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.”

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

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.

Probably not but look at what our Fed Gov has done in not even the distant past. Now you have this regime known as DHS that is hording ammo and firearms, controling our borders, putting out memos about certain "types" of 'muricans are potential threats and what not.

Do I think the Fed Gov will start taking Americans inside the U.S. tomorrow? No

Do I think this presents a very slippery slope?
Yes

[Direckshun]

Boehner is backing up Obama:

When an individual has joined al-Qaida — the organization responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans — and actively plots future attacks against U.S. citizens, soldiers, and interests around the world, the U.S. government has both the authority and the obligation to defend the country against that threat.

That was a statement by House Intelligence chair Mike Rogers, whom Boehner said he echoed on the subject.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Boehner is backing up Obama:



That was a statement by House Intelligence chair Mike Rogers, whom Boehner said he echoed on the subject.

That doesn't mean he supports every word and implication of that memo.

[BigChiefTablet]

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?

I am against killing American citizens without a trial. I am against illegal wars being started without congressional approval. I am opposed to the empire building wars that our government continually drums up around the globe. I opposed the Patriot Act under Bush and its continuance by vote of the current administration. I am opposed to the NDAA no matter which political party supports it.

I am FOR the second amendment. There is no paradox or whatever the hell it is you are imagining here. So **** off with your party politics bullshit.

[Direckshun]

Politico:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) will offer a resolution next week commending President Barack Obama's use of drones and the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. 'Every member of Congress needs to get on board,' Graham said. 'It's not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He's getting hit from libertarians and the left.'

God.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I am against killing American citizens without a trial. I am against illegal wars being started without congressional approval. I am opposed to the empire building wars that our government continually drums up around the globe. I opposed the Patriot Act under Bush and its continuance by vote of the current administration. I am opposed to the NDAA no matter which political party supports it.

I am FOR the second amendment. There is no paradox or whatever the hell it is you are imagining here. So **** off with your party politics bullshit.

Yep it is party politics at it's finest dipshit. I don't give 8 shits where a mother ****er is born, but if he's planning to attack the US he's no longer a citizen.

So take them apples and smoke them you insignificant peter puffer.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Politico:



God.

There is so little difference in foreign policy between Obama and the Republicans.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

There is so little difference in foreign policy between Obama and the Republicans.

And you and Direckshun worship him why again?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Yep it is party politics at it's finest dipshit. I don't give 8 shits where a mother ****er is born, but if he's planning to attack the US he's no longer a citizen.

So take them apples and smoke them you insignificant peter puffer.

This is about as far from party politics as you can get these days. And to the extent that anyone is taking an anti-Obama stance on this for the sake of politics, it pales in comparison to the political posturing and intellectual gymnastics taken around the Iraq war.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

it pales in comparison to the political posturing and intellectual gymnastics taken around the Iraq war.

Big huge difference. Iraq was a war of choice. We must hunt down and kill those that are actively plotting and killing Americans.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Big huge difference. Iraq was a war of choice. We must hunt down and kill those that are actively plotting and killing Americans.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I figured you'd like it.

[BigRedChief]

Another drone secret is out of the bag. We have secret drone air bases in Saudi arabia.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...to-be-revealed

The Obama administration says lethal airstrikes, delivered stealthily by drones, have been a major success in its counterterrorism efforts. But the administration has been much less successful in keeping secret the details of the often controversial drone program.


Last May, Foreign Policy published this story providing details on 12 U.S. drone bases spread across three continents, from the Seychelles to the Philippines.


And in the latest revelation, The New York Times reported Tuesday that a clandestine U.S. drone base was built in Saudi Arabia primarily to carry out strikes in neighboring Yemen, a stronghold for an al-Qaida affiliate, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.


The Times and other news organizations say they knew about the base for some time. But the organizations had not revealed its existence at the request of U.S. officials, who wanted to keep it under wraps.
The managing editor of The Times, Dean Baquet, said the paper decided to reveal its existence now because of role played by John Brennan, the nominee to become CIA chief.


"It was central to the story because the architect of the base and drone program [Brennan] is nominated to head the C.I.A.," Baquet told The Times' public editor.


Brennan goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday for his confirmation hearing.


Karen DeYoung, who covers national security for The Washington Post, told All Things Considered that the Saudi base was built in 2010 "specifically for the CIA to launch drones both for surveillance and for targeted killing strikes against [al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula]."
She said the Obama administration wanted to keep the base secret "because of sensitivities in Saudi Arabia itself. Because of their internal politics and because of what they see as their position in the Islamic world, they didn't want it published that they were allowing the CIA to actually occupy real estate inside Saudi Arabia."


And speaking of Brennan, who has played a highly influential role as counterterrorism adviser to President Obama, DeYoung said:

"It was really Brennan who put this all together and made a strategy out of [various counterterrorism tactics] for the future that the administration hopes it can use when we're not going to have big armies on the ground."

[Direckshun]

I hope at least a few folks grow some sacks and rib Brennan hard at his confirmation hearing.

[Direckshun]

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ce-156326.html

Obama reverses course, approves providing legal advice on drones to Congress
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN and JOSH GERSTEIN
2/6/13 7:29 PM EST

President Obama has reversed course and agreed to provide the congressional intelligence committees with classified Justice Department legal advice authorizing the use of drones to kill U.S. citizens abroad, two administration officials said Wednesday evening.

The sharing of the information, which lawmakers had long sought, comes on the eve of a Senate hearing on John Brennan’s nomination to serve as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Some senators had suggested that his nomination could be blocked if the administration was not more forthcoming.

Obama made the decision Wednesday to provide members of Congress with the Office of Legal Counsel's advice, one official said, following the leak earlier in the week of a Justice Department white paper on the use of drones. The white paper appears to have been derived from the longer legal memo or memos that the administration long resisted sharing with the oversight panels on the Hill.

A leading lawmaker in the drive for access to the memos, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), welcomed Obama's decision but suggested more disclosure was necessary. "This is an encouraging first step," Wyden told the Associated Press. "There is now an opportunity to build on it."

Earlier Wednesday, Wyden said he would "pull out all the stops to get the actual legal analysis, because without it, in effect, the administration is, in effect, practicing secret law." He also accused the White House of stonewalling.

On Monday, Wyden and ten other senators sent Obama letter demanding access to the legal opinions. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) also called for Congress to see the documents.

"I passionately disagree with them not providing the actual legal opinion," Rogers told MSNBC Wednesday, prior to Obama's new move.

Feinstein said she was "pleased" with the president's action. "It is critical for the committee's oversight function to fully understand the legal basis for all intelligence and counterterrorism operations," she said. She indicated her panel expected to have access to the confidential advice by Thursday morning, ahead of the afternoon hearing scheduled with Brennan.

However, some outsside advocates said showing the memos to Congress was insufficient. .

"Everyone – not just select members of Congress – has a right to know when the government believes it can kill American citizens," the American Civil Liberties Union's Chris Anders said in a statement. "This concession has taken far too long and falls far short of President Obama's commitment to transparency he pledged to abide by since becoming president.”

The administration characterized Obama's decision Wednesday as consistent with his stated desire for Congress to be involved in refining the legal framework surrounding counterterror efforts, and press secretary Jay Carney said in a briefing this week that Obama thinks "it is legitimate to ask questions about how we prosecute the war against Al Qaida."

In an interview last year on "The Daily Show," Obama said: "One of the things that we've got to do is put a legal architecture in place and we need congressional help to do that to make sure that not only am I reined in, but any president is reined in, in terms of some of the decisions that we're making."

Obama made a similar comment in a May 2009 speech, but critics said the administration never did much to enlist Congress's help in crafting war-on-terror legislation, except for a measure to reform military commissions.