I mean, suppose that you have certain unfortunate views on how things should be, and, as such, you think there is nothing wrong with a system in which sixth Amendment rights don't exist. Even if you thought that, shouldn't you be at all troubled by the fact they do, in fact, exist in our system, and that the President is nevertheless ignoring them?
To draw a parallel: I think that an ideal system would involve much more steeply redistributive policies. But I would still be deeply, deeply alarmed if the president ordered the army to start seizing the assets of the richest Americans and giving them away to the destitute. Not because I think there is anything wrong with redistribution, but rather, because he doesn't have the authority to make that decision himself. Our laws, as they stand now, do not allow it, and the executive is bound by our laws, as they stand now.
I was disputing MrMister's argument that the executive is here bound by the limitations imposed by the sixth amendment, as he reads it - it isn't, at least going by the prevailing reading. The system - as it stands now - allow the executive considerable leeway.
It is worrying, but I would make that argument on more concrete grounds than trying to invoke constitutional limitations which don't exist. Like, say, a real risk of errors in judgment, since power, groupthink and secrecy go oh so well together.
The only problem I have with this is lack of proof.
Wanting to kill an American citizen? If said American citizen was caught on camera, walking around with a gun and murdering 100 civilians, I could perfectly understand a kill on sight order.
I mean, suppose that you have certain unfortunate views on how things should be, and, as such, you think there is nothing wrong with a system in which sixth Amendment rights don't exist. Even if you thought that, shouldn't you be at all troubled by the fact they do, in fact, exist in our system, and that the President is nevertheless ignoring them?
To draw a parallel: I think that an ideal system would involve much more steeply redistributive policies. But I would still be deeply, deeply alarmed if the president ordered the army to start seizing the assets of the richest Americans and giving them away to the destitute. Not because I think there is anything wrong with redistribution, but rather, because he doesn't have the authority to make that decision himself. Our laws, as they stand now, do not allow it, and the executive is bound by our laws, as they stand now.
Is a cop who shoots a suspect because he pulls a gun ignoring Sixth Amendment rights?
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The media endorsed (and suggested) most of Bush's executive powers. Hell, one of the first assholes to call for torture was Jonathan Alter, supposedly a liberal. They would ignore/support this one too, much like they are doing currently.
Well, The New York Times' editorial board has written very sensibly against. One more reason it's the only paper worth reading.
This NYT article has two particular passages that I completely agree with.
Given the cloud of doubt hanging over the doctrine — for 57 years, really, since the Supreme Court established it and for the past decade, especially, because the Bush administration abused it to conceal torture — it’s time for the Obama administration to air these differences and explain the full extent of its thinking.
...
Mr. Holder’s assurances haven’t strengthened public confidence because they can’t. That will not happen until there is an independent and trusted mechanism for scrutinizing efforts to use the secrecy claim, and to address judges’ deference to a secrecy-oriented executive.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I was disputing MrMister's argument that the executive is here bound by the limitations imposed by the sixth amendment, as he reads it - it isn't, at least going by the prevailing reading. The system - as it stands now - allow the executive considerable leeway.
As far as I'm aware, this use of state secrets (to dismiss Anwar's father's case attempting to stop the killing) has not been tested in SCOTUS. State secrets is a well established doctrine, but its scope is not so well established.
In any case, I think there are plenty of reasons to think the president shouldn't have the power to order extra-judicial assassinations. However, that particular point was in response to people who somehow think that he should have that power: even if you think that he should, shouldn't we still expect that it must be granted to him by sufficient legislative or judicial act, rather than simply allowing him to assume it at will?
MrMister on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I was disputing MrMister's argument that the executive is here bound by the limitations imposed by the sixth amendment, as he reads it - it isn't, at least going by the prevailing reading. The system - as it stands now - allow the executive considerable leeway.
As far as I'm aware, this use of state secrets (to dismiss Anwar's father's case attempting to stop the killing) has not been tested in SCOTUS. State secrets is a well established doctrine, but its scope is not so well established.
