No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, […] nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; […]
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
NBC News scoops: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
The White Paper (pdf), which is not a formal legal reasoning, tries to explain that the United States can kill a citizen if:
(1) an informed, high level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.
There was no "imminent threat" of a violent attack against the United States when it killed Anwar al-Aulaqi, a preacher who himself never took up arms and a U.S. citizen. The White Paper is covering up the crime by redefining "imminent" in a way no sane person can accept. As NBC explains:
[T]he confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
“The condition that an operational leader present 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,” the memo states.
Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
So if one may once have been involved in murky "activities" and one may not have renounced that involvement one is thereby an "imminent threat". This is just laughable.
Just like the silly justification for preemptive cyber-attacks the real reasoning in the White Paper is simply "might makes right".
For many centuries just people have worked to eliminated that archaic notice of "justice". The U.S. is now reintroducing it to the world.
But "might is right" is not justice. It is a refutation of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." It will, in time, come back to haunt the United States and its people. Real justice can come in rather mysterious ways.