US can kill its own citizens without review when state secrets are involved, DOJ lawyer argues

ABA Journal ^ | 18 Nov 2020 | Debra Cassens Weiss

[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.

[Bikkuri]

This guy just put a florescent target on his back (newb with odd comment)...

[bitt]

p

[Balding_Eagle]

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are meaningless.

What you're saying means that what Trump is doing, using the rule of law to retain the White House is meaningless?

Are you sure?

[Jane Long]

O, rly?

How so?

[BiteYourSelf]

Do not throw s!!t at an armed man.
Do not stand next to someone throwing s!!t at an armed Nan.🤔

[BiteYourSelf]

Man not Nan doh.😖

[ptsal]

Bkmk list

[mabarker1]

they need to start with: hitlary, x42 aka The Rapist, the spawn of them, zer0, wookie, 2 more spawns, basementbutthead, lurch, pelousy, upchucky, and All the demonrats.

[M Kehoe]

Tracers work both ways.

Metaphorically speaking of course.

5.56mm

[Red6]

Only because Trump has billions, is smart, tenacious, has a huge audience, big mouth and balls.

An average Joe wouldn’t even get heard and the powers to be would just do with him as they please.

***Name me one of the Bill of Rights that hasn’t been abridged?

***Please tell me one single amendment of the first ten that today still stands and hasn’t been shat on? If you can argue that, I’ll agree with you.

[Lurkinanloomin]

This is wrong and everybody who understands the founders vision for the nation and our Constitution knows it.

[Lurkinanloomin]

They have been and will be the ones doing the snuffing.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Brennan already had reporter Michael Hastings killed.

[Lurkinanloomin]

That’s who the CIA, etc. work for.

[Nailbiter]

flr

[csvset]

...because of metadata from electronic devices

Would like to hear more about that.

[Balding_Eagle]

An average Joe wouldn’t even get heard and the powers to be would just do with him as they please.

Name a time in history when that hasn't been true?

The United Sates, though imperfect, has been the best time the 'average joe' to be heard.

[Red6]

Things are different today.

America is a bureaucratic technocracy.

We are no longer the beacon of liberty in the eyes of the rest of the world, we no longer spread democracy and internally we feel a lot like a Euro style social economy. Our leaders and society are no longer guided by Moral (replaced with ethics) or constitutional principals (living/evolving document now).

Think about this. Would a US government ever have dared order churches to close their doors 70 years ago even if polio (without vaccine 5-15% morbidity rate) was spreading across the nation?

[lepton]

Military actions and the legal system are two things which it is not appropriate to confuse.

[Svartalfiar]

It actually happened overseas and he was on a military kill list.

Read the article.

Huh? The article has three more paragraphs than the excerpt here, none of which have actual information. The only thing I see, that's not proof of anything, is this paragraph:

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 guy thinks he was targeted? He's not high-profile, I don't think we're that bad at hitting targets that he would be missed five times... And if he was placed on a low-priority target list only due to metadata tracing from other terrorists, then he's a valid target. Per IO regs, persons outside of these US are assumed to not be USPERS, unless there is specific intel that indicates they are. So even if he is correct and he was the target for these strikes, I see nothing (in this limited info article) that would put anyone in this chain in any trouble.