WP: Justice Dept. document justifies killing Americans overseas if they pose ‘imminent threat’

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-memo-justifies-killing-americans-overseas-if-they-pose-imminent-threat/2013/02/05/44e90920-6f5a-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html?hpid=z2

Link For rest

The United States can lawfully kill a U.S. citizen overseas if it determines the target is a “senior, operational leader” of al-Qaeda or an associated group and poses an imminent threat to the United States, according to a Justice Department document published late Monday by NBC News.

The document defines “imminent threat” expansively, saying it does not have to be based on intelligence about a specific attack since such actions are being “continually” planned by al-Qaeda. “In this context,” it says, “imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity” as well as possible collateral damage to civilians.

Guiding the evolving U.S. counterterrorism policies: White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan is compiling a “playbook” that will lay out the administration’s evolving procedures for the targeted killings that have come to define its fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

The memos outline the case for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens in counterterror operations overseas.

It says that such determinations can be made by an “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.”

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Do people believe that a US citizen who is attempting to do damage should be treated any differently than a citizen of another country? I don't really have a problem with this.

[JMS]

Ummmm... We've already killed American citizens abroad several times (Anwar al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan ). Some US Citizens not directly tied to any specific terrorist attack nor linked to any specific impending attack have been killed by our government.... We've also grabbed American citizens and held them down in GITMO for years without charges or a trial. Not only abroad but right here off the streets of LA.... One US citizen held for years at GITMO was only released when he agreed to renounce his US Citizenship ( Yasser Hamdi ). So we released him right, because we had nothing to hold him on... but made him renounce his citizenship cause we didn't like the cut of his jib after years of detentions, interrogations etc...

John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla make up 2 of the 99 American citizens captured abroad who have been held as part of the war on terror outside of the US Legal System.

Padilla was "arrested" at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport..

[SkinsHokieFan]

Do people believe that a US citizen who is attempting to do damage should be treated any differently than a citizen of another country? I don't really have a problem with this.

I have significant issues with essentially tossing out the right to a trial by a jury of your peers

if it determines the target is a “senior, operational leader” of al-Qaeda or an associated group and poses an imminent threat to the United States

And this

The document defines “imminent threat” expansively, saying it does not have to be based on intelligence about a specific attack since such actions are being “continually” planned by al-Qaeda. “In this context,” it says, “imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity” as well as possible collateral damage to civilians

.

to me basically says that someone in the gov't can determine if you die today.

It does solve the future GITMO problem

[JMS]

Do people believe that a US citizen who is attempting to do damage should be treated any differently than a citizen of another country? I don't really have a problem with this.

Do you believe American citizens who everybody admits have never been linked to a specific terrorist attack, nor an impending terrorist attack; should be killed with hellfire missiles while in countries allied with the United States? How about their teenaged sons, also not tied to any terrorist attack? If so do you think some sort of independent review like a judge or court order should be involved? How about evidence, do they need evidence or is the fact they did it good enough for you to show it was justified? Do you think it should be easier or harder to condemn a us citizen or anybody really, for shoplifting and 30 days suspended sentence, than murdering them? Or do you think the American Government should be permitted to murder it's citizens when it's expedient to do so when the urge strikes them? Hey man after all a lot of these dude have funny sounding names!!

[Mad Mike]

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html

Mr. Awlaki had been perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States, with his message carried extensively over the Internet. His online lectures and sermons had been linked to more than a dozen terrorist investigations in the United States, Britain and Canada.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of shooting 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009, had exchanged e-mails with Mr. Awlaki before the deadly rampage. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab met with him before he failed to blow up an airplane with a bomb hidden in his underwear in December 2009. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in May 2010, cited Mr. Awlaki as an inspiration.

Good riddance. May he rot in hell.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think people take these things and read too deeply into them. Do you think that some government official is going to target some peaceful American citizen in Great Britain and bomb his house? Of course not. However, if someone is living in Afghanistan, working with known terrorists, and is believe to be an imminent threat, why would we treat him any differently than a non-US citizen?

Just like any empowerment, we have to trust and ensure that it isn't abused. But, I have no issue with the government being agile enough to react if my country is in "imminent" danger.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think people take these things and read too deeply into them. Do you think that some government official is going to target some peaceful American citizen in Great Britain and bomb his house? Of course not. However, if someone is living in Afghanistan, working with known terrorists, and is believe to be an imminent threat, why would we treat him any differently than a non-US citizen?

Just like any empowerment, we have to trust and ensure that it isn't abused. But, I have no issue with the government being agile enough to react if my country is in "imminent" danger.

I have several issues

1) This was a secret Justice Department memo that has finally been released to the public. No debate, no discussion, it was decreed

2) What defines "imminent threat" What defines "senior AQ leader" or "associated group"

3) Who makes those decisions? Who determines what defines that

4) If this "senior AQ leader" who is an "imment threat" is in London or Paris, will we fly drones to blow them away?

