Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

Interesting read . . . . . .

I find it unconstitutional... there is no compelling rational to opt around due process of some kind... even if it's military.

Don't plot terror attacks against the government and citizens, don't associate with known terror groups, don't train at terrorism camps and guess what? You won't have to worry about it.



The saddest thing about that story was that he dragged his 16 yr old with him to the terrorist group and ended up collateral damage. Of course, that means another generation of terrorists won't be coming out of that family.

look at the damage that drone strike makes----trust the government to use these on a target here It would wipe out the mall in one strike--maybe to use them like looking for someone --then let the cops handle it--drones dont need to be flying over snooping on people though, We have done just fine without them so far

Too many people dont want them--they would shoot them right out of the sky and my luck it would fall on my head.

Central to this subject of our capacity to use drones I was remiss in not also posting the link to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHITE PAPER

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

I have done a quick read of it myself (16 pages) but admittedly have not absorbed it. Based on my first read it gives me an initial reaction of being a classic Catch 22 and the classic slippery slope.

Only posting it for discussion and comments for those who have concerns pro or con since drone technology is in its infancy. This is an opportunity to have a discussion instead of speculation and accusations regarding our use of this technology. This 'white paper' lays out the claimed authority for drone strikes and the targets.

knothead wrote:.

Only posting it for discussion and comments for those who have concerns pro or con since drone technology is in its infancy.

Drone technology is most definitely not in it's infancy but is advancing at a tremendous rate. DoD already uses tiny hand launched drones and is busy working on micro drones that mimic insects and small flying creatures like bats. Drones now operate off ships as well as land and are able to be carried, launched, monitored and recovered by a squad size ground element in combat. The military carries nearly 8,000 drones in its inventory with more added constantly. Civilian drone use is up too, I recently read an article about a realtor for high end properties who has several small helicopter drones he uses to document large properties. When police forces and Federal agencies start using them here in large numbers the days of privacy (of some sort since nearly every street and store has video surveillance) are long gone. Big Brother has arrived.

nochain wrote:

knothead wrote:.

Only posting it for discussion and comments for those who have concerns pro or con since drone technology is in its infancy.

Drone technology is most definitely not in it's infancy but is advancing at a tremendous rate. DoD already uses tiny hand launched drones and is busy working on micro drones that mimic insects and small flying creatures like bats. Drones now operate off ships as well as land and are able to be carried, launched, monitored and recovered by a squad size ground element in combat. The military carries nearly 8,000 drones in its inventory with more added constantly. Civilian drone use is up too, I recently read an article about a realtor for high end properties who has several small helicopter drones he uses to document large properties. When police forces and Federal agencies start using them here in large numbers the days of privacy (of some sort since nearly every street and store has video surveillance) are long gone. Big Brother has arrived.

******************************************************

chain, everything you say is true except it really is in its infancy. I watched the NOVA program recently focusing on drone technology and their analogy was that the technology of today is comparable to bi-planes during the early evolution of aviation. We ain't seen nothing yet evidently.

PkrBum wrote:I find it unconstitutional... there is no compelling rational to opt around due process of some kind... even if it's military.

And that was...or should have been the basis for the argument for the detainees in Cuba receiving trials within the US Borders...Americans ...no matter how bad...should and are guarenteed due process of the law... always found it incredible that there were some that wanted the terrorists to have the same rights as citizens...these same thinking individuals would argue that the terrorists had some kind of due process rights...

nochain wrote:

knothead wrote:.

Only posting it for discussion and comments for those who have concerns pro or con since drone technology is in its infancy.

Drone technology is most definitely not in it's infancy but is advancing at a tremendous rate. DoD already uses tiny hand launched drones and is busy working on micro drones that mimic insects and small flying creatures like bats. Drones now operate off ships as well as land and are able to be carried, launched, monitored and recovered by a squad size ground element in combat. The military carries nearly 8,000 drones in its inventory with more added constantly. Civilian drone use is up too, I recently read an article about a realtor for high end properties who has several small helicopter drones he uses to document large properties. When police forces and Federal agencies start using them here in large numbers the days of privacy (of some sort since nearly every street and store has video surveillance) are long gone. Big Brother has arrived.

