4 ms·

So to clarify, you are stating that U.S. citizens should lose all right to due process the minute they step off U.S. soil? Or do you believe that any citizen de

by cyrus_ 14y ago

So to clarify, you are stating that U.S. citizens should lose all right to due process the minute they step off U.S. soil? Or do you believe that any citizen deemed an enemy combatant can be killed by the executive on U.S. soil as well?

rayiner 14y ago
I'm not saying either of these things. I'm pointing out that separation of powers requires the Supreme Court to respect situations where the Constitution has given other branches primacy. It has never been true that the Supreme Court is the appropriate forum for redress of every possible Constitutional violation. That is to say, it can be simultaneously true that the Executive does something unconstitutional and that it is appropriate for the Supreme Court not to review the action. The conduct of war is an area in which the Constitution invests the President with primacy. But it's not a black/white issue--it's a spectrum. The more closely a matter touches U.S. soil, the more justification the Supreme Court has for intervening. At one end of the spectrum is the President's conduct with respect to foreigners on foreign soil. The Supreme Court has no business telling the President how to kill Taliban in Afghanistan. At the other end of the spectrum is the President's conduct with respect to Americans on American soil. The Supreme Court must insert itself in such situations, as it did in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), when it declared that the government must give due process to an American citizen captured in Afghanistan being held in Guantanamo. Between there is where it gets iffy. Hamdi, for reference, hadn't been in the U.S. since he was a child. Yet he was held to have due process rights because he was on U.S. controlled soil (Guantanamo Bay). The kill list cases have so far all been missing that crucial nexus to U.S. soil. Do you lose all your rights when you step off U.S. soil? No, and the Supreme Court has said so (Reid v. Covert). Do you lose all your rights when you leave the U.S., actively take up arms against it, and evade all attempts to bring you to justice? The Supreme Court is quite prudent not to take up that hairy situation, especially since civil libertarians may very well not like the answer.[1] [1] It wouldn't be unreasonable or unjustifiable for the Supreme Court to say that U.S. Citizens do retain the right to due process while off U.S. soil, even if they take up arms against the U.S., but that an administrative process is sufficient "process due" in situations where the Citizen refuses to submit himself to judicial process.

by cyrus_ 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

I'm not saying either of these things. I'm pointing out that separation of powers requires the Supreme Court to respect situations where the Constitution has given other branches primacy. It has never been true that the Supreme Court is the appropriate forum for redress of every possible Constitutional violation. That is to say, it can be simultaneously true that the Executive does something unconstitutional and that it is appropriate for the Supreme Court not to review the action. The conduct of war is an area in which the Constitution invests the President with primacy. But it's not a black/white issue--it's a spectrum. The more closely a matter touches U.S. soil, the more justification the Supreme Court has for intervening. At one end of the spectrum is the President's conduct with respect to foreigners on foreign soil. The Supreme Court has no business telling the President how to kill Taliban in Afghanistan. At the other end of the spectrum is the President's conduct with respect to Americans on American soil. The Supreme Court must insert itself in such situations, as it did in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), when it declared that the government must give due process to an American citizen captured in Afghanistan being held in Guantanamo. Between there is where it gets iffy. Hamdi, for reference, hadn't been in the U.S. since he was a child. Yet he was held to have due process rights because he was on U.S. controlled soil (Guantanamo Bay). The kill list cases have so far all been missing that crucial nexus to U.S. soil. Do you lose all your rights when you step off U.S. soil? No, and the Supreme Court has said so (Reid v. Covert). Do you lose all your rights when you leave the U.S., actively take up arms against it, and evade all attempts to bring you to justice? The Supreme Court is quite prudent not to take up that hairy situation, especially since civil libertarians may very well not like the answer.[1] [1] It wouldn't be unreasonable or unjustifiable for the Supreme Court to say that U.S. Citizens do retain the right to due process while off U.S. soil, even if they take up arms against the U.S., but that an administrative process is sufficient "process due" in situations where the Citizen refuses to submit himself to judicial process.