5) Do these Americans who have been determined "Sr AQ leaders" that are "imminent threats" have any sort of defense? What if the intel is wrong? We throught the intel was "slam dunk" in Iraq.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Do you have an issue with the policy or are you afraid that it will be abused? If the latter, what makes you think that a government official would abuse this policy yet stop short of breaking the law and covering it up (if this policy didn't exist)?

[SkinsHokieFan]

"I was clear throughout this campaign and was clear throughout this transition that under my administration the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals." -- President Barack Obama, January 9, 2009

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28574408/

---------- Post added February-5th-2013 at 10:46 AM ----------

Do you have an issue with the policy or are you afraid that it will be abused? If the latter, what makes you think that a government official would abuse this policy yet stop short of breaking the law and covering it up (if this policy didn't exist)?

Both.

1) I think the policy is ridiculous and an incredible overreaction. In the last decade there have been 30 terror related deaths in the US? I think more people die by furniture accidents then terrorism

2) The fact that yes it can be abused is all sorts of scary. Would anyone have wanted this power in the hands of Dick Cheney?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Both.

1) I think the policy is ridiculous and an incredible overreaction. In the last decade there have been 30 terror related deaths in the US? I think more people die by furniture accidents then terrorism

2) The fact that yes it can be abused is all sorts of scary. Would anyone have wanted this power in the hands of Dick Cheney?

No offense, but #2 has no bearing on the conversation in my opinion. We can't really control if government officials will abuse policies or regulations, so there's no use bringing that into the conversation. If we believe they might kill an American for no reason and use this policy as their justification, then I believe it's reasonable to assume they would have found a way to do so even without this policy in existence.

As for #1, I see your point. However, I just don't see that this is a huge deal in this context: If a person is deemed an imminent threat (to me that means that the safety of our nation is in immediate jeopardy), I'm cool with our government having the ability to legally take that person out. I don't care if he's American, French, or Saudi Arabian. I don't think this policy will be used to just pick off Americans around the globe like some seem to.

[JMS]

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html

Good riddance. May he rot in hell.

I agree let's start executing without trials folks who call for violence against Americans.

"I think the only hope this country has is Nixon’s assassination."

to then President Bill Clinton, "God will hold you to account, Mr. President,"

Clinton "better not show up around here [Fort Bragg] without a bodyguard"

Glenn Beck threatenned Obama's Life... TWICE..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PVnheYEpBDo

PAT ROBERTSON THREATENS DOVER PA. WITH GOD’S WRATH FOR OUSTING INTILLLGENT DESIGN FRIENDLY SCHOOLBOARD

[Destino]

5) Do these Americans who have been determined "Sr AQ leaders" that are "imminent threats" have any sort of defense? What if the intel is wrong? We throught the intel was "slam dunk" in Iraq.

This interests me as well and of course... The need for a check on this power from a different branch of government. I don't believe in trusting people with a lot of power without strong checks to threaten accountability.

[SkinsHokieFan]

As for #1, I see your point. However, I just don't see that this is a huge deal in this context: If a person is deemed an imminent threat (to me that means that the safety of our nation is in immediate jeopardy), I'm cool with our government having the ability to legally take that person out. I don't care if he's American, French, or Saudi Arabian. I don't think this policy will be used to just pick off Americans around the globe like some seem to.

I'll be honest, I think Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein are more "imminent threats" to the United States then Alawki was.

[Larry]

Just like any empowerment, we have to trust and ensure that it isn't abused. But, I have no issue with the government being agile enough to react if my country is in "imminent" danger.

Define "my country is in imminent danger".

Show me some guy with his finger on the launch button of a nuclear ICBM, and I'd say that label fits him.

But does it fit a guy who is suspected of somehow being involved in the planning of other people's terrorist activities? Someone who, what we know about him is, he seems to meet a lot of other people who we think are involved?

We have an imminent threat standard for using lethal force, domestically. But it fits people who are holding loaded pistols to hostage's heads. It doesn't allow the cops to blow up the house of some people who are suspected of planning a bank robbery.

How far do you have to stretch the concept of "imminent threat" and "to the country", to fit somebody who isn't even carrying a weapon, right now?

[twa]

This interests me as well and of course... The need for a check on this power from a different branch of government. I don't believe in trusting people with a lot of power without strong checks to threaten accountability.

This is my only real issue with it ,if the appropriate congresscritters get full disclosure I'm fine with it.

JMS ....outside our borders and senior leadership are kinda important different qualifiers

[CrabR]

we have something called due process. Now a person at war with us is another matter all together. So it is a fine line we are walking. Since 911 we have just blew off all the freedoms that has been taken from us.

[JMS]

We can't really control if government officials will abuse policies or regulations, so there's no use bringing that into the conversation. If we believe they might kill an American for no reason and use this policy as their justification, then I believe it's reasonable to assume they would have found a way to do so even without this policy in existence. .

That's why our founding fathers set up the two party system, and that's why we have checks and balances with an executive, bicameral legislature, and judiciary....

