I think it's been nearly 2 months since I last published a one-off post, also a reflection of an O'Reilly commentary. The excerpt I cite below is available here:
On the ISIS-jihad front, Congress must declare war on specific terror groups like ISIS, shifting the primary role of protection from law enforcement agencies to the military.
A declaration of war would allow the president much more leeway in neutralizing terror threats both within and outside the country.
In a war situation, investigators would have far more options in defining enemy threats and dealing with them.
President Obama does not seem to understand that you cannot contain evil, you most destroy it.
Summing up, America is under attack by Muslim fanatics. Just because they don't use tanks and planes doesn't mean this isn't war. It is.
But here's the kicker. Roughly during the same period of time, gun murders in the USA have dropped 30%, non-fatal shootings dropping 61%.
Why? Not because of banning guns, but because of long prison terms for violent offenders, including drug gangsters.
Certain kinds of deadly weapons should be banned for sale by congressional legislation.
All crimes committed with guns, including illegal gun sales, should be federalized and subject to strict mandatory prison terms.
There are several different threads going on here. First of all, let's take the soundbite about declaring war. An initial comment is to note that there is a distinction between declared war (there have been 5 in American history, the last being WWII) and an authorization of force, including Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War and Afghanistan. It's not clear whether O'Reilly is making such a distinction, whether for instance he wants to leverage the Alien Enemies Act, which would allow deportation of suspects. (I would wonder about the lack of due process, say, if the suspect is a US citizen, but SCOTUS of course allowed internment of Japanese-American citizens as well as other Axis-Americans.) It could be that he wants to restore the terrorism, natural disasters, et al., that Congress added in 2006 in reference to Insurrection Act triggers for the use of the US military under the Posse Comitatus Act and which were rescinded in 2008.
It's clear that O'Reilly thinks that a declaration of war would give POTUS more "flexibility" to deal with internal terrorist threats. Now traditionally POTUS has limited, delayed policing powers (only under the conditions of lawlessness, rebellion, or invasion) and typically only when conditions exceed traditional state/local law enforcement capacity.
It's not clear exactly what O'Reilly is saying because it's a muddled mess and ambiguous at best. I will point out that O'Reilly seems to want to federalize a number of crimes, e.g., vs. police officers.
Some general thoughts on all this. First, I have never accepted that the 2001 authorization act was a catch all that Obama implies in justifying action against ISIS, which was not part of the 9/11 attacks. Second, I oppose any general authorization/declaration of war which is so general and boilerplate in nature that POTUS could arbitrarily so designate an adversary. If a declaration lacks specificity, it becomes unconstitutional, a recipe for perpetual war and unlimited warmaking by POTUS.
Second, I do not believe that the 2001 authorization covers ISIS, the expanded drone campaign, etc. Obama needs to seek such authority. I would oppose granting it to him because ISIS has not attacked the US and we have no business in the Middle East.
Third, I would oppose any backdoor attempt to federalize policing powers under an expanding imperial Presidency.
O'Reilly goes on to generalize a small number of isolated (not coordinated) high-profile incidents: Ft. Hood, Boston, San Bernandino, and Orlando as some general Islamist plot against America. Whereas no one should underestimate the horror the victims went through, I want to point out far more Americans die on our nation's roads, and O'Reilly isn't calling to federalize our roads. For crying out loud, if some skinhead quoting Hitler masterminds the next atrocity, are we going to call for war on Germany again? Bill O'Reilly totally lacks common sense.
Now as to the drop in violent crime, O'Reilly claims this is because of "longer sentences"; he's just making shit up. This isn't supported by the evidence. For one thing, the same trend has been observed elsewhere (e.g., Canada) without the high US imprisonment rate; for another things, many states have seen crime rates go down even as imprisonment rates go down. There are other explanations, including improved policing and home protection technology, demographic changes, cultural changes, etc. Don't get me wrong; violent people off the street helps, but video and DNA evidence, for instance, make it easier to track and convict the criminal in question.
No, I absolutely disagree with federalizing gun crimes This violates the principle of federalism. I also don't see the need for further restrictions on self-defense means without statistics showing compelling links to criminal use.
