DOJ Justifies Drone Strikes Against Americans

This is such an important issue it deserves its own thread.​

​

View attachment 1469 ​

​

DOJ Drones Paper: Obama's Second-Term Cabinet, Agenda Faces New Scrutiny​

WASHINGTON -- A report Monday night on the nature of the administration's drone program has the potential to dramatically revamp the debate over President Barack Obama's foreign policy and the confirmation process for his incoming cabinet.

The report, by Michael Isikoff of NBC News, reveals that the Obama administration believes that high-level administration officials -- not just the president -- may order the killing of “senior operational leaders” of al Qaeda or an associated force even without evidence they are actively plotting against the U.S.

“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” states the Justice Department white paper quoted by Isikoff.

The 16-page memo, given to Congress in June, is not the final Office of Legal Counsel memo that news organizations have sued to obtain. But it offers plenty of insight into the government’s justification for killing American citizens in overseas drone strikes.

The paper states that the U.S. would be able to kill a U.S. citizen overseas when "an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government" determines the target is an imminent threat, when capture would be infeasible and when the operation is "conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles."

The white paper suggests that such decisions would not be subject to judicial review and outlines a broad definition of what constitutes “imminent” threat.

Constitutional experts said the memo's definition doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Administration critics immediately said the white paper is fresh evidence the president has abandoned his 2008 campaign pledge to recognize and respect the limits of executive power.

Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union called the document "pretty remarkable" and said some of its arguments "don't stand up to even cursory review." He said the paper “only underscores the irresponsible extravagance of the government's central claim.”

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, called the document “profoundly disturbing” and said it was “hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances.”

“It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority –- the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact,” Shamsi said in a statement.

Watchdog groups and members of Congress have made repeated pleas for the administration to release internal documents outlining the rationale for the targeted killing program, especially when the target is an American citizen. NBC's report increases pressure on the administration to release additional documents.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.

Earlier on Monday, 11 senators signed a letter formally requesting that the administration provide its legal justification for drone strikes to Congress. Marcy Wheeler, a blogger who has closely tracked the requests, said it was at least the 12th time Congress had asked for such documents.

The Justice Department white paper's publication comes at an unfortunate time for the White House, shepherding several top cabinet nominees through confirmation in the Senate. The leak may pose hurdles for the confirmation of John Brennan, the nominee for CIA director.

Brennan, now a top White House adviser, is the architect of Obama’s drone policy. He has been a strong proponent of the expanded practice of targeted assassinations to kill suspected terrorists wherever they may be. It was under his watch that the Anwar al-Awlaki assassination was approved.

In the final months of Obama’s first term, Brennan joined other members of the national security team to codify procedures for determining the appropriate use of targeted killings into a so-called “playbook,” but much of the process remains opaque.

Nevertheless, it is likely that the legal backbone for the drone and killing program will emerge as a major controversy in Obama's second term as the death toll rises. In addition to Brennan, Obama’s pick for secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, is a proponent of selective strikes, including drone kills, to maintain America’s edge in the war on terrorism without risking major troop deployments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/doj-drones-paper_n_2619582.html

 

View attachment 1470 View attachment 1471 View attachment 1472 View attachment 1473

 

View attachment 1474 View attachment 1475 View attachment 1476 View attachment 1477

 

Kirsten Powers Rips Obama and Other Liberals for Supporting Drone 'Kill List'


February 6, 2013

Kirsten Powers began the "America Live" segment by arguing that Obama might be “worse” than Bush on terror policies, because the former is “assassinating American citizens with no due process.” She cited the killing of the 16-year-old, Colorado-born son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a drone despite having no evidence of being an Al Qaeda operative. “How is that okay?” she asked.

Co-panelist Monica Crowley chimed in that Bush had received much criticism for his memo providing a legal framework for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and yet there is a lack of “liberal outrage” over the president’s “kill list.”

Asked to explain how some of her fellow liberals could defend the drone strikes, Powers said, “I can’t. I mean, they’re clearly hypocrites and they clearly don’t care about human rights. They only care if it helps them politically. That’s all I can say. a couple of people are great on this issue.” She cited a few liberals like Glenn Greenwald, who are “consistent” on this issue, but “for the most part it’s despicable.”

She continued: “There is no way you can argue that you can kill an American without due process and that he’s not being held accountable by the media, I mean, he’s not even addressed this memo. Could you imagine if this was Bush?”

By the end of the segment, Powers concluded, “Can you imagine if, as Robert Gibbs said when he was asked about Anwar al-Awlaki’s son being killed, ‘He should have had a better father‘? Could you imagine? They should not let this administration get away with it.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-libe...ther-liberals-for-supporting-drone-kill-list/

 

IMO, if any "American"* declares their intention to kill other people (particularly other Americans), or is pursuing that goal, then they are society's enemies and steps must be taken to prevent them from succeeding. IMO, that "American's" rights to due process, their very lives, are forfeited.

*I don't know the legal requirements that go into someone being declared to be no longer an "American", but my standard is such that any American who joins an army or group determined to kill Americans is no longer one.

Legally, the government would probably rather capture the traitors and put them on trial, with all the "pomp and circumstance" bs that goes with it. Me? I'd just end their existence, as I have little interest in ceremony or legal procedure.

