Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens

[luckytxn 2,264]

The U.S. government has the right to order the killing of American citizens overseas if they are senior al-Qaeda leaders who pose an imminent terrorist threat and cannot reasonably be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Monday.





“Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen — even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land — is among the gravest that government leaders can face,” Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school in Chicago. “The American people can be — and deserve to be — assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws.”





Holder’s discussion of lethal force against U.S. citizens did not mention any individual by name, but his address was clearly animated by the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior figure in al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in September.





Since that operation, the Obama administration has faced calls to explain the legal framework behind its decision to target Awlaki and to release at least portions of a classified memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that contains its evidence, reasoning and conclusions.





Holder’s speech represented the administration’s most elaborate public explanation to date for targeted killings. And it followed a prolonged internal debate about how to inform the public about one of the most extraordinary decisions a government can take without explicitly acknowledging the ongoing classified drone program.





Among the most revealing parts of the speech was Holder’s discussion of some of the factors the administration reviews before deciding that an individual represents an “imminent threat.” He said the critical factors include the “relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”





He said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some “theoretical end stage of planning — when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear.”





The attorney general’s “flexible definition of ‘imminent threat’ is absolutely appropriate as applied to terrorist planners, but it may be unsettling to many in the international community who criticized President Bush for his principle of preemption,” said John B. Bellinger, who served as a legal adviser to the State Department in the George W. Bush administration.





Bellinger said he agreed with the attorney general’s statement of U.S. law for targeting an American, although he noted that the speech was less clear about how targeted killings comply with international legal rules.





There are no known U.S. citizens on target lists maintained by the CIA or the military’s Joint Special Operations Command.





Holder emphasized Monday that he would discuss the issue only in the abstract and would not “discuss or confirm any particular program or operation.”

“While the speech is a gesture towards additional transparency, it is ultimately a defense of the government’s chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project.

Holder argued that a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to “due process” and that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against depriving a citizen of his or her life without due process of law does not mandate a “judicial process.”

“Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat,” Holder said. “Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate.”

Holder said that the question of “whether the capture of a U.S.-citizen terrorist is feasible is a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question.”

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide,” he continued, “it may not always be feasible to capture a United States-citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

Holder also noted that in using lethal force, the United States must make sure that it is acting within the laws of war by ensuring that any target is participating in hostilities and that collateral damage is not excessive. And he noted that law-of-war principles “do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons” — an apparent reference to drones.

More broadly, Holder argued that the targeting of specific senior belligerents in wartime in not unusual, and noted the 1943 U.S. tracking and shooting down of the plane carrying Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

He said that “because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law . . . and our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields of Afghanistan.”

Holder said he rejected any attempt to label such operations “assassinations.”

“They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced,” he said. “Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self-defense against a leader of al-Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the executive order banning assassination or criminal statutes.”

Holder said “it is preferable to capture suspected terrorists where feasible — among other reasons, so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them — but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority — and, I would argue, the responsibility — to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force.”

[kytwell 179]

We can't torture them, but we can kill them...

[luckytxn 2,264]

We can't torture them, but we can kill them...

Yes. Judge, jury, and executioner.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It is easy to think that this doesn't change things for US citizens in 2012, and thats probably true. But you don't know what the political climate of say 2020 will be. Heck, what if McCarthy had posessed this power.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It is easy to think that this doesn't change things for US citizens in 2012, and thats probably true. But you don't know what the political climate of say 2020 will be. Heck, what if McCarthy had posessed this power.

This will be the day America died. Due process no longer requires the Constitution to be followed as regards summary execution.

Edited March 6, 2012 by ☼

[luckytxn 2,264]

It is easy to think that this doesn't change things for US citizens in 2012, and thats probably true. But you don't know what the political climate of say 2020 will be. Heck, what if McCarthy had posessed this power.

Exactly. This is the part that gets me shaking my head along this line.

Holder argued that a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to “due process” and that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against depriving a citizen of his or her life without due process of law does not mandate a “judicial process.”

Whoever is in office at the time is the executive branch. At anytime in the future the administration can come up with any number of reasons now and become the judge, jury and executioner. The part where you can't deprive a citizen of their due process of law to me does mean a "judicial process." So now anyone in the top office can now play God.

There are other things said that concerns me a lot. The part where he said that targeted assassinations of foes does not have to be in a declared war zone to me is also a head scratcher. Now we can go after anyone in the world and kill them if told to do so by the administration.

This will be the day America died. Due process no longer requires the Constitution to be followed as regards summary execution.

We just have to be sure we are all good and agree with the Government. We don't want t pizz them off.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Other than the high tech aspect of the Al-Whacky killing, how does this differ from an armed stand off with law enforcement killing an alleged gunman hold up somewhere that capture isn't practical? It isn't and I don't think this is a sign Republicans will one day drone attack Democrats or vise versa.

