13 ms·
DOJ Argues: US can kill own citizens without review when state secrets involved
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rubyist5eva 6y agoConstitution? What's that...?
- Pfhreak 6y agoSame thing it's always been: a tool you can deploy when you want your cause to appear righteous. Both parties believe they are supporting the constitution full throatedly and both ignore it when it is inconvenient. (Or they argue, "what it really says it's...") None of the presidential administrations I've been alive for have particularly cared about upholding it.
- alexmingoia 6y agoIt’s whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
- 1cvmask 6y agoSupreme court decisions have been ignored many times in the past. Enforcement can be selective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
- brighton36 6y agoIf we're not willing to protect our rights, then, this is what we deserve.
- gotem 6y agoInteresting. Wonder if this has ever happened already.
- Pfhreak 6y agoExtrajudicial killings of American citizens by the US? Yes, several times. It's been a fairly regular event in the middle east.
- tick_tock_tick 6y agoObama was very open about killing US citizens so of course it has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki is probably the most famous since two weeks after he had him droned we droned his son (also a US citizen).
- Miner49er 6y agoTrump also killed his daughter. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/seal-american-girl-die-first-trump-era-u-s-military-n714346 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/seal-american-girl-die-fi...
- quiescant_dodo 6y agoThere's at least the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was killed via drone strike authorized by President Obama. Here's a letter then-AG Eric Holder sent to Congress: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/23/us/politics/23holder-drone-lettter.html?_r=0 https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013...
- baybal2 6y agoSome extra details: Not only Alwaki himself was killed, but his wife, son, daughter, brother in law, nephew, and few other certainly non-involved relatives over a period of many years. Strikes, and raids made when US was hunting down his family member killed few dozens more people falsely believed to be his relatives.
- h0l0cube 6y ago> The government sought to dismiss the case, invoking the state secrets privilege because Kareem sought discovery on whether he had been targeted, the process the government used to target him, and whether the United States had attempted to kill him. Seems like a circular argument. Is that to say, he discovered the 'state secret' that he was on a hit list (for no specified reason), and any action taken to kill him is retrospectively justified?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tick_tock_tick 6y agoObama started putting US citizens on the kill list in 2010 and once they started killing them barely anyone complained so it doesn't surprise me they just assume they can keep doing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
- __turbobrew__ 6y agoI’m still baffled how Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize.
- dehrmann 6y agoTo be fair, that was before he ordered the execution of an American citizen without trial.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoIs there a process for revoking the prize?
- Consultant32452 6y agoYes. A certain group of people chat amongst themselves and decide what will give themselves and the award the most prestige. If you want the right kind of people to show up at your cool awards party, you have to give the right kind of person the award. That's not sarcasm, that is literally the process. There's no objective measures or anything.
- ma2rten 6y agoWhy would it matter for the Nobel peace price committee if he killed foreign or US citizens?
- sneak 6y agoThere are generally accepted rules about what constitutes the differences between extrajudicial assassination by the state ("it's not illegal if the president does it"), judiciary-based civilian execution ("capital punishment"), wartime combat that results in death, and plain ol' cold blooded murder between parties not state-sanctioned in any way. I personally don't distinguish much between these (I'm basically in agreement with Einstein's stated views on the matter) but to pretend that our global human society doesn't believe in these distinctions is somewhat silly. The US president can mass murder hundreds of children (Obama did just this) and not be seen as a criminal, even by that group, provided it falls into the correct category listed above.
- JoshTko 6y agoFeels like we've crossed the Rubicon in 2020.
- trynumber9 6y agoThe strikes in question were in June to August 2016. In Idlib. The US government insists there were no US airstrikes in Idlib during that time period, which was the key to their argument for the case's dismissal. The case was dismissed but the DOJ also put forward some awful argument which the judge rightly called out for being ridiculous.
- todipa 6y agoMy guess is that the gov't learned its lesson from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld by not declaring Kareem an enemy combatant...
- stonepresto 6y ago> Judge Patricia Millett characterized the DOJ’s argument as giving the government the ability to “unilaterally decide to kill U.S. citizens,” according to coverage of the argument by Courthouse News Service. “Do you appreciate how extraordinary that proposition is?” “DOJ” in this case is the defense attorney. What a shit job. Regardless, the DOJ is not giving the USG the ability to kill US Persons with no judicial review. Judge Millett’s exasperation should be an example of how preposterous this is. The way this post is titled is misleading and is intended to flame.
- dehrmann 6y agoThis needs to be the top comment before people get all worked up.