In any case, I think there are plenty of reasons to think the president shouldn't have the power to order extra-judicial assassinations. However, that particular point was in response to people who somehow think that he should have that power: even if you think that he should, shouldn't we still expect that it must be granted to him by sufficient legislative or judicial act, rather than simply allowing him to assume it at will?
Precedent has plenty of power.
Regardless, we've already moved from "the President is ignoring well-established rights" to "the President is invoking ill-established existing powers". The latter is what I was arguing, so I rest my case.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I would have expected better from a former Constitutional Law Professor. The fact more people are not pissed off about hit sickens me. You want him dead send in the CIA hit squad under cloak of night and deny it ever happened. You cannot justify state sanctioned murder of a US citizen without a trial no matter how you slice it and frankly violates his oath of office.
You catch him taking potshots at American soldiers in a war zone by all means put a bullet in his brain pan and call it good. He ends up collateral damage in a drone attack well shit happens in war. However you do not get to bump into him in line at the local Jihad-11 in Yemen where he is about to purchase is morning coffee and donut and gun him down without trial. What the hell is so important about this guy that while sitting in Yemen, nowhere near an active war zone that we need him dead yesterday. Oh we can't tell you its "classified". What is he Tony mother fucking Stark?
Hey, maybe Obama is just doing something of questionable constitutionality so that it can go to SCOTUS and it can be overrules and then nothing like that can every happen again! It could happen, right? Right?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Hey, maybe Obama is just doing something of questionable constitutionality so that it can go to SCOTUS and it can be overrules and then nothing like that can every happen again! It could happen, right? Right?
Hey, maybe Obama is just doing something of questionable constitutionality so that it can go to SCOTUS and it can be overrules and then nothing like that can every happen again! It could happen, right? Right?
It's not literally impossible.
Nartwak on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Regardless, we've already moved from "the President is ignoring well-established rights" to "the President is invoking ill-established existing powers". The latter is what I was arguing, so I rest my case.
I'm not sure that I understand your point. How are we taking those to be importantly distinct?
Hey, maybe Obama is just doing something of questionable constitutionality so that it can go to SCOTUS and it can be overrules and then nothing like that can every happen again! It could happen, right? Right?
If only this were the Anti-Clancy universe and such things were possible.
Regardless, we've already moved from "the President is ignoring well-established rights" to "the President is invoking ill-established existing powers". The latter is what I was arguing, so I rest my case.
I'm not sure that I understand your point. How are we taking those to be importantly distinct?
... because in the latter, it isn't obvious that the the executive is ignoring "our laws, as they stand now"? :P
Hey, maybe Obama is just doing something of questionable constitutionality so that it can go to SCOTUS and it can be overrules and then nothing like that can every happen again! It could happen, right? Right?
I have seen this argument on a variety of issues on DailyKos.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Covert state-sanctioned murder isn't really an improvement.
Yes, yes it is. Covert murder is done in secrecy because it is wrong, you know it is wrong. You cannot justify it, but yet for whatever reason someone needs to die without the benefit of a trial. You know that if you get caught doing it there will be hell to pay. You use deniable assets, you cover your tracks, you bury the evidence deep, and you deny it ever happens. You cannot compare making someone disappear where less than maybe 20 people in the world will ever know what happened or why to shooting someone in the face in the middle of a crowded street with hundreds of witnesses and proudly waving the gun saying "It's ok folks, I am the president!".
Regardless, we've already moved from "the President is ignoring well-established rights" to "the President is invoking ill-established existing powers". The latter is what I was arguing, so I rest my case.
I'm not sure that I understand your point. How are we taking those to be importantly distinct?
... because in the latter, it isn't obvious that the the executive is ignoring "our laws, as they stand now"? :P
Sure it is--the powers of the president are granted (and limited) by article II, which is itself also limited in scope by the bill of rights. If the president is invoking an ill-established power--i.e. one that does not clearly fall within that scope--then he is ignoring our laws, as they stand now.
