Is anyone actually excited that Hilary will be next president?

[Jhhnn]

Yes, foreign nationals should be treated differently because they don't have the constitutional protections that US citizens have. That's my whole point, in fact.



My court case explicitly applies, as SCOTUS ruled that US citizens abroad have constitutional protections while abroad. How on earth does it not apply? You would be far better off arguing that because Al-Awlaki was participating in armed conflict against the US that he made himself a legitimate military target. Arguing that our rights disappear as soon as we get on a plane is just factually wrong.

All that aside, I feel like I should remind you yet again that literally no one is arguing we should leave them alone. What is being argued is the legality of the procedure for which we determine who we strike and who we don't.

Gawd. Covert was only subject to US law for a crime committed in the UK because of a status of forces agreement. Without that, she'd rightfully have been tried in the UK. It's not like terrorists have the protection of such agreements, at all. American citizens abroad are obviously subject to the laws of the country they're in & have no greater rights than the locals. If you're in Yemen, like al-Awlaki, you can be tried in absentia & a warrant issued for your arrest, dead or alive. If the Yemenis seek US help then the chief executive is free to help them either capture or kill the individual.

The truth is that everybody enjoys the protections of the Constitution while they're within US jurisdiction, citizens & foreigners alike. Similar protections may or may not exist in other countries but it is the right of the people & the govts in those countries to determine that, not us.

 

[fskimospy]

Gawd. Covert was only subject to US law for a crime committed in the UK because of a status of forces agreement. Without that, she'd rightfully have been tried in the UK. It's not like terrorists have the protection of such agreements, at all. American citizens abroad are obviously subject to the laws of the country they're in & have no greater rights than the locals. If you're in Yemen, like al-Awlaki, you can be tried in absentia & a warrant issued for your arrest, dead or alive. If the Yemenis seek US help then the chief executive is free to help them either capture or kill the individual.

This is also incorrect. Where Covert was tried is irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant part to this discussion is whether or not she had constitutional protections from US government action while overseas. She did. That means your statement that US citizens lose their rights when leaving the country was wrong. End of story.

The truth is that everybody enjoys the protections of the Constitution while they're within US jurisdiction, citizens & foreigners alike. Similar protections may or may not exist in other countries but it is the right of the people & the govts in those countries to determine that, not us.

It is most certainly not the right of the governments in those countries to determine that, nor would it ever be. The actions the US government may take against its citizens are in no way affected by the laws of other countries from a constitutional perspective. Remember, the bill of rights doesn't actually grant individuals rights, it says what the US government can't do.

 

[werepossum]

I am also confident that Obama takes this responsibility seriously. I am not confident that every president in the future will, however. Also, you're going to have to help me understand this. You have no problem with a group of intelligence officials deliberating in secret about who to kill and who not to, but you think that courts deliberating in secret about the exact same thing are somehow the very antithesis of an open and free society? That doesn't make any sense.

Due process does not require those things in all circumstances, as amply shown by case law. There is no need for any court operating under those conditions, so you don't have to worry about that. So considering that, do you have any further objections to judicial review?

This also doesn't make any sense. Judges authorize action the president has already said he wants to take, they are not ordering that action be taken. The accountability is exactly the same in both circumstances as the president is always the one making the call and everyone knows it.

I have to say I find it very odd that someone who is so suspicious of the president using the IRS or other entities to attack their political enemies is fine with that same president literally killing his enemies without any oversight.

I have basic objections to fighting a war by the rules of civilian criminal law; that is a certain recipe for losing. I object to that in both directions. First, by interjecting a civilian court into warfighting, we automatically degrade the warfighting. Situations are inherently fluid, and decisions often must be made in minutes or the situation changes and renders the opportunity lost. There is simply no way for a civilian court to make a ruling that applies to every possible situation, but asking a civilian court to adjudge one particular situation almost guarantees that this situation will be lost before the court renders a judgement. It's simply bad warfighting. If we're going to fight a war, then we need to fight a war; if we're going to run a civilian criminal process, then we have no right to impose a death penalty on someone who doesn't even know he's on trial.