- chaps 6y agoNah, it almost definitely shouldn't. The lawyer is representing the DOJ. Period, end of story. The enormous impact of the lawyer's representation on case law is non-trivial to say the least, even it's just one person. This lawyer almost certainly works with DOJ staff who were okay with this argumentation. At what point should we get worked up? Once it becomes case law?
- koheripbal 6y agoNot really because the title is claiming the lawyer said that - which he didn't. The underlying articles merely claim that is what he is implying with his legal argument. Of course none of that is explained, and the reader is left to believe that the DOJ is actually making this argument in court - which they are not.
- xxpor 6y agoThey are in effect, because they're saying he doesn't have standing because he can't prove he's on the list, but he also can't find out if he's on the list because state secrets. Pretty convinent.
- daenz 6y agoCan someone explain to me how the headline matches up with the content? >The government sought to dismiss the case, invoking the state secrets privilege because Kareem sought discovery on whether he had been targeted, the process the government used to target him, and whether the United States had attempted to kill him. A federal judge agreed with the government. The involvement of state secrets is what is preventing discovery of whether or you were targeted by the government, not whether or not they are allowed to kill you. This seems very different from the government provably killing someone, and then claiming "state secrets" as a defense for being allowed to do it. True, it may not be provable that you were targeted if "state secrets" prevents evidence from coming to light, but this is orthogonal to whether or not killing you is legally allowed, which is what the headline is suggesting.
- ghayes 6y agoI think the issue is that the government is arguing that you don’t have standing if you can’t prove you’re on the list and state secrets prevents you from knowing if you’re on the list. It would be interesting to see when and where you think judicial review should arise in such a case?
- tedivm 6y agoIf the government makes secret kills lists to murder US citizens, and the courts dismiss any lawsuits about this because the secret kill lists are secret, then it means the government can add anyone they want to the kill list with no repercussions or oversight.
- daenz 6y agoIf it was legally allowed, there would be no reason to hide the lists and cover up the process. If there existed other evidence, outside of states secrets, that proved the actions, then there absolutely would be a valid case.
- pm90 6y agoThe parent did not comment on the legality of the action but on whether the Government could execute on that action “without consequences or repercussions”. Arguing about the legality is a straw man argument, when the discussion is about what actions the Government can get away with (regardless of legality).
- darig 6y agoCovering their asses so they can claim that knowledge that the US did nothing to contain COVID-19 is a state secret.
- dukeofdoom 6y agoSeems like its a standard Seth Rich would fall under.
- ageofwant 6y agoThe world have witnessed the decline of the American hegemony over the last few years, and especially during 2020. The 'gap' between American life and say, Chinese life, for the average citizen has narrowed significantly. Assuming the current trend continues, I'm not sure that at some time in the future it would be a toss-up whether the one or the other provides a better or worse life for the average Joe or Bao.
- Chris2048 6y agoJoe or Bao? Isn't "Bao" a dumpling?
- momothereal 6y agoIt's both a surname and can mean other things (mostly depends on tones). Bāo and Bào are surnames. The "bao" you're thinking of is short for bāo zi.
- Chris2048 6y agoIf Bāo and Bào are surnames, then it isn't similar to the forename "Joe"?
- momothereal 6y agoYou're technically right, but the comparison isn't completely far fetched considering: * Chinese surnames are monosyllabic, and given names are disyllabic. It'd be more awkward to say "average Joe or Xiùyīng". * Both Chinese given names and surnames are usually "real words". Just like how "Joe" is a descendant of the Hebrew "Yohanan" meaning "Graced by God", or even the many English given names that are real words: Carol, Eve, Jade, etc. It's just more common in Chinese names. * Given names are rarely used by themselves (much less than in Latin languages).
- redis_mlc 6y agoWhat you said is totally false: 1) China is facing a major famine, and millions could die in the next couple of years. Many farmers cannot afford to replant. 2) CCP officials, including Xi, have relocated family members to Canada and Australia because of expected political retaliation if they remain in China. 3) The "hegemony" you talk about is stealing from American capital markets to bribe BRI vassal states. We'll see how long that lasts. But hey, if you want to buy a one-way ticket to China, be my guest.
