Supergirl had an excellent premier, with homages to the 1978 Superman, Super-Friends, and honoring past actors who wore the House of El’s iconic symbol of hope. Bravo.
The episode left me wondering…has the government known all along that Kara was from another planet? Just how did Ma and Pa Danvers forge documents creating an identity for a teenager from another planet? Did the government assist with a cover-up of alien life? How did Kara have proof of vaccinations to attend public school?
While these questions highlight that lawyers can suck the fun out of life, they pose interesting issues.
First things first: Kara’s mother Alura In-Ze was a Judge. Rock on.
Kara’s foster parents would have had a far easier time with establishing a life for Kara with the aid of the government. It is unlikely Kara’s mom packed a birth certificate before Krypton exploded, so the Federal government assisting in creating a human identity for Kara would remove a lot of challenges. If not, it is highly likely Kara’s foster parents engaged in computer fraud and identity theft in order to create a new life for their adopted daughter. This would give new meaning to the term “illegal alien.”
The Federal Government (and specifically INS) could have given Kara top-secret refugee status. The law does not currently address a child escaping an exploding planet, but there is no doubt she is a refugee. Moreover, the government would not want to announce to the public the existence of aliens, given the societal and political backlash that would follow.
Supergirl does not exist in the cinematic world of Man of Steel, so the planet has not endured the trillions of dollars of damage from the battle with General Zod. This version of Superman might have the credibility from having saved the Earth multiple times for years, so asking the Government for a “favor” in creating an identity for his refugee cousin would not be asking for much.
Kara’s first act of heroism was saving a plane from crashing. The news coverage is overall positive, but there is criticism calling her a “human wrecking ball.”
Supergirl had no duty to rescue the crashing plane. If she had not taken any action, the plane would have crashed either in or around the city. There would have been 100% loss of life on the plane and mass casualties on the ground, especially if the plane crashed in a residential neighborhood.
Kara’s duty after beginning to rescue the plane was not to put it in a worse situation. She avoided colliding with the bridge, which would have resulted in loss of life and catastrophic property damage. Moreover, she made a successful water landing, thus avoiding injuring people on the ground (there is the matter of jet fuel in water, thus the Coast Guard would be busy with environmental clean-up, but that is better than hitting a building). Whether or not the flight attendants instructed passengers to put on lifejackets before exiting the plane is unknown, but that would fall on the airline’s duty as a common carrier, not Kara.
The more interesting question is whether or not the Government could, or should, keep secret there are alien criminals with super powers roaming the United States, with unknown plans, and hostile intentions towards Earth. Regardless of that answer, I look forward to the rest of the season.
It’s probably safe to say that everyone has been bullied at one time or another in their life. Whether it was in elementary school, high school or at your place of work, someone has pushed you around, berated you, stole your lunch money, made fun of you or called you names. Nationally, more than 13 million American children will be bullied, making it the most common form of violence young people experience. Well, as this October is Anti-Bullying Month and the 30th Anniversary of Back to the Future, the moon and stars have aligned perfectly and provided us with an opportunity to revisit Biff’s Bad Bullying Behavior.
Everyone remembers the movie Back to the Future, right? (How could you not??)
Quick synopsis- In attempt to evade the evil Libyan rebels seeking return of their plutonium from eccentric scientist Dr. Emmett “Doc” Brown, who used the plutonium to power the flux capacitor in his time-traveling DeLorean instead of building them a bomb.
Marty McFly jumps into the Delorean and upon reaching a speed of 88 mph (in the Puente Hills mall parking lot), 1.21 jigawatts of power sends Marty and the car back in time to November 5, 1955- the date parents’ first met. Marty then meets his future parents in high school and accidentally becomes his mother’s romantic interest. In an ensuing caper of errors, Marty must repair the damage to history by causing his parents-to-be to fall in love, and with the help of Doc Brown and find a way to return to 1985.
While helping his to-be father, George McFly, try to woo his to be mother in 1955, Marty inadvertently witnesses several occasions of George being verbally and physically abused by the school bully, Biff Tannen. The most memorable of which is:
This scene, despite Crispin Glover’s adorably dorky demeanor, makes everyone cringe and sink down in their seats. And if you’re like me, it makes you want to jump up and give Biff a swift kick to the boys (if you know what I mean.) However, what is sad is that George takes the knocking on his head, slap and verbal abuse from Biff with a smile and even joins in the laughter when Biff’s friend makes fun of Marty’s “life preserver” jacket. So, would Biff face any repercussions for his bullying behavior in 2015?
