6 ms·

> Judge Patricia Millett characterized the DOJ’s argument as giving the government the ability to “unilaterally decide to kill U.S. citizens,” according to cove

> 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 ago
This needs to be the top comment before people get all worked up.
- chaps 6y ago
  Nah, 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 ago
    Not 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 ago
They 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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
boulos 6y ago
Good catch. The article’s title is “US can kill its own citizens without review when state secrets are involved, DOJ lawyer argues” which clearly includes the “this is just one lawyer”. The submitter squeezed this into “DOJ Argues: US can kill own citizens without review when state secrets involved”. I’d probably update that to “DOJ Lawyer: ...” which would reduce the confusion.
- atlgator 6y ago
  The distinction is thin. Winning the case on this argument will establish a precedent for future policy.
  - boulos 6y ago
    I’m just replying to the note about the title. However, as the grandparent post notes, “DOJ Argues” makes it sound like the Attorney General / the entire DOJ argues such a thing. “DOJ Lawyer” makes it clear “some lawyer at the DOJ said”. I would certainly agree that winning a case with this argument would establish such a precedent. But again, it’s not clear that “the DOJ” stated this, nor is it (seemingly) an argument that worked.
    - chaps 6y ago
      Serious question -- at the point that it becomes precedential and can be done, effectively willy nilly, what difference does it make if the AG said it? This isn't as if the lawyer just said it in passing, and the lawyer knows full-well that this may become case law. If the DOJ starts using the precedent (which can be argued that they'd be arguing for such a thing), is that when we should be worried? It sounds very much like you're okay with the fact that a DOJ lawyer went in front of a judge and argued this because, "hey, what's the harm?". Just because the judge thinks something is appalling doesn't necessarily mean that they won't rule in favor of the appalling statements/argument.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      It's the DoJ's representative, specifically chosen to speak for the DoJ in this trial.
coolgeek 6y ago
> “DOJ” in this case is the defense attorney I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Here is the first paragraph of the OP (ABA Journal) article: > A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer argued Monday that the United States can kill its own citizens without judicial review when litigation would reveal state secrets. Here is the first paragraph on the CNS article on which the ABA article is based: > Drawing alarm at the D.C. Circuit, a lawyer for the United States argued Monday that the government has the power to kill its citizens without judicial oversight when state secrets are involved. Neither of these suggest that this is the defense attorney's claim. If you want to challenge the Judge's characterization of DOJ's position, feel free to read through their brief and come back with a legitimate argument. Also, a sibling comment suggests that this should be dismissed as the decision of a single DOJ attorney, rather than the DOJ as an institution. There's not a chance in hell that this case isn't being strategized, coordinated and monitored from the highest levels of the DOJ. The idea that this would be the argument of a single, possibly rogue, prosecutor is ludicrous.

dehrmann 6y ago

This needs to be the top comment before people get all worked up.

chaps 6y ago
Nah, 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 ago
  Not 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 ago

They 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.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

boulos 6y ago

Good catch. The article’s title is “US can kill its own citizens without review when state secrets are involved, DOJ lawyer argues” which clearly includes the “this is just one lawyer”. The submitter squeezed this into “DOJ Argues: US can kill own citizens without review when state secrets involved”. I’d probably update that to “DOJ Lawyer: ...” which would reduce the confusion.

atlgator 6y ago
The distinction is thin. Winning the case on this argument will establish a precedent for future policy.
- boulos 6y ago
  I’m just replying to the note about the title. However, as the grandparent post notes, “DOJ Argues” makes it sound like the Attorney General / the entire DOJ argues such a thing. “DOJ Lawyer” makes it clear “some lawyer at the DOJ said”. I would certainly agree that winning a case with this argument would establish such a precedent. But again, it’s not clear that “the DOJ” stated this, nor is it (seemingly) an argument that worked.
  - chaps 6y ago
    Serious question -- at the point that it becomes precedential and can be done, effectively willy nilly, what difference does it make if the AG said it? This isn't as if the lawyer just said it in passing, and the lawyer knows full-well that this may become case law. If the DOJ starts using the precedent (which can be argued that they'd be arguing for such a thing), is that when we should be worried? It sounds very much like you're okay with the fact that a DOJ lawyer went in front of a judge and argued this because, "hey, what's the harm?". Just because the judge thinks something is appalling doesn't necessarily mean that they won't rule in favor of the appalling statements/argument.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    It's the DoJ's representative, specifically chosen to speak for the DoJ in this trial.

coolgeek 6y ago

> “DOJ” in this case is the defense attorney I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Here is the first paragraph of the OP (ABA Journal) article: > A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer argued Monday that the United States can kill its own citizens without judicial review when litigation would reveal state secrets. Here is the first paragraph on the CNS article on which the ABA article is based: > Drawing alarm at the D.C. Circuit, a lawyer for the United States argued Monday that the government has the power to kill its citizens without judicial oversight when state secrets are involved. Neither of these suggest that this is the defense attorney's claim. If you want to challenge the Judge's characterization of DOJ's position, feel free to read through their brief and come back with a legitimate argument. Also, a sibling comment suggests that this should be dismissed as the decision of a single DOJ attorney, rather than the DOJ as an institution. There's not a chance in hell that this case isn't being strategized, coordinated and monitored from the highest levels of the DOJ. The idea that this would be the argument of a single, possibly rogue, prosecutor is ludicrous.