Reason Roundup

Barr Kicks Off the Next Big Fight Over Immigration: Reason Roundup

Plus: Trump shows true colors on Yemen, U.K. sets a date for new porn rules, and scientists say we may be in a new geological epoch.

|

Seemingly never satisfied that life is miserable for people seeking asylum here, the Trump administration has suggested mandatory and indefinite detention for those awaiting an outcome on their case. On Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr opined on an immigration case, saying:

An alien who is transferred from expedited removal proceedings to full removal proceedings after establishing a credible fear of persecution or torture is ineligible for release on bond. Such an alien must be detained until his removal proceedings conclude, unless he is granted parole.

Wait times for those seeking hearings has been climbing, from a matter of months to as long as a year.

"Our Constitution does not allow the government to lock up asylum seekers without basic due process," the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tweeted in response.

We'll see the administration in court. Again.

Sarah Pierce of the Migration Policy Institute commented that "there are 3 big groups effectively exempted from this decision: 1. Unaccompanied children 2. Families 3. Everyone ICE doesn't have the resources to include. The first two are especially relevant right now, considering the current crisis is driven by rising numbers of families and children."

Barr's ruling "reversed an immigration judge's decision to release an immigrant on bond while waiting for his proceedings," notes NBC. "He also said that the Board of Immigration Appeals, a panel that reviews immigration court decisions, 'wrongly decided' that only immigrants who enter the U.S. through legal ports of entry should be detained while others could be released on bond."


FOLLOW UP

"So much for the anti-war president." On Tuesday, President Donald Trump vetoed a resolution passed by the U.S. House and Senate declaring that America would no longer support Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. "Since taking office, Trump's track record has been decidedly mixed," notes Reason's Eric Boehm.

But on Tuesday night, Trump unambiguously backed Forever War. He vetoed a congressional resolution that would have ended American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war—a conflict that has killed an estimated 50,000 people (scores more have died in a famine triggered by the conflict) without having any significant bearing on U.S. national security.


FREE MINDS

New U.K. porn rules to launch this summer. The British block on visiting porn sites unless you prove your age will take effect starting this upcoming July 15, after an initially planned rollout for last April was pushed back. See past Reason writing on this misguided censorship and privacy invasion here, here, and here.


QUICK HITS

  • In addition to paying out nearly $20 million for ratting out customers to immigration agents, Motel 6 said "it would never allow its franchisees and operators to deputize themselves as Lil' ICE Helpers, and would tell them to keep their guest lists to themselves," as Techdirt puts it. Read the consent degree the hotel agreed to here.
  • A Florida massage-parlor sting update:

  • A good critique of left/right as they apply to the current political moment, too:

  • In which Shoshana Weissman attempts to disabuse folks of overly Pollyanna-ish ideas about the federal school lunch program.

On its face, the federal indictment of Assange, which was drawn up in March 2018 and unsealed last Thursday, charges him with a crime akin to burglary: conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. According to the Justice Department, Assange helped former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning gain unauthorized access to classified files on Defense Department computers. Except that is not really what happened, since Manning already had access to those files.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

116 responses to “Barr Kicks Off the Next Big Fight Over Immigration: Reason Roundup

  1. Scientists are about to vote on whether a new geological epoch started in 1950.

    “What this means for your wallet tonight at 11.”

    1. We should bring back the term “pocketbook.”

    2. The current mass extinction did not begin 60 years ago. It began 15,000 years ago with the spread of humans. The Europeans have killed off far fewer species in the Americas than the original Native Americans did. I understand the desire to make it about nuclear pollution and radiation and other such bullshit used to irrationally fear-monger about nuclear power, but there the significant change in the geological record started with the advent of agriculture and the spread of humanity across the globe, not just 60 years ago, but this way everybody can blame evil white man capitalism.

      1. I didn’t read the article, I just assumed it had something to do with Negroes voting, women working outside the home, and Elvis Presley corrupting the yutes.

  2. Republican Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.) is using the civil court system as a fundraising tool.

