Agreed to, too. 
The UN doesnât make laws, it brokers international treaties, though, many of which we donât sign onto.
2 Likes
[quote=âpopobawa4u, post:29, topic:70524â]
Isnât the US subject to a UN law[/quote]
We answer to no one.
1 Like
I think Cory missed the point of the Presidentâs remarks.
He wasnât celebrating the no-fly list or proclaiming it a great way to weed out terrorists. He was using it as an example of low-hanging fruit; i.e., our methods of preventing guns from getting in the hands of terrorists are so weak that we donât even look to something as poorly curated as the no-fly list for hints as to who shouldnât get guns. We literally have zero checks for that sort of thing, which, as he says, is insane.
4 Likes
Just in case thereâs any doubt about the dishonesty of @johnthackerâs argument here, letâs consider what he chose to focus on vs. what he chose to leave out.
He emphasized the senate vote on the Patriot Act while ignoring the House. But, as happens very frequently in Congress, the senate was responding to what happened in the house. Letâs look at what happened in the house:
Republicans: 211 yea, 3 nay
Democrats: 145 yea, 62 nay
So first of all, itâs clear that the congress that passed the patriot act was overwhelmingly Republican. Second of all, itâs clear that this was much less bipartisan in the house than in the senate. House Republicans were lockstep in favor, while nearly a third of Democrats voted against.
Amidst a political climate in which, e.g. Ann Coulter freely threw the word âtraitorâ at anyone who even mildly criticized the Bush administrationâs foreign policy.
3 Likes
In this case, though, PR and political consequences equates more closely to âcomplete inability to enact any other positive legislation, or to contribute to the direction of national discourseâ than it does âfame-seeking vanity and re-election + sweet PAC $$$.â Obama has been a disappointment in a lot of arenas for sure, and he probably is more of a sociopath that we know (you just HAVE to be to make it all the way to the top spot) but I donât think the calculations heâs made to function in the current climate of American politics can be brushed aside, especially on national defense and terrorism stuff. There are elected officials, currently saying in the land of the fucking free, that we shouldnât take refugees in, because theyâre from a place where war is happening (arenât most refugees?)
Which is exactly why the system itself deserves no more support. What does all this money buy all the people trying to do the right thing exactly?
Better to put it towards a self-sufficient entity that can take over itâs own supply chain using existing legal structures and give people a democracy they choose to be part of and that requires a level of civility and reason. Then use Citizenâs United to primary Stewart/Colbert vs. Colbert/Stewart if worse comes to worse.
The current system specifically gives all the advantages to the unethical and the drama queens. Thereâs no winning while playing the same game.
1 Like
No fly list makes it sound like a civil rights issue because free movement is a basic aspect of life here. Terror watch list sounds more like a law enforcement tool, which has a different flavor. But it also sounds scarier and a lot more suuper seekritiv.
That absolutely happened. Along with having to legally, publicly prove that he was a United States citizen, change his wardrobe to emphasize that he loves the country he was chosen to lead, and start saying âGodâ a lot in his speeches after being accused of not saying it enough (because he must be a filthy Muslim!).
4 Likes
Campaign ads are no excuse for supporting this. If the Republicans can make the Democrats dance like little puppets by just running some campaign ads then that is the problem. More likely, most elected democrats actually support the existence of the no-fly list, just like most elected republicans do. I am not saying they are the same parties or that every issue is the same, but the Democrats are still responsible for things they have actually done.
Sometimes you have to make compromises, but you donât ever have to listen to political pundits. And if you are going to make calculated moves so that you can do more positive good later, then you have to actually do that positive good later, not lose control of the house and the senate despite your calculated moves. Whatever strategy the democrats have taken to hold power is currently a failure as a strategy to hold power so Iâm not very impressed when people use it as an excuse for them doing bad things while they had power.
I know my own bias - I tend to perceive monstrousness and idiocy in direct proportion to authority. Also, I donât forgive people for their stated intentions. People tend to think that a thing is a good idea in proportion to how much wealthier it will make them (see recent eating bugs post). Stated reasons are after-the-fact justifications more often than not. When someone justifies something as necessary to keep power so they can do something else, that translates directly to âpower for powerâs sake.â
Thatâs the kind of bullshit stuff that I expect politicians to do to hold power - suits, saying âGod Bless America,â etc. (although obvious in Obamaâs case that stuff was the product of straight-out racism, and complete bullshit). Extrajudicial killing, prosecuting whistleblowers, etc., not so much.
Again, I know the Democrats are better. If Gore had become president in 2000 it is outrageous to believe there would have been an Iraq war, for instance. But, like I said above, the Democrats have to at least own what they support - even if they supposedly supported it through clenched teeth.
2 Likes
Once again, I didnât say the democrats were good on this issue.
BUT
Which partyâs rhetoric drives the war against civil liberties? Which partyâs policies? Which party implements most of these policies? Which party votes for them in much greater proportions? \
Iâm not making excuses for them. Iâm pointing out that one party is much worse than the other on this issue. Those campaign ads have a lot to do with that as well. To point out that fact is not to âmake excusesâ for anyone.
We have literally no points of disagreement. Your only disagreement seems based on putting words in my mouth.
Please donât do this - note that you have to put words in my mouth to say I put words in your mouth, since I didnât say you thought or said or didnât think or didnât say anything. This is a public message board where people post their own opinions and use other peopleâs opinions as launching points, just because I responded to something you said doesnât mean my post was all about you.
1 Like
The ACLU has been working through the courts with this for years. https://www.aclu.org/cases/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenge-government-no-fly-list
1 Like
Looking at the proposed legislation I donât even see reference to any formal list. The section on firearms starts out with,
âThe Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.â
and then goes into more detail on reasons. The actual bill can be seen at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1076
Please bear in mind that the comment to which you were responding was one in which I was defending myself from implied accusations of being overly partisan. From my perspective, your comment looked like you were piling on with the âpartisanâ accusation. Otherwise, I apologize for assuming that a reply to my comment apparently directed to me actually had anything to do with what I think or say.
Iâm reading this as a little bit sarcastic. I apologize if it isnât, and in that case the following can be largely disregarded or read purely for interest.
I certainly made my point in response to something you said, and in the context of what @johnthacker said, but I did so without accusing you of anything or saying you said or did not say anything. If, as it turns out, you largely agree with the point I am making (democrats shouldnât set policy based on campaign ads, most elected democrats did support the no-fly list at itâs inception, democrats are responsible for supporting it) then I did, in fact, misread what you wrote. Misunderstanding is not putting words in someoneâs mouth, and stating a position is an opportunity to agree as much as it was an opportunity to disagree.
If you think that I put words in your mouth, I would be happy to hear, in a separate conversation or a private message, how I did so. If you can take what I wrote and show that I was doing so without talking about what my words implied (i.e., putting words in my mouth) then I will be surprised and humbled, and I will definitely owe you an apology. If not, please reconsider that accusation the next time you feel tempted to make it (not just with me, but with anyone), it turns the conversation into a contest of egos instead of a discussion of ideas.
1 Like
Some light reading:
1 Like
As others have mentioned the UN doesnât pass laws, it establishes treaties its members MAY sign on to. The general assembly may also pass declarations and non-binding resolutions. The security counsel may pass binding resolutions within its scope.
The declaration on human rights basically states that there is a think called human rights, and this list of things should be a part of the thing called human rights, and thatâs it. Nothing at all on what that should mean to the rest of the world.
Other treaties have reference some or all of the document, but I have no heard of any country that has adopted the whole document into law. Iâve only read parts of it, but it is huge, and I think itâs reasonable to say that it covers enough ground that you will probably never find any one that agrees with everything in it.
Iâm a âJames Morganâ, and I get all the same extra screening, no electronic check in etc. I found out that if I buy tickets using âJames M Morganâ then itâs like Iâm a totally different person, no extra screening, or strange restrictions.
Ever since Iâve had this niggling doubt that a terrorist could just misspell their name to bypass the no-fly list.
5 Likes
So first off, your math is bad, I count 214 Republicans and 207 Democrats. A 7 seat margin isnât âoverwhelmingly Republicanâ.
Second off you present the numbers like that it it doesnât look very bipartisan, but 70% Democrats did still vote for it and 40% of the yea votes were Democrats. To call that âmuch less bipartisanâ is stretching things a bit.
Itâs not uncommon if a bill gets just a third of the opposing parties support for it to be touted as bipartisan, and if you get more than half itâs shouted as overwhelmingly bipartisan.
