Monday, February 4, 2013

CHILLING: In Writing, the Justification Used by Obama to Kill Americans

NBC is reporting that it has obtained a secret 16-page Department of Justice memo that was provided to select members of the Senate last June. It contains, among other details, the justification and ground rules the Obama Administration uses to kill American citizens by drone strikes.

Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News, writes (my highlights):
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.[...] 
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.[...] 
“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which has sued unsuccessfully in court to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”    

Below is the entire memo:



(ht John Duncan)

23 comments:

  1. so in politico speak and legalese, this is essentially Obama saying "if you don't like us, we gonna kill yo ass." The wording of this document essentially states that could even apply to leaders of a protest movement (like the tea party or ows) that differ in opinion significantly from the establishment. I'm wondering what legal right the administration even has for doing this? I'm curious to see the legal justification for the president essentially assuming dictatorial powers to suspend habeus corpus and completely ignore the judicial branch of government

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm wondering what legal right the administration even has for doing this?"

      You're still not aware that laws are made by the state?
      Their purpose is not to bind those who make them but those who are ruled.

      State laws mean nothing. They are just a means to control the population. That's why crimes against government, or government monopoly tend to be punished much, much more severe than crimes against civilians.

      Delete
  2. I mean honestly, this isn't shocking, it was just a matter of time. Wonder if they'll use their new drone that can monitor a whole city to do this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Personally, I'm less shocked that the government would attempt to justify such a thing than I am that a lot of people are okay with it.

      Delete
    2. Will this be sub-contracted out to private organizations on a wider basis?

      Are there private organizations running around under the color of law killing People? ...Here in the unitedstate? How would you know if this was happening?

      Oh, right, they're called, 'cops'.

      But what is happening in secret? A.k.a. private death squads.

      There's Nothing to stop them from doing this, is there?

      Delete
  3. Did you really expect any other determination? My only question is to the left: what will you do now? Continue to kiss Obama's ass? Supporting this administration makes you complicit in murder.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Rand you were looking for an way to transfer power back to the congress from the White House, this is your issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I guess it's an equality initiative. Why should US citizens not have the right to be attacked by a drone while citizens of other nations do!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Egalitarianism at its finest!

      Delete
  6. They have no legal right. They are using the American secrets act to block anyone from getting the document and thus blocking anyone from having any proof that the Administration is violating the 4th amendment and thus committing treason and as a result preventing any constitutional challenge to their right to do this.

    The supreme court is going to have to decide this based on freedom of the press versus the American Secrets act. In the past, they have ruled that if the release of the document could risk american lives, then it couldn't be released.

    Given that the release of this document puts the President's and everyone under him that has had anything to do with this at risk, the Supreme court is likely to not bother to think about the constitutional ramifications and will simply rubber stamp the excuse.

    This is nothing less than a complete usurpation of the Constitution. It is a Coup d'état by the executive branch of this country.

    Peirs Morgan: This is why the 2nd amendment exists. The only question is, now that football season is over, if Americans actually have the energy, in their carbs and HFCS induced coma, to get off their asses and do something about it or whether they'll just waddle to the fridge for more beer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a Coup d'état. They're using the American Secrets act to prevent information from coming to light that would prove a violation of the 4th amendment (Treason if carried out by the President). By doing so the executive branch now owns the government. Anyone at any time can be assassinated for any reason. The bill of rights no longer means anything and since you can't protect yourself from a drone strike, your 2nd amendment rights are irrelevant. Since there is nowhere on earth that you can run where they can't get you, you are trapped in the ultimate tyranny.

    This isn't fascism folks. This is something FAR FAR WORSE. In the past you could escape these evil doers. No longer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only way out of this mess for citizens is a complete economic collapse of the system which was taken over by the ruling class.

      Make no mistake, it is not a sustainable system. Systems that are not sustainable, will not sustain themselves. As always, humanity will get a chance to reset, although I am sure it will be squandered as it has for over 2000 years. The overambitious always find a way to the top and the citizens who just wish to live their life in peace will be manipulated and squeezed.

      Revolution, empire, collapse. Rinse and repeat.

      The only thing saving humanity is the technology and innovation it creates. Although, that too is a double edged sword.

      Delete
  8. This means they can use drones to wipe out those militias that play war and run around in the country. I don't hear about them anymore, but if they are still around, it is now a death penalty offense w/o trial, warning, or anything. Just BLAM, you're dead!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Where are all of the leftist types who talked about Bush being a tyrant and the nation being in constitutional chaos? I guess the same place they were after Obama assassinated a 16 year old US citizen with a drone strike. Good to see that the Nobel Peace Prize winner is living up to his award!

    ReplyDelete
  10. How come media types never do any polling on this? Can we get a polling company like PPP to do a poll on what the american public thinks just out of curiosity?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Saw a segment on local news just now. The question was: should drones be used to kill American "terrorists"? The commentator actually mentioned due process before moving on to state he had no problem with drone murder. But the shocking part was that all the callers supported the policy. I wonder if they cherry picked their callers, but it was a striking display that they hate us not for our freedoms but because so many Americans are blood thirsty monsters.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why would NBC release this document and make news of its existence? A mainstream media venue? I do not understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe they found out by reading some history books that the members of media get first in the line for extermination when the hard-core leftists come to power: they don't need or tolerate even a pretense of independency in media, so they always start by replacing mere whores with their own trusted propagandists.

      Delete
    2. No...The timing is too important.

      It is highly likely that the DoD document shown above was acquired by Anonymous hackers and used as part of their recent threats after the death of Aaron Schwartz.

      Cleverly, they made a news show out of it to disarm the situation, playing the content off as something that's OK. Things are looking crazier and crazier...

      Delete
    3. Agreed. The mainstream media sat on this story for years about drones, and the timing is very suspicious.

      Delete
  13. What's going on I am not understanding it!

    ReplyDelete