Though I think that this is rather beside the point in any case.
MrMister on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Is a cop who shoots a suspect because he pulls a gun ignoring Sixth Amendment rights?
No.
Please to be skipping to the end of the socratic questioning now--why do you think that matters?
Because the difference between the two is only one of scale, not principle?
Well, I suppose that is an argument you could make (not that you have yet).
I take the parallel to already be a bad one, but even were we to accept it, it is worth noting that police are, in fact, under a burden to demonstrate that the subject was actually dangerous--they can, although unfortunately rarely, get in trouble for shooting someone who was not presenting any danger. Whereas here we are taking the administration to have exactly zero obligation to provide evidential support to their claim that this man presents an immediate danger to anyone or anything.
Covert state-sanctioned murder isn't really an improvement.
Yes, yes it is. Covert murder is done in secrecy because it is wrong, you know it is wrong. You cannot justify it, but yet for whatever reason someone needs to die without the benefit of a trial. You know that if you get caught doing it there will be hell to pay. You use deniable assets, you cover your tracks, you bury the evidence deep, and you deny it ever happens. You cannot compare making someone disappear where less than maybe 20 people in the world will ever know what happened or why to shooting someone in the face in the middle of a crowded street with hundreds of witnesses and proudly waving the gun saying "It's ok folks, I am the president!".
Yes, we don't legitimize state-sanctioned murder, which is good, but that isn't the ultimate goal here. The goal is controlling actual state-sanctioned murder, which is, you know, what a covert assassination sets out to do.
And covert operations - by their nature - tend to be shoddy at the whole "oversight" thing. If we are going to have state-sanctioned murder, at least it should be heavily overseen. "Knowing that it is wrong" is an irrelevant concern when covert murder goes uncontrolled and abuses of covert powers unpunished.
Except not only has Obama legitimized it, but people are defending his right to murder people. I would rather state sanctioned murder be done under the cloak of darkness where if it ever sees the light of day political careers are ruined and people go to jail.
Which is pretty much the exact opposite of what we are seeing right now. Covert murder no longer needs to be Covert, but it is still just as uncontrolled, and people are actually defending the abuse of power. Which is the entirety of the problem.
Hell this is the kind of thing that would have had political figures resigning in disgrace in the past.
And if he gets shot on the battlefield as a combatant, nobody is going to think twice. Because that makes him an active enemy of the united states and a perfectly valid target.
But effectively putting a hit out on someone who has rights as an American citizen is toeing the line on state sponsored murder of internal political enemies. This is an extreme case, granted, but he gets rights because the rest of us still need them.
How is this "internal"? How is he not an enemy combatant?
So you are asserting that no one who's case involves state secrets can be the recipient of due process?
Because once you've decided that some things have to be kept secret for security/safety/etc reasons, you've established that "secret courts" are required. After that, we're just arguing about how these courts are set up.
Is a cop who shoots a suspect because he pulls a gun ignoring Sixth Amendment rights?
No.
Please to be skipping to the end of the socratic questioning now--why do you think that matters?
Because the difference between the two is only one of scale, not principle?
Well, I suppose that is an argument you could make (not that you have yet).
I take the parallel to already be a bad one, but even were we to accept it, it is worth noting that police are, in fact, under a burden to demonstrate that the subject was actually dangerous--they can, although unfortunately rarely, get in trouble for shooting someone who was not presenting any danger. Whereas here we are taking the administration to have exactly zero obligation to provide evidential support to their claim that this man presents an immediate danger to anyone or anything.
I think as has been said before, no oversight, and no public oversight are not actually the same thing.
Still, the amount of oversight that is present is probably insufficient. But that's not really the same thing as the alarmist claims about "state sanctioned murder" and what not being made here.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I'm saying anyone who is tried in secret, is not receiving due process. The only secret court I know of is the FISA Court, which is to obtain warrants. Which strikes me as a totally legitimate thing to do. Tipping off people that we're close to them is a bad thing, but I want the government to justify their searches to someone. Thus: secret court.
