They went armed, unannounced, and in plain clothes.
"Standard procedure," they said. Well whoever decided that was a reasonable "standard procedure" to begin with is an idiot, and whoever decided that "standard procedure" was a good idea for dealing with the president of the United States is in the running for the dumbest and/or most evil person in D.C.
It's because fucking diabetes Dora wrote it in her dissent, like the typical leftist hysterical bullshit. They've all lost it, and are screeching constantly.
God forbid she write a legal opinion, and not leftist deranged fanfiction (which is really them projecting what they want to do).
It literally is "typical leftist hysterical bullshit." I'd say it's downright shameful but people like her don't even know when to be ashamed. I'm sure she thought she was Very Smart. "Immune. Immune, immune, immune." - direct quote.
I haven't even bothered to read that brown woman's dissent.
This seems incorrect. Ordering Seal Team 6 to kill his opponent is not within the President's power under the Constitution, no? He is dubiously permitted to deploy the military overseas without Congress' permission. I've never heard that that is true domestically. That is to say: the existing Constitutional order that prevents the military from being used by any commander as a domestic hit squad is not changed.
The President can and has ordered the military to assassinate Americans overseas, and nobody tried to prosecute him for it.
This seems incorrect. Ordering Seal Team 6 to kill his opponent is not within the President's power under the Constitution, no?
The President would probably be immune from prosecution for that order under Trump, but per the Constitution, Art I, Sec III, the President could be impeached and then tried criminally:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
The President is already barred from using the military in civil criminal contexts under the Posse Comitatus Act. The President is also barred from murdering someone under 18 U.S. Code § 1111. The key here is that under Trump, the President would need to be impeached first in order to strip them of Presidential Immunity.
Note that a big thing that leftists are missing here is that Presidential Immunity does not extend to employees and agents of the executive branch. Any members of the military or law enforcement who carry out illegal acts can be prosecuted under existing law. So the Seal Team Six (its no longer called that, BTW) members who murder the Supreme Court would be guilty of murder and can be tried for murder under existing law.
The President can and has ordered the military to assassinate Americans overseas, and nobody tried to prosecute him for it.
Correct. Obama is probably criminally immune from prosecution unless he is impeached. But the drone operators could be charged. The family members of Anwar al-Awlaki tried to civilly sue Obama Administration officials but were unsuccessful. There is a federal law that allows people to sue state officials for their violations of civil rights called 42 U.S. Code § 1983. But conveniently, the feds have not made a similar law for when federal officials violate someone's civil rights. There is a common law version of § 1983 called the Bivens doctrine. But Bivens is narrowly interpereted and the court reviewing the al-Awlaki lawsuit did not want to extend it to cases of military and national security.
Yeah TFW when your intentionally-generic nickname gets too high profile. I blame Rainbow 6.
That Bivens thing was an interesting read. I don't know that I came away from it with anything other than "you usually can't sue the Federal government, unless they pass a law saying you can, unless it's one of a narrowly defined (and apparently arbitrary) set of the circumstances that the Supreme Court says are cool. So um we need never wonder why people neither understand nor respect the law.
I don't know that I came away from it with anything other than "you usually can't sue the Federal government, unless they pass a law saying you can, unless it's one of a narrowly defined (and apparently arbitrary) set of the circumstances that the Supreme Court says are cool.
Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of the Bivens doctrine. The Anwar al-Awlaki court decision is frustrating because the court says U.S. citizens have a Fifth Amendment interest in not being blown up in drone strikes, buuuuuuuuut because this is in the area of national security and the military, the plaintiffs lose. It's a super arbitrary decision. Sure, his rights were violated by the feds but no you can't do anything about it.
I am pretty good at understanding normie understanding of / interaction with the law because I have very little tolerance lawyering -- that is to say arguing over what the rules mean. After a few minutes of that, I just do what I do and see what the consequences are.
Obvious, moral stuff like "don't hit people" is fine, but don't ask me how to pay taxes. I definitely make arbitrary decisions on filing my taxes, which I still do myself mainly because it's almost entirely automated and because I move states too much, so nobody wants to work for me.
So, there's a whole series of problems that the government created for themselves with this.
The Posse Commentates Act prevents the US military from being deployed for law enforcement actions. But that is only as part of normal law enforcement activity.
The National Guard may be deployed to preform Law Enforcement Activities, but only at the Governor's discretion.
As a quirk in the law, the United State Marine Corps is NOT covered by Posse Commentates, and as such has been deployed in cases of extreme levels of violence, typically when LE are being killed.
