Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Veterans
Related: About this forumNBC reporter on leaked memo: Obama admin. using ‘elastic’ definitions to justify drones
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/04/nbc-reporter-on-leaked-memo-obama-admin-using-elastic-definitions-to-justify-drones/NBC reporter on leaked memo: Obama admin. using elastic definitions to justify drones
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, February 4, 2013 23:04 EST
NBC News correspondent Michael Isikoff said Monday the Obama administration was using murky legal definitions to justify its use of drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists.
Remember, we are talking about targeted killings of Americans, we are talking about making decisions based on secret intelligence, and we see in this memo that some of the definitions are a bit more elastic and open to interpretation than the administration has publicly let on, he said on MSNBCs The Rachel Maddow Show.
~snip~
The memo states that drone strikes are justified when the target poses an imminent threat to the United States and is infeasible to capture. The strike must also be conducted according to law of war principles. The memo reflects public statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder.
They refer to a broader concept of imminence than direct active intelligence of a plot against the U.S., Isikoff explained. In fact, it explicitly states that imminence does not mean that the United States has to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons or interests is underway. If the U.S. believes that the target has in the past been involved in such violent activities and the target has not renounced such activities it can be assumed that they are an imminent threat now and that that would justify an attack.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 2508 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NBC reporter on leaked memo: Obama admin. using ‘elastic’ definitions to justify drones (Original Post)
unhappycamper
Feb 2013
OP
xchrom
(108,903 posts)1. du rec. nt
RC
(25,592 posts)2. If we, the US, were to pull out of most of the countries we are currently in,
the "imminent threat" to the United States, would drop to almost non-existent levels, as soon as we cross the border on the way out.
How many other countries have military bases on territories we own? US Mainland? Hawaii, or any other islands int he Pacific? Alaska? Puerto Rico? None. Not even our 'allies'.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)3. The "Bush Doctrine" on steroids.
This is not a good thing.