Trying someone in secret, in absentia, and sentencing them to death by executive fiat? I'm not at all comfortable with that.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm saying anyone who is tried in secret, is not receiving due process. The only secret court I know of is the FISA Court, which is to obtain warrants. Which strikes me as a totally legitimate thing to do. Tipping off people that we're close to them is a bad thing, but I want the government to justify their searches to someone. Thus: secret court.
Trying someone in secret, in absentia, and sentencing them to death by executive fiat? I'm not at all comfortable with that.
How else are you going to try people who's crimes and the evidence thereof would necessitate revealing sources and information that has to be kept secret?
Again, we are now arguing about what type of secret court is needed, which is ok. As I said in my first post, the only real problem here, imo, is the nature of the review process for this. Who's reviewing the cases, who are they beholden to, etc, etc.
I'm saying anyone who is tried in secret, is not receiving due process. The only secret court I know of is the FISA Court, which is to obtain warrants. Which strikes me as a totally legitimate thing to do. Tipping off people that we're close to them is a bad thing, but I want the government to justify their searches to someone. Thus: secret court.
Trying someone in secret, in absentia, and sentencing them to death by executive fiat? I'm not at all comfortable with that.
In that situation, wouldn't the cop have attempted to arrest the suspect first?
But that's what's happening here too as far as I've read.
They've changed the order from "Capture" to "Capture or Kill if necessary".
It's not like they've just abandoned the idea of capturing him all together.
If Obama's ordering an assassination, that pretty much does explicitly rule out capture.
Since he's authorizing kill or capture (again, as far as I've read), your if doesn't come into play though.
I mean really, even if you don't believe anything these people say for a single second, it's still ludicrous to think they wouldn't rather capture him then kill him. This guy probably knows alot. Dead people can't be interrogated.
And if he gets shot on the battlefield as a combatant, nobody is going to think twice. Because that makes him an active enemy of the united states and a perfectly valid target.
But effectively putting a hit out on someone who has rights as an American citizen is toeing the line on state sponsored murder of internal political enemies. This is an extreme case, granted, but he gets rights because the rest of us still need them.
How is this "internal"? How is he not an enemy combatant?
First off, right now we have no actual public proof that he is, in fact, an enemy combatant.
Second, regardless of the current situation our governmental set up is such that if the Taliban started a party here in America and got the requisite voting base together, they could constitute a political power block with elected officials and the whole shebang. That's how our democracy works. So a government ordered assassination of someone like this guy with unpopular views is just a hop skip and a jump away from the assassination of the leaders of the political competition. I mean, I doubt this guy is actually as dangerous to this country as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, but putting a G-man hit out on either of those guys is obviously something that would never be done because they aren't as easy to paint as open enemies of the state as someone who wears a turban and lives in Yemen.
This is why due process is SO FUCKING IMPORTANT. We need strong controls over what our government can do to its citizens or we lose even the basic ideas of our democracy.
And if he gets shot on the battlefield as a combatant, nobody is going to think twice. Because that makes him an active enemy of the united states and a perfectly valid target.
But effectively putting a hit out on someone who has rights as an American citizen is toeing the line on state sponsored murder of internal political enemies. This is an extreme case, granted, but he gets rights because the rest of us still need them.
How is this "internal"? How is he not an enemy combatant?
First off, right now we have no actual public proof that he is, in fact, an enemy combatant.
Second, regardless of the current situation our governmental set up is such that if the Taliban started a party here in America and got the requisite voting base together, they could constitute a political power block with elected officials and the whole shebang. That's how our democracy works. So a government ordered assassination of someone like this guy with unpopular views is just a hop skip and a jump away from the assassination of the leaders of the political competition. I mean, I doubt this guy is actually as dangerous to this country as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, but putting a G-man hit out on either of those guys is obviously something that would never be done because they aren't as easy to paint as open enemies of the state as someone who wears a turban and lives in Yemen.
This is why due process is SO FUCKING IMPORTANT. We need strong controls over what our government can do to its citizens or we lose even the basic ideas of our democracy.
If due process is so fucking important why don't you stop talking about it on the internet and instead go out and try to do something about it? Otherwise all this discussion is just noise.
Posts
... neat?
I mean, suppose that you have certain unfortunate views on how things should be, and, as such, you think there is nothing wrong with a system in which sixth Amendment rights don't exist. Even if you thought that, shouldn't you be at all troubled by the fact they do, in fact, exist in our system, and that the President is nevertheless ignoring them?
To draw a parallel: I think that an ideal system would involve much more steeply redistributive policies. But I would still be deeply, deeply alarmed if the president ordered the army to start seizing the assets of the richest Americans and giving them away to the destitute. Not because I think there is anything wrong with redistribution, but rather, because he doesn't have the authority to make that decision himself. Our laws, as they stand now, do not allow it, and the executive is bound by our laws, as they stand now.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It is worrying, but I would make that argument on more concrete grounds than trying to invoke constitutional limitations which don't exist. Like, say, a real risk of errors in judgment, since power, groupthink and secrecy go oh so well together.
Wanting to kill an American citizen? If said American citizen was caught on camera, walking around with a gun and murdering 100 civilians, I could perfectly understand a kill on sight order.
But not with no conclusive evidence.
Is a cop who shoots a suspect because he pulls a gun ignoring Sixth Amendment rights?
This NYT article has two particular passages that I completely agree with.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
As far as I'm aware, this use of state secrets (to dismiss Anwar's father's case attempting to stop the killing) has not been tested in SCOTUS. State secrets is a well established doctrine, but its scope is not so well established.
In any case, I think there are plenty of reasons to think the president shouldn't have the power to order extra-judicial assassinations. However, that particular point was in response to people who somehow think that he should have that power: even if you think that he should, shouldn't we still expect that it must be granted to him by sufficient legislative or judicial act, rather than simply allowing him to assume it at will?
No.
Please to be skipping to the end of the socratic questioning now--why do you think that matters?
Precedent has plenty of power.
Regardless, we've already moved from "the President is ignoring well-established rights" to "the President is invoking ill-established existing powers". The latter is what I was arguing, so I rest my case.
I would have expected better from a former Constitutional Law Professor. The fact more people are not pissed off about hit sickens me. You want him dead send in the CIA hit squad under cloak of night and deny it ever happened. You cannot justify state sanctioned murder of a US citizen without a trial no matter how you slice it and frankly violates his oath of office.
You catch him taking potshots at American soldiers in a war zone by all means put a bullet in his brain pan and call it good. He ends up collateral damage in a drone attack well shit happens in war. However you do not get to bump into him in line at the local Jihad-11 in Yemen where he is about to purchase is morning coffee and donut and gun him down without trial. What the hell is so important about this guy that while sitting in Yemen, nowhere near an active war zone that we need him dead yesterday. Oh we can't tell you its "classified". What is he Tony mother fucking Stark?
e:
Uh, I think this would be an unlikely scenario.
It's not literally impossible.
I'm not sure that I understand your point. How are we taking those to be importantly distinct?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
... because in the latter, it isn't obvious that the the executive is ignoring "our laws, as they stand now"? :P
I have seen this argument on a variety of issues on DailyKos.
Yes, yes it is. Covert murder is done in secrecy because it is wrong, you know it is wrong. You cannot justify it, but yet for whatever reason someone needs to die without the benefit of a trial. You know that if you get caught doing it there will be hell to pay. You use deniable assets, you cover your tracks, you bury the evidence deep, and you deny it ever happens. You cannot compare making someone disappear where less than maybe 20 people in the world will ever know what happened or why to shooting someone in the face in the middle of a crowded street with hundreds of witnesses and proudly waving the gun saying "It's ok folks, I am the president!".
Because the difference between the two is only one of scale, not principle?