Well, what is bullying anyway?
“Bullying” is defined as any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in writing or by means of an electronic act, and including one or more acts committed by a pupil or group of pupils, directed toward one or more pupils that has or can be reasonably predicted to have the effect of one or more of the following: (A) Placing a reasonable pupil or pupils in fear of harm to that pupil’s or those pupils’ person or property; (B) Causing a reasonable pupil to experience a substantially detrimental effect on his or her physical or mental health; (C) Causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial interference with his or her academic performance; (D) Causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial interference with his or her ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school. Cal. Educ. Code § 48900.
Bullying is different from harassment because the “bully” is not usually just one person with a grudge but is often a group of schoolmates, or people who were once thought of as friends. Bullying in the modern era is not just a message written on the men’s room wall “for a good time call…”, or name-calling in the schoolyard. Bullying, in the age of social media, is often fairly anonymous and because of the anonymity, typically more vicious and more likely to reach a wider audience, thereby, creating more bullies.
In November 1955, when George and Biff were in high school, bullying existed (obviously), but not much was done by the parents or the schools to deter this kind of behavior. In fact, if you were being bullied, you were likely to be told to turn the other cheek or “man up” and defend yourself (enter the Karate Kid).
However, in the wake of several high-profile suicides among students who were chronically bullied, and after two students, who said they were constantly bullied, attacked and opened fire on their fellow students at Columbine High School in 1999, various states started passing laws to stop bullying behavior among students. In the aftermath of the school shooting and in reaction to a local bullying-related suicide in the state, Georgia became the first state to pass bullying legislation and California followed shortly thereafter. In 2011, California passed the Safe Place to Learn Act located in the California Education Code §234(b) which provides that all students have a right to attend school without discrimination, harassment, violence, intimidation, and bullying and applies to students either at school, at a school function or in transit to or from school. Since then, there have been numerous amendments, revisions and new laws added to the books in California aimed at preventing bullying.
Now, how do these bullying laws affect Biff at all? Well, the answer is, they don’t…(wait for it)…yet. The scene shown above was off campus and while Biff is most definitely committing battery- willful force or violence used against another person, but the likelihood that George is going to go to the police and file a police report is slim to none and slim just left the bar.
Since Biff is basically a giant meathead, we assume that his bullying knows no bounds and would occur on campus and off. In those instances where he is bullying anyone on campus, or in transit to and from campus, the above-mentioned legislation would most definitely get Biff suspended, and eventually, expelled. Moreover, the “Under the Sea” dance is a school function, which would also fall under the above legislation. In addition to the many criminal charges Biff racks up while attempting to rape Lorraine in the car at the dance, Biff also continues his bullying of George and in doing so, almost breaks his arm.
While no one ever saw what happened, except Marty and Lorraine, schools today would have every inch of that parking lot under video surveillance, thus, enabling them to catch Biff in the act of yet more bullying. (With the amount of bullying by Biff just shown during the three days of this movie, I don’t see Biff even graduating from Hill Valley High School.)
Just to throw insult on injury- what does almost every human being on earth have in 2015? A cell phone! If this scenario were to occur today, we all know that Biff, his friends and all of those patrons at the diner would all have their cell phones out taking pictures and videoing George getting bullied by Biff. (Any video would also likely catch that Biff is having George do his work for him, which would lead to other disciplinary issues at school, but one issue at a time.) None of these people videoing the scene would bother to defend George, but all of these videos would wind up on Facebook, You Tube and other social media, leading to George getting ridiculed by even more people at school the next day. Moreover, why waste time bullying someone face to face, when you can do it all day on your cell phone or computer. We all know Biff would be mercilessly bullying George on any social media forum possible (as long as he knows how to work modern technology).
Luckily, thanks to the love of the internet and the cell phone, Biff Tannen and all of those lookie-loos sharing the video could be punished as well. Recently, Assembly Member Christina Garcia proposed AB 881, which becomes a law on January 1, 2015 and centers on protecting children from cyber bullying and reaches beyond the schoolyard to stop bullying wherever it occurs. Previous legislation was written before the explosive growth of electronic devices and instant communication, so AB 881 clarified that an “electronic act” means the creation OR transmission of any communication. This means kids who participate in cyberbullying can now be suspended for cyberbullying even if they were not the one who originated the document. (This bill was supported by the Junior League Long Beach, among others.)
