The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:22 pm

Rum wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:40 pm
.
Nobody here as far as I am aware views Islam as a race. And nobody here has ever been ‘removed’.
One person has been permanently banned, but only the one. Don't bother asking because I have absolutely no intention of saying who or why? The point is that we don't drop the ban hammer here.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Rum » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:24 pm

Edit: response to Cunt’s last.

You didn’t read my post properly. I didn’t say there are moral people criticising Islam - though I’m sure there are.

As ever you make up what people say and then blast away at them for (not) saying it.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Joe » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:27 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:09 pm
That's an acute assessment if ever there was one. :whistle:
:hehe:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Cunt » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:42 pm

Cunt wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:47 pm
Rum wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:40 pm
No
You are correct. No-one has been removed.

This place isn't at all diverse though...it has gotten much less diverse over the years. Myself, I value opinions other than my own, so seek them out. Other than a very patient and careful Forty Two, there aren't many remaining here who are on the political right.

Who are the moral people who are very critical of Islam? Do you know what is happening to them on social media platforms?

Maybe I've missed them, and you can enlighten me
Rum, this is what I was asking. I am sure there are moral people criticising Islam. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Tommy Robinson come to mind, but I was asking if you knew anyone who has been criticising them since Twitter was taken over by Islam.

Who is criticising them publicly, fairly and morally now, according to you?

If you want to say I'm listening to the wrong opinions, then show me where the right ones are.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Rum » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:49 pm

Oh Fuck off. ‘Twitter taken over by Islam’. Just fuck off.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Joe » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:01 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:33 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:22 pm


Indeed, thus my use of the word "seems." I'm just entertaining a notion I don't agree with. :hehe:

Seriously, I think it's important to understand the pressures and fears that shape the limits on our rights, and how they might vary by nation. That requires not rejecting prior restraint out of hand, perhaps not even Nazi punching vigilantism, even though I'd rather roast Nazis - in the comedic sense, not the Joan of Arc one.

BTW, I noticed you dodged my question. How do you feel about the rights of Trump critics to free speech and due process?
I didn't dodge that question.

What do you mean, how do I feel about the rights of Trump critics to free speech and due process? I've been clear on this every time it's come up: Trump critics have every right to say whatever they want about Trump, and they should be afforded the same due process of law as every other citizen. Free speech is an individual right, and justice is individual.

So, people who want to publicize naked, embarrassing statues of Trump, hold up severed heads of Trump, declare that the white house should be blown up or that they dreamed of it happening, chant to lock him up, wish for his death, wish for people to harm him, march and protest against him, camp out outside mar-a-lago and shout obscenities at him, give him the finger, and the like - whatever - the entire universe of ideas - they have every right to do that. I would staunchly oppose any government action to silence that person, and I would staunchly want prosecuted any person who would do violence against such people opposing Trump.

Is that clear?
Well Forty Two, since you didn't post a link to where you answered the question, I'll assume your denial is the usual hyperbole. :lol:

To your main point, I agree with what you wrote, but as you said
The ability to entertain a notion without accepting it is the beginning of wisdom.
so I'd like challenge it a little in the interests of clarification. Let's take a specific scenario.

A former intelligence officer - a highly placed one - retired and took a job as a commentator at a news network. In this capacity, he criticized the sitting President in terms the White House took umbrage at. Since he still had his security clearance, the President revoked it directly, without going through the government's established process for revoking security clearances.

Based on what you've written, you opposed revoking John Brennan's clearance without due process,right? Would you outline how you applied your principles to this particular case?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:31 pm

Joe wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:01 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:33 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:22 pm


Indeed, thus my use of the word "seems." I'm just entertaining a notion I don't agree with. :hehe:

Seriously, I think it's important to understand the pressures and fears that shape the limits on our rights, and how they might vary by nation. That requires not rejecting prior restraint out of hand, perhaps not even Nazi punching vigilantism, even though I'd rather roast Nazis - in the comedic sense, not the Joan of Arc one.

BTW, I noticed you dodged my question. How do you feel about the rights of Trump critics to free speech and due process?
I didn't dodge that question.

