Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oh boy, I love being able to discuss the difference between remedies of law and remedies of equity.

Courts can do two things: order payment in damages (equity), or order that a specific action be done, stopped, delayed, etc. (law) Hundreds of years ago, different courts had different abilities. Now nearly all courts can do both.

The father was suing to get the judge to declare the executive action of ordering his son dead illegal and thus prevent it. It didn't work for two reasons:
1) only a person with standing can sue. Basically, if you're going to be involved in the problem, you can sue. The dad, while affected, isn't involved.
2) Courts can't rule on "political questions." You can't sue the president because he enacted new regulations, unless those conflict with higher law. In this case, the judge is basically saying that the president has the power to order killings, and deciding who is on the list is a political question.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I see, I was under the impression that there had to be damages or some form of compensation to be had in civil cases. There goes my hopes of a Law degree.

Polonius wrote:Oh boy, I love being able to discuss the difference between remedies of law and remedies of equity.

Courts can do two things: order payment in damages (equity), or order that a specific action be done, stopped, delayed, etc. (law) Hundreds of years ago, different courts had different abilities. Now nearly all courts can do both.

The father was suing to get the judge to declare the executive action of ordering his son dead illegal and thus prevent it. It didn't work for two reasons:
1) only a person with standing can sue. Basically, if you're going to be involved in the problem, you can sue. The dad, while affected, isn't involved.
2) Courts can't rule on "political questions." You can't sue the president because he enacted new regulations, unless those conflict with higher law. In this case, the judge is basically saying that the president has the power to order killings, and deciding who is on the list is a political question.

Will you be my Uni Professor, pleeeeaaase?

This thread makes my brain do this.

the key thing to remember about this court case (and it ain't done, I can assure you), is that nobody really cares about this guy's rights. No matter what oversight is put into place, no matter what rules for extrajudical killings are enacted, this guy it taking a dirt nap.

Anybody that's seen a cop show has seen them "read Miranda" to soembody that was arrested. Miranda rights are named after Mr. Miranda, who was convicted of rape due to statements he made without a lawyer and under pretty extreme interrogation, as he didn't know that he could keep quiet. SCOTUS tossed that conviction, said you have to protect suspect's 5th amendment rights, and so the Warning came into being as a way of showing that the police are following the rules.

Anyway, Mr. Miranda was re-tried for the same crime, and eventually convicted again on different evidence. He did his time, was released, and soon after was stabbed to death in a bar, after which his killer was, of course, read his Miranda Rights.

My point here is that the guilty ones are usually still found guilty. If there was a secret court where the president had to get a sign off to kill a US citizen who can't be brought in (and is not residing in a nation we're at war with, or actively fighting for their side), then a guy like this would be damn near rubber stamped.

The fear is that if there is no oversight, the next guy might not be so clearly a terrorist. If the President can literally say "he's a terrorist, kill him," than that gives him enormous, unchecked power. For example, he could order the death of opposing politicians as soon as they cross the border. Having a court look this stuff over would prevent abuse. And, just like anything else, there would be exceptions for exigent circumstances, no doubt.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Really? Disapproving of NAMBLA is dangerous?

I'd rather have pedophiles speaking their mind quite frankly. How many fething people do you think they are going to convince?

Thats not sane.

Frazzled wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Really? Disapproving of NAMBLA is dangerous?

I'd rather have pedophiles speaking their mind quite frankly. How many fething people do you think they are going to convince?

Thats not sane.

I thought so at first, but then its kind of a handy way to find out a lot of their IP addresses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
What else is there to focus on? Do you think that they'd be attempting to kill him if he wasn't a terrorist?

./facepalm

There is now a legal precedent on the books that states its OK for an elected official to target an American citizen outside of the US for death by....whatever. Its also been established that they can legally do this without oversight from the judicial branch, which basically represents a check to the power of the executive branch.

I'm pretty sure I already addressed this.

Your argument is circular.

It justifies killing on the basis that killing an enemy shows that they needed to be killed.

No...

I'm saying that if they need to be killed, they should be.

As I've said before, eventually someone with standing will bring this case to court and they'll sort it out. In the meantime, I'll shed few tears for the terrorist that has been marked for death in this instance.

>>I'm saying that if they need to be killed, they should be.

Without oversight, how do you know they needed to be killed?

Kilkrazy wrote:>>I'm saying that if they need to be killed, they should be.

Without oversight, how do you know they needed to be killed?

I guess I'm naive.

I assume that if you're misbehaving to the point that the CIA considers you an enemy combatant that there's probably some truth there.

..as long as then, for example, you're not simply someone with the same name etc etc etc .

That is the point.

Shadowy death panels can so easily make mistakes, or be misused.

If there is some truth in a notion, surely it can withstand the light of day?

Oversight doesn't even need to be public. I'm comfortable with the idea of having a federal judge with top secret clearance give secret death warrants.

I just dont' like one person and his aides making that call.

I also think that anybody that's a truly dangerous threat will be eliminated completely clandestinely.

Kilkrazy wrote:That is the point.

Shadowy death panels can so easily make mistakes, or be misused.

If there is some truth in a notion, surely it can withstand the light of day?

You should ask your own intelligence agencies that question.

Kilkrazy wrote:That is the point.

Shadowy death panels can so easily make mistakes, or be misused.

If there is some truth in a notion, surely it can withstand the light of day?

Yes. I'm sure it could. I also don't think killing someone is a nice thing to have happen, and I know this pretty well considering I've been to Iraq. It's a nasty world we live in. I don't think I can make my position any clearer than this:

Monster Rain wrote:As I've said before, eventually someone with standing will bring this case to court and they'll sort it out. In the meantime, I'll shed few tears for the terrorist that has been marked for death in this instance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Oversight doesn't even need to be public. I'm comfortable with the idea of having a federal judge with top secret clearance give secret death warrants.

