US General Election 2016

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Personally my biggest fears lie in the fact that I dont believe in the American political system. I dont believe its got robust safeguards, I dont believe it has any moral core and I dont believe it provides protection against extreme government.

I mean the US says all people are equal under the law but you still had segregation as government implemented policy under the law. You had the witchtrials, sorry MCcarthy years of reds under the bed and after Peril harbour you took completely innocent American-Japanese and locked them up in massive open prisons and tore families apart for no reason other than a desire for blood and revenge. And more recently your government perfectly legally under your constitution thought torture which just peachy, and so was farming your torture out to some of the most horrendous violent regimes in the world.

As far as I can tell if a US President really wants to do something he can. And if Trump wants to lock up all US Muslims in 'internment camps' why not- youve done it before. If he wants to 'purge' the country of weak influences- ie anyone on the left- he can you've been there before too. If he wants to he could 'heal' the racial problem by keeping the races seperate in public places- you've been there before too. Hell you can drop a nuke on civilian targets if your President and get away with it.

And as far as I can tell at the time all these things happened it was all perfectly hunky-dory and fine by the seemingly infinitely flexibile morality of the US political system which seems incapable of protecting against such abuses of power. }}}

I think that's a very truthful reminder, Petty. But do you know of any country with better safeguards? Britain has been much better in the 20th century, but the fact that it wasn't much better in the past hints at a more evolved population, not structural safeguards. (Though as occupying powers go, Britain was much better than most).

Eldo - I didn't know that was actually policy. I have never seen anyone say that... sounds like something Bush would have done though.

Britain has been much better in the 20th century, but the fact that it wasn't much better in the past hints at a more evolved population, not structural safeguards.- Halfy

{{I think the UK is more robust in safeguarding against such actions, but whilst I think its more robust I don't think its actually robust. Just more robust than your system seems to be in the modern age.
A large part of it is circumstances. The US is more often in a position to abuse power in its own interests than the UK these days.
But in the 20th Century when the UK has had to abandon on moral pretense and be the real bad guys for the 'greater good' they have. You have to look no further than the tactics used in NI including pretending to be terrorists shooting civilians to justify opening fire on the general crowd and specific targets, and falsifying evidence to convict innocent men.
I would say the difference is only that those things were done in secret and discovered later and were never 'official public policy' whereas in the US you can actually do shit like that openly in the legislative procedure if you can think of a way to word it. So you dont send people to be tortured, of course not, you partake in renditions. You dont racially discriminate against black people, of course not, you treat them equally under the law, but just separate from all the white folks ect}}}}

Getting back to the Trump movement, here is the most fascinating and illuminating look inside that I've seen, going a long way to explain what was going on.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ringside-steve-bannon-trump-tower-president-elects-strategist-180001628.html?ref=gs

halfwise wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Personally my biggest fears lie in the fact that I dont believe in the American political system. I dont believe its got robust safeguards, I dont believe it has any moral core and I dont believe it provides protection against extreme government.

I mean the US says all people are equal under the law but you still had segregation as government implemented policy under the law. You had the witchtrials, sorry MCcarthy years of reds under the bed and after Peril harbour you took completely innocent American-Japanese and locked them up in massive open prisons and tore families apart for no reason other than a desire for blood and revenge. And more recently your government perfectly legally under your constitution thought torture which just peachy, and so was farming your torture out to some of the most horrendous violent regimes in the world.

As far as I can tell if a US President really wants to do something he can. And if Trump wants to lock up all US Muslims in 'internment camps' why not- youve done it before. If he wants to 'purge' the country of weak influences- ie anyone on the left- he can you've been there before too. If he wants to he could 'heal' the racial problem by keeping the races seperate in public places- you've been there before too. Hell you can drop a nuke on civilian targets if your President and get away with it.

And as far as I can tell at the time all these things happened it was all perfectly hunky-dory and fine by the seemingly infinitely flexibile morality of the US political system which seems incapable of protecting against such abuses of power. }}}

I think that's a very truthful reminder, Petty.  But do you know of any country with better safeguards?  Britain has been much better in the 20th century, but the fact that it wasn't much better in the past hints at a more evolved population, not structural safeguards.  (Though as occupying powers go, Britain was much better than most).

I think flexible morality, as Petty puts it, is the stock-in-trade of politicians everywhere. But before condemning flexibility outright I'd like to point out that a system that's morally rigid enough to protect against all the above abuses would also have been too rigid to allow for all of the reinterpretations of law that have led to greater civil rights for both our nations during the 20th century. In the balance, I think I'd be in favor of flexibility 8 times out of 10.

