293823?s=20
Tom Scharf,
Yes, that proposal (though not official) does suggest Hamas leadership recognizes they will soon be dead unless the fighting stops. Two months is plenty enough time to flee Gaza, which many surely will. But I am still surprised they don’t want to become martyrs and meet their 20 virgins in Heaven. 😉
Joshua,
I don’t have time to puzzle through where how and why our discussion derailed here. I’m sorry that I have to report back that you’ve completely lost me, but I am completely lost. I don’t understand the distinctions you are making, how the alternatives you suggest are mutually exclusive with the actions Israel has taken, and finally even how objectives being vague or ill defined makes any difference in any larger context. We can chalk this up to me being dumb as far as I’m concerned; I gave it a shot, but I’m not able to go wherever the heck you are. Thanks for the discussion though.
SteveF (Comment #229165): “that proposal (though not official) does suggest Hamas leadership recognizes they will soon be dead unless the fighting stops.”
.
I thought that proposal came from Israel and was rejected by Hamas. I could well be mistaken.
—–
SteveF: “But I am still surprised they don’t want to become martyrs and meet their 20 virgins in Heaven.”
.
It is like the Kenny Chesney song:
Mike,
I almost said exactly that but I wanted to go check first.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-rejects-israels-offer-for-two-month-pause-for-release-of-hostages/
RB (Comment #229155): “If you haven’t come across this before, take a look at this (to me a captivating proposal) which is a utopia for this sorry conflict and would also address the thorny 1948 right of return.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Land_for_All_(organization)”
.
Wow. Compared to those guys, the Defund the Police crowd are realists.
Politicians like to leave objectives a bit vague so they can declare success later whatever the outcome. If successful their opponents will then redefine the same objectives very strictly in hindsight (there was one Hamas soldier left, you failed!).
.
A judgment on whether Israel succeeds or fails will take at least a decade because the primary objective is to really stop Hamas from doing these kind of attacks. That is almost entirely up to Hamas / New Hamas because crossing a border and killing civilians isn’t very hard if you have the will. Ukraine doesn’t do it because of a combination of morals and the expected retribution from Russia.
Israel is going to want ALL the hostages in the new deal and some of them are being held by Islamic Jihad so that will be complicated. I don’t know if anything changed since Hamas rejected the deal last time, maybe they have become convinced Israel is in it for the long haul. I think it’s low probability because the parties don’t trust each other, but they already did some exchanges.
.
The only way Hamas leaders survive is accepting an exile deal. It may take a while but they will be hunted down.
Mark –
.
No problem. I don’t see any reason for you to shoulder the responsibility for a lack of clarity. I think that effective communication in writing is primarily the writer’s responsibility, assuming the reader is making a good faith effort to understand – which I assume is the case here.
.
I’ll take a stab at this (although it prolly won’t help) :
.
.
I’m not sure I think they are. Isreal could have done much of what I’m suggesting and still, if they had failed, determine that bombing the shit out of Gaza was still the best option. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive for one to be preferable. In fact, Israel could have done most of them even while bombing the shit out of Gaza, although doing what they have done would practically eliminate any of the potential benefits from doing what I suggest they should have done.
.
.
Well here, I’m confused. Seems to me that you’re saying that identifying vague objectives (as opposed to clear and measurable objectives) has no relationship to determining success or likely success of an endeavor. I fail to see what would lead you to make that argument so there must be something you’re saying that I don’t understand.
.
I think part of the issue may captured I something that Tom wrote:
.
.
.
First, it assumes that success = stopping the attacks irrespective of what the other outcomes might be. Thus, to go as absurdum, success could include the total slaughter of all Palestinians. Or it could include the annihilation of Isreal (on which case the attacks would stop). Or (more realistically) it include the necessity of Israel occupying Gaza as an apartheid state for decades, at huge expense – a situation that Isreal previously deemed untenable.
.
But second, and I think maybe more importantly, is the idea of stop Hamas from doing “these kinds of attacks.” This was a one off attack that was only possible because of clear failings on the part of Israel (again, that’s not to question that Hamas has responsibility for conducting the attack). If the goal was to stop Hamas from “this kind of attack,” they could have fixed the obvious vulnerabilities that proximally allowed for the 10/7 attack to succeed, and set about doing many other things, like stop facilitating hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled to Hamas, like stop undermining the viability of the PA to keep a two state solution from ever being a reality, like working to build a vision for Palestinians of a possible two-state solution, like pushing religious fanatics out of powerful positions in the Israeli government, like stop the binding of more settlements and the ongoing displacement of Palestinians in the WB, unlike making a more concerted effort to engage Arab states in working on solving the Palestinian conflict, etc. (Rhere at many more as well).
Onxe again, prior to 10/7, which was successful because of specific failures by specific politics of the Israeli government, Israel was complacent about the Palestinian situation. To the point where they were making basically zero efforts to resolve it, and actually were engaged in a series of actions that could only make it worse. They perpetuated a belief that Israel could be secure despite doing NOTHING to resolve the conflict.
.
Now I think that some kind of attack was inevitable, and the sense of security that the Israeli government perpetuated was a false sense of security. But still, “this kind of attack,” with the level of “success” of 10/7, I would say was NOT inevitable. That level of success only manifest because of stunning competence and arrogance by Bibi’s government mixed with their explicit policy of pandering to fundamentalist zealots.
mark and Mike M,
I stand corrected. There is no public proposal, but enough sources suggest it was Israel to believe that is true.
.
Since the proposal would mean Hamas leaders have to go into exile, it is a non-starter. Of course, as death nears, they may change their minds. (Funny how that works.)
.
MikeM,
Yes, that is a cute song. And there is this from Loretta Lynn (1965) https://genius.com/Loretta-lynn-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-lyrics
.
I think it has been widely recognized since the concept of Heaven was first proposed. 😉
Ukraine seems as pure as the new fallen snow: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-says-it-uncovered-40-million-corruption-scheme-in-weapons-procurement/ar-BB1hnPpU
.
Just ask Hunter.
Joshua,
I wasn’t making an argument. I was trying to indicate that I don’t understand what you’re saying.
.
As a courtesy, I will try to explain before I drop the subject what I meant: Accomplishing an objective and knowing if or when an objective is accomplished are different things. Israel can have a clear definition of what it means to eliminate Hamas or not, and this has no bearing on whether or not Israel in fact eliminates Hamas.
In other words, not having a clear definition of success does not doom Israel to failure, it merely makes it difficult to know if and or when Israel has objectively succeeded. It is not clear to me why it is necessary to objectively know when Hamas has been eliminated for the Israelis to effectively eliminate Hamas. It might be more ideal to know, fine. But the lack of clear definition in no way diminishes the value of [or reduces the chances of] wiping out Hamas in my opinion.
.
Again, this is an attempt at an explanation offered as a courtesy, it is not an attempt to continue any sort of argument. If you wish to make further remarks on this, you’re welcome to do so. I won’t take the time to address this further.
Israel is doing a lot of different things simultaneously both past and present but it’s not worth covering this ground again. Carrot and stick have failed in the past and are likely to fail again because of the fundamentals.
.
Fundamental: Hamas just said this week this attack was a “necessary step against Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories” (i.e. the state of Israel).
.
Fundamental: Israel must protect its citizens
.
Israel is now choosing what it deems the best selection among low probability outcomes but looks to be focused on near term (10 year horizon) civilian safety. Keeping Hamas in place with their stated objectives is very, very low probability of future success both short and long term.
An illustrative example:
Something bites my leg in the dark. I start stomping and kicking. I know I’ve impacted something; I can hear squeals of pain. I can’t determine whether or not I have killed whatever was biting me because I can’t see it. It doesn’t mean that kicking and stomping wasn’t effective. It’s entirely possible I’ve eliminated whatever it was, even though I can’t objectively tell if I have accomplished this objective or not.
Thanks Mark –
.
Thanks for the attempt. Looks like we’ll just have to agree that both of us are confused about what the other is saying and leave it at that.
BTW Israel could also “eliminate Hamas” by the Palestinians getting so fed up with their leader’s decisions that they revolt against the government. They don’t have to love Israel to hate Hamas too. Another low probability outcome but Hamas has got to be the leading contender for the “worst government of the decade” trophy.
Tom Scharf
So, let me first say I’m against violence and not condoning this. But these are not the same situations. Israel/precursors 1948 and earlier, when it did not have such a strong military position, did all of the nasty stuff – massacre in Deir Yassin, massacre and alleged rapes in Safsaf, terrorist bombing in the King David Hotel etc.
Tom Scharf (Comment #229179)
Like with the IRA, there is a very strong internal policing structure in the Hamas and it has had 17 years of rule to strengthen this. It isn’t easy for people to overthrow them. The idea also that these civilians deserve what’s coming to them because of whatever thoughts they may or may not hold in their minds is a strange one.
This interview with Mustafa Barghouti, translated, lays out better the fundamentals, including that when the unity government took office in 2006, there was an acknowledgement of the 1967 borders.
https://taz.de/Mustafa-Barghouti-ueber-den-Gazakrieg/!5986884/
One cannot talk about October 7 in isolation, as if Israel withdrew from Gaza. A blockade is occupation. If a situation cannot continue forever, it will explode in ways that become unacceptable.
“The idea also that these civilians deserve what’s coming to them because of whatever thoughts they may or may not hold in their minds”
.
I don’t think I said this, but the point is that one part of a multi-pronged strategy is to have civilians put pressure on Hamas. When your living in a tent with dirty water and bad sewage then you probably don’t like anyone involved with getting you there. It might cross your mind that alterative governments might have better outcomes.
.
The CIA also did this more directly in many places with propaganda and by funding and arming opposing groups mostly unsuccessfully. It’s also hard to lead and enforce citizen compliance from inside of tunnels. It’s hard to know what Palestinians really think about Hamas, it pretty easy to know what they think of Israel.
.
But like I said, low probability IMO for the reasons you stated.
“A blockade is occupation.”
.
Yes and words are violence and silence is violence, ha ha. Not buying this. A blockade is a blockade, and an occupation is an occupation. This blockade’s (also by Egypt don’t forget) intent is to prevent weapons smuggling. It wouldn’t be too hard to convince me that it is also used for economic pressure on and off as many things are dual use goods.
Tom Scharf (#229183)
Yes, it seems that the idea is that civilians would apply pressure. But these kinds of governments have a ruthless internal police system to make sure they can keep control.