Feel free to have your own opinion, and I'm sure there are tens of thousands of lawyers out there just chomping at the bit to take your money and challenge any existing interpretations on anything...those blood-sucking...but, I'm not talking law (in the above opinion), but rather personal opinion.

 

Bill Ayers would fit your definition.

 

Americans or not, this use of drones outside the field of battle to perform targeted killings makes me very uncomfortable.

And I disagree with the thought that Our Dear Leaders would actually rather capture and try these people. I think that idea has been proven incorrect by Gitmo and the Bin Laden raid as well as the increased use of drone strikes.

 

I'm curious-- do you honestly think that you would have the same opinion on this topic if this revelation had come in the early days of a Romney administration? Because I'm pretty sure that no matter who happened to be president, the program of extra-judicial killings of American citizens (who had been declared "enemy combatants" by executive fiat) would be moving forward.

In the same vein, I have to wonder what would have been the reaction of the pundits on the right if the scenario above were being played out right now. I strongly suspect that their "outrage" would be muted or non-existent. Just as it was in regard to "enhanced interrogation." In fact, of course that has come up, and it's very easy to find examples of "conservative" talking heads staunchly defending torture as implemented under their darling George W. Bush while talking out of the other side of their mouths about this topic. It's pretty clear to me that if Mitt Romney were president right now, presiding over this same policy, we'd be hearing an entirely different tune out of the media arm of the "conservative" element in this country.

 

You know, Recusant, you're absolutely correct. Yes, there are pundits on the right who might be strangely silent if this were happening in a Romney administration. Similar to the way pundits on the left are strangely silent under an Obama administration. However, the killing of Americans by drone attacks is such a Constitutional abhorrence, I wouldn't care who was president or which party was in power; I would condemn the actions regardless.

I wasn't a proponent of "enhanced interrogation" either (regardless of the fact that it led to Osama bin Laden's death - according to Leon Panetta). I'm certainly not a proponent of Obama's continuation of the policy of rendition. But my question, in all seriousness, is "Where is the outrage from the liberals against these policies"? Few liberals have spoken out against Obama's policy of drone strikes. Fewer still, it seems, have spoken out against rendition. Where is the outrage???

 

One thing I hold dear to me is honesty, especially to myself. I do my very best to maintain that integrity and I can assure you that I would have the same opinion under a Romney administration.

As I mentioned elsewhere though, the abuse of power is always a concern. I'll also state here and now in clear terms that I have immense distrust of republicans, and Romney is no exception.

Therefore, yes, I would be more concerned, but not on the principle of the power itself, but rather on the one who wields that power.

That is one of your points, I believe, that even if the current President uses the power with discretion, future Presidents may not, they may abuse the power, and I agree with that concern. We differ on the current President, of course.

 

Froma 10,000 foot view, if you are comfortable enough to support the death penalty in this country, you shouldn't have a problem with drone strikes. This is simply a case of the technology advancing faster than either the law or the ethical considerations. It is of course a topic that needs a lot of discussion. Mostly, the conspiracy nuts take the point when it comes to these issues and that poisons the well from the onset and lengthens the discussion unnecessarily.

 

I still haven't seen any evidence that any Americans were targeted/killed. Did they actually hold U.S. citizenship? Or, as I suspect, did they renounce their citizenship, and/or did the U.S. revoke it?

If they held citizenship, Democrats have a bit more to bitch about (legal-wise), otherwise I don't see the argument (against this type of mission) as being reasonable.

 

Adam Pearlman, Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and probably more

 

As I expected, there is no outrage from you. But then, if one is comfortable enough to kill unborn babies, he shouldn't have a problem with drone strikes.

 

In seeking to remove al-Awlaki (who was residing in Yemen at the time) from the CIA's targeted kill list, ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer stated:

"The United States is not at war in Yemen, and the government doesn't have a blank check to kill terrorism suspects wherever they are in the world. Among the arguments we'll be making is that, outside actual war zones, the authority to use lethal force is narrowly circumscribed, and preserving the rule of law depends on keeping this authority narrow."

Agree or disagree?

 

Agree

 

I can't believe I'm asking this admittedly retarded question but, can the U.S. government legally kill a U.S. citizen?

 

Absolutely. First, I assume you mean other than with the death penalty. Aside from that, we have had lots of practice. Ever hear of the Civil War? 618,000+ died during that war and I do not think they were shot by the British or French. We were not concerned enough to ask during WWI and WWII, but I will bet more than 1 was killed and I do not mean by friendly fire.

The technical answer to your question is still yes. The President is the Commander in Chief meaning he commands all troops during war. The House, Senate, and Supreme Court have no say in matters of the war. In spite of many peoples opinion, Congress has granted the office of President a declaration of war against the terrorists. That is how both Bush and Obama have managed to wage the war that they have.

 

Since the Coin crowd is rabidly against anything Obama does it's good that Barack is the one out there with the drones and the assassinations rather than some Rethug. If a Bush or a Romney were doing the same thing the Obama haters would be supporting it as totally justified and necessary in order to protect ourselves from... whoever. But since it's Obama doing it they can oppose it along with normal people who would appose it no matter who was authorizing it.