You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Yes, Obama CAN kill Americans -- white paper sez so
2013-02-05
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 administrationÂ’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.

“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.

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.”
Posted by:Steve White

#19  So IOW, in 2013 the DoJ, Obama + AG Eric Holder finally gives Penn State some legal after-the-fact-is-before-the-fact "protection".

You betcha!

[WAYNE'S WORLD "Thumbs Up" here].

AL BUNDY IS NOT SHOCKED, HE TELLS YA, HE'S NOT SHOCKED!

lol.

OTOH pragmatically 'tis NOT good news for me given my past relationship wid Whitney-fan OBL, e.g. Afghan War.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2013-02-05 22:02  

#18  well I certainly hope my AmEx travel insurance covers this sort of thing when I'm overseas. Wouldn't want to become a smoking greasy spot - and not get a handsome settlement :-)
Posted by: Raider   2013-02-05 21:52  

#17  Only kiss? You underestimate our esteemed president.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2013-02-05 21:47  

#16  "Do [Ahmadinejad and Assad] have more rights than Americans?"

To this Administration? Of course, John.

Bambi never met a murderous dictator whose ass he didn't want to kiss. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara   2013-02-05 20:11  

#15  I thought the due process was to eat a waffle for breakfast and peruse a target menu a la cart.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2013-02-05 18:12  

#14  I didn't see much in all that regarding "collateral damage".
Posted by: KBK   2013-02-05 18:04  

#13  You can drone zap Americans? That is a slippery slope. There is no due process other than what the President decides. Can Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be drone-zapped? How about Assad? Do they have more rights than Americans? Morsi?
Posted by: JohnQC   2013-02-05 17:50  

#12  Just imagine the (feigned) outrage if this had been produced by the Bush administration.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2013-02-05 16:50  

#11  Speaking of another target for a drone zap...
Posted by: DarthVader   2013-02-05 12:31  

#10  "His Imperial Highness can do as he pleases."

Only so long as the American people are happy to have the Saudis calling the shots. It doesn't have to be like that. Once upon a time our president would have bowed to no one, and certainly not a mass murdering tyrant.
Posted by: ChuffingChuffChuff   2013-02-05 12:24  

#9  Never mind how slippery that slope is. His Imperial Highness can do as he pleases.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2013-02-05 11:37  

#8  Steve says,

That's a slippery slope, and people like Obama and Holder are willing to slide a fair ways down.

Zero and company are willing to slide ALL the way down that slope because the like what's at the bottom...absolute power.
Posted by: AlanC   2013-02-05 11:33  

#7  I'd like to see a bipartisan finding required
Posted by: Frank G   2013-02-05 11:20  

#6  I have a problem with this. 14th Amendment protects Americans' rights to due process.

If an American decides to join the other side and pick up a gun, then I have no problem if he happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on a battlefield. Or else, if we get our mitts on him we can charge him with treason, try him and execute him.

But to drone-zap an American, specifically, not as part of a battle encounter, and without charging him? That's a slippery slope, and people like Obama and Holder are willing to slide a fair ways down.
Posted by: Steve White   2013-02-05 11:17  

#5  Well if you're planning on going crackers and the feds pass a phone into your bunker to conduct negotiations, don't set it on the shelf. Place it in an empty ammo can when not in use.
Posted by: Besoeker   2013-02-05 11:16  

#4  I don't have a problem with this if the American is:

A) Outside the territory controlled by the US

B) Actively helping a declared enemy of the US to attack US interests and personnel/civilians

C) Declared his allegiance with the enemy

In those cases I say the American chose his fate and bombs away!
Posted by: DarthVader   2013-02-05 11:11  

#3  Personally I would feelmore comfortable with this kind of legal determination if Georgie had his finger on the trigger instead of this pocket dictator and his cult of personality.

Kinda makes you wonder what kind of information they've been loading into the GPS systems at GM doesn't it?

Don't look for me to get an onboard navigation system in an american car as long as this Oligarch in in power.
Posted by: Bill Clinton   2013-02-05 10:38  

#2  Given that the Constitution gives the President executive power (art II sec 1) and CIC (art II sec 2)and given that the oath requires 'preserve and protect' (art II sec 1), there is at least a reasonable basis for this.

However, if there was some 'outside the WH' review of this by some judicial panel or some legislative/judicial panel, I would feel much better about it. Otherwise, what is the 'due process'?

Posted by: lord garth   2013-02-05 10:30  

#1  The memo does not define "recently" or "activities."

But murdering a bus driver and holding a little boy hostage probably fits the current definition. Before that it would have been Waco, but that was many Super Bowls ago. Case Law and "White Papers", totally unnecessary but conveniently re-established.
Posted by: Besoeker   2013-02-05 08:04  

00:00