DOJ Forced to Release Secret Drone Justification to Kill American Citizens

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/20/justice-dept-drone-memo/9347697/

WASHINGTON —The Justice Department will not attempt to block a federal judge's order to publicly release a secret memo outlining the government's authority for using drones to kill U.S. citizens overseas who are suspected of terrorism,two administration officials said Tuesday.

The decision,outlined by the two officials who are not authorized to comment publicly,comes during a charged debate over the nomination of the memo's author,former Justice Department official David Barron,to a federal appeals court bench in Boston. A vote was scheduled for Wednesday.

Both officials said the decision not to appeal the April order was made this week by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Attorney General Eric Holder approved of the decision,and the White House was notified Tuesday.

Release of the memo could take some time to allow for requests for redactions and for the court's review of those modifications.

Barron's nomination has drawn fire from some lawmakers and the civil rights advocates who have called for a full review of the drone program and its justification before a vote on the nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1 Circuit.

"The … opinions written or signed by Mr. Barron helped form the purported legal foundation for a large-scale killing program that has resulted in,as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stated last year,as many as 4,700 deaths by drone attacks,including the deaths of four American citizens,'' the ACLU said in a Tuesday letter to senators urging them to review the documents.

Last year,Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed that four U.S. citizens had been killed in counterterrorism drone strikes since 2009.

At the time of his announcement,Holder said that radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki,who has been the inspiration for several plots against the United States,was the only American specifically targeted in the counterterrorism operations.

Three others —al-Qaeda propagandist Samir Khan; al-Awlaki's son, Addulrahman al-Awlaki; and Jude Kenan Mohammed —were killed during the same period.
LP
Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,D-Nev.,has expressed confidence that Barron will win approval,others have vowed to oppose the Harvard professor because of his work on the drone program.

"I've read David Barron's memos concerning the legal justification for killing an American citizen overseas without trial or legal representation, and I am not satisfied,'' Rep. Rand Paul,R-Ky.,said last week,promising to oppose and filibuster the nomination.

Moral of the story-

Don't join a terrorist group like Al Qaeda and you won't eat a hellfire missile or GBU-12.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Moral of the story-

Don't join a terrorist group like Al Qaeda and you won't eat a hellfire missile or GBU-12.

Pick a side Pacedog either you are for Holder and Obama or you are an American terrorist.

Lol sorry, I no longer have a dog in this hunt. I do think that if you are plotting on America while in a foreign country and a member of a terrorist group you deserve what u get.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike

The ACLU and 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.

Yes and it was revealed that Saddam had WMDs and yellow cake and and and...bullshit...

It's a simple case to justify legally in courts the targeting al-awlaki. But not targeting his minor son and the other child.

You aren't making a relevant argument... just another political justification that before obama would've been the opposite.

It's a simple case to justify legally in courts the targeting al-awlaki. But not targeting his minor son and the other child.

You aren't making a relevant argument... just another political justification that before obama would've been the opposite.

Help me out, why were the two minors targeted by our government?

PkrBum wrote:It's a simple case to justify legally in courts the targeting al-awlaki. But not targeting his minor son and the other child.

You aren't making a relevant argument... just another political justification that before obama would've been the opposite.

The minor son wasn't specifically targeted, but was collateral damage.

2seaoat wrote:It's a simple case to justify legally in courts the targeting al-awlaki. But not targeting his minor son and the other child.

You aren't making a relevant argument... just another political justification that before obama would've been the opposite.

Help me out, why were the two minors targeted by our government?

They specifically were not, they were collateral damage based on the targeting of people they were with at the time of weapons release.

The minor son wasn't specifically targeted, but was collateral damage.



I thought so, but I could not imagine PK lying to make a point.

"I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson

"By a declaration of rights I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by juries in all cases..." -- Thomas Jefferson

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

In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (sometimes called Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the ACLU and CCR 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 in 2011 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. The program is based on vague legal standards, a closed executive decision-making process, and evidence never presented to the courts, even after the killing.

