Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

There is a key difference, they weren't trying him for Crimes against peace. This is what dronester is arguing is the case for Hillary by voting for an war that was illegal.

quote:

---

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

---

So a potential Nuremburg standard here is that if you conspire to initiate a war of aggression, you adopt responsibility for the accumulated evil of the whole criminal enterprise that consequentially follows. I would argue that morally this is a legitimate position to take. From a legal perspective, just about everybody recognizes it is basically impossible to prosecute someone without some element of what amounts to a kangaroo court (in the sense that just about everybody with the power in the planet wanted the Nazis prosecuted at the time. Didn't the Soviet's get hit with it over Finland too?).From a moral perspective, there is a case that Hillary conspired to start a war of aggression. It's not that big a leap.It's strange that this is not an utterly toxic issue for the Dem voters. I mean it was last time she made a run for it wasn't it?Her speech at the time went something like this:Saddam is horrid. It is undisputed that he has WMD. The danger of unilaterally attacking him are that it may give other nations boldness to start getting aggressive such as Russia or China and it may mean Saddam uses the WMD which he definitely obviously has. We should do what the UN says. Unless they are wrong. In this case they are wrong. We shouldn't use force unilaterally against Iraq. But we should vote to use force unilaterally against Iraq because that will show the UN that the American people are Ein Volk, which they get super impressed about. Also this will scare Saddam into giving up his WMD which he totally has. But the UN is important and we should try and get their votes and if the President takes my authority to use force as authority to use force I will have certain aspects of this speech to remind people that I would call him a poopy head if he did that. So everybody should vote Yes. Especially Dems. For the Troops. 9/11Honestly, that isn't as an egregious a paraphrase as you might think, though its a little harsh. Still, really?Here's Sanders' speech:Saddam is a bad guy. But Iraq isn't a threat to us. Poverty is. Can we deal with this now please? The stock market is in trouble. Can we deal with this? We should vote no because there have been no estimates drawn for the cost in life this is expected to result in, both military and civilian. No because it sets a precedent in international dealings that could bite is in the ass. No because analysts say this action would make the war on terrorism more difficult or outright impossible. No, because we're broke. No because, how the hell do we prevent a complete clusterfuck in a region primed for one?From a debate standpoint, its a clear win for Bernie for the Dems at least, right?I am really trying to figure out Hilary's appeal. Whether or not she's *Evil*, I don't see why she is beating Sanders who is running a considerably less slick but more realistic Obama type run. Are people worried about a president who can't get stuff done because of obstruction? It's the only thinking I've got.

No, I get the ludicrous political machine argument, I just ... it doesn't seem like it should be enough these days...like there's something else I'm missing. Oh. Right. Yeah, that.

True. In deferrence to fairness, 'my' fair points were largely cribbed direct from dronester. I just skipped most of the evidence part. I don't think that distributing the responsibility to the legislature would work as a shield if USA were at Nuremberg, and the speech she gave could be spun pretty bad in retrospect if you are building such a case. I think the consensus is that it worked only because there was global will that it would. This is to what I referred when I said

quote:

---

From a legal perspective, just about everybody recognizes it is basically impossible to prosecute someone without some element of what amounts to a kangaroo court (in the sense that just about everybody with the power in the planet wanted the Nazis prosecuted at the time. Didn't the Soviet's get hit with it over Finland too?).

---

It's regarded as defined too broad and/or vague for trying someone for such a serious crime. It's not in the interests of China, the UK, the USA or Russia to cooperate in creating the legal framework to make it stick because....they have plans or have taken part in plans that would be undermined... In simple and somewhat inaccurate terms: A war that does not have UN sanction, is not self-defense, and is not part of a border dispute.
If any doubt whatsoever exists, the UN makes the decision as to what it sanctions.It's that last bit that causes the biggest problem.

No. The authorization was conditional on whether or not George Bush determined diplomacy would not solve the threat that Iraq posed to the USA and/or terrorists. 9/11I don't think any further *justification* was required. Just the decider.Summary of H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - GovTrack.us

quote:

---

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to:
(1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:
(1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

---

I assume there's some sense to be made from this, but I'm a little foggy. I think you might be thinking of stuff like 'crimes against humanity' and 'war crimes'. Leaving those aside for a minute if it was an invasion of a sovereign state without the consent of the UN when not in self defence (pre-emptive is ruled out in this case) then it was a war of aggression and a crime against peace.

