Watching the recent political debates on gun control, and more importantly, how to handle the Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after his capture, I had a thought. Let me say right off the bat that I’m making some generalizations, and I am confident that there are many exceptions to these generalizations. However, I still want to make them, because I hope it might shed some light on the current political problems in the U.S.
Here’s a trend I’ve noticed among Republican politicians:
1. They argue against many laws because of the slippery slope they might lead down. A few recent examples include minor gun control laws that might lead to eventual loss fo 2nd Amendment rights and gay marriage which might lead to marrying animals, etc.
2. They seem much more willing to bend current laws in any particular situation. For example, some called for treating Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, even though most believe that would not be possible with current laws.
This seemed like a strange contradiction to me at first, but I realized that it actually makes sense when put together. If you’re open to making exceptions, any movement in one direction makes room for even more exceptions.
Look at it the other way around. Perhaps Democrats are not as worried about the slippery slope of a new law because they are more likely to attempt to follow the letter of the law without exceptions.
For me, this was an enlightening moment of thought. If the way our two political parties and their followers understand law and it’s place in society is different, then of course it’s going to be much more difficult to agree on what any particular law should be. It’s a fundamental philosophic disagreement on the meaning and nature of law!
Your characterization of liberal vs conservative thought process is completely absurd. Instead of having an intelligent discussion on differing point of views on any issue dividing our society at the moment you would like to characterize various points of view as right or wrong, incorrect or correct, and between the lines as stupid or not stupid. That is our collective issue as society right now.
The complete lack of any meaningful discussion or debate. Instead we are incited by our media and our politicians with sound bit politics designed to inflame. Let’s walk through your complete lack of any real contribution here.
First off let’s take the enemy combatant thing. What exactly is the law on treating anyone as an enemy combatant. I certainly am not well versed in the intricacies legally speaking. Are you? Why don’t we have some sort of agreement and explanation as to what the law allows or does not allow from our leaders? Instead there is some question about a choice in the matter. If there was no choice at all within current laws there would be NO debate. The White House would not have even took a significant amount of time to consider the CHOICE. This is not about democrats following the letter of the law versus republicans bending it. That’s ridiculous and inflammatory. The debate assumes that there is a choice in the matter of how to treat that incident and the pros and cons of doing one or the other.
On the subject of exceptions versus letter of the law and inflammatory issue let me lob one right back at you. Gun control – you brought it up. Second amendment. Letter of the law. Oh I get it whatever your particular point of view is can be considered “interpretation’. Differing points of view are somehow wrong headed. Get real.
Gay marriage… Hmm that is a tough one and you brush it off as if it were simple by using ridiculous animal slippery slope nonsense. Assume that’s absolute in what everyone that disagrees with you must think and then use that as a point to prove a completely different point? WARNING – INFLAMATORY STATEMENT COMING – yeah that’s how democrats do things. Here is the real issue incase you are actually confused. Marriage is one of the few things that church and state distinctions are not so clear and that makes things messy. I myself being a conservative could not care less if someone wants to marry a goat. Go ahead. All I ask is that the right to marry a goat is not turned around on me forcing my religion to endorse, recognize, and perform such marriages. There is the tangled part. From my point of view, figure that one out and it’s problem solved. You really didn’t get that?
Congratulations on yet more politically divisive sound bites instead of attempting to foster any real discussion or understanding. I am not angry with your point of view on any of the issues you bring up. I am angry at your characterization of people that do not share them.
RB
Thanks for the comments.
I re-read what I wrote, and as far as I can tell, I did not characterize either side as right or wrong or stupid or not stupid. I certainly attempted NOT to do that. Rather, I made comment on the fact that they were very different ways of seeing things, which they are. I was never attempting to make an argument about that one side was correct, so please don’t read that into my comments.
I would like to state that I am happy to rationally and calmly discuss any and all of the issues that have been brought up in the original post and your comment. I didn’t address them all in this post for expediency’s sake, and because I have addressed some of them in the past as well.
