Congress, Constitutional Law, International, Politics, Society

DOJ Memo: Obama Administration Claims Broader Authority To Kill Americans

PresObamaWe have previously discussed the President’s “kill list” policy under which Obama claims the right to be able to kill any American based on his sole judgment and discretion. A confidential Justice Department memo now sheds more light on that policy and states a broader basis for such killings than previously suggested by the Administration. It is also not clear why this memo was kept secret by the Administration since it deals only with legal interpretations — not classified operational information.

Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder appeared at the Northwestern University Law School to present the new policy, claiming that the President did not need any conviction or even a charge to kill an American citizen. While he stressed that this was based on a rationale that the citizen posed “an imminent threat of violent attack,” I noted at the time that any such limitation was purely discretionary under the theory of executive power being advanced by the Obama Administration.

It now appears that the Administration lawyers reached the same conclusion. The memo notes that there does not need to be an imminent attack in terms of an unfolding plan or operation: “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States 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.”

In plain language, that means that the President considers the citizens to be a threat in the future. Moreover, the memo allows killings when an attempt to capture the person would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel. That undue risk is left undefined.

The memo, entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force,” is a tour de force of an imperial presidency. It was provided previously to both Democratic and Republican members of Congress on the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees. However, those members did nothing to stop such an extreme assertion of unilateral presidential power or to alert the public that the president was claiming far greater latitude in ordering the killings of citizens.

In an Orwellian twist, the memo insists “A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination.” It is more like a very pointed expression of presidential displeasure.

Here is the memo: 020413_DOJ_White_Paper

Source: NBC

395 thoughts on “DOJ Memo: Obama Administration Claims Broader Authority To Kill Americans”

  1. Statistically a US citizen and most other citizens in most other countries – including Israel – have more chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist act of violence. So given this dire, perpetual, heart pounding existential threat, (not like that fluffy one time shot of an all out civil war at home where we lost only around 620,000 soldiers – more than in any other war up through Vietnam- where Lincoln very briefly and apologetically suspended Habeas Corpus), it goes without saying that in this case where the last president (“They don’t have a word for ‘entrepreneur’ in French” – that one) scrambled to find the weapons of mass destruction under his own desk, it goes without saying in this hailstorm of national threat that the current President must turn the Constitution upside down and inside out. Oh well, on the bright side, if the President kills you before the terrorist does, he has, by the logic of the lesser of evils, saved you from the evil doer bad guy boogey woogy , opps, boogy-man terrorists.

    There is no more thorough way of preventing the terrorists from attacking our civil liberties and our laws than by eliminating them before they get a chance.

    1. Brooklin Bridge, I suggest you learn US history about LIncoln. He did NOT suspend habeus corpus regretfully or briefly. In FACT Congress passed a law enabling that suspension for the duration of the war. Lincoln also put Vallandingham into prison, as he did MANY OTHERS who simply voiced support for the rebellion.

  3. @ AP

    “As much as Obama talks about rejecting the concept of “perpetual war” he’s providing, and institutionalizing, a blueprint for it.
    -Spencer Ackerman”

    Bait and Switch

    Smoke and Mirrors

    If the president does it it’s legal

    The rhetoric vs the substance

    You can fool all of the chumps all of the time

    Really, really we’re winding down wars. Keep clapping louder.

    I need these powers, but i will never use them, but I am using them, so I must need them

    ————————–

    hey, how about a nice bipartisan impeachment charge?

  4. Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta: Lawsuit Challenging Targeted Killings

    February 4, 2013

    http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

    Excerpt:

    The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) have filed a lawsuit challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.

    In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government’s killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.

    The killings were part of a broader program of “targeted killing” by the United States outside the context of armed conflict and based on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts.

  7. Bron,

    Thanks for the link.

    Excerpt:

    “I felt like I was in a warzone.” Jerrals said. “It was nonstop. I was terrified.”

    Turns out, it was a multi-agency training drill that Jerrals wished would have come with warning.

    “They could have done a better job in notifying the neighborhood,” Jerrals said.

    The Army did not give any details of what the training is for. Some people we spoke to needed no explanation.

    “If it’s to protect our kids, I’m all for it,” neighbor Glenn DeWitt said. ”

    (We’re in a whole world of trouble… If I told you what I know, you wouldn’t believe it.)

  8. http://www.utahsheriffs.org/USA-Home_files/2nd%20Amendment%20Letter.pdf

    “We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”

    I called, they actually sent this letter.

  9. Take comfort… think of how much deader you’d be if it were Romney who popped you.

  11. In 2002-2008 left leaning individuals went crazy about GWB and indefinite detentions and harsh interrogation techniques. I attended an Obama speech in Feb 2008, here was a man that was going to change it all and respect civil liberties. I smelled a faker. So this Obama gets elected and the left rejoices in praise that the evil days of GWB are over. So now instead of capturing people, asking a court for an indictment, we just kill them.

    And the roar from the civil liberties on the left is? Shhh, I can’t hear them….I said please quite down I want to hear the left screaming about the evils of the Obama administration and their KILL policy….I’m waiting…

  12. Pakistan Warns U.S. Drone Strikes Are ‘Red Line’

    Posted: 02/05/2013 12:35 pm EST | Updated: 02/05/2013 3:41 pm EST

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/pakistan-drone-strikes_n_2623262.html

    Excerpt:

    “Rehman repeated the objections to the drone strikes frequently voiced by Pakistani officials and critics around the world: that they create deep resentment on the ground in Pakistan and elsewhere; that they radicalize people who had tried to stand against terrorists; that the al Qaeda leadership is decimated anyway; and that in the long term it harms U.S. and Pakistan efforts against terrorists.

