6 ms·

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

by 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
        > It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. No one ever faced any consequences for the MOVE bombing, and it wasn't even a secret that the (local) government did it.
        staybailey 6y ago
        Wikipedia disagrees. Example: "In 1996, a federal jury ordered the city to pay a $1.5 million civil suit judgment to survivor Ramona Africa and relatives of two people killed in the bombing." The police commissioner was also forced to resign.
      - selectodude 6y ago
        If the US Federal Government decided to bomb San Francisco, I'm not sure who exactly would be able to render the consequences. Parent is right, the law is abstract. Violence is absolute. If the largest dispenser of violence in human history decides to bomb San Francisco, they're going to do it, and it will be legal.
        leetcrew 6y ago
        > If the US Federal Government decided to bomb San Francisco, I'm not sure who exactly would be able to render the consequences. true, but only vacuously so. the "US Federal Government" is not some monolithic entity with a single will. it is made up of many organizations, factions, and individuals with their own motivations. if a military official ordered the bombing of san francisco, their subordinates may simply disobey them. if the orders were actually carried out, there would likely be other parts of the government that would find it politically expedient to hold those responsible to account. they may or may not be able to direct the use of force to do so. the government can only take extreme actions when some level of internal consensus (or at least apathy) exists, as in the case of the MOVE bombing.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      > The only thing that matters is if it is legal or not No it doesn't. If the public disagree with those actions they won't remain legal for long.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - daenz 6y ago
        And there's a reason why, in your example, the end result of the public being unhappy is to change the laws: because at the end of the day, the only thing that holds any real weight in society are the laws. If the public disagreeing was enough, then there would be no need to have laws.
        Chris2048 6y ago
        Sometimes officials choose not to do things "at their digression" based on public opinion, without the need to change laws. Also, the argument about changing laws is moot if we are discussion the suppression of information, from becoming public, and therefore motivating the law. Basically, "if it is legal or not" is not the only important factor, because laws can change.
        aaronblohowiak 6y ago
        > because at the end of the day, the only thing that holds any real weight in society are the laws The world has a long sad history of showing this isn’t the case. The slow creep of authoritarianism usually happens by pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and goes beyond the previous norms of legal interpretation.
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.

by tedivm 6y ago

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
      > It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. No one ever faced any consequences for the MOVE bombing, and it wasn't even a secret that the (local) government did it.
      - staybailey 6y ago
        Wikipedia disagrees. Example: "In 1996, a federal jury ordered the city to pay a $1.5 million civil suit judgment to survivor Ramona Africa and relatives of two people killed in the bombing." The police commissioner was also forced to resign.
    - selectodude 6y ago
      If the US Federal Government decided to bomb San Francisco, I'm not sure who exactly would be able to render the consequences. Parent is right, the law is abstract. Violence is absolute. If the largest dispenser of violence in human history decides to bomb San Francisco, they're going to do it, and it will be legal.
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        > If the US Federal Government decided to bomb San Francisco, I'm not sure who exactly would be able to render the consequences. true, but only vacuously so. the "US Federal Government" is not some monolithic entity with a single will. it is made up of many organizations, factions, and individuals with their own motivations. if a military official ordered the bombing of san francisco, their subordinates may simply disobey them. if the orders were actually carried out, there would likely be other parts of the government that would find it politically expedient to hold those responsible to account. they may or may not be able to direct the use of force to do so. the government can only take extreme actions when some level of internal consensus (or at least apathy) exists, as in the case of the MOVE bombing.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    > The only thing that matters is if it is legal or not No it doesn't. If the public disagree with those actions they won't remain legal for long.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - daenz 6y ago
      And there's a reason why, in your example, the end result of the public being unhappy is to change the laws: because at the end of the day, the only thing that holds any real weight in society are the laws. If the public disagreeing was enough, then there would be no need to have laws.
      - Chris2048 6y ago
        Sometimes officials choose not to do things "at their digression" based on public opinion, without the need to change laws. Also, the argument about changing laws is moot if we are discussion the suppression of information, from becoming public, and therefore motivating the law. Basically, "if it is legal or not" is not the only important factor, because laws can change.
      - aaronblohowiak 6y ago
        > because at the end of the day, the only thing that holds any real weight in society are the laws The world has a long sad history of showing this isn’t the case. The slow creep of authoritarianism usually happens by pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and goes beyond the previous norms of legal interpretation.

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.