EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
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 “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 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.

snip

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 “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

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.

snip

The undated memo is 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.” 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.

con. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... icans?lite

I just read Part 1 of a 2 Part opinion piece at the DailyKos on this very subject.

It is very thought provoking to say the least:

Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 09:00 AM PST.

War is hell: A defense of the Obama Administration's policy regarding drones

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/10/1185516/-War-is-hell-A-defense-of-the-Obama-Administration-s-policy-regarding-drones

I want to "hear" the rest of this op/ed piece before I comment.

Holder does not rule out drone strike scenario in U.S.

Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.

snip

In a letter to (Sen. Rand) Paul dated on Monday, Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States.

However, Holder said the question was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur."

snip

"The U.S. attorney general's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening. It is an affront to the constitutional due process rights of all Americans," Paul said.

Full article here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t2

It seems Holder/the administration is back-peddling a little, but not all the way.

White House, Holder respond to Rand Paul: ‘The answer is no’

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to (Rand) Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”

Paul said that was good enough for him. “I’m quite happy with the answer,” he said during a CNN interview. “I’m disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it, but we did get the answer.”

Carney added that, “if the United States were under attack, there were an imminent threat,” the president has the authority to protect the country from that assault.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-hou ... le/2523555

I am not a fan of the Obama administration's fascination with drones. The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption has been embraced by the Obama Administration. Favoring pre-emptive drone strikes as a matter of course and policy over invasion, it a Bush-Lite pre-emption.

Obama has ordered hundreds of pre-emptive drone strikes in several countries. These acts of war are carried out wholly by the Executive and prior to any attacks on US soil. The drone wars target and kill "suspected" terrorists. Most of the strikes target suspicious activities and the identities of the dead are never known.

The Obama (Bush-Lite) Doctrine of pre-emptive acts of war as routine is a disturbing precedent. When you add to it the constitutionally questionable assassination of US citizens abroad, it just adds another log on the fire.

I watched Rachel Maddow interview Oregon Senator Ron Wyden the other night. He is the ONLY Democrat to join the Paul filibuster. The information is needed, Wyden said, for Congress to perform its Constitutional oversight duty, even if it means butting heads with a President from your own party.

I definitely am not a Rand Paul fan but I do agree that the whole drone issue (not just targeting American citizens) needs to come into the light. Congress has the constitutional authority to provide oversight on acts of war. That is exactly what a drone strike is - an act of war.

This whole drone pre-emptive strike issue needs to be thoroughly debated in Congress and among the American people.

Understand that we are killing "suspected" terrorists. These folks have NEVER been charged with anything, been arrested nor been afforded due process.

Are the drones simply an extension of Clinton's cruise missile policy? It very well could be but does that make the cruise missile policy right?

And, yes, I fully recognize and understand that drones and cruise missiles are used to keep American troops out of harms way. But (at least in my mind) it begs the question - what if GB or Australia deems an American citizen a "terrorist?" Does that mean GB or Australia has the right to launch a cruise missile or drone into American air space to take them out?

Yeah - didn't think so...

Edited to add: And just where were the other Democrats during this filibuster? According to the Huffington Post - most said they were "surprised" by the actual filibuster and had too much work to do.

Yah right!