Yeah. Lots of people were eager to support the Iraq War in 2001. The public would have probably been a lot less hawkish if knew they stood to lose their sons and daughters in combat. The potential for grave personal loss forces a person to be coldly rational. Evidence would have been demanded in spades before mobilization would have occurred, I think.
That's patently untrue. Generally, the types of folks who volunteer for service are the very hawkish. With perhaps one exception, every military family I know is strongly in support of the aggressive use of the American military.Even most of the servicemen I’ve spoken with are all for getting stuck in.
You don't volunteer for military service if you don't believe in the use of military might to solve problems.
The problem was that a lot of the evidence was dressed up to be more damning against Iraq than it actually was. I have connections in the military intelligence area who thought the intelligence (as presented to them) to go to war with Iraq was legit going into the war, only to realize that a lot of it was not so legit after Saddam was toppled and the truth started coming out.
I know what is better. Class inequity, a dying middle class, and strong economic incentives to become an indentured servent for four years in order to get an education.
Well sure. Let's just use eternal war as an economic control. DOWN WITH EMMANUAL GOLDSTEIN!
Yeah. Lots of people were eager to support the Iraq War in 2001. The public would have probably been a lot less hawkish if knew they stood to lose their sons and daughters in combat. The potential for grave personal loss forces a person to be coldly rational. Evidence would have been demanded in spades before mobilization would have occurred, I think.
That's patently untrue. Generally, the types of folks who volunteer for service are the very hawkish. With perhaps one exception, every military family I know is strongly in support of the aggressive use of the American military.Even most of the servicemen I’ve spoken with are all for getting stuck in.
You don't volunteer for military service if you don't believe in the use of military might to solve problems.
You entirely misread my post. It was a theoretical about public conscription. If everyone is conscripted, everyone is serving without a choice. Of course volunteers are hawkish. People without a choice, less so.
Yeah. Lots of people were eager to support the Iraq War in 2001. The public would have probably been a lot less hawkish if knew they stood to lose their sons and daughters in combat. The potential for grave personal loss forces a person to be coldly rational. Evidence would have been demanded in spades before mobilization would have occurred, I think.
That's patently untrue. Generally, the types of folks who volunteer for service are the very hawkish. With perhaps one exception, every military family I know is strongly in support of the aggressive use of the American military.Even most of the servicemen I’ve spoken with are all for getting stuck in.
You don't volunteer for military service if you don't believe in the use of military might to solve problems.
You entirely misread my post. It was a theoretical about public conscription. If everyone is conscripted, everyone is serving without a choice. Of course volunteers are hawkish. People without a choice, less so.
I understood your post. I just wanted to state that that the attitudes of people involved with military service put's lie to your statement. We can see in our current society that military service does not correlate with a distate for the use of force.
A draft might turn quite a few folks who are currently apathetic against military action into doves, but it certainly wont do anything to quell the Hawks who call for war allready.
Unless you are refering to a system that embraces conscription while denying volunteer service, which makes very little sence. Without folks willingly serving as professionals you cant have an effective fighting force.
The drunk guy has a syntactically error-laden point
Of the military funerals I have attended in the past eight years (nine), zero families of the deceased were politically disinclined against war. In fact, they seemed to have more intense feelings of militant aggression because they didn't want their loved ones to have died in vain.
That is an entirely colloquial observation that may or may not be representative of reality, however.
That is an entirely colloquial observation that may or may not be representative of reality, however.
It's also not the statistical segment being examined here. Those soldiers would have had to have been volunteers right now. If we want to gather evidence, we need to somehow examine the families of randomly drafted individuals.
The drunk guy has a syntactically error-laden point
Of the military funerals I have attended in the past eight years (nine), zero families of the deceased were politically disinclined against war. In fact, they seemed to have more intense feelings of militant aggression because they didn't want their loved ones to have died in vain.
That is an entirely colloquial observation that may or may not be representative of reality, however.
It's worth noting that there is the potential for actually increasing pro-war sentiment with a draft. A draft will polarize alot of folks who are on the fence now, but that doesn't mean they will all flock to the anti-war camp.
Like Creamsteak said, all of this conjecture is based on experience with a volunteer military. We need imput from someone who has experience with a forced conscription system that has seen recent military action in order to draw some worthwhile conclusions.
(please pardon my poor grammer this morning. I can't even seem to talk coherently today, let alone type.)
I would argue that it doesn't much matter how the army is staffed at this point. The endless wars and military-industrial complex are the result of it being intensely profitable for decision makers as well as the fact that, no matter what configuration the army is in, there will always be enough ignorant hawks who are reflexively pro-war enough to come out en mass to vote for the rich warmonger neo-cons and their corporate handlers.
That seems to be taking the discussion in a different direction though. Going back a couple pages, the core issue we were at was the rhetoric about soldiers and the relatively exalted status conferred to veterans of foreign wars in some ways. That's an interesting and conflicting thing to me at least, as I want to exalt certain aspects of that while still maintaining an absolutely realistic attitude about the whole picture and how those different pieces fit together.
