Thanks Michael. I think I understand you better now. Did you see the recent news article from Seymore Hersh about the rebellion in the military--sending our intelligence about our "moderate" Arab allies to Russia, so they could be attacked in defense of Syria's Assad?
A military coup seems within the realm of possible, which is incredible paradoxically. But then I happen to belleve that we already had that happen in 1963.

Thanks Michael. I meant duty to defend the Constitution. By extension that creates more duties, doesn't it? That's what I was thinking.

"we can clearly differentiate between "legitimate" revolutionary methods and those which are not."

Legitimacy frequently comes from recognition by others, which makes it a subjective criteria rather than an objective one. The UN condones (legitimizes) the attacks against Israel by Palestinians even though by any objective measure it should be the other way 'round. The Geneva Convention is only as good as the nations of the world legitimizing it by adhering to it...

"Furthermore, your argument that our aggressors are "unprincipled and unreasonable" is a bit off, I think because we have made them that way by refusing to define the legitimate parameters for their rebellions."

In my thinking, legitimacy comes from the principles on which one conducts their actions - not the arbitrary support of third parties. I appreciate what you are saying, I just see the notion of "legitimacy" as being highly problematic due it's nature in politics. I can see how you would view my comments interpreting the actions of current terrorists as being "unprincipled and unreasonable" as being off, so I will present it in this manner: if a principle is destructive or anti-liberty, does that not in fact make it definitionally unreasonable/illogical and of questionable value? That was my approach in the words I selected. If others are more to your liking, feel free to substitute.

"When you state that ALL uprisings and actions undertaken by force are automatically illegitimate when undertaken by a non-state actor but turn around and allow similar actions by state actors, you run the risk of making Osama bin Laden and the American Revolutionaries (at least at the start of the US Revolutionary War) moral equivalents, which they objectively are not."

I don't believe I ever stated such. If I said any such thing, I would retract it. The initiation of force against another is only justified if in self-defense IMO. That includes, however, actions taken to reclaim infringed liberties. That does not apply to bin Laden's groups, etc. Their goal is subjugation of others - not merely the right to self-rule. The separation is not state vs non-state actors, but rather pursuit of individual liberty. If this is what you were pointing out, I agree.

"in the paper I wrote"

In my opinion (and if you are able), you should post this to look at. Though you may have already done so, I'd appreciate a link.

"you cannot blame the wild animal for lashing out at you if you make no attempt to train it."

If it is a sentient being - a human being - I do not consider it a wild animal. These radical groups are comprised of humans who have been trained, but who also in most part actively chose to pursue their desires for power and control. And while a rational discussion would absolutely be a preferred method of re-education, I somehow doubt many are overly interested.

"I proposed a clear and obvious distinction that basically forces revolutionary forces to "declare war" on a country before they can engage in actual war against it."

It's a great idea. The question is how formal this needs to be. The Qu'ran has many passages which specifically call for war on the infidel and non-believer and justify actions against such under the term jihad or "holy war". I think that the declaration has already been made by that side, some just refuse to see it on this side.

'In other words, they must abide by (almost all of) the same rules of war"

I think here you're going to get pinned up against the notion of dealing conventionally with an unconventional warrior. The notion of "convention" again falls back on the notion of "legitimacy" by recognition. I think we might be better served to recognize (no pun intended) that instead of trying to re-write our rules of engagement, we simply look at the ones they have already written and sworn to, starting with the Qu'ran. Instead of trying to get them to use Western terms and methods, why don't we reverse-engineer how they approach things and use that to understand them. The conversation about military conflict always starts with knowing the enemy, yet we keep trying to define them in our terms. I'd say we need to start looking at how they see things. The battle with the female Kurdish freedom fighters comes to mind as a very unconventional way to deal with unconventional methods.