However, if a truly extreme situation breaks out, the President can invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military directly to end "illegal activity".
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, SCOTUS allowed the government to declare individuals "enemy combatants" and could be killed or captured without any protection of US citizenship. This is one of the reasons that Obama could legally kill an American citizen who served on his own muslim council for a time.
So, technically, there are two ways that a president could assassinate a political opponent legally:
Declaring his opponent to be an enemy combatant and having him directly assassinated.
Declaring an insurrection, and the the opponent could be killed during the subjection of the insurrection.
Unfortunately for SCOTUS, the Hamdi decision always meant that that POTUS could always do that to them. They just assumed that the bureaucratic process to do it wouldn't include them. They, uh, should probably re-visit that decision.
Now, within this, we have to actually talk about what "immunity" means here.
"Immunity" just means he can't be charged with a crime until impeached. Impeachment STILL can revoke that immunity as it was always meant to. Impeachment can be done regardless of evidence, and without appeal because it is a political procedure and not a legal one. The president can lose his immunity faster than any cop, and with less evidence. Congress just has to give it. The problem is that the legislature is filled with cowards. This is actually one reason I'm glad Trump was impeached twice. It shows some activity within the legislature to reign in the executive.
Additionally, that immunity doesn't apply to anyone else. Including the Secretary of Defense or SEAL team 6. They are still accountable both the the UCMJ as well as the the constitution. They have a legal obligation not to follow unlawful orders. While POTUS couldn't be charged without impeachment should he order someone to assassinate his political opponent, his subordinates could still be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder. Even if the DOJ didn't want to prosecute them, any federal prosecutor still could. If no federal prosecutor wanted to, the AG's of the states could still bring criminal charges against them as those are also state crimes.
The ridiculous part of all of this, is that that is what has been happening to Trump, despite him not breaking the law at all. All you actually have to do to stop POTUS from doing something illegal is exactly what is being done to Trump assuming you couldn't get any aspect of the federal courts or congress to take action.
As a quirk in the law, the United State Marine Corps is NOT covered by Posse Commentates, and as such has been deployed in cases of extreme levels of violence, typically when LE are being killed.
Unfortunately for SCOTUS, the Hamdi decision always meant that that POTUS could always do that to them. They just assumed that the bureaucratic process to do it wouldn't include them. They, uh, should probably re-visit that decision.
Can you explain this more? Ok the first sentence I get. I assume by "them" you mean the supreme court. But I don't understand what bureaucratic process you're talking about or why in particular it does not involve SCOTUS.
All you actually have to do to stop POTUS from doing something illegal is exactly what is being done to Trump assuming you couldn't get any aspect of the federal courts or congress to take action.
I still think that is impeachment. So, they started it? The after-the-fact convictions will not prevent shit -- I don't even think they will stop the next guy from doing whatever he wants, since that guy won't be prosecuted. So far just Trump. To get the actual chilling effect the SC envisions, you'd have to have this happen regularly. So pretty much every President at the pace things are going. Norms are not going to last too long. They're being made up as they go along. Precedent will take years and years.
But I don't understand what bureaucratic process you're talking about or why in particular it does not involve SCOTUS.
Sorry, the Hamdi decision basically allows the President to declare people "enemy combatants". The concept of an "enemy combatant" refers to an 'unlawful combatant'; or: someone who is actively engaging in hostile activities against the US, but not is a declared combatant under the laws of war (like a soldier) and does not have protections as such. SCOTUS in Hamdi said that the status of people with this "enemy combatant" label still have Due Process rights and can appeal the application of the label.
SCOTUS didn't determine what the correct procedure was AND LEFT IT UP TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. The process that I used to be aware of involved a series of approvals and actionable intelligence. The Obama administration chose to stop applying the term altogether, but SCOTUS never nullified it's use, so it could be picked up again. It's never been clear what the whole process was because of the secrecy around the intelligence information.
I don't even think they will stop the next guy from doing whatever he wants, since that guy won't be prosecuted.
Well, that's the thing, we are assuming that the next guy won't be prosecuted, but that's only based off of deference. Presidents are not purely immune, their prosecutions are basically just deferred until impeachment, and anyone who carried out the act is NOT immune.
And that's without actually getting to this most recent decision. The lower courts actually now can rule that some acts weren't part of the presidential powers if they can find evidence that it isn't.