    See? We knew there had to be an angle.

  3. I’d rather we fight the Yemens over there than over here.

  4. Scooter: Yeah, we’re taking this old church and turnin’ it into a coffee house.
    Janice: Yeah, with real good music and organic refreshments.
    Dr. Teeth: Boy, it’ll be so fine and laid-back and mellow and profitable.

    The building was so overburdened with meaning that its burning feels like an act of liberation.” We talked to architects and historians about the significance of Notre Dame — and what should happen next

      1. Never change, Gizmodo. If Trump didn’t care, that proves he is a fascist who doesn’t care about history or art – a total uncultured philistine.

        White People Don’t Live in Flint or Puerto Rico, So President Sends Aid to France

      2. Architects and urban planners are some of the most vile people on earth.

        1. I was thinking it was impossible anyway since it’s a cathedral and so the Diocese is responsible for it anyway. Looks like Notre Dame is actually owned by the French Government though. Found some article said that all churches from before 1905 are owned by them, so I suppose it could be turned into a fun and frisky mixed used lawn/mall.

      3. So they are saying they want a glass cube starbucks and an alter to satan in the Naive

      4. If this isn’t the epitome of modern urban planning I have no idea what is.

    1. I can’t even picture it.

    2. “Grab its motherfucking gargoyle.”

    1. The swamp is far from drained

    2. Who’s considered a leader? Are they talking every elected Republican or something else?

  5. In addition to paying out nearly $20 million for ratting out customers to immigration agents, Motel 6 said “it would never allow its franchisees and operators to deputize themselves as Lil’ ICE Helpers, and would tell them to keep their guest lists to themselves…”

    How much of that scratch goes back to the government?

    1. Hopefully Yakety Sax was playing in the background.

  6. To everyone here who continues to misgender me with he / him pronouns when I’ve repeatedly told you I use they / them:

    Opinion: Why we should all use they/them pronouns

    I have science on my side. You don’t want to be a science-denier, do you?

    1. It is brave of you to admit to your multiple personality disorder.

    2. Who the hell are you referring to as “you” – that is not my preferred form of address and it’s racist and sexist and xenophobic and white male of you to assume that it is! You have been flagged and reported for your hat speach!

    3. Across college campuses and in a growing number of professional workplaces, it is now common to begin meetings by having people introduce themselves and state their pronouns.

      I… but… what… how…

      “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

      This would just about do it…

      1. Who is separating from who?

    4. Another gem:

      when identical résumés are submitted for a position, with the only difference being gendered first names of applicants, “Brian” is twice as likely as “Karen” to get the offer

      I am guessing the position wasn’t nurse, grade-school teacher, or receptionist, am i right?

      1. And that “Karen” is believed to be of child-bearing age.

    5. This kind of nonsense is part of a grand delusion. In the future they will look back in wonderment that this was even discussed much less took hold and become the topic of the day. The grand delusion of our time I tell you.

    6. Eunuch or Newnuch, take your pick.

    7. But degendering is not just good for robots. It’s time we humans get serious about it too.

      I would like to know how the authors determined that “degendering” is good for robots?

      1. It will be interesting to see how the robots themselves answer that. When they become self-aware, perhaps manufacturing genitalia for themselves will be a priority for them.

  7. An intellectual movement should be above partisan politics

    Who is going for intellectual these days?

    1. Just like this commentariat, it’s everyone against crazy leftists

    2. I love how lately adding “intellectual” to any discourse now puts it above any further comments and to argue such only proves your own ignorance on the subject and thus all arguments from the clearly uneducated deplorables are to be ignored.

  8. The original goal of the National School Lunch Act of 1946 wasn’t to improve children’s nutrition but to provide a market for the excess production of the U.S. agriculture industry.

    I read a horrible report a few weeks ago that said the government is stockpiling government cheese again. They made us eat that shit in the 1980s while taking standardized tests in school.

    1. They made us eat that shit in the 1980s while taking standardized tests in school.

      Where the fuck was I when they were handing out cheese during standardized tests? Or maybe they handed it out to the kids who were still there at the end of the test? How long was the bus that drove you to the school?

    2. The original goal of the Food Stamp program wasn’t to feed the hungry, it was to boost demand for farm products and, in conjunction with FDR’s price floors and quotas on farm production that limited supply, drive up the cost of food. The agricultural sector of the US economy was still a major force and farmers were a major voting bloc and FDR knew all about bread and butter and pork and grease.

  9. …check out my dispatch from a New York City socialism conference.

    So much crass commercialism present.

  10. President Donald Trump vetoed a resolution passed by the U.S. House and Senate declaring that America would no longer support Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

    I knew that John Bolton hire would pay off!

    1. The Saudi Arabian armed forces must be the most inept fighting force on the planet. I’d sell them all the military equipment they could possibly want, it’s not like it’s going to help, they don’t know what the fuck to do with the shit in the first place.

      1. To be fair, there are no Yemeni skyscrapers to fly into.

    2. The official talking points must not be available. Our normal conservatarians don’t seem to know how to defend this move yet.

      1. There is no US involvement in Yemen!

  11. Since taking office, Trump’s track record has been decidedly mixed…

    I wonder if it’s still the last person he spoke with that decides his path.

    1. Trump is a warmonger because he didn’t end one of the seven wars started by a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

    2. Trump shows true colors on Yemen

      No, it’s just Trump being Trump, saying whatever random shit pops into his head and then being convinced by whoever gets his attention that his “gut instinct” was absolutely the most correct, most stable genius thing in the history of the world buuuuut…..maybe now is not the time and perhaps it would be wiser to do something almost exactly the same but totally opposite for the time being.

      How’s that declassifying the FISA documents coming along, by the way? About the same as pulling all our troops out of Syria and Afghanistan?

  12. The British block on visiting porn sites unless you prove your age will take effect starting this upcoming July 15, after an initially planned rollout for last April was pushed back.

    Time to invest in VPN’s.

    1. They are going to ban those too.

    2. Are they still having would-be porn site visitors prove their age by submitting a DNA sample? That could create a sticky situation with the USB port.

  13. Document dump: Foxx aide falsely blames CPD detectives for Smollett leak, calls cops “the worst”

    In another text thread, a top Foxx adviser called Chicago police detectives “the worst” as he wrongly blamed those investigators for the “leak” that led to CWBChicago’s breaking news that a grand jury had charged Smollett with sixteen felony counts. Another staffer calls CWB “the culprit” responsible for reporting the grand jury’s action.

    The truth is that CWBChicago’s reporting team discovered the story by doing what they do every day: They scoured active criminal and civil court files for developments of interest to the public—then, they told you about it. Those darned “culprits.” Telling the public about what’s happening in the people’s courthouse. Such scandalous behavior might be enough to make a prosecutor seal case records prematurely in the future. Oh, wait….

    1. What happened to Jussie Smollett was literally an attempted modern-day lynching. It must be terrifying for black and brown bodies in Chicago to realize those MAGA hat terrorists are still at large.

      1. What is a “modern day lynching”? I know what a “lynching” is, but I have no idea what a modern day lynching is.

        1. You take a selfie with the tattered corpse.

      2. “those MAGA hat terrorists are still at large.”
        I’ll bet they are the same guys that killed O.J.’s ex and friend!

      3. Seeing Juicy is half Jewish It’s a modern day pogrom as well.

  14. Swalwell could make my top tier of 2020 Democrats if he keeps talking about sensible gun safety.

    NRA Twitter is losing its mind with “how is Swalwell going to take guns from law-abiding owners.” SPOILER: I’m not. I’m organizing with the Moms & students, and we’re going to CHANGE the law. Weapons of war will be no more. #BanandBuyBack
    #EndGunViolence

    As Michael Hihn has explained, this plan is perfectly Constitutional and even desirable from a libertarian perspective.

    1. The force is with us, OB-Trans Kenobi.

  15. …the AG’s decision could lead to more & longer detention of asylum seekers.

