Posted on 02/04/2013 6:29:12 PM PST by kristinn
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.
SNIP
But the 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.
SNIP
“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”
(Excerpt) Read more at openchannel.nbcnews.com ...
The authorization by Congress to use all necessary military force constitutes the functional equivalent of a formal Declaration of War.
The USA has formally declared war a grand total of 5 times under the Constitution, 4 of those after hostilities had started.
We have engaged in military action literally hundreds of times, with tacit or explicit congressional approval in most of those cases. The very first example was the Quasi-War with France, where President Adams fought without a formal declaration of war. This allowed both sides to pretend they weren't really at war.
As far as using military force against American citizens without a Declaration of War, this goes all the way back to Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion.
As I've said elsewhere, the traditional idea of a formally declared war is that it can be declared only against another nation-state. We need to either expand the concept and formally declare war on al-Quaeda, which would be fine by me, or recognize that in a time when our most aggressive enemies aren't nation-states, Declarations of War are obsolete.
Do I trust Obama to use such powers wisely? Hell, no! But that doesn't mean the powers are wrong, only that we elected a bad user twice.
Depends on what the word ‘terrorist’ is.
BFL
Who gets to determine what a "legitimate" target is? How do we know whether the administrations isn't just trumping up charges against innocent people in order to spy on or summarily execute political opponents? With no checks on executive branch to oversee its actions, the potential for abuse is very high. (Unless you think that the government always does the right thing and would never abuse its power.)
To allow the executive branch the power to do whatever it wants without ANY checks is to essentially make the executive a king. If the government can accuse an innocent person of a crime and take away a person's rights and due process based upon the executive branch's say so alone, then the government can do that to everyone and the protections promised in the Constitution are meaningless.
I'm sure there are Muslims in the Department of Justice - I'm equally sure there are no conservatives there. Are we - fellow Americans of a conservative bent - the 'associated force'?
Very simple ... If he/she is an American they have a right to a trial by law!... If your Mom, Dad, Brother or Sister are deemed terrorists thus legitimate targets should we kill them without a trial?
Like all totalitarians before them, the only 'enemy' they know is the person who might vote them out of office....
I don’t think they envision anything like a fleeing Felon. I think they are talking about a sitting duck target, and I don’t think they are too concerned with classic legal definitions, they just get in the way of a Monarchy!
Does NBC have the wit to understand that horrible laws cut both ways? It’s not always going to be a liberal in office... What if it’s their families that are targeted? How would they feel?
Does NBC have the wit to understand that horrible laws cut both ways? It’s not always going to be a liberal in office... What if it’s their families that are targeted? How would they feel?
Wait, come to think of it, NBC would probably be doctoring the tapes so it looks like we caused the drones to kill our children...
When has there ever been due process or checks and balances in time of war?
AlpQuaeda is at war with the USA. That is just a fact. We can ignore them or go to war with them. But if we go to war, by definition there won’t be anything resembling due process.
I understand your concerns and this is indeed a slippery slope. But when it is necessary to cross such a slope to defend American lives, you do so, and protest when excesses are proven, not because excesses CAN happen. If that tack is taken, there can be no effective self-defense.
Scary, but it’s PAST time to fight.
“How have we reached the point where a thug like Eric Holder has this kind of power?”
If not, we will be there soon.
What does this portend for the future?
And if there should ever be an attack that turns out to be a patriot then Big Brother can simply say, “Oops! The joke’s on us!”
Back in the day, Congress used to issue Letter's of Marque and Reprisal to private persons. These letters allowed Americans to attack the forces of foreign states or even non-state actors such as pirates for a bounty to be paid by the US government. These letters basically commissioned privateers to go attack hostile groups or individuals. I don't know if they could be used against US Citizens. Letters of Marque haven't been used for about 150 years, and are thus considered "obsolete" by some other countries, but in theory they could be revived by Congress to deal with non-state threats outside of the US.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.