After nearly all propagandist stopped saying Biden is ''sharp as a tack'' since the debate, Democrats last hoped to disqualify Trump with the bogus ''insurection'' charges.
So of course they are losing their fucking minds over the Supreme Court ruling.
Anyway, expect mysterious 2AM ballot dumps after water leaks in key states.
"Harry Sisson... is subtly advocating for political violence."
Motherfucker, that's as open and brazen as it gets. How long until major Democrat politicians are just repeat-tweeting "KILL HIM KILL HIM KILL HIM" over and over?
On a completely unrelated note Steve Bannon just got sent to prison for contempt of congress. Strange how the strongly worded letters only go in one direction.
It would be remarkably foolish to kill him and make him a martyr. The guy is 79 and rather unhealthy, he'll go that way of his own accord.
Moreover, he was president once before and did exactly nothing but obey the security state. I like to think that he learned and that this time will be different, but not very likely. If they're THAT threatened by him, they're remarkably foolish.
Yeah people have been quick to point out that the Supreme Court has just given the OK to let the President do a whole bunch of terrible shit. If people were scared of Biden being corrupt, they should be shitting their pants now.
The Supreme Court just confirmed what was already practiced.
Don't forget Obama order the execution of American citizens without trial ( tied to muslim terrorism ), and never got in trouble for it.
Besides, Biden's handlers have been subverting the courts to harass and put Trump associates and lawyers in jail already.
And the whole J6 circus show of jailing people indefinetly in solitary for months over walking inside a building the security staff opened for them, and jailing journalists for covering the event.
The Supreme Court just confirmed what was already practiced.
It has always been "do it and find out." As you pointed out, Obama killed Americans overseas, and nobody prosecuted him for it. The remedy under the Constitution for a President who abuses his power isn't "prosecute him years later." It is for Congress to remove him. If he orders the assassination of an American by Seal Team 6, and Congress doesn't act, then I guess it was legal.
Nobody has been prosecuting ex-Presidents. That's why we don't know what all they can be prosecuted for. Which the Supreme Court didn't decide. Because arguably this made-up act is un-Constitutional -- outside the legitimate authority of the President -- and therefore could not possibly qualify as official acts.
At the same time, US presidents are never held accountable. Not for their crimes, not for their war crimes, not for illegal spying, for nothing. Biden wasn't going to be held accountable regardless, nor any other US president - except for Trump who is held 'accountable' for non-crimes.
So I think this is a bad decision in theory (because presidents should be subject to prosecution), but good in practice.
Biden admin literally gave FBI shoot to kill orders and sent them to raid Trump's home.
You left out the worst bits.
They went armed, unannounced, and in plain clothes.
"Standard procedure," they said. Well whoever decided that was a reasonable "standard procedure" to begin with is an idiot, and whoever decided that "standard procedure" was a good idea for dealing with the president of the United States is in the running for the dumbest and/or most evil person in D.C.
It's because fucking diabetes Dora wrote it in her dissent, like the typical leftist hysterical bullshit. They've all lost it, and are screeching constantly.
God forbid she write a legal opinion, and not leftist deranged fanfiction (which is really them projecting what they want to do).
It literally is "typical leftist hysterical bullshit." I'd say it's downright shameful but people like her don't even know when to be ashamed. I'm sure she thought she was Very Smart. "Immune. Immune, immune, immune." - direct quote.
I haven't even bothered to read that brown woman's dissent.
This seems incorrect. Ordering Seal Team 6 to kill his opponent is not within the President's power under the Constitution, no? He is dubiously permitted to deploy the military overseas without Congress' permission. I've never heard that that is true domestically. That is to say: the existing Constitutional order that prevents the military from being used by any commander as a domestic hit squad is not changed.
The President can and has ordered the military to assassinate Americans overseas, and nobody tried to prosecute him for it.
Of course it's incorrect. That's the point. It's leftist derangement.
The President would probably be immune from prosecution for that order under Trump, but per the Constitution, Art I, Sec III, the President could be impeached and then tried criminally:
The President is already barred from using the military in civil criminal contexts under the Posse Comitatus Act. The President is also barred from murdering someone under 18 U.S. Code § 1111. The key here is that under Trump, the President would need to be impeached first in order to strip them of Presidential Immunity.
Note that a big thing that leftists are missing here is that Presidential Immunity does not extend to employees and agents of the executive branch. Any members of the military or law enforcement who carry out illegal acts can be prosecuted under existing law. So the Seal Team Six (its no longer called that, BTW) members who murder the Supreme Court would be guilty of murder and can be tried for murder under existing law.