In the other direction, using a civilian court to make such decisions seems to me to make it more likely that civilian courts will gain more such power over Americans who are (or can be) under American jurisdiction.

For your last point, I find it difficult to understand why you can't understand the vast gulf between using the IRS or OSHA or BATFE or EPA against a political opponent and killing that same opponent. They are orders of magnitude apart. Also, with the possible exception of whistleblowers like Snowden, the President is generally ruling on the nation's enemies, not his enemies in particular. He gains little personal benefit from killing a terrorist that isn't also shared by every American. The same simply cannot be said for using the IRS against, say, Bill O'Reilly.

 

[fskimospy]

I have basic objections to fighting a war by the rules of civilian criminal law; that is a certain recipe for losing. I object to that in both directions. First, by interjecting a civilian court into warfighting, we automatically degrade the warfighting. Situations are inherently fluid, and decisions often must be made in minutes or the situation changes and renders the opportunity lost. There is simply no way for a civilian court to make a ruling that applies to every possible situation, but asking a civilian court to adjudge one particular situation almost guarantees that this situation will be lost before the court renders a judgement. It's simply bad warfighting. If we're going to fight a war, then we need to fight a war; if we're going to run a civilian criminal process, then we have no right to impose a death penalty on someone who doesn't even know he's on trial.

In the other direction, using a civilian court to make such decisions seems to me to make it more likely that civilian courts will gain more such power over Americans who are (or can be) under American jurisdiction.

Right, but literally no one in this thread or anywhere else is arguing that we should be using the courts in times of imminent threat or action. These are people who we place on a death list months or years in advance. The time problem you present simply doesn't exist in this case.

What's your next objection?

For your last point, I find it difficult to understand why you can't understand the vast gulf between using the IRS or OSHA or BATFE or EPA against a political opponent and killing that same opponent. They are orders of magnitude apart. Also, with the possible exception of whistleblowers like Snowden, the President is generally ruling on the nation's enemies, not his enemies in particular. He gains little personal benefit from killing a terrorist that isn't also shared by every American. The same simply cannot be said for using the IRS against, say, Bill O'Reilly.

Exactly my point! There's nothing that can stop him from using this power on his personal enemies instead of the nation's enemies. This and the IRS are indeed orders of magnitude apart, which is why it is baffling that you are suspicious of the IRS but totally okay with this.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is also incorrect. Where Covert was tried is irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant part to this discussion is whether or not she had constitutional protections from US government action while overseas. She did. That means your statement that US citizens lose their rights when leaving the country was wrong. End of story.

Covert enjoyed constitutional protection only because of a status of forces agreement, not simply because she was a citizen. Had she been an ordinary citizen not attached to the military she would have been subject to UK law entirely. That's the same as it ever was, everywhere.

It is most certainly not the right of the governments in those countries to determine that, nor would it ever be. The actions the US government may take against its citizens are in no way affected by the laws of other countries from a constitutional perspective. Remember, the bill of rights doesn't actually grant individuals rights, it says what the US government can't do.

The Constitution applies equally to all persons within the purview of our judicial system & no further. It never has, other than in agreements of extraterritoriality between our govt and another. What it means is that any suspected terrorist apprehended & brought to this country for trial enjoys those protections & any killed before that happens are just dead, particularly when it involves the cooperation of the host govt. It can be no other way, nor will it ever be.

 

[MongGrel]

Yeah, I'm not against all drone strikes, but I really do think there are hugely counter-productive downsides to many, if not most, of them -- the so called collateral damage and the illusion, Vietnam body-count style, of progress.

A lot of the collateral damage I have seen related to drone strikes seems to be Daesh videos hauling corpses to a film to make a video myself, I'm sure there has been a lot. There always has been since the whole mess started. Again.