Big Brother has arrived!!!!....And is being condoned by the folks that used to scream the loudest about government intervention...

From the last two posts I recognize immediately they have not read the 'white' paper laying the foundation for the use of deadly force against either American citizens engaging in terrorist activities or foreign person doing the same. Could we elevate the discussion AFTER you have read the white paper released only after the DOJ released after an extensive FOIA request? We are drowned in this forum with hyperbole but in this case we can have an intelligent discussion of the efficacy of our drone policies.

This does require some thinking after reading . . . . .

knothead wrote:From the last two posts I recognize immediately they have not read the 'white' paper laying the foundation for the use of deadly force against either American citizens engaging in terrorist activities or foreign person doing the same. Could we elevate the discussion AFTER you have read the white paper released only after the DOJ released after an extensive FOIA request? We are drowned in this forum with hyperbole but in this case we can have an intelligent discussion of the efficacy of our drone policies.

This does require some thinking after reading . . . . .

Please step down from your ivory tower and READ my post, it discusses technology in response to your remark about the development state of drones. I further addressed intrusion. Nowhere in my little contribution did I discuss deadly force. I read the information BTW and have to ask myself how did this administration manage to permit another leak of classified information????

nochain wrote:

knothead wrote:From the last two posts I recognize immediately they have not read the 'white' paper laying the foundation for the use of deadly force against either American citizens engaging in terrorist activities or foreign person doing the same. Could we elevate the discussion AFTER you have read the white paper released only after the DOJ released after an extensive FOIA request? We are drowned in this forum with hyperbole but in this case we can have an intelligent discussion of the efficacy of our drone policies.

This does require some thinking after reading . . . . .

Please step down from your ivory tower and READ my post, it discusses technology in response to your remark about the development state of drones. I further addressed intrusion. Nowhere in my little contribution did I discuss deadly force. I read the information BTW and have to ask myself how did this administration manage to permit another leak of classified information????

******************************************************

Well here we go . . . . . perhaps my writing style seems to convey a sense that I speak from the mount . . . . nothing could be farther from the truth my friend . . . . I recognize my inadequacies of not having a complete command of all the information available on drone technology. So that said, I have descended from the mount but drone technology is in its infancy. You cited multiple and accurate examples of the current capabilities but it is evolving so rapidly that what we have today will belong in the Smithsonian in 25 years . . . that is my point and it is just a true statement . . . . not an attack of any sort of your 'little contribution'. Your attitude reveals your inability to have a civil discussion without it degrading into a partisan issue. This technology was developed by the MIC and financed by the DOD so therefore policies have to be developed to fight our enemies with minimal exposure to our men and women. The policies in the white paper reveal those foundations and I thought someone would enjoy a civil discussion relating to moral and legal ramifications.

nochain wrote:

knothead wrote:From the last two posts I recognize immediately they have not read the 'white' paper laying the foundation for the use of deadly force against either American citizens engaging in terrorist activities or foreign person doing the same. Could we elevate the discussion AFTER you have read the white paper released only after the DOJ released after an extensive FOIA request? We are drowned in this forum with hyperbole but in this case we can have an intelligent discussion of the efficacy of our drone policies.

This does require some thinking after reading . . . . .

Please step down from your ivory tower and READ my post, it discusses technology in response to your remark about the development state of drones. I further addressed intrusion. Nowhere in my little contribution did I discuss deadly force. I read the information BTW and have to ask myself how did this administration manage to permit another leak of classified information????

Are you really surprised about classified information being leaked?...So this was leaked and hope that Americans just allow the concept without a discussion of deadly force?...There are rules/laws in place for the use of deadly force from a law enforcement perspective and the UCMJ also have standards/laws for the military...Once again a can of worms may be opening...It is amusing that some see this technology as acceptable now but called members of the previous administration 'war mongers' and 'war criminals' for usage of drones...The outrage was over interrogation techniques but suddenly taking out with drones is ok?...Don't get me wrong...support the use of drones and enhanced interrogation techniques...As early as yesterday Penetta stated/admitted these enhanced techniques lead to bringing justice to OBL...you know same circumstances the cohw denied having any assistance in doing...

knothead wrote:

nochain wrote:

knothead wrote:From the last two posts I recognize immediately they have not read the 'white' paper laying the foundation for the use of deadly force against either American citizens engaging in terrorist activities or foreign person doing the same. Could we elevate the discussion AFTER you have read the white paper released only after the DOJ released after an extensive FOIA request? We are drowned in this forum with hyperbole but in this case we can have an intelligent discussion of the efficacy of our drone policies.

This does require some thinking after reading . . . . .

Please step down from your ivory tower and READ my post, it discusses technology in response to your remark about the development state of drones. I further addressed intrusion. Nowhere in my little contribution did I discuss deadly force. I read the information BTW and have to ask myself how did this administration manage to permit another leak of classified information????

******************************************************

Well here we go . . . . . perhaps my writing style seems to convey a sense that I speak from the mount . . . . nothing could be farther from the truth my friend . . . . I recognize my inadequacies of not having a complete command of all the information available on drone technology. So that said, I have descended from the mount but drone technology is in its infancy. You cited multiple and accurate examples of the current capabilities but it is evolving so rapidly that what we have today will belong in the Smithsonian in 25 years . . . that is my point and it is just a true statement . . . . not an attack of any sort of your 'little contribution'. Your attitude reveals your inability to have a civil discussion without it degrading into a partisan issue. This technology was developed by the MIC and financed by the DOD so therefore policies have to be developed to fight our enemies with minimal exposure to our men and women. The policies in the white paper reveal those foundations and I thought someone would enjoy a civil discussion relating to moral and legal ramifications.

LOL!!!....So the definition of a 'civil discussion' is when a poster is condensending and exposed then it's not 'civil'?....

knothead wrote:

nochain wrote:

knothead wrote:From the last two posts I recognize immediately they have not read the 'white' paper laying the foundation for the use of deadly force against either American citizens engaging in terrorist activities or foreign person doing the same.

This does require some thinking after reading . . . . .

******************************************************

Your attitude reveals your inability to have a civil discussion without it degrading into a partisan issue. .

Partisan?

Assumption on your part about whether someone "read the white paper""

Your implication that others have not "thought about" the issue?

Yawn.

A discussion is what you had going until you decided to zing off into assumptive and political directions. Oh well, perhaps another topic.

newswatcher wrote:

knothead wrote:

nochain wrote:

knothead wrote:From the last two posts I recognize immediately they have not read the 'white' paper laying the foundation for the use of deadly force against either American citizens engaging in terrorist activities or foreign person doing the same. Could we elevate the discussion AFTER you have read the white paper released only after the DOJ released after an extensive FOIA request? We are drowned in this forum with hyperbole but in this case we can have an intelligent discussion of the efficacy of our drone policies.

This does require some thinking after reading . . . . .

Please step down from your ivory tower and READ my post, it discusses technology in response to your remark about the development state of drones. I further addressed intrusion. Nowhere in my little contribution did I discuss deadly force. I read the information BTW and have to ask myself how did this administration manage to permit another leak of classified information????

******************************************************

Well here we go . . . . . perhaps my writing style seems to convey a sense that I speak from the mount . . . . nothing could be farther from the truth my friend . . . . I recognize my inadequacies of not having a complete command of all the information available on drone technology. So that said, I have descended from the mount but drone technology is in its infancy. You cited multiple and accurate examples of the current capabilities but it is evolving so rapidly that what we have today will belong in the Smithsonian in 25 years . . . that is my point and it is just a true statement . . . . not an attack of any sort of your 'little contribution'. Your attitude reveals your inability to have a civil discussion without it degrading into a partisan issue. This technology was developed by the MIC and financed by the DOD so therefore policies have to be developed to fight our enemies with minimal exposure to our men and women. The policies in the white paper reveal those foundations and I thought someone would enjoy a civil discussion relating to moral and legal ramifications.

