The nagging thought about US drone strikes against US citizens
The concept of the Executive Branch considering, and the Justice Department approving, the killing of US citizens is a chilling thought. It’s the kind of accusation one might expect from a conspiracy extremist, yet that thought is exactly what NBC News has found a memo detailing.
As has been reported, the Obama Administration sought the Justice Department opinion on the case of killing, via drone strike and otherwise, American citizens that are “in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities” who is a “senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force of al-Qa’ida”. This is essentially the example of the September 2011 drone attack in Yemen which killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan – each an American citizen without indictment or even charged in a crime but were alleged al-Qa’ida members.
The memo, titled 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, goes over several issues that could allow a drone or other attack against an American citizen in league with al-Qa’ida; including the 4th Amendment and the Due Process Clause, and details how they do not apply.
But there is a troubling thought that comes from the undated memo. It does not clarify what level of threat is necessary to justify a lethal action against an American overseas. What is a “senior operational leader”? If an American, in say Italy, were to unkowingly aid al-Qa’ida, as an example in a series of financial transactions via a dummy corporation the citizen neither has the means nor reason to question, does that qualify?
According to the memo, if a “high level official” – how high and what department of the Government is undefined – believes the citizen poses an “imminent violent threat” – also defined vaguely as such a threat need not be active or current – then the first requirement is satisfied. The second requirement is that capture is “infeasible”, which could be true for a host of reasons. The third condition is that the operation must be done “consistent with applicable law of war principles”, which a drone strike is considered.
Therefore, yes an American citizen could be killed without knowledge of a crime or aid to al-Qa’ida under these circumstances. Time to duck in Italy.
As troubling as that realization is, the memo brings up another chilling thought, what other memos and conditions have been sought? What if the American citizen in question is not a member of al-Qa’ida but Hezbolla? Or some other group, or an organization that might tomorrow become a threat? What about an American under any of these conditions on American soil?
The reality is that if this relatively specific set of conditions have been considered, and found legal, what other scenarios have been considered and what are the legal ramification that were determined? The memo clearly states
“The paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it access what might be required to render a lethal operation against a US citizen lawful in other circumstances…”
What are those “other circumstances”? The paper seems to imply that other memos have been written detailing those circumstances, where are they? How far has the Justice Department advised the Executive Branch they can go? How much power is being vested in this one branch of the Government, that has yet to be disclosed to the other Government branches and the public – even as both request more information?
Taken in concert with the latest news reported by the New York Times that the President has authority to use pre-emptive cyberattacks and initiate military action in domestic incidents of cyberattack – but the exact details of the limits on Executive use of cyberattacks and defense are secret and unknown – there seems to be a large increase in the power the President weilds over citizens, abroad and potentially stateside, as well as in general.
The answer to these nagging questions all reside in the Executive Branch. But as stated by Politifact,
“PolitiFact has tracked [President Obama's] transparency promises on the Obameter and found mixed success. Of his 14 core promises, PolitiFact rated four Kept, five Compromise, and five Broken.”
The outlook for a clear answer is murky at best. Which does nothing to resolve the situation.
Loading ...
February 6th, 2013 at 2:11 pm
As seen on Facebook
Luis Christian Camacho-Dilorenzi
This has been an issue since 2007 I don’t know why all of a sudden it’s surprise. They targeted and killed a terrorist in Bahrain that was an American. When pressed about this former VP Cheney said it was OK. Why not the outrage then?
February 6th, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Luis,
Actually the first drone strike was in 2002, and 2 American citizens have been targeted in drone strikes – both killed in 2011 under President Obama. Collateral damage may be responsible for other American deaths, such as the 16 yr old son of Anwar al-Awlaki.
The problem is that the justification is so broad that almost any American overseas could technically be targeted, as I give an example in the article. It also raises other questions in the article, including what is the extent of power being given to the Executive Branch over the lives of American citizens overseas.
Lastly, in 2007 – to our knowledge – the Justice Department never gave a formal ok nor listed in broad strokes how such action could be done, which may be why it was never done until 2011.
February 6th, 2013 at 2:45 pm
As found on Facebook
Luis Christian Camacho-Dilorenzi
It’s justified vis a vis the patriot act (Padilla was a perfect example) that americans lose all rights via executive order. The next logical step was the drone to do monitoring then the strikes.
February 6th, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Luis,
Actually it is not authorized by the Patriot Act. According to the memo, the 4th and 5th Amendments are also not violated.
February 6th, 2013 at 2:49 pm
As found on Facebook
Luis Christian Camacho-Dilorenzi
Once they started to deny due process under the patriot act it was just logical progression. Padilla was detained in Chicago with out due process for over 20 months
February 6th, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Luis,
Different situations, especially since the case you mention was on (and over) American soil. Plus detainment of a citizen is not held to as strict a standard as the killing of an American citizen. They apply to very different Rights, and the justification of one does not apply to the other. But the combination does present a troubling growth in power of the Executive Branch, in my opinion.
February 6th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
As found on Facebook
Luis Christian Camacho-Dilorenzi
Once you make allowances for executive over reach it just progresses. The standard should be just that. Taking someone’s liberty is just as bad as killing them. Once you strip someone of rights, a voice, due process it is a matter of time when the slippery slope becomes a gorge
February 6th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Luis,
I don’t dispute that, just clarifying points of what the memo and my article did or did not say
February 12th, 2013 at 6:27 pm
[...] the war on terror. How likely will it be that the State of the Union goes into any mention of the Department of Justice memo that President Obama can issue drone kill orders against Americans overseas under the most broad [...]
February 13th, 2013 at 3:56 am
[...] somewhere during the 1st term, President Obama sought and received a Department of Justice validation on killing American citizens, without trial or court order, overseas under the most [...]