War Powers Act Lawsuit

The big political news of the day is that a bi-partisan group of ten congressmen have filed a lawsuit against president Obama over the Libyan intervention, claiming that his actions violate the War Powers Act. In response, the administration claims that the War Powers Act doesn't apply because U.S. involvement isn't serious enough to even warrant being covered.

We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.

Although I'm strongly opposed to the Libyan intervention because I don't think it is in the U.S. interest, I also oppose this lawsuit for the following reasons.

1. The War Powers Act itself is constitutionally dubious at best. As a general rule, I oppose its use.

2. I believe that as Commander in Chief the president should have wide latitude in the use of U.S. forces, even though I am against this particular operation. I'm not in favor of tying the president's hands when it comes to whether or not to employ the military in foreign policy situations.

3. Whether or not the president can commit troops to a foreign intervention without Congressional approval is not something that should be the subject of a lawsuit, or that a federal judge should have any authority to rule on. If Congress wants to block the Libyan operation they can just cut off funding. And if they think the president is actually breaking the law, or violating the Constitution, they can impeach him.

4. Because Congress as a whole is not willing to exercise the above remedies, this action by only 10 of its members amounts to a stunt. It is a typical minority attempt to circumvent the normal functioning of our democracy by looking for a judicial fiat.

Kill Anwar al-Awlaki

The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed on behalf of Anwar al-Awlaki on grounds that it would reveal state secrets. Better grounds for dismissal would be that the suit is utterly ridiculous, and a blatant attempt to assist a known enemy of the United States. 

The way terrorist rights supporters talk about the case, whining about targeting an American citizen, you'd think al-Awlaki was living quietly in small-town USA, when he was suddenly marked for death by the evil U.S. government. In reality, he resides in Yemen, has voluntarily associated himself with Al Qaeda, and has been actively promoting terrorism against the United States. He's a major propagandist for the radical Islamist movement. Here is his Wikipedia page. 

By his own actions al-Awlaki has rejected his U.S. citizenship, declared himself an enemy of America, and has joined enemies with whom we are actively at war.  It's ridiculous to pretend that we have to extend to a traitor who is currently fighting against us the same rights as any other citizen. By choosing to go abroad and promote terrorism against the U.S., al-Awalki made himself a legitimate target. The justice department spokesman has it exactly right.

"If al-Aulaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions."

As he also points out, terrorist rights supporters are

asking "a court to take the unprecedented step of intervening in an ongoing military action to direct the President how to manage that action - all on behalf of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization."

Throw out the case. Kill Anwar al-Awlaki.

Giant Roadside Crosses Ruled Unconstitutional

I wrote about this issue last year. To recap, a couple of members of the Utah Highway Patrol Association have been putting up metal crosses along the highway to honor fallen officers. But unlike most roadside crosses, these are 12 feet high. American Atheists filed suit to have them removed as a violation of church/state separation, and an appeals court has agreed. The original lawsuit was thrown out.

The appeals court judges disagreed. They said the critical issue was how the large white crosses on public land would be perceived by motorists and others. “We conclude that the cross memorials would convey to a reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity,” they said. “The memorials use the preeminent symbol of Christianity.” ... The judges said they were also concerned that the memorials included the insignia of the Utah Highway Patrol. They said the combination of the cross and insignia links the state with a particular religious symbol.

I think the appeals court is correct, but as I wrote in the earlier article, ordering that the UHP symbol be removed from the crosses might have been enough of a remedy, rather than taking them down entirely.

Al Qaeda Civil Liberties Union

If you go to the main ACLU website and look under the the section called "Our Work," here's the header:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

That's what a civil liberties organization should be doing, and in many cases, local branches of the ACLU do exactly that. But the national organization is looking more and more like not just a useful idiot for our enemies, but an actual enemy itself. It has consistently been attempting to promote expansive rights for hostile alien terrorists -- not just suspects, but known, self-proclaimed terrorists. That's bad enough. But with the terrorist rights promotion, you can write it off as foolish but well-intentioned. In the minds of ACLU types, and other civil libertarians, degrading the U.S. Constitution by granting the rights of U.S. citizens to stateless terrorist enemies somehow protects the rights of Americans. But today we have this:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit demanding the U.S. government prove its legal basis for targeted drone attacks overseas

Given the situation on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the drone assassination campaign, regardless of its drawbacks, represents the core of our offensive strategy against the Taliban & Al Qaeda in the area. These attacks have absolutely nothing to do with the rights of Americans, and should have nothing to do with the ACLU. By filing this lawsuit, the ACLU is deliberately attempting to undermine a major part of the U.S. war effort.  It is basically acting as a legal front for the Taliban and Al Qaeda against the United States.

