That’s the policy position of the government, and it’s an insane, not credible position. It’s a position born of ignorance and bigotry.

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.

For the record, I agree with you. I'm personally opposed to this line of thought, I'm just devil's advocating what the executive branch and legislature has and will argue.

The Devil already has enough advocates. Please stop spamming HN with bad-faith noise.

You'd rather this forum be a hugbox of agreement rather than one of actual discussion?

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.

I’d rather discuss issues with people who actually believe in them and can back them up, or acknowledge they hold their opinion for sentimental reasons.

> Except the wide open southern border is an easy point of insertion for Daesh and AQ operatives.

> 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.

It's the same answer used by Mr Holder and Mr Obama to justify dropping hellfire missiles in a dozen countries.

And it was questionable then too.

This is argumentum ad verecundiam, an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy that in no way backs up what you are saying), and not a very good one.

As well, contrary to what your debate 101 professor might have taught you, appealing to authority is not always a fallacy.

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.

Your opinion on if it's good or not is inconsequental.

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.