I am not a lawyer, which is why I’m letting myself get away with saying “totally okay” and “can do child slavery.” The previous decisions are a mixture of “evil shit the president does abroad is a political question that courts can’t interfere with” and “people harmed by U.S. agents while not on U.S. soil have no standing to sue in U.S. courts.” I don’t know what horrible thing they’ll say about this kidnapping, but the above cases are the ones I’d expect to be used to grant it a fig leaf for rules and norms purposes.
Look forward to a bunch of news articles explaining this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question
Most recently, courts ruled that it was totally okay for Obama to murder innocent people in Yemen, based on a precedent formed when Bill Clinton got away with bombing a pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan. And then there was the case where the Supreme Court said it was fine for border patrol pigs to murder people. And, finally, the case where they said U.S. companies can do child slavery as long as it’s not here.
I am not a lawyer, which is why I’m letting myself get away with saying “totally okay” and “can do child slavery.” The previous decisions are a mixture of “evil shit the president does abroad is a political question that courts can’t interfere with” and “people harmed by U.S. agents while not on U.S. soil have no standing to sue in U.S. courts.” I don’t know what horrible thing they’ll say about this kidnapping, but the above cases are the ones I’d expect to be used to grant it a fig leaf for rules and norms purposes.
Love how there is no law in the entire world or question that can be asked about a law that is not in some way a Political Question.