United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: FLASHBACK: Drone strikes on US citizens justified in leaked DOJ memo
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/5/39 ... emo-drone-strikes-on-americans
Published: Feb 5, 2013
Author: Joshua Kopstein
Post Date: 2013-03-09 20:10:33 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 7774
Comments: 10
As the use of unmanned aerial drones for military purposes has intensified, the Obama administration has been working — in secret — to codify a set of rules which govern its covert campaigns in the Middle East and Asia. Now a confidential Justice Department white paper has revealed a rough legal framework for one of the drone program's most controversial aspects: the targeted killing of American citizens without due process. According to the 16 page document obtained by NBC News, a target in these cases must be believed to be a "senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida" or an "associated force" who "poses an imminent threat" to the United States. The capture of that target must also be determined to be "infeasible," and the killing itself must be conducted in accordance with "law of war principles." But the document defines these terms vaguely and with many caveats: for example, in one section, it explains the document's broader definition of "imminence," which "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" — in other words, says Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the ACLU, it "deprives the word of its ordinary meaning." ""Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat to the United States is not unlawful."" It's important to note that the framework described in the document does not reflect any officially enacted policy. However, it does provide a glimpse at the Justice Department's attempts at reasoning a legal basis for the killing of American citizens as part of the Obama administration's counterterrorism campaigns in the Middle East and Asia. The issue came to a head in 2011, when two drone strikes in Yemen killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric, and his 16 year old son, Abdulrahman — both American citizens who had never been officially charged with any crimes. John Brennan, Obama's counterterrorism czar and candidate for head of the CIA, has previously defended the killings, arguing that they are "consistent with the inherent right of self-defense." Since then, the Obama administration has promised a clear set of guidelines for drones, and the leaked memo hints at what they might look like. However, the administration has said that even those official rules, when released, wont apply to the CIA's operations inside Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, where a majority of the deadliest strikes have taken place. UPDATE: During a press briefing on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to clarify the Obama administration's justifications for drone attacks on US citizens. In response to multiple questions about the leaked DOJ memo and its expansive language, he reiterated that the administration takes the subject of targeted killings "very seriously," claiming that the drone strikes are "legal," "ethical," and "wise."
Poster Comment: Now you know why Rand asked this question.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Lester (#0)
Ping
"Depends on what your definition of is, is." ~Bubba Xlinton To normal people words mean things, but not to D&R party officials. Tyrants make this stuff up as they go. The media repeats it until the sheeple believe. For instance, your average dumbcluck voter believes that the only choices are D or R, so 90% of the dolts vote for one of two scumbags presented by the D&R crime syndicate.
Maybe Rand should have asked his bestest friend Bibi. We are just following Israel's lead of preemptive strikes, with collateral damage be damned. You do support everything Israel does....... don't you? If not, you must be too chicken to say so in public.
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
you: "We are just following Israel's lead of preemptive strikes, with collateral damage be damned." me: And you have firsthand knowledge of this...how, link please? you: "You do support everything Israel does....... don't you?" me: I support Israel 100%, and I would send them detailed intructions on how to do more, if I thought they would follow my suggestions to the letter, but I suspect they're a bit saner than I am. you:"If not, you must be too chicken to say so in public." me: Back off Biotch...I have a Pop-Tart, and it's loaded!
(“You can't always control who walks into your life but, you can control which window you throw them out of.”)
Yeah right. I was right over there on the front lines with the rest of you Israel Firster traitors, watching Israel strike Syria on Jan 31 of this year.
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
You Mexican firsters really suck. Go to Mexico.
At least Mexico is in AMERICA and they are mostly Christians although not of the idiot Fundy version you expouse. Maybe I could egg them into doing a preemptive strike on Akron.
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
She has an excellent point.
Graphic for ya.
The only difference between Mexicans and Islamic savages is, muslim scream 'Allahu Akbar' just before they behead you, Mexicans scream, 'Sí se puede', but mexicans do this in larger numbers, and to the most helpless of their citizens. btw! I believe you do have what it takes to be a back stabbing sneak and egg on the enemy to kill your own people, but I don't think you have what it takes to give the order, then lead the charge, you reek of cowardice! March 3rd, 2013- Mexico: 4 headless bodies found 72 Bodies Found In Mexico Mexico: Latest News, Photos, Videos on ... 18 Headless Bodies in Mexico Tourist Area - ABC News 27 Killed, 14 Headless Bodies Found in Acapulco | Fox News (CNN)-- The headless bodies of 15 people were found dumped near a shopping center in the tourist city of Acapulco, Mexico, the Guerrero State Public Six dead bodies minus three hearts - Breaking News, Current Events ...
#2. To: A K A Stone, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)
the document defines these terms vaguely and with many caveats: for example, in one section, it explains the document's broader definition of "imminence," which "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" —
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
Now you know why Rand asked this question.
#4. To: mininggold, A K A Stone (#3)
#5. To: Murron (#4)
(Edited)
#6. To: mininggold (#5)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)
You Mexican firsters really suck. Go to Mexico.
#8. To: mininggold, A K A Stone (#7)
"At least Mexico is in AMERICA and they are mostly Christians although not of the idiot Fundy version you expouse."
#9. To: hondo68 (#2)
#10. To: mininggold, A K A Stone (#7)
"At least Mexico is in AMERICA and they are mostly Christians although not of the idiot Fundy version you expouse. Maybe I could egg them into doing a preemptive strike on Akron."
(“You can't always control who walks into your life but, you can control which window you throw them out of.”)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]