[FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance

Wed Jul 17 17:03:45 EDT 2024

Don't want to drag this out forever, but ...  The immunity decision is
extraordinarily dangerous precisely because it allows a President to break
the law and to ignore traditional safeguards and then to claim immunity if
charges are brought against him.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 7:19 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, OK. It seems pretty clear that there are laws protecting citizens
> (that don't protect non-citizens). Situations like arresting a citizen and
> holding them for a very long time before charging them are the in-between
> wiggle room. And we have things like opening investigations into them, etc.
> And it would be pretty easy to "disappear" a nobody like me. I think it's
> not so easy to disappear Trump. Anyway, there are some pretty hard
> constraints like due process, posse comitatus, and such. The only way the
> President could make an assassination of a citizen plausible is to deem
> them an enemy of the state, revoke their citizenship, present some flimsy
> justification for that revocation, etc. And even then, as long as they're
> on US soil, (again, to be legitimate) you'd want to use the ATF, FBI, ICE,
> or something, not the Navy or CIA.
>
> IDK. This scenario just feels like spy novel fantasy to me. It was a good
> quip in the SCOTUS hearing. But there are too many holes in the mechanics
> to do it with the appearance of legitimacy. (This says nothing of doing it
> Nixon- or Hoover- style, of course.)
>
> I am kinda on pins and needles to see what Chutkan makes of some of this,
> though.
>
>
> On 7/16/24 19:34, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > I think it's an official act if it involves the use of powers designated
> by the Constitution as Presidential. As I understand the SCOTUS ruling, the
> motivation for that use is not relevant. That's one of the things that's so
> terrible about the immunity decision. Seal Team 6 and all that.
> >
> > -- Russ
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, 11:17 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     It's pretty hard for me to see how that would stand up in court. If
> assassination of citizens, much less a fully cleared and daily int-briefed
> President-elect, is ultimately ruled an "official" action, we've already
> lost the Republic and committing the actual deed would be futile. No need
> to worry about losing the Republic if the Republic is already lost.
> >
> >     On 7/16/24 10:47, Russ Abbott wrote:
> >      > Why has no one pointed out the possibility that if Trump wins,
> Biden could take advantage of his newly declared immunity and have him
> assassinated?
> >      >
> >      > -- Russ
> >      >
> >      > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, 6:24 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com> <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >      >
> >      >     Yeah. It's one thing to wish it or want it. It's another to
> think more in Marcus' terms and come up with a more complex strategy not
> involving stupid 20 year olds and no violence at all. I still hold out hope
> for my own personal conspiracy theory. Biden becomes the nominee. After the
> convention fades, the Admnistration announces Biden has gone to the
> hospital for bone spur surgery. Kamala takes over temporarily and campaigns
> furiously for Biden-Harris. Biden is re-elected. Biden recovers and gets
> through the Oath (fingers crossed). Then he goes back to the hospital with
> some minor thing like a dizzy spell. Kamala takes over again. Biden's
> condition worsens. First Female President. Biden recovers and becomes
> America's Grandpa.
> >      >
> >      >     Come on Deep State. Make it happen. 8^D
> >      >
> >      >     On 7/15/24 17:30, Russ Abbott wrote:
> >      >      > I wonder what Scott's response would have been to those of
> us who, in response to the shooting, thought: better luck next time.
> >      >      > On 7/15/24 17:28, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> >      >      >> It ignores the option of doing things quietly and
> indirectly.
> >      >      >> On 7/15/24 16:46, glen wrote:
> >      >      >>> [Scott's] Prayer
> >      >      >>> https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117 <
> https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117 <
> https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117>>
> >      >      >>>
> >      >      >>> I'm currently surrounded by people who believe
> intolerance is properly not tolerated. Scott's message, here, seems
> extraordinary Christian, to me. (Real Christian, not the Christianism
> displayed in things like megachurches and whatnot cf
> https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/ <
> https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/> <
> https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/ <
> https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/>>). This faith that "going
> high" will, in the long run, win out, seems naive to me. The temptation to
> "hoist the black flag and start slitting throats" isn't merely a
> thresholded reaction, it's an intuitive grasp of the iterated prisoner's
> dilemma, tit-for-tat style strategies, and Ashby's LoRV. But I'm open to
> changing my mind on that. Maybe I'm just too low-brow?
> >      >      >>>
>
>
> --
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240717/51bf4ed9/attachment.html>