I agree with your comments that the media tends to inflame an issue, and my intention is to try to dig past that and understand the thought process as a whole. Thinking through the issue as I have here has made me see a view I normally wouldn’t understand in a way that is much more understandable to me – quite the opposite of what you seem to claim I’m doing.
You make an interesting point about the 2nd Amendment, and I can see how that does challenge my generalization here. It’s something I would like to think about a little more and even discuss more if that’s something you’re interested in doing.
As far as your comments on gay marriage, that actually is more inflammatory language. As far as I can tell, this movement is not at all about forcing any particular church to marry someone they don’t want to marry. The government has never mandated that. As recently as 2011 a Kentucky church opted not to marry an inter-racial couple. The problem you seem to have isn’t really a problem at all. However, if I’ve missed something, I’d be happy to hear some evidence or comments about why you think this is truly a problem.
We should probably need to take issues one at a time rather than as some sort of whole. I only address the specific issues you mentioned in this particular post. We also should baseline that political argument by politicians is in no way the same as intellectual debate – in fact it is usually the opposite. On both sides is usually juvenile anecdotal, over simplified, and absolutely not representative of the complexity nor best argument on any particular issue.
In the case of my comments. I chose to explicitly call out what you either consciously or subconsciously imply. in your “lack of understanding” of various conservative positions. Unless you are extremely naive that is a term that is usually used not to imply some lack of ABILITY to understand but more as a stealthy way of implying that the position is incomprehensible. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not daft enough not to know that.
My main issue with this post was the assertion that “most” as in “most of the legal experts” have complete agreement of the legal means or lack thereof to treat the Boston bombing suspect as an enemy combatant. Is this fact? Your opinion? There is not a consensus but you imply that there is hence making that factual.
You then conclude that republicans like to make exceptions to the law rather than follow them based on your false premise. So all the right v wrong is not explicit its implied. Same result.
The real discussion is NOT how republicans like to “break the law” and democrats like to follow it. That is the absurdity I speak of. That is the problem with discourse in our society.
The only conversation really should be:
1 – Is it or is it not a choice on how to treat the suspect. With some reasonable backup that there is an agreement to this from a legal perspective. If not – conversation over. If there is choice then…
2 – All of the implications pro and con of one treatment or another. and debate on what takes priority.
This is a worthwhile conversation. The conversation you started was NOT this no matter how nice of words you use. That is why I accused you of being part of the problem in our society that you ostensibly are trying to “understand”.
Not knowing you I could not say whether you already know this and are being manipulative while playing the academic seeking some sort of understanding or you just cannot tell the difference.
Let me know where you would like to start with discussion. The boston bombers? budget? foreign policy? gun policy? we should probably stay away from gay marriage and abortion because these are perfect examples on things that are possibly too divisive to legislate for ALL people. Abortion is a red herring. It’s used to embarrass people – it’s been about where it should be since the 70’s. The marriage thing is kinda new but honestly I don’t look at it as the top priority in terms of issues that need resolution compared to all of the other things. It’s almost a purely political tactic.
RB
I still think you’re reading much more into what I wrote than is actually there. I think you’ve made a false dichotomy with your two ways of interpreting not understanding something. If I say I don’t understand something, it means that I literally don’t currently understand it. It does’t mean either that I believe I lack the ability to ever understand it or that I think it is something that is impossible to understand. I don’t understand it now, but perhaps I will in the future. Which is the point of thinking about and discussing issues, such as we’re doing now, right? I use the term as it’s defined rather than with some charged political implication.
The funny thing is, I honestly don’t think it’s “wrong” to sometimes make exceptions to rules and/or laws. So I definitely didn’t mean that as a slur to be read as “Republicans break the law.” I’m sorry if it came across that way. My personal view is that we ought to strive for laws that are written in such a way that there wouldn’t ever have to be any exceptions, but that may be an unachievable ideal.
Further, my post wasn’t meant to be a debate about who was right or wrong in this particular case. I only mentioned it because it was what led me to a further thought.
However, as you think that is the only thing worth talking about, I’m happy to think about it further.
My understanding, which I admit could be wrong, was this: People had suggested that Dzhokhar be classified as an enemy combatant so that he could be held indefinitely without a trial and questioned for intel. Not being a legal expert myself, it seems, based on what I’ve read, that most of the legal scholars seem to agree that the only way that could be done legally is if Dzhokhar were directly tied to Al Queda or the Taliban. Even if he were, that’s when we would could enter into a more complex debate about it. (One example: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/04/four-reasons-sens-graham-and-mccain-are-wrong/). I’d definitely be interested in reading a legal analysis from an opposing point of view if you’d like to share that.
Let’s make this simple since I cannot tell if you are pretending not to be able to do math and actually connect various things or just cannot.
1. Here is my point of view very clearly. Homicide rates in this country are NOT way out of whack compared to other industrialized countries. My definition of not out of whack is somewhere less than 4 or 5/100,000 – this is total homicide rate. Homicide is homicide who cares how it’s done. We are not debating this number. The lowest comparable countries are 1-2 some are 3-5 (like us) and some are far higher that could be considered comparable countries. The HUGE difference is that a very specific demographic commits these homicides with guns in OUR country. It’s a VERY localized problem in VERY specific geographies. If you remove those the stats are actually amazingly great for US.
2. Gun homicides and gun violence in general IN THIS country are committed by a VERY specific demographic that does NOT follow current gun laws AT ALL. They do not acquire them legally nor do they have carry permits. They also live under the strictest gun control laws we have which are very very strict. New laws will do nothing to address this hence are purposeless waste of resources. The do not deserve the attention nor debate compared to other pressing issues. They are distractions used on purpose because they generate emotional response just like other shiny object issues used by our politicians.
I would far rather see our politians prioritize the top ten issues let’s say. One of them would definitely be to address the issues in that specific demographic FOR SURE since those issues are actually difficult, have been raging for decades, and are far far beyond some single digit or even double digit out of 100,000 deaths. The absolute HIGHEST homicide rate in the USA happens to be in Flint or Detroit Michigan depending on what year it is. Even those being as outrageous as they are are only 0.06% yep and that’s 15 times the national average. So the most horrible place in america we have 0.06% being killed by anything including guns. 99% of that city and that demographic are affected by much more complex and serious issues that actually lead to the violence. I am suggesting that our focus of resources and attention should be on those things not some feel good exercise that won’t change any of the reasons that demographic has violence issues NOR will it actually reduce that number of homicides considering the weapons used are already illegal.
Get it now?
RB
I’m getting tired of being insulted by you.
Of course there are other more deeply rooted problems, and of course I think we should focus on those. But it doesn’t have to be either/or. We can address issues from multiple angles at the same time.
And if our government can’t agree on something relatively simple like more strict background checks, what in the world makes you think there’s a possibility for agreement on these more complex social issues?
Let’s start over. I made a very bad assumption that you posted editorial opinion with some degree of research into the current state of disagreement. This was probably not the case. Let’s make sure we are both in agreement about the current facts.
1- NOBODY believes that Tsarnaev can legally be put before a military tribunal. NOBODY. He cannot since he is a naturalized citizen.
2- He already has been held on the “Public safety exception” and questioned regarding the bombs – this was the current administration’s decision. Anyone that believes this was “the republicans” is an idiot.
3 – The only disagreement was to treat him as an enemy combatant when that expired prior to miranda and lawyers and his civilian trial. To extend the time allowed to gather information from him without a lawyer and without 5th amendment protection EVEN THOUGH none of that information would be admissible in a civilan trial.
As far as I know even the democratic politicians have NO argument about the legality of this. They argue that there is no NEED to do this versus the republican politicians argument that there is no reason NOT to. The rest of any bullshit is just internet or armchair quarterback. bullshit or maybe ACLU bullshit since they have an issue with the “public safety exception” .
