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

[TD_washingtonredskins]

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...

This is where I think our assumptions are diverging. I assume that "imminent threat" is the same context as "pointing a gun" at a cop. I don't believe the government should be able to go around offing people whenever and wherever they want to. But I also don't believe this policy allows for that.

I think people who are against it are assuming that it will be abused. I don't agree with that reason for disliking a policy.

[Predicto]

what did Winston Churchill say again when Britain with it's puny airforce and defeated army faced off alone against a Nazified Europe?

He said: "Bomb the **** out of the civilians in Berlin and maybe they will turn against the Nazis." :whoknows:

[S.T.real,lights,out]

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.

Yea, i agree, I dont see what the big deal is. I thought something like this was already known...

[twa]

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.

.

False...a AUMF is in place(which has been accepted by the court as legal authorization)

This simply addresses the minor legal issue of US citizens involved with the enemy that are already covered by the AUMF(which includes more than just military force)

we are at war in all but technical name, the Executive authority to kill even exists outside that simply with more limits

[Larry]

This is where I think our assumptions are diverging. I assume that "imminent threat" is the same context as "pointing a gun" at a cop. I don't believe the government should be able to go around offing people whenever and wherever they want to. But I also don't believe this policy allows for that.

I think people who are against it are assuming that it will be abused. I don't agree with that reason for disliking a policy.

And people have pointed out that people spend six months on our kill list, before we kill them.

Are we to assume that this person has been an IMMINENT threat against our very nation, for six months?

[JMS]

This is where I think our assumptions are diverging. I assume that "imminent threat" is the same context as "pointing a gun" at a cop. I don't believe the government should be able to go around offing people whenever and wherever they want to. But I also don't believe this policy allows for that.

Yes absolutely you are correct.. "imminent threat" is exactly the hurdle we ask of the police and would be a fairly reasonable hurdle... and that is the wording in the memo...

So just as the US Gov got around our treaties not to torture, over the objections of every living chairman of the joint chiefs of staff not appointed by the then administration , and a score of other high ranking defense officials,.. So it seems we have gotten around the words "imminent threat"... We simple redefined the definition away from what it has meant traditionally, both in conflict to popular culture and legal precedent.... We did it when we began torturing people so the President could tell people we didn't torture and not be accused of lying... but the fact is we prosecuted as war criminals Japanese soldiers during WWII for water boarding and we had considered that torture against the Geneva convention treaty we signed for 50 years prior to Bush declaring it wasn't.

Anwar al-Awlaki, had never been linked to planning or executing any act of terrorism, and was not suspected of planning or participating in an act of terrorism when we murdered him; so how exactly was he living in a country allied to the United States, an imminent threat worthy of being killed before he could kill? Much less his 16 year old son who was independently targeted and killed a week later?

Their crimes were thought crimes.. we didn't like what they were saying... Do we allow the police to shoot folks who speak to them harshly?

I think people who are against it are assuming that it will be abused. I don't agree with that reason for disliking a policy.

I think people who are critical of it understand it's very nature fuels abuse. It's designed for abuse. Why else would their be no independent review? Because they aren't concerned with abuse. Hell man our entire constitution is dominated by concern with abuse... Concern with abuse is at the very nature of what it is to be an American. It's why we don't have a king, or a President with the power of a king.. but rather have three branches of government all designed to check and balance the powers residing in the other branches.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I see your points...I just happen to interpret "imminent threat" as an imminent threat. If government officials are going to interpret it differently, then I'd agree that they are abusing the policy. If someone is poised to attack our country, then I want our government to be agile enough to take that person out. If they have intel and an opportunity to bring someone to justice via an arrest and trial...that's preferable.

[No_Pressure]

There are two schools of thought on this:

If your kid was flying a kite and it landed on a neighbor's roof, you would probably ask for their permission first before grabbing the ladder and going up to retrieve it.

If your dog escaped and was running around your neighbor's yard, you likely wouldn't ask for permission to go retrieve your dog.

