DOJ memo sets rationale to kill U.S. citizens
WASHINGTON (AP) - An internal Justice Department memo says it is legal for the government to kill U.S. citizens abroad if it believes they are senior al-Qaida leaders continually engaged in operations aimed at killing Americans.
The document, reported Monday night by NBC News, provides a legal rationale behind the Obama administration's use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects.
The 16-page document says it is lawful to target al-Qaida linked U.S. citizens if they pose an "imminent" threat of violent attack against Americans, and that delaying action against such people would create an unacceptably high risk. Such circumstances may necessitate expanding the concept of imminent threat, the memo says.
"The threat posed by al-Qaida and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat," the document added.
A September 2011 drone strike in Yemen killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both U.S. citizens.
The memo does not require the U.S. to have information about a specific imminent attack against the U.S. But it does require that capture of a terrorist suspect not be feasible and that any such lethal operation by the United States targeting a person comply with fundamental law-of-war principles.
"A decision maker determining whether an al-Qaida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that certain members of Al-Qaida ... are continually plotting attacks against the United States" and that "al-Qaida would engage in such attacks regularly to the extent it were able to do so," says the document.
The document also says that a decision maker must take into account that "the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qaida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur; and that ... the nation may have a limited window of opportunity within which to strike in a manner that both has a high likelihood of success and reduces the probability of American casualties."
With this understanding, the document added, a high-level official could conclude, for example, that an individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States where he is an operational leader of al-Qaida or an associated force and is personally and continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the document is "profoundly disturbing."
"It's hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances," the ACLU said.
The document says that the use of lethal force would not violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution when a targeted person is an operational leader of an enemy force and an informed, high-level government official has determined that he poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S.
The document said the courts have no role to play in the matter.
"Under the circumstances described in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations. It is well established that 'matters intimately related to foreign policy, and national security are rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention,'" the white paper said.
The document, reported Monday night by NBC News, provides a legal rationale behind the Obama administration's use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects.
The 16-page document says it is lawful to target al-Qaida linked U.S. citizens if they pose an "imminent" threat of violent attack against Americans, and that delaying action against such people would create an unacceptably high risk. Such circumstances may necessitate expanding the concept of imminent threat, the memo says.
"The threat posed by al-Qaida and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat," the document added.
A September 2011 drone strike in Yemen killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both U.S. citizens.
The memo does not require the U.S. to have information about a specific imminent attack against the U.S. But it does require that capture of a terrorist suspect not be feasible and that any such lethal operation by the United States targeting a person comply with fundamental law-of-war principles.
"A decision maker determining whether an al-Qaida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that certain members of Al-Qaida ... are continually plotting attacks against the United States" and that "al-Qaida would engage in such attacks regularly to the extent it were able to do so," says the document.
The document also says that a decision maker must take into account that "the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qaida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur; and that ... the nation may have a limited window of opportunity within which to strike in a manner that both has a high likelihood of success and reduces the probability of American casualties."
With this understanding, the document added, a high-level official could conclude, for example, that an individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States where he is an operational leader of al-Qaida or an associated force and is personally and continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the document is "profoundly disturbing."
"It's hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances," the ACLU said.
The document says that the use of lethal force would not violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution when a targeted person is an operational leader of an enemy force and an informed, high-level government official has determined that he poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S.
The document said the courts have no role to play in the matter.
"Under the circumstances described in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations. It is well established that 'matters intimately related to foreign policy, and national security are rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention,'" the white paper said.
"Under the circumstances described in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations. It is well established that 'matters intimately related to foreign policy, and national security are rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention,'" the white paper said." Â (from the story)
Â
This is truly frightening..! Â Â What this all seems to boil down to is that we'll have some "high-level gov't official(s)", who may or may NOT have complete and/or accurate information, decide the "guilt" of a US citizen... and who can, on his/her word alone, implement the death penalty against said person, based on some vague and undefined reference to "imminent threat" and/or "national security"... AND who will NOT be held accountable to anyone for whatever they do. Â
This is entirely too much uncontrolled power in the hands of a very few people... all of whom are controlled by special interests. Â Â
I understand the need to monitor the terrorists - and deal with them as needed - but this is WAY over the line..!
