A lot of people also don't like the fact that I think the president ought to kill terrorists in a war with terrorists without judicial review. I don't understand why when our soldiers come across terrorists on the battlefield they can kill them, but if we draw up a list of particularly important terrorists it's somehow a problem and a judge needs to approve it.
It really disturbs me that people think this is a problem - and worse, that they second guess my dedication to civil liberties when I disagree. I never question their dedication to civil liberties, after all. I don't like that they question mine. I don't like McCarthyites.
So, how am I making this "slightly less controversial".
Jason Kuznicki, in this post, makes the important point that the list is not available for public consumption or Congressional review. In a lot of cases, in a war, this is entirely reasonable. You don't publish your plans. And I wouldn't publish intelligence that we have on anyone on this list either. But it seems pretty reasonable to publicize the list itself. Marginal cases can be argued over, which would be a good thing. Ultimately the people on the list probably already suspect they're on the list, so what harm does it do?
The rest of Kuznicki's post falls pretty flat, I think. If he doesn't think presidential war powers are a constraint on the kill list, then he needs to be consistent and apply his logic elsewhere. Obama is using marines in Afghanistan? Well what's preventing him from sending in marines to kill Romney's kids! Kuznicki knows he won't do that but a future president might.
It all gets pretty dumb.
If you want to say the president should have no powers as the commander in chief, then say that. But don't sneak it in the back door by complaining about one program which admittedly probably could be run better. If the president having a list of targets for drones is different from an officer on the ground having a list of targets, I'm not exactly sure what the difference is.
A note to new readers: I get really nasty comments whenever I write about these sorts of issues. If you post such a comment, even if it has other substantive thoughts in the comment, I will delete it.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Daniel, I don't think your position is ungrounded, but I also don't think you are really acknowledging the trickiness of this issue.
ReplyDelete"in a war with terrorists"
Well, the first thing to note here is, is it at all correct to call this a war? It is not a war by the usual definition of war. *Perhaps* that definition needs to be revised, by you just seem to think it is totally unproblematic to say this *is* a war. You might recognize that by the standard definition it is *not* one, and say "I see why many people think this should be handled by criminal justice, but that is inapropriate because X, Y, and Z." If you have ever made that argument, I missed it.
"I never question their dedication to civil liberties, after all. I don't like that they question mine. I don't like McCarthyites."
Daniel, what is up?
Let's say you wrote a post saying "Mockery of the Islamic religion is a hate crime, and should be prosecuted."
Now, I actually don't have the knee-jerk reaction to such laws that most Americans do. Under some circumstances, they might be called for. But...
*Of course* if you called for this people would question your dedication to free speech! They think you are advocating violating it. And it would be absurd for you to answer them by saying "I don't question *your* dedication to free speech!" Because they *aren't* advocating such laws.
And, *of course* if you support the drone strikes people will question your dedication to civil liberties, since they see the strikes as civil liberty violations! Now, I think this is a vexed issue, and I am willing to consider that you might be right and they might be wrong, but really, to call this "McCarthyism" on their part is a bit much!
"I never question their dedication to civil liberties, after all. I don't like that they question mine. I don't like McCarthyites."
Oops, didn't mean to double up that quote from you.
Delete- You mentioned that it's tough to talk about this as a war in a previous post and I'm not sure I got around to responding to you, but I definitely agree. There's a lot that's different about terrorism and al Qaeda and affiliated groups. Even if you are entirely comfortable with thinking about it as a military engagement, it's still a very different sort of military engagement. My point was simply that if engaging al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan is acceptable to you to the extent that a "traditional" war would be, I don't see what the kill list changes about the situation. You are still assessing and going after targets as a military operation. I think a lot of people accept fighting al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan. If Nazis were hiding out in places that we weren't at war with, I don't think people would have seen it as fundamentally different to go after them. So sure - the war on terrorism is different. But to the extent that you accept dealing with al Qaeda with the military (and a lot of people do), you need to be consistent I think.
Delete- On the civil liberties thing... sure. I am not saying my claim wouldn't be contested by anyone. Sure it will - particularly if people disagree with me. The difference between what I am supporting and limiting free speech by anti-Muslims is that my position does not violate civil liberties and theirs does. People may indeed disagree with that, but I that doesn't mean I have to agree with their disagreement! And I don't like the accusation. As for McCarthyites... I don't know... McCarthy went after people as being against American values when what they were really guilty of was now being in political agreement with McCarthy. That seems like a pretty relevant metaphor to me (for some people, of course. Others oppose the use of drones to target terrorists and don't act like that). Again, McCarthy would have contested that characterization of what he was doing then and Greenwald would contest that characterization now. And I think that in both cases it's apt.
The ironic thing is that libertarians get accused of shit like this all the time - often for their foreign policy views no less. They should understand why it bothers me. They're often on the receiving end. Some just can't recognize when they're doing the exact same thing.
I don't think you're against civil liberties, but I find that your views of the United States empire and political realities are sometimes short-sighted.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you're being a whiteboard economist. The executive powers of distance bombing "admittedly probably could be run better". Well, which institution or superhero is going to help correct that problem? You and a band of trained monkeys? The can is open, and the worms aren't coming back. Plus, even if "surgical" weapons are better than boots on the ground (which I doubt), unlike a Marine platoon or Navy artillery, drones are much more likely to be used almost ANYWHERE in the world because of a semblance of a "clean" attack. This is the message the administration is pushing - unlike the Republican guns-akimbo cowboy style, the use of drones isn't "real" warfare, making them more likely to be used invasively in sovereign countries than a brute land attack. Oh, and terrorists don't have to be angry guys with AKs any more - a rebellious teenager on the internet could just as well become an enemy of the state.
Also, do you seriously think there couldn't be a really sociopathic and destructive president in the White House, laced with enough insanity that he might attack his political opponents or in some other way abuse his presidential powers? Romney's family is admittedly a bad example, but the broader, truer implications of executive drone strikes are much worse. You've had guys like Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon and W already. Just somebody with a little more egomania and more powers, and it's really going to get bad. History certainly isn't short of insane rulers.
By the way, I don't use the word "empire" in a loose, contrarian manner - I really mean it, and it's not a joke to me. I'm not sure you as a heartland American realize it (I probably wouldn't were I an American), but normal, healthy nations don't send troops to other side of the world, much less think anything useful is going to come out of it. The right reaction to this mess isn't "What's a more efficient and nicer way to conduct this insurgent-killing business?" but "Stop right now, and get out. Let's start learning how responsible adult nations are supposed to handle geopolitical challenges."
I don't see how it makes me a whiteboard economist, Watoosh. I'm tempted to reply to that point but I feel like maybe it's better that you clarify the point. I am concerned this is along the usual lines of people getting accused of ignoring public choice issues because they are not as typical as the average public choice theorist.
DeleteOf course I think presidents could abuse their powers. That's why we check and balance their power. That's precisely why this post is about making the kill list public. This is why we have a constitution and keep a constitutional culture. Not letting presidents wage wars seems like the wrong solution to me. Liberal institutions that provide institutional constraints on the actions of government are.
I'm not a heartland American. I'm pretty close to the coast.
Calling us an empire is difficult I think, but not wrong. It's so associated with direct territorial control, which ours isn't. But it's not a wrong way to put it. It's not a joke to me either. I agree completely that part of the problem with our imperialism is that we send our troops too freely around the world. Often it is an abbreviated response to allies' needs. But as Iraq showed us, that's not what it always is. This is a very real problem, of course.
Insofar as I am an imperialist, I'm an imperialist that thinks that if we have indirect power elsewhere due to our military and economic strength (both worth having), that ought to be used for good and it ought to stay distinctly indirect. I'm not an imperialist in the sense that I think we should seek out this sort of control, and I'm definitely not an imperialist in the sense that I think we should seek out direct control. But I am a realist that understands that so long as we are technologically and economically dominant we're going to have a fair amount of power and there's no use in not using that well.
*because they are not as libertarian as the typical public choice theorist.
DeleteOn further reflection, lots of ostensibly healthy nations do send troops to thousands of miles away. Still, the scale in which the USA does it is ridiculous.
DeleteAnd I'd even be careful with reasoning on the basis of scale.
DeleteThe relative scale at which we do it is really the result of an implicit (and I suppose in certain ways an explicit) post-war agreement with our allies. Inferring the healthiness of our republic by comparing it to our allies is a dicey line of argument, to say the least.
My view of the heartland is more idiosyncratic (and probably more wrong) than the standard usage dictates - I personally can't think of a better representation of America's heart than the Pennsylvania-Maryland-Virginia-axis. Anyway, what I meant to say was that since you're very invested in understanding the inner workings of the American political machinery, you might not have considered it too much from the outside in.
DeleteThe way you think about the intersection of civil liberties and public choice issues seems strange to me. There's the overarching issue of having thousands of bases and operations around the world, directed by the completely unaccountable military-industrial cartel and other multinational business interests. I presume you understand this. Yet somehow you leave the impression that you think some well-meaning wonks will be able to infiltrate the Pentagon and the White House, and somehow reconstruct this empire-building operation in a way that respects civil liberties?
Maybe this sounds silly to you too, so you'd probably need a democratic way of influencing federal decisionmaking so that less technocrats are needed. The only problem is that quite a lot of the grassroots organizations that dislike tyranny also dislike imperialism, which is troublesome for several powerful entities.
Here's a really silly analogy: you seem like someone who's against chainsaw killing, but not concerned about a known chainsaw killer holding a chainsaw because they might use it to fell trees. It's true that the chainsaw isn't the main culprit (neither are drones), but it makes little sense to think it's liable to be used well.
So, how is it that you would advance the Kuehnian reality-based not-really-imperialism-but-still-kinda-sorta vision that is friendly to civil liberties? Are the current institutions robust enough to support it from corruption, and if not, how to improve them? Hopefully I don't come across as dismissive, because I'm curious.
re: "The way you think about the intersection of civil liberties and public choice issues seems strange to me. There's the overarching issue of having thousands of bases and operations around the world, directed by the completely unaccountable military-industrial cartel and other multinational business interests. I presume you understand this. Yet somehow you leave the impression that you think some well-meaning wonks will be able to infiltrate the Pentagon and the White House, and somehow reconstruct this empire-building operation in a way that respects civil liberties?"
DeleteI don't think this is a fair representation of the way the world works or my view of things.
That is a silly analogy and as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with the argument I'm making.
re: "So, how is it that you would advance the Kuehnian reality-based not-really-imperialism-but-still-kinda-sorta vision that is friendly to civil liberties? Are the current institutions robust enough to support it from corruption, and if not, how to improve them? Hopefully I don't come across as dismissive, because I'm curious."
Well we do a pretty good job - this is why we have elections and courts, right? We elected a guy that departed from the Bush record on all this largely because of the Bush record. The court ruled regarding a lot of abuses in Guantanamo, for example. Those have been implemented. If someone wants to raise a legal challenge to drone warfare and this kill list that would be welcome. That's what the courts are there for.
The United States is clearly in a conventional war with the Taliban. The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan when they facilitated 9/11. The Taliban are free to lay their weapons down at any time and end the war they started.
ReplyDeleteAl Qaeda is extra-governmental but they have declared themselves to be at war with the United States. Al Qaeda is free to lay down their arms at any time and renounce the "war" they started.
What limiting principle do you see on that presidential power? Why would, say, drug traffickers not be subject to execution based on a presidential order?
ReplyDeleteHave drug traffickers declared war on us?
DeleteHave we declared war on drug traffickers?
Are we prosecuting them criminally?
Those seem like three good limiting principles to me.
"Have drug traffickers declared war on us?"
DeleteI'm going to assume you mean deeds, not words. I would say, no more, no less than Al Qaeda. At most, it's a matter of degrees. They've killed many United States law enforcement agents, they have used bombs against United States law enforcement buildings, they have killed US citizens, they have killed many people in allied nations, etc...
"Have we declared war on drug traffickers?"
"Pres. RICHARD M. NIXON: [news conference] We've increased the amount of money for handling the problem of dangerous drugs seven-fold. It will be $600 million this year. This is one area where we cannot have budget cuts because we must wage what I have called total war against public enemy number one in the United States, the problem of dangerous drugs."
I think it can be said the US has declared a War on Drugs.
"Are we prosecuting them criminally?"
I'm not sure what you mean with that one. Obviously, plenty of them are still at large and so have not been prosecuted criminally. But obviously, there are statutes that provide for the prosecution of drug traffickers. Similarly, there are statutes which provide criminal penalties for acts of terrorism. If an active terrorist, member of Al Qaeda was kind enough to come to New York and surrender to the NYPD, I have no doubt state and federal prosecutors would be only too happy to charge him with all sorts of stuff.
Conversely, had you grabbed a member of the Wehrmacht from the front in 1944, you would have had a hard time (barring some exceptions) making a charge stick.