[FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance

Wed Jul 17 17:29:43 EDT 2024

Not really. What's happened is the law has now been refined/redefined to require actions be categorized as official and unofficial. So actions that are deemed official are not against the law. Actions that are unofficial are, then, subject to traditional laws. It remains to be tried/ruled whether a particular assassination was official/legal or not. If Biden orders Trumps assassination and it is deemed unofficial, then he'll be tried for it. If it's deemed official, then it was legal.

On 7/17/24 14:03, Russ Abbott wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>> <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/>> <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