Of course to be blunt about it, when you see them carting in corpses off vehicles to film, it may be more propaganda.

It does seem the radical elements are being more suppressed lately these days, but they are fleeing into Europe with refugees. The ones with the big equipment are taking a hit lately.

There is no easy solution really, never has been in the Middle East for a very long time.

If someone has a dedicated desire to kill you as a goal in life, I guess you reciprocate. How to do so without involving innocent people has always been a major problem.

 

[fskimospy]

Covert enjoyed constitutional protection only because of a status of forces agreement, not simply because she was a citizen. Had she been an ordinary citizen not attached to the military she would have been subject to UK law entirely. That's the same as it ever was, everywhere.

No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how US law works.

The UK's legal system is entirely irrelevant in this case insofar as whether or not Covert had protections under the US constitution. The US may not be able to enforce those protections in all cases but that in no way alters whether or not someone has them from the perspective of the US government.

The article I showed you had a crystal clear quote. I'm not sure what is so confusing?

The Constitution applies equally to all persons within the purview of our judicial system & no further. It never has, other than in agreements of extraterritoriality between our govt and another. What it means is that any suspected terrorist apprehended & brought to this country for trial enjoys those protections & any killed before that happens are just dead, particularly when it involves the cooperation of the host govt. It can be no other way, nor will it ever be.

I don't know why you keep ever more vehemently repeating the same thing. A US citizen retains constitutional protections when abroad. The exact nature of those protections and how other things can take precedence are open for interpretation, but your continued insistence that US citizens have no constitutional protections overseas and that merely being suspected of terrorism voids them is flatly false.

If you think otherwise, please quote the relevant case law that you think supports your position.

 

[ivwshane]

No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how US law works.

The UK's legal system is entirely irrelevant in this case insofar as whether or not Covert had protections under the US constitution. The US may not be able to enforce those protections in all cases but that in no way alters whether or not someone has them from the perspective of the US government.

The article I showed you had a crystal clear quote. I'm not sure what is so confusing?



I don't know why you keep ever more vehemently repeating the same thing. A US citizen retains constitutional protections when abroad. The exact nature of those protections and how other things can take precedence are open for interpretation, but your continued insistence that US citizens have no constitutional protections overseas and that merely being suspected of terrorism voids them is flatly false.

If you think otherwise, please quote the relevant case law that you think supports your position.

That doesn't make any sense. How could a US citizen retain constitutional protections when aboard? In order for that to happen the country in which the US citizen resides would have to give up its sovereignty. Clearly the citizen isn't protected by the constitution against foreign laws but then that also means that the US government isn't bound to protect that citizens constitutional rights while they are abroad, because how can they? Now if we assume a country's sovereignty has already been violated by the US because we are at war and that citizen isn't fighting for the US then they are either an enemy or a bystander of which no protection is guaranteed to them. Enemy combatants, as I'm sure you are aware, are not afforded the protection of US law and instead go through military laws/rules.

Hell even US history tells us that if you have someone threatening the US (as in immediate or imminent danger, which is a requirement/standard of the kill lists), that the right for the government to shoot to kill is legal (see rebellions throughout US history or more recently Oregon or other similar instances), with no trial. How would this be any different?

 

[Jhhnn]

No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how US law works.

The UK's legal system is entirely irrelevant in this case insofar as whether or not Covert had protections under the US constitution. The US may not be able to enforce those protections in all cases but that in no way alters whether or not someone has them from the perspective of the US government.

The article I showed you had a crystal clear quote. I'm not sure what is so confusing?



I don't know why you keep ever more vehemently repeating the same thing. A US citizen retains constitutional protections when abroad. The exact nature of those protections and how other things can take precedence are open for interpretation, but your continued insistence that US citizens have no constitutional protections overseas and that merely being suspected of terrorism voids them is flatly false.

If you think otherwise, please quote the relevant case law that you think supports your position.