What do you mean, how do I feel about the rights of Trump critics to free speech and due process? I've been clear on this every time it's come up: Trump critics have every right to say whatever they want about Trump, and they should be afforded the same due process of law as every other citizen. Free speech is an individual right, and justice is individual.

So, people who want to publicize naked, embarrassing statues of Trump, hold up severed heads of Trump, declare that the white house should be blown up or that they dreamed of it happening, chant to lock him up, wish for his death, wish for people to harm him, march and protest against him, camp out outside mar-a-lago and shout obscenities at him, give him the finger, and the like - whatever - the entire universe of ideas - they have every right to do that. I would staunchly oppose any government action to silence that person, and I would staunchly want prosecuted any person who would do violence against such people opposing Trump.

Is that clear?
Well Forty Two, since you didn't post a link to where you answered the question, I'll assume your denial is the usual hyperbole. :lol:
Nonsense - I have stated this very clearly over and over again - that free speech is for those with whom we disagree. I have stated clearly on many occasions that I support any person's right to free speech, including ideologies I loathe, such as Communism, and folks like ANTIFA and such.

I find it amazing that you would have some other idea about that.

Joe wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:01 pm

To your main point, I agree with what you wrote, but as you said
The ability to entertain a notion without accepting it is the beginning of wisdom.
so I'd like challenge it a little in the interests of clarification. Let's take a specific scenario.

A former intelligence officer - a highly placed one - retired and took a job as a commentator at a news network. In this capacity, he criticized the sitting President in terms the White House took umbrage at. Since he still had his security clearance, the President revoked it directly, without going through the government's established process for revoking security clearances.

Based on what you've written, you opposed revoking John Brennan's clearance without due process,right? Would you outline how you applied your principles to this particular case?
No, because I dispute your premises.

One, the President has the Constitutional power to revoke anyone's security clearance at will.

Two, having free speech does not mean that you can't, for example, be acted upon by other people. Examples, if you say something your employer doesn't like, you can be fired.

Three, there was no lack of "due process" since since there wasn't any process due in that particular circumstance -- just like the President can fire his cabinet members outright - for no reason - or because they say they like hot dogs with ketchup on it or because they espouse political views the President doesn't like - etc. The President can fire the current head of the FBI or the Attorney General if they told a bad joke, or if they disclosed that they were actually Democrats, or if they went outside and said that President Trump was treasonous. If the President can fire someone for that, he certainly can take their security clearances for that.

The President is not required to allow people who come out and say they despise him and wish him ill, and think he, the President, is "treasonous" - to have "security clearance" and thereby have access to classified documents.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by JimC » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:38 pm

Forty Two wrote:

...President can fire his cabinet members outright - for no reason - or because they say they like hot dogs with ketchup on it or because they espouse political views the President doesn't like - etc. ..
Even if he technically can, do you really want your head of state to act in such an emotional, capricious and unstable fashion?

Oh wait, of course you do - you're a Trump supporter... :tea:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Seabass » Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:10 pm

:hehe:
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Joe » Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:12 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:31 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:01 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:33 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:22 pm


Indeed, thus my use of the word "seems." I'm just entertaining a notion I don't agree with. :hehe:

Seriously, I think it's important to understand the pressures and fears that shape the limits on our rights, and how they might vary by nation. That requires not rejecting prior restraint out of hand, perhaps not even Nazi punching vigilantism, even though I'd rather roast Nazis - in the comedic sense, not the Joan of Arc one.

BTW, I noticed you dodged my question. How do you feel about the rights of Trump critics to free speech and due process?
I didn't dodge that question.

What do you mean, how do I feel about the rights of Trump critics to free speech and due process? I've been clear on this every time it's come up: Trump critics have every right to say whatever they want about Trump, and they should be afforded the same due process of law as every other citizen. Free speech is an individual right, and justice is individual.

So, people who want to publicize naked, embarrassing statues of Trump, hold up severed heads of Trump, declare that the white house should be blown up or that they dreamed of it happening, chant to lock him up, wish for his death, wish for people to harm him, march and protest against him, camp out outside mar-a-lago and shout obscenities at him, give him the finger, and the like - whatever - the entire universe of ideas - they have every right to do that. I would staunchly oppose any government action to silence that person, and I would staunchly want prosecuted any person who would do violence against such people opposing Trump.

