A very unpleasant thought occurs...

[evensgrey]

It has just occurred to me to put together a new (false) claim of Presidential power with a and old (false) claim of Presidential power and get an unusually nasty result:

First, the new false claim:  Obama has claimed to have the power as President to have anyone he wants killed while outside of the jurisdiction of the US (extrajudicial killing of the most obvious sort, since he's claiming the authority to have people killed only where he has no jurisdiction of any kind over anything).

Second, the old false claim:  Lincoln claimed to have the power as President to cancel the right of habeas corpus (the legal term for the right to have your detention by any law enforcement agent or agency reviewed by a law court) anywhere he wanted (which was explicitly ruled illegal by SCOTUS, but Lincoln ignored that, and there seems to be a remarkably large number of people who think that the President has authority to do such a thing).

They might not look particularly related, but they are, as follows:

If habeas corpus can be suspended on Presidential order, and the President can have any person outside the US killed at will, what's to prevent the President from signing three orders which, between them, remove any given US resident's habeas corpus protection, order them to be taken outside the borders of the US, and then be killed?  (While it might be difficult to find soldiers and police who would carry out such actions, they are certainly possible to find.)

The only thing that ensures judicial oversight of law enforcement actions against individuals is that those individuals have a right to have their detention reviewed by a court entirely separately from their right to bring suit against any law enforcement agent or agency claiming that they have been wronged.  Without the right to have their detention reviewed, a person could be easily prevented from making any other claims against any other actions.

[Goaticus]

It has just occurred to me to put together a new (false) claim of Presidential power with a and old (false) claim of Presidential power and get an unusually nasty result:

First, the new false claim:  Obama has claimed to have the power as President to have anyone he wants killed while outside of the jurisdiction of the US (extrajudicial killing of the most obvious sort, since he's claiming the authority to have people killed only where he has no jurisdiction of any kind over anything).

Second, the old false claim:  Lincoln claimed to have the power as President to cancel the right of habeas corpus (the legal term for the right to have your detention by any law enforcement agent or agency reviewed by a law court) anywhere he wanted (which was explicitly ruled illegal by SCOTUS, but Lincoln ignored that, and there seems to be a remarkably large number of people who think that the President has authority to do such a thing).

They might not look particularly related, but they are, as follows:

If habeas corpus can be suspended on Presidential order, and the President can have any person outside the US killed at will, what's to prevent the President from signing three orders which, between them, remove any given US resident's habeas corpus protection, order them to be taken outside the borders of the US, and then be killed?  (While it might be difficult to find soldiers and police who would carry out such actions, they are certainly possible to find.)

The only thing that ensures judicial oversight of law enforcement actions against individuals is that those individuals have a right to have their detention reviewed by a court entirely separately from their right to bring suit against any law enforcement agent or agency claiming that they have been wronged.  Without the right to have their detention reviewed, a person could be easily prevented from making any other claims against any other actions.

The NDAA authorizes detention of Americans (or non-Americans) an U.S. soil without trial or charges and allows the Military to do operations on U.S. soil. I don't think they would even have to take the individuals outside the U.S. to be killed. I can also assure you they would not have a hard time finding Police willing to do it since they are always killing people with tasers at traffic stops. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/12/local/la-me-0512-taser-20110512 tasering a 72 year old woman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/09/police-taser-great-grandm_n_213218.html a 65 pound 13 year old girl http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/09/police-taser-great-grandm_n_213218.html and a 14 year old girl in the groin http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/video-cop-tasers-14-year-old-girl-groin

Especially since the police are now allowed to make hiring decisions where a lack of intelligence is actually considered a positive.

[ebalosus]

The real issue here is that the president is claiming authority where they don't have any, thus shouldn't people be doing something about that?

[VectorM]

The real issue here is that the president is claiming authority where they don't have any, thus shouldn't people be doing something about that?

Do what exactly? Vote him out? 

[Ibrahim90]

Do what exactly? Vote him out? 

not really. I have an implicit suggestion. I'd say more, but with the NDAA around?

[MrBogosity]

As Joseph Heller wrote in Catch-22, whichever side tries to get you killed is the enemy.

[Goaticus]

My Dad was raised in the Panama Canal Zone and is thinking of retiring in Costa Rica in 5 years. He offered to take us with him and I am seriously considering it.

[Ibrahim90]

My Dad was raised in the Panama Canal Zone and is thinking of retiring in Costa Rica in 5 years. He offered to take us with him and I am seriously considering it.

it's a nice place, peaceful, and hasn't had any issue since 1949 (when they fought a 44 day civil war, that ended with the abolition of their army). Economy isn't too hot, but that's Latin America in a nutshell for you.

[MrBogosity]

My understanding is that the economies down there are bad because the governments are corrupt. So he may not be any better off.

[Ibrahim90]

My understanding is that the economies down there are bad because the governments are corrupt. So he may not be any better off.

that is largely correct: corruption is a major issue in most Latin American countries. I'm not so sure about Costa Rica though: it always strikes me as the oddball of Latin America. I know little of it's corruption problems (beyond a single scandal involving the main party's ex-presidential members), so my knowledge base is incomplete on that place.

However, I do know enough about the economy to explain why it's not great. It may come as a surprise (not really), but things are very centralized in the country economically. it's what happens when the leading party is a social democratic one.

[Goaticus]

Costa Rica can be corrupt, but they don't have a lot of the scanners and drones. I know a few people that live there and they I might as well do it in a place with medical tourism where they actually go out of their way to court people to live there. My main concern is that I have a daughter that is one and a half and in twelve years I don't want to have to be paranoid about taking her to an airport. Canada, South America, wherever I am currently jurisdiction shopping just in case.

[evensgrey]

I'm not sure about Costa Rica as the odd ball of the Americas.  That's always seemed to be to be Belize, the only country in the New World to never have any significant insurrection.  (Yes, Canada has had at least three I can think of off hand.  Two were mostly by the Metis and led by Louis Riel, who managed the interesting feat of actually being an officially sworn in Member of Parliament while under sentence of death in Canada.  The third was in what is now Ontario, then called Upper Canada, against the corrupt Family Compact, which tried to live in the style of the English Aristocracy, but lacked the funds of their own to do so and so looted the public treasury.  They knew this would cause unrest, so they did things like enact the first victim disarmament laws in what would be Canada to try and prevent the unrest from going anywhere.  It didn't work.)

[MrBogosity]

That's always seemed to be to be Belize, the only country in the New World to never have any significant insurrection.

My sister recently spent a week in Belize. She told me about how terrible the economic conditions are there and how corrupt the government is.

[Ibrahim90]

I'm not sure about Costa Rica as the odd ball of the Americas.  That's always seemed to be to be Belize, the only country in the New World to never have any significant insurrection.  (Yes, Canada has had at least three I can think of off hand.  Two were mostly by the Metis and led by Louis Riel, who managed the interesting feat of actually being an officially sworn in Member of Parliament while under sentence of death in Canada.  The third was in what is now Ontario, then called Upper Canada, against the corrupt Family Compact, which tried to live in the style of the English Aristocracy, but lacked the funds of their own to do so and so looted the public treasury.  They knew this would cause unrest, so they did things like enact the first victim disarmament laws in what would be Canada to try and prevent the unrest from going anywhere.  It didn't work.)

well, maybe.

yeah, I know all about Canada's three revolts-especially the 1837 one. some French Canadian put some clips about it on his you-tube page (IIRC his handle is Patriote17). It's how I learned that Toronto was originally called "York"

if you try him though, I suggest you have a strong stomach-the comments are...interesting.

as to the rest: maybe. but Costa Rica, as shitty as it is, I get the impression that it's economy is better. and no army means little chance of those annoying military dictatorships-like they often have in Latin America. and this maybe due to ignorance, but it is comparatively less corrupt from what I've seen. which isn't saying much, since, you know, it's Latin America.

[evensgrey]

well, maybe.

yeah, I know all about Canada's three revolts-especially the 1837 one. some French Canadian put some clips about it on his you-tube page (IIRC his handle is Patriote17). It's how I learned that Toronto was originally called "York"

if you try him though, I suggest you have a strong stomach-the comments are...interesting.

as to the rest: maybe. but Costa Rica, as shitty as it is, I get the impression that it's economy is better. and no army means little chance of those annoying military dictatorships-like they often have in Latin America. and this maybe due to ignorance, but it is comparatively less corrupt from what I've seen. which isn't saying much, since, you know, it's Latin America.

If a French Canadian is using clips about Riel, then I'm automatically suspecting he's a Quebec Nationalist.  I find that crowd EXTREMELY annoying, particularly some of the things that Trudeau (who's most famous for being the only national leader who's wife ran off with Mick Jagger, even in places where nobody knows nothing else about Canada, although she didn't actually do that) did in his (failed) attempts to appease them (which has had the entirely unfunny result of making it more important that you speak french to get a civil service job in Canada than any ability to do the actual work involved).

Now, as it happens, I happen to be an Anglophone living in Ontario who's ALSO a Quebec Nationalist.  I think tossing the whole Province out of the country would be the best thing for the rest of us (although shipping from Ontario through the Atlantic becomes problematic when we don't have control of the Seaway anymore).  The only problem is getting them to take their proper share of the Federal Debt with them.