|
Discendo Vox posted:Do you have a reason to think it was "tacitly allowed"? I'm also amused that people seem to think that the only way enlisted personnel would come up with the idea of abusing prisoners was if it was suggested from higher. Anyone else remember the Marine Corps' blood winging scandal? The reason the military has hard rules against hazing isn't because newly-installed commanders sit in their offices thinking, "man I need to come up with some lunatic gladiator academy poo poo to make the subaltern do to each other." As a reminder, certain units had to have formal policies that members weren't allowed to brand each other with coat hangers or play anything called "The Trust Game." Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure why "since 1980" matters, that seems an arbitrary cutoff. Agnosticnixie posted:Wealthy volunteers are probably more likely to follow illegal orders because they see the people on the other side as their lessers, hth. Speaking of which, still waiting for twodot to explain which part of the U.S. Constitution prohibits indefinite detention of foreign enemy combatants.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2017 09:58 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 05:07 |
|
FAUXTON posted:Ahh poo poo I forgot this part of the Bush years. Haven't forgot the "we don't torture prisoners" ("torture" and "prisoners" being definitions micro-engraved on the tips of a set of high-speed all-terrain motorized goalposts) part though. My favorite was "waterboarding isn't torture", I guess they were just doing it for fun then?
|
# ? Jan 12, 2017 10:35 |
Dead Reckoning posted:
Ok, fair enough I guess. And for the record I don't intend to imply that members of the military are uniquely horrible or likely to commit torture or other war crimes. I just think pretty much ever human being responds to incentives and the military -- just like most other institutions large enough to avoid external oversight -- has an internal structure that too often encourages looking the other way and plausible deniability. War crimes are hardly the only example of this -- look at enforcement or rather non-enforcement of sexual harrassment, assault, and rape charges in military settings. People in the military aren't any more or less moral than anyone else, they just live in a system that's structured to prioritize authority over justice in certain situations.
|
|
# ? Jan 12, 2017 15:08 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:And for the record I don't intend to imply that members of the military are uniquely horrible or likely to commit torture or other war crimes. It's still pretty lovely and sanctimonious though. Are you saying that, if you got drafted, you'd probably go along with torturing another human being out of deference and fear of being a dissenter? If not, why would you assume that people in the military are less moral than you? Even if we assume that looking the other way is rampant in the military (and lol, it is) that is very different from compliance with unlawful orders, which is what twodot and I were talking about. Your opinions about sexual assault in the military are misinformed. It's actually rather vexing to do an apples-to-apples comparison, but the data seems to suggest that military members commit sexual assault at the same or lower rates than their civilian counterparts, especially once you control for things like the demographics of the military vs the general population. (For example, a lot of the headlines trumpeting "XX% of women in the military report having been the victim of a sexual assault" accidentally use a number that includes women who were assaulted prior to joining the service, or who were assaulted by non-service members.) The reason the story has such resonance in the public eye is that the only acceptable number of military sexual assaults is zero, and because the military has become incredibly good at suppressing a lot of other crimes, but has not yet been successful with sexual assault.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2017 18:55 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Speaking of which, still waiting for twodot to explain which part of the U.S. Constitution prohibits indefinite detention of foreign enemy combatants. quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. quote:Mr. Nice! already answered your question (Congress, preventing/reversing any attempt to transfer detainees), so I felt no need to pile on.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2017 20:11 |
|
I can't believe people are still entertaining your dumb derail. You've had multiple people explain why all of your points are dumb, and all that you have in response is "I think things should be different." Please go start a new thread to argue about Obama's inability to overcome the entire rest of the government in releasing the last of the GTMO detainees and please stop making GBS threads up the SCOTUS thread with this stupid, non-SCOTUS related derail. EDIT: I finally remember why twodot was familiar to me. He used to constantly poo poo up the gay marriage thread with stupid loving derails about polygamy until a mod told him to knock it the gently caress off. Please do not engage twodot in further discussion on this matter. He is just trolling you with this derail. You will never convince him of anything due to this. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jan 12, 2017 |
# ? Jan 12, 2017 20:26 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Your opinions about sexual assault in the military are misinformed. It's actually rather vexing to do an apples-to-apples comparison, but the data seems to suggest that military members commit sexual assault at the same or lower rates than their civilian counterparts, especially once you control for things like the demographics of the military vs the general population. (For example, a lot of the headlines trumpeting "XX% of women in the military report having been the victim of a sexual assault" accidentally use a number that includes women who were assaulted prior to joining the service, or who were assaulted by non-service members.) The reason the story has such resonance in the public eye is that the only acceptable number of military sexual assaults is zero, and because the military has become incredibly good at suppressing a lot of other crimes, but has not yet been successful with sexual assault. So wait, are you actually going to link any numbers, or are you just going to say "actually, all the studies and statistics you've seen are wrong" and leave us to hunt down whatever source you're using for that claim?
