A Note On 'Drone Strikes', Ladies And Gentlemen

[Efilroft Sul]

259. And here is what is unreasonable about the policy.

The Justice Department memo redefines what "imminent" means in the phrase "imminent threat." The memo's "broader concept of imminence" doesn't require actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the country.

The memo states, "The condition that an operational leader presents 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." That might sound all well and good to some if the memo's text is in regards to an al Qaeda leader, but putting this "9/11 changed everything" notion aside, those of us objecting to the memo on this site are concerned about the targeting of Americans for assassination anywhere around the world and throwing due process onto the dungheap.

In addition, the memo also talks about anonymous but "informed, high-level" government officials determining whether or not Americans targets are recently involved in activities that could result in an attack on our soil or interests. However, while the memo stretches the definition of imminence and dispenses with the need for evidence, it does nothing to clearly define "recently" or, more worrisome, "activities." And it all comes down to this secret interpretation that is most troublesome for us. To accept the Justice Department's line of reasoning and think that it won't come back to haunt us down the road is woefully naive. At what point will one be considered an "imminent threat" and denied due process?

Once the camel's nose is under the tent, the body follows.