US Politics: Papers of Nefarious Clinton Regime Released!

[The Undead Martyr]

Undecided, before and after the debate.

I think it's hard to decide constitutional power of the POTUS for a situation the founding fathers didn't necessarily foresee.

The founders were a bunch of slave-owning elitist pricks who failed to account for a lot of things. Like Judicial Review.

Basically fuck what they wanted. Government belongs to the living, not the dead.

Eh, the due process clause seems pretty clear-cut to me.

I agree, for the record, but this is just one of many, many examples of over a century of executive power encroaching upon the legislature; the Constitution is showing its age. For that matter the nation-state model itself is becoming increasingly impotent in the face of globalization- and it certainly cannot face threats such as global warming.

There are a lot of other issues that concern me more than a few hundred drone deaths. Like a few million war deaths. Or NASA. Or the environment. Or the general entrenchment of moneyed interests, politically and economically.

[Sci-2]

Yep. And I think a major problem with the pro side is that they accept the government's claims uncritically.

Well technically the debate was supposed to be about constitutionality. The pro-side in the IQ2 debate was supposed to argue about the legal authority of the executive branch more so than whether it is right or wrong.

Admittedly it got muddled into a moral argument, something that was almost inevitable. What was interesting was the majority was against the motion before the debate yet changed their mind afterward. It's unfortunately unclear whether the moral or constitutional argument was affirmed by their vote.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Well technically the debate was supposed to be about constitutionality. The pro-side in the IQ2 debate was supposed to argue about the legal authority of the executive branch more so than whether it is right or wrong.

Admittedly it got muddled into a moral argument, something that was almost inevitable. What was interesting was the majority was against the motion before the debate yet changed their mind afterward. It's unfortunately unclear whether the moral or constitutional argument was affirmed by their vote.

Sure, I just thought the quote you posted from the debate already described the legal argument quite well. And like I said, the due process clause is pretty clear, so I wanted to offer another argument that seems to get lost even by those who view it as wrong/unconstitutional.

[Eira Seren]

Just in time for my weekly dose of crazy:

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/03/darrell-issa-out-political-theatered-his-own-irs-hearing-walks-out/358842/

I admit there were better write-ups, I just liked this headline the best.

ETA: this quote from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-darrell-issa-silences-democrats-and-hits-a-new-low/2014/03/05/47b11b76-a49b-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

While Cummings continued to read his unamplified statement, Issa walked out and was asked by reporters in the hallway why he shut the sound. “He was actually slandering me at the moment that the mikes did go off by claiming that this had not been a real investigation,” Issa said. “This has been a bipartisan investigation.”

Bipartisan: one party to protest, and the other party to unplug the microphones.

WTF was all this really about?

[Shryke]

Eh, the due process clause seems pretty clear-cut to me.

It's not though. The legal framework for it has exceptions and due process itself is undefined and gains it's definition from the same legal framework.

I mean, as far as we are aware, the reasoning relies on definitions of "imminent threat" and the like, because due process is not the same or does not hold in all cases. (can't remember which it is right now)

[Shryke]

Just in time for my weekly dose of crazy:

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/03/darrell-issa-out-political-theatered-his-own-irs-hearing-walks-out/358842/

I admit there were better write-ups, I just liked this headline the best.

ETA: this quote from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-darrell-issa-silences-democrats-and-hits-a-new-low/2014/03/05/47b11b76-a49b-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

WTF was all this really about?

Issa is a cock. An asshole. A horrible, terrible human being in every respect.

And his sole job for the past 4 years has been to lead fruitless witch hunts to try and smear the Obama administration and democrats, regardless of facts, sanity, reality or basic human decency.

[Eira Seren]

Issa is a cock. An asshole. A horrible, terrible human being in every respect.

And his sole job for the past 4 years has been to lead fruitless witch hunts to try and smear the Obama administration and democrats, regardless of facts, sanity, reality or basic human decency.

And he seemed so mild-mannered on Bill Maher the other week. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money.

[Seli]

But presumably Americans demand that before the government blows them up they get proper evidence that said bad guy is actually a bad guy ?

