Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

3. I have no problem applying a different standard between how citizens and non-citizens are treated. This doesn't mean I am ok with mistreatment of anyone. It does mean that I think that our constitutional rights don't apply to non-citizens. However, human rights are universal and God-given and we have a moral (the whole God thing) and legal (per treaties and the UN charter) obligation to see that our government respects them. Simple silly examples to illustrate: no Miranda rights but no rectal feeding

So reading is hard or something?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Adder

So reading is hard or something?

I know I'm being insulted, but I don't know what it's about. Or care.

(Plus, it's Adder, so my reaction is like "ain't that cute."

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But do you believe in Canadian Exceptionalism? How about Chinese Exceptionalism? Texan Exceptionalism? And what about the all-important Vatican Exceptionalism?

What the fuck does exceptionalism even mean? It's either tautological (apples are special! they're not oranges! And oranges are special, too, they're not apples!) or xenophobic (apples are special! they're not icky oranges! Oranges, well, they're not special at all.), isn't it?

People throw around this term like it's the password to Aladdin's cave or something. Yet it seems to get used in endlessly stupid or meaningless ways. Come on, guys, we're better than that, aren't we?

Noam Chomsky called - he wants his schtick back.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Noam Chomsky called - he wants his schtick back.

May I just say that if anyone else wants to really slam me, comparing me to a legendary MIT Professor is definitely the way to go. If anyone wants to one-up Not Bob, might I suggest comparing my intellectual acumen to that of Larry Lessig or Eva Silverstein?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I didn't claim we are the be-all and end-all. I said that we have a unique and exceptional history. Our democracy arose after we expelled a foreign power and was constructed from the beginning as a government of laws, not men. We aren't perfect. Who is? But we are like Australia in terms of political evolution. Our distance allowed us to build our institutions, for better or worse, without interference.

But, if you're right, and we're like everybody else....

Then we can withdraw from all those foreign pissing matches where our direct interests are not at stake. Fuck 'em. After all, we're no better than they are. Why should we make sacrifices for people thousands of miles away?

I am putting you down for the "Apples and Oranges are both Special" school of exceptionalism.

As to foreign pissing matches, I'd be very happy if we stopped trying to do any good ourselves using troops and just contributed them to the UN for cases where there really is a broad consensus.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Apparently you didn't read the article or see it on Facebook. I was quoting Andrea Tantaros, a Fox News anchor whose reporting of the release of the CIA Report was as follows:

I did see it. I was reacting to the notion that you were comparing me to her. She was saying "we're awesome, who cares if we torture?" I'm saying "we are not a bunch of two-bit terrorists, we should try to live up to the principles on which this nation was founded (even though, as a whole, we never have -- but many of us continue to try)."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Wonk, since you are the creator of serial responses, I am taking the liberty of using your post to respond to a few others. I hope you don't mind.

1. Thanks to Sebby for the suggestion of the cask strength Makers. A few fingers with one large ice cube makes a conversation with one of my more retrograde clients a mellow one. Instead of arguing about Ferguson, we had a civil discussion about oil shale and came to an agreement on our mutual regard for The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. What's so funny bout peace, love, and understanding, indeed, Declan.

2. I'm with Sidd. We are better than our enemies. I can't believe that this needs to be said. I also believe Not Ironically in American Exceptionalism. I get that our history shows that we have mostly failed to live up to the Enlightenment ideals that our system was founded upon, and I also get that our history shows that torture has been a tool in our arsenal always - from tarring and feathering Tories to scalping Indians to water boarding Filipinos to hooking battery cables to the Vietcong and on and on. But until the War on Terror, it has never been given official approval or public support. You may find this to be a distinction without a difference, but I don't. I'll expand on this point later, maybe.

3. I have no problem applying a different standard between how citizens and non-citizens are treated. This doesn't mean I am ok with mistreatment of anyone. It does mean that I think that our constitutional rights don't apply to non-citizens. However, human rights are universal and God-given and we have a moral (the whole God thing) and legal (per treaties and the UN charter) obligation to see that our government respects them. Simple silly examples to illustrate: no Miranda rights but no rectal feeding.

4. I am sickened, truly, by what I am learning. I am really hoping that this all leads to some fundamental change. I'm hoping that the revulsion to this revelations is widespread enough to channel into a push for change.

5. Hooray to Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi for calling out the Citigroup Free Money Rider to the Cromnibus. One can reasonably disagree about the merits of the Dodd Frank rollback on swaps (it probably doesn't add as much risk as people are fearing; it certainly allows Citi to make more money on swaps because of how the ratings affect the spread on those deals - take a look at John Carney's recent article in the WSJ for an explanation), but the way that section made it into the bill is telling.

6. Carry on.

I'm sort of in love with you too, but I've already professed my love to BnB today and she has way better tits.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

May I just say that if anyone else wants to really slam me, comparing me to a legendary MIT Professor is definitely the way to go. If anyone wants to one-up Not Bob, might I suggest comparing my intellectual acumen to that of Larry Lessig or Eva Silverstein?

