No it doesn't. If the public disagree with those actions they won't remain legal for long.
The world has a long sad history of showing this isn’t the case. The slow creep of authoritarianism usually happens by pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and goes beyond the previous norms of legal interpretation.
Basically, "if it is legal or not" is not the only important factor, because laws can change.
It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences.
Please make better arguments. You seem to be making deliberate bad faith arguments and nobody benefits from engaging in that kind of discourse.
I didn't say "downtown San Francisco", I said "your home." How would you prove that blew up your home? If you can't prove it, then they got away with it. My point is that when we open up the definition of "can" in this headline to mean "things the government can do and get away with", then it becomes meaningless if it's not bounded by the legality of those things. There are a boundless number of things, including assassinations, framings, etc etc, that the government "can" do and get away with.
So the only definition of "can" worth discussing, since the headline is intentionally vague about what "can" means, is whether or not it is legal to do the things described.
No one ever faced any consequences for the MOVE bombing, and it wasn't even a secret that the (local) government did it.
Parent is right, the law is abstract. Violence is absolute. If the largest dispenser of violence in human history decides to bomb San Francisco, they're going to do it, and it will be legal.
true, but only vacuously so. the "US Federal Government" is not some monolithic entity with a single will. it is made up of many organizations, factions, and individuals with their own motivations. if a military official ordered the bombing of san francisco, their subordinates may simply disobey them. if the orders were actually carried out, there would likely be other parts of the government that would find it politically expedient to hold those responsible to account. they may or may not be able to direct the use of force to do so.
the government can only take extreme actions when some level of internal consensus (or at least apathy) exists, as in the case of the MOVE bombing.
There were a few claims that as a court they could not rule on and dismissed (like whether he was a proper target on the battlefield), but a few big questions remain. Is there due process around the kill/capture database, and does it violate free speech and press if someone can land in it for interviewing enemy soldiers?
These questions (which might not even have difficult answers) remain open because the government wouldn't turn over evidence.
Even with the parts about "targeting decisions in a warzone" and the like settled, the open issues here are pretty important.
The requested discovery sought information about how targeting decisions were made for military strikes overseas. I see the argument for why, when a US citizen is involved, there might be a due process issue. But there is undeniably a huge state military interest in secrecy.
As practiced in the developed world, the rule of law does not encompass courts second-guessing military decisions overseas. Courts are primarily domestic and civilian by their nature. The Supreme Court has found that certain due process issues are implicated where US citizens are involved even with respect to conduct overseas. But there is a tension there with the legitimate prerogatives of the executive with respect to military action.
I’m curious whether any other developed country releases that sort of targeting information. To me knowledge, US courts are already more willing to intrude into military action abroad than courts in other countries.
No other developed country has a kill/kidnap database as large as ours. The US also has a bill of rights which does not depend on the rights respected in other countries across the world.
The Constitution describes a separation of powers. The executive has primacy when it comes to waging war. Courts have primacy in protecting the rights of individuals domestically. The Supreme Court has held that U.S. citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. have certain constitutional protections, which can be adjudicated by U.S. courts. That puts those spheres of power into conflict. On one hand, courts generally don't get to second-guess the military's targeting decisions. On the other hand, if a U.S. citizen alleges that the military is targeting strikes in a battlefield in an effort to kill him, that's exactly what the court has to do.
Other developed countries also distinguish executive from judicial power, and domestic from foreign theaters. How they address this tension is illuminating, I think.
Other forms of executive privilege that protect autonomy are easier to invoke, and easier to challenge. State secrets privilege cannot be used lightly. It's used all the time now, and there is reason to be suspicious that it is used fraudulently.
The courts really need to figure out a way to in principal allow US citizens bring a case in situations like this. You have to prove now, in essence, that your name is on an invisible piece of paper. I agree that the nomination procedure is extremely sensitive, but I think there is some room on the yes/no presence of someone on the kill list, given other supporting evidence. The danger is that we reveal to someone that we're trying to kill them -- but again, we're talking about a citizen, and if they have supporting evidence and are in court then they already suspect that.