|
# ? Jan 12, 2017 20:54 |
|
I might, but it's been a few years since I dug through the the SAPR data. It's a complex question ("is the military worse about sexual assault than their civilian counterparts?") that ends up being largely about how you define your terms. The public perception of the issue is largely influenced by coverage of individual scandals than by hard data. twodot posted:I'm ignoring your nonsense about legal doctrine, because it's obviously just a boring Socratic argument where I say a thing, and then you say "Well what about this Court decision that disagrees with you" and I say "Well clearly I disagree with it". If you think my reasoning leads to some outcome you think I think will be unfortunate, just show where the trap is. If you're desperate to have it, I'll play along because you did eventually answer my questions. Here's the part: (full text of the 4th amendment) This isn't some Socratic thing, you claimed that the military's continued detention of enemy combatants at Gitmo was both illegal and unconstitutional, but you're wrong, and not in a "well we disagree, but both sides have valid points and a judge might see it either way," you're wrong in the sense that there is literally nothing in the western legal tradition that supports your position, it has never successfully been argued before any court, and to my knowledge there has never even been an attempt to argue it. I'm really enjoying watching you stubbornly fumble your way forward, because I suspect it would (metaphorically) kill you to admit you were wrong. Also, "I thought <the full text of a constitutional amendment> was obvious" is like a giant loving beacon visible from space that you have no idea what you're talking about. twodot posted:You aren't going to clarify why you think Congress has standing after the person posted the decision that said Congress didn't have standing to sue for merely misallocated funds that were correctly appropriated? Also if that's your remedy are we agreed that if Obama succeeds in releasing the prisoners prior to someone getting a court order, no one has any sort of recourse to undo the supposedly illegal actions that released them? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jan 12, 2017 |
# ? Jan 12, 2017 20:59 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:🤔 Well, I'm not sure why you quoted the warrant clause, since no one at Gitmo was arrested pursuant to a warrant. Holding them definitely constitutes a seizure, but it is a reasonable one pursuant to military exigency and the need to keep them from returning to the fight against the United States. quote:This isn't some Socratic thing, you claimed that the military's continued detention of enemy combatants at Gitmo was both illegal and unconstitutional, but you're wrong, and not in a "well we disagree, but both sides have valid points and a judge might see it either way," you're wrong in the sense that there is literally nothing in the western legal tradition that supports your position, it has never successfully been argued before any court, and to my knowledge there has never even been an attempt to argue it. I'm really enjoying watching you stubbornly fumble your way forward, because I suspect it would (metaphorically) kill you to admit you were wrong. quote:It's not really an answerable question, because Obama emptying out Gitmo against the wishes of Congress is such a radical hypothetical that any hypothetical remedy is going to turn heavily on which superpower you give him via the power of fiat. edit: quote:Also, "I thought <the full text of a constitutional amendment> was obvious" is like a giant loving beacon visible from space that you have no idea what you're talking about.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2017 21:23 |
|
twodot posted:I'm claiming this is unreasonable given there isn't an actual fight against the United States, to the extent there is ongoing violence against the United States, that can never be concluded. All you did was quote the 4th Amendment, without bothering to argue in any way how the text of that amendment supports your argument. I mean, come on, man. The fact is, there's a difference between something being morally wrong and legally wrong. Is holding people in Guantanamo until the day they die morally wrong? Of course. Is it legally wrong? Nothing that you've posted thus far demonstrates any actual legal analysis as to why this is the case.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2017 22:25 |
Dead Reckoning posted:
This is . . . exactly my point. Military members are just people like anybody else, apart from demographic differences (i.e., younger and maler than the rest of the population). There's no special Morality Bonus you get from joining the military, you're still just a person. Dead Reckoning posted:It's still pretty lovely and sanctimonious though. Are you saying that, if you got drafted, you'd probably go along with torturing another human being out of deference and fear of being a dissenter? If not, why would you assume that people in the military are less moral than you? Everybody likes to think that if they were in the Milgram Experiment or the Stanford Prison experiment they'd be one of the people who stood up and objected, not one of the people who followed along. But those experiments,as well as historical experience, tell us that most people follow along most of the time. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
# ? Jan 13, 2017 02:31 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Everybody likes to think that if they were in the Milgram Experiment or the Stanford Prison experiment they'd be one of the people who stood up and objected, not one of the people who followed along. But those experiments,as well as historical experience, tell us that most people follow along most of the time. They're also bad experiments and in the case of Milgram, extensively cherry-picked data by the researcher.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2017 02:42 |
UrbanLabyrinth posted:They're also bad experiments and in the case of Milgram, extensively cherry-picked data by the researcher. Yeah, fair point, but that doesn't mean they were wrong, either (which is why I also cited to the historical record).
|
|
# ? Jan 13, 2017 02:44 |
|
In actual SCOTUS news (sort of; this is from Beckles v. US back at the end of November), here's Justice Breyer wrapping himself around the axle trying to ask a question:quote:7 JUSTICE BREYER: This is -- this is a fairly Or, if you want to hear it, it starts at around 17:34. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2016/15-8544
|
# ? Jan 13, 2017 02:46 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, fair point, but that doesn't mean they were wrong, either (which is why I also cited to the historical record). It kinda does though. They are bad experiments and their conclusions are very, very suspect.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2017 03:08 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The military can detain enemy combatants more or less indefinitely until the conclusion of hostilities, and I don't think Al Queda is going to surrender any time soon. Is this meaningful, given that Al Qaeda is more of a symbolic franchise that any random group of pissed off sunnis in a warzone can brand themselves rather than a formal organization? quote:This isn't something George W. Bush made up either, it's explicitly permitted by the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court held in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the government can detain foreign national enemy combatants indefinitely in accordance with the laws of war. Although the Court held in Rasul v. Bush that detainees have a right to challenge their designation as enemy combatants, this isn't the same thing as a trial, and the military already meets this burden through their Combatant Status Review process. (The detainees have been able appeal the military's decision to the federal courts since Boumediene v. Bush.) The whole scheme is approved by Congress and has survived multiple legal challenges, so that's about as lawful as an order can get. Is it really that funny? It seems pretty reasonable to be mad about a legalized torture camp, regardless of the thread.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 04:29 |
|
tekz posted:Is this meaningful, given that Al Qaeda is more of a symbolic franchise that any random group of pissed off sunnis in a warzone can brand themselves rather than a formal organization? If you identify yourself as a member of al qaeda, they can detain you as a member of al qaeda, regardless of if al qaeda thinks of you as a member
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 04:49 |
|
So that lawsuit CREW filed against Trump is absolutely going to get dismissed on standing right?
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 19:37 |
|
SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of Texas in their voter ID case but Roberts basically 'wink wink, nudge nudge' implied that he wants to rehear the issue once Trump appoints Scalia Mark II
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 20:00 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of Texas in their voter ID case but Roberts basically 'wink wink, nudge nudge' implied that he wants to rehear the issue once Trump appoints Scalia Mark II In a 6-3 decision stamped forever.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 21:21 |
It was stated in the conference today that we can expect a nominee within the next week or two, so that day will be here shortly.
|
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 22:17 |
|
I fully expect a filibuster. I'm iffy on McConnell pushing the button and ending the filibuster.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:06 |
|
They better filibuster.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:20 |
If McConnell is going to end it, make him end it.
