This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm not convinced by either side that this action is or is not a clear violation of anyone's Constitutional rights. But I'm pretty sure the Trump admin will get away with everything in this particular instance.
The facts on the ground are very much isomorphic to the situation involving "indefinite detention" of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay pursuant to the Patriot Act and AUMF. Those sorts of detentions have been tested and mostly held up for over twenty years at this point. And that was with a somewhat less favorable Supreme Court. Thus the legality, if not the morality, has stood the test of time.
A few things I haven't seen anyone actually contest:
A) All of the individuals subject to the deportation here were in fact foreign nationals.
B) Likewise, they were all being held on at least probable cause for a crime.
C) The President is 100% allowed to enter deals with foreign states for, among other things, detention of criminals.
If the Alien Enemies Act actually creates/supports the authority that the Trump Administration claims it does (in this case, the authority to 'relocate' foreign nationals pursuant to the President's decree), and these powers fall under the President's Military Authority/Wartime powers, then it is pretty cut-and-dried that these actions aren't subject to Judicial review by mere Federal Judges.
Which is different from saying that the prisoners/detainees aren't entitled to due process and access to Federal Courts. The impact of Boumediene v. Bush is that they can file Habeus Petitions... from their current location. Which actually solves for the due process problem. If the Judge wants to review the validity of their detention he can do so! But if the detention is invalid, as it was for Boumediene himself, then the remedy isn't "take him back to the U.S. and start over." Its, "release him to his country of origin/any country that will take him."
Which, uh, is pretty much what Trump wants.
The wins for Trump seem to be threefold:
Getting 'dangerous' immigrants off of U.S. Soil ASAP. The odds of these guys ever being returned to the U.S. are EXTREMELY slim.
Kicking open a door for expansion of the President's powers to deport illegals over the Judiciary's objections.
"Forcing" Democrats to very vocally stick up for some extremely unsavory people.
And the Judge has already racked up 2 L's.
Trying and failing to force the planes to turn around once they were already in the air, with zero method to enforce it.
Directly undermining the appearance of Court legitimacy by doing so, which undermines the Judiciary going forward.
If I were the Judge, I'd probably have ordered instead that Prisoners so transported should get expedited Habeas reviews, and then ordering the return of any that had their Petitions granted, at which point, if the Admin refused, now I've got some juice to claim unconstitutional overreach.
Indeed, I'm not sure how the Judge wins this. When I game it out in my head, even if he starts throwing out contempt orders to try to gain compliance, Trump can just promise pardons to anyone who gets convicted of contempt, so nobody will feel a need to comply.
Oh, and thanks to Joe Biden, Trump can plausibly offer pre-emptive blanket pardons, as well. WHOOPS.
The Judge CAN win if SCOTUS either strikes down the entire Alien Enemies Act (unlikely) OR severely limits its scope enough to make these actions beyond the pale.
But even then, Congress can Amend the act (which it has before) to extend it to cover the exact powers Trump claims now.
lol. If there were any truly innocent parties swept up in this particular action, the Admin can say "Whoops, here's a flight home, our treat" and its forgotten in a week.
The only way I see the admin taking a serious popularity/approval hit is if they snagged some U.S. citizens and one or more of said U.S. citizens ends up killed or tortured or otherwise gets very badly harmed in this process.
Its an outside possibility.
Anyway, some guy on Twitter challenged me on this exact point, with a claim that SCOTUS would affirm the Judge's ruling unanimously, so at his suggestion I created a Manifold Markets Prediction market on this point:
https://manifold.markets/WMathieu/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-to
At which point he apparently bought shares of no so, lol.
The government is explicitly not claiming this - that is why they are using the Alien Enemies Act (which doesn't require probably cause of a crime). The affidavit linked by @Quantumfreakonomics says that the government has probably cause that the detainees are "members" of TdA, but that isn't in itself a crime. The affidavit conspicuously fails to allege that all the detainees provided material support to TdA (which would be a crime because TdA is a designated foreign terrorist organisation), only that some of them did.
The powers of the federal government, including the Article II powers of the President, are limited by the Bill of Rights. What this means in practice is unclear, because no previous President has rented space in a foreign prison to house people detained under US law. If the President tried to do this type of deal to house US citizen criminals in a foreign prison without explicit permission from Congress, I would expect him to lose 9-0 at SCOTUS.
I agree with you - but that is the problem. You set the face-eating leopards on an unpopular minority first in order to set a precedent. Trump is claiming the right to disappear (in the semi-technical sense that this term is used to describe administrative detention in authoritarian states) foreigners in the US. He is also claiming the right to do it in a way which would probably prevent a US citizen caught up accidentally getting relief through the courts. We all know what happens if nobody speaks out when they come for the Jews...
Detention without due process based on the use of emergency war powers during peacetime is a break glass moment if you care about the rule of law. The Hamdi case - both the plurality and the Thomas concurrence - take it for granted that the President is detaining Hamdi persuant to the post-9/11 AUMF - not under inherent Article II powers. It was a case about war powers in wartime based on a Congressional pseudo-declaration of war. This is a case about war powers based on an executive proclamation using a non-standard meaning of the term "invasion".
There is a bare distinction between simply leasing the land on which you build a prison, and just leasing prison space or paying for detention directly.
The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, is, of course, built on land leased from the Cuban Government.
If there's no probable cause then holding them AT ALL is the violation of their rights, regardless of where they're held.
So I'm doubtful that there's a complete lack of probable cause, because there's a 90% chance some Judge has already made a ruling that there was.
We haven't been at 'peacetime' for over twenty years. That's what the AUMF that allows continued detention of prisoners in Gitmo says.
The only distinction is that this particular act, which has existed for centuries and has been used on various occasions, and may allow the President to unilaterally remove foreign nationals effectively as he sees fit sans an act of Congress.
I say this as someone who vociferously despises the Patriot Act (I voted for Obama in '08 and explicitly dropped support for him for Renewing said Act), its still likely to pass Constitutional muster under the line of precedent that currently exists and the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
THE GLASS HAS ALREADY BEEN BROKEN AND EVERYONE ELSE IS JUST LATE TO THE PARTY.
Here I go feeling smug again. I keep saying 'maybe reign in these powers that are clearly prone to abuse and set bad precedent, because someone you don't like might use them." Free Speech is important. Due process is important. Gun rights are important. the Right to Privacy is important. But for the last 4 administrations everybody has looked the other way in most cases when it came time to defend them.
And here we are.
Out of curiosity, what was the content of the comment you were replying to? It's been deleted.
The post as I recall it was that Trump and Co. taking steps to punish universities for allowing anti-israel/pro-palestine protestors to occupy buildings and harass students, and the deportation of the one guy who was here on a green card.
It had a lot of other details in there but the gist was trying to make it seem like some massive assault on first amendment rights was occurring.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link