No D&D in Prison

It's always amazing to see what kind of nonsensical lawsuits actually make it through our court system.  A convicted murderer in Wisconsin filed a legal action claiming that a prison ban on playing Dungeons & Dragons violated his constitutional rights.

The suit was brought by a prisoner, Kevin T. Singer, who argued that his First Amendment and 14th Amendment rights were violated by the prison’s decision to ban the game and confiscate his books and other materials, including a 96-page handwritten manuscript he had created for the game.

Rather than just being laughed out of court, the lawsuit made its way to a "a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit." Fortunately, they declined to find a constitutional right to play D&D in prison. With the incredibly loose definition of rights pushed by some these days, a contrary opinion probably wouldn't have been that surprising.

Also noteworthy is the idiotic reasoning used by the prison to ban the game in the first place.

Dungeons & Dragons could “foster an inmate’s obsession with escaping from the real-life correctional environment, fostering hostility, violence and escape behavior,” prison officials said in court. That could make it more difficult to rehabilitate prisoners and could endanger public safety, they said.

They actually claimed D&D could lead to "gang behavior." Seriously. The three judge panel basically ruled that even though the prison officials are a pack of morons, they have the ability to regulate what goes on in the jail.

there was no evidence of marauding gangs spurred to their acts of destruction by swinging imaginary mauls, but it ruled nonetheless that the prison’s decision was “rationally related” to legitimate goals of prison administration.

I wonder how much money it cost to figure that out? 

Holy Trumpet Lawsuit

South African soccer fans often make noise with an plastic trumpet instrument called the vuvuzela. (See video of vuvuzelas in action.)  But a religion called Shembe claims it as its "holy instrument." They object to rowdy soccer fans defiling their holy trumpets, and have filed a legal action to stop it from being played at World Cup games. The World Cup organization disagrees, and says that

the noise is an important part of South Africa's footballing culture.

What's a sporting event without spectators finding ways to make loud obnoxious noises? Who will win the battle of the holy trumpet?

Supreme Court Rejects Retroactive Terrorist Rights

Terrorist rights supporters suffered another loss yesterday when the Supreme Court refused to review the dismissal of a case brought by former Guantanamo detainees. According to one of the leading terrorist rights groups, the court ruled that

the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

And they shouldn't be. Foreign terror suspects should not be entitled to U.S. Constitutional rights.

the circuit court found that, even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantanamo had any Constitutional rights.

That should be obvious. After 9/11, the idea that foreign terrorist suspects had Constitutional rights would have been rightly ridiculed as preposterous. Unfortunately, after the immediate impact of the terror attack faded, terrorist rights supporters conducted an effective campaign that led the courts to grant some rights, in violation of longstanding interpretations of the constitution and general practice. But the court shot down this attempt by former detainees to pretend that such "rights" were always present, and had been violated. Here's their attorney.

“It is an awful day for the rule of law and common decency when the Supreme Court lets stand such an inhuman decision.

It's a good day for the rule of law, when the law isn't distorted to give foreign terror suspects rights they never had. And common decency was upheld by not allowing a baseless case against those trying to defend the country under difficult circumstances.

The final word on whether these men had a right not to be tortured or a right to practice their religion free from abuse is that they did not.

Correct. They had no rights, and should have had none.

Future prospective torturers can now draw comfort from this decision.

Let's hope so. It's quite possible we may face another situation where torture is necessary, or something that's called "torture," given its increasingly broad and nearly meaningless definition. If measures later deemed to be "torture" are authorized, those who carry them out shouldn't face legal action based on rule changes after the fact.

Another Terrorist's Family Files Suit

This time against the Kenyan government. I guess they decided the suit wouldn't be possible in U.S. court, so they decide to try to extract some money from Kenya instead. Why Kenya? The Kenyan government arrested Mohamed Abdulmalik in 2007. He was arrested for

his alleged involvement in a 2002 attack of an Israeli-owned Kenyan beach hotel and an unsuccessful attempt to shoot down a plane headed for Israel from the resort of Mombasa.

The Kenyans turned him over to us, and he's been at Guantanamo ever since. The family thinks they should get almost 30 million dollars, based on their allegations of misconduct by the Kenyan police, and the usual claims of "torture" at Guantanamo. This line in the court petition referring to Guantanamo is particularly amusing,

"long and unlawful detention without trial in what is now reputed to be the worst detention facility on earth."

As anyone with a basic grasp of reality is aware, Guantanamo is a paradise compared to numerous detention facilities throughout much of the world. The fact that such a ludicrous characterization is included in the suit tells you all you need to know about its worth. Hopefully it will be quickly dismissed, and the lawyers slapped with court costs for bringing such a frivolous action.

