ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Nat'l Security Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=269697)

BigRedChief 02-04-2013 08:36 PM

Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
 
This is now public info as of tonight.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...americans?lite

By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News


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.

Michael Isikoff, national investigative correspondent for NBC News, talks with Rachel Maddow about a newly obtained, confidential Department of Justice white paper that hints at the details of a secret White House memo that explains the legal justifications for targeted drone strikes that kill Americans without trial in the name of national security.

“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.”

LiveSteam 02-04-2013 08:44 PM

Clays in big big big trouble now

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/2...aunaltered.jpg

Direckshun 02-04-2013 08:52 PM

The memo: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf

petegz28 02-04-2013 08:54 PM

Quote:

“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.
:facepalm:

listopencil 02-04-2013 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil (Post 9339899)
So...when the CIA comes looking for you, tortures a confession out of you and convicts you of planning domestic terrorism, will you still not give a shit? Any of you gun owners say anything bad about Obama on your FB pages? Any joking comments, born of frustration, that could be seen as threatening in a certain context? If someone gathered everything that you've posted online for the last five years do you think a case could be made that you needed to be detained by Homeland Security? Just something to think about, comrades.

Nah. That will never happen. Our government would never treat us so poorly.

ClevelandBronco 02-04-2013 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 9378935)
...what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S...

Tell me I didn't just read that.

They'd better be prepared to kill a hell of a lot of citizens, because this shit is an invitation for large numbers to turn against the government.

Direckshun 02-04-2013 08:57 PM

Cue the famous Benjamin Franklin quote.

You know which one.

petegz28 02-04-2013 08:58 PM

1 Attachment(s)
:rolleyes:

Direckshun 02-04-2013 08:59 PM

I do want to highlight something, however.

If you believed the drone strike against Anwar Al-Awlaki was justified, well then this is the legal reasoning you're clinging to.

Own up to it. Embrace it. This is the America you so desire.

petegz28 02-04-2013 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9378968)
I do want to highlight something, however.

If you believed the drone strike against Anwar Al-Awlaki was justified, well then this is the legal reasoning you're clinging to.

Own up to it. Embrace it. This is the America you so desire.

Apparently since it's your boyfriend doing this you are just all warm and fuzzy about the whole thing.

BigRedChief 02-04-2013 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9378968)
I do want to highlight something, however.

If you believed the drone strike against Anwar Al-Awlaki was justified, well then this is the legal reasoning you're clinging to.

Own up to it. Embrace it. This is the America you so desire.

Just so you know and anyone who brings this up...... I will not have a public personal opinion on this........... for the time being.

Direckshun 02-04-2013 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 9378976)
Apparently since it's your boyfriend doing this you are just all warm and fuzzy about the whole thing.

I've been banging the drum against this longer and harder than anybody else on this board.

You've even given me positive rep for it. I can post it for public view here if you so wish.

Ask yourself: exactly how far do you have your head up your ass.

J Diddy 02-04-2013 09:11 PM

Why is it that the same people who denounce killing a terrorist abroad are the same people clutching to their guns for fear of terrorists coming to their homes?

petegz28 02-04-2013 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9378993)
I've been banging the drum against this longer and harder than anybody else on this board.

You've even given me positive rep for it. I can post it for public view here if you so wish.

Ask yourself: exactly how far do you have your head up your ass.

Hmm, considering I repped you for you position do you still want me to answer that question?

petegz28 02-04-2013 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy (Post 9379000)
Why is it that the same people who denounce killing a terrorist abroad are the same people clutching to their guns for fear of terrorists coming to their homes?

Who is denouncing killing a terrorist abroad?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.