Should a criminal who escaped your grasp be under the protection and jurisdiction of foreign criminal justice systems, or can the country from which they fled send agents or equipment to the other country to eliminate someone? I mean, if you called up your neighbor and were like: "hey buddy, I was about to murder my son but I'm pretty sure he fled to your basement, can I come in and murder him in your house?" they would likely say hell no and call the police. Then again if you said to them "Hey, I was about to shoot a criminal child rapist who was running around my house but I think he escaped to your basement, can I come on over and bring this lunatic to justice?" it may be received a little better.

[twa]

And people have pointed out that people spend six months on our kill list, before we kill them.

Are we to assume that this person has been an IMMINENT threat against our very nation, for six months?

if you take the long view yes, as well as some being ongoing imminent threats

if I put a plan in place(or oversee it) does the threat remain imminent awaiting my order to execute it ?

the gun is drawn and pointed....we don't require waiting for them to pull the trigger

[Larry]

if you take the long view yes, as well as some being ongoing imminent threats

if I put a plan in place(or oversee it) does the threat remain imminent awaiting my order to execute it ?

the gun is drawn and pointed....we don't require waiting for them to pull the trigger

And yet, if I point a gun at a hostage, and an hour later, I haven't pulled the trigger, then it's kind of tough to claim that we'll, I would have pulled it, after an hour and one minute.

I will also observe that there's a difference between pointing a gun at someone and PLANNING to point a gun at someone.

[twa]

you take a hostage with a deadly weapon and you are now open game....period, be it 1 hr or days later

there is certainly a difference between planners,controllers and those committing acts....but the distinction is immaterial in this matter

[JMS]

we are at war in all but technical name, the Executive authority to kill even exists outside that simply with more limits

You mean we are at war in all but the LEGAL sense... technically there is no doubt.

---------- Post added February-5th-2013 at 02:18 PM ----------

i see your points...i just happen to interpret "imminent threat" as an imminent threat. If government officials are going to interpret it differently, then i'd agree that they are abusing the policy. If someone is poised to attack our country, then i want our government to be agile enough to take that person out. If they have intel and an opportunity to bring someone to justice via an arrest and trial...that's preferable.

radical!!

---------- Post added February-5th-2013 at 02:22 PM ----------

There are two schools of thought on this:

If your kid was flying a kite and it landed on a neighbor's roof, you would probably ask for their permission first before grabbing the ladder and going up to retrieve it.

If your dog escaped and was running around your neighbor's yard, you likely wouldn't ask for permission to go retrieve your dog.

Should a criminal who escaped your grasp be under the protection and jurisdiction of foreign criminal justice systems, or can the country from which they fled send agents or equipment to the other country to eliminate someone? I mean, if you called up your neighbor and were like: "hey buddy, I was about to murder my son but I'm pretty sure he fled to your basement, can I come in and murder him in your house?" they would likely say hell no and call the police. Then again if you said to them "Hey, I was about to shoot a criminal child rapist who was running around my house but I think he escaped to your basement, can I come on over and bring this lunatic to justice?" it may be received a little better.

Really that's not what is being discussed... I don't think many would argue with the Presidents authority to use lethal action to defend America or American lives from an impending threat...What is being objected too is using extra judicial lethal force to murder people who have never planned, or perpetrated attacks on our country, because we don't like what they are saying....

Hate speech being an imminent threat six months to a year removed from when the death order comes down....

• on February 4, 2010, New York Daily News reported that al-Aulaqi was "now on a targeting list signed off on by the Obama administration"
  
• Died 30 September 2011
  

What's that nearly two years.

Anwar al-Awlaki was on our death list for 20 months before we blew up his car with a hell fire missile from a drone... Yet never was associated with planning or implementing any terrorist attack.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

radical!!

Good one.

Excuse me for taking a policy at face value and not automatically assuming that the government is twisting its collective mustache while hatching a fiendish plan to destroy citizens.

[Mad Mike]

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.

http://warincontext.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Abdulrahman-al-Awlaki.jpg

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?

