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.”

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Under the reasoning set forth in the memo, you are completely wrong.

How so?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by teedubya

You have to see through the bullshit and read between the lines. This is a giant step... the US Govt can legally drone bomb US citizens now. We will most likely start seeing drones just flying over the US patrolling sooner than later.

#murica

Well, I read the actual lines. Did you read the memo? I know you didn't, so start there--read it. There were a number of conditions laid out as to why smoking this guy would be legal. The Occupy gang wouldn't qualify.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You were apparently flabbergasted by the idea that "some" would think an American who goes overseas to join AQ should be off-limits to this kind of attack and followed it up with a sentence that suggests you think the members of "some" are right-wingers. I'm pointing out that the guy who is currently complaining about it, indeed he claims to have been "banging the drum against this longer and harder than anybody else on this board" is Direckshun. It looked like you didn't bother to read the thread and just assumed this was a case of right wingers reacting to perfectly reasonable Obama administration action. It turns out you were wrong on both counts.

I said the right-wingers would have to twist themselves into pretzels to bitch about this because this is normally the type of thing right-wingers cheer--kicking terrorist ass wherever they may be (that changed when Obama came to town).

Direckshun, "the guy currently currently complaining about it," doesn't need to twist--his position has been steady all along. I don't agree with Direckshun on this, but he's not being a hypocrite--as many on the right are.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

How so?

Standard were set out defending the legality of the attack on AQ in Yemen. Occupy Wall Street wouldn't meet those standards.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I said the right-wingers would have to twist themselves into pretzels to bitch about this because this is normally the type of thing right-wingers cheer--kicking terrorist ass wherever they may be (that changed when Obama came to town).

Direckshun, "the guy currently currently complaining about it," doesn't need to twist--his position has been steady all along. I don't agree with Direckshun on this, but he's not being a hypocrite--as many on the right are.

Like I said, you seem to be on auto-pilot. Where are all these hypocrites on the right? To the extent that there's been any criticism from the right at all (e.g. petegz28 and myself), it's been pretty measured and is easily distinguishable from any support we previously gave counter-terrorism measures.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Standard were set out defending the legality of the attack on AQ in Yemen. Occupy Wall Street wouldn't meet those standards.

You didn't read the memo or the article very carefully then. Neither establishes a threshold for this type of action. They point out reasons why the al-Awlaki killing is acceptable, but they go out of their way to say that those reasons aren't minimum requirements. IOW, no standard is set and a strike against OWS isn't ruled out (although it's certainly unlikely, IMO).

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

They point out reasons why the al-Awlaki killing is acceptable,

I supported and still do support this decision. If you provide aid and comfort or support to those who are actively plotting to kill Americans, you are putting yourself in that bulls eye.

American citizen or not, I have no qualms about the military taking you out before you can harm innocent Americans.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I supported and still do support this decision. If you provide aid and comfort or support to those who are actively plotting to kill Americans, you are putting yourself in that bulls eye.

American citizen or not, I have no qualms about the military taking you out before you can harm innocent Americans.

Yes yes! Good comrade! We must allow our government all power! We need to surrender our rights for our own protection~

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Like I said, you seem to be on auto-pilot. Where are all these hypocrites on the right? To the extent that there's been any criticism from the right at all (e.g. petegz28 and myself), it's been pretty measured and is easily distinguishable from any support we previously gave counter-terrorism measures.

Read thread.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I supported and still do support this decision. If you provide aid and comfort or support to those who are actively plotting to kill Americans, you are putting yourself in that bulls eye.

American citizen or not, I have no qualms about the military taking you out before you can harm innocent Americans.

...and embed yourself with a group that Congress has specifically authorized military action against. Not to mention that he wasn't just aiding and comforting, he was one of the plotters.

These guys act like he was just casually affiliated with AQ through a message board or something and he just was sitting in his condo in Peoria when they launched a missle at him.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

...and embed yourself with a group that Congress has specifically authorized military action against. Not to mention that he wasn't just aiding and comforting, he was one of the plotters.

These guys act like he was just casually affiliated with AQ through a message board or something and he just was sitting in his condo in Peoria when they launched a missle at him.

There you go again. Who are "these guys"?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Read thread.

I've read it. Now point out where I'm wrong.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by teedubya

You have to see through the bullshit and read between the lines. This is a giant step... the US Govt can legally drone bomb US citizens now. We will most likely start seeing drones just flying over the US patrolling sooner than later.

#murica

the only diff might be frequency

[petegz28]

I don't care if we take out an "American" who is overseas and actually grouping with an enemy. I don't think most people would have an issue with that in general. I am just a little concerned at what doors this opens for future "interpretations" of said strategy.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I don't care if we take out an "American" who is overseas and actually grouping with an enemy. I don't think most people would have an issue with that in general. I am just a little concerned at what doors this opens for future "interpretations" of said strategy.

This is a memo, not a public policy. I'm curious as to if you believe that this is the first memo of it's type ever written. Although I'm certain there is no way to prove it.