Hamas elected on a campaign name “Change and Reform” . But it’s hard to know what their evolution would have looked like if Gaza was not pushed to the brink over the last 17 years. As Beinart writes in a link above, they are serving a political constituency. This is that Palestinians thought that after the Oslo accords their life would improve. But their life got worse as there were more movement restrictions and the settlements continued. So, they feel that Arafat conceded the right of Israel to exist and got nothing in return. Arafat in fact did so because he was weakened (also the reason Rabin wanted to strike a peace deal) and he wanted to return to political relevance. Edward Said called the Oslo accords the ‘Palestinian Versailles’.
While Hamas hasn’t explicitly conceded on the ‘right to exist’, they don’t also see the value in making the concession for nothing like the PLO did. What Netanyahu and far-right does in practice is actual full control from the river to the sea. The logical conclusion of this process appears to be Palestinian expulsion and permanent violence from non-state actors.
> I don’t think I said this, but the point is that one part of a multi-pronged strategy is to have civilians put pressure on Hamas. When your living in a tent with dirty water and bad sewage then you probably don’t like anyone involved with getting you there.
.
Indications seem to be that Israel massively
bombing civilians areas and creating a death zone in all of Gaza increased the popularity of Hamas in the WB considerably and in Gaza by a modest amount.
.
I’d say that was entirely predictable despite Israeli officials saying that one of their goals was to inflict so much misery on Palestinians that they’d turn against Hamas.
.
It’s hard to imagine how people could be so clueless about human nature and be so oblivious to decades of history.
.
Historically, what has increased support among Palestinians for a peaceful resolution and for entities that denounce terrorism has been negotiation towards a political solution. While disproportionate violence has always increased support for violent retaliation and for organisations that support terrorism.
.
It’s entirely possible that over time views may change. Perhaps once the bombing stops, those Palestinians who survive will begin to hold Hamas responsible. Seems unlikely to me, though, that people who have been catastrophically injured, or watched children crushed under piles of rubble, and lost many family members, and had their homes destroyed, and left without food or shelter, won’t view those dropping 2,000 lb. bombs on their heads as responsible.
“Three U.S. Troops Killed in Drone Attack in Jordan”
.
That’s crossing a red line for Iran. It’s going to get ugly now.
In Israel’s case, the blockade is full control over all goods entering by land, sea or air, besides people entering or leaving.
Military presence is not a necessary condition to define a blockade.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/gaza-israel-occupied-international-law/
That should be ‘to define an occupation’
We can definitely agree that life for Palestinians hasn’t got much better and the prospects for improvement didn’t look great on Oct 6th. Whether that means Oct 7th made sense in some way or improved that outlook is a different debate.
The blockade is more of an issue for people who imply that Israel’s exit from Gaza resulted in Palestinian sovereignty and their conditions are therefore self imposed. The details of exactly what the blockades blocks are important and I really don’t know much here other than it has changed over time. I think at one point they wouldn’t allow concrete through due to alleged use for tunnels.
Tom –
.
>Whether that means Oct 7th made sense in some way or improved that outlook is a different debate.
.
I think we’d agree it certainly hasn’t improved that outlook.
.
As for “made sense” I don’t think it made sense so I’d guess we’re in agreement there also. But I can understand why the people who perpetrated it would think it made sense, and why many Palestinians would think it made sense. It was a kind of retributive violent event that has taken place many times throughout history.
.
I don’t think that Israel’s response makes sense either, but again I can understand why most Israelis (and many others) think it makes sense.
The blockade also includes sundry things such as the population registry which is maintained by the COGAT. Israel controls the IDs issued to the population which is required for all services. As Barghouti notes
Ah.
Karma.
I can just sit back and watch the interplay with my popcorn.
Twister.
Pretzels.
And brickbats that just keep coming.
Than you God (been reading a bit too much John Nolte recently).
Thank you both, this was the best of many curve balls thrown at each other recently.
But I did notice and appreciate the others.
“If someone says “That makes no sense” to something I’ve said I almost always look at it a poor reflection on the person who said it.
– the “Chewbacca defense.”
angech,
Who are you thanking?
angech,
You live on the other side of the world. I don’t know your real name. Yet you are such a gutless coward that you can’t even speak plainly when you’re trying to sneer at someone.
You are really something buddy.
Mark,
I like talking in riddles, always have, always will.
My personality and style.
One of the few rights left to us.
–
I do appreciate your comments, your common sense and your sense of justice.
I understand that you have not appreciated mine at all in recent times.
You have made that quite clear.
Yes I am a gutless coward for not using my real name on the Internet.
I understand that sentiment.
–
Karma is great.
–
The wheel will turn and you will be able to enjoy my future discomforts which will surely come.
Enjoy life and have a happy life.
On a less serious note, Mark, with my conspiracies and all, I wonder if the game plan in attacking Israel is linked to a much bigger picture of Iran v USA .
It would go like this.
Stir up the Arab blood by launching murderous attack on Israel sure to provoke hostilities and keep them going by taking and not releasing hostages.
Have other Arab nations join in with Iranian support.[Houtis]
When anti Jewish feeling is high start to attack American forces in Irak and Syria.
Kill enough Americans so that Biden withdraws the troops leaving the Middle East free to the Iranians.
Cost of a 100,000 Gazans that nobody cares about anyway to achieve a master plan of eradicating USA from the Middle East.
Best way to interpret freedom to launch recent attacks on US .
Will Biden blink and do another Afghanistan?
Or will he send in the Bombers against the head Iranians a la Trump?
Which worked.
Thoughts anyone?
angech (Comment #229197): “I like talking in riddles, always have, always will. My personality and style.”
.
And so you are just talking without making any effort to communicate. You might as well talk to yourself.
angech,
It is often too much effort to understand what you are saying….. and sometimes impossible to understand no matter the effort. I urge you to be more direct and clear with your comments.
OK
OK
I will stick to straight comments here.
At any stage I fail call me out and ask me to take a voluntary leave of absence for a month each time per breach.
Angech,
Thank you. I will appreciate that. I’ll reset my negative expectations of you and we’ll start over fresh.
Thanks Mark, Much appreciated.
Sorry to have been a dickhead.
I apologize as well. It’s not a contest but I’m sure I’m just as big an asshole as anyone else around here when good faith breaks down.
angech (Comment #229201): “I will stick to straight comments here.”
.
Glad to hear it. I do think that you have something worthwhile to say when you take the trouble to say it clearly.
When the WaPo is writing about it, there is trouble on the horizon fro Ukraine: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/29/ukraine-victory-russia-defeat-hopes/
.
If I were Zelinsky, I would look realistically at the situation, and ask what can be accomplished by another year of fighting a war of attrition, especially with the very real possibility of Trump returning to office a year from now.
So I read another article on the border deal. It does look like the first leak was basically carefully worded misinformation of the usual sort, not technically lying but leaving out important details.
.
“Shutting down the border” means closing the border in rural areas to asylum seekers and leaving the main entry points open. 1400 asylum seekers per day during a shutdown was a “minimum” of 1400 a day allowed, ha ha. Still no details on changes to asylum law (which is THE issue to pay attention to).
.
Color me unimpressed and I can see why the House says that is DOA. Sorry to waste your time. I assume this is basically an opening bid and nothing will happen because it’s an election year.
Something may be up. Yesterday a fleet of KC- 135 tankers left the US heading East for parts unknown. A lot more domestic KC-135 activity today. Speculation abounds about a retaliatory strike against Iran.
Yesterday
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1751762444286882207?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Today
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1752005482150015051?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Biden is really in a bad position now with Iran. He must respond to the killing of US soldiers and realistically anything short of a direct attack on Iranian (non-proxy) assets and personnel will be seen as weak in an election year. A proper response will be seen as an escalation and likely to get another response.
.
My guess is he will attack Iranian personnel in Syria or Iraq. As I have said before Iran expects proportional measured responses and exploits that policy.
.
I don’t know what the US has told Iran but if they had made it clear that killing of US personnel would result in a highly disproportionate response then we likely wouldn’t be here.
Tom –
.
> if they had made it clear that killing of US personnel would result in a highly disproportionate response then we likely wouldn’t be here.
.
Clearly, that logic didn’t work in preventing 10/7. Why do you think this would have been different?
Tom Scharf,
“I don’t know what the US has told Iran but if they had made it clear that killing of US personnel would result in a highly disproportionate response then we likely wouldn’t be here.”
.
Donno. When their policy is “death to the USA”, you can’t be certain they are rational actors. But even if they are rational actors, the leadership of Iran may underestimate how much the Biden administration may be willing to do to keep Trump out of office in 2025….. and that could mean retaliating against Iran itself.
Joshua,
You continue to be baffled by the difference of things that works always, most of the time, some of the time, rarely, and never. It depends on a lot of things, one of them being how rational the parties are.
For the most part Iran has been letting its proxies attack US bases knowing they will fail, almost expecting it. In this case the anti-air defenses apparently got confused because of a US drone landing at the same time. Possibly a miscalculation by Iran that the US defenses would continue to work. It’s impossible to know.
Tom Scharf (Comment #229209): “My guess is he will attack Iranian personnel in Syria or Iraq. As I have said before Iran expects proportional measured responses and exploits that policy.”
.
Or completely devastate the Houthis and provide support to the Yemeni government.
Tom Scharf (Comment #229207): “So I read another article on the border deal.”
.
And of course that article’s unnamed author’s anonymous leaker is to be trusted implicitly. Yeah. Right.
.
Dueling leaks. No way to tell what is real.
The border talk has already transitioned to partisan finger pointing without the text even released so this looks mostly like a political exercise.
Mike M,
“Dueling leaks. No way to tell what is real.”
.
Yup. When (if?… not sure it will be) the text is actually released is when you can believe it. The competitive leaking (what you might call a pissing contest 😉 ) is just to gain public support (for/against) before any honest analysis is possible.
Joshua (Comment #229210)
“Clearly, that logic didn’t work in preventing 10/7. Why do you think this would have been different?”
Iran vs US is a different ball game than Hamas vs Israel
Russell –
.
>Iran vs US is a different ball game than Hamas vs Israel.
.
>> if they had made it clear that killing of US personnel would result in a highly disproportionate response then we likely wouldn’t be her
.
I’ll note that while you and Tom insist that the logic would work differently, neither of you has explained why you think that’s the case.
.
I’ll note that for decades Israel believed that logic would work, and 10/7 hasn’t led to them changing their conclusion
I mean I guess Tom was saying that the difference is that Iran is more rational than Hamas. If so, perhaps that’s what you think the difference is also?
.
I’m not sure I’d put much stock in the rationality of Iran explanation (given their religious fanaticism), but maybe you and Tom do?
