Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes
between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the
Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President
and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United
States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 4.

•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the
President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 3.

•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is
explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to
take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.

The Court agrees with Petitioners that an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution encompasses the same duties as an oath to support the Constitution. The Court,
however, agrees with Intervenors that given there were two oaths in the Constitution at the time,
the fact that Section Three references the oath that applies to Article VI, Clause 3 officers
suggests that that is the class of officers to whom Section Three applies.

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial
officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each
House, remove such disability.

310.
Magliocca further argued that contemporary usage supports the view that
the President is an “officer of the United States.” Andrew Johnson repeatedly referred to
himself as such in presidential proclamations, members of Congress both during the
39th Congress that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and during Johnson’s
impeachment several years later repeatedly referred to the President the same way, and
earlier presidents in the Nineteenth Century were referred to the same way. 11/01/23 Tr.
56:3–59:16, 69:21–71:21.

311.
On the other hand, Intervenors argue that five constitutional provisions
show that the President is not an “officer of the United States.”
•The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes
between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the
Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President
and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United
States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 4.
•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the
President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 3.
•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is
explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to
take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.
•Article VI provides further support for distinguishing the President from
“Officers of the United States” because the oath taken by the President
under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 is not the same as the oath prescribed
for officers of the United States under Article VI, Clause 3.

(It mentions senator, representative, elector and vice president, but not president. However, it also mentions anyone who has previously taken an oath, so there's no reason why this should not apply to the president.)

With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.

But Judge Wallace, a state district court judge in Denver, concluded that Section 3 did not include the presidential oath in that category.

The clause does not explicitly name the presidency, so that question hinged on whether the president was included in the
category “officer of the United States.”

Because of “the absence of the president from the list of positions to which the amendment applies combined with the fact that Section 3 specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to ‘support’ the Constitution whereas the presidential oath is to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution,” Judge Wallace wrote, “it appears to the court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section 3 did not intend to include a person who had only taken the presidential oath.”

[...]

Judge Wallace is the first judge to rule on the merits of whether Section 3 applies to Mr. Trump. Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire have been dismissed on procedural grounds, and a judge in Michigan recently ruled that the questions were political ones that courts did not have the authority to decide.

The Baltic States existed at the pleasure of whoever were the tsar of Russia (or not, when that tsar was Stalin). Without European friends they would not exist at all.

Would NATO risk that, and a potential nuclear war, for a small, barely populated piece of land. A gambling tsar might just try.

But that distraction, gaining Estonia, would not be worth it if Russia lost Kaliningrad, a naval base they actually need(ed).

We are beyond that now. An invasion of Estonia would be risky on its own terms. They could, and probably would, try some form of hybrid warfare, but probably only with implausible deniability.

Quote from: krake on 2014-12-26, 18:18:12

There are good terrorists, those who are useful for our geostrategic interests (call them moderate or freedom fighters) and bad terrorists, those who don't serve our geostrategic interests.

Is a term like "freedom fighter" even used anymore since the Wall fell? I've seen words like "guerrillas" my entire life, "freedom fighter" being some kind of quaint Cold War relic that primarily refers to guerrillas opposing oppressive communist regimes. Perhaps it's simply that the militants tend to instill their own dictatorship after emerging victoriously, but let's not forget that some insurgents never use the language of freedom at all. Some rather explicitly want to install dictatorships and/or theocracies. As such the term "freedom fighter" seems more naive than meaningless per se. A pretty common way to distinguish between "regular" insurgents and terrorists is whether or not they make a point of attacking non-combatants. So,

a. Hamas targeting Israeli soldiers is probably not terrorism, depending a bit on the specifics including e.g. treatment of prisoners.
b. Hamas targeting Israeli citizens is definitely terrorism.

Ergo, Hamas is a terrorist organization, clear as day. It's only when b is absent that things might get a bit muddier. In my experience, b is always present when calling something a terrorist organization.

Hamas is a terrorist organization and their rocket attacks should be unconditionally condemned. But this was also calculated political recklessness and opportunism by Netanyahu. His political end is nigh and apparently, cynically, a battle for Jerusalem during Ramadan is just the thing. Close the gate, close the Al-Aksa mosque without provocation, kick people out of their homes, wait for the Hamas deplorables to take the bait. Mission accomplished, even if presumably slightly more so than expected.

Also keep in mind Hamas has more popular support among Palestinians now because of that wretched wall and because of the increasingly apartheid-based state.