3 ms·

Also doesn't stop the US government from drone striking Americans without due process.

by 93po 3y ago

deathanatos 3y ago
…and just to add to this list (and to get back to "deny entry into your own country"), … it doesn't stop the government from putting you on the no-fly list to prevent you from testifying at trail against the government.[1] (I believe the government claimed this was an "error", … but that's exactly what you'd say.) [1]: https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/latif_et_al._v._holder_et_al._-_plaintiffs_second_notice_of_supplemental_authority_-_exhibit_a.pdf https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/lati..., "The bench trial then began on December 2, 2013. On the first day of trial, before opening statements, plaintiff’s counsel reported that plaintiff’s daughter — a United States citizen born in the United States and a witness disclosed on her witness list — was not permitted to board her flight from Kuala Lumpur to attend trial, evidently because she too was on a no-fly list." ; https://reason.com/2013/12/04/wanting-to-testify-in-no-fly-list-lawsui/ https://reason.com/2013/12/04/wanting-to-testify-in-no-fly-l...
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  This case is different from the others and from the rest of the thread because the injured party is a nonimmigrant alien.
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    No, the injured party (the woman denied boarding, the daughter, and thus, denied the ability to testify) was a US citizen. It's right there in the quote pulled from the legal doc. (IIRC, the mother was also on the no-fly list, and that was context of the case itself, even. One could rightly also refer to her as an injured party too.)
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      I had read the first document, which was about her mother, who isn't a US citizen and wasn't in the US.
      - deathanatos 3y ago
        The quote is from the first document. Again, yes, the mother isn't a US citizen, she's not the focus of my comment, the daughter is. The daughter is a US citizen, and she is additionally mentioned in the document.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        The daughter immediately received remedy from the court. The mother did not despite her far more severe injuries because, as you now admit, she was a nonimmigrant alien outside the US.
lern_too_spel 3y ago
The Constitution doesn't specify that due process necessarily involves the judicial branch. Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta cited precedent that civilian courts should not interfere with the military chain of command and that warmaking and national defense powers lie with the executive and legislative branches. In this case, the executive informed the congressional oversight committees more than a year before the assassination. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1192-36 https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1...
- bumby 3y ago
  >The Constitution doesn't specify that due process necessarily involves the judicial branch. Doesn't the 5th amendment specifically guarantee the right to indictment by a Grand Jury for 'a capital or other infamous crime'? Or was this considered moot because the same amendment gives a caveat for a 'time of war or public danger'?* Your link seems to recognize this distinction and seems to sidestep the 5th amendment question by narrowing the scope (although I admit I haven't read it all in detail): >"The Court recognizes that its holding regarding the political question doctrine is inconsistent with Judge Bates’s decision in Al-Aulaqi v. Obama. That earlier case alleged that the United States’ intention to kill Anwar Al-Aulaqi violated the Fifth Amendment. In contrast, the instant Complaint raises the issue more directly and acutely, asserting a claim for damages for the actual taking of Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s life without regard to Fifth Amendment protections." *this obviously adds some additional risk to perpetual 'global wars on terrorism' and the ability to rules-lawyer your way into any outcome you want

Also doesn't stop the US government from drone striking Americans without due process.

by 93po 3y ago

Also doesn't stop the US government from drone striking Americans without due process.

…and just to add to this list (and to get back to "deny entry into your own country"), … it doesn't stop the government from putting you on the no-fly list to prevent you from testifying at trail against the government.[1] (I believe the government claimed this was an "error", … but that's exactly what you'd say.) [1]: https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/latif_et_al._v._holder_et_al._-_plaintiffs_second_notice_of_supplemental_authority_-_exhibit_a.pdf https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/lati..., "The bench trial then began on December 2, 2013. On the first day of trial, before opening statements, plaintiff’s counsel reported that plaintiff’s daughter — a United States citizen born in the United States and a witness disclosed on her witness list — was not permitted to board her flight from Kuala Lumpur to attend trial, evidently because she too was on a no-fly list." ; https://reason.com/2013/12/04/wanting-to-testify-in-no-fly-list-lawsui/ https://reason.com/2013/12/04/wanting-to-testify-in-no-fly-l...

lern_too_spel 3y ago
This case is different from the others and from the rest of the thread because the injured party is a nonimmigrant alien.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  No, the injured party (the woman denied boarding, the daughter, and thus, denied the ability to testify) was a US citizen. It's right there in the quote pulled from the legal doc. (IIRC, the mother was also on the no-fly list, and that was context of the case itself, even. One could rightly also refer to her as an injured party too.)
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    I had read the first document, which was about her mother, who isn't a US citizen and wasn't in the US.
    - deathanatos 3y ago
      The quote is from the first document. Again, yes, the mother isn't a US citizen, she's not the focus of my comment, the daughter is. The daughter is a US citizen, and she is additionally mentioned in the document.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        The daughter immediately received remedy from the court. The mother did not despite her far more severe injuries because, as you now admit, she was a nonimmigrant alien outside the US.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

The Constitution doesn't specify that due process necessarily involves the judicial branch. Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta cited precedent that civilian courts should not interfere with the military chain of command and that warmaking and national defense powers lie with the executive and legislative branches. In this case, the executive informed the congressional oversight committees more than a year before the assassination. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1192-36 https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1...

bumby 3y ago
>The Constitution doesn't specify that due process necessarily involves the judicial branch. Doesn't the 5th amendment specifically guarantee the right to indictment by a Grand Jury for 'a capital or other infamous crime'? Or was this considered moot because the same amendment gives a caveat for a 'time of war or public danger'?* Your link seems to recognize this distinction and seems to sidestep the 5th amendment question by narrowing the scope (although I admit I haven't read it all in detail): >"The Court recognizes that its holding regarding the political question doctrine is inconsistent with Judge Bates’s decision in Al-Aulaqi v. Obama. That earlier case alleged that the United States’ intention to kill Anwar Al-Aulaqi violated the Fifth Amendment. In contrast, the instant Complaint raises the issue more directly and acutely, asserting a claim for damages for the actual taking of Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s life without regard to Fifth Amendment protections." *this obviously adds some additional risk to perpetual 'global wars on terrorism' and the ability to rules-lawyer your way into any outcome you want