Tom wrote : “The border talk has already transitioned to partisan finger pointing without the text even released so this looks mostly like a political exercise.”
.
You have to be highly optimistic to believe anything else these days! This narrative has been done to death already!
.
The issue is not that we simply spent four years making the issue worse and preventing anyone from doing anything about it. The issue is that the other guys won’t vote for this “generous compromise deal” which our media lapdogs tell you will fix the problem (but actually just gives us more power to ignore it), and so our hands are sadly tied and it’s all their fault!
All recent reports (from both sides) say the “pending agreement”, “may be” released as soon as this week. Most also report that Biden’s use of ‘parole authority’ would not be restricted in any way. If true, the bill will produce no meaningful change in the illegal immigrant flux, and Biden will continue to wave most all of them in, and ship them around the country by plane and bus…. and NEVER deport a got-way unless a known felon.
.
We’ll see when the text is actually released, but it sounds like BS.
My vague recollection here is that the courts dreamed up an illegal immigrant “right” to not be returned to their home country if they have a plausible asylum claim where legitimate asylum people might be harmed. Therefore a hearing must take place before somebody is returned which can now take years.
.
Trump (sorry to bring up Darth Vader here) solved this by “Remain in Mexico” while your asylum claim is processed. This did away with the incentive to illegally cross the border and illegal immigration dropped substantially. I assume the Mexicans got paid off for their trouble but I don’t know. Juarez may not be a great place to camp out for a couple years. Another option is US detention while your claims are processed, otherwise known as ripping babies from a mother’s arms, which is very costly. The current selection is catch and release.
.
The point of this is that Biden can re-implement Remain in Mexico today which he disbanded on day one. They are currently pretending nothing can be done without a border deal which our illustrious fact checkers might want to examine.
Iran’s behavior is more rational, their religious rhetoric is not. Their goal is to extend their influence throughout the Middle East and that requires taking calculated risks. They are in it for the long haul. Saddam was reckless and Iran learned the lesson. Iran is convincingly not stupid.
.
People don’t poke bears with sticks for good reasons. If you believe that poking that bear might cause it to run away and this impresses the tribal women then the perceived risk might be worth it. Some crazy people will decide to poke the bear, that’s also part of human nature.
.
Hamas is currently getting eaten by the bear. If they want to poke it again in the future then the same result will likely occur, but possibly not due to new conditions. What they perceive as the benefit to bear poking is something they need to explain. So far it seems to be they just hate bears.
Tom –
.
> Iran’s behavior is more rational…
.
What metrics are you using?
.
Iran has been supporting terrorism all over the region, attacks against Israeli and American and Western interests. Posing real threats. They punish women for showing their hair. They execute people who express dissent. They insist on nuclear build up despite harmful sanctions. I guess we have different metrics for assessing rationality. For decades their people have suffered because of their policies. I don’t see that as rational, but policies that have religious fanaticism at its root. That’s why it’s called a theocracy. Because it’s a fanatically religious government.
.
So the country that supports the proxy is more “rational” than the proxy.
.
I think it’s likely that many complicated factors come into play and some simplistic formula doesn’t work. Sometimes disproportionate response just leads to escalation. Sometimes it discourages the behaviors it’s responding to. So in that sense you and I are in agreement. But your application of that conditional situation just looks like formulaic thinking to me. Seems to me your applying post hoc rationalization for why it will work this next time, with Iran, but not it’s proxy. Israel has applied that form of thinking for the decades that led up to 10/7. Pinning a different outcome on the differentially greater rationality of a fanatically religious theocracy that advocates a clash of civilizations and sponsors terrorism on a massive scale looks like a losing argument to me.
.
My guess? Disproportionate response won’t change much at all. At some point in the future something similar will happen. Neither side wants to reach a stage of all-out escalation and neither side has the ability or vision to work for a better outcome than a given measure of violent equilibrium.
Meanwhile, for the domestic consumption of the two-party dog and pony show, both parties will seek to leverage this situation not for actually achieving progress, but for political expediency. Bith sides will seek to pose and posture and find the optimal balance point between looking like tough guys and trying to not look like war-mongers. They’ll find a somewhat differing point along that balance to stake out a platform, with only an eye towards political benefit. Things will continue as they were. It’s not like they don’t want progress, but they fear that actually moving towards progress will cost them in political capital. At least that’s how I see it. Been that way as long as I can remember.
Russia is prolly the best object lesson.
.
Used to be that GOP fear-mongered about Russia for the sake of political expediency. Now the Dems do it. Used to be that Dems played to détente with Russia (although it started with Nixon actually) for the sake of political expediency. Now the GOP does it. The parties will carve out one stance or the other as they see what looks politically beneficial for basically arbitrary reasons, irrespective of the actual threats or actual ways to mitigate them.
/rant
Tom Scharf,
“They are currently pretending nothing can be done without a border deal which our illustrious fact checkers might want to examine.”
.
The dishonesty (both Biden AND the ‘fact checkers’) is palpable.
.
Of course Biden could take all the steps Trump took and immediately reduce illegals by 80-90%. He won’t; he wants illegals entering in the multiple millions per year. Those illegals are the (wet dream) future for Democrats. Depresses wages for the least skilled? Sure. Encourages unlawful hiring? Of course. Burdens taxpayers? Yes. The Dems just need complete control (Congress and Presidency) for two years to turn 20+ million illegals into Dem voters.
So turns out the assembly line workers at Boeing (or maybe their supplier of 737 fuselages) just forgot to put in the bolts that are supposed to permanently hold the ‘door plug’ in place. The only things securing it were four pieces of ‘alignment hardware’ that were never designed to secure it.
.
No doubt the final report will be scalding. This is not what Boeing needs right now.
The western “rules based order” is a very transparent vehicle for the US to do whatever ever it wants and declare that the said action is legitimate according to the “rules”. Stronger nations throughout history have imposed their will on weaker nations. Power politics between nations is not “beanbags” as one popular saying goes. The strong strong-arm the weak and the weak take what they are given.
.
The US today is much closer in foreign policy attributes to Imperial Rome than it is to the 1780’s Congress. A lion is not “evil” for eating a zebra, it is the natural nature of the beast. The same logic applies to interaction between stronger and weaker states. Applying terms such as “good” or “evil” to the conflict interactions between nation states is both lazy and generally inaccurate.
.
The US today is a global empire that finds itself in conflict with other regional empires, such a Russia, China, and Iran. Beating ones chest over minor and insignificant combat losses in the outlaying Imperial outposts in a drumbeat to wider war is neither sane or conducive to effective foreign policy in a nuclear environment. Both Russia and China are known nuclear Powers and Iran is guaranteed to become a declared member of the nuclear club at any time of its choosing.
.
Ed,
How many soldiers have to be killed and injured by Iran funded terrorists before we should respond? Obviously more than 3 killed and 30 injured. Not a rhetorical question.
Ed,
Thanks for the unsupported philosophical assertions. I’ll keep that in my special file where I store most of your utterances.
Steve
Casualties are a fact of life for keeping a global imperial presence.
.
Asking how many casualties does one have to accept from proxies of competing nuclear opponents before one goes down the path of nuclear escalation is in the same framework as of asking how many casualties should the US have sustained from the Soviet proxies North Korea or North Vietnam prior to the US declaring war on the Soviet Union. In both of these situations the US sustained 10’s of thousands of casualties without resorting to action leading to nuclear war.
.
Russia, in fighting the US proxy Ukraine, has also suffered 10’s of thousands of casualties. In this case, both the US and Russia have agreed that as long as US weapons don’t target Russia proper, Russia will not target US logical bases in Europe and elsewhere.
.
US troops, and US proxy troops and populations, are game pieces in the “Great Game” being waged world wide for influence and resources by the various empires. Individually they are of no consequence. Sucks to be the poor bloody infantry at the sharp end of the spear, but thats the rules of the game.
.
Ed –
.
> in fighting the US proxy Ukraine…
.
Interesting. That seems to suggest you believe that Ukraine is not a sovereign state that was illegally invaded? Do you consider the invasion a legitimate act by Russia, where a contention that Russia violated international rules of order is merely a hypocritical and arbitrary contention? Perhaps the notion of legitimate or illegitimate is just an arbitrary and self serving concept? Perhaps the invasion was just a natural reflection of the way the world works where stronger nations impose their will?
.
Not rhetorical questions. I ask because it seems you might be articulating a kind of realism, but in a form I’ve never quite encountered before.
Joshua
Ukraine is definitely a proxy of the US. Nothing says that a proxy state is not also sovereign. As a small state siting directly between competing empires, Ukraine does not have the luxury of being nonaligned.
.
Was the invasion of Ukraine by Russia “legitimate” ? Russia believes its strategic interests were at stake so that makes the action “legitimate”. Legitimately in the context of competing great powers is looking at the world as it is, not how one might wish it was. Great powers dominate weaker states, its the nature of the beast.
.
Nothing I have written is unique on the relations between competing states. The Greeks wrote extensively on this issue thousands of years ago. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), touches generally on the conduct between citizen and the state, but also touches on “evil” which I referenced earlier that mark bofill (Comment #229233) commented on. “Good” and “evil” is purely relational.
..”..
Good Evill
.
But whatsoever is the object of any mans Appetite or Desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth Good: And the object of his Hate, and Aversion, evill; And of his contempt, Vile, and Inconsiderable. For these words of Good, evill, and Contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: There being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common Rule of Good and evill, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves; but from the Person of the man (where there is no Common-wealth;) or, (in a Common-wealth,) From the Person that representeth it; or from an Arbitrator or Judge, whom men disagreeing shall by consent set up, and make his sentence the Rule thereof…”
..
On your question: “..Do you consider the invasion a legitimate act by Russia, where a contention that Russia violated international rules of order is merely a hypocritical and arbitrary contention? Perhaps the notion of legitimate or illegitimate is just an arbitrary and self serving concept?..”
.
“Legitimate” really has no bearing on relations between great powers. It is ” just an arbitrary and self serving concept”.
.
Skimming through youtube news, I came across this Fox News title
.
“Biden admin will not respond aggressively at all: Ex-Trump official”
.
I am a solid Trump supporter, but this comment and support for war against Iran suggesting it is a perfectly reasonable response to attack on US forces by Iran proxies is insane.
.
I have seen ZERO analysis by the MSM on what the Iran response likely entails and the time US forces would be required to take to make a response other than just with airpower.
.
It took 6 months for the US to move forces into position to launch a ground attack against Iraq, and Iran, with guaranteed Russian and Chinese support, will be a much harder nut to crack. Iranian air defense is orders of magnitude better than was seen in the Iraq war and Iran strategic targets much better protected and hardened.