Since 2002, and routinely since 2009, the U.S. government has carried out deliberate and premeditated killings of suspected terrorists overseas. In some cases, including that of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, the targets were placed on “kill lists” maintained by the CIA and the Pentagon. According to news accounts, the targeted killing program has expanded to include “signature strikes” in which the government does not know the identity of individuals, but targets them based on “patterns” of behavior that have never been made public. The New York Times has reported that the government counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Authorizing LEO's to shoot crime suspects on sight would eliminate the need for lengthy trials and increased prison space. Which means we could cut spending on the justice department at the local, state, and federal level.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKITYu7z-AY

 

When an American citizen is outside territorial jurisdiction of this nation, and that citizen is part of a terrorist organization which is targeting America, I think that citizen gets no special treatment any more than if the same had joined the germans during world war II and was killed in battle. The lack of an act of war is covered by the War Power Act. The alternative of invading innocent nations and killing 100k of their civilians is not good policy or a moral higher ground. I have no problem with court review of targeting if an American citizen is targeted, but will this new standard carry over to declared wars where generals will be criminally charged for killing American combatants......of course not to both.

http://www.majksworld.com/2009/11/11/better-10-guilty-men-go-free-than-to-convict-a-single-innocent-man/

Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man


The essence of this quote forms the very cornerstone of the system of justice that separates the United States from virtually every other civilized nation. Think about the presumption of innocence; the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt; the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict. These core elements of our system of criminal justice all flow directly from the premise that the wrongful conviction of a single innocent person is ten times worse than a guilty person going unpunished.

There is no presumption of innocence in war. Innocence and justice are the first victims of war.

Amazing how blind people can be...the only terrorists I see are the Federal government and they are quickly gearing up to terrorize the American people..wake up..

2seaoat wrote:There is no presumption of innocence in war.  Innocence and justice are the first victims of war.

We are at war..surprise surprise..when did congress declare war and on whom ? the terrorists they openly supply and back in Syria and Libya ?..or just some vague boogeyman that we can spend trillions searching for and droning wedding parties trying to kill...stupid fear-mongering federal pukes.

2seaoat wrote:When an American citizen is outside territorial jurisdiction of this nation, and that citizen is part of a terrorist organization which is targeting America, I think that citizen gets no special treatment any more than if the same had joined the germans during world war II and was killed in battle.

So they don't even have to be in a war zone declared by the US Congress to be a target.

2seaoat wrote:The lack of an act of war is covered by the War Power Act.  The alternative of invading innocent nations and killing 100k of their civilians is not good policy or a moral higher ground.

 

However carpet bombing sovereign nations without Congressional approval and killing thousands of innocents is perfectly alright by you.

2seaoat wrote:I have no problem with court review of targeting if an American citizen is targeted,...

Yeah. Just eliminate the possible threat and let God sort it all out later.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

2seaoat wrote:...but will this new standard carry over to declared wars where generals will be criminally charged for killing American combatants......of course not to both.  

Of course it won't..... And the progressives in this country would never scream and demand that the prisoners in Guantanamo have the same rights as US citizens or that US soldiers should be put on trial for murdering, with a bulldozer, enemy combatants shooting at them... Oh wait!!!!!



*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

 

Sal wrote: a unified Congress

There aint gonna be no "unified congress" in my lifetime or in yours.
With the society and the politics we have in place now, it will only become even less unified and more dysfunctional with time.

While I doubt I agree with anyone less than I do Ann Coulter, I'm afraid she
articulated what we have now better than anyone when she said that the only people who are not retarded are either democrats or republicans.
And what she meant is, that you need to be either a brainwashed true believer liberal. OR a brainwashed true believer conservative. That anything else signifies a person of low intelligence (i.e. a toaster).
And brainwashed true believer liberals and brainwashed true believer conservatives WILL NEVER be "unified". Not in congress, not anywhere.
When they were passing out the part of the brain that contains the ability to unify, these people were absent. Probably watching Fox News and MSNBC.