6 ms·

> IANAL, but is it not true that you can only sue the government to the extent that it lets you? It doesn't really matter what laws say about that. Your only r

> IANAL, but is it not true that you can only sue the government to the extent that it lets you? It doesn't really matter what laws say about that. Your only recourse against wrongdoing by the government is the justice system run by the very same government. It's certainly within its power to decide not to punish itself. This is perhaps something to think about.

rayiner 14y ago
The government isn't a monolithic entity. It's composed of people who have often differing interests to each other. The justice system is run by the government, but that didn't stop e.g. the Supreme Court from ordering the bush administration to give process to the Guantanamo prisoners (and the administration complied!)
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  Yeah, and of course this is just fundamental separation of powers by design, else the government would be exactly a monolithic entity. But, then this type of victory seems rare these days, as the Executive has grabbed so much power since 9/11. Seems the balance has been upset.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The "power grab" since 9/11 is mostly imagined. There is very little the President can do now that he couldn't in 1970, and as a practical matter he can do a lot less than he could in 1955.
    - unclebucknasty 14y ago
      Not true. In fact, that's a pretty astounding statement. Executive power has expanded greatly since 9/11. The PATRIOT Act alone vastly expanded law enforcement capabilities. Law enforcement, of course, being of the Executive and including the DOJ. In fact this thread likely wouldn't need to exist if not for the expansion of NSL under the PATRIOT Act. Many of the rights that we ceded as citizens were given over directly to the Executive. Remember, the Executive branch is more than just the President, but includes all departments under his purview. I think if there is a myth it is among those who believe that nothing has changed simply because some of these mechanisms (such as NSL and FISA) did exist prior to 9/11. But, in addition to new powers, it is the expansion, interpretation, and application of existing powers that have also represented a large share of the power grab. This started with Bush after 9/11 with his adherence to the theory of the strong unitary executive. This is when we began to see the letters of his attorneys, which re-interpreted existing powers much more broadly and sought to justify unprecedented Executive actions retroactively. That there was never a trial indicates that they were, in fact, successful in their claims to additional power. Of course one can also point to launching pre-emptive wars as an unprecedented power grab--perhaps of the highest order. And, essentially, these powers continue to expand under Obama, up to and including the remarkable justification of drone strikes on American citizens.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        This is mostly just "truthy." In reality, federal surveillance was dramatically higher during the Cold War (modulo improved technology), and the idea of the strong unitary executive dates to the founding of the republic. Stuff that you claim is "unprecedented" is anything but. The concept of "preemptive war" has no real distinguishing characteristic in an American history full of military interventions absent direct attack. There is nothing "remarkable" about the justifications for drone strikes against ostensible American citizens who have taken up arms against the U.S. and are not on U.S. soil. Skirting along a murky and untested line? Sure, but not "remarkable." There is no consensus among legal scholars on the issue, and it is not without precedent (there are records, of various reliability, of Americans who fought for the Nazis and were killed in the war).
        D9u 14y ago
        Further, and tangentially, the idea that I have to remove my shoes prior to boarding a commercial airliner, without any (I've never hijacked a plane before) probable cause, in the same airport that I once carried weapons through while in the service of the US Army, is a definite affront to my sensibilities, especially as a loyal American. Just because a small group of predominantly Saudi Arabian nationals hijacked some planes doesn't mean that I'm going to do so. There were hijackers back in the 1970's, but no one was subjected to such indignities as we are now. Before anyone mentions "the shoe bomber," how about "the underwear bomber?" Following the shoe removal logic, the next step is strip searches of all passengers prior to boarding, right? Someone might have some explosive underwear! /sarcasm
        XorNot 14y ago
        By this logic you've just eliminated the point of all security screenings of anyone, anywhere, ever. Yet most people would agree that it would be foolish not to take some precautions when loading 300 people on a cigar-tube cylinder in the sky. It's worth noting that in the 1970s people weren't trying to commit mass casualty attacks with planes via the passengers nearly as often. Today, no one expects a conventional hijacking either.
    - D9u 14y ago
      ...he can do a lot less than he could in 1955. Such as summary execution of Americans considered to be "terrorists?"
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Last I checked, American citizens in America aren't being dragged in front of loalty hearings. Killing an Arab terroris hiding in Yemen actively fighting against the US is not a summary exection. Al Awalki had plenty of chances over years to turn himself in and take advantage of due process.