.
In the meantime, ballistic missiles, drones, cruise missiles, and mines shut down the entire oil transport from the middle east, throwing Europe and the US into instant financial recession.
.
The Bidden administration seems to actually be thinking this through.
Ed, you write: “The western “rules based order” is a very transparent vehicle for the US to do whatever ever it wants and declare that the said action is legitimate according to the “rules”.”
That is not true. One reason the post WW2 ‘rules based order’ gained international acceptance, including by the Soviet Union and China, was because the most important aspects of it constrained US behavior.
The US does engage in ‘hegemonic’ behavior, although not consistently. It is broadly accepted by the rest of the world because it is not territorial in nature and the US has by and large trotted out its plans beforehand and secured either acceptance or participation from broad swathes of the international community.
This is in sharp contrast to the behavior of, first, the Soviet Union and now its successor state. Which is why the same international community that accepted US action in Iraq and Afghanistan abhors Russia’s behavior and is actively working to combat it.
Tom Fuller,
Plenty of countries are not participating in sanctions against Russia. The “international community” is really the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, and a few other economically developed countries. Many of Russia’s exports (oil, fertilizers, natural gas, diamonds) are globally fungible, which makes the sanctions not very effective, since sales in any specific country inevitably impact global market consumption. Does Russia really get only US$60 for its oil? No, more like $84. Has Russia’s economy contracted drastically? No, it appears to have grown ~1% in the past 12 months. Sure, it could have grown much more without the war, but there is no deep recession in Russia.
.
I hope the war ends soon, but when it does end, it won’t be because of the “international community” pressuring the Russians. Most likely it ends because either 1) Putin is removed from office by Russians (I think doubtful), 2) Ukraine decides the continuing death toll and destruction aren’t worth the territory, or 3) the USA and the EU decide it costs too much to keep funding a war of attrition.
I think there are a couple of other end games that are perhaps even more likely.
Tom Fuller,
Pray tell what those more likely end games are.
SteveF, regarding your assertion that ‘plenty of countries are not supporting sanctions on Russia.’ True, and the majority of them are so small that their combined impact on sanction regimes is effectively zero.
There are other ways of gauging support for Ukraine. 16 countries from 3 continents have given more than $1 billion in aid to Ukraine.
141 countries voted against Russia’s invasion at the UN.
While only 45 countries have participated in the various sanctions regimes, those 45 countries have over 60% of global GDP and a roughly equivalent amount of global trade.
Of course, there’s no denying that North Korea, Belarus and Iran support Russia. And China and India are perfectly willing to buy heavily discounted oil.
On the whole, much of the developing world is indifferent to the Russia/Ukraine war. No question. But support for Ukraine and opposition to Russia’s invasion is far more widely based than your comment would hint at.
Many proxy states do so voluntarily and enthusiastically. In the case of Ukraine it is an existential crisis so they had little choice if they wanted to survive.
.
Other times such as the CIA funding “freedom fighters” to overthrow governments it is still voluntarily but the fighting probably wouldn’t even occur without foreign interference. Whether this interference is morally justified needs to be judged on a case by case basis. There are many bad examples here.
Likelier endgames for the Russian invasion of Ukraine:
1. Exhaustion of Russian resources.
Russia recently boasted that they are producing 100 new tanks monthly. Ukraine is destroying on average more than 250 of them monthly. Russia is enlisting/conscripting about 30,000 soldiers per month. They are losing roughly the same at the front.
Russian planes, both military and civilian, have started falling out of the sky or refusing to get off the ground, due to military actions and the effects of sanctions. This is a symptom of problems afflicting the entire Russian industrial base and the increasing effectiveness of the Ukrainian military.
260 military recruiting stations have been burnt down and a passive resistance to Russian policy has started, consisting of destruction by fire of numerous structures important to Russian infrastructure, aided by Ukrainian drone strikes.
Production of Russian oil and gas has fallen by 3% and 12% respectively. Their delivery of oil exports has become more fraught, again due to sanctions.
Their focus on turning their economy to a war time state has led to 7.5% inflation and interest rates of 16%, and their confiscatory policy has reduced foreign investment to effectively zero. Russia is now committing roughly 40% of GDP to defense. So…
Consumer shortages of staples like eggs and chickens are precursors for wider shortfalls in consumer goods.
Massive out migration due to fear of conscription plus heavy casualties at the front have led to labor shortages, perhaps most evident in the lack of maintenance and repair for urban infrastructure, leading to losses of heating and power throughout Russia.
The eventual delivery of American and European aid will come as a pulse that will further strain Russian resources.
Russians have about 450,000 military personnel in Ukraine. Ukraine currently has about 800,000 in uniform. (Both figures include logistical and administrative personnel, not just combat troops.)
If Ukraine just stays where they are, defending the lines they hold today, Russia will exhaust its ability to continue the conflict in a year. That in fact is what I predict will happen.
I’m not sure if I’ll have the time, but I’ll try and explore alternative end games that are more likely than yours later on.
So I imagine everyone has heard about the new and improved shoplifting rules in the great state of California. This just happened to my wife this morning:
.
She is sitting at the airport waiting to board and security approaches the lady next to her and says she has a Bose speaker in her bag that she didn’t purchase. The lady went silent and refused to answer questions. Security took the Bose speaker from her and walked away. She then got on the plane with no further activity.
Whoops! I mistakenly wrote that Russia is devoting 40% of GDP to defense–it’s 40% of their governmental expenditures, not GDP
What I think is actually a good idea is to take a timeout before a response to Iran. Doing so in the heat of the moment usually reduces good long term decision making.
.
I think people greatly discount the politics of these situations. Politicians must respond or they will get tossed (example: Carter). I’m not saying this is proper, only that it is reality. This also distorts decision making.
.
No matter what happens here the Republicans will declare it as weak (cruise missiles up a camel’s a**). These politics get rather tiresome especially in an election year.
Ed –
.
Thanks for your quite interesting answer to my questions. I have many follow up questions. To the extent you will answer them I will be appreciative.
.
.
Just as a statement like that, it looks like nothing other than an argument by assertion. For it to be meaningful for me, I need to understand what you use as the inclusion/exclusion criteria for what makes a state a proxy of the US or not a proxy of the US. I’m hoping you might add some detail.
.
.
Of course, but that doesn’t answer my question – which is whether as a sovereign state it was illegally invaded. Now I think I can kind of guess that you think there’s no valid concept behind determining “legal” versus “illegal” when it comes to one state invading another sovereign state, but I’m hoping you can clarify.
.
I would guess you’d also take a similar position with respect to “legitimate.” In other words, it’s my guess that you think there’s no point in evaluating whether one state invading another sovereign state is legal or illegal, or legitimate or illegitimate, and that the only valid evaluation is whether the invading country has sufficient military power to invade another country (and to sustain that invasion after the fact). Do I have your view right?
.
.
Interesting. So again, I’d like confirmation. In you view, no country has a way to determine it’s own alignment, and it’s alignment can only be determined by some combination of geographical location and how more powerful countries determine its alignment. Is that right? If so, how does it work if Russia sees Ukraine as an proxy state and the US sees Ukraine as an independent state? Who gets to say? Do both definitions exist simultaneously? Is Ukraine both a proxy state and an independent state simultaneously?
.
.
Again, I’m confused by your opinion. Many states feel that Russia’s invasion was illegitimate and/or illegal, yet yes, Russia sees it differently. Now you say that Russia’s view is correct and the view of all the other states is wrong. You say that because Russia’s view is an accurate picture of “the world as it is,” but I don’t understand how you get there – because the views of all those other states is also “the world as it is.” Again, it seems to me that you’re just making arguments by assertion – where you just state that your subjective view is, in fact, reality and that other subjective viewpoints are merely views of how “one might wish it was.” Again, I’m wondering if you could explain why you subjective view is inherently more reality-based than the view that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was illegitimate and/or illegal.
.
.
Yet just above, you said that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was legitimate. So apparently you do think it has bearing and also don’t think it has bearing. I’m hoping you could clarify.
.
Again, part of the reason that I’m curious is that your views seem to overlap with a “realist” perspective yet also seem to differ significantly from a more standard realist viewpoint – so I’m trying to better understand if your view centers largely on “realism” or not
Mark –
.
You have mentioned to me (as I recall) that you find the idea of international law to be pretty meaningless. So for you, concepts like war crimes don’t carry much weight. I hope I got you right.
.
But you also seem to be pretty critical of what Ed is saying. So I am wondering how you reconcile your views with those of Ed’s. Seems to me that his views are kind of a logical extension of your views. Yet, again, you seem to reject a fundamental aspect of his view.
.
I suppose you are going to think I’m asking you to justify your views – that has happened in the past when I’ve asked you how you reconcile your views in light of various components that don’t seem reconcilable to me. Perhaps I am. But that said, I’m not sure I know the answer for myself how to reconcile some of these questions. I think there are certainly limitations to the utility, and in some ways also the legitimacy of “international rules of order.” But then again, I think that Ed’s views, or at least how I understand them, don’t seem logically consistent to me.
.
Anyway, as always no intent to offend, just curious to hear your viewpoint.
Tom –
.
> The eventual delivery of American and European aid will come as a pulse that will further strain Russian resources.
.
Can you explain further what you mean by that?
Ed Forbes
.
So, presumably, you think Russia attacked the US by proxy. We should be pretty angry about that then. Seems we would have a right to attack back. I assume that should be your view.
.
Oh… perhaps. But under your theory, I should think it would be legitimate for the US to bomb Russia directly since they attacked the US.
It’s fair to say the US/EU are fighting Russia using Ukraine as a “proxy”. The reverse may not be true, but getting into a semantics argument is kind of pointless. We are helping Ukraine from Russia aggression because it is in our interest to deter Russia from further incursions. Ukraine is doing the heavy lifting here with manpower.
.
Russia had a short window to roll over Ukraine before the defense got organized but they blew it and now have a quagmire and are paying a heavy price. It was an open question whether the US/EU would engage in this war at the start and it looks like Putin miscalculated.
Joshua
Both Europe and the US will in all probability pass significant funding for Ukraine before spring. However, actual armaments that funding will purchase will not arrive until probably summer. But because there has been a funding ‘drought’ a lot of it will arrive in big chunks rather than piecemeal, as had been the case previously.
If it includes advanced armaments for the various iterations of the F16s and the occasional biplane that other countries are providing it will make a difference in ground support activities at a very convenient time for Ukraine.
