Executive power and state secrets

[One Brow]

I wouldn't go as far as Ed Brayton does in the title, but I do find this disturbing:

... leaving in place the en banc ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that endorsed the government's argument that any legal challenge to any executive branch action must be dismissed immediately once the government invokes the SSP.

I suppose this does not undercut Congressional investigations, but it's still a little chilling.

 

[Scat]

I wouldn't go as far as Ed Brayton does in the title, but I do find this disturbing:

... leaving in place the en banc ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that endorsed the government's argument that any legal challenge to any executive branch action must be dismissed immediately once the government invokes the SSP.

I suppose this does not undercut Congressional investigations, but it's still a little chilling.

I would expect nothing less from the 9th circuit court.

 

[GVC]

Somewhat related (not as an abuse of executive power, but an attack on the rule of law), I was a victim of the "constitution free zone" (within 100 miles of a border or coastline...encapsulating almost 2/3 of the US population) about a week ago. It turns out if you travel within 100 miles of the border/the coast, the 4th amendment is void.

I was pulled over by a CBP officer while in the US (travelling back to Canada) without cause (of any kind). Then, upon innocuously (IMO) asking "what's the problem?", I was threatened with detainment, frisked, and then subsequently got to sit around while another CBP vehicle was brought in, and two officers thoroughly searched my vehicle (for roughly 45 minutes). Apparently, according to the officer, I was lucky not to have been cuffed and thrown in a squad car/jail for my "attitude" (asking why I was pulled over).

America!

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Somewhat related (not as an abuse of executive power, but an attack on the rule of law), I was a victim of the "constitution free zone" (within 100 miles of a border or coastline...encapsulating almost 2/3 of the US population) about a week ago. It turns out if you travel within 100 miles of the border/the coast, the 4th amendment is void.

I was pulled over by a CBP officer while in the US (travelling back to Canada) without cause (of any kind). Then, upon innocuously (IMO) asking "what's the problem?", I was threatened with detainment, frisked, and then subsequently got to sit around while another CBP vehicle was brought in, and two officers thoroughly searched my vehicle (for roughly 45 minutes). Apparently, according to the officer, I was lucky not to have been cuffed and thrown in a squad car/jail for my "attitude" (asking why I was pulled over).

America!

Along the same lines, I just noticed this in my catch up reading that I've been doing:

https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

Crazy. That's freedom. You might be hiding Al Qaeda in your fridge or something.

 

[GVC]

Crazy.

Fortunately, I have duel citizenship, and if I feel like living in a country where the rule of law is more than a slogan, can stay in Canada (although, the current administration seems bent on upping Canada's drug war...).

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Somewhat related (not as an abuse of executive power, but an attack on the rule of law), I was a victim of the "constitution free zone" (within 100 miles of a border or coastline...encapsulating almost 2/3 of the US population) about a week ago. It turns out if you travel within 100 miles of the border/the coast, the 4th amendment is void.

I was pulled over by a CBP officer while in the US (travelling back to Canada) without cause (of any kind). Then, upon innocuously (IMO) asking "what's the problem?", I was threatened with detainment, frisked, and then subsequently got to sit around while another CBP vehicle was brought in, and two officers thoroughly searched my vehicle (for roughly 45 minutes). Apparently, according to the officer, I was lucky not to have been cuffed and thrown in a squad car/jail for my "attitude" (asking why I was pulled over).

America!

Still have the same plates?

 

[The-Joker]

Somewhat related (not as an abuse of executive power, but an attack on the rule of law), I was a victim of the "constitution free zone" (within 100 miles of a border or coastline...encapsulating almost 2/3 of the US population) about a week ago. It turns out if you travel within 100 miles of the border/the coast, the 4th amendment is void.

I was pulled over by a CBP officer while in the US (travelling back to Canada) without cause (of any kind). Then, upon innocuously (IMO) asking "what's the problem?", I was threatened with detainment, frisked, and then subsequently got to sit around while another CBP vehicle was brought in, and two officers thoroughly searched my vehicle (for roughly 45 minutes). Apparently, according to the officer, I was lucky not to have been cuffed and thrown in a squad car/jail for my "attitude" (asking why I was pulled over).

America!

Can anyone tell me what the legal way of getting these morons to ****off is? I've had this happen to me and tried to invoke the 4th ammendment, and essentially the cop told me to **** off.

 

[LogGrad98]

Can anyone tell me what the legal way of getting these morons to ****off is? I've had this happen to me and tried to invoke the 4th ammendment, and essentially the cop told me to **** off.

Hidden video camera + youtube + law suit. Seems to be about the only way.

 

[The-Joker]

Hidden video camera + youtube + law suit. Seems to be about the only way.

The camera practically pays for it self.

 

[One Brow]

Hidden video camera + youtube + law suit. Seems to be about the only way.

Unless they invoke the states secrets privilege, in which case you can't sue, and the court can't even question whether invoking the privilege is legitimate or not.

 

[LogGrad98]

The camera practically pays for it self.

For the icing on the cake have the camera be a remote feed and then reveal the fact that you are videotaping it at the last second (so if they destroy it in the subsequent eruption you will still have the data). The beatings will get you extra $$$.

 

[babe]

Amazing the way things go. . . . I was just reviewing an old Westinghouse feature about the American Revolution, called "A Bolt of Lightning" which describes the story of James Otis. James Otis was a Boston lawyer and something like the governor's "attorney general" when he was approached by the victims of customs officers, thugs really, who were enforcing unreasonable laws dictated by England on the colonies, particularly a law that made it illegal for American shippers to import rum and molasses from the West Indies. In effect, the government of England was giving English merchants an exclusive privilege, enforcing a cartel fixing the price on these goods on Americans. The thugs from "customs" looking for illegally shipped goods were going around with "writs of assistance" which required citizens to allow British customs officers to search peoples homes and businesses just exploring for possible stashes of smuggled goods.

"If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide".

James Otis tried to talk the governor out of issuing these writs, saying they were illegal and had been illegal in England for a hundred years, and contrary to English law. The Governor said this wasn't England, and ordered Otis to prosecute citizens who failed to comply. Otis refused, and appeared in court on behalf of the citizens, and made an impassioned speech that was later widely circulatied in the colonies. He said that the Magna Carta vouchsafed to Americans, as English subjects, the basic human right to privacy against unreasonable searches.https://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/05/kiss_the_constitution_goodbye.php

So here's something from the ACLU in regard to our current Supreme Court's malfeasance in denying protections of basic human rights:

"With today's decision, the Supreme Court has refused once again to give justice to torture victims and to restore our nation's reputation as a guardian of human rights and the rule of law," said Ben Wizner, litigation director of the ACLU National Security Project, who argued the case before the appeals court. "To date, every victim of the Bush administration's torture regime has been denied his day in court. But while the torture architects and their enablers have escaped the judgment of the courts, they will not escape the judgment of history."
"Today's decision will not end the debate over the government's use of the 'state secrets' privilege to avoid judicial scrutiny for illegal actions carried out in the name of fighting terrorism," said Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU. "In a nation committed to the rule of law, unlawful activity should be exposed, not hidden behind a 'state secrets' designation."

https://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/05/kiss_the_constitution_goodbye.php

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court of today lacks the integrity of a James Otis who refused to give legal sanction to fundamentally illegal and unconscionable acts by government officials.