Obama Administration Actually on the Right Side Again

Continuing with my policy of giving Obama credit for the (few) things he gets right, I noticed that the administration is opposing a lawsuit on behalf of two former Saudi detainees that died at Guantanamo. The two committed suicide by hanging themselves back in 2006. Naturally their families think they should be able to cash in by blaming the U.S. government and filing a lawsuit.

The lawyers for the two men allege that torture and brutal conditions at the offshore prison led the men to their deaths.

This follows the usual policy where terrorist suspects make unsubstantiated claims of "torture" and brutality. It only differs in that the suspects are usually alive to make such transparently self-serving claims. It's pretty obvious that the U.S. can't be held responsible for people committing suicide, and that it's impossible to determine with any certainty why they did it. And the actual circumstances are irrelevant, since enemy combatants are not and should not be entitled to file civil lawsuits in U.S. court.

the government says the two men whose deaths were ruled suicide, Yassar Talal al-Zahrani and Salah Ali Abdullah Ahmed al-Salami, were properly detained as enemy combatants and therefore their families' lawsuit is barred from the court system.

The Obama administration sometimes crosses over into the terrorist rights supporter camp, but not this time. The administration gets many things wrong. It's worth noting when it gets something right.

Religious Exceptions & Discrimination

According to the Washington Post, a federal judge has ruled that a Rastafarian baggage screener's rights were violated when he was fired after refusing to cut his hair. The ACLU, which took up his case, maintains that the firing "violated federal discrimination law." Apparently when he was hired, he was told his hair would not be a problem, and was then later ordered to cut it. Let me first say that I am not defending the actions of his employer. The hair obviously came up during his hiring, they decided to hire him anyway, and then decided to change the rules after he was an employee. I'm not sure how that's illegal, but it's clearly not a good practice. I sympathize with his situation.

But why do religious practices deserve special consideration? The ACLU says the baggage screener was discriminated against because of his religion. But every person working there that wasn't allowed to have long hair but may have wanted to, was discriminated against because they don't belong to a religion requiring a particular hair length. By allowing religious exceptions from standard policy, employers are discriminating in favor of certain individuals and against everyone else. If we actually want non-discriminatory workplaces, the answer is to have standard policies and allow no deviations for religious reasons. People whose job requirements conflict with their religious practices should simply seek other jobs where that won't be a problem. Accomodating their religious preferences isn't non-discrimination, it's special preference that discriminates against everyone else who has to follow the standard rules.

The al-Kidd Material Witness Case

A federal appeals court has ruled that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be held personally liable for wrongfully detaining people as material witnesses after 9/11. Abdullah al-Kidd, a native-born U.S. citizen, was held as a material witness in a federal terrorism case for two weeks in 2003. He was never charged, but suffered all sorts of negative personal consequences as a result of his arrest and imprisonment.

I have mixed feelings about this case. On the one  hand I sympathize with al-Kidd. His rights as a U.S. citizen were clearly violated, and he deserves restitution from the government. Although the Bush administration's detention of people as material witnesses was understandable under the circumstances after 9/11, al-Kidd was guilty of nothing and should be compensated for the major disruption to his life. Heavy-handed government actions are typical during crisis situations, but after the crisis has passed, they need to be cleaned up. Unlike its representation of hostile alien terrorists, in this case the ACLU is on the right side, defending the rights of Americans.

On the other hand, allowing lawsuits to personally target government officials because of policies which violated individuals rights is a bad idea. Ashcroft was part of an administration and didn't carry out actions in a vacuum. The entire government is responsible for its policies. The lawsuit should be al-Kidd vs. United States, not al-Kidd vs. Ashcroft. The article doesn't really explain why the court broke from precedent and allowed Ashcroft to be sued personally, other than mentioning "specific statements that Ashcroft himself made." That seems pretty thin.

Another Terrorist Lawsuit

This one in Britain. A convicted Islamist bomb plotter, Salahuddin Amin, is suing the UK government. He claims that he was tortured while in Pakistan, and that therefore the UK is responsible and owes him money. 

At this point it isn't surprising that plenty of people are stupid enough to support such lawsuits, and actually take them seriously rather than laughing them out of court. But the twist in this case is that Amin is receiving "taxpayer-funded legal aid to pursue his case." That's right. Britain is funding the frivolous lawsuit of a convicted terrorist.  The country is literally paying for someone to sue it.  What's next, buying terrorists bomb-making materials?. 

Taser Case in Missouri

The city of Moberly, Missouri just paid a $2.4 million wrongful death settlement to the family of Stanley Harlan, who died last August after being tasered during a traffic stop. Harlan

had just been pulled over in their hometown of Moberly, Mo. As the police car video shows, Harlan got out, wanting to know why he was stopped. One officer checked Harlan's driver's license and called for backup. Three more officers arrived. Police later said Harlan had been speeding - that he wasn't threatening but he refused to cooperate.

