4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe distinction is thin. Winning the case on this argument will establish a precedent for future policy.
- boulos 6y agoI’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 agoSerious 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 agoIt's the DoJ's representative, specifically chosen to speak for the DoJ in this trial.
- loeg 6y agoA DOJ attorney directly represents the DOJ. This attorney isn't rogue and hasn't been dismissed.
- tootie 6y agoI think it's actually more accurate to say that is the plaintiff's lawyer's counterargument. The DOJ lawyer didn't say it at all. He is merely fighting a request to reveal classified information at the behest of a complainant with a pretty thin justification.
- boulos 6y agoYeah, AFAICT, none of the linked pages have a direct quote from the DOJ lawyer himself. Instead, they’re all reactions to what his argument is presumed to imply. This other article [1] has what is purportedly a related, direct quote: “In all of these circumstances, he [Kareem] is not even the only person present, much less is there anything to suggest that he’s actually the target of any of those specific attacks.”. So yeah, I’d agree that even the original sources are likely flamebait for what a real headline should be “DOJ Lawyer: national security precludes disclosing who is on kill list, including Americans” (at trial). It’s not clear to me that this argument holds (it’s close enough to “we are going to imprison you, but we can’t tell you why”, violating habeus corpus), but at least it’s clear that this is the argument they’re making. [1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/18/kill-n18.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/18/kill-n18.html
- koheripbal 6y agoThis is a great example of how false news is amplified through social media. The reality is actually the opposite of what OP is attempting to signal here. This really is the worst kind of fake news. If you look at the Reddit response to this title... it's abhorrent: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/jzqv3f/us_can_kill_its_own_citizens_without_review_when/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/jzqv3f/us_can_kil...