Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

[Rockntractor]

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, 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.”
Read More>http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...americans?lite

[Articulate_Ape]

The creep is slow. Like boiling a frog.

[Odysseus]

The Constitutional rationale is simple, but nobody in either party will address the fact that those American citizens actively fighting for al Qaeda are levying war against the United States and that we have the duty to defend ourselves. Declared wars are a lot easier to fight because there's no ambiguity about who the enemy is.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[JB]

Splash some water on a guys face? Oh noooooeeeeessssss we can't do that.

Kill him? Sure, why not.

Barry makes Bush look like Mother Teresa. Kill Baby, Kill should be his new tagline.

[Odysseus]

Splash some water on a guys face? Oh noooooeeeeessssss we can't do that.

Kill him? Sure, why not.

Barry makes Bush look like Mother Teresa. Kill Baby, Kill should be his new tagline.

I guess that waterboarding is okay if you drown the guy. :what:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Rockntractor]

I guess that waterboarding is okay if you drown the guy. :what:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

As long as their is equal representation in the drownings according to the demographics of the area.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The Constitutional rationale is simple, but nobody in either party will address the fact that those American citizens actively fighting for al Qaeda are levying war against the United States and that we have the duty to defend ourselves. Declared wars are a lot easier to fight because there's no ambiguity about who the enemy is.

Yes...but of course under that rationale, there is no legal distinction between actions to kill our enemies on American soil vs. overseas, just a policy one. I suspect the current Administration would very much prefer to never have to address that point publicly.