|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 29, 2024 18:45:10 GMT -5
This is a question the SCOTUS is facing with respect to Trump. We know Presidents have ordered people to be killed before. Even US citizens. Obama, for instance, ordered drone strikes on US citizens. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-AwlakiIs that murder? Does it matter that Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen? It's not any more legal to kill non-US-citizens than US citizens, right? Does it matter that it was targeted at him as a person, as opposed to him just being in a site that was targeted? Trump ordered the killing of Qasem Soleimani. The US was not at war with Iran (where he was from) or Iraq (where he was killed). Was this not murder? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_SoleimaniSoleimani was traveling on a diplomatic mission between one country and another. It's OK to kill diplomats? How about if Biden decided to just walk out on the street and kill somebody at random? Would he be allowed to do it? If laws don't apply to the President, doesn't that mean he can just do anything? Arrest his political opponents? Shut down newspapers or TV? Censor the internet? Spy on anyone? Apparently the argument is that regardless of the law or the Constitution, the ONLY thing that can be done to a President is for Congress to remove him from office. But what if he just decides to shut down Congress? Arrest them all? Then what? The idea that laws don't apply to the President is horrifying, and yet the SCOTUS appears to be seriously considering ruling that this is the case. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 29, 2024 18:50:37 GMT -5
This is a question the SCOTUS is facing with respect to Trump. We know Presidents have ordered people to be killed before. Even US citizens. Obama, for instance, ordered drone strikes on US citizens. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-AwlakiIs that murder? Does it matter that Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen? It's not any more legal to kill non-US-citizens than US citizens, right? Does it matter that it was targeted at him as a person, as opposed to him just being in a site that was targeted? Trump ordered the killing of Qasem Soleimani. The US was not at war with Iran (where he was from) or Iraq (where he was killed). Was this not murder? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_SoleimaniSoleimani was traveling on a diplomatic mission between one country and another. It's OK to kill diplomats? How about if Biden decided to just walk out on the street and kill somebody at random? Would he be allowed to do it? If laws don't apply to the President, doesn't that mean he can just do anything? Arrest his political opponents? Shut down newspapers or TV? Censor the internet? Spy on anyone? Apparently the argument is that regardless of the law or the Constitution, the ONLY thing that can be done to a President is for Congress to remove him from office. But what if he just decides to shut down Congress? Arrest them all? Then what? The idea that laws don't apply to the President is horrifying, and yet the SCOTUS appears to be seriously considering ruling that this is the case. The interesting thing to me, is just how incredibly stupid this is for SCOTUS to consider, since Trump isn't the president and Biden is. If they actually made the ridiculous and horrifying decision that the president is completely immune, then conceivably Biden could just arrest Trump AND the SCOTUS and lock them away at Guantanamo, disband the court and name his own, with complete immunity. It is all so completely stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 29, 2024 18:58:23 GMT -5
Complete immunity is what Trump's lawyers are arguing, but that does not appear to be the argument that the Supreme Court is seriously considering. A majority of the Justices seem to be exploring the area between complete immunity from prosecution for non-personal (but perhaps political) acts while in office, and personal acts, including acts as a candidate vs a President, that take place while in office.
But adopting some sort of guideline(s) that would create a meaningful, actionable distinction in a single Supreme Court decision is difficult and problematic, in part because of what you describe in the 2nd to the last paragraph.
