Destroying a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant -- priceless

[Captain_Amazing]

@Bricker

My assumption is that they were not innocent, and while it is an assumption, it’s based on the intelligence information and the then-president’s decision, which is owed great deference.

I think the assumption of yours that he was challenging was the assumption that the US would have paid compensation to the factory owners if they were innocent.

“They were not innocent” isn’t your assumption, it’s your conclusion. Classic syllogism, there.

If they were innocent, the US would have paid compensation.
The US didn’t pay compensation.
Therefore they weren’t innocent.

He’s questioning your major premise.

[Chronos]

If indeed it was wrong, I wouldn’t be opposed to a relief bill through Congress to supply compensation, but we can’t settle this through the courts.

That sounds rather like a Bill of Attainder, to me.

As for the question of whether they really were innocent or not, isn’t that precisely the sort of question that should be addressed in a court? You can’t use “Well, they were probably guilty” to justify the case being dismissed, because then what’s the recourse in a parallel case where they really weren’t guilty?

[Bricker]

@Chronos

That sounds rather like a Bill of Attainder, to me.

It shouldn’t, since that’s not a Bill of Attainder.

It’s a private relief bill. The concept of a Bill of Attainder includes a punitive purpose.

[Little_Nemo]

So what does that leave? Violence? This is an argument for lawlessness.

There are legal avenues to pursue. The court said that Presidential military actions are not subject to review in a court of law. But a President’s actions are subject to other review: he can be voted out of office or he can be impeached. Obviously these are not avenues that the Sudanese can directly pursue. But if the Sudanese felt that this represented an unjustifed act of war by the United States they could legally respond by declaring war on the United States.

[Der_Trihs]

@Little_Nemo

There are legal avenues to pursue. The court said that Presidential military actions are not subject to review in a court of law. But a President’s actions are subject to other review: he can be voted out of office or he can be impeached. Obviously these are not avenues that the Sudanese can directly pursue. But if the Sudanese felt that this represented an unjustifed act of war by the United States they could legally respond by declaring war on the United States.

Which would get them crushed. Some assassins or outright terrorism is an obviously better solution from their point of view. Which demonstrates the foolishness of this position of ours; when we make terrorism the only rational option, that’s what will likely happen.

[NotreDame05]

@John_Mace

Yes, the courts have no jurisdiction outside the US, so the government has no judicial means to address the problem if it is not on US soil. If it is on US soil, the government will use the courts rather than bombs.

Now, if we’re talking about a US ally with a functioning government, we certainly would normally go through their court system rather than just bombing an ally. A case in point is what we’re doing in Pakistan with the drones. Pakistan is an ally, but they have little or no government control over the tribal regions, and so we have no recourse in Pakistani courts. If there were a known terrorist cell in Karachi, we would expect the Pakistani government (with our help if needed), to take care of the situation, not our predator drones.

Okay I think we are still missing something here, or I am still misunderstanding some concept. The political question doctrine is essentially the notion the judicial branch is not in a position to adjudicate some claim because A.) the U.S. Constitution has committed this decision making to another branch of government B.) there lacks clear textual standards in the U.S. Constitution in which to judge the government’s actions.

I fail to see how being on U.S. soil results in the U.S. Constitution no longer committing this decision making to another branch of government or the U.S. Constitution now has clear textual standards to adjudicate the case.

[Captain_Amazing]

I’m trying to remember what happened with them, but weren’t their lawsuits against the US by Libyans after our bombing of Libya in the 1980s? What happened with those?

[Guy_Incognito_1]

@Bricker

Ex Parte Merryman.

And that’s exactly the right distinction. In Detroit, the factory can be served with a court order, inspected by state and federal officials, and dealth with by process of law. The Sudanese factory was beyond the reach of our courts.

Just a minor nitpick – were you referring to Ex Parte Milligan? Merryman concerned Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, and it actually played out in Maryland’s federal court, which despite being open for business, was missing its relevant defendants…

Milligan, on the other hand, was the one in which the Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals could not be used to detain, prosecute and sentence American citizens if civilian courts were open, which seems a little more analogous to the situation here.

[Bricker]

@Guy_Incognito

Just a minor nitpick – were you referring to Ex Parte Milligan? Merryman concerned Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, and it actually played out in Maryland’s federal court, which despite being open for business, was missing its relevant defendants…

Milligan, on the other hand, was the one in which the Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals could not be used to detain, prosecute and sentence American citizens if civilian courts were open, which seems a little more analogous to the situation here.

Probably should have looked that one up.