Anwar al-Awlaki was the inspiration for the murder of 13 people in Fort Hood. This was the result of his past and constantly ongoing attempt to inspire muslims to kill americans. The only reason more people aren't dead because of him is the incompetence of some of the people he recruited. He is as guilty of murder as a person who hires an assassin. He was a POS and he deserved to die as soon as humanly possible in order to prevent him from "hiring more murderers".

As for his son, I find it sad that he was born to such a POS and that his POS father sought fit to bring him into his world of violent jihadists. None of us knows all of the details but it is clear he was with some pretty bad people. I've also seen a report that he hoped 'to attain martyrdom as my father attained it'. If so, mission accomplished.

All this said, I'm not against better checks and balances. But don't tell me we can't kill people who are trying to kill Americans regardless of where they happen to claim citizenship, and damned sure... don't give me some bull **** about how Anwar al-Awlaki was just exercising his freedom of speech.

[twa]

You mean we are at war in all but the LEGAL sense... technically there is no doubt.

So why bother with a hypothetical in your post?

The killing is authorized legally as is the other use of force

---------- Post added February-5th-2013 at 02:01 PM ----------

Good one.

Excuse me for taking a policy at face value and not automatically assuming that the government is twisting its collective mustache while hatching a fiendish plan to destroy citizens.

you mean like this one?

http://tpnn.com/obama-reported-to-be-dismissing-military-leaders-who-will-not-fire-on-civilians-if-ordered/

:evilg:

[Mad Mike]

you mean like this one?

http://tpnn.com/obama-reported-to-be-dismissing-military-leaders-who-will-not-fire-on-civilians-if-ordered/

:evilg:

I'm not even sure what your point is but "Tea Party News Network"? I would just as soon trust Al Jiz. :doh:

Holly ****.... I just read some of the comments on that site:

We are at war people, the socialist party is now finally out in the open and has declared war on America and everything it stands for.

Anyone with eyes can see the POTUS "Piece of Trash Unworthy to Serve" is doing what he said, transforming this Nation, he is aligned with our enemies, currently providing fighter jets to mudlim brotherhood in Egypt, his friends, he refused to support uprising in Iran, why, because he actually SUPPORTS his mudlim brothers in Iran.

Obama is NOT the problem! The real problem is the lazy@#s morons that support him. With this, He will never be Impeached. Revolution is the only means now.

we have no way of knowing how many people voted for him the 2nd time. it is entirely possible that he was not elected at all. no matter the number of votes, he was selected for another term. i believe this election is meant to be the last.

He has a social security number that was stolen from a dead man. Obama can't pass EVerify. His birth certificate is a forged document. I wonder if the media will be among us that are fired upon, they protect him now. Sorry rambling thoughts. Do you think anyone will ever stop Obama?

HE IS NOT AM AMERICAN PRESIDENT HE ISA NON AMERICAN BORN IN KENYA > YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE IN THIS CONSPIRACY TOGETHER WITH ALL THE DC ELITES WAKE UP PEOPLE ..>>. PREPARE YOURSELVES IT'S COMING SOON VERY SOON

We are far past Impeaching Obama as an option, a state of civil disobedience in New York State is in effect, A state wide refusal to register firearms has begun with the support of the Law Enforcement Association and it appears nearly every Sheriff. With a flow of Military leadership being dismissed by Obama to join our ranks of Constitutional Militias and giving us the leadership, Things are in motion that cannot be stopped, The 2nd Revolution has begun and the Obama Cabal are enemies of the States, The Republic shall be reborn.

You are absolutely right except for one little incorrect statement. It is NOT the socialist party being out in the open because obama could not care less about socialism. He is only using socialism to cover up his activities in trying to set up this nation for the nation to be overrun by the muslim terrorists and the laws that satan gave them, they call it sharia law.

HOLY ****! THESE PEOPLE ARE ******* CRAZY. I think sane people should go buy a gun to protect themselves from these nuts when they finally decide that anyone not in the tea party is an enemy of America and must die.

[Larry]

I'm not even sure what your point is but "Tea Party News Network"? I would just as soon trust Al Jiz. :doh:

Hey, they're quoting a "Nobel Peace Prize nominee".