Lancebloke wrote:Eldo - I didn't know that was actually policy. I have never seen anyone say that... sounds like something Bush would have done though.

I don't really know what to say. I'm not sure if you're insinuating that I'm making this stuff up though so I wanted to reply (apologies if I've misread you). I posted some links before but here are a bunch more along with select quotes. The full articles include more information, and a ton can be found by Googling this. It's gotten plenty of coverage over the past five or so years. If any of y'all want to continue to argue that this doesn't constitute war crimes, feel free to have the last word. I give up on this thread.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-obama-administrations-drone-strike-dissembling/473541/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/

The documents show that the military designated people it killed in targeted strikes as EKIA — "enemy killed in action" — even if they were not the intended targets of the strike. Unless evidence posthumously emerged to prove the males killed were not terrorists or "unlawful enemy combatants," EKIA remained their designation, according to the source. That process, he said, “is insane. But we’ve made ourselves comfortable with that. The intelligence community, JSOC, the CIA, and everybody that helps support and prop up these programs, they’re comfortable with that idea.”

The source described official U.S. government statements minimizing the number of civilian casualties inflicted by drone strikes as "exaggerating at best, if not outright lies."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333

The first round of missiles struck a tent in Zowi Sidgi, a village in North Waziristan, at dusk on 6 July 2012. A small group of miners and woodcutters had gathered there for dinner, according to Amnesty International's Mustafa Qadri.

The tent burned. Friends and family members came running to help. A moment later, there was another drone strike. Many of the people who had come to assist their friends and relatives in the tent were also killed.

Altogether 18 people died in the two rounds of drone strikes. One of the victims was a 14-year-old boy. The strikes in Zowi Sidgi fall into a special category of attacks, said Qadri, a lethal operation that includes two phases.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

As the drone circled it let off the first of its Hellfire missiles, slamming into a small house and reducing it to rubble. When residents rushed to the scene of the attack to see if they could help they were struck again.

According to reports at the time, three local rescuers were killed by a second missile whilst a further strike killed another three people five minutes later. In all, somewhere between 17 and 24 people are thought to have been killed in the attack.

The Datta Khel assault was just one of the more than 345 strikes that have hit Pakistan's tribal areas in the past eight years but it reveals an increasingly common tactic now being used in America's covert drone wars – the "double-tap" strike.

More and more, while the overall frequency of strikes has fallen since a Nato attack in 2011 killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and strained US-Pakistan relations, initial strikes are now followed up by further missiles in a tactic which lawyers and campaigners say is killing an even greater number of civilians. The tactic has cast such a shadow of fear over strike zones that rescuers often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack.

http://www.gq.com/story/drone-uav-pilot-assassination#ixzz2iaYYQDWJ

Quoting a former drone operator:

I’m ashamed to have called any of you assholes brothers in arms. Combat is combat. Killing is killing. This isn’t a video game. How many of you have killed a group of people, watched as their bodies are picked up, watched the funeral, then killed them too?

Yeah, it’s not the same as being on the ground. So fucking what? Until you know what it is like and can make an intelligent meaningful assessment, shut your goddamn fucking mouths before somebody shuts them for you.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of  civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.

The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a ‘targeted, focused effort’ that ‘has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties.’

...

But research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children.  A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.

Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.

There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration – averaging one every four days. Because the attacks are carried out by the CIA, no information is given on the numbers killed.

‘A plan was quickly hatched to strike Baitullah Mehsud when he attended the man’s funeral,’ according to Washington Post national security correspondent Joby Warrick, in his recent book The Triple Agent. ‘True, the commander… happened to be very much alive as the plan took shape. But he would not be for long.’

The CIA duly killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud in a drone strike that killed at least five others. Speaking with the Bureau, Pulitzer Prize-winner Warrick confirmed what his US intelligence sources had told him: ‘The initial target was no doubt a target anyway, as it was described to me, as someone that they were interested in. And as they were planning this attack, a possible windfall from that is that it would shake Mehsud himself out of his hiding place.’

Up to 5,000 people attended Khwaz Wali Mehsud’s funeral that afternoon, including not only Taliban fighters but many civilians.  US drones struck again, killing up to 83 people. As many as 45 were civilians, among them reportedly ten children and four tribal leaders. Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud escaped unharmed, dying six weeks later along with his wife in a fresh CIA attack.

Eldo - don't worry. I wasn't questioning your integrity! I have never looked in much depth at the drone program.

