Yep, that's the problem. As is the case with most of immigration law, you can only do so much through executive action before you run up against the actual statute.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
[NYT] Biden Will Nominate First Woman to Lead Intelligence, First Latino to Run Homeland Security
- Thread starter kambaybolongo
- Start date
- News
- Status
Yep, that's the problem. As is the case with most of immigration law, you can only do so much through executive action before you run up against the actual statute.
Sure, but complaining on threads about drone strikes and "war criminals" when these positions have nothing to do with that is just pointless and derailing.
Sound like solid choices, though echoing others ICE needs to be razed to the ground and its duties shuffled into other Agencies. Since that's unlikely to happen, at least needs some proper oversight and a deep dive investigation into all the horrors it and its members are responsible for.
DHS needs an immense overhaul as well. It was a rushed reactionary creation in the first place and needs reform.
DHS needs an immense overhaul as well. It was a rushed reactionary creation in the first place and needs reform.
because the criticism isn't over anyone's policy positions. the "policy position" of whoever heads the dhs is a foregone conclusion. what IS being criticized and mocked here is some people's absurd notion that anyone being picked for this ghoulish job deserves praise. the dhs is evil, and the only way to improve it is to dismantle it. that wouldn't happen day one even in a dream administration, of course, but i would hope liberals would at least have the common sense to at the very least not applaud a dhs nomination. there is no merit to any pick.
Kerry's tenure is a bit mixed. Yes, the Pairs accords were a landmark achievement, but he also oversaw the deterioration in Syria. To be fair, I don't think it would have been possible to salvage a "desireable" outcome there, but there's no doubt the Obama administration was caught off guard on Syria and seemed to lack a focus, with plenty of mistakes made.
But yeah, Kerry was a better SoS than many, many others who've held that title, imo.
National Security positions have nothing to do with Drone Strikes? What?
Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Biden's appointments to more or less be in line with his world view and policy inclinations.
If these appointments support policies/reforms that break from Biden's own positions, I'd be very interested in hearing that.
Which the people who are criticizing drone strikes are well aware of, and the people who are complaining about that criticism want others to ignore.
the first woman to lead the Intelligence Community will absolutely be participating in drone strikes and actions considered to be potentially war crimes.
Damn good post, I'm all for diversity and these picks need to go through quite a bit of Republican vetting. I'm not sure purity tests apply here after the last four years of the mind-boggling upheaval of the traditional processes. We need professional anything at the moment, and Biden will hopefully bring that with his position. Also, thanks to the Mods, this is not easy for you guys and I appreciate your time.
Seems like a good pick.
This forum is just a straight up turd sometimes and this topic is a prime example.
This forum is just a straight up turd sometimes and this topic is a prime example.
Strategic bombing has been a cornerstone of US foreign intervention since the Vietnam War. Many of these bombings have been conducted in territories that the US is not actively at war with and have often targeted civilian centers and infrastructure based on nebulous intelligence, resulting in catastrophic loss of life. As the technology has improved, first via missiles, "smart" bombs, and recently drones, these bombing campaigns have increasingly reduced the risk to American personnel and materiel and decreased the political cost of carrying them out.
Since the beginning of the war on Terror, the scope of the US drone war has increased every year regardless of the party in power, and every President has authorized attacks that many consider to be war crimes and even terrorism due to the specific targeting of civilians, often in places that the US is not at war with.
Biden has shown no signs that he would stop this policy and so many posters are signalling their disdain for the hypocrisy of supposedly more peaceful adminstrations that continue a campaign of illegal terror with as much vigor as their Republican counterparts.
Our immigration system in general needs a top to bottom overhaul, including enforcement. It seems like the legislative white whale, though...something almost got passed in 2013 IIRC but John Boehner declined to bring to the House floor, even though it had bipartisan support and he knew it would pass.
ICE was created in the same bill that created DHS and we can and should disband it too (it has a couple of useful functions that should be rolled back to their original departments, but I really think america can survive without the "papers please" secret police.
As for CBP, we need some sort of border and custom officials, but I think if we strip them of their their duty and legal right to search people inside the US borders then they're mostly fine.
Lots of people not realizing that unless we win both Georgia runoffs, McConnell has veto power over these nominations, so you aren't going to get people who are openly very progressive in these spots. With Trump messing up the transition you need experienced folks in all these positions.
Also breaking up DHS would require a law being passed.
Also breaking up DHS would require a law being passed.
These last 4 years have been intense, so probably that's why it feels forever ago
My major gripe would be the way addressing climate change is almost always couched in marshal and militaristic language. It's always framed as a threat to be mitigated and defended against, not fucking solved. And from a National security perspective, the focus is always on "how can we protect US assets and capital", while still continuing the activities that hasten the problem to begin with.
