Michael Isikoff reports:
he 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.
he 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.
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.”
….
Related articles
- Game over for Americans (openchannel.nbcnews.com)
- Someone Just Leaked Obama’s Rules for Assassinating American Citizens (reason.com)
- CHILLING: In Writing, the Justification Used by Obama to Kill Americans (economicpolicyjournal.com)
- EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans (amresolution.com)
- Memo gives basis for drone strikes vs US citizens (sacbee.com)
- #Breakingnews DRONE STRIKES ON AMERICANS LEGAL – JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MEMO (consciousshift2012.wordpress.com)
there was a howl of protest about waterboarding, a method of torture, that only affected one person. Yet, the continued use of drone strikes, along with an expansive definition who may be attacked, is hardly discussed by anyone in the media, let alone by supporters of the current President. Certainly, the GOP is complicit, but they did not campaign to end or curtail the strikes like the current President did.