Correct. Obama is probably criminally immune from prosecution unless he is impeached. But the drone operators could be charged. The family members of Anwar al-Awlaki tried to civilly sue Obama Administration officials but were unsuccessful. There is a federal law that allows people to sue state officials for their violations of civil rights called 42 U.S. Code § 1983. But conveniently, the feds have not made a similar law for when federal officials violate someone's civil rights. There is a common law version of § 1983 called the Bivens doctrine. But Bivens is narrowly interpereted and the court reviewing the al-Awlaki lawsuit did not want to extend it to cases of military and national security.
Yeah TFW when your intentionally-generic nickname gets too high profile. I blame Rainbow 6.
That Bivens thing was an interesting read. I don't know that I came away from it with anything other than "you usually can't sue the Federal government, unless they pass a law saying you can, unless it's one of a narrowly defined (and apparently arbitrary) set of the circumstances that the Supreme Court says are cool. So um we need never wonder why people neither understand nor respect the law.
Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of the Bivens doctrine. The Anwar al-Awlaki court decision is frustrating because the court says U.S. citizens have a Fifth Amendment interest in not being blown up in drone strikes, buuuuuuuuut because this is in the area of national security and the military, the plaintiffs lose. It's a super arbitrary decision. Sure, his rights were violated by the feds but no you can't do anything about it.
I am pretty good at understanding normie understanding of / interaction with the law because I have very little tolerance lawyering -- that is to say arguing over what the rules mean. After a few minutes of that, I just do what I do and see what the consequences are.
Obvious, moral stuff like "don't hit people" is fine, but don't ask me how to pay taxes. I definitely make arbitrary decisions on filing my taxes, which I still do myself mainly because it's almost entirely automated and because I move states too much, so nobody wants to work for me.
So, there's a whole series of problems that the government created for themselves with this.
The Posse Commentates Act prevents the US military from being deployed for law enforcement actions. But that is only as part of normal law enforcement activity.
The National Guard may be deployed to preform Law Enforcement Activities, but only at the Governor's discretion.
As a quirk in the law, the United State Marine Corps is NOT covered by Posse Commentates, and as such has been deployed in cases of extreme levels of violence, typically when LE are being killed.
However, if a truly extreme situation breaks out, the President can invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military directly to end "illegal activity".
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, SCOTUS allowed the government to declare individuals "enemy combatants" and could be killed or captured without any protection of US citizenship. This is one of the reasons that Obama could legally kill an American citizen who served on his own muslim council for a time.
So, technically, there are two ways that a president could assassinate a political opponent legally:
Unfortunately for SCOTUS, the Hamdi decision always meant that that POTUS could always do that to them. They just assumed that the bureaucratic process to do it wouldn't include them. They, uh, should probably re-visit that decision.
Now, within this, we have to actually talk about what "immunity" means here.
"Immunity" just means he can't be charged with a crime until impeached. Impeachment STILL can revoke that immunity as it was always meant to. Impeachment can be done regardless of evidence, and without appeal because it is a political procedure and not a legal one. The president can lose his immunity faster than any cop, and with less evidence. Congress just has to give it. The problem is that the legislature is filled with cowards. This is actually one reason I'm glad Trump was impeached twice. It shows some activity within the legislature to reign in the executive.
Additionally, that immunity doesn't apply to anyone else. Including the Secretary of Defense or SEAL team 6. They are still accountable both the the UCMJ as well as the the constitution. They have a legal obligation not to follow unlawful orders. While POTUS couldn't be charged without impeachment should he order someone to assassinate his political opponent, his subordinates could still be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder. Even if the DOJ didn't want to prosecute them, any federal prosecutor still could. If no federal prosecutor wanted to, the AG's of the states could still bring criminal charges against them as those are also state crimes.
The ridiculous part of all of this, is that that is what has been happening to Trump, despite him not breaking the law at all. All you actually have to do to stop POTUS from doing something illegal is exactly what is being done to Trump assuming you couldn't get any aspect of the federal courts or congress to take action.
It was amended in 2021 to include the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Space Force.
Ah. Noted.
Can you explain this more? Ok the first sentence I get. I assume by "them" you mean the supreme court. But I don't understand what bureaucratic process you're talking about or why in particular it does not involve SCOTUS.
