Posted on 11/27/2020 8:24:29 AM PST by Theoria
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.
The argument drew alarm among judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Courthouse News Service reports.
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?”
The government’s brief in the case supplies details of the lawsuit. The plaintiff, Bilal Abdul Kareem, is a U.S. citizen who works as a journalist in Syria for the “On the Ground Network” news channel, which provides access to the views of rebel fighters. The militants are linked to al-Qaida, according to Courthouse Service.
Kareem alleges that he was narrowly missed by five military strikes that he thinks were carried out by the U.S. military as a result of his inclusion on a kill list. He suggests that he was put on the list because of metadata from electronic devices, and he doesn’t meet the guidelines for inclusion.
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.
In its appellate brief, the government argued that Kareem lacked standing because he makes an unsupported assertion about being targeted in a war zone. Even if he had standing, the government argued, the state secrets privilege forecloses litigation of his claim.
(Excerpt) Read more at abajournal.com ...
Agreed, and any US citizen, reporter or not, who conspires against the US must be prosecuted.
That usually has been under the theme of treason and a declaration of war. Blindly giving the power to kill a citizen to the executive without a trial or review is hardly the way of a republic.
we’ll just have to agree to disagree
You are also incorrect about the declaration of war, as the post 9/11 AUMF is open ended in both time and place, and the courts have already ruled it the equivalent of a declaration of war.
If you object to that, get Congress to repeal it. But there's no way the courts are going to step in, because such declarations or authorizations and war operations are clearly political decisions left to the other branches.
If ordinary citizens going about their business in the US are in danger of being murdered by government agents as a matter of ordinary policy, then no court decision is suddenly going to change that.
Joined what other side? We are not at war with Syria. We do not even belong there. He did not join ISIS or Al Qaeda so he is not a terrorist. He was never designated a terrorist by any EU or US agency. He took an unpopular stance which was opposite of our stated position in Syria. He did that by reporting on the war from the Syrian perspective, but nothing about that was illegal. Why do we have any American service members on the ground in Syria? Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq are countries established by the French and British to divide up the Middle East colonies. Why do we care if Assad runs Syria? They are no threat to us. Assad is friends with Iran, so we are effect fighting a proxy war against Iran. But, it has been suggested that Assad would agree to evict Iran and not allow Iran to move oil and arms through Syria as terms to end fighting. All sides oppose ISIS. This mess is Obama’s Arab Spring, that’s how long it has gone on.
None of that matters, because the real issue is; did a US three letter agency attempt to kill an American citizen overseas. If the US citizen was placed on a kill list, that is illegal. The rest is just window dressing.
It is illegal for the US government to target an American citizen anywhere in the world, period. If he had taken up arms against the US, he would no longer be a US citizen. But he did not.
We absolutely bomb areas where high target people on a kill list are located. The claim is that he was placed on a kill list and as a consequence he was targeted. The government says it is under NO obligation to say whether he was on a kill list illegally or not. That is the issue. Can we force the government to prove it did or did not try to kill a US citizen. We do not always risk SEAL teams to take out someone on a kill list. Bombing them to oblivion is easier.
I still doubt that the courts will intervene, but they may decide that Americans cannot be put on such lists without judicial review. In which case, people like the defendant will simply be referred to as "Unidentified Terrorist #15" in all official documents. What the plaintiff is demanding is both legally dubious and operationally impossible to enforce.
This is not correct. Theoretically, if captured, such a person could be put on trial for treason.
As far as whether he was on a kill list or not, if that was a military decision made in the conduct of operations, then no, the courts do not have any authority to know. Operational military decisions are controlled by the executive.
If we have an out-of-control executive using the military to target political opponents then we have a much larger problem than any court can solve.
If you go overseas, join with a terrorist group after stating your opposition to operations targeting them and then get targeted yourself, well, then as the US diplomat said to the family of the American leftist "journalist" killed by Pinochet, "You play with fire, you get burned."
Well that puts a whole lot of Government employed leakers and media scum in the crosshairs.
My question is, Does the Government realize that goes both ways?
Warm up to make Voter Fraud a State Secret?
Trump’s Legal Team had better watch out for Reaper Drones.
And the Judge that agreed.
Using the rules they employed to redact documents. States secrets is a broad brush.
I’m sure he would testify to back that claim if he were still
able to.
Every terrorist is a “journalist” when they have a cell phone.
In other words, he is an enemy propagandist working to promote the views of al Qaeda, not unlike a German reporter working for Goebbels back in WW2.
"But it's OUR CIA, now!" - The Left
Are you saying he was just potentially collateral damage in an ongoing operation? So is the government in this case, the plaintiffs claim is he was target. The government lawyers told the judge we are the government we do not have to tell you if he was on a kill list or not. If you cannot see the problem with that, hell I don't what to tell you.
Did I say it was unconstitutional? I said we have no business being in Syria, Trump actual agrees with me, or I with him depending on how you look at it. Just because the AUMF was left open ended does not make it good policy.
Regardless of how they ID a target, somewhere some agency designated by name an individual as a target, The government has not claimed he was an enemy combatant.
All that is BS anyway, The government told a judge to piss off we are the government we don’t have to tell you $hit. That is the issue. Second to that is the possibility that a US citizen was targeted on a kill list. Still a free country, we are still entitled to make decisions not matter how stupid.
Was the first name that popped into my head too..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.