Rudolph Hess was only found guilty of doing this once and got a life sentence. And he didn't see the war through to the end before surrendering and was probably in some way mentally ill.The point is, if Hillary is to be thought of as being guilty of the exact same crime (though more mitigation, less aggravating circumstances etc), is she really President material?

It *is* a bit nitpicky today - given the point was acerbically conceded back March 30th: Message 118

quote:

---

Hillary is not a "convicted war criminal." Like Hitler, she is many, many, many tiers down from that lofty accusation, just a simple everyday, run-of-the-mill "ALLEGED war criminal."

---

This objection is about law. Not moral discourse.We can have opinions. Is Pistorius a murderer or a negligent gun user? OJ? Is Stephen Avery? Did he used to be? Does it change if the court's decision does? From a moral stance? Was the guy that mugged me a mugger or should I describe him to you as an 'alleged' mugger since he was never convicted of that crime and technically I never verified his criminal record?So either you burden discussion with insisting people in daily lives use 'alleged' or War Crimer (unlike many crimes, War Crime ends with 'crime' making the noun for the moral perpetrator difficult to grammatically create without using the natural 'criminal' setting off these 'but law says...' commentsSurely we can understand dronester's meaning and not worry about the awkwardness of language and making our lives more difficult by insisting on pedantry rather than trying to understand one another.So given we started with 'Hillary is a good candidate' or somesuch and have ended on a 2 day loop of TECHNICALLY, HITLER WAS NOT A WAR CRIMINAL. I think we might need to assess a little here.For some fresh input, here are some non-typical reasons that have been given for voting Republican:

quote:

---

My preferences this time around go: Sanders, Cruz, Clinton/Rubio (haven’t decided), then Trump WAY behind. My reason is simple. I am pretty much a single issue voter right now who is deeply concerned about government surveillance

---

quote:

---

Why would I vote for Rubio if he’s the nominee? Well mostly I’d be voting against the Dem nominee. I absolutely cannot stand Hillary Clinton.

---

quote:

---

If it comes to Hillary vs Trump I will vote Trump. I’ve voted Libertarian in the past three presidential elections but mainly because it’s just the closest to what I believe. I’m not 100% Libertarian either.

---

quote:

---

If I DO vote Trump it’s because I would rather burn this shit to the ground than elect Hillary.

---

quote:

---

I’m looking forward to a Trump presidency. When he is President, maybe people will realize the President doesn’t actually have all that much power. T

---

quote:

---

I stand with Trump because, despite what the media says, he is the most moderate Republican running.

​

Hillary isn’t an option because she is by far the biggest liar I have ever heard. Sanders promotes democratic socialism and although I would benefit from some of his plans, I don’t feel that free education and a $15 minimum wage would benefit our society

---

quote:

---

Let me make it clear: I am only voting Republican if Sanders loses the nomination.

​

My decision is based in moral reasoning, of which Hillary has crossed too many times, what with all the lying she is doing.
...
Sanders is the spark of something big. Should he lose the nomination, I would vote Republican to see that spark become a flame.

---

quote:

---

With every state and superdelegate Hillary Clinton gains, odds that I will vote Republican increases. I would vote for just about anyone over her.

---

quote:

---

So, I am a bleeding heart liberal atheist, however there is nothing that will allow me to vote for Clinton. If she is the Democratic candidate, I must vote against her.

---

quote:

---

I am very pro gun and pro capitalist. I think socialism is a failed philosophy of theft that drives everyone down to the lowest common denominator. I think Hillary Clinton is incredibly crooked and shady, and Sanders’ ideals are either unworkable, unconstitutional, or un-American.

---

quote:

---

I am a law abiding citizen that loves firearms.

---

quote:

---

If Hillary, who is infamous for lying, cheating, committing treason, and accepting bribes wins the Democratic primary, then voting Republican is the only logical choice. At least we know how they plan to screw things up and can work to stall them. But Hillary? No, she’ll screw us up in ways we could never see coming, in ways that make what the Republicans plan to do seem like child’s play.

