Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

[BigRedChief]

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.”

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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.

It is becoming apparent that the guy simply does not know how to think for himself.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

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

You repped me for it when I made my position on the issue known in 2010.



So, you're criticizing me in this thread... why?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Who is denouncing killing a terrorist abroad?

Taking a page from your book.


I don't know who's doing that. It has nothing to do with this thread, just thought I'd throw it up there for discussion.


Seriously, what's the problem here?

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

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?

Were not clutching our guns here in the states because of some foreign terrorists
You dnt really think we are pro AR-15 because of al-Qaida. Your smarter than that

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You repped me for it when I made my position on the issue known in 2010.



So, you're criticizing me in this thread... why?

Because you love Barry so much and because of your snarky comment.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Because you love Barry so much and because of your snarky comment.

So, for brainless spite.

Because absolutely no sane analysis of my record on this board will conclude that I'm an apologist for any part of Obama's drone warfare. I'm absolutely against it.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

Were not clutching or guns here in the states because of some foreign terrorists
You dnt really think we are pro AR-15 because of al-Qaida. Your smarter than that

1 terrorist can do more damage in 15 minutes than 1 crazy **** in hours.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

1 terrorist can do more damage in 15 minutes than 1 crazy **** in hours.

that's debatable at best

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

that's debatable at best

a terrorist leader has a network of attacks he can call upon (See 9-11), a crazy **** has himself.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

a terrorist leader has a network of attacks he can call upon (See 9-11), a crazy **** has himself.

You said a terrorist. I thought you were saying 1 guy vs 1 crazy guy

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

...a crazy **** has himself.

And a Justice Department, it appears.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

You said a terrorist. I thought you were saying 1 guy vs 1 crazy guy

Only time I compare that is in the context of a steel cage.

[cosmo20002]

Congress authorized military force against Al Queda.
American goes overseas, joins AQ, also becomes operational leader.

And some think that he should be off limits? WTF? You right-wingers are going to have to twist yourself into pretzels to bitch about this.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Congress authorized military force against Al Queda.
American goes overseas, joins AQ, also allegedly becomes operational leader.

Prove it in court.

That's the whole point of this shit.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Prove it in court.

That's the whole point of this shit.

**** that.