Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is really happening in Ukraine

slideshare.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 324 posts

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#311

Post by tptacek »

belorn wrote: post #310
tptacek wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These aren't meaningful rebuttals. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War. It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, b…

How can you have a war without a clear definition on who the enemy is, what goals the war has, and at what point victory can be declared. Perpetual hostile activity is not a war, its a order of existence similar to that of an religion. The time when the US declare peace will not be because of dead terrorists. It won't be because somewhere its more safer. It won't be because some goals has been achieved. It will be be…

I agree entirely! You can't. The 2001 AUMF is scary.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#312

Post by nate_meurer »

tptacek wrote: post #305
nate_meurer wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"The AUMF was a declaration of war. " I'm not really disputing that. I'm saying that using the AUMF to draw comparisons to WW2 is not helpful. >"The comparison to WW2 is simple: during WW2, scores of German-Americans traveled to Europe to fight on behalf of the Nazis." Yes, in uniforms, on the battlefield. We didn't, as far as I know, bomb a dude writing anti-american propaganda in a city far from the battlefield. T…

I don't understand your argument. If an American citizen wears a Nazi uniform while fighting for the Germans in Holland, it's OK that we kill him. But if an American citizen wears the garb of an al Qaeda terrorist while working for al Qaeda in lawless Shabwa Province, Yemen, the site of an ongoing armed conflict between AQAP and the government of Yemen, it's not OK that we kill him. Why not? What's the difference? In…

>"Holder is saying the administration can launch strikes against al Qaeda."

He actually took great care not to say that. He is carefully not limiting the president to action only against AQ. The phrase "al Qaeda and associated forces" is deliberate. He is expressly reserving the power to decide who is "associated" to AQ and in a "leadership" position, and to take lethal action based on those decisions. All of these decisions are completely opaque and unchecked by any power outside of the executive.

The 2001 AUMF is a sideshow. Holder doesn't think he needs it. He has opined that congress has no authority over the president in this area anyway, and that includes military action on U.S. soil:

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/does_eric_holder_know_the_la...

I consider this a dangerous concentration of power that the president should reject. This appears to be the crux of our disagreement, yes?

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#313

Post by nate_meurer »

tptacek wrote: post #309
nate_meurer wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have faithfully channeled John Yoo, articulating the case for U.S. military action directed solely by the president, wherever and whenever he perceives a threat to Americans or American interests. It's bizarre to me that the failures of the Bush administration seem to have done little to damp the enthusiasm for this kind of thinking. You'll note, for example, the growing calls from various government officials to…

He's not channeling John Yoo. The President is acting under the express authorization of Congress, which authorization could be withdrawn, and with it the President's ability to drone strike people simply because they are on hostile soil working with al Qaeda. John Yoo's view of the authority of the "unitary executive" is far more expansive. Of course, what you're actually doing here is invoking a bugbear (John Yoo i…

Well Jeez, I really wasn't trying to invoke a bugbear. I'm reaching for a label. Yoo just happens to be the most prominent articulator (in my mind) of the ideas you guys are promoting. Do you disagree with that characterization? I didn't hear you protest the neo-conservative label, which I personally find much more pejorative.

As I say in my comment above, it seems that our fundamental disagreement is that I perceive a dangerous concentration of power in the executive, and you don't. If that's the case then we're likely at an impasse.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#314

Post by rayiner »

nate_meurer wrote: post #307
rayiner wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yemen is not a war zone in any sense of the word. There is no declared war on Yemeni soil. You could call it a "conflict zone", a term that could be applied to the vast majority of the developing world. I don't understand this preoccupation with "declared wars." Who cares what you call it? The government simply does not have control over vast swaths of Yemen, and militant groups unaligned with the government are us…

You have faithfully channeled John Yoo, articulating the case for U.S. military action directed solely by the president, wherever and whenever he perceives a threat to Americans or American interests. It's bizarre to me that the failures of the Bush administration seem to have done little to damp the enthusiasm for this kind of thinking. You'll note, for example, the growing calls from various government officials to…

> I actually like John Yoo. I disagree with him, but I find no fault with those who don't. But I think it would be intellectually honest for you to admit that you've aligned yourself with a very contentious neo-conservative strain of political philosophy.

You're mixing up two related but distinct issues. Neo-conservatives believe that the authority to engage the military abroad is primarily invested in the President, and he can act to a great degree without interference from Congress. That is a controversial viewpoint. What is much less controversial is that, whatever the division of power may be between the President and Congress when it comes to exercising the sovereign powers of the United States abroad, there is no seat at that table for the judiciary. The idea that the courts are fundamentally domestic institutions, and may not infringe on the exercise of military power abroad except in the narrowest of cases is very broadly embraced.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#315

Post by nate_meurer »

tptacek wrote: post #308
dragonwriter wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We really did declare war against al Qaeda, by name, in 2001 No, we didn't. There are no named persons or organizations in the 2001 AUMF, it is literally a blank-check declaration of war that authorizes the President to write in names. Which is one of the many reasons that people (including Barack Obama -- as President -- have said it needs to be sunsetted.)

