Even setting aside the changing and divided opinion in the Colonies and then the early years of the republic, it's still difficult to get a handle on this phenomenon, because America was already, in ways only dimly understood by the Americans or anyone else, overthrowing the European order of international law, which was itself an evolving tradition. The Americans wanted to form a state that would be recognized both by the Europeans and by themselves as a legitimate state. As I understand it, for Europe at the time, and following in the tradition of Aquinas but under long-developing modifications, "Just War" was something that occurred or could occur between such legitimated states only, which meant it was subject to a range of limitations: how civilians were to be treated, how property and other laws were to be administered by occupying powers, how peace treaties could be finalized, and so on. Where legitimate states didn't exist, different and generally much looser rules applied. That structure made sense to the Americans up to the point that America itself began to make it senseless.
Plus I think you should own being "radical": Anyone who's a pacifist and would have, I assume, been against the Authorization for Use of Military Force is certainly outside the "American mainstream," and I think you take this position on the basis of principled and fundamental critique of that mainstream. It's as you say not "what one hears on TV." I've run across some pretty radical professors, librarians, lawyers, and doctors, too.
Oh no... Scott's already riffed on how murderous he finds this country many times. We've had long discussions on it - one where I ended up trying to persuade him that convergence of factors beyond anyone's foresight or particular intentions, like the pathogens that did most of the killing of Native Americans, that explained why we ended up how we ended up doing what we've done...
Well, they clearly accept that it's "different," but they don't think someone who takes up arms gets a free pass, anymore than a gunman in a conventional "imminent threat" situation has to be read his Miranda rights before being fired upon.
A terrorist abroad who happens to be "one of ours" doesn't just endanger us, he also endangers everyday civilians of that other country. Arguably it's even more our responsibility to handle the problem we've exported to them first.
Except it was always a gray area in the Constitution, and in that way the Constitution had always already caught up with its own limitations. We managed to conquer the best continent on Earth, mostly eradicate or exploit the eradication of the native population, fight one war after another killing large numbers of people not all of whom deserved it, very many of them actually formally American citizens esp. during the Civil War, but all around the world, for centuries. Technology and the targeted killing program have narrowed the scope, brought things materially much closer to the constitutional ideal. Was just tweeting this morning with some folks and Cambodia came up. Turns out that, even before Nixon order invasion of Cambodia, we were bombing for years. Yet a single covert bombing campaign, Operation Menu, lasting one year, is said to have killed some 40,000 to 150,000 people - it's unclear how many were "bad guys." I believe that would be around 20 to 75 times as many casualties as in the targeted killing program since its inception. So are we getting better or worse, or does it not make any difference how much real damage we do?
What's damning about it, from someone with a generally radical point of view like yourself? Why should formal American citizenship make someone any more or less important than anyone else? Why should al-Awlaki, the evident enemy of America who happens to be a citizen, be spared, or be afforded special protections, that a non-American combatant, or suspected combatant, or accidental participant or innocent, isn't? This is one set of questions that is occasionally brought up as we look at the possible infirmities of left-liberal positioning politically and morally.
The declaration of war/emergency/state of exception is a declaration that the very system that makes a trial possible is under attack or in danger, and that therefore it and its premises - in a word, civil peace - have in effect already been suspended. So what are we going to do? Pure legal idealism says, in effect, go on as though nothing happened, and prepare a criminal case: No one "punished" without a trial. Calling for pure legal idealism is a position that can hardly even be spoken in public on September 12th. It hardly even occurs to people. They are generally already living in the state of exception, and it does not even occur to them that calling for militarization of the response means stepping beyond the "normal" law, even if the law happens to include procedures for legalizing its own suspension.
Even setting aside the changing and divided opinion in the Colonies and then the early years of the republic, it's still difficult to get a handle on this phenomenon, because America was already, in ways only dimly understood by the Americans or anyone else, overthrowing the European order of international law, which was itself an evolving tradition. The Americans wanted to form a state that would be recognized both by the Europeans and by themselves as a legitimate state. As I understand it, for Europe at the time, and following in the tradition of Aquinas but under long-developing modifications, "Just War" was something that occurred or could occur between such legitimated states only, which meant it was subject to a range of limitations: how civilians were to be treated, how property and other laws were to be administered by occupying powers, how peace treaties could be finalized, and so on. Where legitimate states didn't exist, different and generally much looser rules applied. That structure made sense to the Americans up to the point that America itself began to make it senseless.
Plus I think you should own being "radical": Anyone who's a pacifist and would have, I assume, been against the Authorization for Use of Military Force is certainly outside the "American mainstream," and I think you take this position on the basis of principled and fundamental critique of that mainstream. It's as you say not "what one hears on TV." I've run across some pretty radical professors, librarians, lawyers, and doctors, too.
Oh no... Scott's already riffed on how murderous he finds this country many times. We've had long discussions on it - one where I ended up trying to persuade him that convergence of factors beyond anyone's foresight or particular intentions, like the pathogens that did most of the killing of Native Americans, that explained why we ended up how we ended up doing what we've done...
It's not a view of Cambodia at all. It's a commentary on how much a president could get away with secretly not very long ago.
Well, they clearly accept that it's "different," but they don't think someone who takes up arms gets a free pass, anymore than a gunman in a conventional "imminent threat" situation has to be read his Miranda rights before being fired upon.
A terrorist abroad who happens to be "one of ours" doesn't just endanger us, he also endangers everyday civilians of that other country. Arguably it's even more our responsibility to handle the problem we've exported to them first.
Except it was always a gray area in the Constitution, and in that way the Constitution had always already caught up with its own limitations. We managed to conquer the best continent on Earth, mostly eradicate or exploit the eradication of the native population, fight one war after another killing large numbers of people not all of whom deserved it, very many of them actually formally American citizens esp. during the Civil War, but all around the world, for centuries. Technology and the targeted killing program have narrowed the scope, brought things materially much closer to the constitutional ideal. Was just tweeting this morning with some folks and Cambodia came up. Turns out that, even before Nixon order invasion of Cambodia, we were bombing for years. Yet a single covert bombing campaign, Operation Menu, lasting one year, is said to have killed some 40,000 to 150,000 people - it's unclear how many were "bad guys." I believe that would be around 20 to 75 times as many casualties as in the targeted killing program since its inception. So are we getting better or worse, or does it not make any difference how much real damage we do?
What's damning about it, from someone with a generally radical point of view like yourself? Why should formal American citizenship make someone any more or less important than anyone else? Why should al-Awlaki, the evident enemy of America who happens to be a citizen, be spared, or be afforded special protections, that a non-American combatant, or suspected combatant, or accidental participant or innocent, isn't? This is one set of questions that is occasionally brought up as we look at the possible infirmities of left-liberal positioning politically and morally.
The declaration of war/emergency/state of exception is a declaration that the very system that makes a trial possible is under attack or in danger, and that therefore it and its premises - in a word, civil peace - have in effect already been suspended. So what are we going to do? Pure legal idealism says, in effect, go on as though nothing happened, and prepare a criminal case: No one "punished" without a trial. Calling for pure legal idealism is a position that can hardly even be spoken in public on September 12th. It hardly even occurs to people. They are generally already living in the state of exception, and it does not even occur to them that calling for militarization of the response means stepping beyond the "normal" law, even if the law happens to include procedures for legalizing its own suspension.