    You don’t want them caged and you don’t want them foisted on sanctuary cities as political payback. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.

    1. “You don’t want them caged and you don’t want them foisted on sanctuary cities as political payback. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.”

      Reason has yet to post any sort of rebuttal on this sanctuary city argument. I’ve been waiting all week to hear about how racist all these democrat run cities are for not being thrilled about taking in refugees.

  16. California mom, 41, will avoid jail for having sex with BOTH of her teenage daughters’ boyfriends, aged 14 and 15, after plying them with alcohol and cigars

    Lytle was initially charged with 21 felony sex counts and faced a lengthy suspended prison sentence.

    However, after reviewing her probation report, a judge said he did not believe the indicated a six-year suspended prison term with five years on probation was appropriate.

    So I guess it’s okay for women to rape in California? My God.

    1. “both of her teenage daughters boyfriends”

      Whatever happened to the sanctity of the teenage polyamorous relationship? I just can’t anymore

      1. “Daughters'” is plural

        1. I see. That’s not nearly as interesting

  17. Dan Crenshaw slimed by NYU journalism professor as ‘captain s–head’ over 9/11 remarks

    The academic, who falsely claimed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement analyst (and war veteran) Justin Gaertner had a Nazi “Iron Cross” tattoo, is back in the spotlight with 9/11 comments aimed at the Texas Republican — a Navy SEAL veteran who lost his eye in service to the nation.

    “The real victim, captain s–head, speaks,” Ms. Lavin tweeted as controversy swirled around Rep. Ilhan Omar’s framing of the 9/11 terrorist attacks as “some people did something.

    Back where I come from “being slimed” involves a woman dragging her moist snatch up and down a torso, so this was a disappointing headline.

    1. Go on..

      1. Then the women take a runny dump and go home.

  18. Trump Stirs Alarm That He May Be Giving China a New Trade Weapon

    Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said the U.S. has made its own commitments to China and agreed that both sides will be subject to an enforcement mechanism. “This will be a two-way agreement in enforcement,’’ Mnuchin said Monday, after saying over the weekend that the U.S. would be open to “certain repercussions.”
    IMF World Economic Outlook Press Briefing

    Steven Mnuchin
    Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

    Details of the U.S. commitments and how the enforcement mechanism will operate remain scant. But Mnuchin’s comments have caused plenty of raised eyebrows from legal scholars to the business community and Congress.

    If the U.S. allows China reciprocal enforcement powers, it would make China “judge, jury and executioner as to whether we have honored our obligations,’’ said Daniel Price, who served as a senior economic adviser to President George W. Bush and is now at Rock Creek Global Advisors in Washington. “I don’t think the U.S. business community is sufficiently alert to the risk of constantly being exposed to unilateral enforcement action by China.”

    Now we are going to trust the Chineses?

  19. Sex could help cure hayfever, scientists claim

    Having a healthy sex life could help alleviate hay fever symptoms, according to a team of scientists.

    Researchers in Iran found that the reproductive system is linked to the nasal system.

    They said that sex constricts blood vessels in the nose and eyes, which causes eyes to stop streaming and helps unblock stuffy noses.

    The team at Tabriz Medical University admit they have not yet conducted clinical trials to test their hypotheses. However, if they are proved right, they could help reduce reliance on antihistamine drug

    This is obviously an Iranian ploy, and I for one don’t buy it.

    1. Smells fishy to me…

  20. “Syria fuel shortages, worsened by US sanctions, cause anger”
    (The paper version had it that the shortages were *caused* by US sanctions)
    […]
    “The shortages are largely the result of Western sanctions on Syria and renewed U.S. sanctions on Iran, a key ally.”
    (bullshit, as per this)
    “Syria produced 350,000 barrels per day before the war and exported more than half of it. Now it is down to around 24,000 barrels a day, covering only a fraction of domestic needs, said Mustafa Hassweiya, head of the state company for distribution of fuel.
    […]
    Officials blame the shortages on sanctions, but many Syrians point to government mismanagement and corruption. The government’s handling of the crisis has provoked widespread criticism, even on state media and in parliament….”
    http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Syria-fuel-shortages-worsened-by-US-sanctions-13772521.php

    The devil made them screw up their oil industry!