The entire reason prison sentences or really no power in the US government is concentrated in any single branch is precisely because the founding fathers didn't trust government. Hell they didn't trust the people.. they didn't trust anybody.. It is incredible illogical to advocate to give one branch of government, much less one person in government the unfettered power to assassinate us citizens with no evidence, no rational, in secrecy with no independent over site... because hey they'd just do it anyway if you didn't give it to them.

Oh and it's not killing Americans "for no reason" which folks are worried about...

[twa]

Due process really only is relevant to those in our custody

not even a cop on the street utilizes due process when taking out a perceived threat (naturally some oversight is needed though)

[mcsluggo]

ALL that i want.. is a coherent and vetted strategy. It does NOT have to be public, nor toes that vetting (transparency has different connotations here). but I need to know tht it is being reviewed with arms-length oversight, and a clearance procedure that forces approval outside of cozy internal (inbred groupthink) implimentors.

[JMS]

JMS ....outside our borders and senior leadership are kinda important different qualifiers

Who in the world is making that distinction other than yourself? We killed Anwar al-Awlaki, and are now calling him a "senior AQ leader" even though the man was living in the United States for more decade Sept 2001, and spent 3 years in the UK when he left here in 2002. The only evidence against him is tape recorded sermons. The same evidence we have against Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh... But now we call him Senior Leadership of AQ? OK highly doubt that... but I'll give it too you... I mean after all he did live in Yemon for at least 4 years before we killed him... ( previously lived here for 11 years and UK for 3)...

Ok, but lets say he was a senior AQ guy.... How about this guy... are we expected to believe he's a senior AQ leader too? Anwar al-Awlaki's son.

But what about his son? Born in the in Denver, Colorado on August 26 1995. he was 16 years old, and we killed him in a separate attack from

his father.was he senior AQ leadership too?

Hell man we had the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States a few years ago calling Osama bin Laudin's chauffer senior leadership... But when it went in front of a judge they had no evidence of that... and the guy turned out to be a cab driver which Osama hired to drive him around. Hell they were trying to execute this guy.. We didn't even execute Hittler's chauffeur.. didn't even try him for a crime.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Due process really only is relevant to those in our custody

not even a cop on the street utilizes due process when taking out a perceived threat (naturally some oversight is needed though)

I was going to make that point too.

[twa]

Who in the world is making that distinction other than yourself? .

the legal memo

but if you wanna pursue charges for al-Awlaki & co feel free, that is what the courts are for

[JMS]

ALL that i want.. is a coherent and vetted strategy. It does NOT have to be public, nor toes that vetting (transparency has different connotations here). but I need to know tht it is being reviewed with arms-length oversight, and a clearance procedure that forces approval outside of cozy internal (inbred groupthink) implimentors.

You can't have it both ways... Either it's a war, which takes an act of congress and a formal declaration or it isn't. If it's not then you absolutely need a transparent and independent review of each case WITH EVIDENCE.. in order to condemn someone to death.

These folks show up on our kill lists months, even years before they are killed.. Why can't the hurdle to appear on a kill list be gated by an independent judicial review? Isn't it unAmerican to do otherwise?

---------- Post added February-5th-2013 at 11:57 AM ----------

Due process really only is relevant to those in our custody

not even a cop on the street utilizes due process when taking out a perceived threat (naturally some oversight is needed though)

:doh: yes we send the police off in our communities free to shoot offenders with no impending threat to themselves or others? NOT...

Due process absolutely applies to the police and people not in custody. It's the "some oversight" and "perceived threat" where the distinction arises...

If you are pointing a gun at a police officer he's allowed to fire to protect himself or others from impending harm. But there is no impending harm here...

These people are killed having never been tied to harming anybody, and not even suspected of planning or carrying out attacks while being targeted...

---------- Post added February-5th-2013 at 11:59 AM ----------

the legal memo

but if you wanna pursue charges for al-Awlaki & co feel free, that is what the courts are for

HA HA... what happened to "outside our boarders and senior leadership"? Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice right?

The courts are for convicting people who murder others outside of the law... At least they once were.

Let's review... where is a person's right to a trial detailed again? Right to jury of ones peers? Protections from cruel and unusual punishment? Ring any bells?

Now what does every soldier, politician and government official swear an oath to defend again? any thoughts? So what exactly does this policy of extra judicial murders against random folks who have not harmed anybody and are not imminent threats to anybody disobey? Let's call it the very foundation of our government and society shall we.

We torture folks, including people drivers now? We kill us citizens outside of our legal system. We attack countries who have never threatened us and never harmed us? One reputable source has said we have detained for years more than 100,000 people... kidnapping them off the streets and holding them without trials.... what did Winston Churchill say again when Britain with it's puny airforce and defeated army faced off alone against a Nazified Europe?

What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.

I think some day all our children and ancestors will rate these times as our worst hour.. when we gave into fear and abandoned all of our principals. Not for safety... just because we gave into small minded people with small ideas, who never really understood or liked what America was all about. You say "redefining" I say abandoning our constitution is a huge journey down that path.

[Predicto]

We all know that this memo had to have been out there once they took out Awlaki. It is interesting (and disturbing) to finally get to read it.