He had his  hands up at the time he was tasered, and was shocked three times for a total of 31 seconds. Harlan went into cardiac arrest and died before medical help arrived.

This is another example of blatantly unnecessary taser use by police. It's good that the family won its lawsuit, but that doesn't make up for the death of a son who was basically killed by police for the crime of speeding. Yes the death was accidental, but this case points out yet again the need for far tighter restrictions on taser use. The city of Moberly has suspended their use entirely in the wake of this incident.

More Terrorists Filing Lawsuits

Former members of the Kenyan Mau Mau Rebellion against British rule (1952-60) are suing the British government over their treatment in captivity.

Today, the Kenya Human Rights Commission and the Mau Mau War Veterans Association will file a suit in London against the British Government for human rights abuses and torture. It is expected that the British Government will present a range of legal arguments to stall the case, deny responsibility or refute the allegations. The case could drag on for years.

What the British should do is laugh the suit right out of court. The Mau Mau war was a vicious insurgency, with atrocities a regular feature on both sides. The idea that one side gets to sue the other almost 50 years later is so silly that only a European or U.S. court would even entertain something that crazy. 

Another State Secrets Case

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the Obama administration, and reinstated a lawsuit by five men who claim to have been subjected to "extraordinary rendition." The men are suing a subsidiary of Boeing,

accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.

Without knowing critical details of this case -- such as whether any or all of the five are actually terrorists -- it is difficult to reach any firm conclusions about the court's action. But I have three observations, based on what is in the article.

1. If we are going to use rendition, we need to be extremely selective about it, and do a far better job of keeping it secret in the first place. Any allegations of rendition should simply be denied and all evidence eliminated. No one we plan to ever set free should be considered for rendition at all.

2. If someone is seized by mistake, let alone tortured, they should be well-compensated. They should be given no cause to file a lawsuit.

3. This particular lawsuit appears to be directed at the wrong target. If a company was cooperating with the CIA, it was assisting the U.S. government and should not be liable. Making companies liable for cooperating with the government is idiotic, plain and simple. I don't care what ridiculous legal justification is used.

Assuming any of their allegations are even true, the key question remains: are the plaintiffs terrorists, or were they innocent victims mistakenly seized and mistreated? 

U.S.S. Cole Families to Receive Sudan Money

I've posted about frivolous lawsuits before; this one is the opposite type. The families of naval crewman killed in the U.S.S. Cole bombing sued the government of Sudan for it's complicity in the terrorist attack and were awarded a judgment. Yesterday a federal judge ordered the release of $13.4 million in frozen Sudanese assets, to be distributed in amounts ranging from $200,000 to $1.3 million. The families are also seeking additional damages of $50 million.

I've seen various numbers for the amount of frozen Sudanese assets held by the U.S. But it looks like there might be enough to cover an additional $50 million.

Another Ridiculous Lawsuit

There are ridiculous lawsuits all the time, but this one is particularly egregious. According to the New York Times, property owners in part of New Orleans are suing the government, claiming that

the Army Corps of Engineers amplified the destructive effects of Hurricane Katrina by building a poorly designed navigation channel adjacent to the city.

That's right, people who chose to live in an area extremely prone to flooding blame the Army for their property losses during Hurricane Katrina, and think taxpayers should pay massive compensation. Just how much money are we talking about?

An Army financial projection has concluded there is a reasonable possibility that potential government losses could ultimately range from $10 billion to $100 billion.

What's another 10-100 billion? One of the plantiffs mentioned in the Times lost her home during the storm. She has already received $80,000. But of course that's nowhere near good enough for her. She didn't have flood insurance and her house is total loss. She has to live in an apartment now -- the horror! The government owes her a new house. Nevermind that owning a home in the New Orleans area with no flood insurance is pretty stupid. But then again, why bother? You can just sue the government and try to get everyone else to pay for your losses. 

More Smoker Lawsuits

The Supreme Court rendered another bad 5-4 decision, opening the way for more lawsuits against tobacco companies based on "deceptive business practices" involving the marketing of light and low tar cigarettes.  The usual suspects, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg & Breyer were in the majoirty.

Most tobacco lawsuits are little more than schemes to extort money from the unpopular tobacco companies -- particularly the cases filed by state attornies general.  Many individual cases rely on someone claiming to be such a moron that he/she didn't realize smoking was bad for health, and was tricked by the deceptive advertising of smoking companies.  Amazingly enough, this tactic has paid-off incredibly well.

I'm thinking of buying a Cadillac CTS and then suing GM for deceptive business practices if it doesn't turn me on.  They can pay me out of their bailout money.