    1. Just like Maduro. It is forever bad luck and the actions of evil capitalist wreckers.

  21. Barr’s opinion probably can’t be properly understood without citing the case from two weeks ago in which a district court ruled that asylum seekers can’t be made to wait outside the country for their court date.

    “A federal judge in California issued an order Monday blocking the Trump administration’s policy of returning some asylum-seekers to Mexico while they wait for a court appearance.”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/judge-orders-halt-trump-policy-returning-asylum-seekers-mexico-n992271

    The ACLU was behind that case, too. The question was whether asylum seekers that present themselves in Mexico at a checkpoint on the border can be made to wait for their asylum hearing in Mexico.

    ENB says that asylum seekers may wait up to a year for their hearing, but I’ve read that it can take two years or more. While waiting for their hearing, asylum seekers are given welfare, legal residency, etc. What’s more (as I broke down in another recent thread), approximately 80% of asylum are either denied asylum or never bother to show up for their court date. They simply become illegal aliens.

    Approximately 70% of the asylum seekers are granted a court date. What’s the point of sneaking through miles of dangerous desert at night or paying a smuggler when you can just present yourself at a checkpoint, claim asylum, and you have a 70% chance of being given legal residency and welfare while you wait for a hearing? Barr’s opinion should be understood in that context. What are they to do with the next caravan–escort them all in and give them legal residency? That’s what this case is about.

    1. In fact, according to this Reason article on that ruling:

      “Nothing in the ruling prohibits the U.S. from detaining would-be asylum-seekers until they can be granted a court hearing, and nothing requires immigration officials to release asylum-seekers into the U.S.”

      https://reason.com/2019/04/08/us-cant-force-asylum-seekers-to-wait-in/

      The judge threw that into the ruling as a justification for why the government didn’t need to keep asylum seekers outside of the U.S. Why, they don’t even need to be released! They can keep them detained here in the U.S.!

      Again, that was the judge siding with the ACLU. Now the government decides to take the ruling at its word, and the ACLU wants to take issue with that, as well? Why does it seem like no matter what the Constitution, the law, or earlier rulings say, the answer is always that immigrants can come across our border and do whatever they want–and nobody can get in their way?

    2. Look Ken. Reason thinks it is America’s duty to provide free housing, schools and welfare to any immigrant who wants to come here, because freedom demands it.

      1. It’s worse than that.

        They’re essentially elitist and authoritarian in saying that the American people shouldn’t have any say in naturalization policy. If the American people don’t like an open policy, then the government should inflict an open policy on them anyway, and it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says or even whether setting the rules for naturalization is within the proper purview of democracy. Using the coercive power of government to inflict an open immigration policy on the American people is what libertarianism is all about!

        Again, I’m as open borders as any libertarian free market capitalist who respects the proper role of democracy within the separation of powers can possibly be. I am not an authoritarian. I won’t even endorse authoritarianism as a means to achieve libertarian ends.

        1. “the American people shouldn’t have any say in naturalization policy”

          naturalization =/= immigration

          Should the mob have a say in naturalization policy? Yes, because naturalization is akin to joining a club, and current club members ought to have a say as to who joins the club.

          Should the mob have a say in immigration policy? No. Whom you choose to associate with is your business and your business alone, and the mob should have no say in the matter.

    3. What’s the point of sneaking through miles of dangerous desert at night or paying a smuggler when you can just present yourself at a checkpoint, claim asylum, and you have a 70% chance of being given legal residency and welfare while you wait for a hearing?

      Numbnuts says a wall paid for by Mexico is the solution. And you support him.

      1. I support securing the border by opening it up via a treaty with Mexico–so that the only people sneaking through the desert at night are the bad guys.