[DC9]

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

So... imminent threat meaning something is going to happen and is likely already happening or in the process of starting. You'd rather let someone shoot rockets off at a US base so that you can have a trial for murder or would you shoot them right then and there because they are about to commit a hostile act that is likely to kill or injure American Soldiers... with the intent to kill or injure American Soldiers?

Should Police/Security/Armed Citizen not be allowed to neutralize an active shooter? Should they just wait until he is spent on ammo and run and throw the cuffs on? Likely injuring or killing more people in the process?

[SkinsHokieFan]

So... imminent threat meaning something is going to happen and is likely already happening or in the process of starting. You'd rather let someone shoot rockets off at a US base so that you can have a trial for murder or would you shoot them right then and there because they are about to commit a hostile act that is likely to kill or injure American Soldiers... with the intent to kill or injure American Soldiers?

?

I think firing at a US base is FAR different from what I am talking about

As JMS pointed out, it took 2 years to kill Alawki after President Obama put him on his kill list.

Was the threat "imminent" from him?

[DC9]

I think firing at a US base is FAR different from what I am talking about

As JMS pointed out, it took 2 years to kill Alawki after President Obama put him on his kill list.

Was the threat "imminent" from him?

I avoid these threads because stuff like this comes up. I won't comment on anything like that because I don't want to slip up and type something I shouldn't because of OPSEC. Sorry dude.

I guess my two cents above will have to suffice.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I avoid these threads because stuff like this comes up. I won't comment on anything like that because I don't want to slip up and type something I shouldn't because of OPSEC. Sorry dude.

I guess my two cents above will have to suffice.

No worries. A good chunk of this thread knows about OPSEC and what should and shouldn't be put on a Redskins message board

[twa]

Was the threat "imminent" from him?

The NSC deemed it so,as did the UNNSC and a Yemeni judge

pretty soon he no longer seems a innocent

[Mad Mike]

I think firing at a US base is FAR different from what I am talking about

As JMS pointed out, it took 2 years to kill Alawki after President Obama put him on his kill list.

Was the threat "imminent" from him?

He successfully recruited people to kill americans in the past and was continuing to do so. Every day he was alive, he was a imminent threat.

[JMS]

Good one.

Excuse me for taking a policy at face value and not automatically assuming that the government is twisting its collective mustache while hatching a fiendish plan to destroy citizens.

I'm not faulting you for that.. but why even discuss it now that we know they aren't really talking about an "imminent threat" but rather have targeted a dude for speach, ( cassette tapes to be exact) and then killed him two years latter.... and are still calling it addressing an "imminent" threat. A dude not suspected of planning or carrying out attacks but who had lived for more than a decade in the US, educated here, US Citizen, who was interviewed 8 times by the FBI voluntarily... Not to mention his teenaged son who was targeted independently,

---------- Post added February-5th-2013 at 03:59 PM ----------

He successfully recruited people to kill americans in the past and was continuing to do so. Every day he was alive, he was a imminent threat.

Guilty by association. Right?

You mean he was a Muslim who was associated with a mosque, where many of the 911 terrorists and other terrorists attended at one time or another... Coarse all those same folks are associated with the Star Bucks on Rt 7 about a half a mile down the street and we didn't target any barista's....

There is no evidence he recruited anybody... Rather there is a lot of evidence that all of the 911 terrorists came to the DC area well after they had signed up to do their dirty deeds...

---------- Post added February-5th-2013 at 04:18 PM ----------

Anwar al-Awlaki was the inspiration for the murder of 13 people in Fort Hood.

Whatever that means... The Beatles were the inspiration for Charlie Manson... Hitler was said to be inspired by Andrew Jackson's treatment of the Sioux. Hinkle who shot Ronald Reagan was inspired by J. D. Salinger's; "The catcher and the Rye". Our legal system doesn't really hold people responsible for what crazy folks say inspired them. Not unless you can show the guy knew and ordered or conspired the crazy guy to act.... Which brings us back to not accused of planning or carrying out any terrorist acts before or while we targeted him...