I'm not insulting your intelligence (or Noam's, either), my good man. I just think that you are wrong and the idea that each country's values are beautiful and special in their own way like a snowflake is a facile dodge to avoid hard truths. Sure, other cultures and nations have their own reasons why one would call them "exceptional" (using quotes to note only that there a a variety of meanings to this word, not to minimize the glories of the thousands of years of Egyptian or Chinese civilizations), but our Enlightenment inspired system combined with our immigrant heritage is, indeed, exceptional.

Do we now, or have we historically, lived up to our ideals? Pshaw, as the kids say. Does Canada or Australia have the same basis for claiming to be apples like us? Yes and no, to a certain extent (I have a perhaps irrational view that parliamentary democracies can be problematic).

Anyway, Not Bob rant over. Carry on.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I know I'm being insulted, but I don't know what it's about. Or care.

(Plus, it's Adder, so my reaction is like "ain't that cute."

The parts of the Constitution we're discussing do not say, "citizens."

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I did see it. I was reacting to the notion that you were comparing me to her. She was saying "we're awesome, who cares if we torture?" I'm saying "we are not a bunch of two-bit terrorists, we should try to live up to the principles on which this nation was founded (even though, as a whole, we never have -- but many of us continue to try)."

I was just riffing off the line, it being what the original post was about. I wasn't comparing you to her. And I sure as hell wasn't being sanctimonious. You know me. When I want to be sanctimonious, there is no mistaking it.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm sort of in love with you too, but I've already professed my love to BnB today and she has way better tits.

Now I want to hear the story about how you saw Not Bob's tits.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Now I want to hear the story about how you saw Not Bob's tits.

I have never met NotBob irl. Supposedly, there was a possibility of such a meeting in NYC a couple of months ago, but it's possible that Hank just lied about the whole thing to get me to buy him a drink.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

OK, I found this a surreal response. What federal/state issue was I talking about?

You said, "I think Scalia, and, to be fair, the court in general historically, would not find that to apply to action of the US government taken against foreign persons on foreign soil." I wasn't sure whether you said "US" to distinguish from the states.

And, uh, I'm a corporate lawyer, so take my constitutional thinking with a grain of salt, but didn't the 14th amendment make the Due Process Clause apply to the STATES, not the federal government.

Yup, I had that backwards.

The point I was making is that the constitution constrains the government with regard to how it operates at home. It may constrain the government with regard to how it operates abroad in dealing with US citizens. But, time and time again (think Chinese exclusion cases, Haitian boat people, etc., etc.) the court has ruled that the constitution doesn't apply and there is no due process right or constitutional rights for non-US citizens dealing with the US government abroad.

It's not that there is an exception to the due process clause. It's that the constitution doesn't even apply here.

About fifteen years ago, I knew these cases really, really well. Two observations: (1) many of the cases you cite are about immigrants who were physically in the country, so what you have is a doctrine that is not really related to geography, and (2) this is court-created doctrine, not something that comes from the text of the Constitution.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I'm not insulting your intelligence (or Noam's, either), my good man. I just think that you are wrong and the idea that each country's values are beautiful and special in their own way like a snowflake is a facile dodge to avoid hard truths. Sure, other cultures and nations have their own reasons why one would call them "exceptional" (using quotes to note only that there a a variety of meanings to this word, not to minimize the glories of the thousands of years of Egyptian or Chinese civilizations), but our Enlightenment inspired system combined with our immigrant heritage is, indeed, exceptional.

Do we now, or have we historically, lived up to our ideals? Pshaw, as the kids say. Does Canada or Australia have the same basis for claiming to be apples like us? Yes and no, to a certain extent (I have a perhaps irrational view that parliamentary democracies can be problematic).

Anyway, Not Bob rant over. Carry on.

OK, I'm putting you down for the Apples! Yeah! Oranges. Icky. school of exceptionalism. Carry on.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You said, "I think Scalia, and, to be fair, the court in general historically, would not find that to apply to action of the US government taken against foreign persons on foreign soil." I wasn't sure whether you said "US" to distinguish from the states.



Yup, I had that backwards.



About fifteen years ago, I knew these cases really, really well. Two observations: (1) many of the cases you cite are about immigrants who were physically in the country, so what you have is a doctrine that is not really related to geography, and (2) this is court-created doctrine, not something that comes from the text of the Constitution.

I knew the cases well about 20 or 25 years ago, so your knowledge is more current. But, of course, when you rule the constitution doesn't apply your logic is often going to be based on something outside the constitution. Many of the cases deal with people here in the country whom the government is seeking to exclude, and it's particularly heinous there, but others deal with actions of the US abroad, often seizing assets but on occasion people.

I now see why you thought I might make a federal / state distinction, but it was the farthest thing from my mind.

Let me say, I understand the logic of the cases dealing with applicability of the constitution abroad or to aliens from some people, but have a hard time reconciling the logic of these cases with people like Scalia, who want to argue the government has limited powers and if they don't derive specifically from the constitution they aren't there. It's like putting an asterisk on that logic and noting in the footnote, "never mind."