Based on the current laws of California, and those effective in January 2016, Biff Tannen would be suspended…a lot, and most likely, expelled, for his bullying behavior.
Lessons learned here: Justice is sweet. High School sucks. Don’t be a bully, because you could end up in a pile of …
The new Sam Wilson Captain America #1 by Nick Spencer has Captain America sever ties with SHIELD and the Government. Cap is now a free agent fighting for those who ask for help (well, reasonable requests, not flying into sporting events or fighting over cable bills).
Body armor for sidekicks and private jets cost money. Cap stated he was setting up crowdfunding in order to fund his hero activities like a political campaign. Would it be legal to crowdfund crime fighting?
The law does not favor vigilantism. Society does not want people taking the law into their own hands. Starting a crowdfunding campaign to do something illegal is problematic at best and a conspiracy at worst.
Captain America #1 puts two different forms of vigilantism into conflict with Sam Wilson fighting a terrorist-vigilante-border-patrol militia group. It should be noted that boarder security and combating illegal immigration are exclusively Federal responsibilities.
The “Sons of the Serpent” are a terrorist organization engaging in illegal vigilante boarder patrol activities. Their goal was to kill those entering the United States illegally. Captain America goes to Arizona to investigate a missing person who was either killed or kidnapped by the Sons of the Serpent, resulting in a confrontation.
Murder in the name of boarder security is just plain illegal. There is absolutely no argument terrorists could make that they are acting on behalf of the United States. Captain America has a strong argument that his actions were in the defense of others to stop terrorists, because a reasonable person would believe physical force was immediately necessary to protect those illegally crossing the border from being murdered by terrorists in costumes with high-powered weapons. A.R.S. § 13-404.
The issue of whether Captain America can run a Super Pack to crowdfund his super-hero activities presents some funky legal issues. Being a super-hero is not like the Red Cross responding to a natural disaster, but actively seeking out criminals to engage in law enforcement activities. No one can crowdfund an illegal activity. There is a strong argument that raising money to engage in super-hero activity would violate RICO. There is also a chance that if Cap is fighting the government, his crowdfunding is actually a form of insurrection. As such, everyone supporting it would be part of a vast conspiracy.
Should Captain America fight terrorists? Yes. Protecting the poor, huddled masses, from terrorists is something Americans proudly do (responding to illegal border crossings is a different issue for the government, but one that does NOT involve murder by private citizens).
Can Captain America raise money like a political action committee for that purpose? No, but he could if it was for his legal defense or to aid those who were the victims of super-villains, then the crowdfunding would be for a legitimate purpose that would not be vigilantism.
It was a privileged to have been nominated for best podcast for the third annual Geekie Awards. It was a true honor that so many people work so hard for us in our Geekie campaign. Words cannot express how thankful I am for everyone.
I am extremely proud of our Geekie Awards campaign. Our supporting blog post had over 5,000 views and was shared extensively. I credit this to the superb skills of Tessa Lange, who played Thor in our video. Tessa is a tap-dancing, kick-boxing, artist, and actress. There is no question she is a Renaissance woman who will go far in her career.
I especially want to thank Gerry O’Brien, a New York political consultant, who was our un-official campaign manager. Gerry gave us a lot of excellent advice on our campaign. I credit our strong campaign to his help.
I am in awe of the fact that friends since elementary school voted daily; friends from my seventh grade comic book club campaigned on social media for us; youth from scouts and high school mock trial loyally voted; lawyers, judges, computer forensic experts rallied to our cause; and even the wonderful family I dog-sit for voted daily for us.
It is extremely easy for people to respond with a request for an online vote with silence. Our fans, family, and friends rallied for us and I will never forget it. There are no words to convey how grateful I am from such love. While we might not have gone home with that ray gun, I feel truly blessed from everyone who stood with us.
A Show for Every Geek
The fact two lawyers discussing property rights over Thor’s Hammer and where Iron Man should sue Ant-Man truly showed that Geekie Awards is for everyone who considers themselves a geek.
I broke tradition and did not wear a bow tie to the event. I instead dressed as the 13th Doctor (I count the War Doctor as the Doctor) and my friend Megan went as Clara.
I really enjoyed seeing Ernie Hudson present Michael C. Gross the Lifetime Achievement Award. The man has had an amazing career from National Lampoon to Ghostbusters. It was also awesome to see Gross give Hudson a bag of Twinkies.