Like they do with wiretaps, right? That's totally fine.

Polonius wrote:I also think that anybody that's a truly dangerous threat will be eliminated completely clandestinely.

I think that's the main issue here. Do we know how everyone found out about this in the first place? How did his father even know this was going on?

Procedural Due Process is the concept that a person has the right to certain procedural steps before a decision is made about him, his life, property, etc. These can vary depending on the circumstances, but the idea is that there are rules that must be followed.

Dont' think that Due Process is only important because it's crucial to protect people's rights (even though it is). Due Process adds legitimacy to any operation.

Legitimacy is the goal of any government. If the president announces that he ordered the death of a US citizen, but it was approved by a federal judge because they were outside of the reach of law enforcment and a viable threat, I'm more likely to accept it. If the president says "he had cause" to kill them, I get more suspicious.

The US does whatever it wants all the time anyway, why is this time any different?

Phototoxin wrote:The US does whatever it wants all the time anyway, why is this time any different?

Because someone let the cat out of the bag!

Phototoxin wrote:The US does whatever it wants all the time anyway, why is this time any different?

I'm sorry, I guess we forgot to turn on the "adults are speaking" light. My apologies.

There's a lovely discussion about twilight a few threads down that might be more your speed.

So is the argument the military can't take him out because he's a citizen? Why?

What about German/Japanese who returned to those countries in WWII?

Again, what about the combatants in the Civil War? They were civilians.

Otherwise you have this weird get of jail free card. If they are citizens then they can't be attacked only apprehended. But if they can't be apprehended then they are safe? Er..ok...

No, the argument is that the military can't take him out just because some functionary in the bowels of the Ministry of Love said it would be okay.

Frazzled wrote:So is the argument the military can't take him out because he's a citizen? Why?

What about German/Japanese who returned to those countries in WWII?

Again, what about the combatants in the Civil War? They were civilians.

Otherwise you have this weird get of jail free card. If they are citizens then they can't be attacked only apprehended. But if they can't be apprehended then they are safe? Er..ok...

The difference is that an enemy combatant that is currently attacking you is totally fair game. It's just like a crazy person shooting at the cops or has a bomb or something. The cops are allowed to kill that person without a trial first because there's an immediate threat.

Someone threatening to kill a cop at a later date, or even making a detailed plan to kill a cop is not a valid target for lethal force. That person (as long as they don't pull out a gun and aim it at someone) can't just be killed, they have to be apprehended.

There's also a difference between saying "Let's find this guy and kill him" and "Let's bomb this enemy munitions factory that happens to have a US citizen inside".

Specifically targeting a US citizen that is not posing an immediate threat with lethal force is the issue.

Kilkrazy wrote:No, the argument is that the military can't take him out just because some functionary in the bowels of the Ministry of Love said it would be okay.

How about sergent Bob deep in the bowels of the Pentagon?

I just have trouble understanding what the problem with oversight is. The people on this list are probably not going to be surprised that we don't like them very much. Any oversight proceedings can be carried out under a security clearance if that's an issue. Expediency isn't much of a reason since you can secure the blessing ahead of time and just look for an opening or else have the people in charge of the oversight on your speed dial. Finally, if the case against these guys is solid enough to have them killed it should be solid enough to get a judge to sign off on it.

I just don't see how making the government jump through a few hoops before it can just start offing citizens is a bad thing.

Grakmar wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So is the argument the military can't take him out because he's a citizen? Why?

What about German/Japanese who returned to those countries in WWII?

Again, what about the combatants in the Civil War? They were civilians.

Otherwise you have this weird get of jail free card. If they are citizens then they can't be attacked only apprehended. But if they can't be apprehended then they are safe? Er..ok...

The difference is that an enemy combatant that is currently attacking you is totally fair game. It's just like a crazy person shooting at the cops or has a bomb or something. The cops are allowed to kill that person without a trial first because there's an immediate threat.

Someone threatening to kill a cop at a later date, or even making a detailed plan to kill a cop is not a valid target for lethal force. That person (as long as they don't pull out a gun and aim it at someone) can't just be killed, they have to be apprehended.

There's also a difference between saying "Let's find this guy and kill him" and "Let's bomb this enemy munitions factory that happens to have a US citizen inside".

Specifically targeting a US citizen that is not posing an immediate threat with lethal force is the issue.

No its not. He's effectively an officer in an enemy noncombatant force. He's a target of opportunity no different than Yamamoto. Except now we can pop him with a drone missile instead of P-38's.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:No, the argument is that the military can't take him out just because some functionary in the bowels of the Ministry of Love said it would be okay.

How about sergent Bob deep in the bowels of the Pentagon?

You mean the Ministry of Peace?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:No, the argument is that the military can't take him out just because some functionary in the bowels of the Ministry of Love said it would be okay.

How about sergent Bob deep in the bowels of the Pentagon?

You mean the Ministry of Peace?

Actually the Hall of Justice. And by Sergent Bob I mean Aquaman. After all aquaman is always there, making sandwiches for the other super heroes. Sandwiches made of tuna!

..you do not want to mess with Aquaman

Ahh yes, the token inclusion of an ability never referenced again. Comics are great.

.. don't make me take you to school here !

reds8n wrote:.. don't make me take you to school here !

Son, you could try, but I don't think you're ready to play with the big boys. Only one of our names is a reference to a 70s unpopular supervillain.

ShumaGorath wrote:

reds8n wrote:.. don't make me take you to school here !

Son, you could try, but I don't think you're ready to play with the big boys. Only one of our names is a reference to a 70s unpopular supervillain.

Thats kind of sad actually...