Are these senate-confirmed positions? If so, Biden's choices might be somewhat limited.
I'm glad climate change will get a more prominent role.
I'm glad climate change will get a more prominent role.
I think Kerry was generally not aligned with some of Obama's maneuvers on Syria, though did carry them out since ultimately he was the boss. To the extent that the Syrian civil war was happening under Kerry's tenure (though didn't start; it began while Hillary was SoS) then yeah, Kerry oversaw the deterioration of Syria and certainly didn't resolve that situation! But like you, I'm not sure what desirable outcome there is there. Diplomacy failed, there is no appetite for military intervention (and no guarantee that wouldn't also be a failure). Obama's red line ultimatum was a mistake, though Kerry was still able to leverage it to force Assad into surrendering a lot of chemical weapons so maybe it wasn't, though clearly Assad still had some reserves of gas leftover so maybe it still was. I don't know. I feel sort of similarly to Afghanistan, where there is clearly no good ideas left to do about short of just up and leaving the country, but at the same time that shouldn't be an excuse for any SecDef overseeing that war either.
In any event, Kerry's new job is entirely climate focused lol. So the part of his SoS record that would be germane here is relievingly good.
voicing disdain for the U.S's drone strike program and history of war crimes is not shitposting. And I'm okay with the choices Biden is doing, but that does not mean others aren't.
Eh, while DHS needs to be disbanded, I do want immigrant enforcement and border patrol isolated to one agency each assigned to the task, simply cause it makes it easier to identify federal personnel operating under the mission of deportation, and two, it would make it easier to target for reform or cuts, and three, in the case of say a violent criminal who needs to be deported, you need a agency to handle taking custody of them federally from local or state entities.
If you don't like people's opinions you can just label those opinions drive-by trolling. :)
EDIT:
The choice seems to be to not mention our warmongering ways when people are trying to celebrate the latest appointee to the warmongering post, or get banned.
EDIT:
The choice doesn't seem to be whether or not you choose a PoC or woman for a position of power.
The choice seems to be to not mention our warmongering ways when people are trying to celebrate the latest appointee to the warmongering post, or get banned.
I understand some of the posts on the first page, but the alternative is to not put PoC and women in positions of power. So.
This is good news. Moreso that actual qualified people will be in these roles, unlike the current administration.
This is good news. Moreso that actual qualified people will be in these roles, unlike the current administration.
Just install acting Department heads, it's what Trump did for years even with a Republican Senate. Dems can either learn to fight or continue whining the system is unfair and not take the few actions within their power to do so. Normalcy is already out the window and there is no returning to it, Dems can either figure their shit out or continue bleeding support as a collective party in regards to fighting back against Republicans who are clearly not only fine with violating every norm, but are actively encouraging it. There is nothing to be gained from taking the high road any longer.
This is shaping up to be a pretty diverse administration. Liking the hires so far.
Biden Will Nominate First Women to Lead Treasury and Intelligence, and First Latino to Run Homeland Security (Published 2020)
John Kerry, the former secretary of state, will be the international climate czar, signaling the new administration’s commitment to fighting climate change.www.nytimes.com
Sec State: A Blinken
Abe Lincoln!?!!
Hey I'm not arguing against it, just noting that the cultural inertia of the rank and file across these agencies won't disappear overnight, or maybe ever.
Kerry's climate czar role would not require Senate confirmation. The rest do.
That's a valid point, but it doesn't make sense here because none of these takes were made in response to other people's reactions. Who's applauding these picks? No one here thinks that these picks will solve our problems, no one thinks they're ideal, they're just miles better than what we've had for the last 4 years.
How about we abolish the DHS, which is younger than almost everyone on this board instead.
Wonder what his family was up to during the Batista regime.
What the hell is up with these bans? Not one of them was "drive by trolling; they were direct responses to the topic.
Wonder what his family was up to during the Batista regime.
What the hell is up with these bans? Not one of them was "drive by trolling; they were direct responses to the topic.
Sorry I'll try to be more positive about a minority heading up a department created to spy on American Muslims after 9/11.
Yay for progress?
Why are people wanting Jones for AG? Legitimately curious. Not making a point.
Trump wasn't pulling people off the street to serve in these acting capacities though, he was moving around people who had already been hired within these agencies.
Does that position inherently have to be "warmongering?" Who is to say it won't be different with a different perspective in the role?
The fifth column tries in vain to derail yet another thread, but will not sully the rightful next government of the US.
Shit post =/= criticism.
"The DHS needs to be dismantled, hiring a POC to oversee it does nothing for the issues that need to be adressed, here's what they are and why I believe so"
vs
"Now women can be war criminals too!"
I know it's hard to tell, but there actually is a difference between those two statements.
"The DHS needs to be dismantled, hiring a POC to oversee it does nothing for the issues that need to be adressed, here's what they are and why I believe so"
vs
"Now women can be war criminals too!"