|
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:21 |
|
Rygar201 posted:I fully expect a filibuster. I'm iffy on McConnell pushing the button and ending the filibuster. McConnell was on Fox News Sunday yesterday and was asked if he would remove the filibuster. His response was, "The nominee will be confirmed." The host pressed on whether or not that meant they would remove the filibuster, and McConnell deadpan replied, "the nominee will be confirmed" in the most matter-of-fact way a person could. So yes, they will push the button.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:22 |
|
Good. Make them go full loving nuclear and own every god awful thing that's going to happen in the next several years. Maybe if the country isn't hosed beyond belief Dems will show up in 2018 and take at least one chamber of Congress, or not lose as badly as they will otherwise, and actually show up in 2020 to take back control. Assuming women and minorities can still vote by then, since nationwide voter suppression is very high up on the right wing wishlist.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:26 |
|
Rabble posted:McConnell was on Fox News Sunday yesterday and was asked if he would remove the filibuster. His response was, "The nominee will be confirmed." The host pressed on whether or not that meant they would remove the filibuster, and McConnell deadpan replied, "the nominee will be confirmed" in the most matter-of-fact way a person could. Nice of him to drop the pretense that Advise and Consent is an actual thing and that he's nothing but a rubber stamp for anything the executive wants. Also if they ram some right wing nut on to the court ending the filibuster, the next Dem president should state that the seat is illegitimate and add 2 more seats to the court. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jan 23, 2017 |
# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:27 |
|
mcmagic posted:Also if they ram some right wing nut on to the court ending the filibuster, the next Dem president should state that the seat is illegitimate and add 2 more seats to the court. The next one with majorities in both houses of Congress.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:49 |
|
Rabble posted:McConnell was on Fox News Sunday yesterday and was asked if he would remove the filibuster. His response was, "The nominee will be confirmed." The host pressed on whether or not that meant they would remove the filibuster, and McConnell deadpan replied, "the nominee will be confirmed" in the most matter-of-fact way a person could. What benefit would being coy about this provide unless it was a bluff? That the filibuster was removed for the appointment of federal judges at every other level provides ample ammo to justify removing it for SCOTUS appointments, as far as I think the public is concerned. I would wonder what the optics of pulling out all the stops for Trump to appoint justices would be in the case of his eventual meltdown and ouster. I wonder if they are hesitant to further hitch themselves to the Trump wagon.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 04:04 |
|
tekz posted:Is it really that funny? It seems pretty reasonable to be mad about a legalized torture camp, regardless of the thread.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 04:15 |
|
mcmagic posted:Nice of him to drop the pretense that Advise and Consent is an actual thing and that he's nothing but a rubber stamp for anything the executive wants. Why stop at 2? Add fifty brown kindergarten girls to the court.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 05:09 |
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Why stop at 2? Add fifty brown kindergarten girls to the court. In a 50-9 ruling the SC holds that paid recess is a constitutional right for people of all ages
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 05:14 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's not just that he was arguing that Gitmo was bad, he was trying to argue that its existence was facially unconstitutional & illegal, and that everyone there was following illegal orders. That he was apparently unfamiliar with or uninterested in the legal history of detaining enemy combatants while making this claim was the funny part.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 05:20 |
|
U-DO Burger posted:In a 50-9 ruling the SC holds that paid recess is a constitutional right for people of all ages The Democrats would have a majority for a hundred years if this happened.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 05:20 |
|
Why is Ben Cardin, who is in a safe seat, playing footsie with voting for a possible Trump SCOTUS nominee. Any Democrat voting for any Trump nominee should face a primary challenge as they are facilitating the republican's theft of the seat.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:19 |
|
In theory he could nominate someone not crazy. I know. But he could!
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:25 |
|
mcmagic posted:Why is Ben Cardin, who is in a safe seat, playing footsie with voting for a possible Trump SCOTUS nominee. Any Democrat voting for any Trump nominee should face a primary challenge as they are facilitating the republican's theft of the seat. Maybe this time if we show them we're reasonable they'll agree to compromise!
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:28 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:In theory he could nominate someone not crazy. It doesn't matter who he nominates. The seat is not his to fill.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:32 |
|
mcmagic posted:Why is Ben Cardin, who is in a safe seat, playing footsie with voting for a possible Trump SCOTUS nominee. Any Democrat voting for any Trump nominee should face a primary challenge as they are facilitating the republican's theft of the seat.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:46 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 05:07 |
|
mcmagic posted:It doesn't matter who he nominates. The seat is not his to fill. You know, with the election so recent, and because there's so much you have to learn and become used to when one becomes President, there really shouldn't be any Supreme Court Justice nominations for at least the first two years. You know, that way it can get the full attention it deserves.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:56 |