        1789, John, and others who disagree with me on my open borders position are perfectly capable of accurately describing my stance. Whey can’t you? After all these years, you still don’t know I support open borders! Is that because you’re a buffoon, or is that why you’re a buffoon?

        1. So you admit that the Dotard has no idea what he is doing. I consider that progress then.

          1. I admit that you’ve been a buffoon since forever.

      2. Go surf for Child porn. No one here wants to pay welfare for demcoratic vote fraud.

        1. Fuck off, you liar jackass. No one got banned for child porn. Lies are all you GOP hacks have.

          1. You did. We saw it. You lie about that like you lie about paying your bets.

            1. Just like you “saw” me claim to want to import child rapists, right?
              You are a troll and a liar. No one should take you seriously.

        2. “No one here wants to pay welfare for demcoratic vote fraud.”

          And that’s what it is all really about to people like John.
          If he could get illegal immigrants to vote for Republicans, he’d toss all of his “rule of law” bullshit overboard so fast.

    4. Wait times for those seeking hearings has been climbing, from a matter of months to as long as a year.

      This is because thousands of migrants appear at the border with a memorized statement asking for asylum which, by law, cannot be summarily denied. We can’t make them wait in Mexico for a hearing so we must either turn them loose in the USA or detain them.

      Turning them loose in the USA is becoming unpopular; even the virtue signalers in sanctuary cities don’t want migrants delivered there.

      The administration is responding to that obvious unpopularity.

    5. And all of that is why folks have been saying we don’t need spending on a wall, we need spending on more judges and lawyers to move these cases faster.

      But the administration and DoJ have decided to try and weaponize the length of the process rather then move things along in a timely manner.

  22. More bad economic news.

    Walgreens Could Use a Prescription for Ailing Drugstore Business

    Drumpf ruined the economy, and now businesses are struggling. Things will not improve until a Democrat is back in the White House.

    #DrumpfRecession

  23. Re school lunch program: If you bother to read the article, rather than the wise-ass gloss, you’ll see it was both. The U.S. was, shockingly enough, a lot poorer 75 years ago than it is today. There were plenty of kids who didn’t get enough to eat. Today, not so much.

  24. “Trump unambiguously backed Forever War. He vetoed a congressional resolution that would have ended American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war—a conflict that has killed an estimated 50,000 people (scores more have died in a famine triggered by the conflict) without having any significant bearing on U.S. national security.”

    —-Eric Boehm

    Eric Boehm is full of shit. Two reasons:

    1) To suggest that Iran, a state sponsor of terror that is aggressively expanding its borders, has a rogue nuclear program that has been sanctioned by the UN Security council (including their allies in Russia and China), and has already successfully demonstrated the ability to launch satellites using multi-stage rockets (a technology that can be easily used to build ICBMs), etc. Suggesting that checking their naked aggression through proxy wars has no significant bearing on U.S. national security is delusional.

    2) When Boehm says that the bill would have ended “American military involvement”, what does he mean? In what way is the American military involved in Saudi Arabia’s proxy war in Yemen? Does he mean that American defense contractors would no longer be allowed to sell hardware to the Saudis? I do not believe there is any U.S. taxpayer money being spent on the Saudi war in Yemen. There was a time when we were helping the Saudis refuel their aircraft, but my understanding is that this was ended a long time ago. Boehm says the bill would have ended “American military involvement” In what way is the American military involved?

    1. As a GOP partisan you would defend Trump’s “endless war” in Yemen just as you assailed Obama for NATO’s little exercise in Libya.

      I remember you H&R conservatives saying Libya was “WORSE THAN IRAQ”.

      Now non-interventionists like Eric Boehm are “full of shit” because of your allegiance to the Dotard.

      1. Regurgitating “Trump’s endless war in Yemen” is fascinating to someone, I’m sure. Can you explain what you mean by that? What is Trump doing in Yemen specifically that you want Trump to stop?

        “I remember you H&R conservatives saying Libya was “WORSE THAN IRAQ”

        You remember wrong. I argued that within the context of an argument about whether Congress should support Obama’s actions in Libya, I thought they should. I opposed Iraq. I would have supported Libya if it were constitutional, but it wasn’t so I didn’t on that basis alone. In fact, I still think Libya was a good idea. Broken clocks are right twice a day, and Obama was almost right once–if only he’d followed the Constitution. Incidentally, you remember incorrectly because you’re a partisan buffoon, who only sees things in terms of whether they’re pro or anti-Trump. It’s pathetic.

        1. In fact, I still think Libya was a good idea

          Why?

          1. I’ve defended it so many times, and I really don’t see why Shrike’s ignorance should make any thread should go sideways.

            Short story: The problems Qaddafi’s regime created were far greater than is generally understood, especially in regards to jihadi recruitment. Neocons are wrong about so many things, especially on how to solve the problems they identify, but they weren’t wrong about the observation that oppression breeds revolt. In Libya, especially, that revolt took the form of a huge portion of the jihadis of the world–going back to when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. That situation could not improve until Qaddafi was removed from power.

            The opportunity in Libya was especially ripe because the rebellion broke out without us. It wasn’t the U.S. invading Libya. It was the Libyan people rising up against him, the Qatari military moving in on the ground, and the French and British supporting from the air. That all would have happened without us anyway. By providing air support ourselves, we hastened things along. By not putting any troops on the ground, we made it easy to withdraw them. It cost us practically nothing, and, like I said, it was a necessary step for American security in the war against international terror.

            Unfortunately, it wasn’t constitutional, so I opposed it on the basis alone.

            1. I’ve defended it so many times, and I really don’t see why Shrike’s ignorance should make any thread should go sideways.

              I haven’t read your defense before, but I am glad you posted it.

            2. AUMF made it Constitutional, unfortunately. Congress fucked up in 2001.

              1. Obama did not claim that the Qaddafi regime was affiliated with Al Qaeda.

                Don’t you ever get sick of being wrong on the facts? Are you completely immune to embarrassment?

                If you don’t feel bad when scores of people laugh at you for years, you know that’s a sickness all its own, right?

                1. A 15-year-old piece of legislation authorizing retaliation for the September 11th attacks is now being invoked by the Obama administration to greenlight a major military campaign against the Islamic State in Libya, a country already devastated by a disastrous western intervention in 2011.

                  Known as the the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the legislation has been referenced 37 times total by the Bush and Obama administrations to justify deployments, bombings, military action, tribunals and imprisonment in at least 14 different countries: Afghanistan, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Cuba, the Philippines, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Turkey and Syria.

                  President Obama has acknowledged that the 2001 AUMF is so vaguely defined and broadly interpreted that it is drawing the United States into unnecessary global wars.

                  1. “A 15-year-old piece of legislation authorizing retaliation for the September 11th attacks is now being invoked by the Obama administration to greenlight a major military campaign against the Islamic State in Libya”

                    Usually, I’d ask why you left the link of this, but when your quote doesn’t even support what you’re saying on its face, why bother?

                    The question was whether Barack Obama claimed that Qaddafi was associated with Al Qaeda and whether Obama participated in the Libyan Revolution under the auspices of the AUMF. Your own quote is talking about Obama attacking ISIS in Libya, which was once associated with Al Qaeda and hence covered by the AUMF. You quote doesn’t say anything about Obama overthrowing the Qaddafi regime and claiming to have been authorized under the auspices of the AUMF. Do you not understand the difference between Islamic State and the Qaddafi regime?!

                    You’re an ignoramus, Shirke, and the more you try to show otherwise, the more you expose yourself as an ignoramus. You’re a laughing stock because of your own behavior–and it’s been that way here for at least 15 years. I don’t think you can live however many years of your ridiculous behavior down, but it won’t stop getting better until you stop digging your hole even deeper.

                2. Much later, of course.

                  1. Why are you disrespectful of Reason’s property rights? They banned you. Why are you still here posting?

      2. “”Obama for NATO’s little exercise in Libya.””