I think the likeliest outcome is what Lyndsey Graham has predicted, that the case will be remanded to the trial judge to sort out the distinctions, and in doing so, the trial will be delayed until after the outcome of the Presidential elections. At that point, Trump will be able to perhaps avoid the trial entirely if he wins, or if he loses, he might not be viwed as useful or relevant to anyone and be left hung out to dry.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 29, 2024 19:01:35 GMT -5
This is a question the SCOTUS is facing with respect to Trump. We know Presidents have ordered people to be killed before. Even US citizens. Obama, for instance, ordered drone strikes on US citizens. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-AwlakiIs that murder? Does it matter that Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen? It's not any more legal to kill non-US-citizens than US citizens, right? Does it matter that it was targeted at him as a person, as opposed to him just being in a site that was targeted? Trump ordered the killing of Qasem Soleimani. The US was not at war with Iran (where he was from) or Iraq (where he was killed). Was this not murder? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_SoleimaniSoleimani was traveling on a diplomatic mission between one country and another. It's OK to kill diplomats? How about if Biden decided to just walk out on the street and kill somebody at random? Would he be allowed to do it? If laws don't apply to the President, doesn't that mean he can just do anything? Arrest his political opponents? Shut down newspapers or TV? Censor the internet? Spy on anyone? Apparently the argument is that regardless of the law or the Constitution, the ONLY thing that can be done to a President is for Congress to remove him from office. But what if he just decides to shut down Congress? Arrest them all? Then what? The idea that laws don't apply to the President is horrifying, and yet the SCOTUS appears to be seriously considering ruling that this is the case. The interesting thing to me, is just how incredibly stupid this is for SCOTUS to consider, since Trump isn't the president and Biden is. If they actually made the ridiculous and horrifying decision that the president is completely immune, then conceivably Biden could just arrest Trump AND the SCOTUS and lock them away at Guantanamo, disband the court and name his own, with complete immunity. It is all so completely stupid. I think it would be amazing if Biden made some sort of public statement floating that possibility. It could be something as benign as saying "I am the sitting President and I am waiting intently to see how the Supreme Court rules." It would drive the Republicans nuts. But the truth is, it's not something he is likely to do. |
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Apr 29, 2024 19:18:24 GMT -5
“…then conceivably Biden could just arrest Trump AND the SCOTUS and lock them away at Guantanamo, disband the court and name his own, with complete immunity.”
Don’t you threaten me with a good time!
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 29, 2024 19:51:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 29, 2024 19:52:57 GMT -5
We know Presidents have ordered people to be killed before. Even US citizens. Obama, for instance, ordered drone strikes on US citizens. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki... How about if Biden decided to just walk out on the street and kill somebody at random? Would he be allowed to do it? How would you articulate (in law) the difference between these two acts? Either the president has the authority to decide if the assassination of a US citizen is justified, or not. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 29, 2024 19:58:22 GMT -5
We know Presidents have ordered people to be killed before. Even US citizens. Obama, for instance, ordered drone strikes on US citizens. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki... How about if Biden decided to just walk out on the street and kill somebody at random? Would he be allowed to do it? How would you articulate (in law) the difference between these two acts? Either the president has the authority to decide if the assassination of a US citizen is justified, or not. The president doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 29, 2024 19:59:26 GMT -5
How would you articulate (in law) the difference between these two acts? Either the president has the authority to decide if the assassination of a US citizen is justified, or not. The president doesn't. So Obama should be prosecuted for killing Al-Awlaki? |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 29, 2024 20:01:27 GMT -5
They argued it in their briefs—likely because that is what Trump demanded. That he backed off under questioning is a legal tactic or strategy-and of course, Trump was not there. |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 29, 2024 20:01:57 GMT -5
Biden could Grand Torino Trump. The case could be slow-walked through our court system for decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 29, 2024 20:06:26 GMT -5
The special counsel indictment explained Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
How does any of that fall within the "outer perimeter" of a president's duties?
|
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 29, 2024 20:08:30 GMT -5
So Obama should be prosecuted for killing Al-Awlaki? 100% |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 29, 2024 20:38:16 GMT -5
So Obama should be prosecuted for killing Al-Awlaki? 100% was Al-Awlaki a clear and present danger to the USA? |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 29, 2024 20:51:39 GMT -5
was Al-Awlaki a clear and present danger to the USA? American citizens have a constitutional right to due process and killing them without due process is illegal. |
|
