Justice Dept Memo: Drone Strikes on Americans legal.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I see nothing that can go wrong here.

 

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

 

 

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 abroad, 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.

 

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.”

 

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making

 

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

[DankNuggs 305]

New boss is the same as the old boss.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Focking bullshit.

[RLLD 3,455]

yay

[drobeski 3,061]

They should start with moonbat central harvard u

[Recliner Pilot 61]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- Thousands of tiny unmanned aircraft or drones flying into civilian airspace over the United States can pose a security threat as they may be difficult to monitor in the long run and some craft may fall into enemy hands, security analysts say.

 

Although debate over the use of surveillance drones, approved by Congress this week, centers on civil liberties and individuals' rights, a much greater risk of hostile drones entering U.S. airspace undetected isn't being considered, analysts said.

The Federation Aviation Administration said up to 30,000 drones could be in airspace shared with airliners carrying passengers.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/02/08/Drones-over-US-may-pose-security-risks/UPI-86341328740671/#ixzz2K2Z6dY4D

[Lackman 0]

This is why they want to take away your guns, you dopes.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Drone strikes are definitely the big thing looming out there that could really blow up in Obama's face. We have no idea what they're doing. Right now I think most Americans would rather not know, and many people assume Obama can't be doing anything that bad because liberals are supposed to be soft on defense, but all it takes is one big scandal to bring some things to the surface.

 

I'm not comfortable with this memo. I wasn't comfortable with the torture memo and I'm not sure this one is any better. Sure you have to go after al Qaeda, but killing Americans with no due process whatsoever? Clearly that is dangerous.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Drone strikes are definitely the big thing looming out there that could really blow up in Obama's face. We have no idea what they're doing. Right now I think most Americans would rather not know, and many people assume Obama can't be doing anything that bad because liberals are supposed to be soft on defense, but all it takes is one big scandal to bring some things to the surface.

 

I'm not comfortable with this memo. I wasn't comfortable with the torture memo and I'm not sure this one is any better. Sure you have to go after al Qaeda, but killing Americans with no due process whatsoever? Clearly that is dangerous.

It's not only dangerous, it is illegal. HTH

[IGotWorms 3,315]

It's not only dangerous, it is illegal. HTH

 

We shall see.

 

Personally I would've liked the authors of the torture memos to be tried with war crimes. It didn't happen though.

[BudBro 117]

It's not only dangerous, it is illegal. HTH

but the memo says it is legal.

[drobeski 3,061]

We shall see.

 

Personally I would've liked the authors of the torture memos to be tried with war crimes. It didn't happen though.

Is it a crime to leave an ambassador and some seals to die ? How about supplying drug lords with automatic weapons ?

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Is it a crime to leave an ambassador and some seals to die ? How about supplying drug lords with automatic weapons ?

 

Dumb post. How is that at all relevant to the drone strike revelation?

 

Look, I said I'm not comfortable with this. Maybe Americans of all stripes could band together and tell our government "this is not OK." But not if you're just going to turn this into another bullsh!t political pissing match by bringing in that Benghazi crap and your other irrelevant grievances.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,920]

Imagine the outcry if Bush signed onto this. Maddows bagina would explode.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I agree with Worms.

 

If, in a single thead, we try to discuss every instance where Obama has broken the law and/or ignored the Constitution we would kill Mike"s hamster.

 

Better spread that around for the sake of the innerwebs.

[drobeski 3,061]

Dumb post. How is that at all relevant to the drone strike revelation?

 

Look, I said I'm not comfortable with this. Maybe Americans of all stripes could band together and tell our government "this is not OK." But not if you're just going to turn this into another bullsh!t political pissing match by bringing in that Benghazi crap and your other irrelevant grievances.

Your selective outrage/ irrelevance is pretty cute. Do you have a barrack game game jersey ?

[drobeski 3,061]

Imagine the outcry if Bush sign onto this. Maddows ballsack would explode.

Fixed

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I was watching CNN earlier and they were talking about this quite a bit. Apparently, there is some warning in advance. There is typically a van that is parked on the edge of the target area and it monitors when the target enters via a wireless network named "FBI Surveillance Van".

 

They were saying that they usually monitor for a little while, leave for a few months and then come back to finish the deal later on.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I was watching CNN earlier and they were talking about this quite a bit. Apparently, there is some warning in advance. There is typically a van that is parked on the edge of the target area and it monitors when the target enters via a wireless network named "FBI Surveillance Van".

 

They were saying that they usually monitor for a little while, leave for a few months and then come back to finish the deal later on.

 

Would that this were true! :prays:

[Recliner Pilot 61]

White House response to question on this:

 

 

 

Carney: Drone Strikes ‘Legal,’ ‘Ethical,’ ‘Wise’

 

White House press secretary said Tuesday the administration’s use of drones is “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise,” at a press briefing following remarks by President Obama.

 

“These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise,” Carney said.

 

NBC News reported late Monday on an unclassified Department of Justice white paper on the use of drones against American citizens, like al Qaeda operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.

 

 

 

 

 

http://freebeacon.com/carney-drone-strikes-legal-ethical-wise/

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Bump

 

You even posted in this Dank

[HenryHill9323 65]

Holy epic meltdown!

 

[NewbieJr 540]

Ouch. Gotta hate when your own words bite you in the ass. Lolol. RP is a hypocritical hack. As if that's a shock to anyone.

 

Imagine his dismay when he realized that he can no longer delete all the dumbass things he's posted under the Recliner Pilot moniker. Bwahahaha

[HenryHill9323 65]

How did this bite me in the ass, Ducky? I have never changed my position on this.

 

Oops!

[HenryHill9323 65]

How did this bite me in the ass, Ducky? I have never changed my position on this.

 

Oops!

bump

[HenryHill9323 65]