I don't know, a lot of people (not only Americans) seem to think it is perfectly fine for police to shoot to kill at people they consider criminals, especially when they fear for their own safety. Never mind if those people are only suspects. This specific drone usage seems to be a logical extension, and as such only likely to give rise to comments if a perceived innocent (of the correct nationality, age, etc) is killed.

[TrackerNeil]

I disagree, people always think of the hypothetical. Take for example people who oppose shifting the burden to higher income earners. They do so on the basis that they might one day hypothetically end up on the high income side.

I don't think so, no. In my experience, Americans really don't concern themselves much with ideology, nor do they always think about situations that may never arise. Also, as far as I have seen, taxing the wealthy is hardly unpopular with Americans; it's unpopular with Republicans, which is not the same thing.

[Ramsay Gimp]

It's not though. The legal framework for it has exceptions and due process itself is undefined and gains it's definition from the same legal framework.

I mean, as far as we are aware, the reasoning relies on definitions of "imminent threat" and the like, because due process is not the same or does not hold in all cases. (can't remember which it is right now)

It is. Just because politicians and bureaucrats in love with their own power try to muddy the language doesn't mean it isn't right there, in black and white. Of course if a suspect is shooting at law enforcement or something they have a right to defend themselves and the public. But that's not the same as droning him in his sleep, which the administration is claiming the right to do.

"Imminent threat" comes back to what I said earlier. Threat according to whom? One branch of the government, who won't say how they came to that conclusion. No thanks, I'll stick with the Constitution.

[Shryke]

It is. Just because politicians and bureaucrats in love with their own power try to muddy the language doesn't mean it isn't right there, in black and white. Of course if a suspect is shooting at law enforcement or something they have a right to defend themselves and the public. But that's not the same as droning him in his sleep, which the administration is claiming the right to do.

"Imminent threat" comes back to what I said earlier. Threat according to whom? One branch of the government, who won't say how they came to that conclusion. No thanks, I'll stick with the Constitution.

It isn't clear though. What does "due process" even mean? What does "imminent threat" (which you just acknowledged is a valid loophole) mean? Who defines these terms?

You can't "stick with the Constitution" because the US Constitution is not precise enough about what everything means. That's why there's a huge body of law on just about everything involved with it.

[Gneisenau]

I don't think so, no. In my experience, Americans really don't concern themselves much with ideology, nor do they always think about situations that may never arise. Also, as far as I have seen, taxing the wealthy is hardly unpopular with Americans; it's unpopular with Republicans, which is not the same thing.

But even Democrats do think of ideology. Nobody says abortion should be illegal because to make it illegal would make some women miserable for no good reason. Instead they always appeal to freedom or the idea of a person owning their body.

[DanteGabriel]

So Obama's nominee to head the Civil Rights division at Justice was torpedoed by a rump of cover-seeking Democratic Senators because, in the past, he had been a lawyer at the NAACP who defended Mumia Abu-Jamal.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-democrats-torpedo-obama-s-top-civil-rights-nominee

The TPM link has more or less straight reportage. Here is a reaction from Dahlia Lithwick:

To be clear, then: Adegbile was not himself a cop-killer. He didn’t help a cop-killer get off and roam free with false claims of innocence. What he did do—which fits pretty readily within the historic mandate of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund—was to help ensure that the American criminal justice system, and especially the death penalty, is administered fairly and constitutionally. As a representative of an organization that is institutionally dedicated to ensuring that justice is administered fairly, he fought for fairness and (totally unfair!) judges agreed that unfairness occurred.

Once upon a time in America this was called advocating for justice. But in today’s America, it’s deemed a miscarriage of justice. And so the fact that Adegbile has long been one of the most skilled and principled civil rights attorneys in the country is cast by Senate Republicans as a kind of catastrophic public scam. (Disclosure: I have met Adegbile several times and have sat on several panels with him.) The right-wing smear squad raced to label Adegbile a "cop-killer’s coddler," or a “pro-criminal cop-killer.” Not unrelatedly, his other sin? Adegbile argued the Voting Rights cases at the Supreme Court, the ones making the radical argument that racial bias still exists in some voting schemes. I guess legal advocacy is just always wrong if it’s done by the NAACP.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/debo_adegbile_senate_blocks_obama_s_pick_to_head_the_justice_department.html

Key to the no votes from the Democrats (of course, every Republican voted against him) was the very vocal opposition of various police unions. I heard about the issue on NPR this morning and the commentary from the Fraternal Order of Police was very intimidating and vengeful in regards to any politician voting for Adegbile.

