Michael Isikoff reports that:
[t]he 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration's most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 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.You can read the full memo below the jump.
[T]he confidential Justice Department "white paper" introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a "broader concept of imminence" than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
Instead, it says, an "informed, high-level" official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been "recently" involved in "activities" posing a threat of a violent attack and "there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities." The memo does not define "recently" or "activities."
Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa'ida or An Associated Force
So, the logic goes, if someone or a group is conspiring to kill US citizens, that person can be killed because it is in the interest of the United States to "...forestall the threat of violence and death to other Americans that arises from an individual who is a senior operational leader of Al-Q'aida or an associated force..." What a bunch of BS. If that is the case, then why have mobsters been left out. What gives Al-Q'aida special significance as more than just a run-of-the-mill violent crime syndicate. Ideology?
Whatever the ideology, acts of terrorism by individuals who do not represent the interests of a particular state are crimes, and not acts of war. Were the Mossad to commit such acts, that would constitute an act of war by Israel and it would be justified to send drones all over the skies of Israel. Of course, since Israel has committed acts of war against US interests before without a peep out of Congress, it's no wonder Chuck Hegel had such a hard time.