I still think that is impeachment. So, they started it? The after-the-fact convictions will not prevent shit -- I don't even think they will stop the next guy from doing whatever he wants, since that guy won't be prosecuted. So far just Trump. To get the actual chilling effect the SC envisions, you'd have to have this happen regularly. So pretty much every President at the pace things are going. Norms are not going to last too long. They're being made up as they go along. Precedent will take years and years.
Sorry, the Hamdi decision basically allows the President to declare people "enemy combatants". The concept of an "enemy combatant" refers to an 'unlawful combatant'; or: someone who is actively engaging in hostile activities against the US, but not is a declared combatant under the laws of war (like a soldier) and does not have protections as such. SCOTUS in Hamdi said that the status of people with this "enemy combatant" label still have Due Process rights and can appeal the application of the label.
SCOTUS didn't determine what the correct procedure was AND LEFT IT UP TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. The process that I used to be aware of involved a series of approvals and actionable intelligence. The Obama administration chose to stop applying the term altogether, but SCOTUS never nullified it's use, so it could be picked up again. It's never been clear what the whole process was because of the secrecy around the intelligence information.
Well, that's the thing, we are assuming that the next guy won't be prosecuted, but that's only based off of deference. Presidents are not purely immune, their prosecutions are basically just deferred until impeachment, and anyone who carried out the act is NOT immune.
And that's without actually getting to this most recent decision. The lower courts actually now can rule that some acts weren't part of the presidential powers if they can find evidence that it isn't.
After nearly all propagandist stopped saying Biden is ''sharp as a tack'' since the debate, Democrats last hoped to disqualify Trump with the bogus ''insurection'' charges.
So of course they are losing their fucking minds over the Supreme Court ruling.
Anyway, expect mysterious 2AM ballot dumps after water leaks in key states.
Motherfucker, that's as open and brazen as it gets. How long until major Democrat politicians are just repeat-tweeting "KILL HIM KILL HIM KILL HIM" over and over?
I have a few friends on mute for just this reason.
Credit to u/Daucus9 for reminding me to post this. :)
On a completely unrelated note Steve Bannon just got sent to prison for contempt of congress. Strange how the strongly worded letters only go in one direction.
He'll be released if Trump wins, I think.
His term is over before inauguration anyway. Fifty fifty they'll just murder him.
"Subtly."
About as subtle as a frying pan to the face. Leftists don't understand what subtleness is.
They spell subtlety like this.
harry sisson is a moron...
What's more dangerous than a dissident leader?
A martyr to the dissident cause.
It would be remarkably foolish to kill him and make him a martyr. The guy is 79 and rather unhealthy, he'll go that way of his own accord.
Moreover, he was president once before and did exactly nothing but obey the security state. I like to think that he learned and that this time will be different, but not very likely. If they're THAT threatened by him, they're remarkably foolish.
Yeah people have been quick to point out that the Supreme Court has just given the OK to let the President do a whole bunch of terrible shit. If people were scared of Biden being corrupt, they should be shitting their pants now.
The Supreme Court just confirmed what was already practiced.
Don't forget Obama order the execution of American citizens without trial ( tied to muslim terrorism ), and never got in trouble for it.
Besides, Biden's handlers have been subverting the courts to harass and put Trump associates and lawyers in jail already.
And the whole J6 circus show of jailing people indefinetly in solitary for months over walking inside a building the security staff opened for them, and jailing journalists for covering the event.
Jailing some journalists. The left leaning ones were let go without a fuss.
Correct.
It has always been "do it and find out." As you pointed out, Obama killed Americans overseas, and nobody prosecuted him for it. The remedy under the Constitution for a President who abuses his power isn't "prosecute him years later." It is for Congress to remove him. If he orders the assassination of an American by Seal Team 6, and Congress doesn't act, then I guess it was legal.
Nobody has been prosecuting ex-Presidents. That's why we don't know what all they can be prosecuted for. Which the Supreme Court didn't decide. Because arguably this made-up act is un-Constitutional -- outside the legitimate authority of the President -- and therefore could not possibly qualify as official acts.
I hear ya.
At the same time, US presidents are never held accountable. Not for their crimes, not for their war crimes, not for illegal spying, for nothing. Biden wasn't going to be held accountable regardless, nor any other US president - except for Trump who is held 'accountable' for non-crimes.
So I think this is a bad decision in theory (because presidents should be subject to prosecution), but good in practice.
I sincerely doubt that. We would have heard some sob story from Kathy Griffin, Snoop Dogg, or someone else since Trump came onto the scene.