I know it's hard to tell, but there actually is a difference between those two statements.
I share your point. I also don't get how NOT hiring PoCs into this role is somehow better? (which is the implication when people come into these threads to make this point...).
I fear people on ResetERA can't seperate or have a nuanced conversation.
Frankly, I don't blame anyone for believing that is the de facto stance of the Biden administration. Historically, both Republicans and Democrats have waged war on foreign nations for generally no justifiable reason, and Biden was literally the 2nd-in-command of an administration that did just that. I'm optimistic that things will be different this time, but it would be completely unsurprising if drone strikes continue in the middle east.
EDIT: To be clear, I voted for Biden because he's a better choice than Trump. That doesn't mean that I'm blind to the track record of the administration in which he was VP.
The system itself is warmongering and there's zero indications of a true willingness to change or even confront that reality from anyone related to Biden. Remember, he's the "back to normal President", which means, nothing with fundamentally change relative to a few years ago.
The topic is about Biden's hires for DHS, DNI, and climate czar. The DNI does not execute drone strokes and the other two have nothing to do with drones period. A bunch of people just saw "intelligence" in the OP and jumped at that.
Nah. I actually agree with the viewpoint of some of the drive-bys (drone strike forever wars are fucked), but they're still drive-bys that do absolutely nothing to further discussion in a thread that was clearly made for some sort of substantiative discussion. This isn't Twitter.
Also I don't see folks celebrating beyond basic "phew, someone competent," which is understandable IMO after the past 4 years.
Haven't various polls shown that most people on ERA are in their 20s and 30s? DHS is 18 years old.
Also, abolishing DHS would take legislation, as explained earlier in the thread.
If these departments decide for the first time in their history to not murder and oppress brown people around the world (which they have been doing regardless of who is in power) then I'll have a different opinion. I haven't seen anything to suggest that's going to happen. Women and POC being in these positions is of course an improvement on the front of precedent for government appointments in general, but it indicates *precisely zero* about how they will be run.
People in this forum who have had family killed by Drones under Bush, Obama, Trump, etc are probably especially taken aback by those Yub Nubbing over this.
"Drive by" is a red herring to squash dissent. A flippant comment in support of the popular opinion here is just as "drive by" as any flippant comment by the people who have been banned.
These "both sides are the same" drive-by posts remind me why Donald Trump was the president we deserved for the last four years.
I don't expect anybody to know much about Tony Blinken or Alejandro Mayorkas. You have to be really in the weeds to know much about them. But, if you don't know much about someone you aren't obligated to post hot takes about them. If you don't know who Alejandro Mayorkas is, there's nothing compelling you to say that he's going to bomb Arab (... how the Dept. of Homeland Security chief even does that is something I'm not aware of, but w/e). You can, actually, just wait and wait for people who do know a lot about these people to write articles about them, and then you can read those articles.
I don't expect anybody to know much about Tony Blinken or Alejandro Mayorkas. You have to be really in the weeds to know much about them. But, if you don't know much about someone you aren't obligated to post hot takes about them. If you don't know who Alejandro Mayorkas is, there's nothing compelling you to say that he's going to bomb Arab (... how the Dept. of Homeland Security chief even does that is something I'm not aware of, but w/e). You can, actually, just wait and wait for people who do know a lot about these people to write articles about them, and then you can read those articles.
This, it was a terrible ideal then and should be reshuffled more to what it was before 9/11. It's always smelled of nationalist garbage.
User Banned (1 week): Modwhining
Lol at getting banned for this. It's accurate.
Were they? Doesn't the Secretary of Defense run drone operations?
It never occurred to you that many people voted for Biden only because of Trump? Especially on this forum, that leans a lot more left than many. Well, now Trump has lost and Biden no longer has that protection. He will need to prove himself to not be another in a line of war criminals. Respect will need to be earned.
edit: also it was the moderation's rather insane choice to start banning people over anti-war jokes that really derailed this topic. It was just a couple of throwaway posts otherwise.
I don't think that is the case. There can be a harm reduction aspect of putting the DHS into more capable and caring hands. Fixing the border policy and abolishing ICE would be a good start. It sounds like he helped on the DACA bill and has done other good work on immigration, hopefully he can bring that to the DHS.
No. There is a difference between voicing your opinion in a way that is conducive to discussion and learning in a community and posting a one-sentence post without putting any thought into it that will derail a thread or be counter-productive.
Like instead of saying what got most banned on the first page, all they had to do was: "I see these picks, I hope that they do not continue *a policy here*. In reality, this arm of the government shouldn't exist or should have certain powers taken away from it". Then they wouldn't get banned for posting their opinion. This forum shouldn't aspire to be the Youtube comment section.
- Status