LOL!!!....So the definition of a 'civil discussion' is when a poster is condensending and exposed then it's not 'civil'?....

****************************************************

Condescending? You sound as though you have a profound sense of insecurity or are hypersensitive and that is not an attack simply an observation. I simply wanted to have a discussion that rises above the unsubstantiated assertions made on this forum that sadly always degrade into partisan bickering. For example, you are asserting that this is a release of 'classified' information but it was done so under the Freedom of Information Act so thank God for the media who have the resources to pursue this information so we, as citizens, can see for ourselves the basis of this drone technology and its potential . . . . . good and bad.

[quote="knothead"][quote="newswatcher"][quote="knothead"]

nochain wrote:

knothead wrote:Fr..

****************************************************

For example, you are asserting that this is a release of 'classified' information but it was done so under the Freedom of Information Act so thank God for the media who have the resources to pursue this information so we, as citizens, can see for ourselves the basis of this drone technology and its potential . . . . . good and bad.

I guess I missed the FOIA release, your information seems to indicate only the white paper is unclassified. The rest appears to be classified.

“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”

“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.”

“The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly -- or even publicly confirm their existence.”

[quote="nochain"][quote="knothead"][quote="newswatcher"]

knothead wrote:

nochain wrote:

knothead wrote:Fr..

****************************************************

For example, you are asserting that this is a release of 'classified' information but it was done so under the Freedom of Information Act so thank God for the media who have the resources to pursue this information so we, as citizens, can see for ourselves the basis of this drone technology and its potential . . . . . good and bad.

I guess I missed the FOIA release, your information seems to indicate only the white paper is unclassified. The rest appears to be classified.

“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”

“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.”

“The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly -- or even publicly confirm their existence.”

'associated force' seems to be vague...one would certainly hope that there would be some sort of evidence that they are/were involved in an attack on the US and by having such evidence would only strenghten the case of any action taken...

I hope we both would agree there is a huge difference between confidential and classified information. Michael Isikoff pursued this confidential information so the general public could see the foundation of these drone attacks throughout the middle east against those identified by the NSA as threats to the United States. The white paper discusses the rationale' for these policies and it will give citizens, like you and me, to weigh the pros and cons. I have no doubt that it will inevitably degrade into a partisan mud slinging and politicians and their surrogates will attempt to score political points as this information is better understood.

Morally I have no problem with the POTUS authorizing drone strikes on enemy combatants that are actively killing American soldiers on the battlefield, the fact that they are Americans who have chosen to kill American soldiers doesn't make a difference.

Legally what they are proposing is very broad and loose in terms of justification and it is not confined to the just battlefield, if they suspected an American was planning something that would be justification enough. Jameel Jaffer summed it up.

“This 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. “Basically, 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 it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

alecto wrote:Morally I have no problem with the POTUS authorizing drone strikes on enemy combatants that are actively killing American soldiers on the battlefield, the fact that they are Americans who have chosen to kill American soldiers doesn't make a difference.

Legally what they are proposing is very broad and loose in terms of justification and it is not confined to the just battlefield, if they suspected an American was planning something that would be justification enough. Jameel Jaffer summed it up.

“This 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. “Basically, 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 it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

*****************************************************

I completely agree that American citizens are not immune from being targeted once sufficient intelligence.

The quote by the ACLU underscores what I said earlier in this thread that I do see it is a slippery slope but I support what has been done to this point and I would support President Bush if he had been the one executing these policies as well.

knothead wrote:I hope we both would agree there is a huge difference between confidential and classified information. Michael Isikoff pursued this confidential information so the general public could see the foundation of these drone attacks throughout the middle east against those identified by the NSA as threats to the United States. The white paper discusses the rationale' for these policies and it will give citizens, like you and me, to weigh the pros and cons. I have no doubt that it will inevitably degrade into a partisan mud slinging and politicians and their surrogates will attempt to score political points as this information is better understood.

As a conservative and not a supporter of the cowh....It's the sworn duty of any President/Commander-In-Chief to protect the United States and Citizens...No problem whatsoever eliminating any threat to the US whether it be from a domestic and/or foreign source...Several times some have accused conservatives/right wing/republicans of being partisian and/or to oppose this administration for a political agenda...This is the allegation but can't recall anyone from the conservative side that has not agreed and or given credit to this administration for it's policies pertaining to drone strikes and/or eliminating enemies of this nation..

knothead wrote:

alecto wrote:Morally I have no problem with the POTUS authorizing drone strikes on enemy combatants that are actively killing American soldiers on the battlefield, the fact that they are Americans who have chosen to kill American soldiers doesn't make a difference.

Legally what they are proposing is very broad and loose in terms of justification and it is not confined to the just battlefield, if they suspected an American was planning something that would be justification enough. Jameel Jaffer summed it up.

“This 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. “Basically, 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 it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

*****************************************************

I completely agree that American citizens are not immune from being targeted once sufficient intelligence.

The quote by the ACLU underscores what I said earlier in this thread that I do see it is a slippery slope but I support what has been done to this point and I would support President Bush if he had been the one executing these policies as well.

Good points....and brings to the forefront that there are some that need a self-examination of their past actions/rhetoric as it pertained to the actions/policies of the previous administration which are being utilized by the current administration for keeping us safe...The point...neither side is immune from being patisian and inconsistant because of political affiliations...

knothead wrote:I hope we both would agree there is a huge difference between confidential and classified information. Michael Isikoff pursued this confidential information so the general public could see the foundation of these drone attacks throughout the middle east against those identified by the NSA as threats to the United States.

While the intent may have been "pure" in the interests of exposing potentially dangerous activities the fact is the law was broken by those who leaked the material. I maintain a security clearance for work and have to say I would never consider leaking any information that is classified. That said, I have always thought the use of drones to be acceptable and even understand that in a war zone strikes may result in the loss of innocents. What will happen here though if a drone strike is authorized and a van full of kids from a day care center is torched along with a suspected or known terrorist? It will make Newtown look like a picnic.

"In the National Industrial Security Program, classified information is marked CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET. TOP SECRET has more restrictions than SECRET and SECRET has more than CONFIDENTIAL. For example, disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL information could reasonably be expected to cause damage; SECRET could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage; and TOP SECRET could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security."

nochain wrote:

knothead wrote:I hope we both would agree there is a huge difference between confidential and classified information. Michael Isikoff pursued this confidential information so the general public could see the foundation of these drone attacks throughout the middle east against those identified by the NSA as threats to the United States.

While the intent may have been "pure" in the interests of exposing potentially dangerous activities the fact is the law was broken by those who leaked the material. I maintain a security clearance for work and have to say I would never consider leaking any information that is classified. That said, I have always thought the use of drones to be acceptable and even understand that in a war zone strikes may result in the loss of innocents. What will happen here though if a drone strike is authorized and a van full of kids from a day care center is torched along with a suspected or known terrorist? It will make Newtown look like a picnic.

"In the National Industrial Security Program, classified information is marked CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET. TOP SECRET has more restrictions than SECRET and SECRET has more than CONFIDENTIAL. For example, disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL information could reasonably be expected to cause damage; SECRET could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage; and TOP SECRET could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security."

******************************************************

Thanks for that information. I had no clue regarding the steps of classified information . . . . Why did they release it to Michael Isikoff under the FOIA? I guess we have to understand those nuances to know the answer.