"Legality" Of Drone Attacks On U.S. Citizens Cited In New Justice Dept Memo

NBC was able to get its hands on a Department of Justice white paper, which spells out exactly why it's perfectly alright for the U.S. to enact extrajudicial assassination of its own citizens by drone strike, even if they haven't attacked the U.S., and even if there is no evidence that they plan to. The document is titled “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 supplied to the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June of 2012.You can read the entire 16 page document here, but the (new) most shocking thing within the text is the redefining of the word "imminent" by our government where it relates to a threat. Here is an excerpt from the white paper:

“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,” the memo states.

So no evidence is required for our government to decide that an American life should be extinguished, abroad, where we have no jurisdiction? Without trial? The document goes on to mention that if U.S. officials conclude that the subject has been associated "recently" (no definition of "recently" - is that a month, a year, or 20 years?) with a terrorist organization, they are considered an "imminent" threat. Just like with "recently," there is no definition for "imminent," because the memo also states that the government needs to recognize a “broader concept of imminence.” Basically taking away the entire meaning of the word and broadening it to mean that any action, real or imagined, that could happen during that citizen's lifetime can be categorized as "imminent."The memo makes its case for how the extrajudicial killing of Americans would be legal as well, and it is an argument that makes zero sense. The document has several requirements: that the threat be "imminent," that it be "infeasible" for a capture operation to take place, because it would put troops at "undue risk," and that the attacks be conducted according to the "law of war principles." Somehow, if our government reasons that troops would be placed at "undue risk," which would be every single time, if we are able to simply drop a bomb with a drone, that the capture attempt wouldn't be feasible and that somehow makes it legal? That still doesn't address having no evidence, or giving those targeted a chance to defend themselves in a court of law against charges that they have never heard nor are aware of!Can your local police department order one of their helicopters (or drones, even in local law enforcement, now) to drop a bomb on your house because you had hung out with some ruffians, and might be thinking about stealing a bag of chips from the local quick stop? They have no evidence, but consider your chip stealing 'imminent.  Also, because you have a dog in the yard, and one of the officers is allergic to dogs, there is an undue risk to that officer, making capture difficult. So, bombs away! It's utterly ridiculous.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!