I'm not saying you couldn't put the guy in jail... But imminent threat? No.

This was the result of his past and constantly ongoing attempt to inspire muslims to kill americans. The only reason more people aren't dead because of him is the incompetence of some of the people he recruited. He is as guilty of murder as a person who hires an assassin. He was a POS and he deserved to die as soon as humanly possible in order to prevent him from "hiring more murderers".

Recruited implies conspired with.. which would be a crime... No such link exists.. This guy's crime was talking... It would be like Gay folks killing Pat Robertson as an imminent threat and claiming self defense.

As for his son, I find it sad that he was born to such a POS and that his POS father sought fit to bring him into his world of violent jihadists.

There you go again... Violent Jihadists is not what he's accused of being.. Loud Mouth Idiot Americans who think freedom of speech applies to them is more accurate. I mean hell we defend Nazi's and all mannor of offensive violent talkers, but not this guy nor his teen aged son.

None of us knows all of the details but it is clear he was with some pretty bad people.

No it's not clear at all. All that's clear is he said some pretty bad stuff. That's it... That was the extent of his offenses.

I've also seen a report that he hoped 'to attain martyrdom as my father attained it'. If so, mission accomplished.

Yes he was killed by our drone a few days after his father... So let's justify the murder of a 16 year old kid based upon what he said a day or two after we murdered his Father of no crime in which we could convict him off in our courts.

All this said, I'm not against better checks and balances. But don't tell me we can't kill people who are trying to kill Americans regardless of where they happen to claim citizenship, and damned sure... don't give me some bull **** about how Anwar al-Awlaki was just exercising his freedom of speech.

Actually you are the one defending folks who are killing Americans here... The guy I'm defending was never accused of killing anybody... He and his son, who our government killed were both Americans.

My issue isn't just that they killed him.

Isn't just that he wasn't an imminent threat.

Isn't just that he was an American.

My issue is they did it with no independent review, without giving any evidence, zero transparency, dishonestly calling him an imminent threat when clearly by all legal use of the word he was not...and finally violated our highest laws to do it...

I'm in favor of the right to bare arms.. but that's not the only right in the constitution which I support... I'm a radical too.

---------- Post added February-5th-2013 at 04:22 PM ----------

So why bother with a hypothetical in your post?

The killing is authorized legally as is the other use of force

Hell man Torture is authorized legally by our laws too... I guess my morality isn't on a swivel... I guess I'm thinking it will take more than 19 guys who can afford the price of a coach airline ticket to make us surrender or values.

[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.

http://archive.adl.org/main_Terrorism/anwar_al-awlaki.htm

In a video released on November 8, 2010, titled "Make it known and clear to mankind," al-Awlaki said, "Don't consult with anybody in killing the Americans, fighting the devil doesn't require consultation or prayers seeking divine guidance," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/anwar-alawlaki-usborn-mus_n_988397.html

SANAA, Yemen — The killings of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and another American al-Qaida propagandist in a U.S. airstrike Friday wipe out the decisive factor that made the terrorist group's Yemen branch the most dangerous threat to the United States: its reach into the West.

Issuing English-language sermons on jihad on the Internet from his hideouts in Yemen's mountains, al-Awlaki drew Muslim recruits like the young Nigerian who tried to bring down a U.S. jet on Christmas and the Pakistani-American behind the botched car bombing in New York City's Times Square.

Late Friday, two U.S. officials said intelligence indicated that the top al-Qaida bomb-maker in Yemen also died in the strike. Ibrahim al-Asiri was the bomb-maker linked to the bomb hidden in the underwear of the Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

Lets see now He's been connected to DOZENS of terror plots but hey, there's no real proof right?

And he was known to have talked to the Nigerian who tried to bring down a U.S. jet on Christmas right before his attempt and just *happened* to be with the top AQ bomb maker when he was killed. But he wasn't a threat.

"This guy's crime was talking... It would be like Gay folks killing Pat Robertson as an imminent threat and claiming self defense."

- JMS

Riiiiiiight. (waiting for you to post a quote from Robertson calling on anyone to kill gays) :doh: