When God Talks Back

I could not get into the book itself, but the idea is very interesting -- "How does God become and remain real for modern evangelicals?" She argues it is a learned, not easy, but rewarding for many, mental outlook. Others would get to the same place without "God," who they will define as "insight" or something. The links provide some good discussion and an interview.

Primary Day

A possible run-off with a quick turnaround led to the return lever machines. After being reminded to set it, I voted. Unlike some places, never had long lines etc. Actually a choice for mayor (and public advocate), voted against Spitzer trying for his comeback tour for comptroller and for the judge getting the endorsements. The voter guide did not mention the judicial candidates. It's a joke, since no one knows about them.

Dem Congresswoman, Iraq War Veteran, Opposes Military Intervention In Syria

I think peace overall is the best option generally speaking. This is why even if there were WMDs, I didn't think without more war with Iraq was smart in '03. Kristof, sounding like a stereotypical concern liberal, opponents don't want to "do nothing" about the deaths. They think the likely military attacks, net, won't help. Reasonable minds can disagree.

Jesus, Interrupted

One charm of this book is that it is basically a summary of various things found in Bart D. Ehrman's books, including a historical-critical analysis of the New Testament, the conflicts between various books, inaccuracies, but how one still (not that he did because of the problem of evil) retain one's Christian faith. I did read somewhere else that the Suffering Messiah was not totally new c. 50 C.E., but BE does say others dispute some details.

Sports Sunday

I saw parts of the Jets and Packers' games, only seeing the very end of the Giants game. The latter was another too big hole to fill, not this time (driving/interception late) game that is getting to be too routine. Jets got a gift after it looked lost with about 1/2 minute left. Stupid penalty, long field goal. Meanwhile, Dice-K actually had a good game.

Smile or you are a bitch?

Sounds like something translated from Korean, apropos to this wider discussion. Meanwhile, a patronizing response to a criticism of the NFL concussion settlement. As noted in my comment, I'm wary of gag order settlement terms.

Syria AUMF: Chemical Weapons and Other Issues

Former Senator Richard G. Lugar said the difference lay in the danger of proliferation. “We are talking about weapons of mass destruction, we are talking about chemical weapons in particular, which may be the greatest threat to our country of any security risk that we have, much more than another government, for example, or another nation because they can be used by terrorists, by very small groups,” he told the BBC. “The use of these weapons of mass destruction has got to concern us, and concern us to the point that we take action whenever any country crosses that line and uses these weapons as have the Syrians.”

The NYT does something that Obama and other members of Congress better  take care to do -- provide some explanation why chemical weapons particularly are considered a threat to international safety. Why a chemical weapons treaty being enforced is credibly applied even to a domestic dispute involving a misuse of chemicals as revenge for an affair. It is a product of history and its use (and the danger) against civilians:

While militaries find chemical weapons hard to control, given the vagaries of wind and weather, they can be effective against the unprepared, and especially deadly to unsuspecting civilians. “You just have to watch the videos from Syria from Aug. 21,” Mr. Heisbourg said. “This is killing people like cockroaches and using the same chemicals to do it.” 

Thousands of people were killed by machetes in Rwanda, he noted. “That’s gruesome,” Mr. Heisbourg said, “but the production and sale of machetes is not considered a threat to international security.”

The article notes our use of Agent Orange being deemed legally an defoliant, but even if it can be deemed criminal (though clear international law -- so clear that even if Syria is one of a handful that did not sign on, it should still be considered "customary" and binding -- might have came later*), there really isn't some "two wrongs make a right rule." See also the link fest supplied by a comment here (I once looked into the "white phosphorus" issue and recall it being hazy. War overall, including the unhealthy aspects of it, is hell -- duly noted too. Again, chemical weapons specifically have been deemed historically a problem.  Helping Saddam is old news as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, including in promotion of devil's bargains to balance Iran. Net, where does this get you? We aren't pure?  Great! Thanks for telling me everyone knows.)

The concern here is that the U.S. specifically has no clear authority (as compared by some things I read, genocide) to independent of U.N. action to enforce this sort of thing by military action.  I have noted this very problematic issue though also that some have suggested a realistic ability to act and if the act is accepted, in effect, change international law norms in the process. Also, the matter addresses the the national (and international security -- see NATO's comment here) implications.

There is a reason this in particular -- not each and every violation of international law or harm to civilians -- is being addressed in this way.  Also, if you read the Senate AUMF against Syria, there are various "whereas" clauses to explain why it is particularly in our interest to use force here. Personally, I still am not a supporter, finding use of military force something that we should use only as a last result, especially when it might be counterproductive or of limited value. In the long run, for instance, use of military force without getting U.N. authorization (realizing that Russia's veto makes it rather difficult here) is problematic in itself, if promotes other nations to violate international law.

Nonetheless, it is helpful to understand the logic of the intervention, avoiding (I have seen it) simplistic tropes. For instance, someone quoted Obama opposing regime change and "war"** against Iraq in 2002, but (he's getting ridiculed for it) Obama opposes a broad action here to do that sort of thing. It wouldn't be the first time that Obama got it from both ends though.  One thing cited is that there just is not enough evidence. The AUMF, however, cites the Arab League (Syria is a member) holding Syria responsible for usage of chemical weapons. It cites various provisions, even if Syria is not a signatory of the more recent treaty against chemical weapons, of it being in violation of international law. The overall threat of the regime and how this adds to the overall danger of the situation.

The authorization of force is targeted as a response to the usage of chemical weapons and protecting further misuse or leakage to rebel forces. But, realistically, the whole context matters here. The usage of chemical weapons in some other situation might not warrant military force given the balance of prudence. I doubt it is warranted here. Still, we should look at the logic of this specific situation. The use of force very well might have after-effects, including further destabilization of Syria, including its relations with Russia (one blogger noted  this as a sign Syria's government no longer will feel Russia is protecting them as much). This again makes it unwise. Others, however, are willing to take the risk since things are so bad already. Such a government, such unrest makes usage of chemical weapons that much more dangerous.

Obama's response has been criticized as half-cocked, but there are a mixture of interests here -- domestic (the use of force here is tangential enough to self-defense and so forth that congressional authorization is sound), international security/human rights tied to specific dangerous weapons (something Obama has been for overall, including working toward nuclear weapon security -- something, Valerie Plame, e.g., has worked on as well) and the regional security issue of Syria. This involves a mixture of legal and realpolitik.  Such things are messy and even if we oppose the specific choice here, we should be grow-up enough to realize it and not get all shocked that some of the lines here are hazy.

Whatever happens, "For Syria there is no safe, morally pure solution."

---

* All types of chemical "weapons" might be seen as illegitimate, including the gas chamber. 

** I realize that the Orwellian possibilities of avoiding the word "war" can get pretty bad, but this doesn't mean all uses of military force are legally or should be considered "war." The term has broad legal implications, which is one reason it is so often avoided, especially after WWII.  On a colloquial basis, I don't think the general public disagrees.

This doesn't mean a wrongful attack stops being an illicit "act of war" -- cf. a legitimate and illegitimate reprisal (authorized by Art. I separately from "war"). This provides a separate reason to obtain authorization of usage of force in let's say Libya.  Treaty obligations, e.g., very well might as a legal matter be open to change -- a treaty is equal to a duly passed domestic law for constitutional purposes.  But, Congress, not merely the executive, should do something like that generally speaking.

9 to 5

The film came up on Labor Day and saw it again on DVD, which has the trio providing commentary twenty-five years later and some other stuff. Commentary track fairly interesting. The film has something important to say but plot gets silly half-way thru.

"Effective review of history and modern realities of felon disenfranchisement"

This has been one matter that I have been concerned with over the years, particularly because it has a specific racial (and class) impact. I still agree with the dissent in Richardson v. Ramirez that the brief exception to a penalty provision in 14A, sec. 2 is not enough to authorize it. Happily, some improvements have occurred in the last decade.

Breaking the Law to Change It?

"Yet that doesn’t mean international law would view a U.S. intervention as illegal in the long run." This seems to be the strongest case on international law grounds, but given the questionable value of military action, I question it being used in this context. This debate also has led to those "what is so special about torture" sort of things. If a law professor, per a reply to me, is so clueless, maybe the general public needs a thumbnail reminder?

34 Pieces of You

This is a YA book about bounces around before and after the overdose of a teenage girl, providing things from the perspective of her brother (the guys come off the weakest here) and two sisters with different relationships with her with thirty four slips of her own thoughts. Covers a lot of ground (I see teen series!) pretty well. Recommended.

"Progress! NY Times Wedding Announcement Openly Discusses Abortion"

This discussion leads me to think about the book I just read -- a 25 year-old prostitute gets pregnant by her pimp and decides to keep the baby. In effect, it motivates her to escape his control, though not ultimately the life itself. But, abortion is not even suggested -- yet again, it is like a non-issue in fiction. Well, maybe non-fiction is starting to learn.

"President Obama and Compliance with Domestic Versus International Law"

The two blog posts alluded to in the title blog post cites Prof. Michael Dorf and he has two good good admonitory posts on violating international law in regard to the Syrian bombing plans.

Marty Lederman in the first two posts discusses the possible logic to President Obama's approach to international affairs, a sort of middle position that all the same has liberal interventionist leanings. This does not surprise me, including from someone who appointed Samantha Powers to the U.N. The stereotypical idea of Obama might be that he would oppose this sort of thing, but opposing intervention in Iraq doesn't mean that. Then, there is the usual citation to a 2007 comment:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” 

This was in the context of bombing Iran. I think too much is made of this, especially when it might be pursuant to some sort of treaty obligation. This is not necessarily a "unilateral" authorization -- it is based on something already authorized by the President with approval by the Senate. Also, "actual or imminent threat" is somewhat open-ended (Obama likes his wiggle room -- he is a pragmatist).  But, talk of "important U.S. interests in preventing instability in the Middle East and preserving the credibility and effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council" (Libya authorization) is pretty weak.  Don't think answers to a test in 2007 is the final answer here, but do wonder if some reporter directly cited the quote to the press secretary.

Back to the title blog post.  Domestic affairs would be important for the U.S., especially since it has such power to effect other nations -- the very idea of bombing Syria suggests this and it's part of our mentality as some sort of world leader. Presidents have for a long time had large discretion in international affairs, even if the Congress has various powers too. It is not surprising to be less concerned about others.

This doesn't mean international law shouldn't matter -- both pragmatically and on matter of principle. The Declaration of Independence speaks of what we "might of right do," and drawing the line in the sand on chemical weapons in part is argued to be as a matter of international norms. But, a sort of international due process is part of that too and it too is of basic importance. There are procedures to go through here, including the United Nations. The U.S. was key in establishing it for just that reason. Upholding proper procedures also pragmatically encourages others to do so. The world is not supposed to be a lawless place where nations have some "right" to do anything they can. It is not a violation of Godwin's Law to note the U.N. was a product of an alternative viewpoint.

Authorization by Congress is a limited improvement to unilateral executive action here as is having some nations (but let's be honest -- an ad hoc rump w/o UN approval only goes so far) supporting the U.S. And, nations do have the power to opt out of treaties, if not the international right to do so without good cause. This only underlines use of force here should be put to the highest test. I have doubts such tests are met.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats have been considering new language to the authorization, fearing the one offered are too open-ended. Either way, I think there is a constitutional duty here for congressional authorization, particularly given there is no apparent international law duty to use force. This -- as has been noted -- is problematic on its own, but at the very least, domestically, it underlines the importance of bilateral authorization.

Don't Take My Man (or my Job)

She’s like an ambassador from a world where hard times make you stronger, but they’re still to be avoided; where you escape your past not by running away but by planting a ladder where you stand and climbing up.

Dolly Parton/9-5 is the Labor Day topic today here. Like those sad on Christmas, these days also make Labor Day a tragic day for many.

and when she was good

I happened upon this non-mystery series Laura Lippman novel about a lobbyist who is really a madam and it started well (it went back and forth from her past and the current day). But, by the 2/3 mark, it became a sludge. I have thirty pages left. Whatever happens, it is getting BORING, even as the protagonist should be in danger. But, nothing much happens there. It just drags on. Also, she is starting to act pretty stupid. Bad sign.

Rev. Joe -- "The Friendly Atheist"

The title refers to a blog, not my own title. I do think you can be both, and though I can be snarky, do try to be friendly overall to others. Some "new" atheist types symbolized by St. Hitchens favor the "religion is for rubes" approach. Not really a fan though being mean to assholes is understandable. Thing is, many believers in God etc. aren't, so don't do that.

Breadth of Syria AUMF

Per Justice Jackson's dictum, if Congress authorizes the President here, his executive powers will be at their highest point, though international law still remains a major concern. Thus, the focus should be on its breadth though shall we say "non-war" AUMFs have generally been limited. Well, everyone seems to be on board with going to Congress being a good idea.

Upcoming Primary

The upcoming NYC primary is big given Mayor Bloomberg is leaving, Spitzer is trying for a return (comptroller) and concern for a quick turnaround/run-off even led to them bringing back the lever voting machines. Looking at the voter guide -- some of the minor candidates had a problem with spell check when providing a personal statement. One did so in caps.

Meet Madison Kimrey, 12-year-old voting rights activist

,

More here. Remember, Scout stopped a lynch mob. Seriously, you go girl!

Obama Finds It Useful To Ask Congress To Approve Use of Force Against Syria

I was thus surprised, but very happily surprised, when the President announced this afternoon that he would seek congressional authorization for the strike.

Lawfare and Volokh Conspiracy among others discuss the news, including the Bush41/Kuwait kicker that "but I don't really need it." As a matter of basic constitutional policy, this (reporter Richard Engel: don't call it "war"!) is a good move. Let's see what comes of it.