I think part of it is that the term "hero" has also been diluted. In principle, you can be grateful for someone's service without necessarily branding them a "hero." Of course, nowadays we have pop stars and such being referred to as "heroes" for no good reason -- not even for something like working hard to pull themselves out of poverty into success -- but just for being successful, even if they didn't need to do that much to be successful.
A true hero is someone who sacrificed or risked sacrificing something for the benefit of others who needed assistance, whether it's saving a baby from a burning building, fighting off Nazis on the front lines of WW2 (to give a military example that I'm pretty sure just about everyone would consider heroic), or risking going to jail just for sitting on the wrong seat of a city bus.
Would any of our current troops be considered "heroes" under this more strict definition? It, of course, depends on many factors. Someone whose military career consists of flying remote control drones? Eh, not so much, though we can still respect and be grateful for their honorable (no one who does anything dishonorable while conducting a military operation, such as intentionally or carelessly killing unarmed civilians, can be considered a hero) service. Combat medics on the front lines? Yeah, I think those guys can definitely be considered heroes. Others? You gotta take it on a case by case basis.
I'm afraid I don't have much to add to the "draft vs. volunteer" argument. For a long time, I was in favor of a draft for the reason of deterrence, but I had a long conversation a few years ago with a right-wing serviceman and a Berkeley professor, and they both were strongly in favor of a volunteer army. I can't for the life of me remember their reasons, though they were really good ones.
I really like the idea of military service (and public service) as a "gentlemanly" and "character-building" thing to do, but have disagreed with nearly every military action the United States has taken since the turn of the millenium. If the National Guard was solely tasked with domestic issues like disaster relief, I would sign up in a heartbeat (and nearly did, on two occasions).
Hooray classism! Hooray systemic oppression! Look at all the people who turned out to vote for someone entirely contrary to their personal interests, who will mangle the future of their state for years to come. Magnificent.
These are great days we're living in, guys, witnessing the rebirth and slow suffocation of a New American Dream!
If there is anything you can rely on it's the fact that liberals and people who tend to vote democratic, will not show up unless a president is on the ballot. I never understood why people will only vote for president like he picks who is the governor or senator or council person that really directly can screw your life up.
There are a couple of surprises on this map: New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania... an interesting early take that follows most of the partisan entrenchment we saw in 2008. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?battleground
When it comes to political predictions and polls, it's basically a waste of time to listen to anyone other than Nate Silver. In 2008, every single Senate race prediction was correct and his presidential predictions were correct everywhere but Indiana and the 2nd district of Nebraska. He's only been improving his statistical model since.
When it comes to political predictions and polls, it's basically a waste of time to listen to anyone other than Nate Silver. In 2008, every single Senate race prediction was correct and his presidential predictions were correct everywhere but Indiana and the 2nd district of Nebraska. He's only been improving his statistical model since.
In every election, one poll company will be the most accurate. In every election, one pundit will call it the best. Past form might predict a good signal, but everyone can be lucky.
In every election, one poll company will be the most accurate. In every election, one pundit will call it the best. Past form might predict a good signal, but everyone can be lucky.
He had a similar success rate in the 2010 elections for Senate (34/36) and Governor (36/37), though his House of Representatives model, which was brand new and much more complex didn't do quite as well for a number of reasons (weak data from pollsters is probably the biggest reason).
Correction, it's legal to shoot cops if you reasonably believe they entered without proper identification or authority. It's entirely possible you could claim not to have heard the cops yell "Police! Open up! We have a warrant!" before they bust down your door and you open fire on them when in actuality you were trying to flush down all your illegal heroin while they were knocking on said door. Ah, but since you didn't hear them announce their intentions and that they had a warrant, it was "reasonable" for you to shoot them dead.
I'm fine with this. There have been too many stories of no-knock or weakly announced police entries not only to minimally dangerous or criminal domiciles, but into the homes of completely innocent and unrelated people (due to poor police intelligence or mistaken addresses) resulting in casualties.
Sudden and forcible entry, especially "no-knock," should be reserved only for situations of imminent danger or extreme necessity. Catching someone's drugs before they flush them isn't worth risking anyone's life: police officers' or perps'.
This forces the police to have incredibly solid intelligence and proof of imminent need, and more importantly, to loudly and verifiably identify themselves to the point that there can be no argument of reasonable ignorance on the behalf of a truly aggressive perp.
Oh, I agree about "no-knock" being reserved for those situations. The problem is the notion of "reasonably assuming" the cop is coming in illegally. I don't think that's a high enough threshold. If the cop had a warrant, was in uniform, etc., then the benefit of the doubt should go to the cop with respect to whether or not shooting him/her was justified. If the cop uses excessive force, then yeah, throw the book at said cop (and excessive force includes no-knock when it's not called for), but don't give people carte blanche to shoot cops while they are performing their legal duties just because someone may claim to not have heard (legitimately or otherwise) the cops announcing their intentions.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if: (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime; (2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant; (3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or (4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is: (A) acting lawfully; or (B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant’s official duties. (k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is: (A) acting unlawfully; or (B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant’s official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
All those "reasonably" clauses basically force the police to document what they're doing. If every police officer has a GoPro on his chest, and the audio/video makes it clear that intents cannot be reasonably ambiguous, everything should be OK.
