3 ms·

> The Trump administration argues that because the man is no longer in U.S. custody, a U.S. court lacks jurisdiction to issue orders regarding his detention and

by Terr_ 2y ago

> The Trump administration argues that because the man is no longer in U.S. custody, a U.S. court lacks jurisdiction to issue orders regarding his detention and release. That's evil and stupid. By that twisted logic, the President can ship all the gold in Fort Knox to a Russian bank under his own name, and US courts "won't have jurisdiction" to rule that it must be returned.

mcv 2y ago
That's also how the US used to justify torture in Guantanamo Bay. It wasn't US soil, so the prisoners there didn't have the rights and protections that US law and constitution would otherwise give them.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Even then I believe they avoided even transiting via US soil to maintain this thin figleaf of legal protection for torture.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Guantanamo Bay is the real bipartisan moral stain here. It was set up exactly to cause this kind of situation, for the extralegal punishment of people deemed to be terrorists. People claim that Obama "couldn't" close it, but I think DOGE have demonstrated with USAID that the President absolutely could have closed it by executive order and simply cutting off the pay of everyone there.
  - krapp 2y ago
    >but I think DOGE have demonstrated with USAID that the President absolutely could have closed it by executive order and simply cutting off the pay of everyone there You're assuming the system would have been as compliant with Obama as they are with Trump, but I doubt that would have been the case. Congress passed a law to make it illegal for Obama to close Gitmo and simply refused to allow it, but their hands are mysteriously tied WRT Trump and DOGE.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      It was just 10 years ago too... To me, that underscores is how much of the current situation is bad-faith cultism.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Tho, the level of law breaking by DOGE and Trump himself is unprecedented. Obviously Obama could became fascist as much as they are going, he could sieg heil too ... but him not being as far as them is a good thing about Obama. I am fine with the idea that it was an excuse back then. But, the "he could do the same anti-democratic anti-rule-of-law" decisions as Trump and Obama is not much argument. Second, Obama did not had supreme court saying "president is above the law and can break it" nor would right wing supreme court justices voted for it. Trump has that ruling, because his politics matches the one of the right wing supreme court justices. Third, Obama had actual opposition. Conservatives and republicans were opposing EVERYTHIGN he was doing. And had power to do so. Including when he adopted their own ideas. They even threw massive fit about suit of a wrong color. Right now, republicans have all the power including , majority in supreme court, so there are not checks or balances.
- jfengel 2y ago
  At least in El Salvador, he's got access to the (notoriously crappy) Salvadorian courts, and the protections granted by the Salvadorian constitution. It's not much, but it's something. Camp X-Ray was specifically designed to be nobody's jurisdiction. They have nothing. That is utterly shameful. It brings back reminders of our slave-owning past, where human beings were deprived even of the ownership of their own bodies.
Mordisquitos 2y ago
Not only that, but it's also inconsistent with the U.S. administration expecting non-US businesses to comply with executive orders even when operating in other countries [0]: > An executive order that Mr. Trump signed the day after taking office instructs federal contractors not to engage in D.E.I., which the order described as “illegal discrimination.” The letter to French businesses said the order “applies to all suppliers and contractors of the U.S. government, regardless of their nationality and the country in which they operate.” [0] https://apnews.com/article/french-companies-dei-letter-us-trump-diversity-7ef9ad5839b0a3ded6fa454a8ea84d1d https://apnews.com/article/french-companies-dei-letter-us-tr...
pavlov 2y ago
The president nowadays has immunity for official acts, so he can ship the gold to Russia anyway if he signs an executive order saying it’s necessary for world peace.
anigbrowl 2y ago
Have you noticed how this lack of jurisdiction never seems to come up when the US wants to prosecute someone located abroad?

by Terr_ 2y ago

mcv 2y ago

That's also how the US used to justify torture in Guantanamo Bay. It wasn't US soil, so the prisoners there didn't have the rights and protections that US law and constitution would otherwise give them.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Even then I believe they avoided even transiting via US soil to maintain this thin figleaf of legal protection for torture.
pjc50 2y ago
Guantanamo Bay is the real bipartisan moral stain here. It was set up exactly to cause this kind of situation, for the extralegal punishment of people deemed to be terrorists. People claim that Obama "couldn't" close it, but I think DOGE have demonstrated with USAID that the President absolutely could have closed it by executive order and simply cutting off the pay of everyone there.
- krapp 2y ago
  >but I think DOGE have demonstrated with USAID that the President absolutely could have closed it by executive order and simply cutting off the pay of everyone there You're assuming the system would have been as compliant with Obama as they are with Trump, but I doubt that would have been the case. Congress passed a law to make it illegal for Obama to close Gitmo and simply refused to allow it, but their hands are mysteriously tied WRT Trump and DOGE.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    It was just 10 years ago too... To me, that underscores is how much of the current situation is bad-faith cultism.
- watwut 2y ago
  Tho, the level of law breaking by DOGE and Trump himself is unprecedented. Obviously Obama could became fascist as much as they are going, he could sieg heil too ... but him not being as far as them is a good thing about Obama. I am fine with the idea that it was an excuse back then. But, the "he could do the same anti-democratic anti-rule-of-law" decisions as Trump and Obama is not much argument. Second, Obama did not had supreme court saying "president is above the law and can break it" nor would right wing supreme court justices voted for it. Trump has that ruling, because his politics matches the one of the right wing supreme court justices. Third, Obama had actual opposition. Conservatives and republicans were opposing EVERYTHIGN he was doing. And had power to do so. Including when he adopted their own ideas. They even threw massive fit about suit of a wrong color. Right now, republicans have all the power including , majority in supreme court, so there are not checks or balances.
jfengel 2y ago
At least in El Salvador, he's got access to the (notoriously crappy) Salvadorian courts, and the protections granted by the Salvadorian constitution. It's not much, but it's something. Camp X-Ray was specifically designed to be nobody's jurisdiction. They have nothing. That is utterly shameful. It brings back reminders of our slave-owning past, where human beings were deprived even of the ownership of their own bodies.

Mordisquitos 2y ago

Not only that, but it's also inconsistent with the U.S. administration expecting non-US businesses to comply with executive orders even when operating in other countries [0]: > An executive order that Mr. Trump signed the day after taking office instructs federal contractors not to engage in D.E.I., which the order described as “illegal discrimination.” The letter to French businesses said the order “applies to all suppliers and contractors of the U.S. government, regardless of their nationality and the country in which they operate.” [0] https://apnews.com/article/french-companies-dei-letter-us-trump-diversity-7ef9ad5839b0a3ded6fa454a8ea84d1d https://apnews.com/article/french-companies-dei-letter-us-tr...

pavlov 2y ago

The president nowadays has immunity for official acts, so he can ship the gold to Russia anyway if he signs an executive order saying it’s necessary for world peace.

anigbrowl 2y ago

Have you noticed how this lack of jurisdiction never seems to come up when the US wants to prosecute someone located abroad?