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.”

[Taco John]

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.

I'm sure that you agree that this is impeachable, then?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'm sure that you agree that this is impeachable, then?

You ****ing people are ridiculous. If you can't beat em, impeach em.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

You ****ing people are ridiculous. If you can't beat em, impeach em.

This has nothing to do with "beating" him. It's about setting a precedent so future presidents don't stray this far off the tracks again. Nothing is impeachable if this isn't.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Taco John

This has nothing to do with "beating" him. It's about setting a precedent so future presidents don't stray this far off the tracks again. Nothing is impeachable if this isn't.

Please tell me what is impeachable about this.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Please tell me what is impeachable about this.

I'm not really interested in doing that. I'd rather talk to someone who is smart enough to know without needing to be walked through the basics. It's one thing for you to find the question interesting as a matter of constitutional principle and the fact that this is brand new territory for this nation. But for you to be completely in the dark about the question - that's ignorance that I don't have the patience to suffer. Ask someone else.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Fletch: Can't keep me here, chief.
Chief Karlin: Maybe I'm not going to keep you here. Maybe I'm going to blow your brains out.
Fletch: Well, now, I'm no lawyer, but... I do believe that's a violation of my rights.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'm not really interested in doing that. I'd rather talk to someone who is smart enough to know without needing to be walked through the basics. It's one thing for you to find the question interesting as a matter of constitutional principle and the fact that this is brand new territory for this nation. But for you to be completely in the dark about the question - that's ignorance that I don't have the patience to suffer. Ask someone else.

You honestly think this is new for this country? Do you honestly think this country hasn't assassinated before?

and you call me ignorant?

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

You honestly think this is new for this country? Do you honestly think this country hasn't assassinated before?

and you call me ignorant?

You have to admit that announcing their intentions beforehand is unique.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

You honestly think this is new for this country? Do you honestly think this country hasn't assassinated before?

and you call me ignorant?

Above Board = No,

Devious and underhanded = Yes.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

You have to admit that announcing their intentions beforehand is unique.

I say in a situation like that, it is comparable to the civil war.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I say in a situation like that, it is comparable to the civil war.

Good night.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's funny how you .pretend you're not just some partisan apologist for Obama

[blaise]

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?

What a lame post that is.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

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

yeah, we were all waiting for it, 007.

[NewChief]

And Obama goes even further down the wormhole.

As for Republicans impeaching? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Here let me laugh some more:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.


They're complicit in this shit, just like the Patriot Act. They may try to make some political hay out of it, but they're more than happy to sell our rights down the river along with the Dems.

In addition, it doesn't fit into their political narrative. They'd be way too scared to come off as soft on terrorists while Obama comes off looking like a badass who takes care of business. No, they'll relinquish the point and many probably even praise it for the sake of political expediency.

Now if Obama was getting a BJ from an intern or worshiping Satan or something... those would be "impeachable."