Here is the ‘white paper’. With a few tweaks and a more creative title — like “Murder With Your Hands Clean” — this memo could sell a lot of copies.
And why not? Either there’s a whistleblower in the Department of So-Called Justice about to be charged with espionage, and NBC is about to face the same persecution as WikiLeaks, or this is one of those “good” leaks that the White House wanted made public in an underhanded manner — perhaps as an imagined boost to morality-challenged CIA director nominee John Brennan who faces his Senate Rejection Hearing on Thursday.
The white paper, which is thought to be a summary of a longer memo, says the United States can murder a U.S. citizen abroad (abroad but somehow “outside the area of active hostilities” even though killing him or her seems rather active and hostile) if three conditions are met:
The memo goes on to base its claims on the supposed powers of the President, not of some random official. Who is such an official? Who decides whether he or she is informed? What if two of them disagree? What if he or she disagrees with the President? or the Congress? or the Supreme Court? or the U.S. public? or the United Nations? or the International Criminal Court? What then? One solution is to redefine the terms so that everyone has to agree. “Imminent” is defined in this memo to mean nothing at all. “The United States” clearly means anywhere U.S. troops may be.
And if a high-level official claims it’s infeasible, who can challenge that?
When a U.S. drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, no one had shown either of them to meet the above qualifications.
When a U.S. drone strike targeted and killed 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, no one had shown him to meet the above qualifications; I don’t think anyone has made such a claim to this day. And what about his cousin who died for the crime of being with him at the wrong time?
The sociopaths who wrote this memo have “legalized” the drone-killing of Americans with the exception of all the Americans known thus far to have been murdered by our government with the use of drones.
Cross-posted at WarIsACrime.org…
David Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org and works for RootsAction.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.
And you wonder why americans feel the need to own their own personal firearms.
Clearly, it’s not for self defense. It’s the hope that they can be avenged.
Luagha said @ 1:
Not “Americans”, Luagha. Right-wing suckers who have been conned into believing their big gun will keep them safe from a government drone. Good luck with that!
BF@2
Just takes the right weapon and a little practice. Oh…yea…NRA should push for legalization or RPGs.
Please read to the end of my earlier statement and maybe you will understand.
Call me a conspiracy nut, but I’d bet you Anonymous has something to do with this. About a week ago they ‘claimed’ they hacked the Justice Dept. and had ‘armed warhead’ files with the SCOTUS’ names on them. They claimed they were releasing the warheads to different media outlets. This hack was in retaliation for that activist that killed himself, Aaron Schwartz (?) I think it was. Anybody with any more info. on this, please share.
Good to know that Humpty Dumpty is writing these memos. Gotta be him cuz the words clearly are to mean exactly what “they” say they mean and not what they actually mean. Watch the verbal acrobatics and contortions continue as they rationalize this language that is pure Orwellian doublespeak and turns everything we’re supposed to be, everything we’re supposed to stand for, on its head. We are so 1984 meets Alice in Wonderland meets the Emperor’s New Clothes.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If drone attacks are proper under international law as the DOJ argues, why then is the United Nations conducting an investigation into the legality of their use?
Perhaps this is one topic where Davey, Wingnut, Dredd, Lasagna, and Brad are on the same page. “There’s a bad moon arisin…”
What we learned during the Bush administration is that the vast majority of those who were branded “terrorists,” rounded up and sent to Guantanamo turned out to be innocent.
The Obama administration prefers to evade that problem. Through targeted killings, they can bury their mistakes.
http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/643346-drone
I’ll add that DARPA is now working on chemical-fed lasers small and light enough to put on drones.
It’s an extension of the chemical-fed lasers used out of the back end of 747/C-130s that are supposed to be able to take out a radar installation from 10-50 miles away.
Obviously the lower-powered, lighter versions won’t have that range, but.
Any guesses as to what that will be used for?