"The 16-page document says it is lawful to target al-Qaida linked U.S. citizens if they pose an “imminent” threat of violent attack against Americans, and that delaying action against such people would create an unacceptably high risk. Such circumstances may necessitate expanding the concept of imminent threat, the memo says. “The threat posed by al-Qaida and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat,” the document added. " Washpost
According to this memo the government can decide that you are dangerous and then make an administrative decision to kill you based on a judgment of what you might do. This applies to American citizens resident outside the US.
Does that bother you? It does bother me.
An imperfectly analogous situation would have been that of an American citizen serving in WW2 in the German or Japanese armed forces. Such a person would have been a legal target for the US armed forces, but if captured would have been tried for treason to the United States by either a military or civilian court. In this case AQ & Company are not a regular armed force but are nevertheless actively engaged in lethal operations against the US. Are those American citizens suspected of active involvement in terrorism against the US legitimate subjects for executive branch "kill orders" without due process? I think not. IMO, a judicial process within the federal courts should be created to deal with this on a case by case basis.
John Brennan's "fingerprints" don't seem to be on this document from the Department of "Justice," but given his placement in the process of deciding who goes on "kill lists" and in public defense of the rectitude of such decisions he certainly must be connected to the thinking in this paper.
Directly and undeniably connected to this document is the Attorney General, Eric Holder. He is on record here as approving the assasination of American citizens without due process.
I have criticised Brennan before. I have also half jokingly written that he should have been nominated to be DNI rather DCIA. I stated the latter on the basis that Clapper has effectively been working for Brennan for years. To reverse the statutory roles now is a mockery of the law.
I withdraw that suggestion. IMO neither Brennan nor Holder are accepting of anything but their own tortured version of law. They should go. Their presence encourages BHO in his evident desire to exercise the prerogatives of a monarch. pl