I don't say this to downplay your suggestions at all. It's very clear you've spent a great deal of time and thought on the matter. I just look at all the efforts made by the "West" to deal with the cultures of the Middle East and what strikes me as a recurring theme is how we treat every problem over there from a Western perspective. IMHO, it's the reason why the elections in Baghdad were only partially successful and why our democracy exports haven't necessarily met with much success. We're trying to apply Western thinking to a literally foreign atmosphere.

The rest of your post was insightful and well-written and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. Well done.

More boosting to perform its rightful, constitutional duties? Please see my comment above. We are the frog in a pot of water that doesn't know the water is going to boil soon.

It's too big and too strong to perform its rightful, constitutional duties. It has become something far beyond that, and it's surplus equipment has turned our communities into military occupied territories. Do you not see this?

The denigration of the opponent into 'not human' and hence 'not covered by human rights' is something that had not occurred to me. Thank you for that terrifying insight. I think.

Jan

Gee, and I thought it was the anthropomorphic climate change believers (and other neo-Malthusians) who were inhuman because the inescapable logic of following their proposals will lead to only one inextricable conclusion: mass genocide. I have actually had conversations with such people who tell me that the global carrying capacity is 500 million people and we need to reach that level of population within 30 years or we all will die. When I ask them where they plan to have all the concentration camps for carrying out their Hitleresque final solution and how they are going to decide which people will live and die, they look at me as though I'm the insane person in the room....

I think that there is a difference between giving the military what it needs to do the job and giving it more money. The military does not need more money. It needs to have a more clearly defined, less broad mission and cut those ancillary programs that are unnecessary for the achievement of those aims, while redirecting resources to those areas that need strengthening. As for World War III, it will happen only if we are too stupid to let it happen. The terrorists cannot cause the downfall of the US -- only the US can do that to itself (one way to do that is to try to make war on ALL Muslims, for example, rather than just treat the cancer that is the terrorists). In fact, there are only two countries in the world who could engineer World War III against the US: China and Russia. China is not going to do it. They like trade with the US way too much and are smart enough not to go too far with saber-rattling. Russia, on the other hand, might overplay its hand and we could end up with a World War that no one really wants but everyone marches towards nonetheless, not unlike how the First World War actually started.

American troops didn't play by the "same rules" during the initial stages of the Revolutionary War either. What we need is a set of rules for insurgents and revolutionaries that correspond, though not directly, but approximately to those of defined militaries. In that way, we can clearly differentiate between "legitimate" revolutionary methods and those which are not. Furthermore, your argument that our aggressors are "unprincipled and unreasonable" is a bit off, I think because we have made them that way by refusing to define the legitimate parameters for their rebellions. When you state that ALL uprisings and actions undertaken by force are automatically illegitimate when undertaken by a non-state actor but turn around and allow similar actions by state actors, you run the risk of making Osama bin Laden and the American Revolutionaries (at least at the start of the US Revolutionary War) moral equivalents, which they objectively are not.

Indeed, in the paper I wrote, I proposed a clear and obvious distinction that basically forces revolutionary forces to "declare war" on a country before they can engage in actual war against it. Then it forces them to abide by the same exact rules of war that standing armies must adhere to with the single exception that they are not required to wear clearly defined uniforms (this exception being created since such forces need to have some equalization mechanism to take on the state and the only way that they can do so is through subterfuge and disguise rather than painting a bright red X on their backs). In other words, they must abide by (almost all of) the same rules of war, though they are permitted to do so stealthily (not that the US and other nations do not also engage in such behavior although typically such soldiers are not). After all, you cannot blame the wild animal for lashing out at you if you make no attempt to train it.

Finally, the irony is that under the proposed solution that I detailed (and published in the Journal of Diplomatic Language), all of those detained at Guantanamo Bay who held allegiance to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or ISIS could be held indefinitely and without formal charges until the end of hostilities as they would be considered "prisoners of war" and thus would never be able to avail themselves of rights to habeas corpus or legal counsel. Since the terrorist organizations of which they are a part never unconditionally surrender, we never have to release them :)

We still could, by the way, prosecute the mastermind of 9/11 as a war criminal since attacks on civilians are an act of war and we would not have to try to arrest enemy combatants from terrorist groups (unless they wave the white flag of surrender) since any attack on a military installation would be considered an "act of war" rather than a criminal act.

In addition, by establishing this clear delineation, all Americans who pledge allegiance to ISIS are, by their own admission via an overt act, committing treason, as defined in the US Constitution. As such, we can prosecute them for treason (and thus imprison them for life or even execute them), even if they do not succeed in their criminal aspirations. So long as we fail to declare war against them and consider their actions as "acts of war" rather than merely criminal actions, we end up potentially defanging the biggest single threat we can use against such Americans: expatriation (committing treason is one of the few remaining expatriating acts, which is the only way that a natural-born US citizen can lose citizenship).

Is there a comparison to be drawn between the US killing innocents and a "doctor who prescribes a drug [...]"? Perhaps in some instances.

Also, I appreciate the detailed explanations on what constitutes manslaughter versus murder, etc. as well as the point regarding attacks on US military versus US civilians. I should let you know my comments assumed said attacks were on civilians (I was writing with San Bernardino in mind). I suppose the difference between insurgent vs. innocent and that between soldier vs. civilian is a notable one. The first is more vague while the second is objective.

"right to attack military targets."

The problem here is that they don't play by the same rules. They want to portray themselves as civilians with a cause rather than a nation-state with a definite military. While your idea is interesting, I feel constrained to point out that you are proposing a principles and reasoned solution to an unprincipled and unreasonable aggressor.

Uh, Trump isn't a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Trump is in it for himself and the attention.

"Luke Skywalker was radicalized..."

The question is really whether or not the principles he was fighting for were principles of freedom. How he arrived there is secondary.

" it is not self defense to kill innocent civilians, even in response..."

Correct. Self-defense is necessarily a spur-of-the-moment action. Anything premeditated fails this criterion.

Defending liberty isn't easy and its a lifetime calling. Elites, monarchs, religious icons, dictators, "gods", and god's "chosen ones" hate competition from mere mortals, serfs, slaves.

I had not thought of that. Huh- you are frighteningly right. It is a new flavor of religious war.

Jan

Except for the evil enemy flavor of the year, courtesy of major media propaganda. For example, anthropomorphic climate change deniers are inhuman and deserve to die to save the chosen.

The statistics (according to Steven Pinker) show a general decline in violent deaths from 100 people/year per 100,000 in the Middle Ages to 1 person per year (Europe - same geographic sample is the MA one) per 100K now. The graph is not smooth, however, and wars increase the average for the span of their existence.

What is different is the media distribution of information and the cultural change: The earlier you go in human history, the more likely that the 'other guy' was not considered 'really human' and hence it was OK to kill them without let or hindrance. We now consider all humans to be...well...human.

Jan

Back atcha.

Yes, I can't prove it (and probably can't find clear evidence or proof of cause and effect) but I believe that's a key driver. You realize that there are huge interests and forces at work which want to actively evade, deny, or hide any relation between drugs and negative consequences, right? Take an honest look at all of the mass shootings and how many of those people were on mind-altering drugs. But we don't see any efforts or attention in the media to restrict those, do we?

Your question (about upholding one's oath of office) may hold the key to the highest point of leverage. Are you familiar with the Oath Keepers organization? I've been watching them for a while. They deserve serious attention and respect, IMO.

Michael, your concept is good in theory but that's it's main problem. The status quo will never allow a fundamental change to the election or electoral process (which includes vote buying). I think you are very naive to think this strategy will work. Even if someone is in power with a minority representation, they still are in power.

Thanks Jim. Trump and to a greater extent Bernie Sanders supporters definitely are demonstrating that lesson. It's so depressing and disheartening how many people are passionately and proudly cheering on the adoption of blantantly statist, anti-freedom policies. It really has given me a sense of urgency to get prepared for major upheaval and conflict in our society in the next 1-2 years.