Accordingly, the Department does not believe that U.S. citizenship would immunize a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or its associated forces from a use of force abroad authorized by the [Authorization of Use for Military Force] or in national self-defense.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Clearly I don’t know anyone who doesn’t agree with that portion. Simply being “our” bad guy doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t be eliminated.<\/p>\n
Likewise, the discussions regarding where the strikes occur which is on the remainder of page 3, and continuing to page 5 seem to me to be above too much actual argument. Certainly there are concerns about other nation\u2019s sovereignty and such, but from the standpoint of geography, getting blown up in one place for supporting al-Qa’ida (as the DoD is apparently spelling it) is much the same as another location.\u00a0 (Excepting within the US, which is not discussed.)<\/p>\n
The 6th page of the memo outlines the due process element. It first starts with noting that there are competing governmental interests at play here, and lays them out thusly:<\/p>\n
In the circumstances considered here, the interests on both sides would be weighty\u2026An individual\u2019s interest in avoiding erroneous deprivation of his life is \u201cuniquely compelling.\u201d\u00a0 At the same time, the government\u2019s interest in waging war, protecting its citizens, and removing the threat posed by members of enemy forces is also compelling\u2026<\/p>\n
But, \u201cthe realities of combat\u201d render certain uses of force \u201cnecessary and appropriate,\u201d including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the armed conflict against the United States and whose activities prose an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States \u2013 and \u201cdue process analysis need not blink at those realities.\u201d\u00a0 These same realities must also be considered in assessing \u201cthe burdens the Government would face in providing greater process\u201d to a member of enemy forces.\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u00a0Finally it gets to a three-pronged test on when drone attacks can be conducted:<\/p>\n
In view of these interests and practical considerations, the United States would be able to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen, who is located outside the United States and is an operational leader continually planning attacks against U.S. persons and interests, in at least the following circumstances:\u00a0 (1) where an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) where a capture operation would be infeasible \u2013 and where those conducting the operation continue to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) where such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles.\u00a0 In these circumstances, the \u201crealities\u201d of the conflict and the weight of the government\u2019s interest in protecting its citizens from an imminent attack are such that the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process to such a U.S. citizen before using lethal force.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u00a0I\u2019m sure someone can come up with a cogent argument that there is an infirmity somewhere in there, but I honestly don\u2019t see one.\u00a0 Again, my only concern remains the procedural side.\u00a0 Who exactly is determining whether the evidence is sufficient to declare someone an \u201cimminent threat\u201d?\u00a0 Who determines the feasibility of capture?\u00a0 (On this one, I would hope we err on the side of caution of course.)\u00a0 And who decides if the operation is consistent with the principles of international laws of war?<\/p>\n
Alas, the memo itself doesn\u2019t answer these questions, and I am somewhat glad of that.\u00a0 I wouldn\u2019t want to know (for instance) the name of a specific individual (or individuals more likely) who was making these weighty decisions.\u00a0 My only hope though is that it is given some legislative weight as well, and perhaps some Congressional oversight.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The conclusion to the memo makes clear though that those questions are answered somewhere else, and this memo specifically only addresses the legality of the operation, and not the procedural stuff.<\/p>\n
\u00a0
Rachel Maddow spent 18 minutes discussing this last night as well.\u00a0 For some reason she spent 13 minutes winding up to the discussion with Isikoff, which seemed about 11 too much for me.\u00a0 So, those of a more conservative bent might want to fast forward to 13 minutes in and watch from there.\u00a0 I happen to like Maddow, even though I disagree with her a lot, but I find the entire thing fascinating.\u00a0 It appears she has some of the same concerns I do, which apparently makes those who ridicule me in the comments for being a “leftist” have some validation I suppose.\u00a0 Nonetheless, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, you should watch this.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news<\/a>, world news<\/a>, and news about the economy<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Crossposted from the paying gig, but I wanted you guys to weigh in as well. ________________________ … DOJ lays out legal argument for Drone strikes on US Citizens<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":148,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/148"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=34005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34005\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=34005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=34005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=34005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.burnpit.us\/sites\/default\/files\/Conclusion.jpg\")
<\/p>\n