You're being deliberately obtuse at this point. The only reason that Covert was subject to US law was because of a status of forces agreement. Period. The court had jurisdiction to rule for a civilian trial only because of that. No such agreement covers suspected terrorists in the slightest.

Back in the day, US forces made no distinction between the Comanches & the renegades who rode with them nor should we make such distinctions today. Today's drones are just the modern equivalent of the Sharps buffalo rifle.

 

[fskimospy]

That doesn't make any sense. How could a US citizen retain constitutional protections when aboard? In order for that to happen the country in which the US citizen resides would have to give up its sovereignty. Clearly the citizen isn't protected by the constitution against foreign laws but then that also means that the US government isn't bound to protect that citizens constitutional rights while they are abroad, because how can they? Now if we assume a country's sovereignty has already been violated by the US because we are at war and that citizen isn't fighting for the US then they are either an enemy or a bystander of which no protection is guaranteed to them. Enemy combatants, as I'm sure you are aware, are not afforded the protection of US law and instead go through military laws/rules.

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense here? The constitution protects US citizens against actions by the US government, not by any other government. You have no constitutional right to due process from the government of Iraq, only from the government of the US. Not sure how sovereignty comes into play here.

Hell even US history tells us that if you have someone threatening the US (as in immediate or imminent danger, which is a requirement/standard of the kill lists), that the right for the government to shoot to kill is legal (see rebellions throughout US history or more recently Oregon or other similar instances), with no trial. How would this be any different?

For like the fifth time, there is not a single person in this thread that is arguing that imminent danger to the US is not sufficient reason to kill someone. The idea that the president can unilaterally declare anyone in the world an imminent threat for the rest of their life stretches that word beyond any meaning though.

By your logic if you set foot outside the US tomorrow the president could declare you an imminent threat and have you immediately executed without trial. Does that sound like a good policy to you?

 

[fskimospy]

You're being deliberately obtuse at this point. The only reason that Covert was subject to US law was because of a status of forces agreement. Period. The court had jurisdiction to rule for a civilian trial only because of that. No such agreement covers suspected terrorists in the slightest.

I'm sorry but if anyone is being deliberately obtuse here it is you.

For like the third time the SOFA is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT IRRELEVANT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. US JURISDICTION IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT IRRELEVANT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION EXCEPT THAT SUCH JURISDICTION IS WHAT CAUSED SCOTUS TO RULE.

I am genuinely not sure how to explain this any more clearly. Here is the first paragraph:

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that American civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by U.S. military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury.

You claimed that US citizens no longer have constitutional protections abroad. With my link in mind please either cite other court precedent that you think overrules this or admit you were wrong.

Back in the day, US forces made no distinction between the Comanches & the renegades who rode with them nor should we make such distinctions today. Today's drones are just the modern equivalent of the Sharps buffalo rifle.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I don't give two fucks about it being a woman. I care about her character and the kind of person she is. To me based on what she has done in the past, it's shitty. I personally think a woman can be just as good as a President as a man. We'd be more affected by those countries that do not give woman any, or many rights. Dealing with them may be more difficult, but fuck them if they can't get over it.

I only urge you to go back over that history beginning in the '90s and examine it more carefully. I actually think she was in the ballpark with her "vast conspiracy" remark back then.

Who would the GOP Right go after in a desperate attempt to recapture the White House -- barely admitting to themselves the mistake of the Bush presidency -- trying to gloss it over while horrified at the public reaction?

Hilllary slipped back in to their sights when she became a Senator. Look how they torpedoed Kerry in 2004 over Swift-boat and a churning up of the Vietnam history? They would never admit how that was also a mistake across administrations of both parties.

So they might imagine the "two-for" presidents that the Clintons would bring in as their own curse.

The 911 hearings and commission focused on hindsight foreign-policy and national security "QC" assessment. The congressional hearings on Benghazi were far afield of constructive governance for its length and the absurdity of the their accusations labeled against Secretary Clinton. It was from the start a witch-hunt, and they're still hunting. They have created a "propaganda of action" by the nature of the hearings, the FBI investigations and related news. People hear about it over and over. They simply assume that since congress is witch-hunting, the target of their interest is guilty of something.

