SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the what-separation-of-powers department:
The Department of Homeland Security has an update on the entry ban:
The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump's Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.
The NY Post adds:
The ACLU is getting "multiple reports" that federal customs agents are siding with President Trump — and willfully ignoring a Brooklyn federal judge's demand that travelers from seven Muslim countries not be deported from the nation's airports.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Flyingmoose on Monday January 30 2017, @11:19PM
Isn't this when the judge starts throwing the customs agents in jail for contempt of court?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:40AM
A presidential pardon can be issued and eliminate the issue.
And don't forget, while it is customary for pardons to be given at the end of a president's term, it is in no way legally required to wait that long. And given other past precedents Trump has chosen not to follow, pardoning anyone following his rules for violating the laws is well within his capabilities (at least unless or until he is impeached.)
This is actually pretty brilliant though, because it is calling into question the rule of law in the US, something which has been violated for decades if not longer in the US, and which hasn't had a major abuse sufficient to rile up the citizenry since the civil rights movement back in the 60s. Maybe this will finally help American society decide which values it stands behind, and if the current unified states model is really what is best for all its citizens.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:16AM
What are the federal laws concerning officers acting under the colour of the law in the US?
In many countries they could be charged with assault or murder for "doing their duty" under these circumstances. People acting under the colour of the law effectively lose all civil rights while doing so.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:38PM
The US does have a Deprivation of rights under color of law [cornell.edu] law. The biggest benefit is that the individual or individuals who are doing the deprivation cannon hide behind their position. I have long said we need to see more instances of this being used as it seems all too often overlooked.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:09PM
The problem, I am afraid, is that in USA there are two societies, and they are getting away one each other day by day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:20PM
Wouldn't be the first time that a sitting president has commuted the sentence of an underling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby_clemency_controversy [wikipedia.org]
Would probably be the first time of doing it openly though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:05AM
There is a process. The detainees' lawyers have to file for a motion of contempt. But CBP holds enough cards that they can prevent the lawyers from even talking to their clients. So it is a slog. Rest assured they are working on it.
It helps that over the weekend the ACLU got $24 million in donations [washingtonpost.com] - 6 times their normal amount of annual donations. They are gonna need it though, there are a lot more battles to come.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:31AM
Isn't this when judges pass unlawfull rulings they should be disbarred?
Ignorant prick.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:54AM
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the courts cannot compel an organization's employees to act against the orders of their superiors.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:13AM
And the Neuremburg Trials were full of people "just following orders".
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:17PM
Way to Godwin the thread. Besides denial of entry is a long way from gas-chambers and concentrations camps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:52PM
Besides denial of entry is a long way from gas-chambers and concentrations camps.
Unless the denial of entry sends people back to the gas-chambers and concentration camps, as the United States did to Jews fleeing the Nazis. Barrel bombs and chemical weapons are also not a long way from it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:53PM
Are you volunteering to let them crash on your couch? Put up or shut up.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday February 01 2017, @01:02AM
Unintentional Godwin, but can you think of a better precedent showing how "following orders" does not make you exempt from the law?
Besides, the tiny-handed one is Godwinning himself, calling for mandatory registration of a particular religious group, travel bans, and mass deportations. If he wants to avoid comparisons to the man with the silly moustache, perhaps he should stop acting like him.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:45AM
Federal employees have an obligation to follow the law. By not following a judge's lawful orders they are in violation of the law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:58AM
Federal employees have an obligation to follow the law
Everyone does. Who you work for has nothing to do with it, save for special powers granted by certain occupations (eg law enforcement).
By not following a judge's lawful orders they are in violation of the law.
No, your boss is violating the law.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:59PM
If you violate the law, you violate the law. If you ask someone to violate the law, you also violate the law.
Why is that complicated?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:58AM
Do you really believe that? The courts can tell your employers to get stuffed and draft you. The courts can decide if you have been given an illegal order or not and deny you protection if you do obey your employers (unless they are the military and maybe then).
No, you are not a lawyer. And you are not "pretty sure". You actually know otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:31AM
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure
Of course! Sure you are sure! That is because you are completely ignorant of the principles of law. Not just US law, but law in general. Here, pull my finger, before I shoot you through you head because, courts cannot compel me to not do it, if my Corporal (YeeHaa! Superior Orders, dude! ) orders me to do it. Or, we could follow international law, in the abeyance of US or EU law. But every were law does not apply, it has jurisdiction. We will find you, we will hunt you down like Nazis in South America, and you will pay for your craven fealty to the President of Small Hands! You will. I will insert my own little present, before you are executed, you traitor to America!
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:43PM
But the courts can punish individuals who deprived an individual of their rights. Since they are continuing to violate people's rights it might be time to slap the individual agents with Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law [soylentnews.org] charges. Their job does not protect them from this charge as they are held individually liable.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:46PM
That link should be Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law [justice.gov]
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:57PM
Wait, what? That is exactly why they are there!
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:31PM
No, because the customs agents complied with the law, contrary to what the lying media reports.
The same way that the media depicts this as a "Muslim Ban" despite the fact Muslims are still able to enter the United States through over a hundred different countries on Earth, this executive action was:
1) Completely in line with the President's powers in the Executive Branch
2) Obeyed, in conjunction with the Judicial ruling, in completely lawful ways by customs agents following the ruling, who are, by the way, not beholden to Congresspeople, protestors, or the "sentiment" which you believe the Order stands for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:27PM
The judicial stay ordered the immediate release of specific individuals, and some border agents allegedly defied the order by instead choosing to deport those they were instructed to release.
That's not obeying orders.