Leaked U.S. justification for drone killings assailed as rewriting definition of ‘imminent threat’


More information

The senators who sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he give Congress “any and all legal opinions that lay out the executive branch’s official understanding of the president’s authority to deliberately kill Americans” were:

Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Mike Lee, R-Utah, Mark Udall, D-Colo., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Tom Udall, D-N.M., Mark Begich, D-Alaska and Al Franken, D-Minn.

McClatchy Newspapers

Civil and human rights advocates Tuesday denounced a leaked Obama administration “white paper” that sets out the legal justification for killing U.S. citizens suspected of being members of al Qaida, an issue certain to arise during the confirmation hearing Thursday of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to be CIA director.

The White House on Tuesday defended the practice of targeted killing, for which Brennan is a key overseer, as “legal . . . ethical and . . . wise.” But spokesman Jay Carney rejected anew calls by lawmakers and others for the administration to release a secret 2010 Justice Department legal opinion on which the leaked Justice Department white paper was based.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee that will consider Brennan’s nomination, acknowledged that the panel had received the white paper as a “confidential document” in June.

The memo has allowed the committee “to conduct appropriate and probing insight into the use of lethal force,” and its release permits the public to “review and judge the legality of these operations,” she said.

At the same time, she said the panel will continue pressing for the secret legal opinion written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which she said contains “details not outlined in this particular white paper.”

Separately, eight Democratic and three Republican senators sent a letter on Monday to President Barack Obama asking that he give Congress “any and all legal opinions that lay out the executive branch’s official understanding of the president’s authority to deliberately kill Americans.”

The Obama administration has refused for years to make public the legal opinion on which it has based its use of unmanned drones to target American citizens it accuses of being affiliated with al Qaida, most notably Anwar al Awlaki, the spiritual leader of al Qaida’s Yemen affiliate.

The 16-page Justice Department white paper became public late Monday after it was leaked to NBC News. It asserts that the government has the constitutional power to kill a U.S. citizen who is believed to be a leader of al Qaida or an “associated force” and is in another country “actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.”

The unclassified and undated memo says that three conditions must be met. “An informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible, and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,” the memo says.

Civil and human rights experts said the paper jumbles international and U.S. law. They also rejected the administration’s assertion that the president’s sweeping authority to kill Americans abroad is beyond court review as well as what they called an exaggerated rewrite of the legal definition of imminent threat.

“The government just gets to make decisions in secret,” said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch.

The administration received a vote of confidence from Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a former FBI agent who chairs the House Intelligence Committee.

“I agree with the Justice Department’s conclusion that targeting a senior leader of al Qaida is a lawful act of national self-defense in these circumstances,” Rogers said. “When an individual has joined al Qaida – the organization responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans – and actively plots future attacks against U.S. citizens, soldiers, and interests around the world, the U.S. government has both the authority and the obligation to defend the country against that threat.”

Targeted killing, which began under former President George W. Bush, officially remains a classified CIA program. To date, it is known to involve only missile strikes by unmanned aircraft in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen against what U.S. officials say are leaders of al Qaida and “associated groups” plotting imminent attacks on U.S. targets.

An estimated 3,500 people have been killed in the strikes, the vast majority in Pakistan’s tribal area bordering Afghanistan, a region largely outside government control where al Qaida and allied militants have found sanctuary among Pakistani and Afghan insurgents. The Obama administration says the attacks have decimated the ranks of the terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but human rights groups and residents say a large number of civilians have died.

At least three Americans have been among those killed by drones, all in Yemen. Two were killed in the same Sept. 30, 2011, strike: Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and who Obama administration officials claim was the operations chief of al Qaida’s Arabian Peninsula branch; and Samir Khan, an Islamist writer who grew up in New York City and whose family now lives in North Carolina. Awlaki’s teenage son, who was born in Colorado, died in a separate drone strike two weeks later.

Brennan, who has been Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, is among several U.S. officials who’ve outlined the administration’s legal grounds for those killings in speeches aimed at quelling calls for the release of the secret Office of Legal Counsel opinion. A Manhattan federal judge ruled last month in a Freedom of Information Act case that the government was not obligated to make the opinion public.

The white paper, however, spells out rules under which such attacks can be ordered that appear to be much less stringent that what administration officials have said.

It says, for example, that the United States isn’t required “to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

It also says the United States has the right under international law to act under the suspicion that an attack might take place.

“It must be right that states are able to act in self-defense in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack,” it says. “Delaying action . . . would create an unacceptably high risk that the action would fail and that American casualties would result.”

Several experts called that an exaggerated rewrite of the legal definition of “imminence,” something that the administration has labeled “elongated imminence.”

“That is a completely nonsensical case,” said Micah Zenko, an expert with the Council on Foreign Relations.

White House spokesman Carney defended the paper’s definition of imminent threat, saying, “What you have in general with al Qaida senior leadership is a continuing process of plotting against the United States and American citizens. I think that’s fairly irrefutable.”

Carney reiterated that a pillar of the policy is the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the president to use “all necessary military force” to fight al Qaida.

“Certainly under that authority the president acts in the United States’ interest to protect the United States and its citizens from al Qaida,” he said.

The white paper also asserted that judges cannot review or block targeted killing orders because that “would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force.”

The memo said that the legal basis for targeted killing relies on two principles of international law: the right to kill an enemy in the course of an armed conflict and the right of a nation to defend itself against an imminent threat of armed attack.

By citing both, however, the administration is “conflating” distinct legal principles “so that it’s never clear which legal basis the government is relying on,” said Prasow of Human Rights Watch. “It may be able to rely on both, but what it does with the self-defense rationale is that it takes the idea that the threat is imminent and then writes away the definition of imminence.”

“This idea that the government can rewrite legal terms is one that we’ve seen before,” she said, citing the Bush administration legal opinion that redefined torture, allowing the CIA to use interrogation methods such as waterboarding that most experts regard as torture.

Video: Leaked Memo Says US Can Lawfully Kill Overseas

Email: jlanday@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @jonathanlanday

Read more World Wires stories from the Miami Herald

FILE - This image made from video released by Islamic State militants on Aug. 19, 2014 purports to show journalist Steven Sotloff being held by the militant group. On Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2014, an Internet video purports to show the beheading of Sotloff by the Islamic State group.

    Second Syria beheading raises stakes for US

    Islamic State extremists have released a video purportedly showing the beheading of a second American journalist, Steven Sotloff, and warned President Barack Obama that continuing airstrikes against the group in Iraq will be met with the killing of more Western captives.

  • AP News Alert

    Japan's Prime Minister Abe names new cabinet, retains most key ministers, appoints 5 women.

FILE - In this Nov. 15, 2013, file photo, Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro, left, speaks with his Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez before the start of a press conference at Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, Venezuela. President Maduro has replaced on Tuesday Sept. 2, 2014, Venezuela's longtime oil minister and economic czar as part of a cabinet shakeup sidelining the most-prominent voice within his administration for much-needed reforms to address the country's economic crisis.

    Maduro replaces Venezuela's longtime oil chief

    President Nicolas Maduro has replaced Venezuela's longtime oil boss and economic czar as part of a cabinet shakeup sidelining the most-prominent voice within his administration for pragmatic reforms to tackle a deep economic crisis.

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category