Leaked Memo Cites Legal Rationale For Targeted Assassination Of Americans Abroad

Let’s take a look at a few headlines, shall we?

Those are just a sampling of how the Credentialed Media is treating the release of the document which describes the legal rationale for whacking a US citizen abroad who has joined a terrorist group. In many cases, as I check around, the story is either buried deep or there is none. Can you imagine how this would have been received had Bush been president? Can you imagine the hysterical headlines? The stories themselves tend to be rather tepid, instead of the thinly veiled op-eds we were used to when Bush was in office.

NBC News is the outlet with the exclusive (first link)

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.

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.”

This would have driven liberals and the media bat guano insane during the Bush administration. Heck, think how much “ink” they used due to a few idiots forcing prisoners to create naked pyramids at Abu Ghraid and stone cold killers being tortured with Britney Spears music. Now you have calm, rational stories. And liberals like Emptywheel defending Dear Leader. TalkLeft isn’t much better. In other cases, the same barking moonbats who would have assailed Bush can’t be bothered to bash Obama despite this paper saying Obama is doing things liberals really, really hate. Of course, not everyone is on board

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

And blogger David Swanson isn’t particularly enthused by the legal case for assassination.

As for myself, while this does create some concern over the possibility for abuse, I’m actually going to somewhat agree with Team Obama’s rationale for whacking US citizens who have joined Islamic terrorist groups. Once the people do that, and take a position to attempt to kill Americans and harm America, the are now enemies. Interestingly, this seems to be one thing Obama actually understands in practice (as opposed to his rhetoric), namely that these Islamists are at war with the United States and the West, and need to be eradicated like vermin.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

4 Comments

Comment by Jim B
2013-02-05 09:24:30

Are you sure it stipulated only abroad.

 
Comment by William Teach
2013-02-05 12:18:26

Hopefully so…..what’s that flying above me?

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-02-05 13:36:05

The problem that I see with the paper is the shifting of burden within the paper. For example, the paper states the US has the right to take out an American citizen in the leadership of al-Qaida if they are planning an operation that is an “imminent threat” to the US or US interests.

The term “imminent” is never defined and later dropped in the paper. So the Obama administration goes from “being in leadership and imminent threat” to “being in al-Qaida” as the only criteria for being targeted.

I think most Americans would agree that once you take up arms against the country that you get what is coming to you. But at the current time, that view is not supported by the law. You have to not only take up arms but actually do something.

Many people are writing about the John Yoo memo that allowed the US to waterboard terrorists and how that was assailed by Obama and those on the left. That paper sought not to say torture was legal, but that waterboarding was not torture.

This paper by the Justice Department is quite different. It seeks to say that Constitutional guarantees do not apply and that an American citizen abroad can be targeted to be killed without any due process and at any time.

This is a scary paper.

 
Comment by RedPill59
2013-02-06 02:13:19

I am sorry to disagree with you on this one. This is a slippery slope that will end badly. Once you take a stance that it is ok to target US citizens abroad that “May” be linked to a terrorist group what stops the government from doing the exact same thing on US soil. It is not a big step to go from foreign soil to US soil. We have laws and the constitution states very clearly that ALL US citizens are entitled to jury trial, habeus corpus, protected from illegal search and siezures. This trumps all of those rights. There are ways to take care of a US citizen that has joined a terrorist group plotting agains the US. It is called treason and there are laws about that and how to deal with it, however even then the individula must be tried and found guilty of treason and not some beuracrat that makes the decision and proceeds to light you up with a hellfire missle. Where are the checks and balances? I am all for taking out enemies of the US but there is a right way to do it.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9097 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE