Judge Invokes Alice in Wonderland in Denying NYT and ACLU Targeted Killing FOIAs

“YOU’D better not talk!’ said Five. ‘I heard the Queen say only yesterday you deserved to be beheaded!’

‘What for?’ said the one who had spoken first.

‘That’s none of YOUR business, Two!’ said Seven.

[snip]

‘And who are THESE?’ said the Queen, pointing to the three gardeners who were lying round the rosetree; for, you see, as they were lying on their faces, and the pattern on their backs was the same as the rest of the pack, she could not tell whether they were gardeners, or soldiers, or courtiers, or three of her own children.

‘How should I know?’ said Alice, surprised at her own courage. ‘It’s no business of MINE.’

The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, screamed ‘Off with her head! Off—’

Alice in Wonderland

 

The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules–a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping reasons for their conclusion a secret.

Judge Colleen McMahon’s decision denying ACLU and NYT FOIA for targeted killing rationale NYT already published and government repeatedly discussed

 

 

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

5 Responses to Judge Invokes Alice in Wonderland in Denying NYT and ACLU Targeted Killing FOIAs

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @dmataconis Maybe, but I think the original purposes are still valid. Also think Musk is a whiny asshole.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis Actually original intent was to insure there are parts+service available locally for customers. And to provide local tax base
15mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis Either way they can't be selective, which is what Musk desires. May be outdated, but there are good reasons to keep it.
17mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @kevinjonheller Really no need for trial either I should think.
19mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel @wellsbennett Come on man, go easy of Wells. He has been overwhelmed with the new "Ask Wells Anything" feature at @lawfareblog
24mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RobertsDan @lrozen At the complete trashing of procedural due process and substantive jurisdiction law, but what the hell, right?
34mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ScottGreenfield @bobambrogi "Reinvent"™ the interview
35mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @chriskingstl @alicesperi I know push is on to say supports Wilson+cops, but no reason to bite off on that w/o noting both @JasonLeopold
39mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @chriskingstl @alicesperi Why do selectively "leaked" details support Wison's version any more than they do Dorian Johnson's? @JasonLeopold
42mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JasonLeopold I have applied for the job. I insured them you will get NOTHING.
46mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ddayen I presume you went as Mark Penn
50mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz .@jaketapper Frankly, that "evidence", i.e. inappropriate grand jury leaks, supports Dorian Johnson's version as much as it does Wilson's.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
January 2013
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031