3 ms·

>The Court didn't hear the "kill list" case because what the President does against enemy combatants off U.S. soil is indeed a political question, since the Con

>The Court didn't hear the "kill list" case because what the President does against enemy combatants off U.S. soil is indeed a political question, since the Constitution invests the President with primacy in international affairs. The Court DID hear this case and they ruled on it. It just happens SCOTUS ruled SCOTUS does not have the power to review the constitutionality of the law in question. Even during the heights of the Cold War when US citizens were working for the KGB and Soviets, including offering hand drawings of top secrete nuclear designs, the US citizens were NOT killed extra-judiciously, they were arrested and tried criminally. There is no doubt that the Constitution invests the President power over international affairs - but you appear to suggest the President can just kill who ever he pleases outside the US (Citizen or Foreign National) as long as they are deemed "enemy combatants", is that correct? Keep in mind this is not a published Kill List, and the criteria to get on the Kill List in unknown. Instead of me maintaining my position that the President being able to add anyone to a Kill List is a degradation of civil liberties and you maintaining it is not, is there a prior point the President maintained a Kill List of US citizens or as I content is this unprecedented in US history?

rayiner 14y ago
> The Court DID hear this case and they ruled on it. Right, but either way they punted. > It just happens SCOTUS ruled SCOTUS does not have the power to review the constitutionality of the law in question. Well political question doctrine also has a big prudential element. > Even during the heights of the Cold War when US citizens were working for the KGB and Soviets, including offering hand drawings of top secrete nuclear designs, the US citizens were NOT killed extra-judiciously, they were arrested and tried criminally. Those citizens were in a framework where it was possible to subject them to process. They could be arrested, extradited and tried. > You appear to suggest the President can just kill who ever he pleases outside the US (Citizen or Foreign National) as long as they are deemed "enemy combatants", is that correct? That's not the power the President is claiming. It's much narrower than that.
- will_brown 14y ago
  >Those citizens were in a framework where it was possible to subject them to process. They could be arrested, extradited and tried. Necessity is the mother of all invention. However, what framework in the cold war era made it any easier to arrest, extradite and try citizens then, than it would be now? It is my understanding it has been pretty easy to "extradite" both citizens and foreign nationals into Guantanamo, so what about the "framework" makes it more difficult extend due process of the law? Suspending the rule of law, especially as a matter of convenience justified by armed conflict is a slippery slope that has generally been frowned upon by subsequent generations, such as the US rounding up Japanese-Americans and confining them to "US internment camps" during World War II - Was it constitutional? Maybe, but was it a degradation of civil liberties? Without question. >That's not the power the President is claiming. It's much narrower than that. To the best of my knowledge the President has not claimed any power as it relates to killing US citizens. Like any politician who wants an issue to go away he has ignored it and made the official policy not to acknowledge the targeted killing programs. As far as the power being narrower, it might be, but no one knows because the criteria to get on the Kill List is unknown. I rather doubt it is narrow with any strict standards, based on military/CIA intelligence if it is recommended to Obama to add a name, I bet he adds a name - of course these are the same intelligence communities who knew Iraq had WMD's and knew exactly where they were. Based on your posts I can tell you are very intelligent and have at least a minimal knowledge of these issues coming before SCOTUS. I believe extrajudicial killings is a degradation of civil liberties, you do not,and no amount of SCOTUS rulings will change either of our minds, nor should we expect it to when the Court itself is split on most issues, generally 5-4 at that.
- btilly 14y ago
  That's not the power the President is claiming. It's much narrower than that. The President has not stated what limits there are to his power. He has stated limits to what he will authorize. However if we accept that he can authorize it without having laid out limits to his authority, what stops another president from authorizing more? Bear in mind, one of the most common ways for a democracy to become a dictatorship is for there to be broad emergency powers granted to the president - and then for the president to declare what effectively becomes a permanent state of emergency. Lest this seem paranoid, remember that the American experiment is 237 years old. If we assume that we are in a random point in time in the history of the USA, there is an a priori over a 10% chance that the USA will no longer exist in 24 years. There is a similar chance that the USA will survive another 2370 years. When we look across how long different types of government have lasted in different countries, the prospect of our system of government ending inside of 24 years is much more likely than its lasting 2370 years. Does that seem absurd? I remember what the country was like 24 years ago. If you described what the USA would be like today to me back then, I'd have called it a dystopian fantasy. Democracy is more fragile than we want to believe. I'd like to keep it longer. And yes, I'm very willing to accept more trouble preventing terrorism if that is the cost. (And I'd also like to stop having to take my shoes off to get on an airplane...)