In any event, a large amount of equipment looks set to arrive at just about the time the Ukrainian armed forces have mobilized an extra group of citizen soldiers. Late summer and early fall should be quite interesting.
Joshua,
Ed said:
I read this as an assertion that conflict interactions between nation states is neither good nor evil. I disagreed with this assertion. That’s pretty much all.
There is no necessary (and AFAICT as it happens, no coincidental either) relationship between international law and good and evil. I have very little respect for the idea of international law. I have a great deal of respect for the idea of good and evil.
I hope this clarifies.
In general, law and morality have a tenuous relationship, much like marriage and love. They really aren’t the same thing at all, even though there is sometimes some overlap. If we’re lucky. Once in a while.
I think it is legitimate in the abstract to bomb Russia and make them pay the same price they are incurring on Ukraine. If they didn’t have nukes and NATO thought risking an all out conventional war was worth it then there is nothing wrong with this, kind of standard procedure. It would be unwise because NATO can likely accomplish their goals without this escalation.
I’m not saying (or even thinking, to be honest) that this is a pre-planned strategy, but if NATO had wanted to reduce Russia to a shell of its former self I don’t see what they would have done differently.
Right, this has been a great deal for NATO. Grinding down the threat from Russia and having Ukraine do the messy work. We don’t know how it will all turn out but so far this has been a strategic disaster for Russia.
.
The elephant in the room is making sure Russia doesn’t truly believe it is being existentially threatened.
Walter Russel Meade at the WSJ today:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-middle-east-is-bidens-worst-crisis-jordan-strike-iran-red-sea-war-9b2e473b?st=1lw75pyfvtu01o2&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“Five decades of often painful experience should teach Americans that we can neither “fix” the Middle East nor ignore it. We are not going to turn Middle Eastern countries into a collection of peaceful democracies. We aren’t going to eliminate the ethnic, social and religious conflicts that keep the region on edge. And we aren’t going to be able simply to walk away.”
Tom, I was starting to think MSM was not capable of organized thought. I am happy to see from your WSJ article that they are able to string several thoughts together at times.
.
I very much agree with the overall premise: damed if we do, damed if we don’t.
lucia (Comment #229251) “Oh… perhaps. But under your theory, I should think it would be legitimate for the US to bomb Russia directly since they attacked the US.”
.
The US is not bombing Russia because the US doesn’t see such action in its own interests. Legitimacy is not a factor.
.
Legitimately, when talking about state actions, is purely up to what the state presumes to be legitimate to accomplish required actions. If an action futures state goals, it is, by definition, legitimate.
.
Murder, not referring to war deaths, is seen generally across all groups as morally wrong. Murder, in furtherance of state requirements, can, in many cases, be considered to be legitimate.
.
Coming across here as a “Stalinist”, but the line between patriot and monster is knife edge sharp that have cut many societies deeply over the centuries.
.
The US is not bombing Russia because it doesn’t need to. Russia is bombing itself–literally in recent days and figuratively for the past two years.
Tom Scharf (Comment #229252): “It’s fair to say the US/EU are fighting Russia using Ukraine as a ‘proxy’.”
.
I think that depends on why we are helping Ukraine. If we are helping Ukraine because we think they should be able to determine their own destiny, then we are not using them as a proxy. If we are helping then in order to hurt Russia and/or if we deliberately pursued policies designed to increase the chance that Russia would invade, then we are using Ukraine as a proxy.
.
I don’t know which it is.
.
I don’t like using good and evil in reference to international conflicts except in extreme cases like 9/11 or 10/7. Labeling one side “good” risks making excuses for whatever they do and labeling one side “evil” is an impediment to making peace. Less charged terms like justified or unjustified seem more appropriate.
Even CNN is starting to sound sane on Iran.
.
There’s no sign the US will attack Iranian soil. The White House’s top “national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters repeatedly on Monday the US has no interest in a war with Iran or its clerical regime. And the consequences of American strikes on Iran would likely be so escalatory — probably unleashing Tehran proxies like Hezbollah with full bore attacks on Israeli and US interests and a consequential major US-Iran war — that it’s an unthinkable possibility. It’s easy for Republicans – especially those like Haley, whose path to the White House looks dim — to advise hitting Iran. It’s Biden who will be responsible for the fallout. And on a purely strategic level, risking a major Middle East war that could cause massive US casualties to avenge the deaths of three soldiers, as terrible as their deaths are, would not represent a sound equation.”
.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/politics/biden-middle-east-war-analysis/index.html
I just stumbled on to the ongoing Mann v Steyn trial about 5 days ago, about which there was much discussion years ago. Here is a link that shows funny facts about how goofy Mann is. (Actually tried to get wikipedia to keep him listed as a Nobel winner) Claiming as damages that he got a nasty look in the grocery store. https://pennstate.forums.rivals.com/threads/unsurprisingly-nobel-prize-winner-michael-mann-is-getting-clowned-again-in-court.347143/#post-6614450
The first 2 posts contain a good amount of information
Tom Fuller,
“If Ukraine just stays where they are, defending the lines they hold today, Russia will exhaust its ability to continue the conflict in a year. That in fact is what I predict will happen.”
.
Good. We will see if your prediction is correct. I would be happy to place a bet on that if you are interested.
Tom Fuller,
BTW, my most fundamental prediction is that the fighting will end no time soon: certainly not in 6 months, and not likely in 12 months. My best guess: if Trump is elected, it ends in 16-18 months. If Biden is elected, it doesn’t end for at least 36 months, and most likely becomes a ‘frozen conflict’ after a cease-fire is agreed to, a la Korea. If Biden is elected, I doubt either of us will see an actual settlement in our lifetimes.
.
I think the Biden administration is never going to acknowledge any Russian security interest in Ukraine not being a NATO country, which means a permanent deadlock. As I have said many times: it does not matter what people in the USA and Europe think about Russia’s security concerns WRT NATO, it matters what Russians think. The fundamental reason for a deadlock: Russia has the capacity to destroy most of humanity with their nuclear weapons, and NATO is not going to risk that destruction by insisting on a resolution in Ukraine.
Of course you might be right, Steve and I won’t be betting either way. But I think Russia’s problems in Russia will outweigh any events on the battlefield.
Speaking of battlefields, we hear quite a bit of discussion about the failure of Ukraine’s spring/summer/fall offensive and it really was a disappointment. But Russia went on the offensive in October and have sacrificed tens of thousands of soldiers and mountains of equipment and have taken the equivalent of a couple of Walmart parking lots for their pains.
Meanwhile 26 cities in Russia have suffered catastrophic loss of heating in weather that is a mite chilly.
Tom Fuller,
“Of course you might be right, Steve..”
.
And I could be wrong. But dismissing what seems to me pretty obvious current facts, and clear history of the country is to me unwise. Russia is a very tough society, and they do not yield easily. Maybe it has to do with constantly suffering miserable winters; what does not kill us makes us stronger, right? 😉
.
I do not think the Russians are going to yield on Ukraine, as unpleasant as that may be to the West. And much of the world doesn’t give a hoot.
Interesting data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves
.
I suggest sorting the list by EIA proven reserves and look at how many years current proven reserves will last. Venezuela, Iran, Canada, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are the near future of petroleum (and petrochemicals). We can, with greater cost, substitute electricity for fuel for cars and trucks.
.
But planes and petrochemicals? That is a lot harder; you can load a truck up with tons (yes, literally many tons) of batteries and give it a reasonable range. But a jet plane? Not so much.
.
The USA (and a few other countries) have enormous hydrocarbon reserves which are available but not developed, dwarfing all other hydrocarbon reserves around the world (see oil shale reserves), but these would require the political will to develop them. So for now: politically out of reach.
Reduced carbon is a critical starting material which makes modern (materially wealthy) life possible. No matter what else happens, humanity needs access to affordable reduced carbon. This seems to me the biggest long term dilemma humanity faces…… not climate change. 😉
The Iran linked militia responsible for the drone attack “voluntarily” announced it will stop targeting US forces. Somewhere >99% chance this was on instructions from Iran and a sign that the retaliation would likely be limited in scope. Sounds like a backdoor deal.
Ed
The real reason the US is not bombing is that Ukraine is not the “proxy US”. If Russia bombed our proxy, it would be in our interest to bomb them.
Ed
I wouldn’t say Stalinist. You’ve been coming off as pro-Putin-Russia for a long time. I don’t think this is a “knife edge” diagnosis.
At the risk of being the little boy who cried wolf…
Another strange occurrence with USAF KC-135 Stratotankers. Eight of these big birds were flying donuts off the coast of California and Baja Mexico. One peeled off and joined a RC-135V/W Rivet Joint spy plane and headed Southwest [out to sea] Then they both went dark. Here is a screenshot just after the spyplane went dark but the tanker [MOBIL42] was still visible. Six more KC-135s are visible in the screenshot. All aircraft in this pic are US military.
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1752533111143846250?s=20
At 10:41 PM Florida time, seven of the big birds were still out there.
Live track:
https://www.flightradar24.com/33.02,-120.29/6
I still note that Ed has yet to give any indication that his determination of what is or isn’t a US proxy is based on any kind of objective or measurable standard.
.
It seems to me that there’s some kind of spectrum from proxy at one end and independent state at the other. So where is Ukraine on that spectrum?
.
First, generally a “proxy” in this context is a non-state actor. So Ukraine doesn’t fit the bill there.
.
Second, it seems to me that clearly Ukraine is at least to a large measure not acting on behalf on the US, but acting on its own behalf (in a way that many Americans feel aligns with America’s interest) against an invading force. That would also clearly seem to be inconsistent with Ukraine being a US proxy.
.
Of course there’s an argument that’s been made that the US has essentially coerced Ukraine to act against its own interest, but that opinion requires mind-probing. It also condescendingly denies Ukranian any agency. I don’t think there’s precise evidence regrading just how many Ukrainians support this war (when they’re free and have a forum to openly express their views) but clearly the number who are willing to put their lives on the line to fight against the invasion is quite substantial.
.
I get the argument that the US has supported Ukraine in a way that Russia considers prevocative, and that Russia putatively considers a security threat, but even granting that view legitimacy that’s a far cry from making the argument that not only is Ukraine being influenced by the US but that it is actually a “US proxy.”
.
I hope that Ed comes forward with more than just empty rhetoric and argument by assertion, but makes an actual argument based on criteria that can be measured and discussed.
.