Lamenting the cowardice of Democratic politicians in red and purple states is nothing new, nor is the phenomenon of cop organizations bullying people, but I would like to see opinions and discussion on why a person should be considered so distasteful simply for doing legal defense work. Why the deep loathing for a pretty fundamental tenet of our justice system, that everyone deserves competent legal representation?

And is it too much to expect the Fraternal Order of Police to recognize and respect that principle, instead of yelling "COP KILLER LOVER!" and threatening people who may be inclined to vote for an otherwise accomplished and qualified candidate?

[Ramsay Gimp]

It isn't clear though. What does "due process" even mean? What does "imminent threat" (which you just acknowledged is a valid loophole) mean? Who defines these terms?

You can't "stick with the Constitution" because the US Constitution is not precise enough about what everything means. That's why there's a huge body of law on just about everything involved with it.

Ok, so explain the circumstances where it is constitutional for the Executive to unilaterally and intentionally kill an American citizen in their sleep, or praying in a mosque, or driving down the road, posing an immediate threat to nobody.

[Maithanet]

Ok, so explain the circumstances where it is constitutional for the Executive to unilaterally and intentionally kill an American citizen in their sleep, or praying in a mosque, or driving down the road, posing an immediate threat to nobody.

Maybe he makes bombs in his house and uses them to blow people up? I mean, there's no real way to know if he's sleeping or making bombs at any given time, but if the government is going to blow up my house to kill me, whether I am awake or not seems like a pretty small concern.

[TrackerNeil]

So Obama's nominee to head the Civil Rights division at Justice was torpedoed by a rump of cover-seeking Democratic Senators because, in the past, he had been a lawyer at the NAACP who defended Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams co-authored an op-ed with Pat Toomey on this very vote.

What I find particularly interesting here is that Williams and Toomey seem less concerned with the racism that permeated the Philadelphia Police Department in 1982 and more concerned that Adegbile called out this racism so forcefully. So they're not denying that the racism existed.

(Before anyone gets excited, no, I am not calling abu-Jamal a hero or wrongly convicted, blah blah.)

[Ramsay Gimp]

Maybe he makes bombs in his house and uses them to blow people up? I mean, there's no real way to know if he's sleeping or making bombs at any given time, but if the government is going to blow up my house to kill me, whether I am awake or not seems like a pretty small concern.

My point is that no attempt to apprehend is even made in those scenarios, or in real life with Awlaki. The government skips the warrant, arrest, and trial steps and goes straight to execution. It's lawless behavior

Do you think if someone is making bombs in their house (nevermind the fact that only one branch of government is claiming that, and the evidence isn't given to a judge to review) that's enough to assassinate them, citizen or not? Does this include people on U.S. soil?

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

It isn't clear though. What does "due process" even mean? What does "imminent threat" (which you just acknowledged is a valid loophole) mean? Who defines these terms?

You can't "stick with the Constitution" because the US Constitution is not precise enough about what everything means. That's why there's a huge body of law on just about everything involved with it.

I think the point is that if "due process" can mean as little as is currently afforded, then what real protections are there? Is the only protection I enjoy from the President droning me supposed to be that I'm small enough or clever enough to escape his notice? Do you suppose that is what due process means?

[Ramsay Gimp]

Shryke,

I think the point is that if "due process" can mean as little as is currently afforded, then what real protections are there? Is the only protection I enjoy from the President droning me supposed to be that I'm small enough or clever enough to escape his notice? Do you suppose that is what due process means?

Don't worry, the President has a panel made up entirely of his subordinates who will review whether you merit assassination. Like Stephen Colbert said, they "do" a "process"

[aceluby]

I don't think so, no. In my experience, Americans really don't concern themselves much with ideology, nor do they always think about situations that may never arise. Also, as far as I have seen, taxing the wealthy is hardly unpopular with Americans; it's unpopular with Republicans, which is not the same thing.

It's fairly popular even among republicans, but what the constituents want doesn't matter anymore to them.