This would probably force the police to record their actions faster than any other sort of legislation we could muster. ;^)
Yes, I read the article. That "not justified" section is just a load of obviousness that doesn't apply to the scenario I mentioned. Yeah, the cop is protected if you're basically resisting arrest or in the process of committing a crime. However, he is not protected against you lying that you did not hear him announce his presence and intentions. It basically comes down to what the non-cop believes, or claims to have believed, at the time of the incident.
I just see way too many skeevy defense attorneys using the "my client reasonably thought the cop was breaking in illegally because he didn't hear him yell he was coming in with a warrant due to being all the way on the opposite side of the house."
Rym does have a point that I did not see earlier in that a cop being equipped with suitable recording equipment while serving warrants and such would help alleviate the problem, but not completely. Again, I point to the scenario where the person whose house was being entered claims to not have heard the cop announcing his intentions due to being too far away to hear at the time. Sure, the recording equipment may show that the cop yelled at the top of his voice "Police officer! I have a warrant! I'm coming in!", but that's still not evidence that the person who shot the cop actually heard the announcement -- something that a defense attorney can certainly claim at trial.
Cops, in general, recording their actions is a good thing, and I'm all for reforming how cops conduct searches and so on. However, this law more or less makes it open season on cops for way too many trigger-happy yahoos.
Comments
You don't volunteer for military service if you don't believe in the use of military might to solve problems.
A draft might turn quite a few folks who are currently apathetic against military action into doves, but it certainly wont do anything to quell the Hawks who call for war allready.
Unless you are refering to a system that embraces conscription while denying volunteer service, which makes very little sence. Without folks willingly serving as professionals you cant have an effective fighting force.
Of the military funerals I have attended in the past eight years (nine), zero families of the deceased were politically disinclined against war. In fact, they seemed to have more intense feelings of militant aggression because they didn't want their loved ones to have died in vain.
That is an entirely colloquial observation that may or may not be representative of reality, however.
Like Creamsteak said, all of this conjecture is based on experience with a volunteer military. We need imput from someone who has experience with a forced conscription system that has seen recent military action in order to draw some worthwhile conclusions.
(please pardon my poor grammer this morning. I can't even seem to talk coherently today, let alone type.)
A true hero is someone who sacrificed or risked sacrificing something for the benefit of others who needed assistance, whether it's saving a baby from a burning building, fighting off Nazis on the front lines of WW2 (to give a military example that I'm pretty sure just about everyone would consider heroic), or risking going to jail just for sitting on the wrong seat of a city bus.
Would any of our current troops be considered "heroes" under this more strict definition? It, of course, depends on many factors. Someone whose military career consists of flying remote control drones? Eh, not so much, though we can still respect and be grateful for their honorable (no one who does anything dishonorable while conducting a military operation, such as intentionally or carelessly killing unarmed civilians, can be considered a hero) service. Combat medics on the front lines? Yeah, I think those guys can definitely be considered heroes. Others? You gotta take it on a case by case basis.
I really like the idea of military service (and public service) as a "gentlemanly" and "character-building" thing to do, but have disagreed with nearly every military action the United States has taken since the turn of the millenium. If the National Guard was solely tasked with domestic issues like disaster relief, I would sign up in a heartbeat (and nearly did, on two occasions).
These are great days we're living in, guys, witnessing the rebirth and slow suffocation of a New American Dream!
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?battleground
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FiveThirtyEight#2010_U.S._mid-term_elections
Sudden and forcible entry, especially "no-knock," should be reserved only for situations of imminent danger or extreme necessity. Catching someone's drugs before they flush them isn't worth risking anyone's life: police officers' or perps'.
This forces the police to have incredibly solid intelligence and proof of imminent need, and more importantly, to loudly and verifiably identify themselves to the point that there can be no argument of reasonable ignorance on the behalf of a truly aggressive perp.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues
or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant’s official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant’s official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
This would probably force the police to record their actions faster than any other sort of legislation we could muster. ;^)
I just see way too many skeevy defense attorneys using the "my client reasonably thought the cop was breaking in illegally because he didn't hear him yell he was coming in with a warrant due to being all the way on the opposite side of the house."
Rym does have a point that I did not see earlier in that a cop being equipped with suitable recording equipment while serving warrants and such would help alleviate the problem, but not completely. Again, I point to the scenario where the person whose house was being entered claims to not have heard the cop announcing his intentions due to being too far away to hear at the time. Sure, the recording equipment may show that the cop yelled at the top of his voice "Police officer! I have a warrant! I'm coming in!", but that's still not evidence that the person who shot the cop actually heard the announcement -- something that a defense attorney can certainly claim at trial.
Cops, in general, recording their actions is a good thing, and I'm all for reforming how cops conduct searches and so on. However, this law more or less makes it open season on cops for way too many trigger-happy yahoos.