Kevin Smith was very deserving of the new Geek Pioneer Award from all of his experience from movie-making to podcasting. It was also great to see how much he loved the one-cut fight scene in Daredevil.
The nominees for best podcast visited together on both nights. The team from Hadron Gospel Hour and I were at last call for two different bars after the show, discussing history, the best James Bond car chases, and Doctor Who. It was amazing to be nominated with such great Geeks.
None of this would have been possible without the vision of Kristen Nedopak. Kristen’s contribution to geekdom highlights we are a community that likes to come together to recognize those who invent, create, and inspire. I believe the greats such as Jack Kirby, Leonard Nimoy, and Ray Harryhausen would be very proud of how Kristen has brought geeks together. We all owe you a debt for creating this opportunity for all of us.
The Two-Night Format
I loved the Geekie Awards new two-night format. The first night focused on a pre-party for the nominees. This was a fantastic opportunity for attendees to network, have red carpet interviews, and enjoy a festival atmosphere.
It was great to finally meet Emily and Peter from Wrong Button, and Josh Silverman from Constantly Calibrating.
I was thrilled to finally meet so many people in person after interacting with them on Twitter since the first Geekie Awards. Moreover, the first night allowed for honorees to meet each other and enjoy being a community. This added to the experience, because there is literally so much happening in a whirlwind that two nights allowed honorees to maximize the experience. Furthermore, the photo booth was an excellent touch.
The awards show was nicely done. The “swag” for attendees included computer sleeves celebrating the time travel theme Doctor Who,Back to the Future, and Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. Other takeaways included a cool new lapel pin with The Geekie Awards logo and hacky sack.
One of the challenges of the evening were long lines for the red carpet interviews. This was minimized for those who had interviews the night before. Possible ways to improve this for both honorees and press in the future would be to have any of the following:
A Line Marshal to ensure the steady flow of live interviews, so everyone has their moment to shine;
Have additional press areas for recorded interviews, so more interviews can be held concurrently; and
Have a press area for recorded interviews to be scheduled earlier in the day, so there is no rush due to the show opening.
If the Geekie Awards evolves into a festival, this would expand the opportunities for interviews to be held over a longer period of time.
Ways to Enhance the Experience
The Geekie Awards continues to make new improvements each year. The new venue and two-night format really improved the experience from the first two years.
The first Geekie Awards had activities the attendees could interact with for photos, such as the bridge of the Enterprise-D and R2-D2, for examples. People posed for photos with the TARDIS this year. Bringing in similar exhibits would give people the opportunity to have fun and take home memories that make great photos. Having more interactive elements would likely be popular for attendees.
The Geekies has always had cosplayers interacting with the audience and posing for photos. This is a ton of fun and something that should continue.
The categories at the Geekies have continued to develop each year. I would not be surprised if the podcast category became scripted and un-scripted categories in the future, similar to how the video categories sub-divided. There are differences in producing a scripted story that is told on a regular basis and a discussion show exploring different topics. Given the fact there were 60 entries this year, this category could divide to expand the opportunity for recognition.
To the Future
It was an honor being nominated for Best Podcast. It was heartwarming to have so many people seek me out to say hello from the creators’ party to the after party. I am in awe of everyone who helped us, from old high school classmates sending supportive notes, to friends calling before the show to wish us luck. This is an experience I shall not forget.
Now it is time to focus on the future. 2015 has been amazing from San Diego Comic Con to The Geekie Awards, and we look forward to the road ahead.
Brian Michael Bendis new Invincible Iron Man #1 adds a new taboo topic for a first date: Developing a cure to the mutant gene. This immediately raises the issue it would become a law, injecting politics into a date (another taboo). Dr. Amara Perera admits the horror of her cure and that it would be like trying to cure Judaism (adding religion into a first date, another taboo). Since this date is with Tony Stark, sex is eluded to, completing the dating no-no topic discussions.
Dating best practices aside, would it be legal to force people to take a cure for the mutant gene? The answer is surprisingly maybe…
Governments have a rational interest in protecting the public health. This is a legitimate police power.
Puberty is hard enough, so turning into an armadillo or flying lizard is just adding insult to teenage injury. Furthermore, governments have an interest in protecting students (and the public) from dangers, such as kids who cannot control deadly lasers shooting out of their eyes.
Is there any precedent that the government could use to justify having people take a “cure” to the mutant gene?
Many states require mandatory vaccinations to attend public schools. While parents might insist they have a God-given right based on pseudo-science for their children to contract Polio and kill a generation of Americans, this is not the majority view (Exhibit A is we have not had a Polio epidemic thanks to vaccinations).
The state of West Virginia requires children entering a state-regulated school to produce a certificate that they have been immunized against chickenpox, hepatitis B, measles, meningitis, mumps, diphtheria, polio, rubella, tetanus and whooping cough. W. Va. Code § 16-3-4(b). New York takes it to another level and places the responsibility on the parents that any child born after January 1, 1994 be immunized against poliomyelitis, mumps, measles, diphtheria, rubella, varicella, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pertussis, tetanus, pneumococcal disease, and hepatitis B. NY CLS Pub Health § 2164(a).
States have a facially strong argument that immunizing children against the mutant gene in order to attend public schools is for public safety. The United States Supreme Court has held since 1905 that mandatory vaccinations are within the State’s police power. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11. We do not want the public dying horrible deaths from diseases, thus require vaccines.
There is a giant problem with the argument for forcing children to be vaccinated against the mutant gene in order to attend school: it is based on race and eugenics, not preventing the spread of disease. It is one thing for everyone student to be vaccinated, it is another to target an entire race because of their DNA.
Vaccination cases have not been held to the strict scrutiny standard. From Jacobson in 1905, which addressed people over age twenty-one being required to be vaccinated against small pox or be criminally prosecuted, to vaccinating children in New York who attend public school, all of these cases were decided within a State’s police power. Phillips v. City of New York (2d Cir. 2015) 775 F.3d 538, 542, fn. 5.
Race based legislation is held to strict scrutiny. If racial classifications are explicit, there is no requirement to analyze the legislative purpose of the law. However, facially neutral laws warrant strict scrutiny when motivated by racial purpose or unexplainable on grounds other than race. Hunt v Cromartie (1999) 526 US 541.
Specifically requiring children with the mutant gene arguably could subject the law to strict scrutiny, because the law would be targeted specifically at children with mutant DNA and not the public as a whole. While mandatory vaccinations are not targeted to specific racial groups, vaccinating children with mutant DNA would be on race (Homo Superior, opposed to Homo Sapien).
Strict scrutiny analysis examines the 1) character of classification in question; 2) individual interests affected by classification; and 3) governmental interests asserted in support of classification.
As to the first point, the classification is for anyone with mutant DNA; 2) the individual interests are that the individual is forced to take medication in order they do not mutate as they get older; and 3) the government interest is to ensure there are not super-powered individuals endangering the public (namely other students in public schools).
There is a good chance mutant vaccinations could NOT survive strict scrutiny, but there is no question the vaccination is not to stop the spread of disease, but the speculative injury to students in the future if their classmates can breathe fire, spit venom, or throw a bus into the pool.
If the “cure” were expanded to adults who had already mutated, that would be different than the State interest in protecting the public as a legitimate police power. It would be the equivalent of gun confiscation of law-abiding citizens or bringing back Prohibition in order to stop drunk driving. Just because someone had the ability to fly, does not mean they will use for ill intent.
In a world with mutants, those with powers might be viewed as those who are athletes or excel from other gifts. There is no way to “equalize” the population so everyone is the same, only that they have the same opportunities to advance. Whether or not it would be legal to impose a cure to the mutant gene might one day be decided by a fictional court, but unlikely one in the real world.
Visa issues are unfortunately prevalent in the eSports industry, as international travel is required for most top level players.
Most recently, EHOME, a team from China, had to be replaced at the ESL One tournament in New York for failing to obtain a Visa to attend the tournament.
EHOME qualified for ESL One on September 23, 2015, but due to a public holiday in China, the US embassy was closed September 26th, 27th, 28th, and 30th.
Since ESL One was scheduled for the weekend of October 3rd, that left EHOME three days to obtain the requisite visas to attend the tournament. However, several team members failed to obtain the necessary documentation in that limited timeframe.
The EHOME players weren’t the only individuals to have difficulty obtaining visas lately to partake in eSports tournaments in the U.S. lately. On September 30th, William “Leffen” Hjelte, a professional Smash Bros player from Sweden, was denied entry into the U.S. to attend a major tournament. The specific facts involved in his situation are unclear, although Leffen indicated that there was an issue being sponsored by a U.S. business (his team) and utilizing the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, as opposed to obtaining a visa.
Although it may be surprising, according to the Federal Government, professional video game players are also professional athletes, at least as far as immigration is concerned. Foreign players may apply for the P-1A visa, which the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services specifies is for individuals which “are coming to the U.S. temporarily to perform at a specific athletic competition as an athlete, individually or as part of a group or team, at an internationally recognized level of performance.”