Sure it is--the powers of the president are granted (and limited) by article II, which is itself also limited in scope by the bill of rights. If the president is invoking an ill-established power--i.e. one that does not clearly fall within that scope--then he is ignoring our laws, as they stand now.
Though I think that this is rather beside the point in any case.
Well, I suppose that is an argument you could make (not that you have yet).
I take the parallel to already be a bad one, but even were we to accept it, it is worth noting that police are, in fact, under a burden to demonstrate that the subject was actually dangerous--they can, although unfortunately rarely, get in trouble for shooting someone who was not presenting any danger. Whereas here we are taking the administration to have exactly zero obligation to provide evidential support to their claim that this man presents an immediate danger to anyone or anything.
Yes, we don't legitimize state-sanctioned murder, which is good, but that isn't the ultimate goal here. The goal is controlling actual state-sanctioned murder, which is, you know, what a covert assassination sets out to do.
And covert operations - by their nature - tend to be shoddy at the whole "oversight" thing. If we are going to have state-sanctioned murder, at least it should be heavily overseen. "Knowing that it is wrong" is an irrelevant concern when covert murder goes uncontrolled and abuses of covert powers unpunished.
But that's what's happening here too as far as I've read.
They've changed the order from "Capture" to "Capture or Kill if necessary".
It's not like they've just abandoned the idea of capturing him all together.
Which is pretty much the exact opposite of what we are seeing right now. Covert murder no longer needs to be Covert, but it is still just as uncontrolled, and people are actually defending the abuse of power. Which is the entirety of the problem.
Hell this is the kind of thing that would have had political figures resigning in disgrace in the past.
How is this "internal"? How is he not an enemy combatant?
So you are asserting that no one who's case involves state secrets can be the recipient of due process?
Because once you've decided that some things have to be kept secret for security/safety/etc reasons, you've established that "secret courts" are required. After that, we're just arguing about how these courts are set up.
I think as has been said before, no oversight, and no public oversight are not actually the same thing.
Still, the amount of oversight that is present is probably insufficient. But that's not really the same thing as the alarmist claims about "state sanctioned murder" and what not being made here.
Trying someone in secret, in absentia, and sentencing them to death by executive fiat? I'm not at all comfortable with that.
How else are you going to try people who's crimes and the evidence thereof would necessitate revealing sources and information that has to be kept secret?
Again, we are now arguing about what type of secret court is needed, which is ok. As I said in my first post, the only real problem here, imo, is the nature of the review process for this. Who's reviewing the cases, who are they beholden to, etc, etc.
If Obama's ordering an assassination, that pretty much does explicitly rule out capture.
Good thing that's not what we're doing.
And he's not, except in the minds of alarmists.
Since he's authorizing kill or capture (again, as far as I've read), your if doesn't come into play though.
I mean really, even if you don't believe anything these people say for a single second, it's still ludicrous to think they wouldn't rather capture him then kill him. This guy probably knows alot. Dead people can't be interrogated.
How do you know this guy has violated the law?
Second, regardless of the current situation our governmental set up is such that if the Taliban started a party here in America and got the requisite voting base together, they could constitute a political power block with elected officials and the whole shebang. That's how our democracy works. So a government ordered assassination of someone like this guy with unpopular views is just a hop skip and a jump away from the assassination of the leaders of the political competition. I mean, I doubt this guy is actually as dangerous to this country as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, but putting a G-man hit out on either of those guys is obviously something that would never be done because they aren't as easy to paint as open enemies of the state as someone who wears a turban and lives in Yemen.
This is why due process is SO FUCKING IMPORTANT. We need strong controls over what our government can do to its citizens or we lose even the basic ideas of our democracy.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Allow me to ask you this simple question:
How do you know someone who FISA authorized to be wiretapped deserved to be wiretapped?
We can and do make practical compromises here, guys.
If due process is so fucking important why don't you stop talking about it on the internet and instead go out and try to do something about it? Otherwise all this discussion is just noise.
Is it necessary for him to have done so?