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.