That types of strikes described is exactly how terrorists work. Draw people in with the first hit and kill lots more with the second.

David H wrote:On re-reading the above Blue, I wonder if I may have misunderstood your intentions when you spoke of "calling out" people.

In the usage I know, the phrase "to call someone out" means to challenge somebody to a fight or a duel. It's the language of Old West gunfighters, thugs and bullies. Even when used figuratively, to me there's an underlying implication of violence, just as when it's said that somebody "needs to be taught some respect" I imagine thugs with baseball bats.

Looking back at all your comments I'm pretty sure this isn't what you were intending, but in these times there are people I'm sure do intend the implied threat, especially on the internet where there's no consequences to inflammatory language.

Do you see now why I was concerned?

Ah, yes, it definitely wasn't meant to call out the voters per se. More Trumps government and it's policies. Both when they turn out to be blatant lies to get elected ("drain the swamp"/appoints range of hollywood insiders) and when they are dangerously reactionary. (Appointment of Bannon, muslim registers, planning to deport 11 million people are just some of the latest prominent examples.)

You need to do what you can to call this out to the legislative and to inform the public mood, imho.

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:In general I'd say teh difference betwen Obama and Trump matters, as while Obama has had his obvious failings as a president, he has also had his clear strenghts. My view as stated earlier is that he has been nudging the country in the right direction for eight years. And he seems a decent human being.

Now, the problem with Trump is that besides being the polar pposite of Obama in his views of all the points in that quote, racism, sexism, cruelty, he has also seems inclined to exacerbate exacerbate Obamas failings re alleged war crimes et so on. Not only is he for drone strikes, but he wants to target terrorists families. He wants to introduce torture. He reportedly asked an official security adviser three times why he couldn't just use nuclear weapons.

Obamas failings in areas where american presidents traditionally fail simply are not comparable to me.

Why do you keep trying to minimize the war crimes committed under the Obama administration? Earlier you seemed to imply that they only counted as war crimes under a technicality, though I wasn't sure if I'd interpreted your post correctly, and now you call them alleged. Are the family members of terrorists killed at weddings and funerals by the drone program any less dead because Obama presents a more respectable face to the world? What on earth does "seem[ing] a decent human being" mean in this context?

While I don't think that Obama is remotely as flawed a candidate as Trump is, portraying him as Trump's polar opposite is simply not true. On immigration, Trump's biggest difference with "the establishment" is, again, rhetoric. There are already walls/fences along much of the US-Mexico border and Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any President in US history. Obviously Trump has suggested he'd be even worse, but that does not make him the singular threat to democracy and/or humanity that many on the left seem intent as presenting him as.

Ah, sorry, I think my lawyeristic tendencies came to the fore here. My "war crimes, per definition" was aimed at my claim that with the american military interventionist foregin policy just about every president will have commited war crimes. To avoid quibbles about just what a war crimes constitutes in each and every case. My "allegedly" was just a lawyers reflex, legal criminal responsibility traditionally being the realm of the courts. I can see how it could be read differently though.

Of course the Obama administration commiting war crimes in no way mitigates the fact of the crimes commited. I have my reservations with Obama, with the military industrial complex that defines american foreing policy, and similarly these reservations was at least as strong with regards to Clinton. (A "hawk" if ever there was one.)

What my claim was, was that in every of these aspects Trump has promised during his campaign to go further than the Obama administration. Perhaps to apply to his base, but still. We can obviously not see that in policy yet, as Trump actually isn't going into office until next year, at this point in time it's all conjecture, but all we have to judge him on is his statements of intent.

Eldorion wrote:

I don't think that was what it was trying to say, really.   But that on these values, if followed up in policy, we cannot agree.. The quote doesn't call Trump's supporters any of the things it calls Trump himself out for. It does however blame them for enabling, and refuse corroberation on those values, on that basis.

Something about pots and kettles comes to mind here.

Well, I think we can agree that one should not accept the unnaceptable, in any case. But there is a meassure of degrees here. And the Trump election moves this discussion of what is acceptable from a human point of view, into entirely new areas. Racism, myoginy, freedom of speech, climate change. These are all questions that aren't black and white. But from Obama to Trump, the answer of the executive governement in the US to these questions is still in the move from the one to the other. Climate change is no less real because the right wing f politics in america has decided to make a political point of it and get the casualties of a suffering highly polluting manufacturing and energy industry on board. Is it a shock that West Virginia and the "rust belt" decided to vote for a climate change denier?

But, hey, I take your point. It's certainly good to call out the hipocrisy among liberals too. And maybe to have a more level headed view of Trumps policy statements in context.

But before condemning flexibility outright I'd like to point out that a system that's morally rigid enough to protect against all the above abuses would also have been too rigid to allow for all of the reinterpretations of law that have led to greater civil rights for both our nations during the 20th century.- David

{{I think thats mainly true of the US but not elsewhere. Other democracies across the same time period have managed to advance civil liberties and individual rights as well as collective rights for groups such as low paid or disabled or unemployed or sick, without their governments also endorsing at different times torture, racism and prison camps for whole ethnic sections of their own population.
Not that I claiming all other countries are lily white on these matters, of course not, but America of the civilised western nations seem to be leader of the pack on this. And its mainly only in America where the govenrment can do this openly as government policy rather than secretly and getting caught later.
And there must be a reason for that and I think that reason is the US political system lacks appropriate safeguards for the modern era, and that with a Trump President and the nutters he seems determined to appoint to High Office, is the combination that worries me.
There is nothing I hear Trump at his worst saying he will do that the US has not at some point already done in the past- so I no reason why he cant do it again now. You have the exact same set up now as allowed it in the past. Only worse as he would be doing a lot of these things all at once.}}

I think there has grown up a "relativety of truth" situation in the US that has served to harness the essentially cultural divide that has formed in the country. As poeple now have a distinclty opposite view of what is the factual reality on a given question, they also inhabit distinctly different realities. Both becoming echo chambers without real dialogue, as have been exemplified by the way the role facebook news has come to the forefront of political debate recently. When people disagree on the basics of reality how can you have any sort of dialogue?

I think by finding some basic but of common ground in human rights and commonly shared basic values of decency and humanity. Against discrimination, torture etc Politics aside, that is what I think is where we need to make all people meet and agree. Then politics comes without the real danger democracy at it's worst has shown to be able to harbour in the past.

I could certainly be biased, my views on political views are probably center, but left to center, and that is in Europe. But I think these should be basic general values we all agree on.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But before condemning flexibility outright I'd like to point out that a system that's morally rigid enough to protect against all the above abuses would also have been too rigid to allow for all of the reinterpretations of law that have led to greater civil rights for both our nations during the 20th century.- David

{{I think thats mainly true of the US but not elsewhere. Other democracies across the same time period have managed to advance civil liberties and individual rights as well as collective rights for groups such as low paid or disabled or unemployed or sick, without their governments also endorsing at different times torture, racism and prison camps for whole ethnic sections of their own population.
Not that I claiming all other countries are lily white on these matters, of course not, but America of the civilised western nations seem to be leader of the pack on this. And its mainly only in America where the govenrment can do this openly as government policy rather than secretly and getting caught later.
And there must be a reason for that and I think that reason is the US political system lacks appropriate safeguards for the modern era, and that with a Trump President and the nutters he seems determined to appoint to High Office, is the combination that worries me.
There is nothing I hear Trump at his worst saying he will do that the US has not at some point already done in the past- so I no reason why he cant do it again now. You have the exact same set up now as allowed it in the past. Only worse as he would be doing a lot of these things all at once.}}

Hm, I'm a bit unsure what safeguards one could say the American political system lacks in relation to other countries in the western world from a constitutional point of view. If the eight years of the Obama administration showed us anything it is how safeguarded the system is against change. Obviously realities have changeed now, with the republicans both in the WH, to the degree Trump is a Republican, and in the majority in both houses in the Congress, that majority is however very slim in the Senate. The US president is undoubtedly among the strongest positions of democraticaly elected national leaders in the western world, with the power in foreign relations, executive powers and charge of the military. But I don't see many western democracies having a stronger check on a majority government. See Great Brittain under the current Tory governement for instance.

Traditionally the legal check on the power of a majority of parliment is the consitution, and through the constitution the courts.

The constitution is the foundational document of the state. It enshrines the different branches of government and their competences, in relation to themselves and in relation to each other. The american constitution is among the most venerated and difficult to change in any country, this is a phenomenon called constitutional conservatism. It is the oldest constitution in the world, bar a certain unwritten one, that is stll in power. (The norwegian is the second oldest, but has been open to change to a much larger degree.) The american constitution as such in theory and comperatively should be a strong protection in relation to violent change in or in the actions of a governement of the US.