So the only information that I can confim and quote reflects the above. If you do the research on ALL of the government officials in the administration (including justice) as well as house and senate leadership you will find the above is accurate. Typical with ANYTHING federal the only way to tell for sure is to have a judge rule on it. The only way that would actually happen is if justice dept moved forward to actually treat him as an enemy combatant which did NOT happen.
As far as I know there is no serious legal argument or obstacle to doing just that with anyone lawmaker or administration that actually matters. This makes it a CHOICE of the justice department. Logic would dictate the prudent path would be to treat him as an enemy combatant for intelligence reasons until it was absolutely certain that there is NO connection.
The reason I took so much umbrage is that your premise is completely false. Specifically that there is no legal path for what republican/conservative leadership was promoting and that some how the democratic leadership and administration was in some sort of legal righteousness. There is no other way to interpret what you wrote…
I can see after a few back and forth’s that you may be operating on a different understanding of the above facts or a complete ignorance of them. Either way we should agree on that prior to further discussion on the matter otherwise it will be apples and oranges.
RB
Point 1: Clearly SOME people think he both can and should be tried by a military commission: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/should-the-boston-bombing-suspect-be-tried-in-civilian-court-or-by-military-commission/question-3650939/. Perhaps you meant no legal scholar or elected official, but that’s a very different thing.
Point 2: Agreed.
Point 3: This is exactly what I was addressing in the last paragraph of my comment. Graham and McCain suggested he be held, but it seems all legal scholars agree this could not be done legally unless it were clear he was tied to terrorist organizations, which is not at all clear. The article I linked (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/04/19/the-public-safety-exception/) explains and links to the legal arguments against this, which you claim not to exist. Check out the link.
It only seems to become the choice you’re harping on if he were tied to a terrorist organization. That’s where agreement seems to break down and there would be more need for a judge’s ruling.
So yes, I am operating on a different understanding of the facts you’ve pointed out, and I’ve provided some links to explain why I dispute them.
1- Yes I meant nobody that matters it’s not worth discussing delusional morons that have not educated themselves on the matter. Characterizing the “republicans” or the “democrats” based on that would be foolish.
3 – but that is just bullshit because legal arguments are JUST THAT arguments. The ACLU argues that he what has already been done cannot be done – so what. The only people that actually decide what to do, the justice dept, does NOT have that opinion AND the only way to KNOW is to have a judge rule on it. Which is what our legal system is about.
Prudence would suggest that the Justice department SHOULD have moved forward with holding him as a enemy combatant to extend the intel gathering opportunity which is far far more productive without lawyers an miranda. Now that miranda has been invoked what he says CAN be used in civilian trial hence he/his lawyer will NOT allow that to happen. In a lot of ways this was a license for him to be forthcoming.
Your argument that he COULD NOT be treated as an enemy combatant is FALSE. Nobody that has anything to do with actually doing that has said it COULD not be done only that then didn’t NEED to do it. Republican position was there was no reason NOT TO DO IT. That is the actual debate but you continue to want to make it into legal or illegal. A fools game since there is NO way to know without an actual judge ruling on it because it was never pursued.
RB
1 – The people you call delusional morons are the people who are voting for these guys in office and thus the people that the people in office need to play to – and I mean that to include both sides. Clearly my audience with this blog isn’t people in the Justice Department or actual elected officials themselves. It’s the general public who may or may not have all the facts.
The rest of your argument basically breaks down into absurdity. Essentially nothing can be said to be legal/illegal until a judge ultimately rules on it, according to your standard. And while I would grant that this is ultimately true, it’s not how we typically think about law at all, at least as a general public.
And just so we’re clear, it wasn’t my argument that he couldn’t be treated as an enemy combatant, it was the argument of Benjamin Wittes, a national security expert for the Brookings Institution.
Look,
I don’t even know why we are discussing this issue any longer. Every time I try to bring you back to the issue on the table between the political factions in DC you want to make it sit somewhere between what “people” think, what some “expert” thinks etc in terms of legal opinion.
So we can divide this into two issues if you want…
Issue 1 = what people on the street think about the whole mess which is mostly ridiculous – like most things.
Issue 2 = the current state of what lawmakers and the administration in our government are contending which is actually worth discussion. These are well documented FACTS. FACT – The justice department CHOSE to mirandaize the suspect instead of pursuing any alternative. This is absolutely an obstacle to further intel gathering because now anything stated by the suspect is admissible in his civilian trial. FACT – the republican leaders believe this was not the best course of action and would like it explained by the Justice Department. FACT – To date NO administration official, justice dept or otherwise, nor any democratic leader has said ANYTHING about the legality of pursuing that or not. They have continued to SAY variations on “there was NO NEED to do that” and then offer examples of other convictions that have occured in civilian courts. That is a distractionary tactic because NO republican leader has EVER suggested that the actual trial be a military tribunal – they have been very clear on that.
Since my very first comment I have tried to set you strait on the whole premise of your post and the somewhat rediculous conclusion about lawfulness of republicans v democrats – The actual debate in DC which is the only thing that is worth discussing. Facts regarding that debate are easy to confirm and not subject to opinion. All I am asking is that you acknowledge them or clarify those facts to your understanding.
At this point you are sort of saying “No, I was not discussing anything lawmakers or the administration is debating, I was discussing arbitrary and meaningless debate people on the street are debating”. Really? Who cares. Most are idiots or at least choose not to put any effort into fact finding or paying any attention for more than about 4 seconds.
RB
The entire point of this blog is the role if philosophy and critical thinking in day-to-day life, which involves looking at what “people” think. That’s what the entry about. That’s why I’ve written about things like debunking conspiracy theories. A common theme of this blog is dealing with the way non-experts typically think about things.
We started discussing experts because you were the one who suggested it was the only thing that truly mattered. You’re the one who read into the blog much more than was ever there in the first place, and I have simply continued to discuss it because I find it interesting and I’m always interested in hearing and attempting to understand a viewpoint that is different than my own.
If we move on with the above set of facts next up is gun control. An idiotically large manufactured distraction that actually just manipulates various constituencies based on sound bite emotions that actually are used as shiny objects to pave the way for more pork projects, etc.
Statics, numbers, reports studies. All of them can be used to demonstrate or spin just about any conclusion you wish to arrive at. If you take a pragmatic approacch and ignore the so much argued “violent crime numbers” let focus on a two numbers that actually mean anything…
First is suicides. The vast majority of gun related deaths in this country are suicides. If you think gun control will somehow effect those I would differ.
Second is the homicide rates of various countries. The US is not a whole lot different than other comparative countries no matter what the level of gun control are. Most industrialized countries with a lot of infrastructure are less than 5 per 100,000. INCLUDING THE USA. I think more deaths murders are the result of rolling pins, golf clubs, and knives.
If you add common sense and reality to the mix guns do not MAKE criminals. Criminals use guns to commit crimes. They do not give a SHIT about following the law so it’s really safe to make an assumption that they will completely ignore regulations on owning and using them. I live in a state with the absolute toughest gun control laws in the nation. Two nearby citys are notorious for the number of homicides committed with ‘illegal’ handguns. The logic that making them illegal everywhere will cut off supply is just plain stupid. So you have solved NOTHING. Hence distraction and a waste of money.
Contrast that with the previous state I lived in. Extremely “liberal” on hand gun carry permits – guess what… very very low homicide rate.
If you really want to upset the apple cart take a look at the ethic break down of suicide v. homicide broken down by ethnicity. Hmmm don’t want to really legislate things by the numbers do we? Hint it’s 90/10 and 10/90 broken down that way. Let’s ignore that though because even talking about real cultural issues is taboo.
RB
Could you please cite your sources for homicide rates for the US and the areas with and without gun control?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
there are lots of sources and they all agree for these two simple things. The really funny part is homicides are SO SO SO FREAKING LOW it’s like who cares relative to other things that kill people. It’s actually funny that something so very low on the priority list as a society gets SO much attention. It’s even funnier that the ‘gun’ homicide rate is minuscule as a “problem” compared with let’s say our human collective top 100 issues if looked at objectively. Hence a political tool of distraction and divisiveness.
Let’s ban cars, asprin, birth control pills, prescribed drugs, rolling pins, stairs, sidewalks, water, rat poison, bicyles, sticks, kitchen knives, forks, plastic spoons, pens, they all kill more people – by the way that was sarcasm.
My point is it’s a political distraction and a spin masters game. Let’s say the US is 3/100,000 and the Sweden is 1/100,000 HOLY SHIT THE SKY IS FALLING it’s three times… yeah whatever.
In any case there is a societal issue here and a sub-culture issue to be specific that CANNOT be discussed hence will NEVER get addressed or solved. That last bit that I gave you which you have NO interest in. Without solving that nothing will actually change – probably not even on basis point of any statistic. Taboo.
Also there are no stats that will EVER prove/disprove that guns do not make criminals. Criminals use guns to commit crime. The likelihood of them happening to follow a new regulation is ridiculous.
Here’s ONE more statistic for you. some where north of 95% of hand gun carry permit holders are the least likely to commit ANY crime including speeding. No shit. Will find that for you to backed up by a government law enforcement study. So any laws will only apply and be followed by one of the least likely segments to ever violate ANY law. Funny stuff.
When you combine that with what actually happens with ANY federal law it becomes funny but sad. Specifically they all address 400,000 things that have NOTHING to do with their title and cost outrageous sums of money. This is NOT a national priority unless you are an emotional school girl.
RB
I’m not sure where you’re getting your data that homicide is insignificant. This is slightly dated, but this article (http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-expectgraphic15oct15,0,1831949,full.story) shows homicide, in which guns play a major role, is in the top 6 reasons every age group up through age 44 die. The different for you between 1 and 3 in 100,000 may not seem like much, but we’re talking about THOUSANDS of lives each year. How can you write that off as an unimportant statistic? Why wouldn’t we TRY to improve that?
Oooops,
You are not going to be able to decipher the Maryland numbers because of the democratic spin. Let me do it for you. They play numbers games just like DC to show progress.
Baltimore is number 5 in homicides right up there with Detroit, Flint, etc, etc. All of them close. It’s also 5 or 6 times the NATIONAL average. Our collective national average includes cities that have HORRIBLE homicide issues and it’s STILL less than 4/100,000. Think “gun violence” is caused by legal gun owners… think again. NRA members? Republicans? Yeahhhhh. Right.
In any case it’s sort of moot since it’s pretty low per 100,000 any way you slice it. If you really want to discuss a problem we should address what particular demographic is pushing our national rate up because if you remove that demographic – mostly urban the US has an extremely low homicide rate overall and very low homicide rate using firearms. Gun laws will do NOTHING to solve that issue. They have not, never have. All of the cities that push are 5, 6 or 10 times the national rate – most of them have tough gun control laws. None of them work because the people committing the crimes are ummmm criminals.
RB
Honestly, it doesn’t come across like you really want to have a conversation. You come across as quite agressive and bully-like.
You say one one hand that numbers can be used to spin something anyway one wants – clearly this implies that you won’t trust any numbers if someone else posts them. Yet, you go on to use your own numbers, which of course, you have refused to actually cite any sources for.
Just to be clear why I’m disputing you, you say the gun related homicide rates are similar to other countries, but the U.S. is at 3.2/100,000, while the UK and Australia, which have much more strict gun control laws are at 0.04 and 0.09 respectively. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#cite_ref-WHO2012_10-0 – and yes, I’ve followed the sources to verify). If my math is right, that means we’re talking in the neighborhood of more 9,000 gun related homicides per year. Can you really claim that’s insignificant and not worth worrying about? And how do you account for the success of UK and Australia?