Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

13
  • 12
    The problem with those kinds of U.S. war crimes, crimes against humanity and otherwise morally dubious actions is that there often was a lack of intent to prosecute. Like Obama did it, but the Republican party didn't dissent, on the contrary they approved of the drone program and extended it under Trump while limiting it's transparency. Also, being pretty cynic, these problems were far away. Like this being labeled terrorist and killed without due process was for citizens abroad. While their own descend into tyranny should still bother the U.S. a lot more.
    – haxor789
    Commented Jul 3 at 9:31
  • 24
    This answer is somewhat incomplete. It doesn't mention Executive Order 11905 or Reid v. Covert, which arguably put these sort of extrajudicial assassinations on very shaky ground, legally. Nor does it mention that the case Al-Aulaqi v. Obama —the ACLU lawsuit mentioned in the question—was not resolved in favor of the Obama administration, but rather dismissed for lack of standing to file the case and on the basis that decisions of military foreign policy were non-judiciable.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Jul 3 at 16:06
  • 6
    This is relevant because the main concern of the dismissal for being non-judiciable was that a decision requiring future oversight of details of foreign military operations fell outside the remit of the court. While not a particularly beneficial decision, it is doubtful that it created a precedent that removed liability for individuals for any actions engaged in under any such circumstances, and since it mentioned that this question was tied to the facts of a particular case, it's also doubtful that it applied unrestrictedly to domestic official actions by the executive.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Jul 3 at 16:21
  • 22
    The relevance of the Trump case is that it (a) applies to all official acts, not just foreign military policy, (b) is an actual ruling on the merits of a case, not a dismissal for lack of standing or judiciability of a specific case, and (c) establishes a lack of individual liability, instead of merely barring preemptive oversight. These are substantive legal questions, so the answer is incomplete, insofar as the impression one could get from it is that the Trump case is of no legal relevance.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Jul 3 at 16:27
  • 3
    @BenVoigt - It's not that the recent ruling is not a statement about judiciability, and it certainly does not prevent impeachment or compel reelection. It's that the case was not dismissed, and I don't think Al-Aulaqi v. Obama really precluded individual liability. What the ruling deemed as not judiciable was details of military and foreign policy, but indicated in my comment, people have still been held criminally liable despite acting in the service of military foreign policy. But the Trump case seems to close that possibility for the president, even after they have left office.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Jul 3 at 20:05