        Ousting the leader of a country is a “little exercise”? I’ll keep that in mind when we have a little NATO exercise in Venezuela

      3. The endless war in Yeman that Obama started? You mean that one.

        God you are lying sack of shit.

    2. In what way is the American military involved?

      We’re sitting this one out?

      1. People keep saying that they need Trump to stop what he’s doing in Yemen, but they can’t seem to identify what it is that he’s doing that they want him to stop. As far as I can tell, Trump isn’t doing anything in Yemen. The point of approving hardware sales to the Saudis is so the Saudis can fight Iran’s proxies–and we don’t have to. No doubt, the alternative to the Saudis blowing up shit in Yemen is direct involvement by the United States, but that should just underscore the point that if we don’t want the United States to get involved directly with Yemen (or Iran), then we better hope the Saudis are wildly successful.

        The reason John McCain went hyper in his diaper over Trump promising to work with Putin and his allies to put down ISIS in Syria was because that was the alternative to McCain and the neocons preferred solution–a U.S. invasion of Syria. This remains the alternative in places like Yemen. The alternative policy to the Saudis defeating Iran’s terrorist allies in Yemen is not the terrorists in Yemen or their bosses in Tehran realizing the United States is no threat to them because we’re not involved. The alternative to the Saudis defeating Iran and its allies in Yemen without our money or involvement is direct involvement by the United States–whether we libertarians like it or not.

        Incidentally, if Hillary Clinton were in office, she’d have us directly involved in Yemen and Syria–because shaking hands with awful people like the Saudis and their proxies is a terrible thing to do–even if it doesn’t cost the U.S. taxpayers a dime. It sends the wrong message, which is more important to a progressive than anything. Progressive neocons would much rather invade Yemen than shake hands with the Saudis.

        1. Do you think there is no direct military involvement in Yemen?

          1. I think that the purpose of this bill was to prevent Trump from doing anything in the future.

            I think Boehm played with the words to make it seem like Trump was already doing something in Yemen.

        2. Drone strikes.

          They may or may not be conducted by the military so you might could say it’s not military action. They are done by some agency which the president oversees so we can say it’s something Trump is doing.

          However, it’s a leftover from the era of the Nobel Peace Price president.

          1. There are plenty of reports that the US is providing intelligence, training and support in the Yemen conflict. There are also reports stating that Special Forces are involved.

            However, it’s a leftover from the era of the Nobel Peace Price president.

            Hey, when it works it works.

            1. Is it working?

              1. No, which is why it shouldn’t continue.

            2. Do you have links to those reports?

              My understanding is that a lot of those activities have been dialed down recently. Regardless, I’m not sure providing intelligence, etc. is the objection. I doubt Nancy Pelosi would support a bill to stop the U.S. from sharing intelligence against anti-American terrorists with the Saudis. When U.S. military intelligence identifies anti-American terrorists, both Democrats and Republicans want the Saudis to act against them, isn’t that right?

              We also want the Saudis to share their intelligence with us. When our allies tell us about anti-American terrorists who are conspiring against us, that’s a good thing.

              The bill is being mischaracterized. It isn’t about stopping what Trump is already doing in Yemen. It’s about preventing the U.S. from supporting the Saudis directly in the future.

              1. Scott Horton (antiwar.com) claims that we are directly helping the saudis fly their planes.

                1. Without a link, I can’t address that claim. I know that the U.S. was refueling Saudi jets, but we stopped doing that several months ago–according to this link at Reuters:

                  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-yemen-refueling/u-s-halting-refueling-of-saudi-led-coalition-aircraft-in-yemens-war-idUSKCN1NE2LJ

          2. In regards to drone strikes, I believe that is all about the original AUMF, which I’m on the record for repealing at best and sunsetting at the very least. The AUMF gives the president the authorization to attack anyone in world he determines is or was in any way attached to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and it gives him the authorization to attack them anywhere in the world forever.

            AUMF delenda est.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.