If you're aiding and abetting the enemy, then you are a traitor and deserve whatever may come down on your head.
@techguy ----I agree, but....can we count on them doing the right thing?
If the ACLU is against it, then I am for it.
@TreeWizard I have to disagree with you on this one, TreeWizard. I refer you to this sentence in the article: "The memo does not require the U.S. to have information about a specific imminent attack against the U.S." Without the requirement of having information about a specific imminent attack, the door is opened to the slaughter of innocents. Then we have the fact that our Consitution gives people the right to a trial. Targeting alleged - yes, alleged - terrorists in the fashion outlined by the memo robs the "targets" of their Constitutional rights.
 @theprodigal  @TreeWizard I see your worry. I just never intend to leave the US, so am not worried about getting knocked off.
@TreeWizard @theprodigal --- but drones are coming to a city near you.
Laws have been replaced by 'memos'.
Stalin and Hitler also wrote a lot of 'memos'.
This reads like a trial balloon...pun intended.  Seems like jockeying for position by the Executive Branch, to me.  Of course there are going to be legal challenges to actions like this, and of course judicial review is going to - at the least - pare down or abrogate the authority to conduct such killings.  But you've got to love the chutzpah, telling the courts they have no authority over who and how the Executive Branch extrajudicially kills.  The courts LOVE being told to butt out, right?
The thing that is potentially disturbing is that they can target just about anyone, they just have to make up a story about it and we will believe them. This could potentially be taken a step further where they target americans in america who are not terrorists but just disagree.
 @portlandborn83 Just remember that as part of the recent census they obtained GPS coordinates on everyones home.Â
Gotta love these high level DOJ memos. Â They're created not as a legal opinion letter, but as a "make up whatever blatantly unconstitutional and farcical arguments you want, so long as they support the administration's unconstitutional position".
Â
Once asked to write such a memo/letter, any marginally ethical attorney should tell his employer to stuff it.
 @anahit Ethics is not a requirement to work in government. It probably hinders a persons ability to obtain a security clearance.
Welcome to the NWO
This is very Dark and sinister side, Look I am all for combating terrorists but this damn thing better have a safety because pulling the trigger and slumping some one innocent can start a civil war
If they want to get terrorists they should start by targeting the White House first.
 @axpman Actually it is we the people that can storm the house and demand changes. Why Have some one else steal the glory? It is Up to Us Americans to set proper balance and remove the threat. I see this as going viral, I see people either liking it or seeing it as a threat.
Â
Welcome to the New World Order
 @lee986321 Obviously you can understand the rationale for wanting to remove guns from private citizens. Storming the gates empty handed is pretty futile and they know this.Â
Sounds fair to me... assuming the feds don't abuse it and don't make any mistakes or gather bad intelligence on someone. Â But the government is completely trustworthy and never makes mistakes... right?
Â
 @negativerep Yeah......Central Intelligence Agency????....hmmmmmm
Kill them first and question them later!
kill em all !!
@LostSoul And let Allah sort em out?
They've renounced their American Citizenship when they want to bring war against other Americans. The ALCU better hope I'm not on that jury.
@Billy Batts While I agree with you that any U.S. citizen who plans or otherwise participates in an act of terrorism against the U.S. has renounced their citizenship, anyone suspected of terrorism should not be executed without a trial and conviction. To not require a trial and conviction before execution goes against our Constitution.  When it is considered legal for the government to order the execution of people "it believes" are engaged in terrorism, that leave way too much room for the murder of innocents who just disagree with the government.Â
@theprodigal But this makes perfect sense to the ones that voted for their God Obama, the savior. He is now acting the part, and making decisions on which Americans live, and who dies. Right now the targets are overseas, but it won't take long before he decides to start on homeland soil.
This comment has been deleted
@TheUglyTruth And we establish that a person is guilty of terrorism how? You might as well have typed "just trust Obama" or "just trust the next guy/girl who is in charge"
@JTesla ----extra likes!