Despite allowing eSports players to obtain P-1A visas, the visa process, in general, is notoriously complex. For example, according to the USCIS, a requirement to obtain a P-1A visa is to show documentation of at least two of the following:
Evidence of having participated to a significant extent in a prior season with a major United States sports league
Evidence of having participated to a significant extent in international competition with a national team
Evidence of having participated to a significant extent in a prior season for a US College or university in intercollegiate competition
A written statement from an official of a major US sports league or an official of the governing body of the sport which details how the player or their team is internationally recognized
A written statement from a member of the sports media or a recognized expert in the sport which details how the player or their team is internationally recognized
Evidence that the player or their team is ranked, if the sport has international rankings
Evidence that the player or their team has received a significant honor or award in the sport.
Given that this visa initially catered to the professional sports industry, it is easy to see how many of these requirements can be met. However, depending on the particular game, eSports teams and players cannot easily show evidence of these categories. For instance, if a player plays a game which is not team based, yet is a member of an international team, and this game does not have a professional league in the United States but occasional professional tournaments, which of the above categories could they possibly provide evidence of? Seemingly, the only available methods would be the multiple written statements, or evidence of international rankings, assuming such rankings exist. Yet, the difficulty continues, because as a nascent professional industry, which individuals would satisfy the statement requirements? Unfortunately at this time, there are not many clear answers.
Although the visa process may still be complex, at least the U.S. has recognized that eSports players are athletes for immigration purposes. However, for the eSports industry at large, immigration is a problem. Most of the major eSports tournaments do not take place in the U.S., and many countries have not yet clarified their immigration stance for eSports players. As the eSports industry grows in popularity and revenue worldwide, these immigration issues should be addressed both domestically and abroad.
The Agents of SHIELD episode “The Purpose in the Machine,” had a lot of positive things going for it, from using steampunk technology with an Asgardian to figure out how the Kree monolith operated, to Agent May spending quality time with her dad.
The only way it could have been better, would have been leaving Simmons on that Kree Moon for a few more episodes. This was a great opportunity to have introduced Captain Mar-Vell as an ally, or Una treating Simmons, or a Peter Quill cameo. Sadly, none of those things were not meant to be. Let’s see what the flashbacks hold for us.
The problem with the episode is Lance Hunter being sent out to kill Grant Ward. SHIELD is a rogue government agency, not following the Constitution, not taking orders from the President, and doing whatever they see fit. This pattern of behavior is not that dissimilar from the Red Skull going rogue with HYDRA from Germany.
A former secret agent deciding to kill a terrorist is still murder, even if the intended victim is a horrible human being. We have a pesky Constitution that specifically prohibits people being deprived of their life without due process of law. Director Coulson deciding to have Ward killed is simply murder and everyone participating is part of the conspiracy.
SHIELD acted as an agency with law enforcement, military, and espionage missions before the HYDRA coup. Continuing to blend law enforcement and national defense is highly problematic, because law enforcement in the United States does not execute kill orders from the President. The mission of law enforcement is to arrest with specific rules on when lethal force can used.
Military operations are inherently different. In the War on Terror, Congress has authorized the use of force in combating terrorists groups. President Obama has used drones executing his “kill list,” which has included Americans operating with terrorists. These individuals are no doubt traitors who took up arms against the United States in foreign counties. The military does not conduct law enforcement; it wages war. Those who take up arms against the United States overseas should not be surprised to have war waged against them.
We have a very different situation in the fictional world of Agents of SHIELD. Director Coulson has no legal authority to order any missions, let alone to decide to kill people. Moreover, the FBI and CIA would both be monitoring for HYDRA communications to counter terrorism at home or abroad. The mission of the FBI would be to stop HYDRA, but the goal would be to arrest those involved and use lethal force if met with lethal force.
It would not be farfetched in this imaginary world to see Congress authorize the military to hunt down HYDRA on US soil, just like Congress did against the Klan during President Grant’s administration. General Talbot might have such a mandate, but it is not clear to what extent.
Director Coulson deciding to kill a US Citizen who should be prosecuted for murdering a US Senator, multiple military service personnel, treason, terrorism, and a long list of other crimes, really makes him no better than Grant Ward. If SHIELD is successful, there really is no going back from the fact that Coulson, Hunter, and May, have more in common with the Punisher than Captain America.
