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.
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.