Othweise, imo, it’s just a kind of bizarre argument. I find the “Purtin’s puppet” and “Russia apologist” accusations against people who extend a willingness to explore the Russian perspective obnoxious and counterproductive. But when someone makes an extreme argument and provides zero basis on which their argument can be evaluated, they certainly leaves themselves open to that kind of speculation.
I too have in the past questioned why Ed Forbes took what seemed to me to be illogical and extreme positions in support of Russia. I stopped questioning his methods when I realized how important Ed’s role is here…… I would have no one to argue with without him. Ed makes me do my homework. I almost always concluded he was wrong, but I became smarter because I did my homework.
Another development in the 6 tankers I saw heading out over the Atlantic Ocean yesterday, [10 minutes ago from NYT]:
“The 6 KC-135 Refueling tankers which flew across the Atlantic are now heading to the Middle East.”
https://x.com/newstodayyt1/status/1752587055706571166?s=20
The Times shows them tracking from Europe to Turkey, but the screen checks clear in the area now. I assume they went dark after they left Turkish airspace.
It’s two AM Florida time and there are still seven big tankers flying along the coast from Northern California to Baja.
The current armada is made up of different planes because some of them identify as Boeing KC-46A Pegasus, not KC-135R, so perhaps more headed out to the West to escort more assets.
Screenshot:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1752587981175603548?s=20
At ease. The West Coast action is Bamboo Eagle, a war game:
“The U.S. Air Force Warfare Center’s first iteration of Bamboo Eagle began on Jan. 26. The eight-day exercise will take place in various locations across the United States as well as designated sea and airspace in the eastern Pacific.
Over 3,000 U.S. service members across four branches are expected to fly, maintain and support more than 150 aircraft from over 20 units in multiple locations during Bamboo Eagle.”
https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3659055/bamboo-eagles-first-flight/”
At 3 AM there are 11 big war birds, almost a conga line, from Baja to Canada. The tankers have been joined by two electronics planes, an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) and a Rivet Joint. I think probably there are fighters present, but flying dark.
Screenshot:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1752600326316626085?s=20
I will add, that I think it’s totally understandable why some folks argue that the US and Nato look at the war in Ukraine as a proxy war with Russia, that the US is involved “to the very last Ukrainian,” and that the US provoked the war.
.
I don’t fully agree with those arguments, but I can see the logic behind them and think there are elements of truth there.
.
But going from that to absolutist statements that Ukraine is a US proxy, as if Ukraine has no agency and to effectively argue its whole existence comprises a vehicle for the US and NATO to wage a proxy war, I think requires a more elaborated argument.
.
It’s a problem, IMO, when people leverage some level of truth to make unfalsifiable, extreme arguments. I see Ed’s proclamation that Ukraine is a US proxy as an example of such. But maybe he’ll take the time to clarify his view in more detail.
Joshua,
I agree that Ed hasn’t defined “what is a proxy”?
I’d also add that my suggestion he comes off as “pro-Putin-Russia” is not so much related to the moral, legal or military justifications for Putin invading Ukraine, nor his claim that this is a proxy war. Lots of people here have explained why Putin views things the way he does and so on. They haven’t come off as “pro-Putin-Russia”.
.
The thing that makes Ed Forbes come off as pro-Putin-Russia very strong, continuous tendency to appear to be “rooting for” that side to win any day now. If this were a football match, he just sounds like someone who is vocally rooting for a particular side– and that side is Putin’s side.
.
I don’t really post much about battles. But I’d certainly categorize myself as “pro-Ukraine” in this. Ukraine was invaded. That’s true whether or not Russia had “fears” or whether “military law” somehow justifies his invasion.
.
Ed Forbes just comes off as “Pro-Putin-Russia”.
Lucia –
.
Thanks. I don’t have the perspective of seeing the history of Ed’s comments.
.
> Ed Forbes just comes off as “Pro-Putin-Russia”.
.
I can see where that could be the case. I’m just reacting from the place of seeing elsewhere that people who merely argue that understanding Russia’s perspective is important to understanding the conflict, are then called Putin apologists or such.
.
I do think there’s a bottom line here, where Russia invaded an sovereign country. But in a sense bottom line rests on a view that there’s such a thing as a meaningful international law. Otherwise, what’s the foundation under which we say that it’s not ok to invade a foreign country? In a sense, I agree with Ed’s argument that the distinctions are subjective and a matter of perspective.
.
But as an imperfect bulwark against such an open free for all framework, I think it’s worthwhile to conceive of an commit to a framework of international law. Then you’re committing to a non-subjective framework. I think it’s to everyone’s interest to take such an endeavor and commitment seriously. Again, it’s obviously an imperfect system but I think it’s better than the alternative.
Joshua,
Supposing we could find a case where compliance with ‘international law’ required something you thought was evil, would you prefer that the USA adhere to what you thought was right or what was consistent with international law?
You already know my answer. I would have guessed you’d say ‘what I thought was right’ but now I’m not sure.
Joshua
.
I guess I’m sort of aligned with Mark when he wrote this:
.
I don’t think law tells us whether it’s moral to invade another country. Once again, I’m with mark
.
Ideally we have laws that support or enforce morality. But that’s an ideal. Law can’t turn immoral things into moral things and vice versa. Laws dictate what is legal. Some times laws deal with more or less neutral things. In that case, there is a moral argument for following the rule of law because that policy brings order and predictability and consequently helps people order their lives or make agreements with some degree of certainty. But if a law granted me personally the right to kill whoever I wanted for whatever reason I wanted, that wouldn’t transform me running into the street and shooting up the place into “moral” behavior.
lucia (Comment #229285): “Ideally we have laws that support or enforce morality.”
.
If I agreed with that, I’d support laws that completely ban abortion. I don’t.
.
I would say that laws should never support or enforce immorality. Permitting is not the same thing as supporting.
Another argument that this is a “proxy” war (as opposed to protecting an ally) is that Ukraine has historically not been an ally of the US. It’s not part of NATO, has some economic ties to the EU but not a formal member, and has historically been allied with Russia. Almost all of their native military equipment is Soviet era stuff. The entire war is based on Ukraine getting wooed by the west.
.
I find these technical discussions over terminology pretty uninteresting and don’t have a hard time understanding what Ed is saying even if he is stretching the meaning of some words. Perhaps if this is not a proxy war, even though it has many characteristics of it, then those opposed can find a better term they like. The reality is this war has characteristics of many things because it is unique and there isn’t a perfect pre-established term for it.
Mike,
Where things get complicated is that it may be morally right that people be free to chose between right and wrong. In other words, it may always be wrong to force people to do the right thing at least in some cases / regarding some decisions, because it is right for people to be free, broadly speaking. We draw lines because society has to work, therefore, one is not free to commit murder or steal. One is only free to abort up to a certain point. Etc.
But I think it is often true that laws enforce or support our concept of what is ‘right’ or ‘good’ and punish what we consider to be ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’.
At least this is my view.
[Edit: Often? Sometimes? I don’t know what adverb I should have used.]
The simpler way to put it is that it’s morally right for people to be free, within reason. Law tries to forbid what is not reasonable. Maybe. Haven’t thought this through carefully recently.
[Law ideally forbids what is not reasonable, might be a better way to put this?]
I’m mostly against the concept of international law in the sense there is a global arbiter of conflicts that has the required power to enforce it’s rulings, both economic and military. It sounds good on paper but the execution is bound to be biased and error prone. The US ceding its sovereignty to such a power is a non-starter. Do we want the UN doing equitable distribution of wealth to the world? Does Israel want the UN adjudicating their conflict?
.
That concept is different than voluntary pacts such as trade agreements and military alliances where countries can enter and leave without gigantic repercussions.
.
Many globalist types want a world government that they envision enforce truth and justice and eliminates armed conflict. This truth and justice is assumed to coincidentally align with their preferred value system. I don’t think they would like living under global sharia law or many other forms of accepted local justice. Centralized government generates centralized corruption that is even harder to root out. The UN has become pretty useless over time and fixing this looks almost impossible.
Tom –
.
> I find these technical discussions over terminology pretty uninteresting and don’t have a hard time understanding what Ed is saying even if he is stretching the meaning of some words…
.
Ed didn’t just say this is a proxy war.
.
I don’t really agree with that either but I think that point is a reasonable one. It’s reasonable to question US and NATO support for Ukraine militarily and whether in reality it’s all about supporting what’s best for Ukraine or to what extent it’s about self interest instead.
.
But Ed didn’t just say that. He said that Ukraine is a US proxy. As a totally categorical statement.
.
That’s a pretty extreme view. It denies Ukraine any agency as an independent state. And from that he went further to basically say “that’s the way the cookie crumbles” with respect to Russia’s invasion. The suggestion being that it’s not valid to say that Russia crossed a legal or ethical or moral or good/evil line by invading Ukraine. To suggest that fact, given a security threat that Russia claims, its only appropriate that Russia invaded Ukraine (because Ukraine is just a US proxy, an enemy proxy). I think if someone’s going to make a claim such that (or to at least imply that perspective as interpret what he said) they should come to the table with some clear explanation.
I guess it depends on whether or not we buy into the rational offered in the Declaration of Independence, and what we think that rational is getting at:
Do we believe that these ‘unalienable rights’ are in some way synonymous or at least in some way related to what is morally right? The ‘governments are instituted among Men .. to secure these rights’ part seems to indicate that government and law is there to protect these unalienable rights. But it remains to tie unalienable rights to what is morally correct, perhaps? Not sure what I think of this.
I’m sort of inclined to think that there’s some strong relationship between people having their unalienable rights secured and supporting what is morally right, but I guess I’ll admit there might be some legwork still to be done to demonstrate that.
Tom Scharf (Comment #229287): “Ukraine has historically not been an ally of the US.”
.
But we have given Ukraine security guarantees on more than one occasion. Most notably as part of the deal in which they gave up the nukes they has inherited from the USSR.
.
That sounds to me rather like a long-standing argument that arguably has served the US pretty well over the past 10? decades, but some argue has clearly passed its sell-by date.
.
It sounds to me like “International law is fine in theory, and we’re happy to appeal to it to justify our actions, but don’t allow that fool you into thinking that you can apply that framework to us or the allies we think it shouldn’t be applied to because, American exceptionalism.”
.
There’s an argument being made by some “realists” (and here’s why I’m trying to figure out what Ed’s alignment is) that a hypocrisy in how the US views the application international law or international “rules-based order” is now being successfully leveraged, in particular by Russia and China, to undermine US “soft-power” and influence in such a way that it becomes a significant security threat to the US itself. And more to the point, many “realists” are making that argument specifically in the context of the Russia/Ukraine conflict (and what many people argue is a direct contradiction to our support for Israel against Palestinians).
