If you've listened to the news today, the Department of Justice leaked a memo that outlines the legal justification of targeting US citizens on foreign soil. Targeted killing is something that's been going on for about 50 years, but the Obama administration authorized the first strike against a US citizen who was known to be an Al Qaeda operational leader, and with this new memo there's a lot of noise being made about the government abusing its power.


What do you guys think? Is this a reasonable security measure, or does it set a precedent that we should be worried about?

It's a power like any other power, one that has potential to be abused no matter how many good intentions are behind it. Many of the time tactics like this could be executed on a whim only by suspecting one to be in line with a terrorist group. I would have to say even if this legislation of Targeting U.S. Citizens weren't to overstep it's purpose, there is still, in my opinion, a frightening probability of killing an innocent person. I understand why it's been passed, and sure it's nice to feel secure, but this doesn't make me feel secure. It makes me feel as though we're reverting back to the era of MCcarthyism, where everyone was paranoid of communists, and paranoid of being accused of one. Only differences are that it's 2013, and it's terrorists, oh, and you can be killed on the spot rather than being persecuted and tried or even investigated. I understand the intentions and purpose, but it doesn't mean it doesn't make me uncomfortable

From what I've read killing someone who has not been proven a terrorist both violates the individuals human rights and the 5th amendment of the US constitution and unless the target is a proven terrorist, killing him could also be counted as a war crime, regardless of citizenship, if the target is not a combatant international laws forbid it's killing. Numerous innocents have also killed on false claims apparently. In any case, this kind of a memo shouldn't have to be leaked to get the attention of the public, it should be made public by the government itself.
I didn't find much recent material about this, share your sources about the matter?

I can believe that it's justified. It doesn't matter if the person is a U.S. Citizen or not, if they're in conspiracy to threaten the lives of other U.S. Citizens, you damn well better be prepared to take this guy out.

I know, killing somebody is not something you can just decide to do. But that's why I find this justified. I doubt that the government would kill somebody (let alone a U.S. Citizen) with little to no evidence proving that he's involved in said conspiracy. They had to have found some sort of proof suggesting that the targeted is guilty. I'm no brainwashed government follower, and I'm practically a patriot. But I can honestly say that I have faith that the big people upstairs did it for the right reasons.

Quote from Gunnii

I didn't find much recent material about this, share your sources about the matter?

"Targeted killings of us citizens" in Google turns up tons of results

I did get a bunch of things related to the killing of US citizens, but those were all articles from 2010 or earlier. I'm not in the US so Google search results will vary.

It seems to me that the memo clarifies how this kind of an operation would happen, however why it would is explained very vaguely.
It only states that well informed high level officials have the right to call up on such an operation if he determines that target has "recently" been involved in "activities", neither of which is defined.

I'm not completely opposed to this, governments should have the right to defend their country from the threat of terrorism, but everything has to be very carefully defined which at first glance doesn't seem to be the case with this memo.

Sorry, didn't realize you aren't in the US.

Did you read the memo? Because I've heard that line about "recently" and "activities" not being defined from a few other media sources, and it's a dumb point. It's said over and over again in the memo that the people they're describing would be US citizens who are operational leaders in any organization that's actively planning and coordinating violent acts against Americans. That's the activity they're talking about, specifics don't really matter beyond that.

Quote from Gunnii

From what I've read killing someone who has not been proven a terrorist both violates the individuals human rights and the 5th amendment of the US constitution and unless the target is a proven terrorist, killing him could also be counted as a war crime

The supreme court would defend the interests of innocent lives over the interest of a terrorist's right to due process.

That sickens me. Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

Quote from Cobalt

That sickens me. Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

Do you really think terrorists would just surrender themselves and go to jury? Only possible reason why they would do that would be when it's part of their plan.

I think U.S. security dudes should do what is necessary if there's isn't any options.

Quote from AlphaMan

Do you really think terrorists would just surrender themselves and go to jury? Only possible reason why they would do that would be when it's part of their plan.

I think U.S. security dudes should do what is necessary if there's isn't any options.

When did I mention that they would surrender themselves? Obviously they'd have to be detained.

Quote from Cobalt

That sickens me. Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

I disagree. Although this is a standard right to the U.S Constitution, I believe if by performing acts of terror you surrender your rights of a U.S. citizen. I think it's a fair law, and completely justified. I see nothing wrong with it, as long as we have a good reason to kill the man. The only thing that would make this bad is the abuse that the government could use with it.

If it's to prevent the loss of more lives, then it's justified. But I think there should be a method for scrutiny with this, being as it's such a powerful, well, power. I don't think the fact that they're US citizens should matter at all. The only thing you should have to consider is "are they human?", anything else is irrelevant (apart from the obvious "are they a terrorist?"). Why should the person of one nationality have special rights just because they're your own nationality?

Yes, I believe sometimes you need to break the rules and if you honestly believe this guy is a real security threat to your nation, proper action should be taken regardless if he is a citizen. However before this execution is ordered I sincerely hope that they justify what they are doing and provide reasonable evidence as if they did not it would be a direct abuse of their power. I remember this happening when they killed a extremist Islamist Preacher who was believed to be collaborating with Al-Qaeda, who happened to be a U.S citizen.

You guys don't seem to understand that there's a legal justification for this. It's not "breaking the rules".

Quote from Cobalt

When did I mention that they would surrender themselves? Obviously they'd have to be detained.

That's one of the criteria for it. If detention isn't a viable option, then lethal force is the next step.

You guys say that they'll always know before attacking/ detaining, but there's no way to guarantee that. I don't know their investigative process, but I still don't think there's a 100% sure way of finding out a terrorist. I'm just wondering how exactly it'll work, like, am I just going to be walking down the street in an area I'm vacationing in and then boom! someone's head is blown off and then counter terror squad shows up and takes the remains? and then I'm supposed keep going about my normal day like that?