rayiner 14y ago

> The Court DID hear this case and they ruled on it. Right, but either way they punted. > It just happens SCOTUS ruled SCOTUS does not have the power to review the constitutionality of the law in question. Well political question doctrine also has a big prudential element. > Even during the heights of the Cold War when US citizens were working for the KGB and Soviets, including offering hand drawings of top secrete nuclear designs, the US citizens were NOT killed extra-judiciously, they were arrested and tried criminally. Those citizens were in a framework where it was possible to subject them to process. They could be arrested, extradited and tried. > You appear to suggest the President can just kill who ever he pleases outside the US (Citizen or Foreign National) as long as they are deemed "enemy combatants", is that correct? That's not the power the President is claiming. It's much narrower than that.

will_brown 14y ago
>Those citizens were in a framework where it was possible to subject them to process. They could be arrested, extradited and tried. Necessity is the mother of all invention. However, what framework in the cold war era made it any easier to arrest, extradite and try citizens then, than it would be now? It is my understanding it has been pretty easy to "extradite" both citizens and foreign nationals into Guantanamo, so what about the "framework" makes it more difficult extend due process of the law? Suspending the rule of law, especially as a matter of convenience justified by armed conflict is a slippery slope that has generally been frowned upon by subsequent generations, such as the US rounding up Japanese-Americans and confining them to "US internment camps" during World War II - Was it constitutional? Maybe, but was it a degradation of civil liberties? Without question. >That's not the power the President is claiming. It's much narrower than that. To the best of my knowledge the President has not claimed any power as it relates to killing US citizens. Like any politician who wants an issue to go away he has ignored it and made the official policy not to acknowledge the targeted killing programs. As far as the power being narrower, it might be, but no one knows because the criteria to get on the Kill List is unknown. I rather doubt it is narrow with any strict standards, based on military/CIA intelligence if it is recommended to Obama to add a name, I bet he adds a name - of course these are the same intelligence communities who knew Iraq had WMD's and knew exactly where they were. Based on your posts I can tell you are very intelligent and have at least a minimal knowledge of these issues coming before SCOTUS. I believe extrajudicial killings is a degradation of civil liberties, you do not,and no amount of SCOTUS rulings will change either of our minds, nor should we expect it to when the Court itself is split on most issues, generally 5-4 at that.
btilly 14y ago
That's not the power the President is claiming. It's much narrower than that. The President has not stated what limits there are to his power. He has stated limits to what he will authorize. However if we accept that he can authorize it without having laid out limits to his authority, what stops another president from authorizing more? Bear in mind, one of the most common ways for a democracy to become a dictatorship is for there to be broad emergency powers granted to the president - and then for the president to declare what effectively becomes a permanent state of emergency. Lest this seem paranoid, remember that the American experiment is 237 years old. If we assume that we are in a random point in time in the history of the USA, there is an a priori over a 10% chance that the USA will no longer exist in 24 years. There is a similar chance that the USA will survive another 2370 years. When we look across how long different types of government have lasted in different countries, the prospect of our system of government ending inside of 24 years is much more likely than its lasting 2370 years. Does that seem absurd? I remember what the country was like 24 years ago. If you described what the USA would be like today to me back then, I'd have called it a dystopian fantasy. Democracy is more fragile than we want to believe. I'd like to keep it longer. And yes, I'm very willing to accept more trouble preventing terrorism if that is the cost. (And I'd also like to stop having to take my shoes off to get on an airplane...)