Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ
Immediately following that:
"Thus a decision maker determining whether an al-Qa'ida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that....[they] are continually plotting attacks..., that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks regularly...; that the U.S government may not be aware of all...plots...and thus cannot be confident that none will occur...
With this understanding, a high-level official could conclude...that an individual poses an "imminent threat"...[based upon] that member's current involvement....."
In essence, by nature of being named a member of al-Qa'ida or "associated group" (which is left undefined), you can automatically be assumed to pose an "imminent threat", and no intelligence of a specific threat is necessary.
That is not what is says, but if you read in the way you post excerpts (skipping 3/4ths of the writing) I'm not surprised you have come to that conclusion.
The last paragraph on page 7 (which becomes the first on page 8) describes the reasoning why a broader concept of "imminence" is required (e.g. because requiring specific evidence of an imminent attack would dramatically reduce the window in which the government can act, increase the likelihood of civilian casualties, and decrease the likelihood that we would be able to head off an attack).
The next paragraph, the second on page 8 and the one quoted in my previous post, is the only situation in the entire memo in which the writer counsels that the "imminence" requirement would be met. There is nothing in the memo that says anyone who has ever been involved in al-Qa'ida, or anyone speaking out about the government, can be killed. Nor is there anything that could in any way rationally be extended to permit such a thing. That appears to be your fear and distrust talking.
DHS has already sent out several memos defining what can be classified as a "terrorist" group, or who may, in the future, be identified as such. Those lists have included several organizations in no way linked to Al-Qa'ida, that are known primarily for speaking out against the government.
Source? To my knowledge, DHS defines "terrorism" as:
"Any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources, and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or other subdivision of the United States and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."
Talking bad about the government doesn't fall into that category. Moreover, this memo doesn't say it adopts the DHS definition, nor does it authorize drone strikes on "terrorists" generally -- only on al-Qa'ida and "associated groups." The latter term could be fleshed out some more, I agree. But again, this is not a law. It does not have to be precise to withstand constitutional scrutiny. It's not even subject to constitutional scrutiny -- only executive actions are. And you can bet Obama is not going to order a drone strike on any American not belonging to al-Qa'ida or the most closely associated of groups. Especially in this partisan climate.
The 10th and 11th pages go extensively into how and why it would be justified to kill an American citizen without due process, and makes absolutely no mention therein of that citizen's actions being taken as part of their membership or loyalty to al-Qa'ida or "it's associates".
Pages 10 and 11, at least in my copy, talk about Section 1119(b), not due process.
It is therefore entirely plausible that anybody qualified or quantified and classified as a terrorist or member of a terrorist group as defined by the government is therefore at risk of being targeted by drone strikes.
I can't really say whether that is true, but it is certainly not authorized or recommended by this memo.