I never paid sufficient attention to Hillary Clinton, only noting that she was attempting to do public service beyond the hostess of the White House and First Lady. They didn't like that, either.

Now that I've looked over all of it, seen how foolish Gowdy and his minions seem, I've concluded that Hillary Clinton is one Tough Old Dame. Reagan's buddy, Margaret Thatcher, had been called "The Iron Lady."

Hillary is well-tempered Steel. How could anyone get this far, running a gauntlet that long and extensive?

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense here? The constitution protects US citizens against actions by the US government, not by any other government. You have no constitutional right to due process from the government of Iraq, only from the government of the US. Not sure how sovereignty comes into play here.

And what you aren't getting is that there is no way for our government to guarantee protection for citizens outside of its jurisdiction in a time of war.

For like the fifth time, there is not a single person in this thread that is arguing that imminent danger to the US is not sufficient reason to kill someone. The idea that the president can unilaterally declare anyone in the world an imminent threat for the rest of their life stretches that word beyond any meaning though.

By your logic if you set foot outside the US tomorrow the president could declare you an imminent threat and have you immediately executed without trial. Does that sound like a good policy to you?

Except the president doesn't have unilateral say in who is an imminent threat, I even linked to you a story about the process itself. You are simply arguing against something that doesn't happen.

 

[fskimospy]

Except the president doesn't have unilateral say in who is an imminent threat, I even linked to you a story about the process itself. You are simply arguing against something that doesn't happen.

Did you read your story about the process? Every person involved in making the list works for the president and they are undertaking that work on his authority. When someone is put on the list that decision is not appealable to any entity outside of the executive branch. That's unilateral authority right there.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Still hope the US comes to its senses and overwhelmingly votes for Vermin Supreme.

 

[ivwshane]

Did you read your story about the process? Every person involved in making the list works for the president and they are undertaking that work on his authority. When someone is put on the list that decision is not appealable to any entity outside of the executive branch. That's unilateral authority right there.

You are moving the goal posts. First you said the president has unilateral authority then I showed you he doesn't then you now claim the since the decision remains within the executive branch it means he has unilateral authority. You are also conveniently leaving out the fact that the executive has complete control over the military during a time of war.

So... the president can't just say someone is a threat without other authorities agreeing nor does the president create a list himself and his kill lists only applies during times of war. There appears to be a process in place and its hardly arbitrary.

Can the process be improved? Definitely and I've already said as much. Does that mean what the president has done is illegal? Hardly.

 

[werepossum]

Right, but literally no one in this thread or anywhere else is arguing that we should be using the courts in times of imminent threat or action. These are people who we place on a death list months or years in advance. The time problem you present simply doesn't exist in this case.

What's your next objection?

Exactly my point! There's nothing that can stop him from using this power on his personal enemies instead of the nation's enemies. This and the IRS are indeed orders of magnitude apart, which is why it is baffling that you are suspicious of the IRS but totally okay with this.

You really feel that the President could simply insert his enemies' names on the list and have them killed? I think that would be the very opposite of a lawful order and would not be carried out.

For the former, we don't have a "death list". We have a list of targets, and striking those targets is a complicated judgement call which includes risks to assets, risks to innocents, and the current conditions. I am still not seeing why an anonymous judge whose expertise is necessarily civilian law should be more qualified to accept or reject classification as a legitimate target than the intelligence professionals. Would it make you feel better if those intelligence professionals were forced to wear little black dresses when deciding?

 

[fskimospy]

You are moving the goal posts. First you said the president has unilateral authority then I showed you he doesn't then you now claim the since the decision remains within the executive branch it means he has unilateral authority. You are also conveniently leaving out the fact that the executive has complete control over the military during a time of war.

You are contradicting yourself within one paragraph. The authority to make this decision currently resides within the president alone. He has delegated this authority to members of the CIA, etc. When they act they are acting under the president's authority, not their own. Hence, unilateral authority.

So not only is what you said wrong, but then you undermined your own point by saying the president has total control of the military during a time of war. If they are totally controlled by the president then by definition they can't be acting by their own authority.

So... the president can't just say someone is a threat without other authorities agreeing nor does the president create a list himself and his kill lists only applies during times of war. There appears to be a process in place and its hardly arbitrary.

Can the process be improved? Definitely and I've already said as much. Does that mean what the president has done is illegal? Hardly.

It hasn't been adjudicated as to whether or not it is illegal, although I hope it is soon. Legality aside it is horrifically bad governance and it undermines our values.

 

[fskimospy]

You really feel that the President could simply insert his enemies' names on the list and have them killed? I think that would be the very opposite of a lawful order and would not be carried out.

Just like with crooked cops there are a million ways to put a veneer of necessity over an evil act. I'm sure you can imagine plenty of ways how. Also, in the military there is necessarily an extreme bias towards following an order even if you think it is unlawful. Unless you are almost 100% sure it is unlawful, you carry it out.

For the former, we don't have a "death list". We have a list of targets, and striking those targets is a complicated judgement call which includes risks to assets, risks to innocents, and the current conditions. I am still not seeing why an anonymous judge whose expertise is necessarily civilian law should be more qualified to accept or reject classification as a legitimate target than the intelligence professionals. Would it make you feel better if those intelligence professionals were forced to wear little black dresses when deciding?

We have a list of people to kill. Call it what you want.

As for the judge, why would a judge be more qualified to determine what person's house to search than investigative professionals? Maybe we should just put a cop in a robe and have him stand in and issue warrants for searches?

The purpose of judicial review is to determine if the government has met the burden of proof required by the 4th amendment for search warrants, and in this case would be if the government has demonstrated a need to subvert the due process clause. Judges are much much better at that than intelligence professionals who have no understanding of the law, wouldn't you agree? (Also, why would the judge have to be a civilian law expert? That makes no sense.)[/QUOTE]

 

[werepossum]

Just like with crooked cops there are a million ways to put a veneer of necessity over an evil act. I'm sure you can imagine plenty of ways how. Also, in the military there is necessarily an extreme bias towards following an order even if you think it is unlawful. Unless you are almost 100% sure it is unlawful, you carry it out.

We have a list of people to kill. Call it what you want.

As for the judge, why would a judge be more qualified to determine what person's house to search than investigative professionals? Maybe we should just put a cop in a robe and have him stand in and issue warrants for searches?

The purpose of judicial review is to determine if the government has met the burden of proof required by the 4th amendment for search warrants, and in this case would be if the government has demonstrated a need to subvert the due process clause. Judges are much much better at that than intelligence professionals who have no understanding of the law, wouldn't you agree? (Also, why would the judge have to be a civilian law expert? That makes no sense.)

I think we're at an impasse. One of us thinks it would be a horrendously bad idea to fight a war under the burden of proof required by the 4th amendment for search warrants. One of us thinks it would be swell. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[fskimospy]

I think we're at an impasse. One of us thinks it would be a horrendously bad idea to fight a war under the burden of proof required by the 4th amendment for search warrants. One of us thinks it would be swell. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Sigh. We are at an impasse because you are incapable of engaging with my arguments honestly. Never once did I advocate using the same standard for search warrants. This is like the fourth or fifth time you've tried to misrepresent what I said despite me being awfully clear. What's up with that?

Or to try it the other way it's like one of us thinks that if the president wants to execute a US citizen he should have to explain why to someone. One of us thinks executing citizens based solely on the president's say-so is swell.

At least you can never complain about someone else being an authoritarian again. There's nothing more authoritarian than extrajudicial executions.

