Where is the Conservative outrage over this?

[Ram]

By Michael Isikoff National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be ÅÔenior operational leaders of al-Qaida or ÅÂn 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 administrationÃÔ most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, 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. The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this weekÃÔ hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them ÅÄonsistent with the inherent right of self-defense. In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses ÅÂn imminent threat of violent attack. But the confidential Justice Department ÅØhite 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 ÅÃroader concept of imminence than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland. Michael Isikoff, national investigative correspondent for NBC News, talks with Rachel Maddow about a newly obtained, confidential Department of Justice white paper that hints at the details of a secret White House memo that explains the legal justifications for targeted drone strikes that kill Americans without trial in the name of national security. ŵhe condition that an operational leader present an ÁÊmminent 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, the memo states. Instead, it says, an ÅÊnformed, high-level official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been ÅÓecently involved in ÅÂctivities posing a threat of a violent attack and ÅÕhere is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities. The memo does not define ÅÓecently or ÅÂctivities. As in HolderÃÔ speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be ÅÊnfeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to ÅÍaw of war principles. But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an ÅÖndue risk to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes. The undated memo is entitled Å*awfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al QaÃÊda or An Associated Force. It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussed publicly. Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice DepartmentÃÔ Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly -- or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News. ŵhis is a chilling document, said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. Å£asically, 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 itÃÔ easy to see how they could be manipulated. In particular, Jaffer said, the memo ÅÓedefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a ÅÑarade of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the ÅÍegal framework for such operations. Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators -- led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that ÅÕhere will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force against Americans who take up arms against the country, it said, Ūt is vitally important ... for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority. The completeness of the administrationÃÔ public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act. McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a Å×eritable Catch-22, said she was unable to order the release of the documents given ÅÕhe thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret. In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials ÅÉad engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens. But, she wrote, they have done so ÅÊn cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions. In one passage in HolderÃÔ speech at Northwestern in March, he alluded without spelling outÍÕhat 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. ŵhe Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear, he said. But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified if ÅÄapture is not feasible. But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible ÅÊf it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation. The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was mentioned in the white paper. The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas. It also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations. Å¢ lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination, the white paper reads. Ūn the DepartmentÃÔ 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.Ǽ

Read the full white paper here - http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf Essentially, if the CIA suspects that you part of Al-Qaeda or any of its affiliated groups and thinks you are currently in process of plotting an imminent/on-going threat, they can order death from the skies. :isalute: Where is the conservative outrage over this? They go bonkers over the most silliest of things (Remember the phony outrage when healthier meals were introduced in schools), but this is probably the most aggressive over-reach from the office of the Presidency and nobody has outted a peep. Btw, is not also ironical that the 'death-from-above' drone program has been going on for years now, without any major critique from any of the news outlets. Its only when it has become apparent that the roster of targets could include american citizens as well, that people are going crazy. Tells you one important thing about the Americans - When it comes Human rights, they can only be bothered if is Americans involved. Else, they couldnt care less.

[Lurker]

Read the full white paper here - http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf Essentially, if the CIA suspects that you part of Al-Qaeda or any of its affiliated groups and thinks you are currently in process of plotting an imminent/on-going threat, they can order death from the skies. :isalute:

I am surprised about your question Sriram. Why would conservatives be outraged? It fits right into their agenda. Right from the days of Patriot act thats what Conservatives have wanted - to keep a tab on everyone including citizens, monitor their activities, jail citizens without due process and torture. The outrage should have come from Democrats who have always bee against this, and now are making a big U turn. OR from Libertarian who have always maintained liberty as their cornerstone. It is a shameful U turn for liberals. Right wingers would either be happy or just shake their head with a I told you so gesture.

[Ram]

I am surprised about your question Sriram. Why would conservatives be outraged? It fits right into their agenda. Right from the days of Patriot act thats what Conservatives have wanted - to keep a tab on everyone including citizens, monitor their activities, jail citizens without due process and torture. The outrage should have come from Democrats who have always bee against this, and now are making a big U turn. OR from Libertarian who have always maintained liberty as their cornerstone. It is a shameful U turn for liberals. Right wingers would either be happy or just shake their head with a I told you so gesture.

Correction - You are correct. The liberal outrage has been missing in action as well. But, do you not think the constitutionally guaranteed right for due process and trial by law for American citizens is something to be outraged over? That is what we are dealing with here. If today, the American president can unilaterally order a strike on a suspect Al-Qaeda operative, even if he is an American, can he do the same tomorrow for say, Gang members in LA?

[Lurker]

Correction - You are correct. The liberal outrage has been missing in action as well. But, do you not think the constitutionally guaranteed right for due process and trial by law for American citizens is something to be outraged over? That is what we are dealing with here. If today, the American president can unilaterally order a strike on a suspect Al-Qaeda operative, even if he is an American, can he do the same tomorrow for say, Gang members in LA?

Oh I agree with you on that premise. Execution without trial. But this has always been something republicans have wanted. Gang members in LA, in your example, are made of Hispanics and Blacks (largely) and Chinese/Ukrainians for smaller numbers. None of these are what interest Republicans. Heck the entire state (CA) does not interest them. They wont mind sending National Guards to "fix" the gang scene. I would think Republicans are quite happy over this actually. It is Liberals who sold their souls to devil on this one.

[punjabi_khota]

Read the full white paper here - http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf Btw, is not also ironical that the 'death-from-above' drone program has been going on for years now, without any major critique from any of the news outlets. Its only when it has become apparent that the roster of targets could include american citizens as well, that people are going crazy. Tells you one important thing about the Americans - When it comes Human rights, they can only be bothered if is Americans involved. Else, they couldnt care less.

