The axe I am grinding is that IMO, zero-tolerance and the mandatory minimum sentencing brought in with 1986 Anti Drug Abuse Act were the wrong direction for domestic policy.
What we had was a domestic policy postured on morality and foreign policy postured on success by any means.
I'm speculating that is a pretty uncomfortable situation to be in, if you are one of the 500,000 citizens in the big house for drug offences, or if you have had property and asset seizure.
Now let's go back to your example:
Quote:
|
Is it hypocritical to sign an Executive Order prohibiting assassination of foreign heads of state, then bomb the crap out of a country when you know full well that less than a dozen people are causing the problem?
|
That is an excellent, thought-provoking question. I knew there was a reason I haunt this place. Obviously 12333 can be a fly in the ointment. I have wondered how often it really boils down to a dozen people causing problems compared to a more systemic problem. Assassinations may appear cleaner but have more unpredictable consequences (eg the continuing fallout from the Gaitan assassination. this differs from foreign policy in that it was probably internal. nonetheless, as a civil war action may still not have acheived its objective).
Please clarify which situation you had in mind for your example of a dozen people.
edited to add: just to head this off and stay on topic, I know its been discussed around here before that the people in jail broke the law. it's "missy libertarian" to you.
