“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.”
Several killings of American citizens thought to be connected to Al Qaida have been carried out in recent times on U.S. citizens, even though none of them have been indicted or charged with war crimes.
The new revelations surfaced as the Obama administration seeks to get the Senate to approve the appointment of John Brennan, “a key architect of the drone campaign,” as CIA director.
Brennan acknowledged the drone strikes and defended them as “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” Attorney General Eric Holder also endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, if they posed “an imminent threat of violent attack.” He is likely to be grilled in the Senate about this issue.
But the recent killing of a 16-year-old American boy in Yemen while visiting his relatives demonstrates that the concept can be manipulated.
But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” suggests a wider definition of an imminent threat, calling it a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States,” it says, “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Instead, if an “informed, high-level” government official determines that an American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of violent attack, he may order a drone strike. The “white paper” leaves “recent” and “activities” undefined. Such vague language leaves a lot of room for the U.S. government to justify killings of citizens for broader reasons.
Though the document recognizes some limits on the authority to kill U.S. citizens without a trial anywhere in the world, the limits are vague and elastic.
The memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning,” said an ACLU spokesman.
In his speech Eric Holder “alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.” But he did not include the language in the “white paper” that suggests that “no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike.”
Similarly, Holder did not include other more vague and permissive language used in the memo in his speech.
The white paper also addresses why the constitutional protections afforded to American citizens, and why they would not violate a U.S. law that makes it a crime to kill U.S. nationals overseas and why it would not violate an executive order banning assassinations.
“It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances,” said the ACLU. The document said the courts have no role to play in the matter.
It is easy to see how the legal changes taking place in the United States are preparing the way for the removal of freedom and justice that will one day be turned on those who refuse to go along with the coming worship crisis.
The United States “shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government” Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, page 451
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
Memo sets rationale to kill Qaida-linked citizens
White Paper Text
http://www.ktfministry.org/news/3149/us-justice-justifies-killing-of-american-citizens
Several killings of American citizens thought to be connected to Al Qaida have been carried out in recent times on U.S. citizens, even though none of them have been indicted or charged with war crimes.
The new revelations surfaced as the Obama administration seeks to get the Senate to approve the appointment of John Brennan, “a key architect of the drone campaign,” as CIA director.
Brennan acknowledged the drone strikes and defended them as “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” Attorney General Eric Holder also endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, if they posed “an imminent threat of violent attack.” He is likely to be grilled in the Senate about this issue.
But the recent killing of a 16-year-old American boy in Yemen while visiting his relatives demonstrates that the concept can be manipulated.
But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” suggests a wider definition of an imminent threat, calling it a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States,” it says, “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Instead, if an “informed, high-level” government official determines that an American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of violent attack, he may order a drone strike. The “white paper” leaves “recent” and “activities” undefined. Such vague language leaves a lot of room for the U.S. government to justify killings of citizens for broader reasons.
Though the document recognizes some limits on the authority to kill U.S. citizens without a trial anywhere in the world, the limits are vague and elastic.
The memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning,” said an ACLU spokesman.
In his speech Eric Holder “alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.” But he did not include the language in the “white paper” that suggests that “no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike.”
Similarly, Holder did not include other more vague and permissive language used in the memo in his speech.
The white paper also addresses why the constitutional protections afforded to American citizens, and why they would not violate a U.S. law that makes it a crime to kill U.S. nationals overseas and why it would not violate an executive order banning assassinations.
“It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances,” said the ACLU. The document said the courts have no role to play in the matter.
It is easy to see how the legal changes taking place in the United States are preparing the way for the removal of freedom and justice that will one day be turned on those who refuse to go along with the coming worship crisis.
The United States “shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government” Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, page 451
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
Memo sets rationale to kill Qaida-linked citizens
White Paper Text
http://www.ktfministry.org/news/3149/us-justice-justifies-killing-of-american-citizens
No comments:
Post a Comment