Are you serious ? Drone strikes have LONG been in the media, there has been great controversy and there are various websites which track these strikes. What do you expect Pentagon to do ? 'Indict' every suspected militant sitting in the caves in Afghanistan before bombing the caves ? No one needs an indictment in war. Obviously when it comes to US citizens, it is a different matter altogether because different laws apply. The ****er Awlaki needed to die and be fed to pigs. I am glad at least the first thing was accomplished.

[ganeshran]

Conservatives want small governments only when it comes to taxation and gun control. For the rest, they don't mind big government - Abortion, Torture, Ban on stem cell research etc

[Ram]

Oh I agree with you on that premise. Execution without trial. But this has always been something republicans have wanted. Gang members in LA, in your example, are made of Hispanics and Blacks (largely) and Chinese/Ukrainians for smaller numbers. None of these are what interest Republicans. Heck the entire state (CA) does not interest them. They wont mind sending National Guards to "fix" the gang scene. I would think Republicans are quite happy over this actually. It is Liberals who sold their souls to devil on this one.

The Dems sold their souls back in the Bush years even, when they all-in with the President on the Iraq war and his torture/illegal rendition. But in my view, this is even more serious than Water-boarding. In the case of Water-boarding, at least the guy is not likely to die and only the specific person is the victim of that treatment. In the case of drone strikes, its a guarantee of death and more often than not, civilians are killed more than terrorists

[Ram]

Are you serious ? Drone strikes have LONG been in the media' date=' there has been great controversy and there are various websites which track these strikes. [/quote'] Sure, they may have been some coverage about the drone strikes, but dont tell me it has made front-page news like it has now. As a matter of fact, I dont recall the Senate Intelligence committee putting this much pressure on the Whitehouse to release the legal memos as it is doing now. Why? Clearly because of the implication that American citizens could be targeted as well. I didnt say I oppose the policy. New enemies call for new strategies. All I was alluding to was the fact that the conservatives go around beating their chests claiming to be staunch constitutionalists, but we have hardly heard a whisper in outrage from them on this subject.

[DomainK]

The US government will kill anyone anytime they want. Because they can.

[vandokkum]

[Swing_n_Speed]

I am surprised about your question Sriram. Why would conservatives be outraged? It fits right into their agenda. Right from the days of Patriot act thats what Conservatives have wanted - to keep a tab on everyone including citizens, monitor their activities, jail citizens without due process and torture. The outrage should have come from Democrats who have always bee against this, and now are making a big U turn. OR from Libertarian who have always maintained liberty as their cornerstone. It is a shameful U turn for liberals. Right wingers would either be happy or just shake their head with a I told you so gesture.

Liberals who were all antiwar, Pink with her fake tears songwriting, all a bloody sham. Barry is just as bloodthirsty as Georgie. Thankfully the sheeple are finally beginning to wake up. Dems or Conservatives both two sides of the same coin.

[surajmal]

Obama lovers getting a dose of reality. :hehe: ****ing lemmings.

[punjabi_khota]

In the case of drone strikes' date= its a guarantee of death and more often than not, civilians are killed more than terrorists

citation needed.

[Ram]

citation needed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9564903/US-drone-attacks-are-counter-productive-and-terrorise-civilians.html Anywhere b/w 500 to a 1000 civilians, including up to 200 children, have been killed via drone strikes in Pakistan alone, from 2004 to late last year.

[vandokkum]

Only in America would Obama be considered a liberal. Move to a real liberal country in Europe and they will laugh you out of there if you say Obama is a liberal.

[Lurker]

Only in America would Obama be considered a liberal. Move to a real liberal country in Europe and they will laugh you out of there if you say Obama is a liberal.

That is not how it works. To use an analogy move any of the great South African spinners to India and most will laugh at them. (Same will hold true for Indian pacemen and South African fans by the way). Obama is pretty liberal for America. Gay rights, stance against arms and weapons, healthcare benefits, International diplomacy etc. He lets down Liberals at times, like this, but by and large is fairly in the middle with distinct left leanings.

[vandokkum]

That is not how it works. To use an analogy move any of the great South African spinners to India and most will laugh at them. (Same will hold true for Indian pacemen and South African fans by the way). Obama is pretty liberal for America. Gay rights, stance against arms and weapons, healthcare benefits, International diplomacy etc. He lets down Liberals at times, like this, but by and large is fairly in the middle with distinct left leanings.

The only reason I voted for Obama is because his opposition was Mitt romney and the GOP. It's like choosing between Ishant Sharma and Mohammad Sami :winky:

[Clarke]

Obama is pretty liberal for America. Gay rights' date=' stance against arms and weapons, healthcare benefits, International diplomacy etc. He lets down Liberals at times, like this, but by and large is fairly in the middle with distinct left leanings.[/quote'] I couldn't agree more; as they say don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The libyan war was mostly run by Europeans after a UN resolution, Iran has been pursued by sanctions and advanced methods while Syria hasn't had any intervention. These are major changes in policy after the previous president left office. One cannot expect the most powerful nation on earth to go quiet all of a sudden after fighting so many wars and policing the world. Besides, he could not be seen as someone soft on terror with his middle name :winky:

[Brainfade]

[url=http://postimage.org/

Clever. But not as clever as this one:

[Ram]

Clever. But not as clever as this one:

Interesting. Which phony war based on fabricated evidence that cost the US taxpayers nearly $2 trn did Obama start?