@pkrbum:
Open the link to the white paper, page 6, middle paragraph reads in part:
As the Hamdi plurality observed, in the circumstances of war, the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizen's life is even more significant. But, the realities of combat render certain uses of force necessary and appropriate including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the armed conflict against the United States and whose activities pose an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States and due process analysis need not blink at those realities These same realities must also be considered in assessing the burdens the Government would face in providing greater process to a member of enemy forces. (plurality Opinion).
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: (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--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. In these circumstances, the realities of the conflict and the weight of the government's 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. Cf. Hamdi, 542
Home