We do however see a problem when we look at the courts. The US Supreme Court in particular, as a constitutional court, is arguably more politicized than the court systems in many western countries. Judges appointment by the executive branch is quite normal, but the political nature of the choice of supreme court justices is highly special. And can also have a marked impact on the courts ability to uphold the constitution aganst an encumbant government in a non-partisan way and on the courts ability to function as a check on the other branches of government.

In relation to Europe, I'll also add that the lack of an international court above the nation state in human rights issues, as is the case in Europe with the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, with the competence to make normative judgements about applications of human rights judgements in the nationa state, exist in the US as a check on a governments ability to act in contravention of commonly agreed basic rights of the individual. The US is of course bound by several human rights treaties themselves, but no comparative court to the ECHR exist.

Ah, well. Just some thoughts

http://pitchfork.com/news/69917-donald-trump-demands-apology-from-hamilton-cast-for-harassing-mike-pence/

{{{{ I was hoping you'd chip in on this topic Blue and give me a legal eye on it.

I agree that the major weakness in safeguards in the US is the Courts.
In the Scottish and UK legal systems a huge import and significance is put upon the independence of the judiciary from government. Its sacrosanct. The whole edifice of law rests on it.
The idea of the PM directly appointing judges is abhorrent to the whole thing.
The idea of putting politically motivated judges with a known bias to one political side or another would be beyond thinking.
Non-interference in the judiciary by the government is the basis on which the UK public acceptance of judgements rests. If they are not impartial nor can their judgements be and all trust in the system collapses.

I have always found the idea of government directly involved in the appointing of judges to be dubious at best. Even where it does occur in limited fashion within the rules of our own system I dont like it (I would prefer for example that high profile committees into government activity where a judge is required to chair, the judge be picked solely by a board of representatives of the judiciary, and the government have no say in the appointments)}}}

its better not to play this in public.   thought it might lighten the mood

{{Feeling bad for our UShobbits today with Trumps Health pick, a choice comment on the man-

“He’s an incredible spokesman for free market ideas.”

But my favourite comment was from the man himself who said the problem with health care was "not that more people were getting sick but the marketplace has its hands tied by red tape."

So first, the globally accepted and obvious reason for rising health costs- people living longer and needing more medical aid, the discovery of new treatments, drugs and cures ect no its Big Government red tape and not enough selling people shit. All those pesky tests they have to do to make it safe and ethical.

Goodbye to any healthcare worth a shit for the poor, or any hope of a fair system free at point of need. Sorry America you are going further back into the dark ages of health provision. And I am very, very sorry about that, especially for your poor, mentally ill and all those in need.

I don't get America's immoral and inhumane stance on health care given its claims to being a christian country- America would be the Samaritan that stops to asks the injured person if they can pay for help and if the answers no, walk on by and leave them there on the roadside to suffer and die!    And I don't get why the American people seem to back it when you currently pay more per head of population in tax for healthcare than 90% of western democracies with free health care at point of need- what is wrong with you people?!"!!   You not only don't get free health care at need, you get hit in the sporran for what you don't get and then the cheeky bastards charge you again when you need treatment!   Land of the Free? Land of the fucking clowns more like   }}}

Unfortunately political clout is not concentrated in the poor (or at least they are too disillusioned to use it). Most people who are politically active get their health insurance through their employer, so never really have to deal with it so don't worry about it.

halfwise wrote:Unfortunately political clout is not concentrated in the poor (or at least they are too disillusioned to use it).  Most people who are politically active get their health insurance through their employer, so never really have to deal with it so don't worry about it.

Don't forget the medicare voters. There are a lot of Baby Boomers now who no longer have a personal incentive to spend on healthcare for the young. If we'd just given the Boomers free healthcare back in the 60's they'd have voted for expansions to cover themselves each decade as they aged, and we'd have full coverage medical by now

That's a very incisive point!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/sarah-palin-donald-trump-carrier-deal-crony-capitalism-232139

Sarah Palin is attacking Trump! For the first time I've found a reason to respect her. Didn't realize she had the spine.

Long, but interesting

I think that only accounts for about 1/3 of his supporters. More I think just wanted to aim a missile to break up Washington, but I don't have numbers to back that up. I suppose I could do something useful like look up a poll, but just had a Scottshobbit style drinking bout with some friends last night and can't scare up the energy to look.

just had a Scottshobbit style drinking bout with some friends- Halfy

{{You mean you ended up waking up in a house you've never seen before upside down behind the couch with your kilt round your ears and your naked arse sticking straight up? And onto which your mates have painted a humourous and topical memorial picture of Fidel Castro in permanent black marker and stuck a large cigar up your arse hole?}}}

I'll have to keep that in mind for next time.