- david-cako 6y agoput up the rock
- trynumber9 6y agoThe incidents described occurred in Idlib, Syria between June 2016 to August 2016. This was contemporaneous with the US effort to support the Syrian Kurds around Raqqa. But Idlib is quite far away. Secondly, Airwars.org does not show US strikes in that area and the US insists coalition forces in general did not have any air strikes at Idlib during the time in question. Finally, I do not find the title to be a fair summary of their argument for dismissal: >Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this suit. Plaintiff alleges that he was in the vicinity of five near-misses in Syria—a nation with an ongoing civil war. But he alleges no facts specifically linking the United States to those attacks. The most he offers is an unsupported assertion that one attack involved a type of missile used by the United States, among other countries. And he likewise fails to plausibly allege that any of these attacks, even if attributable to the United States, actually targeted him.
- CapricornNoble 6y agoThat's a pretty sound technical argument, sadly. My understanding is that Idlib is mostly where the Russian and Syrian Air Forces were bombing the Turkish-backed jihadis. I wonder if the Turkish Air Force (largely equipped with US ordnance on US-made F-16s) was flying sorties in the region as well?
- kingofpandora 6y agoThe Turkish Airforce would have been supporting the groups operating in Idlib (of course, if it was the TAF, they may have simply made a mistake).
- CapricornNoble 6y agoYes, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were "friendly fire" incidents between the jihadis and their covert air support provider.
- hda2 6y agoI came to this realization a while ago: Without fail, one way or another, the shit US dishes to non-US citizens will eventually find its way back to US citizens. If US citizens shrug when their government does bad things to other people, they better be prepared to also shrug when their government decides to do the same to them. Murder-without-trial and all.
- brink 6y agoI know this is an unpopular opinion and I'm willing to sacrifice karma for saying this, but I see it the same way to with pro-choice people too. If they're willing to kill off their unborn because they're unwanted, how far do you really think they'll go for you? But it goes beyond that. It's not like pro-lifers are complete angels either. All humanity in general just kind of sucks, tbh. And I know that includes me.
- foogazi 6y ago> If they're willing to kill off their unborn because they're unwanted Who’s they? Has been happening since the beginning of time - and here we are. Happens in the most populous nations on earth, and in the richest countries. It happens naturally every day. Honestly, “these are not the droids you are looking for”
- kolinko 6y agoSlippery slope fallacy
- eunos 6y agoI've heard the term is Foucault boomerang https://dariolorenzo.medium.com/foucaults-boomerang-how-tactics-of-repression-from-abroad-have-found-their-way-home-49c03ba7c9e4 https://dariolorenzo.medium.com/foucaults-boomerang-how-tact...
- Teknoman117 6y agouh ... what?
- zug_zug 6y ago> In its appellate brief, the government argued that Kareem lacked standing because he makes an unsupported assertion about being targeted in a war zone. This is odd to me. I guess in my mind it goes without saying that the government should be required to name all individuals it's trying to kill, presumably to allow them to surrender themselves for trial. I get in combat this may not be practical, but it sounds like this individual identifies as a journalist (and the fact that he's appealing to the court system). Perhaps stating the obvious again, I think the idea that the individual should have to prove to the government that he's on a kill list, when the government has access to the kill list, is a bothersome mentality.
- bilekas 6y agoThe original case which was agreed with by the supreme court does have valid points. A warzone, regardless of if you believe in the war or not, is still a warzone. I don't like how the defense attorneys are trying to say its the same if someone was in a parking lot in the US or in Syria. Maybe I'm missing something, but it's just not the same.
- greg7mdp 6y agoThis is causing outrage because it is US citizens who are killed without review, but I guess it is fine when the US is killing non-citizens, right?
- kazinator 6y agoHey, can that be made circular? The state killing someone randomly without any cause or reason will necessarily have to be a state secret so ... state secret is always involved!
- aqme28 6y agoIf they can kill a class of people without review, then it doesn't actually matter if state secrets are involved. The government can claim that there are state secrets whenever they feel like it if there isn't review. So really, this says that the US can kill its own citizens without review full stop.
- SecurityMinded 6y agoSo much of a misleading title. If a US citizen is entering the war zone, in their own volition what do they expect? Stop the war because there is a US citizen there ? If you are a reporter, your chances of getting killed in a battle by a stray bullet is much biggger than getting hit by a coordinated US attack. And if you do not want to take that risk, get the hell out. And you want US to disclose the military attack plans because of your recklessness. Well, I am sorry for you but you have to bear the consequences of your own decisions. Nobody will cater to your pompous ass claims.
- sschueller 6y agoAs a foreigner I find this so repulsive. Why would it be OK for the US to kill anyone? "We are the good guys, we only kill bad people which we have decided are bad". But then at the same time the US constantly points at Russia or Iran accusing them of assassinations.