4 ms·

Can someone explain to me how the headline matches up with the content? >The government sought to dismiss the case, invoking the state secrets privilege becaus

by daenz 6y ago

Can 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 ago
I 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 ago
If 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    The 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).
    - daenz 6y ago
      The government "can" do a lot of things. They "can" drone your home right now if they wanted to. The only thing that matters is if it is legal or not. Enumerating all of the things within the capabilities of the government is a meaningless exercise.
      - pm90 6y ago
        > They "can" drone your home right now if they wanted to. It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. Please make better arguments. You seem to be making deliberate bad faith arguments and nobody benefits from engaging in that kind of discourse.
        daenz 6y ago
        >It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. I didn't say "downtown San Francisco", I said "your home." How would you prove that blew up your home? If you can't prove it, then they got away with it. My point is that when we open up the definition of "can" in this headline to mean "things the government can do and get away with", then it becomes meaningless if it's not bounded by the legality of those things. There are a boundless number of things, including assassinations, framings, etc etc, that the government "can" do and get away with. So the only definition of "can" worth discussing, since the headline is intentionally vague about what "can" means, is whether or not it is legal to do the things described.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
- rayiner 6y ago
  This is talking about targeting decisions in a war zone.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    It's not actually a declared war, so no, not a warzone. In any case, the argument isn't reliant on that, it's sufficient that the name is on a secret kill list, no matter the reason for the argument to follow logically.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      It's as much a declared war as any since World War 2.
  - skedaddle 6y ago
    The military is responsible for killing the people in the list, but from what we know they do not control who the targets are. That is a process that goes on in DC and ultimately just a few (perhaps one) civilians control the database, who is in it, and their "disposition". There were a few claims that as a court they could not rule on and dismissed (like whether he was a proper target on the battlefield), but a few big questions remain. Is there due process around the kill/capture database, and does it violate free speech and press if someone can land in it for interviewing enemy soldiers? These questions (which might not even have difficult answers) remain open because the government wouldn't turn over evidence. Even with the parts about "targeting decisions in a warzone" and the like settled, the open issues here are pretty important.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      The military takes orders from the civilian government. But it’s a military operation at the end of the day, involving targeting decisions in a theater of war. Just because civilian officials dictate that targeting doesn’t change its military nature. The requested discovery sought information about how targeting decisions were made for military strikes overseas. I see the argument for why, when a US citizen is involved, there might be a due process issue. But there is undeniably a huge state military interest in secrecy. As practiced in the developed world, the rule of law does not encompass courts second-guessing military decisions overseas. Courts are primarily domestic and civilian by their nature. The Supreme Court has found that certain due process issues are implicated where US citizens are involved even with respect to conduct overseas. But there is a tension there with the legitimate prerogatives of the executive with respect to military action. I’m curious whether any other developed country releases that sort of targeting information. To me knowledge, US courts are already more willing to intrude into military action abroad than courts in other countries.
shkkmo 6y ago
> this is orthogonal to whether or not killing you is legally allowed, which is what the headline is suggesting. The US has been killing US citizens this way for over a decade. It's pretty darn clear that the DOJ considers this legally allowable. Now the DOJ is arguing that once the goverment decides it is allowed to kill you, you can be prevented from challenging that decision in court if state secrets are involved.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The US has been killing US citizens this way for over a decade I'm pretty sure that targeted killings of US citizens believed to be engaged in war against the US by the federal government started not later than the 1860s (if you ignore those conducted under the auspices of the USA prior to the Constitution in a war in which whether a “US citizen” was even a legitimate concept was fundamentally in dispute.)
bagacrap 6y ago
In a polite society I don't think you can make murder illegal but attempted murder allowable.
chairmanwow1 6y ago
It’s been happening more and more on HN recently.
tootie 6y ago
It also seems like a fishing expedition. The plaintiff doesn't have any evidence they were targeted at all. It's speculation because bombs landed near him in a war zone. It's not impossible but I understand the gov not wanting to hand over such sensitive information without a very strong justification.