    “We don’t see drones as productive at all,” she said.

    But asked directly how her government would handle a demand from the Pakistani general staff to be allowed to shoot down the drones, she shot back: “Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on that wall!””

  13. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/05/city-in-virginia-becomes-first-to-pass-anti-drone-legislation-

    Charlottesville, Va., has become the first city in the United States to formally pass an anti-drone resolution.

    The resolution, passed Monday, “calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court,” and “pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones.”

  14. http://my.firedoglake.com/davidswanson/2013/02/04/first-city-in-u-s-passes-resolution-against-drones/

    First City in U.S. Passes Resolution Against Drones
    By: David Swanson Monday February 4, 2013 9:43 pm

    Charlottesville City Hall. The city just became the first in the USA to pass a resolution restricting the use of drones.

    Shortly after 11 p.m. on Monday, February 4th, the City Council of Charlottesville, Va., passed what is believed to be the first anti-drone resolution in the country. According to my notes, and verifiable soon on the City Council’s website, the resolution reads:

    WHEREAS, the rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the United States poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including the residents of Charlottesville; and

    WHEREAS, the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia have thus far failed to provide reasonable legal restrictions on the use of drones within the United States; and

    WHEREAS, police departments throughout the country have begun implementing drone technology absent any guidance or guidelines from law makers;

    NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, endorses the proposal for a two year moratorium on drones in the state of Virginia; and calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court, and precluding the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being; and pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones.

    The same City Council passed a resolution on January 17, 2012, calling for an end to drone wars, as well as ground wars, excessive military spending, and any possible attack on Iran.

    The wording of Monday’s resolution comes largely from a draft suggested by the Rutherford institute. An initial line was deleted and two amendments were made to the final paragraph, one endorsing a two-year moratorium on drones (something that had passed in committee in both houses of the Virginia legislature as of Saturday in the House and Monday in the Senate), the other committing the City not to use drones for surveillance or assault.

    The wording was not as comprehensive as the draft that had appeared in the City Council’s official agenda for Monday’s meeting, a draft I had authored. See it here in the city agenda or on my website.

    At the previous meeting of the City Council on January 7, 2013, I and a few other residents had spoken in support of a resolution, and three of the five city council members agreed to put it on the agenda for the February 4th meeting. Some of the public comments were excellent, and the video of the meeting is on the city’s website.

    On Monday, citizens speaking in favor of the anti-drone resolution dominated the public speaking period at the beginning of the meeting, shortly after 7 p.m. Many were quite eloquent, and the video will be available soon on the city’s site. The council members did not discuss and vote on the matter until shortly after 11 p.m. The discussion was quite brief, coming on the heels of hours devoted to other matters.

    The same three city council members who had put the item on the agenda voted in favor of the resolution, passing it by a vote of 3-2. They were Dave Norris, Dede Smith, and Satyendra Sing Huja. Norris and Smith negotiated the slight improvements to the Rutherford Institute’s draft with Huja, who initially favored passing that draft as it was written. Norris and Smith favored banning the City from purchasing drones, but Council Member Kristin Szakos argued that there might be a positive use for a drone someday, such as for the fire department. Kathy Galvin joined Szakos in voting No.

    Norris has been a leader on the City Council for years and sadly will not be running for reelection at the end of his current term.

    Following the January meeting, I submitted my draft to the city, asked people to phone and email the council members, published a column in the local daily newspaper, and organized an event in front of City Hall on Sunday, the day before the vote. Anti-drone activist John Heuer from North Carolina delivered a giant model drone produced by New York anti-drone activist Nick Mottern. Our little stunt produced coverage on the two television channels and in the newspaper. I asked people to commit to attending the meeting on a FaceBook page. The room ended up packed, and when I asked those who supported the resolution to stand, most of the room did so.

    No organized pro-drone lobby ever developed. We met and confronted the argument that localities shouldn’t lobby states or Washington. And, of course, some people are opposed to drones in the United States but eager to see them used however the President may see fit abroad. Charlottesville’s City Council ended up not including the section in my draft that instructed the federal government to end its practice of extrajudicial killing. But there was no discussion on that point, and several other sections, including one creating a local ordinance, were left out as well. The problem there, according to Smith, was that “we don’t own the air.”

    Yet, we should. And Oregon is attempting to do so with its draft state legislation.

    In the past, Charlottesville has passed resolutions that have inspired other localities and impacted federal and state policies. Let us hope this one is no exception.

  16. b
    1, February 5, 2013 at 11:45 am
    DOJ can take you into custody and then coerce you to admit something and then kill you as long as they take you outside the U.S. right?

    —————————————————————————-

    Since they don’t have to tell anyone … why take the target out of the United States? Or I suppose they could take the target anywhere close to the northern or southern border then toss them over the line once the job is done. Congress isn’t going to stop ’em and I’m sure a smart DOJ or White House lawyer can write a memo justifying the action if necessary.

  17. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/05/obama-drone-joke-was-it-offens.html?hpid=artslot

    “Jonas Brothers are here, they’re out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don’t get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming. You think I’m joking?”

    El Presidente for Life[?]

    “You have to wonder why in the world the president’s speech writers would think it was a good idea to throw a joke about predator drones into the president’s speech during the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, given that an estimated one-third of drone casualties, or between 289 and 378, have been civilians,” wrote Adam Serwer at the American Prospect.

  18. The Animal Constitution states: “All Animals Are Equal” (under the law).

    The Obama Administration interprets that commandment to mean: “Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others” (so who needs laws?)

Comments are closed.