Is that clear?
Well Forty Two, since you didn't post a link to where you answered the question, I'll assume your denial is the usual hyperbole. :lol:
Nonsense - I have stated this very clearly over and over again - that free speech is for those with whom we disagree. I have stated clearly on many occasions that I support any person's right to free speech, including ideologies I loathe, such as Communism, and folks like ANTIFA and such.

I find it amazing that you would have some other idea about that.

Joe wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:01 pm

To your main point, I agree with what you wrote, but as you said
The ability to entertain a notion without accepting it is the beginning of wisdom.
so I'd like challenge it a little in the interests of clarification. Let's take a specific scenario.

A former intelligence officer - a highly placed one - retired and took a job as a commentator at a news network. In this capacity, he criticized the sitting President in terms the White House took umbrage at. Since he still had his security clearance, the President revoked it directly, without going through the government's established process for revoking security clearances.

Based on what you've written, you opposed revoking John Brennan's clearance without due process,right? Would you outline how you applied your principles to this particular case?
No, because I dispute your premises.

One, the President has the Constitutional power to revoke anyone's security clearance at will.

Two, having free speech does not mean that you can't, for example, be acted upon by other people. Examples, if you say something your employer doesn't like, you can be fired.

Three, there was no lack of "due process" since since there wasn't any process due in that particular circumstance -- just like the President can fire his cabinet members outright - for no reason - or because they say they like hot dogs with ketchup on it or because they espouse political views the President doesn't like - etc. The President can fire the current head of the FBI or the Attorney General if they told a bad joke, or if they disclosed that they were actually Democrats, or if they went outside and said that President Trump was treasonous. If the President can fire someone for that, he certainly can take their security clearances for that.

The President is not required to allow people who come out and say they despise him and wish him ill, and think he, the President, is "treasonous" - to have "security clearance" and thereby have access to classified documents.
Fair enough, but let's stipulate for discussion's sake that the guidelines do apply. Would you then oppose the President not following them in Brennan's case, or not? Why?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:47 am

Joe wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:12 pm

Fair enough, but let's stipulate for discussion's sake that the guidelines do apply. Would you then oppose the President not following them in Brennan's case, or not? Why?
Which guidelines, specifically?

Generally - no, though, regarding any guidelines - because the President is the Constitutional officer under Article II - meaning that it's the President that sets up the guidelines for, say, screening people that will be in his cabinet or other appointments -- but, that doesn't mean the President himself has to follow those guidelines - he can make whatever exceptions he wants.

Take a Democrat President - he might hire an Attorney General - and then he would look at their words, among other things, to see what they've said - generally to indicate if they will fit in well with a Democrat Presidency - he's not going to say "you have a right of free speech, therefore I will not take into account your express political views when making my decisions..." that would be ridiculous to expect of a President.

Similarly, with security clearance - there is a system set up - by the President - by the Executive Branch (which is the President) to give people clearances. But, if a guy who passed clearance stands up and says "This President is a douchebag" or "this President is engaged in treasonous behavior..." I wouldn't expect any President to stand on ceremony and say "oh, well, the guy passed security clearance procedures, so nothing I can do about it - I have to allow an avowed political enemy of mine have access to secure/classified information relative to my administration..."
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:51 pm

JimC wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:38 pm
Forty Two wrote:

...President can fire his cabinet members outright - for no reason - or because they say they like hot dogs with ketchup on it or because they espouse political views the President doesn't like - etc. ..
Even if he technically can, do you really want your head of state to act in such an emotional, capricious and unstable fashion?

Oh wait, of course you do - you're a Trump supporter... :tea:
I think your post doesn't make any sense, when viewed in light of the actual facts about John Brennan. I would not want the President to act in a capricious and unstable fashion, as you say. However, revoking Brennan's security clearance was proper, neither capricious nor unstable. If Brennan or anyone else had said the same things about Obama or any other sitting President, I would expect him to be fired or have clearance revoked.

Brennan said - "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history," he wrote. "You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but will not destroy America... America will triumph over you." - so, Brennan wants top level security clearance to access classified, top secret information relative to the Admnistration of a President that he has accused of being venal, guilty of moral turpitude, and corruption - who should be "disgraced" and in the "dustbin." And, he is accusing Trump of trying to "destroy America." If Bush's former intelligence chief or CIA chief had said that about Obama, would you think it weird that he got a security clearance revoked? I wouldn't. I'd think it would be amazing if he didn't.