by daenz 6y ago

ghayes 6y ago

I 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 ago

If 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 ago
If 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 ago
  The 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).
  - daenz 6y ago
    The government "can" do a lot of things. They "can" drone your home right now if they wanted to. The only thing that matters is if it is legal or not. Enumerating all of the things within the capabilities of the government is a meaningless exercise.
    - pm90 6y ago
      > They "can" drone your home right now if they wanted to. It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. Please make better arguments. You seem to be making deliberate bad faith arguments and nobody benefits from engaging in that kind of discourse.
      - daenz 6y ago
        >It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. I didn't say "downtown San Francisco", I said "your home." How would you prove that blew up your home? If you can't prove it, then they got away with it. My point is that when we open up the definition of "can" in this headline to mean "things the government can do and get away with", then it becomes meaningless if it's not bounded by the legality of those things. There are a boundless number of things, including assassinations, framings, etc etc, that the government "can" do and get away with. So the only definition of "can" worth discussing, since the headline is intentionally vague about what "can" means, is whether or not it is legal to do the things described.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
rayiner 6y ago
This is talking about targeting decisions in a war zone.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  It's not actually a declared war, so no, not a warzone. In any case, the argument isn't reliant on that, it's sufficient that the name is on a secret kill list, no matter the reason for the argument to follow logically.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    It's as much a declared war as any since World War 2.
- skedaddle 6y ago
  The military is responsible for killing the people in the list, but from what we know they do not control who the targets are. That is a process that goes on in DC and ultimately just a few (perhaps one) civilians control the database, who is in it, and their "disposition". There were a few claims that as a court they could not rule on and dismissed (like whether he was a proper target on the battlefield), but a few big questions remain. Is there due process around the kill/capture database, and does it violate free speech and press if someone can land in it for interviewing enemy soldiers? These questions (which might not even have difficult answers) remain open because the government wouldn't turn over evidence. Even with the parts about "targeting decisions in a warzone" and the like settled, the open issues here are pretty important.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    The military takes orders from the civilian government. But it’s a military operation at the end of the day, involving targeting decisions in a theater of war. Just because civilian officials dictate that targeting doesn’t change its military nature. The requested discovery sought information about how targeting decisions were made for military strikes overseas. I see the argument for why, when a US citizen is involved, there might be a due process issue. But there is undeniably a huge state military interest in secrecy. As practiced in the developed world, the rule of law does not encompass courts second-guessing military decisions overseas. Courts are primarily domestic and civilian by their nature. The Supreme Court has found that certain due process issues are implicated where US citizens are involved even with respect to conduct overseas. But there is a tension there with the legitimate prerogatives of the executive with respect to military action. I’m curious whether any other developed country releases that sort of targeting information. To me knowledge, US courts are already more willing to intrude into military action abroad than courts in other countries.

shkkmo 6y ago

> this is orthogonal to whether or not killing you is legally allowed, which is what the headline is suggesting. The US has been killing US citizens this way for over a decade. It's pretty darn clear that the DOJ considers this legally allowable. Now the DOJ is arguing that once the goverment decides it is allowed to kill you, you can be prevented from challenging that decision in court if state secrets are involved.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The US has been killing US citizens this way for over a decade I'm pretty sure that targeted killings of US citizens believed to be engaged in war against the US by the federal government started not later than the 1860s (if you ignore those conducted under the auspices of the USA prior to the Constitution in a war in which whether a “US citizen” was even a legitimate concept was fundamentally in dispute.)

bagacrap 6y ago

In a polite society I don't think you can make murder illegal but attempted murder allowable.

chairmanwow1 6y ago

It’s been happening more and more on HN recently.

tootie 6y ago

It also seems like a fishing expedition. The plaintiff doesn't have any evidence they were targeted at all. It's speculation because bombs landed near him in a war zone. It's not impossible but I understand the gov not wanting to hand over such sensitive information without a very strong justification.