---

Nonreligious Questions

What things will she get done with this power, though? I mean, really its the only pragmatic argument I've seen I can really understand. What makes you think Bernie won't be able to specifically, if you don't mind? So...a politician. I'd never seen or heard anyone talk much of anybody but Trump and Clinton before they started their run. Of course, I assume the American media has shown this picture like a billion times right?

quote:

---

While a student he was an active civil rights protest organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. After settling in Vermont in 1968, Sanders ran unsuccessful third-party campaigns for governor and U.S. senator in the early to mid-1970s. As an independent, he was elected mayor of BurlingtonVermont's most populous cityin 1981, where he was reelected three times. In 1990 he was elected to represent Vermont's at-large congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1991 Sanders co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He served as a congressman for 16 years before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. In 2012, he was reelected with 71% of the popular vote.

---

quote:

---

In January 1962, Sanders led a rally at the University of Chicago administration building to protest university president George Wells Beadle's segregated campus housing policy. "We feel it is an intolerable situation when Negro and white students of the university cannot live together in university-owned apartments," Sanders said at the protest. Sanders and 32 other students then entered the building and camped outside the president's office, performing the first civil rights sit-in in Chicago history.[35][36] After weeks of sit-ins, Beadle and the university formed a commission to investigate discrimination.[37] Sanders once spent a day putting up fliers protesting against police brutality, only to eventually notice that a Chicago police car was shadowing him and taking them all down.[38]

​

Sanders attended the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech.[16][38][39] That summer, he was convicted of resisting arrest during a demonstration against segregation in Chicago's public schools and was fined $25.[31][40]

​

In addition to his civil rights activism during the 1960s and 1970s,[41] Sanders was active in several peace and antiwar movements. He was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Student Peace Union while attending the University of Chicago. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War; his application was eventually turned down, by which point he was too old to be drafted.

---

quote:

---

Sanders castigated the pro-development incumbent as an ally of prominent shopping center developer Antonio Pomerleau, while Paquette warned of ruin for Burlington if Sanders was elected.[57] The Sanders campaign was bolstered by a wave of optimistic volunteers as well as by a series of endorsements from university professors, social welfare agencies, and the police union.[58] The final result came as a shock to the local political establishment, with the maverick Sanders winning by just 10 votes

---

wiki Over $2,700 a plate Clinton? Clinton, Yale Law School, Law Partner, board of directors at Wal-Mart, First Lady, Senator. This is the path of a grass roots expert? The woman that got defeated by Obama, at the grass root level? Am I missing something obvious here? By the same peculiar logic of temporal imagination Hillary and Obama have never had a chance either. I think there is a spectre of McGovenism haunting America.... Sure, but guns will be firing in all directions. Though the Democrats have recently been poor shooters... I think 'voted for Iraq' is going to be bigger gun to fire than 'is a commie' in 2016. Republicans won't make it direct of course (though Trump will and has already - if its him). The Republicans are going to go after Democrats on issues of conscience and so on, and probably pay to have it done in an apparent liberal voice. I think Sanders beats Obama to be honest. And Obama beats Hillary.But I guess I get it. I guess it's time for America to prepare to shift the Overton window over to the right again. Next year Republicans will find some actual Neo-Nazis to the primaries, maybe they can convince the Dems to vote for Dem. Candidate: Trump

Ssssh, we don't want the electorate to know that they should spend all this time, focus and turnout on the *other* elections. But yeah, obviously a single position is easier to get 'excited' about. Would be nice if the questions and speeches were about Executive Orders intended, to which departments, what laws will they direct the police to focus on more or less than presently, how will they use the veto? etcI guess this is another reason I prefer a parliamentary system. Our General Election is for the legisexecutive. Unfortunately, it means few people close attention to their particular local candidates in almost all cases, mostly just voting for the Prime Minister or Party. True enough, the wackos mindset is to follow whatever Republican gets the nomination regardless - but Trump's ability to exploit them is very concerning. Sure, like Obama. Only I guess 'he's ethnically Jewish' isn't going to be a reason to vote *for* him any significant number of people have in their subconscious at the voting booth. Also, the unbounded optimism has burst a little after Obama. Difficult to keep it up for eight years. It worked in the Cosby Show, right?