> In its appellate brief, the government argued that Kareem lacked standing because he makes an unsupported assertion about being targeted in a war zone.
This is odd to me. I guess in my mind it goes without saying that the government should be required to name all individuals it's trying to kill, presumably to allow them to surrender themselves for trial. I get in combat this may not be practical, but it sounds like this individual identifies as a journalist (and the fact that he's appealing to the court system).
Perhaps stating the obvious again, I think the idea that the individual should have to prove to the government that he's on a kill list, when the government has access to the kill list, is a bothersome mentality.
This is odd to me. I guess in my mind it goes without saying that the government should be required to name all individuals it's trying to kill, presumably to allow them to surrender themselves for trial. I get in combat this may not be practical, but it sounds like this individual identifies as a journalist (and the fact that he's appealing to the court system).
Perhaps stating the obvious again, I think the idea that the individual should have to prove to the government that he's on a kill list, when the government has access to the kill list, is a bothersome mentality.