Obama DOJ: We Don’t Need Clear Evidence To Kill Americans With Drones
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” reads a confidential Justice Department memo defending the U.S. government’s ability to order the killing of American citizens if they believe them to be “senior operational leaders” or “an associated force,” even if they don’t have any evidence that the person targeted is actually engaged in or plotting an attack on the U.S.
Tribesmen this week examine the rubble of a building in southeastern Yemen where American teenager Abdulrahmen al-Awlaki and six suspected al-Qaida militants were killed in a U.S. drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011. Al-Awlaki, 16, was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who died in a similar strike two weeks earlier.All of the controversy stemmed from the September 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
The “kill list” was affirmed last year as then Obama’s assassination czar, John Brennan, was appointed. Now that same Brennan, who was a key architect in the drone campaign, has now been appointed by Obama as the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), following David Petraeus’ resignation.
The memo states that “no clear evidence of a specific attack on persons and interests” is needed, nor does the “operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States” in order to be targeted for assassination by the Federal government.
“This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a U.S. citizen, and also of the extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al Qaeda members and the loss of life that would result were their operations successful,” the memo reads.
It gets worse.
Michael Isikoff points out the following:
As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.
The undated memo is entitled “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.” 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.
Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly — or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.
Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in an interview with NBC said the document was “chilling.”
“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,” Jaffer said.
Justin Sink recalls, “In November, the New York Times reported that the White House was working to codify rules to govern the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones. The codification work was begun during last year’s presidential election. According to the report, the Obama administration wanted to provide Mitt Romney with a clear set of procedures and standards for the use of drone strikes, were he to be elected.”
“The president himself has spoken publicly about the need to better codify the use of drone strikes,” he writes.
“One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place,” he continued, “and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of some of the decisions that we’re making,” Obama said during an appearance on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” shortly before the election.”
There is something in place. It’s called the Constitution, something Barack Obama and members of Congress swore to support and defend. Specifically it’s called the Sixth Amendment that is being violated here. I realize that many people will scream about “terrorists” and all sorts of things, but the issue is that this administration and its thug partners are already defining those who believe that the Federal government is “too big for its britches” and are overstepping their bounds as “domestic terrorists.”
Sadly, many Republicans like Representative Peter King (R-NY) who serves as the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee calls Obama’s kill list “totally right and totally constitutional.”
Additionally, our public education system is beginning the indoctrination of who is and is not a terrorist. The y are doing it by teaching that those that engaged in the Boston Tea Party were terrorists. Even our own government training agents that the Founding Fathers were terrorists.
In addition, I would like to point out the hypocrisy of those making the decisions to murder those who have not engaged in any acts of terrorism nor have they been proven to actually be plotting attacks on the United States. These same people within the Obama administration have supplied aid to the organization they say they are opposed to in Libya and more than likely in Syria, yet they do not target themselves, do they? No, they hide behind executive privilege and government charades.
We don’t see them coming clean on matters where they have put weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels that have resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of Mexicans and at least two federal agents.
This is not just chilling, it’s unlawful. It’s unconstitutional. It’s a mockery of our Constitution and before you say that you would never find yourself on the presidential “hit list,” perhaps you should consider the open talk of assassination by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as he told CBS’ 60 Minutes, “If someone is a citizen of the United States and is a terrorist (I’ll note, is not proved to be a terrorist, just claimed to be one by the government) who wants to attack our people and kill Americans (again that would make a person a suspect and should be innocent until proven guilty) in ‘my book’ that person is a terrorist.”
I point this out because Panetta openly claims that the Federal government can bypass the Constitution and just do whatever they want to American citizens. How long before they start targeting State militia groups, true patriots, those that believe in the Second Amendment (contrary to Jesse Jackson’s claims), and even those opposed to the Obamacare mandate? How long before those “bitter clingers” of religion and guns are targeted as terrorists? Think about it.
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
Reported By: 
ames Rosen, my colleague and friend, is a professional journalist. He covers the State Department for Fox News. In order to do his job, he has cultivated sources in the State Department — folks willing to speak from time to time off the record.
What Did You Say? 
The eight-page settlement agreement was signed by Sheriff Patrick Firman and Alberto Ruisanchez, the deputy special counsel in the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department.
The Sheriff’s Department agreed to not only pay the $10,000 fine, but agreed to go through all job applications received from noncitizens after Jan. 1, 2015, and offer them the “opportunity to complete the application/evaluation process for the deputy sheriff position” with “no consideration” of their citizenship status.
Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org
One of the sillier requirements in the settlement agreement is that the Sheriff’s Department post “an English and Spanish version of the Office of Special Counsel ‘If You Have the Right to Work’ poster … in all places where notices to employees and job applicants are normally posted” and also to provide a copy of the poster in the “applicant’s preferred language.” You can see that poster in Arabic here.
You have to wonder whether the DOJ Special Counsel realizes or cares about the fact that if the English comprehension skills of an applicant to be a deputy sheriff are so poor that he requires the “OSC Poster” in his “preferred language” in order to comprehend what it says, he may have a bit of difficulty being an effective law enforcement officer—and that such poor language skills could endanger the safety of the public and the deputy.
The law that the Denver Sheriff’s Department supposedly violated is 8 U.S.C. §1324b, which makes it unlawful “to discriminate against any individual [except for illegal immigrants] with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment … because of such individual’s citizenship status.”
In other words, if someone is a noncitizen who is legally in the country and has a work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security, that person cannot be discriminated against in the employment context.
However, there are some very big exceptions. For example, Section (a)(4) specifically provides that it is not a violation of the statute to “hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.”
There is no indication that the Obama Justice Department has any evidence that any noncitizens who may have applied were better qualified than the deputies hired by Denver since Jan. 1, 2015.
There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”
Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute—and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.
Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.
Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org
The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.” The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.”
Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explains under key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”
If an employer hires a noncitizen legally in the country who is permitted to work, no one questions that employers should not be able to discriminate against that employee in wages, benefits, and the other accoutrements of employment. However, employers should not be prohibited from doing what is best for “the general welfare” of Americans—hiring U.S. citizens over visitors to our country, who are only our guests.
This provision of federal immigration law needs to be changed. It is a matter of basic fairness and ensuring that all Americans are gainfully employed so that they—and their families—can engage in the “pursuit of Happiness,” a fundamental truth that we hold to be self-evident.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: