trevorboaconstr

So let me get this straight, in your mind, every person making below, say, 35K, is a barely employed, social services using, bike stealing bum?

I’m gunna be honest, if we’re making broad generalizations now, silicon valley snobs are by far the most selfish, inconsiderate, lack of empathy having, inflated ego persons in the entirety of the country. Texas and Arizona needs to be bussing those immigrants to SF area and not NY.

^And both are equally insufferable in their perceived self importance to the world.

Too bad I’m not a Roman Emperor, or else I’d host weekly public bouts where I’d pit them against one another in a fight to the death.

If subprime was heart of 2008 financial turmoil, future crisis may centre on private markets. Investors have ploughed c. $9.8tn into opaque, unlisted equity, private credit & early stage/venture funding. Could this blow up? Is their enough leverage?

I understand what you’re saying. I see the data. That’s why I clarified my statement with —- if ‘resource parity’.

I think the data, while true, doesn’t do a great job of illustrating culture, tradition, education policy, and industrial policy.

That’s just my interpretation though. Like I said, knowing what I know about India and China in conjunction with their large populations, and their potential for increased growth and resource development, I don’t feel like it’s anything you should be spilling tea over. I would be more concerned if the US had a drop in total yearly publications rather than being overtaken.

I think it’s just a matter of proportion. Numbers. China has nearly 100 million more registered drivers that the US has total population. As resources come to parity I think it’s kind of impractical to try to out-compete a country that has nearly 4X the population on purely a numbers basis. Pick strategic areas of research that are of deemed importance and compete efficiently and with smarts.

Sure, even if the US was number 3, I would be asking, “guys, let’s get it together.” But countries like India and China are going to make their contributions known on the basis of size alone. If these countries had similar per person resource allocation as the US does, I wouldn't be surprised if they generated 3-5x the output.

God, if this is true this guy is a trade A moron (like that wasn’t already true).

He probably sold nuclear secrets to the Saudis.

How will Trump supporters defend this?

I mean, what is there to say? China has poured billions into research and education. That coupled with a culture that puts great emphasis on education, it’s not surprising. The US is much more (culturally) Laissez-faire when it comes to education. The US can promote, but if people aren't interested…well, not much you can do.

Yes. This is true, and personally I agree. But, for example, many groups in the US who have not had the privilege of living in the suburbs historically are now doing so given the opportunity. Single family housing is a status symbol and will continue to be. https://imgur.com/a/oOcq2K2

Urban3 has done some very interesting research into who pays for the suburbs. Guess who pays? It’s not the suburbs!!

https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/

ITT

>but, but, apartments are bad.

Or

>nuke the suburbs

Both these takes are wrong. We need diversified development that meets peoples needs at all levels of society. From soviet style concrete apartment blocks to 3 acre single lot McMansions and everything in between.

F unbridled YIMBYISM, but especially F “BUT it will ruin neighbor character” NIMBYISM.

Fill in the gaps, be empathetic, and welcome new people to the neighborhood.

https://missingmiddlehousing.com/

Why don’t people just do things that use less water?

So, your position is that this century long trend of globalization is over and all systemic mechanism that enable it will somehow, someway, cease. Or, what exactly? What is your position? Because, if for example, the crisis in Ukraine has shown, countries need more diversification, not less.

No, I don’t think so. The last few years have been no more than a speed bump in the 100 year trend of increased global interconnection.

16% of Americans say they have ever invested in, traded or used cryptocurrency

> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/11/16-of-ameri...

The SEC has been crying foul of crypto-scheme’s since at least 2013.

> https://www.sec.gov/files/ia_virtualcurrencies.pdf

Early journalistic opinion has had called out Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme years ago.

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/08/bitco...

Every major banker at Davos-, “ Bitcoin may be called a coin but it's not money. It's not a stable store of value," said Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund.”

> https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/investing/davos-central-bank-...

Now why does that matter? Those are the people the general populace are exposed to the most. Not some peddler buying crypto ads on Twitch.TV for his new Buttcoin.

Sorry that your grandparents decided to invest in shitcoin. However, they are an outlier. I’ve seen that not even 3 percent of 50+ individuals own bitcoin. If I recollect correctly, less than 20 percent of Americans own or have traded in bitcoin. Most fit the bitcoin bro mold. 18-39. Male.

Can’t wait till this “currency” dies.

I think the comment above could have been better articulated. America is ‘huge’ because of cultural inclinations. People want to feel autonomous. People don't want to live in too close of proximity to others. Despite recent attempts to create more welcoming city environments (safe streets, missing middle housing, equitable transportation) in the US, most still prefer suburban living. In turn, giving a more ‘spread out feeling.’ That’s just my opinion though.

Outside of major metro areas? No, not at all. Asian Indians makeup less than 1.5 percent of the US population. And, like most immigrant groups of the past, tend to congregate in closer knit communities and social circles. That aside, American dating circles in general are highly segregated.

I can see your reading comprehension and capacity to process simple case, that has been re-explained to you numerous time, is simply not up to the task.

Have a nice day.

The full reference:

“ to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

You see the word future there, don’t you? It’s right there. Read it. “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Al-Awlaki was an AQ cheif propagandist and recruiter. It’s entirely applicable. But I guess calling for the death of Americans as part of AQ is totally irrelevant, right? https://imgur.com/a/g97JUa7

And since terrorist qualify as combatants…voila!

And just to reiterate, so it sticks with you this time!

Such killings have occurred in contexts as varied as the Civil War and the Cold War, based on powers vested in Article II of the Constitution (which makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces) and upheld by the 1866 Supreme Court decision Ex Parte Milligan (which confirms that “command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns” rests with the president).

You have absolutely no understanding of application of case. You don’t seem to be able differentiate between powers of governance and war powers.

In this context, your same tired statement is completely irrelevant, as the situation doesn’t ever arrive at, or need to ask such questions.

No, the cases show that the bill of rights have no standing under war powers. That’s it. WAR POWERS. Again. Governance powers, vs War powers. The government does not choose. Your retort is irrelevant.

Are you going to cite any of this, at all, about the statements made by Awlaki’s family?

This my last reply, since it seems like you don’t wish to read the cited materials. As it explains all of this.

The long list of historical supreme court decisions provide evidence enough that due process under the war powers is not relevant.

Charles Evan Hughe (former chief justice) said, that the power to wage war is the power to wage war successfully in the defense of the republic.

Here are all the cases I’ve cited during this discussion.

Prize Cases -> Milligan Case -> Ex parte Quirin -> Mathews -> Hamdi -> Al-Awlaki

The bill of rights does not apply to the legitimate exercises of military power by the government. Therefore the due process clause and the bill of rights wasn’t even relevant in this target killing. That doesn’t mean there weren’t restrictions.

There’s nothing new about targeted killings (non indiscriminate killing). They were conducted in the George Washington era-the battle of Saratoga during the revolutionary war. They were conducted in World War II (Yamamoto). Targeted killing has been an aspect of every single American war to date.

Under the a AUMF there is no prohibition grounded under the bill of rights. This can be grounded in the Civil War cases where American citizens were directly targeted.

No one is reading the due process clause literally. As it doesn’t distinguish citizens and noncitizens.

The weight of judicial authority rest with a proposition, the due process clause of the fifth amendment and the Bill of Rights generally, simply doesn’t apply to exercise a military force under the War Power. A long line of Supreme Court cases that have their roots in the Marshall Court era, lots of cases that came out of the Civil War, the WWII case Ex parte Quirin is another example (the 1942 decision by the supreme court that upheld the legality of president Roosevelt’s Military commissions of 8 Nazi saboteurs and at least one American.)

When the government is acting not as a government governing people, but rather as the defender of the republic, although there are legal limitations on what it may do, those limitations do not include Bill of Rights protections. The Civil War being the most app example of this. The United States government deprived thousands of citizens of their lives without giving any of them due process. It deprived thousands of other US citizens of their liberty, without giving due process. The seizure of private property as well, without due process.

The US government position was that these US citizens forced war upon the United States. Before they were the lawful objects of the war powers, being used not to govern but rather to defend the republic.

Hamdi is not in contradiction to this because the Hamdi case was under the power of governance and not under the power of war.

It’s in this very specific position where an American citizen is the lawful target of military force under the exercising of war powers, under the long line of Supreme Court decisions that have been cited, Government doesn’t have the ability to choose to use the war powers as opposed to using the ordinary powers of governance.

This argument, an even more strongly supported one on the back of supreme court ruling, invalidates your entire position.

This is addressed above.

Same tired statement you’ve made already. Your points have been addressed. You have provided no sources, included no citations throughout this discussion.

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki under the 2001 AUMF was constitutional.

There’s about 3 legal documents and 4 Supreme Court cases cited in this thread. Your issues have been addressed in this thread. I would refer to them if I were you. Thanks.

The laws of war apply under the AUMF.

No, in fact, it does not. It supports my claim.

>Hamid only applies to those in custody. It is dictating what due process is required to those people who are already in custody.

No portion of the constitution requires that you capture enemies in a war, and neither does any norm of international law.

Al-Awlaki was not captured. It was not possible to capture Al-Awlaki. It is not required that Al-Awlaki be captured.

The AUMF says nothing about geography. Refer to the comment above. Hamdi rendered the constitutional override argument unnecessary. AUMF stood in for a declaration of war endorsed by all three branches. And before you say, “Acts of Congress cannot and do not supersede the Constitution”, Stop putting arguments into my mouth. I am arguing that the constitution was followed in this situation. The entire question is what process is due, and it is far from clear that the necessary process was a trial.

Irrelevant example. Imminent. Not active.

He held the rank of ‘regional commander’ within Al-Qaeda. The government’s actions are consistent with the DPC because al-Awlaki was located, purposefully, in a place where neither the host-state government nor the United States had a plausible opportunity to capture him, and because of his asserted operational role and the resultant premise that he posed an imminent threat to life.

And the court case ruled what? Nothing. It was dismissed.

>Charged with what?

He had notice that the US was after him and, if he wanted, he could have submitted to the court system. The Supreme Court has consistently held, most notably in Matthews v. Eldridge, that the amount of process due is context dependent.

Alright man. I can tell you have a big stake in this. Obviously you’re not reading/engaging with the source material. Otherwise you wouldn’t be asking questions that have been answered.

I gave you two court settled situations in which the fourth and fifth amendment don’t apply in the context of imminent threat. The first, for example, law enforcements confrontation with a dangerous individual. Second, the impossible weight put on the govt to observe due process in the face of imminent threats. Please refer to the court cases above. They are cited for a reason. Those are not my words. They are not the words of the executive branch. Those cases/opinions are the words of the judiciary. Refer to them. If Al-awlaki hadn’t been a combatant in a foreign force targeting the US, this may not have applied. But he was.

If he had been in the US the govt couldn't have said that they were unable to attempt to apprehend him—-it wouldn't have been believable. Being in Yemen, and the fact that both the DOD and CIA said it was not possible to launch an operation (given they had attempted, which they said they had) for capture due to extraordinary circumstances, it was not in the govts court to provide due process in the face of imminent threat. In the case of Al-awlaki the self-defense justification holds merit when the United States' response to an armed attack is necessary and proportionate. The United States can invoke self-defense prior to an actual attack.

U.S. citizens who serve as soldiers for the enemy can be shot without trial during military operations but must be afforded a trial as traitors if they can be captured (Which the military apparatus deemed not possible).

For example, before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target. Functionally, A1-Aulaqi had notice that he was on a kill list. The media had been abuzz about killing him, and his father even filed an unsuccessful lawsuit on his behalf.138 Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial.

You can’t ‘assassinate’ an individual once they enter the throngs of a foreign force. They are considered a legitimate military target. targeted killing" denotes a state's intentional and premeditated use of lethal force through agents acting under color of law against a specific, reasonably unobtainable individual. Targeted killing and assassination are similar but distinct operations that commentators often conflate. assassinations are killings that are politically motivated and use subterfuge, while targeted killings are military strikes. This distinction is important because President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12,333 bans assassination.

Please, just read the documents. Thanks.