You're right, of course; it's not the 2001 AUMF that specifies al Qaeda by name, but rather the 2012 NDAA. The 2001 AUMF authorized force against people and organizations "he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons". Which is al Qaeda and the Taliban, but yes, not by name! And yes, of course, the 2001 AUMF…

>"...Holder has testified under oath that their killing would be unconstitutional."

If you have a citation for this I like to see it. Overall he doesn't seem too committed to this idea. Furthermore, he seems to think that the president is the only legitimate arbiter of the constitutionality of these actions. From http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/does_eric_holder_know_the_la...:

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Holder whether Congress could prohibit the targeted killing of Americans in America. “Do you believe Congress can pass a law prohibiting POTUS to use lethal force on U.S. soil?” he asked directly, explaining he meant the prohibition would apply only where a person did not present an imminent threat.

“I’m not sure that such a bill would be constitutional,” the attorney general responded. “It might run contrary to the Article II powers that the president has.” Article II is the section of the Constitution that lays out the president’s authority as commander in chief of the military.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#316

Post by tptacek »

nate_meurer wrote: post #312
tptacek wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your argument. If an American citizen wears a Nazi uniform while fighting for the Germans in Holland, it's OK that we kill him. But if an American citizen wears the garb of an al Qaeda terrorist while working for al Qaeda in lawless Shabwa Province, Yemen, the site of an ongoing armed conflict between AQAP and the government of Yemen, it's not OK that we kill him. Why not? What's the difference? In…

>"Holder is saying the administration can launch strikes against al Qaeda." He actually took great care not to say that. He is carefully not limiting the president to action only against AQ. The phrase "al Qaeda and associated forces" is deliberate. He is expressly reserving the power to decide who is "associated" to AQ and in a "leadership" position, and to take lethal action based on those decisions. All of these d…

No, it is not.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#317

Post by tptacek »

nate_meurer wrote: post #315
tptacek wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, of course; it's not the 2001 AUMF that specifies al Qaeda by name, but rather the 2012 NDAA. The 2001 AUMF authorized force against people and organizations "he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons". Which is al Qaeda and the Taliban, but yes, not by name! And yes, of course, the 2001 AUMF…

>"...Holder has testified under oath that their killing would be unconstitutional." If you have a citation for this I like to see it. Overall he doesn't seem too committed to this idea. Furthermore, he seems to think that the president is the only legitimate arbiter of the constitutionality of these actions. From http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/does_eric_holder_know_the_la... : At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing…

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ted-cruz-goads-eric-holder-into-a...

I think I'm done with this argument now.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#318

Post by BrandonMarc »

tptacek wrote: post #317
nate_meurer wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"...Holder has testified under oath that their killing would be unconstitutional." If you have a citation for this I like to see it. Overall he doesn't seem too committed to this idea. Furthermore, he seems to think that the president is the only legitimate arbiter of the constitutionality of these actions. From http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/does_eric_holder_know_the_la... : At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing…

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ted-cruz-goads-eric-holder-into-a... I think I'm done with this argument now.

http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1987/01/18

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#319

Post by cLeEOGPw »

darkbot wrote: post #219
cLeEOGPw wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people know that, and the reason they fight for Ukraine to at least in future join EU is because, as they say themselves, in EU at least the laws are valid. And that is true. It has been already stated that in order for Ukraine to join EU it will have to undergo a reform that will rise the transparency and bring it closer to EU standards.

Pretty naive belief. Spain just practically outlawed demonstrations or to publicly criticize the government. Hamburg in Germany has declared 'danger zones' in parts of their city that's, anti-demonstration laws that are even more strict than the ones Ukraine.

It's not a belief, it's just hope. Besides, demonstrations are not their goal. And if they will feel that something is seriously wrong, no laws will stop them from demonstrating anyway, as proved by the current events. And Germany can afford to have such strict laws, because it is little to protest for in Germany, so the protests tend to be more local and relevant to some minority more than the whole population, so getting them out of certain parts I think is reasonable. If German government would be doing something that 90% of population would strongly oppose, I'm pretty sure nobody would care of such laws when half million people come to the forbidden area.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#320

Post by belorn »

tptacek wrote: post #311
belorn wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you have a war without a clear definition on who the enemy is, what goals the war has, and at what point victory can be declared. Perpetual hostile activity is not a war, its a order of existence similar to that of an religion. The time when the US declare peace will not be because of dead terrorists. It won't be because somewhere its more safer. It won't be because some goals has been achieved. It will be be…

I agree entirely! You can't. The 2001 AUMF is scary.

You seem to totally miss the last sentence, so let me reiterate it.

  *The conflict is formless*
The foes in the conflict are not formless, but thats beyond the point. When you have killed 1 000 terrorist, has the war been won? 100 000? a million? 10 millions? The formlessness is the conflict itself, since no one, not even you can define it.

Thus the conflict itself can not be won, it can only be fought perpetually. The deepest spy cannot discern what is needed to be destroyed for victory, and the wise can not device a plan for it.

Post reply on HN