Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: NBC EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
Source:
NBC
URL Source: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new ... rone-strikes-on-americans?lite
Published: Feb 4, 2013
Author: Michael Isikoff
Post Date: 2013-02-04 21:32:05 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 6362
Comments: 26
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes. The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.” But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland. “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states. Read the entire 'white paper' on drone strikes on Americans Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.” As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes. The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.” It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussed publicly. Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly -- or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News. “This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which has sued unsuccessfully in court to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.” Advertise | AdChoices In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.” A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a “parade” of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the “legal framework” for such operations. Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators -- led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country, it said, “It is vitally important ... for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.” Anticipating domestic boom, colleges rev up drone piloting programs The completeness of the administration’s public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act. McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a “veritable Catch-22,” said she was unable to order the release of the documents given “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 the reasons for the conclusion a secret.” In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials “had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.” But, she wrote, they have done so “in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.” In one passage in Holder’s speech at Northwestern in March, he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place. “The Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,” he said. But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified if “capture is not feasible.” But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible “if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation.” The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was mentioned in the white paper. The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas. Advertise | AdChoices It also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations. “A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
The POTUS says he can kill anyone on the planet. After that there's nothing left to argue about.
That is what I like about you. You're to the left but not willingly blind like many on your side.
That is what I like about you. You're to the left but not willingly blind like many on your side. Another way of putting it: So far left I'm coming up on your right.....;}
I don't quite understand what the problem is with this action unless the concern is with misuse of this policy. If an American joins al-Qaida, he is fair game in my understanding and belief.
Little things like no checks and balances, assassinating Americans without due process - those are off the top of my head. There are other subtleties addressed in the article, or others I was reading earlier today. In short, Obama policies continue in lock-step with BushCo's.
I strongly suspect that a lack of checks and balances has come into play on many occasions in the history of this Nation. It very well not be possible to bring a traitor into a court of law. Remember when an American was captured after serving with the Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and the American forces brought him back for trial in the US? I didn't understand why they didn't just eliminate him with his buddies fighting against American forces. I still don't. But, that is me. I served a long stretch in the military including Vietnam and still don't watch Jane Fonda movies.
Um, they were captured which means, I assume, they surrendered. I remember the case of Jihad Johnny (Walker?) - not in detail. I believe he's still imprisoned somewhere in this country. You would have pulled a war crime and assassinated them after their capture? Okaaaaaaaay, Don.
How many enemy soldiers do you think American troops "assassinated" in WWII?
How many innocents did a good Presbyterian kill then?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Mitt converted you to LDS?
LSD, more likely.;^)
Don't you think that FACT should be established first? And is it a fact that membership carries the penalty, under US law, of death? If it ever gets down to "He's an asshole, kill him!", then we are all at risk.
Isn't that what they do at Berkeley??
Leftards "greener" pastures ------ a place where their lack of intelligence isn't brought into question on every post!!
I don't know. Perhaps, you could send a letter around to all of the Presbyterian Churches and ask them? Are you referring to a specific Presbyterian?
Really Don. Innocent until proven guilty. This isn't right. I don't think Jesus would approve of the Antichrist or I mean Obama who has the spirit of antichrist having this power.
Isn't that what they do at Berkeley?? I did shrooms once. In Columbus with some hot chick.
There are cases in which I would accept circumstantial evidence, for example, if the person is in an Al Qaida Camp. I believe the case in Yemen would qualify for that.
Do you think it would be ok if it were Bush or even Ronnie Reagan in office?
All they have to do is say someone was at come camp and lots of suckers will buy the lie.
No. I voted for Bush in 2000 but I think he sucks. Ronald Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th century and he shouldn't have that power either. Especially since they didn't even declare a war. All they did is add to the US code something that can be called up at will to enforce UN resolutions.
Isn't that what they do at Berkeley?? I did shrooms once. In Columbus with some fat chick. That explains a lot... LOL...
Leftards "greener" pastures ------ a place where their lack of intelligence isn't brought into question on every post!!
I said fat. How did I do that. I thought I typed hot. Damned.
Hey you're misquoting me.
Talk about starting a war, the fat chick comment might do it.
Good points Don. I'm pretty sure the BoR doesn't extend to the Middle East. -btw The so-called "American" that was killed in Yemen recently doesn't have American parents and hasn't lived in America since he was an infant. I say good riddance.
Hey you're misquoting me. I was wondering if you would catch that... Leftards "greener" pastures ------ a place where their lack of intelligence isn't brought into question on every post!!
#2. To: mcgowanjm (#1)
The POTUS says he can kill anyone on the planet.
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
The POTUS says he can kill anyone on the planet.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#5. To: Don (#4)
#6. To: Fred Mertz (#5)
#7. To: Don (#6)
I didn't understand why they didn't just eliminate him with his buddies fighting against American forces.
#8. To: Fred Mertz (#7)
#9. To: Don (#8)
#10. To: mininggold (#9)
a good Presbyterian
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#11. To: hondo68 (#10)
Mitt converted you to LDS?
#12. To: Don (#4)
If an American joins al-Qaida
#13. To: hondo68 (#10)
LDS?
#14. To: mininggold (#9)
#15. To: Abcdefg, Don (#12)
Don't you think that FACT should be established first?
#16. To: CZ82 (#13)
LDS?
#17. To: Abcdefg (#12)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#15)
#19. To: Don (#17)
There are cases in which I would accept circumstantial evidence, for example, if the person is in an Al Qaida Camp. I believe the case in Yemen would qualify for that.
#20. To: Don (#18)
Do you think it would be ok if it were Bush or even Ronnie Reagan in office?
#21. To: A K A Stone (#16)
LDS?
#22. To: CZ82 (#21)
#23. To: CZ82 (#21)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)
#25. To: Don (#17)
There are cases in which I would accept circumstantial evidence, for example, if the person is in an Al Qaida Camp. I believe the case in Yemen would qualify for that.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#23)
I said fat. How did I do that. I thought I typed hot. Damned.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]