> 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?”<p>“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.<p>The way this post is titled is misleading and is intended to flame.
Can someone explain to me how the headline matches up with the content?<p>>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.<p>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.<p>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.
The 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.<p>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.<p>Finally, I do not find the title to be a fair summary of their argument for dismissal:<p>>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.
> 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.<p>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?
I came to this realization a while ago:<p>Without fail, one way or another, the shit US dishes to non-US citizens will eventually find its way back to US citizens.<p>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.
> In its appellate brief, the government argued that Kareem lacked standing because he makes an unsupported assertion about being targeted in a war zone.<p>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).<p>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.
If 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.<p>So really, this says that the US can kill its own citizens without review full stop.
Obama 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.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix</a>
My guess is that the gov't learned its lesson from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld</a> by not declaring Kareem an enemy combatant...
Hey, 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!
The original case which was agreed with by the supreme court does have valid points.<p>A warzone, regardless of if you believe in the war or not, is still a warzone.<p>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.<p>Maybe I'm missing something, but it's just not the same.
As a foreigner I find this so repulsive.<p>Why would it be OK for the US to kill anyone?<p>"We are the good guys, we only kill bad people which we have decided are bad".<p>But then at the same time the US constantly points at Russia or Iran accusing them of assassinations.
The 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.