No, no snipping.
Quote:
Context is “a potentially recurring scenario that has similar legal and factual components.” Arar, 585 F.3d at 572. See also Mirmehdi, 689 F.3d at 981. The context here is unique for a number of reasons: it is an alleged (1) military and intelligence action; (2) abroad; (3) during the course of ongoing armed conflict; (4) targeting a U.S. citizen declared a leader of an armed terrorist group (and Al-Banna, a non-citizen enemy).
Thus, an analysis of the extraterritorial question presented requires this Court to determine whether, and to what extent, to judicially enforce the particular Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections that may apply to a U.S. citizen allegedly targeted and killed—or inadvertently killed—by a purported missile strike abroad on members of an organization against which the political branches have authorized the use of all necessary and appropriate force.
There are no cases holding such conduct illegal, let alone illegal “beyond debate.” Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083. To the extent the Supreme Court has discussed the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens abroad, it has generally done so in the context of custody, detention, or trials—not in the active battlefield. See, e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (plurality) (detention); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (plurality) (trials).
|
They allowed the plaintiffs claim of citizenship to stand because the defense of this alleged action is there is no precedent as described on pages 29, 30, and 31, and they certainly don't want to set one now because it will happen again.
It was when the justice department justified the hits to the executive, that the ground was tilled.