If you simply think that the same actions when done by a Western government are somehow more justifiable/right then you simply fell for some form of exceptionalism propaganda.
The very reason why we're supposed to be more free is because we're not supposed to do these things on principle, even if it makes the work of security officials more convenient to do them.
Have you called your Representative to express your opinions?
Have you voted for politicians who oppose the reauthorization?
There's a system in place to stop this, you're just not using it.
"Suppress normal democratic dissent" and "fascism" sounds like a conspiracy theory.
There’s no credible linkage to even the ridiculously vague definition of the “war” and migrants fleeing repressive regimes in Central America.
I know many people who were impacted by 9/11. The people responsible were posing as businessmen with normal visas. It disgusts me that our policy is to chase boogeymen and do harm to people and to the nation in pursuit of cheap applause.
End of the day, the consequence of the stupid policy decisions made by Bush and Obama, and then amplified by the Trump circus will result in claw-back of war powers by Congress.
That never leads anywhere. Good ideas can stand up to criticism. Strong opinions necessarily must be defendable. You don't get that with a hugbox.
So I put my karma on the line for what I think is good argument.
> Therefore, it can be claimed as warzone under the AUMF.
How delightfully convenient and simultaneously nonsensical.
If you are going to be that overly simplistic and reductionist (and willfully ignorant) about what is happening and why then you may as well just come out in support of all-out martial law and start setting up the FEMA camps in case of a terrorist attack.
> Next question.
You say that like you think your answer was a good one.
If I had said "Mr Obama and Mr Holder think the border is dangerous" then sure.
But what I said was that a US president and attorney general have previously used the loose writing of the 2001 AUMF to expand the "War on Terror" to new theaters. Therefore it is likely a similar case can be made to expand the theater to the southern border.
It's been good enough to get FISA warrants for surveillance and executions.
We might see that it's obviously flawed, but the people we've elected disagree.
You're always at war.
Are you suggesting blind fealty? If so, relevant.mp4: https://youtu.be/2HYIJahQKaI?t=189
Good individuals (or governments) can do very bad things. And bad individuals (or governments) can do very good things. When one immediately jumps to one conclusion or another, it leaves one open to being trivially manipulated. In political jargon - being made into a useful idiot [1].
In this case it was particularly bad since it wasn't "one" but rather entire groups of people either blindly supporting or blindly opposing the caravan based on political ideology. Comments running contrary to the groupthink tended to be simply attacked instead of considered.
Are there reasons to support the investigation into the caravan? Absolutely. Are there reasons to oppose it? Absolutely. But people are increasingly becoming simple minded on political issues and will simply go full-on one way or the other. This (to borrow from a peer comment) is what is "completely incompatible with functioning democracy."
The OC's statement came across as, "The government is doing this for you, so don't question it." To me, it didn't come across as including the facet of being pro/against the caravan in question, whatsoever, but - to the OC's credit - maybe it was there and I just missed it...
It is about how journalists reporting on it are marked for special treatment at the US border. I fail to see any complex pro/con political issue there. Free press is a constitutional right for a reason.
In this case it would likely have also been a politically destabilizing event in the US. You would have had far right vigilantes work to 'apprehend' the trespassing individuals which likely would spark 'anti-vigilante' action from far left individuals. Violence would have been inevitable due to the fact you have loonies on both ends meeting up with emotions flaring high. This could have been an organic action, but it could also have been driven by actors who would benefit from such instability.
In any case it would be absolutely remiss for the government to not investigate the funding, composition, and other aspects of the caravan. And on this front the journalists were/are not only witnesses but witnesses with video, photographic, and audio evidence as well as first person accounts. Like the article states, "[The investigators] said that I [journalist] was on the ground and they’re not, which I thought was really interesting.". The really important question is whether the investigation has gone from investigation to intimidation, which would be an issue.
So is the government doing their due diligence, or are they intimidating journalists? Perhaps it's even a bit of both. But I don't think this article is enough evidence to really determine one way or the other and so I think the wisest course of action would be to await further information.
[1] - https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-m...
As is the question of why they're fleeing Honduras in the first place. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/crisis-of-hond...
The caravan engaged in numerous criminal actions and likely conspired to engage in further criminal action at or within the US. Not investigating this would be remiss of the government, regardless of whether or not they find such actions justifiable. If we only investigated those we did not like or defended those we did, we'd have quite the broken system -- and, in fact, such systems were the norm for much of society's existence. Suffice to say such systems were not conducive to justness or fairness.
What does it have to do with putting journalists on a customs control list for special treatment when re-entering the US?
Einstein quote on people:
>Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions that differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
It's more than just a trust in rulers. I agree with Einstein. It's a complete subservience to them.
But what's wrong with that? Americans have every right to be "demotivated" and seek change from the government. The government has zero authority to coerce people to support the government, or to prevent dissatisfied citizens from agitating for change through free speech.
Oh the poor poor US government, with its trillions of dollars in resources and monopoly on the use of lethal force, stopped dead in their tracks by their eternal nemesis, the free citizen airing their opinion.
There are places you can go where governments blame journalists and other opinionated people for all their problems. There are even a few places where the government will go further than mere coercion and intimidation and actually murder people who speak out against it.
Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Maybe North Korea or the Congo.
Perhaps those countries are more to your liking?
so yes. keep complaining about your governments hard work to keep you safe, i'm sure the opposing forces will thank you later.