[TBoneTX 44,899]

We're all eventually next.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Other than the high tech aspect of the Al-Whacky killing, how does this differ from an armed stand off with law enforcement killing an alleged gunman hold up somewhere that capture isn't practical? It isn't and I don't think this is a sign Republicans will one day drone attack Democrats or vise versa.

It is a lot different. Targeted killing of a citizen with no judge or jury is way different. These are civilians at the top levels deciding for whatever reasons that citizens have to die and then ordering the killing and then committing the killing. I would like to see what the evidence is that made this killing so necessary. What was the evidence that decided this. The man couldn't even refute his accusers and deny anything or present witnesses to show his innocence. Nothing except Obama deciding this man needs killing and then ordering it. A U.S. citizen BTW.

We're all eventually next.

Not if we behave the way they want.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He is wrong...except when he is right.

[Leatherneck 693]

The same guy that screamed about water being poured over the hooded faces of terrorists!

Ok to fire a $60,000 hellfire missle to take out an American citizen -- but don't you dare use a $2.00 bucket to pour water in the face of a terrorist.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Goes along well with providing guns to Mexican narco terrorists so they can target Americans also.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

There is no judge or jury involved during an armed stand off that leaves a suspect dead. Does it matter if the suspect was shot with a standard 9mm pistol or the highest tech sniper rifle money can buy?

The Al-Whacky drone operation very much survives the post-killing, 'did he deserve it, was it reasonable' post operation inquiry.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

We're all eventually next.

Well....I won't be needing a laxative.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

The U.S. government has the right to order the killing of American citizens overseas if they are senior al-Qaeda leaders who pose an imminent terrorist threat and cannot reasonably be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Monday.

"Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen — even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land — is among the gravest that government leaders can face," Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University's law school in Chicago. "The American people can be — and deserve to be — assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws."

Holder's discussion of lethal force against U.S. citizens did not mention any individual by name, but his address was clearly animated by the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior figure in al-Qaeda's Yemeni affiliate. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in September.

Since that operation, the Obama administration has faced calls to explain the legal framework behind its decision to target Awlaki and to release at least portions of a classified memorandum by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that contains its evidence, reasoning and conclusions.

Holder's speech represented the administration's most elaborate public explanation to date for targeted killings. And it followed a prolonged internal debate about how to inform the public about one of the most extraordinary decisions a government can take without explicitly acknowledging the ongoing classified drone program.

Among the most revealing parts of the speech was Holder's discussion of some of the factors the administration reviews before deciding that an individual represents an "imminent threat." He said the critical factors include the "relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States."

He said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some "theoretical end stage of planning — when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear."

The attorney general's "flexible definition of 'imminent threat' is absolutely appropriate as applied to terrorist planners, but it may be unsettling to many in the international community who criticized President Bush for his principle of preemption," said John B. Bellinger, who served as a legal adviser to the State Department in the George W. Bush administration.

Bellinger said he agreed with the attorney general's statement of U.S. law for targeting an American, although he noted that the speech was less clear about how targeted killings comply with international legal rules.

There are no known U.S. citizens on target lists maintained by the CIA or the military's Joint Special Operations Command.

Holder emphasized Monday that he would discuss the issue only in the abstract and would not "discuss or confirm any particular program or operation."

"While the speech is a gesture towards additional transparency, it is ultimately a defense of the government's chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project.

Holder argued that a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to "due process" and that the Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against depriving a citizen of his or her life without due process of law does not mandate a "judicial process."

"Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat," Holder said. "Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate."

Holder said that the question of "whether the capture of a U.S.-citizen terrorist is feasible is a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question."

"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide," he continued, "it may not always be feasible to capture a United States-citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force."

Holder also noted that in using lethal force, the United States must make sure that it is acting within the laws of war by ensuring that any target is participating in hostilities and that collateral damage is not excessive. And he noted that law-of-war principles "do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons" — an apparent reference to drones.

More broadly, Holder argued that the targeting of specific senior belligerents in wartime in not unusual, and noted the 1943 U.S. tracking and shooting down of the plane carrying Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

He said that "because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law . . . and our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields of Afghanistan."

Holder said he rejected any attempt to label such operations "assassinations."

"They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced," he said. "Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government's use of lethal force in self-defense against a leader of al-Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the executive order banning assassination or criminal statutes."

Holder said "it is preferable to capture suspected terrorists where feasible — among other reasons, so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them — but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority — and, I would argue, the responsibility — to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force."

Expediency has its privileges He uses his tongue better than a $1000...never mind.