.
I think there’s interesting evidence to that effect, the most prominent example perhaps being the expansion of BRICS.
I’ve sort of clubbed this to death. My last remark if nobody else wants to discuss this is that I’m pretty sure Locke thought there was a relationship between these unalienable rights/ natural laws and morality. Whether or not everyone would agree with his arguments today is a different matter.
Mark –
.
.
Not to be belligerent, but can you give me an example, real or hypothetical, that might clarify? I’m finding it hard to answer that question in the total abstract. I think that it makes sense to sign on to an agreed framework for international law, for the very reasons that the winners in WWII put together the Geneva Conventions and countries like Israel considered them so important. Ideally such a framework would align, in a general sense, with my views on “good and evil” (I tend to be reluctant to use those terms rather than “right and wrong,” but whatever). Very much in line with the idea of promoting equality and liberty and freedom from oppression.
Obviously we have centralized government over the states and the states ceded a lot of sovereignty to the federal government. We do not have military conflict between states.
.
Just map this to the world and everything is butterflies and rainbows. The difference here is a shared culture in the states and trust that the feds will resolve things equitably.
.
Construct a global government, disarm the world, and have a hierarchy of justice systems that allow for a lot of local autonomy. The Israelis and Palestinians will still hate each other. Tribes will still fight tribes even if it is with rocks and sticks. There will be great amounts of insurrectionist conflict with The Evil Empire of Global Authority. This doesn’t magically fix the inherent problems of tribal conflict and I don’t even see how it improves it compared to the natural evolution of tribal conflict and cooperation we currently have.
Proxy, Merriam-Webster
1: the agency, function, or office of a deputy who acts as a substitute for another
2a: authority or power to act for another
b: a document giving such authority
specifically : a power of attorney authorizing a specified person to vote corporate stock
3: a person authorized to act for another : PROCURATOR
I don’t find the US appealing to international law and rules based order very convincing of anything. Ed may be right about this. Ed’s statements about nation states doing what they feel is in their national interest regardless of these statements better maps to reality IMO.
.
We do selectively apply this logic as we don’t go into Africa and make their world a better place because we just don’t care enough.
.
Ed’s prediction about wars and the rest of it are a bit unconvincing but quite humorous at times.
Joshua,
Sure. Imagine a world where the Axis powers won WWII. How might international law differ, hypothetically speaking? Perhaps Third Reich hegemony might have driven international legal acceptance of all sorts of evil. Reduced legal status (rights, protections, etc) for ‘inferior’ races, perhaps.
[Obviously, this is cartoonishly crude. But maybe it suffices to convey the idea?]
I don’t care to quibble about the semantics of the word proxy. Certainly, Ukraine was not acting on behalf of the US when it took up arms to defend itself from the invasion by a tyrannical neighbor. In the complete absence of the US, Ukraine would be aggressively resisting subjugation by Russia.
For me personally, I am peachy keen happy that Ukraine is decimating the conventional military of my enemy. This is a case where our interests and Ukraine’s interests are congruent. Helping them do this by providing arms is logical.
Now to wade into the murky area of right and wrong.
Ukraine is right to defend itself from the invasion by a tyrannical neighbor. I can think of no argument to the contrary, even from Russia.
The US has sworn to defend our NATO allies from Russia. Russia intends, despite its statements to the contrary, to aggressively conquer lands on its borders, especially to its West, and that is NATO countries.
More importantly, Russia has 6,000 nuclear warheads aimed at us. Depletion of their military is a proper goal. I think this justifies our support of Ukraine.
It’s not “‘two wrongs make a right”, but “two rights make a right”.
Joshua,
If I may, I think that your view is that international law isn’t evil today. I haven’t offered any specific argument contradicting this. In a sense it’s a difference that makes no difference in the here and now given that you think international law is good today. There is nothing inevitable about international law continuing to overlap with what is right though, forever and for all time. I really believe given a conflict between the two (and I fully understand you don’t think there’s much of a conflict between the two today), you’d support what you thought was right over what you thought was legal.
Russell,
That mostly right from my view as well. If your job is to defend NATO from future Russian aggression (now made clear by example) this is a no-brainer of a move from a purely military perspective. Whether we are dressing that up with a rules based order narrative or the rules based order ideology came first is a bit muddy. However they both agree to the same conclusion so it doesn’t matter that much. We now have two Russia facing countries as new members to NATO and a renewed commitment in eastern Europe to arm themselves against Russia so the outcome has been great for NATO.
.
We understand Russia’s capabilities much better now, and of course they know ours as well with the exception of air superiority and the most advanced systems. Drones are super important now and artillery still matters.
Mark,
“Drones are super important now“
Boy, you said a mouthful. I have been shocked by the great leap forward in drone technology over the past year. It’s astounding.
I get a chuckle thinking about those cocky flyboys being replaced by a swarm of $500 drones flown by pimply-faced kids with joysticks.
The US is at a disadvantage in this arms race. DARPRA cannot do fast, cheap, and dirty.
The fact that Russia “believes” Ukraine is a “proxy” to be true is the controlling factor in understanding Russian concerns that are required for forming a successful foreign policy. If you don’t have a clear understanding of your opponent, you will struggle to achieve a successful outcome.
.
Russia responds to Zelenskyy’s visit by accusing the U.S. of a proxy war in Ukraine
DECEMBER 22, 202212:50 PM ET
.
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1145004513/russia-ukraine-us-proxy-war-zelenskyy-visit
.
.”..there had been no calls for peace or signs of willingness to “listen to Russia’s concerns” during Zelenskyy’s visit, which he said proves that the U.S. is fighting a proxy war with Russia “to the last Ukrainian,” Reuters reports.”
.
“You could say that the majority of Russian people, although they are weary of the conflict, they still see this as an existential struggle between Russia and the West in which Ukraine is being played for a pawn,” he tells NPR’s Morning Edition.”
.
“Radchenko says despite Russia’s military setbacks, President Vladimir Putin is doubling down — albeit carefully, such as when he describes it as a “partial” mobilization — to convince his people that they “have no choice but to support the government on this, because if Ukraine and the West have their way, then Russia will simply disappear.”
I’m sort of with Tom that technical definitions of terminology get old. But at the same time, twisting definitions is the tool of demagogues because they often want to imply some activity is illegitimate or some actor is illigitimate by apply an incorrect term.
.
If we are going to argue whether it is a proxy war, we should at least see what is considered the definition. From Wikipedia (warts and all)
Proxy war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war
.
No matter how you look at it, the most active participants in the Ukraine- Russia war are Ukraine and Russia. Both are states.
.
I think we all agree the US is a state.
.
I don’t know who the non-state actor is supposed to be in this. To be a proxy war, at least one party has to be a non-state actor, and I don’t know who that would be.
.
I might have been able to swallow the claim that the American Revolution was a proxy war between France and England since France supplied arms, munitions etc. (Though the colonies certainly didn’t consider themselves “proxies” for France. ) At least one could claim that before the war the colonies might not be “a state”.
.
When two state actors get into a hot war, the fact that other nations take sides — and even gives arms– does not turn it into a “proxy war”. Or at least it doesn’t by what appears to be the conventional definition.
.
The problem I see with insisting this war is a “proxy” war is it gives the impression that Ukraine is not a state or that Ukraine is not acting of its own volition, but rather acting for the US. Ukraine is a state and it is acting of its own volition.
Ed,
“The fact that Russia “believes” Ukraine is a “proxy” to be true”
Putin is spreading the proxy lie as a tool to control the Russian people. We have no idea what the Russian government believes. We certainly can’t believe anything they say.
Tom
Yes. And always one sided. My impression from his posts is nothing ever truly going badly for Russia. It just looks that way. If they lose tanks: Well, those were just crappy sacrificial tanks. If they lose ground: well that was always the plan.
.
That’s where he sounds like football fan rooting for his team.
.
And remember, fan is short for “fanatic”. It comes off pretty funny over all.
.
(Note: Pointing out Ed’s presentation style isn’t to say Russia is not going to eventually “win” whatever “winning” can mean in this situation. Ukraine has always been and remains the underdog. But it’s amazing how they have not folded.)
Ed
Sure. And Russian’s mistaken “belief” and failure to under stand Ukraine is a nation state willing and able to fight for itself may explain why Russia has been struggling to achieve what they consider a successful outcome.
.
.
Russia resorting to demagoguery and trying to twist the meaning of words doesn’t mean we have to forget the correct definition of “proxy war”. Or maybe Putin just has a bad translator who is mistranslating some Russian word that means “war with a nation state who we think should be our vassal, but who finds allies after we attack them”.
.
You can quote Russians labeling this war a “proxy war” all you like. But the fact is: the war is between Ukraine– an honest to goodness nation state and Russia– an honest to goodness nation state. That does not fit the definition of “proxy war” as generally used.
.
Lucia:”Ed Forbes just comes off as “Pro-Putin-Russia”.
.
True to some point.
.
I think the US is attempting to push Russia to the wall on issues Russia considers an existential threat to Russia itself. This has the potential of going nuclear, which would just ruin my day.
.
Russia was explicit in the redline it drew on Ukraine membership in NATO. The US goaded Russia into war with Ukraine by refusing to take NATO membership off the table. The US expected a cheep victory by destroying the Russian economy with sanctions and freezing Russian foreign assets. That didn’t work out well.
.
As a result of EU sanctions on Russia, the EU is fast losing its heavy industry due to a lack of reliable and cheep energy. The US facilitated by blowing up the major gas pipelines between Russia and the EU.
.
I find it amusing that the US promised to backfill the EU loss of Russian gas with increased US gas and then put on hold building the required US gas terminals.
.
That sucking sound you hear is the massive flood of EU industry that requires cheep and reliable power leaving the EU for both the US and China.
.
It’s dangerous to be an enemy of the US and fatal to be an ally.
So ‘the strong pushes the weak around is just fine’ rational isn’t quite so ‘just fine’ when it’s the US pushing Russia around, seems to be what I’m reading now.
Shrug.
Mark, I do admit the potential use of nuclear weapons does affect my thinking.
.
But neither the US or Russia are weak and/or small states. The pucker factor would increase big time if these two states were to go head to head in direct confrontation.
Ed Forbes,
Sure. The potential that Putin could use nuclear weapons an issue.
.
I don’t quite grasp why that sways you to your “pro-Putin-Russia” stance nor why it makes you appear to think it’s somehow ok for Putin-Russia to push people around but it’s not ok for US-Nato to do so.
Lucia, I have been very clear that in conflict between empires, which both the US and Russia are, smaller and weaker states routinely get run over. It’s not a question of “right”, “wrong”, “good”, or “evil”, its just the way empires operate. Arguing that this is “not right” is like arguing the sun should come up in the west, not east. It is unrealistic and leads to very bad outcomes.
.
My issue with the US policy of aggressive action vs Russia through Ukraine is that if this gets out of hand, which is possible, the result could well be nuclear war.
.
The US thought it could get a quick and easy win vs Russia in Ukraine through economic sanctions and has been jerked up with a cold dash of reality.
.
Ed,
I think you are trying to veer off on a tangent unrelated to my comment. I haven’t asked you about right or wrong. Nor whether large countries trample small ones.
.
I’ve said I’m mystified why the fact that Russia might use nuclear weapons makes you suggest Russia has cart blanche to do what it wants, but also think that the US having similar weapons doesn’t mean we have the same cart blanche.
.
Ok. But if Russia runs through Ukraine and then decides to continue through Europe, we could also have a nuclear war.
.
Nonesense.
Mark –
–
.
In such a case I wouldn’t support international law. But I have a hard time imagining a scenario where international law would take that form, and the only example we have of internationalaa is quite different from that.
.
So yes, if your point was that international law no mater what it is shouldn’t assume priority over all other standards I agree.
.
Yes.
Thanks Joshua. I apologize if in some way I was belaboring the obvious. Sometimes I suffer from engineer brain; everything has to be in its proper bin.
Ed –
.
> Russia was explicit in the redline it drew on Ukraine membership in NATO. The US goaded Russia into war with Ukraine by refusing to take NATO membership off the table.
.
Russia could declare that halitosis in enemy states is a redline. It’s up to the US and Ukraine and any other state to determine whether they think that claim of existential threat from halitosis is credible threat to Russia There’s no inherent law of the universe that makes Russia’s claim valid.
.
It looks like you’ve declared there are no standards other than Russia’s standards. That’s not how the world works. The world doesn’t just work the way thar you want it to work.
.
> The US expected a cheep victory by destroying the Russian economy with sanctions and freezing Russian foreign assets. That didn’t work out well.
.
Russua expected a cheap and fast victory. That didn’t work out well.
.
> As a result of EU sanctions on Russia, the EU is fast losing its heavy industry due to a lack of reliable and cheep energy. The US facilitated by blowing up the major gas pipelines between Russia and the EU.
.
What’s your point? That the EU and the US and NATO should just acceed to Russia’s demands in fear that no cost they might incur is worth it?
.
> It’s dangerous to be an enemy of the US and fatal to be an ally.
.
This looks like yet another example where you determine that a specific example is a universal rule simply because you want to make it into a rule. Obviously there are many allies of the US which haven’t found it fatal.
.
> Lucia, I have been very clear that in conflict between empires, which both the US and Russia are, smaller and weaker states routinely get run over.
.
Again, completely selective reasoning. Sometimes in conflict between empires weaker states only survive because they’ve allied with one of the sides.
.
>It’s not a question of “right”, “wrong”, “good”, or “evil”, its just the way empires operate.
.
As long as you rule out any of the myriad counterexamples to each of your generalizations.
.
> Arguing that this is “not right” is like arguing the sun should come up in the west, not east. It is unrealistic and leads to very bad outcomes.
.
More of the same. Arguing about what is “right” has countless times led to very good outcomes. – of course depending on your perspective about those outcomes.
.
> My issue with the US policy of aggressive action vs Russia through Ukraine is that if this gets out of hand, which is possible, the result could well be nuclear war.
.
As I believe Lucia has pointed out, many different counterfactuls here could lead to nuclear war. That is how the world works when there is conflict between nuclear powers. I don’t intend that as a defense of how the US has responded re Ukraine. I believe that the US has failed to pursue diplomacy forcefully enough, and that the risks it has undertaken could possibly have been avoided with a greater diplomatic effort. That’s not skme extreme viewpoint. It’s a view shared by many foreign policy officials over multiple administrations. But that view in no way implies some do the views you’ve expressed, which now that I’ve seen more of them do seem bizarrely pro-Russian to me. Not because they’re critical of the US, but because they seem to apply a weird double standard. For example:
.
>The US thought it could get a quick and easy win vs Russia in Ukraine through economic sanctions and has been jerked up with a cold dash of reality.
.
Russia’s thinking it would achieve a quick and cost-free victory has been refuted by a cold hard dash of reality.
.
Lucia “I don’t quite grasp why that sways you to your “pro-Putin-Russia” stance nor why it makes you appear to think it’s somehow ok for Putin-Russia to push people around but it’s not ok for US-Nato to do so.”
.
I have never argued that it’s ok for Russia, but not NATO, to “push people around”.
.
“Ok. But if Russia runs through Ukraine and then decides to continue through Europe, we could also have a nuclear war.”
.
This has been NATO policy from the creation of NATO. The reason NATO only kept stocks of ammunition rated for just days of combat was that if the Soviets invaded Europe, that gave several days to for the diplomats before the nuclear bombs started dropping. There’s been no policy change that I have heard. Russia has the same policy if it’s invaded. MAD has worked for about 80 ys now.
.
So what is it, is Russia incompetent and getting its ass kicked, with no chance against the mighty NATO, or is Russia all conquering and poised to drive on Paris?
.
I swear, but considering the arguments I see on this topic, I must have transported back to 1963.
.
Here I go crying wolf again…
At 8:29 PM Florida time, there are exactly 3 military planes of any nation with their transponders turned on in the skies over the entirety of Europe, the Middle East, and the Arabian Peninsula. Usually at this hour, there would be a couple dozen. Everybody is flying dark.
It’s spooky.
Screenshot:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1752868126381740510?s=20
Live tracking:
https://www.flightradar24.com/44.00,31.12/3
Note if you are not a paying member, I’m not sure you can turn off the non-military aircraft in the live track. The screenshot is OK .
Ed
You sure sound like you’ve said both. Which do you claim you have not said:
1) It’s ok Russiato push people around
2) It’s not ok for Nato to push people around.
3) Both 1 and 2.
Ed Forbes
Ehrm…You have a tendency to just make these claims of fact that can’t really be supported. There is no official finding of who blew this up. Multiple countries have investigated. Maybe we blew it up. Maybe Ukrainians did. Maybe Russia did. Maybe mysterious rogue actors did.
.
And no.. just because someone you follow on substack claims something happened– based on thin evidence– doesn’t mean it happened.
lucia (Comment #229321):
Not speaking for Ed, but my impression is that he has said it is normal for powerful countries to push weaker countries around and that both the US/NATO and Russia do it. So US/NATO have no business adopting a state of high moral dudgeon about Russia doing it. If so, he makes a legitimate point.
Well, Trump actually said something remotely concrete about his policy perspective on Ukraine:
.
https://x.com/mtracey/status/1753100711544455480?s=20
.
Of course, misleading as usual:
.
https://x.com/verdverm/status/1753184757091844339?s=20
I’m going to be fiddling with the blog…
OMG a new theme, what is this 2005 already? Ha ha.
Tom
Yeah….. I needed to update to php 8.2…. So I have. But the old theme doesn’t work. I don’t like this theme necessarily, but I can fix that once i figure it out.
It’s better than the other themes…..
My first priority is functionality. At least recent comments now works.
Kinda neat actually. I don’t dislike this theme.
Can I blockquote I wonder?
This came from here for testing purposes.
This tests bold.
Tom Scharf,
Ukraine published a payload of 300kg of explosives for those boat drones [I have no independent verification]. That big kaboom on video was explained by an OSINT site as the ship’s own missiles detonating. Did you notice the second drone hit the ship in the same spot as the previous drone? Smart!
Edit test.
Nope, no edit of comments.
Italic test
Test of bold using the ‘strong’ command.
Test of highlight command.
Test of subscript command: H2O
Test of the ‘break’ command.
The {Strong} command works for bolding.
The Italic command works.
The blockquote command works.
Test of link to external source: https://shop.dreisilker.com/marathon-k160/
Lucia,
Odd that bold doesn’t work, but ‘strong’ does. Everything else seems the same except for no edit.
Bold works doesn’t it? I tested it earlier and thought it did. Just using angle-bracket b close-angle-bracket and angle-bracket slash b close-angle-bracket. This is always been how I’ve formatted bold anyway.
mark,
bold test again….
mark,
yes, it works. Didn’t seem to before.
NBC: Wait for U.S. retaliatory strikes gives Iran-linked militias plenty of time to prepare
Militants have evacuated headquarters and moved weapons in anticipation of American strikes on Iraq and Syria, a senior Iraqi official told NBC News.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-hamas-war-us-strikes-iran-militants-iraq-syria-rcna136934
.
My response is the same as Nellie Bowles: “The key to military strategy is to announce it loudly and clearly a week or two ahead of time, that’s what it said in The Art of War, I’m pretty sure.”
Tom,
I know right? It’s almost as if we don’t actually want to retaliate, except we want to be sure nobody can say we didn’t retaliate.
Or something. Beats me what exactly the game is. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn that somebody along the chain of command somewhere is specifically coordinating this ‘retaliation’ with the Houthis and or Iranians to make sure it doesn’t escalate the situation. It sort of boggles the mind though.
‘Sound and fury, signifying nothing’ applies I believe.
A deal was struck to get both parties out of escalation that neither side wanted
I thought I saw editing (of the type I would get as a commenter.) The message appears for 2 minutes in the comment. I’ll look now. 🙂
Nope. Not editing…
Ok… I must have turned the editing plugin off.
It’s a different one. You’ll see a countdown clock. I set it to two minutes. If you guys think you need more than that, it’s easy to change.
The official blurb…..
CENTCOM Statement on U.S. Strikes in Iraq and Syria
At 4:00 p.m. (EST) Feb. 02, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces conducted airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and affiliated militia groups. U.S. military forces struck more than 85 targets, with numerous aircraft to include long-range bombers flown from United States. The airstrikes employed more than 125 precision munitions. The facilities that were struck included command and control operations centers, intelligence centers, rockets, and missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicle storages, and logistics and munition supply chain facilities of militia groups and their IRGC sponsors who facilitated attacks against U.S. and Coalition forces.
mark bofill: “It’s almost as if we don’t actually want to retaliate, except we want to be sure nobody can say we didn’t retaliate … Beats me what exactly the game is.”
.
Sounds to me like you have a solid grasp of what the game is.
Sounds like some very serious warehouse damage. Could take days and thousands of dollars to repair. I really have no idea what they really did here.