 

[theeedude]

I am excited about what the Hillary Clinton presidency will do to the GOP. These guys are already unhinged with hate, but she will send them into a whole new orbit.

 

[werepossum]

Sigh. We are at an impasse because you are incapable of engaging with my arguments honestly. Never once did I advocate using the same standard for search warrants. This is like the fourth or fifth time you've tried to misrepresent what I said despite me being awfully clear. What's up with that?

Or to try it the other way it's like one of us thinks that if the president wants to execute a US citizen he should have to explain why to someone. One of us thinks executing citizens based solely on the president's say-so is swell.

At least you can never complain about someone else being an authoritarian again. There's nothing more authoritarian than extrajudicial executions.

lol Must be difficult to be a general expert surrounded by people incapable or unwilling to honestly engage your arguments on literally every subject.

The President doesn't have a list of people he wishes to execute. The intelligence community comes up with people they believe should be considered. They make their case to the President. If he or she agrees, then they examine the circumstances - risks to our assets, risks to bystanders, repercussions. If they collectively agree, the strike goes forward. If they do not all agree, then the President makes a judgement call. But it's not a list that the President generates.

Consider our highest court. Elena Kagan was an academian one day, a Supreme Court nominee the next. Zero judicial experience, ever. Seems pretty cut and dried that no such judge would be higher or held to higher standards than our highest court and I know you aren't proposing that the position be elected by the people, so we've already established that literally no qualifications are required besides the President's approval and the Senate's agreement. So explain to me why an unelected, probably tenured for life, and probably secret (your point - like the FISA court) judge becomes a better decider than the man or woman entrusted by the electorate with leading our armed forces.

 

[fskimospy]

lol Must be difficult to be a general expert surrounded by people incapable or unwilling to honestly engage your arguments on literally every subject.

The President doesn't have a list of people he wishes to execute. The intelligence community comes up with people they believe should be considered. They make their case to the President. If he or she agrees, then they examine the circumstances - risks to our assets, risks to bystanders, repercussions. If they collectively agree, the strike goes forward. If they do not all agree, then the President makes a judgement call. But it's not a list that the President generates.

This is obviously false. The intelligence community works for the president. Collective agreement is not required in any way, shape, or form.

It's not my fault that you refuse to engage honestly with my arguments, it's your fault. Try to do better.

Consider our highest court. Elena Kagan was an academian one day, a Supreme Court nominee the next. Zero judicial experience, ever. Seems pretty cut and dried that no such judge would be higher or held to higher standards than our highest court and I know you aren't proposing that the position be elected by the people, so we've already established that literally no qualifications are required besides the President's approval and the Senate's agreement. So explain to me why an unelected, probably tenured for life, and probably secret (your point - like the FISA court) judge becomes a better decider than the man or woman entrusted by the electorate with leading our armed forces.

Elana Kagan was a former solicitor general, but that's irrelevant. As I already explained a judge's place is not to decide whether someone should be targeted or not but to decide if this action is consistent with the Constitution. Why are our armed forces better at interpreting the constitution than judges?

As I already mentioned by your logic why should any judge think they are better at knowing what house should be searched than the police? That fancy pants judge has probably never spent a single day as a law enforcement officer. Why are they a better decider?

 

[ivwshane]

This is obviously false. The intelligence community works for the president. Collective agreement is not required in any way, shape, or form.

It's not my fault that you refuse to engage honestly with my arguments, it's your fault. Try to do better.



Elana Kagan was a former solicitor general, but that's irrelevant. As I already explained a judge's place is not to decide whether someone should be targeted or not but to decide if this action is consistent with the Constitution. Why are our armed forces better at interpreting the constitution than judges?

As I already mentioned by your logic why should any judge think they are better at knowing what house should be searched than the police? That fancy pants judge has probably never spent a single day as a law enforcement officer. Why are they a better decider?

And by your logic the choices of other executive offices are an extension of the president's will and things like the DOJ or FBI not seeking charges against Hillary were at his request. Of course you know this to be false.