Look at those two statements... Using "a clear and present danger" as the measure is subjective, it was our government's opinion that Iraq met that critieria but it was your opinion (and mine) that it did not. The result is a decision to go to war based on emotions and politics (there was huge public support at the time).
Yes, there was. A lot of people judged that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the USA. I think they were wrong, evidently you do too, but it was a judgement call. Lots of people still think that it was a good call.
There would be no question as to who the aggressor was in such a scenario. Starting "preemptive" wars because it's your opinion that the target nation poses "a clear and present danger" is exactly what happened in Iraq.
That's true, of course. If we were to wait until another nation actually attacked us, as Japan did in 1941. Do you think declaring war against Germany as well as Japan was a poor judgement call?
As usual, you miss the point. ...If I handcuff you, stuff you in the back of my cruiser, haul your butt downtown, book you for a crime and leave you rotting in a cell till you can get bailed out, have I used force against you and deprived you of your liberties?
Of course, you can't put someone in the back of a cruiser and take them downtown without moving objects around.
And, you don't arrest someone without a reasonable suspicion that the person being arrested was the perpetrator. So, what's the alternative? Should we have the trial first, then arrest them?
My standard is the same standard that applies in cases of SELF DEFENSE. I know that's a tough concept to wrap your head around, you can't just attack people because you think they might in some way pose a possible threat, instead you require solid evidence that can stand up in a court of law that your use of force was warranted by the situation.
Of course not. You only arrest someone who poses a clear and present danger. Watch some idiot racing through a residential neighborhood where kids ride bikes and shoot baskets, and they are posing such a danger. You don't have to wait until one of the kids actually has to ditch his bike on a lawn to avoid him, thus demonstrating that he has "used force". There is no such phrase in US law that I know of anyway.
You're the one arguing that people have a "right of reasonable safety", a "right" which they themselves are not permitted to actually exercise,
Yes, of course I can exercise my right to reasonable safety. The purpose of the government, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, is to protect my rights.
a "right" which may only be exercised by certian individuals,
No, not at all. We all have a right to reasonable safety.
a "right" that authorizes the use of force against people who have not used force against anyone.
since your definition of "using force against someone" seems to revolve around whether their actions have actually caused injury, or have caused the individual to take evasive action, then sure, we can use "force" against someone who is simply posing a public danger.
Yes, I oppose that position because I support the Right of Self Defense and your imaginary "right of reasonable safety" makes a mockery of that Right.
Imaginary right of reasonable safety?
The entire vehicle code revolves around protecting our right to reasonable safety.