rayiner 14y ago

The government isn't a monolithic entity. It's composed of people who have often differing interests to each other. The justice system is run by the government, but that didn't stop e.g. the Supreme Court from ordering the bush administration to give process to the Guantanamo prisoners (and the administration complied!)

unclebucknasty 14y ago
Yeah, and of course this is just fundamental separation of powers by design, else the government would be exactly a monolithic entity. But, then this type of victory seems rare these days, as the Executive has grabbed so much power since 9/11. Seems the balance has been upset.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The "power grab" since 9/11 is mostly imagined. There is very little the President can do now that he couldn't in 1970, and as a practical matter he can do a lot less than he could in 1955.
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    Not true. In fact, that's a pretty astounding statement. Executive power has expanded greatly since 9/11. The PATRIOT Act alone vastly expanded law enforcement capabilities. Law enforcement, of course, being of the Executive and including the DOJ. In fact this thread likely wouldn't need to exist if not for the expansion of NSL under the PATRIOT Act. Many of the rights that we ceded as citizens were given over directly to the Executive. Remember, the Executive branch is more than just the President, but includes all departments under his purview. I think if there is a myth it is among those who believe that nothing has changed simply because some of these mechanisms (such as NSL and FISA) did exist prior to 9/11. But, in addition to new powers, it is the expansion, interpretation, and application of existing powers that have also represented a large share of the power grab. This started with Bush after 9/11 with his adherence to the theory of the strong unitary executive. This is when we began to see the letters of his attorneys, which re-interpreted existing powers much more broadly and sought to justify unprecedented Executive actions retroactively. That there was never a trial indicates that they were, in fact, successful in their claims to additional power. Of course one can also point to launching pre-emptive wars as an unprecedented power grab--perhaps of the highest order. And, essentially, these powers continue to expand under Obama, up to and including the remarkable justification of drone strikes on American citizens.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      This is mostly just "truthy." In reality, federal surveillance was dramatically higher during the Cold War (modulo improved technology), and the idea of the strong unitary executive dates to the founding of the republic. Stuff that you claim is "unprecedented" is anything but. The concept of "preemptive war" has no real distinguishing characteristic in an American history full of military interventions absent direct attack. There is nothing "remarkable" about the justifications for drone strikes against ostensible American citizens who have taken up arms against the U.S. and are not on U.S. soil. Skirting along a murky and untested line? Sure, but not "remarkable." There is no consensus among legal scholars on the issue, and it is not without precedent (there are records, of various reliability, of Americans who fought for the Nazis and were killed in the war).
      - D9u 14y ago
        Further, and tangentially, the idea that I have to remove my shoes prior to boarding a commercial airliner, without any (I've never hijacked a plane before) probable cause, in the same airport that I once carried weapons through while in the service of the US Army, is a definite affront to my sensibilities, especially as a loyal American. Just because a small group of predominantly Saudi Arabian nationals hijacked some planes doesn't mean that I'm going to do so. There were hijackers back in the 1970's, but no one was subjected to such indignities as we are now. Before anyone mentions "the shoe bomber," how about "the underwear bomber?" Following the shoe removal logic, the next step is strip searches of all passengers prior to boarding, right? Someone might have some explosive underwear! /sarcasm
        XorNot 14y ago
        By this logic you've just eliminated the point of all security screenings of anyone, anywhere, ever. Yet most people would agree that it would be foolish not to take some precautions when loading 300 people on a cigar-tube cylinder in the sky. It's worth noting that in the 1970s people weren't trying to commit mass casualty attacks with planes via the passengers nearly as often. Today, no one expects a conventional hijacking either.
  - D9u 14y ago
    ...he can do a lot less than he could in 1955. Such as summary execution of Americans considered to be "terrorists?"
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Last I checked, American citizens in America aren't being dragged in front of loalty hearings. Killing an Arab terroris hiding in Yemen actively fighting against the US is not a summary exection. Al Awalki had plenty of chances over years to turn himself in and take advantage of due process.