Brennan's comments can negatively impact Trump's policy positions, which are at odds with Brennan's. Brennan would have Trump enact different trade policies, and Brennan publicly excoriates the President because the President is advancing an agenda that Brennan (not the President - not elected) thinks is wrong. So, Brennan says, ""You show an amazing albeit unsurprising ignorance of how technology, automation, and the attendant evolution of economics and societies have transformed the world," he said in response to a Trump tweet on March 7. "Your simple minded policies — imposition of tariffs — have the potential to seriously damage our future prosperity." - he calls the President ignorant - and excoriates the President's trade policies. Apparently "imposition of tariffs" is something Brennan doesn't want. Well, fuck off Brennan - you aren't a policy maker. You were not elected. And, idiot, there ARE plenty of tariffs. I don't hear you screaming about THOSE tariffs - I didn't hear you screaming about the tariffs that were raised under Obama, and there were plenty - now, you expose a massive rift in US policy that foreign countries can exploit - they can look for other Brennans to work with to force US policy in a different direction or to thwart Trump's goals. All of that they are allowed to do, of course, but Trump doesn't have to help them do it, and Trump doesn't have to leave Brennan in a position to access top secret information (some of which will be trade related) and he doesn't have to leave Brennan with access to people in government and with a means to say "I have top secret clearance, so I know what I'm talking about and I can tell you --- [insert some anti-Trump stuff here]."

Brennan said of Trump - "You'll never be a good, decent, honest person." Who the fuck is Brennan? He's a lying piece of shit who supported torture, and who lied to Congress. He was a fucking communist in the 1970s, and became a bureaucrat, lying CIA douchebag. Now, he's going to comment on who else is a good, decent, honest person?

Brennan basically called the President a Traitor. Brennan. LOL. That's rich. Because he disagrees with Trump policies, Trump is treasonous. Well, Brennan, when you're elected, you get to make policy. When you're a retired intelligence director, you can fuck off. You don't run the country. He accused the President of "high crimes & misdemeanors" and "treasonous" behavior. He called him "imbecilic" and said that he was "in the pocket of Putin." All of that was COMPLETELY WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE of a single crime, misdemeanor of office, or treasonous act - nor was there any evidence that Brennan ever cited that Trump was "in the pocket of Putin." He said the President "aided and abetted the enemy" - when Russia is not the "enemy" of the US, and there is no indication Trump aided or abetted Russia. What Brennan didn't like were "comments" made the President in Helskinki. Brennan wanted Trump to talk tough and take Putin to task - that would be Brennan's preferred style - fine - he's entitled to think that - but the President is allowed to pursue foreign policy as he sees fit, and if some asshat is jumping up against every Executive policy that the President advances in furtherance of his Presidential duties, he doesn't - and shouldn't, if he has any sense - let the guy keep top secret security clearance.

If something similar was done by a former CIA chief like that against Obama, he'd be out, and nobody would bat an eye about it.

In the case of Trump, the CIA guys who criticized Trump about revoking the clearances did so because they thought Trump didn't know what he was doing, and they said the CIA guys (former ones) knew best about Russia policy. I saw that written several times. Fine, they can think that. But, that can't be said in a vacuum of what the CIA and other intelligence agencies have done for the last 50 to 70 years - lie, cheat, steal, run drugs, spy on US citizens, overthrow foreign governments, interfere in elections and the like. I get that the idea is that the President should follow "the experts" - but, the President is the President - he has advisors, but he's not a rubber stamp for advisers - if he is a good President, he will make the decision.

This comes up a lot in wartime - when the politicians want to declare that the President must "listen to the generals..." - no, the Generals listen to the President. The people that demand that the President listen to the Generals say that because they think the Generals will do what those people want. The minute the Generals call for something those people don't want, then they stop squawking about listening to the Generals. Policy is made by civilians - not generals, not CIA directors, not agents - civilians.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Joe » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:21 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:47 am
Joe wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:12 pm

Fair enough, but let's stipulate for discussion's sake that the guidelines do apply. Would you then oppose the President not following them in Brennan's case, or not? Why?
Which guidelines, specifically?

Generally - no, though, regarding any guidelines - because the President is the Constitutional officer under Article II - meaning that it's the President that sets up the guidelines for, say, screening people that will be in his cabinet or other appointments -- but, that doesn't mean the President himself has to follow those guidelines - he can make whatever exceptions he wants.

Take a Democrat President - he might hire an Attorney General - and then he would look at their words, among other things, to see what they've said - generally to indicate if they will fit in well with a Democrat Presidency - he's not going to say "you have a right of free speech, therefore I will not take into account your express political views when making my decisions..." that would be ridiculous to expect of a President.

Similarly, with security clearance - there is a system set up - by the President - by the Executive Branch (which is the President) to give people clearances. But, if a guy who passed clearance stands up and says "This President is a douchebag" or "this President is engaged in treasonous behavior..." I wouldn't expect any President to stand on ceremony and say "oh, well, the guy passed security clearance procedures, so nothing I can do about it - I have to allow an avowed political enemy of mine have access to secure/classified information relative to my administration..."
Specifically the guidelines I linked to earlier, which you'll recall are authorized by two executive orders that are still in force, apply to all federal agencies including the White House, and provide a right of appeal for revocations.

From your answer, I'm guessing that you believe the President can revoke Brennan's clearance without the formality of rescinding the authorizing executives orders. Is that correct?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:58 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:47 am
...
Take a Democrat President - etc ...
I did read the entire post by the way, but this and what followed stuck me as curious. It casts the matter of security clearance as essentially a partisan political issue, that is; one in which the president can ignore or rewrite guidances and processes at will for purely personal or political reason regardless or in spite of national security concerns.

Having said that, if Brennan is subsequently required to contribute to discussions or decision-making processes where his knowledge or previous experience is considered relevant or valuable he'll no doubt have his clearance reinstated, if only for a period - so I guess the president's revoking of it makes no practical difference. It was a political gesture, and as such it came across as a pernicious act of spite or malice; as the president exerting control for the sake of it while sending a signal that he has certain ways to slap you if he doesn't like what you have to say about him.

So does the fact that the president apparently has the constitutional authority to do something like this justify his doing so?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:14 pm

Joe wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:21 pm

Specifically the guidelines I linked to earlier, which you'll recall are authorized by two executive orders that are still in force, apply to all federal agencies including the White House, and provide a right of appeal for revocations.
Understood, but an executive order is an order by the President. It's not an order by a body that has authority over the President. The President has carte blanche to rescind the entirety of an executive order at will - at a moment's notice - by declaration. He can certainly rescind it partially, or as it applies to one person. Executive Orders are directives given by the President to people that work for him - executive agencies - it can provide enforcement guidance, etc. or whatever - but if, say, the Prez issues an order saying "here is how I want job or security evaluations to be handled and the criteria I want applied..." he is not limiting his own Constitutional authority.
Joe wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:21 pm

From your answer, I'm guessing that you believe the President can revoke Brennan's clearance without the formality of rescinding the authorizing executives orders. Is that correct?
Yes. He can revoke the orders at will. He can revoke part of the order at will. He can make an exception, at will. The order applies to his departments as to how they will review clearances - an executive order does not limit the President's constitutional authority

E.g. - if the President issues an executive order that due to a political dispute going on with the country of Moonbeam, the Department of Homeland Security will no longer issue visas to people from Moonbeam. This is a temporary suspension of all visa processing in the American embassy in Moonbeam, etc. The exceptions are if the applicant presents a formal application for processing with a form that explains undue financial hardship being suffered which meets specified hardship criteria. HOwever, while in negotiations with Moonbeam officials in Oslo, the President meets a Moonbeam scientist who wants to come to the US to help with the new Moon program, and Trump believes that the scientist is the greatest Moon mission scientist ever - really great - nobody better - will get us to the moon really fast - faster than ever - that kind of thing. So, the President calls up the DHS head and says - make it happen - I want Moonbeam admitted. If the only thing standing in the way of Moonbeam's application is the executive order suspending processing, the President can override it - because the President has carte blanche to override his own executive orders.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests