Umar Farouk Abdulmutallb

Im-mi-nent: (Adj, DOJ) 20 Months

Michael Isikoff has obtained and posted the white paper DOJ gave to the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to stave off giving them the OLC memos that actually authorized Anwar al-Awlaki’s killing. I noted its mention in an SJC markup last year.

While the memos they are hiding are almost certainly far more damning (as I’ll lay out tomorrow), this is utterly damning in itself.

It effectively defines imminence so as to have no meaning.

First, 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. Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself. The defensive options available to the United States may be reduced or eliminated if al-Qa’ida operatives disappear and cannot be found when the time of their attack approaches. Consequently, with respect to al-Qa’ida leaders who are continually planning attacks, the United States is likely to have only a limited window of opportunity within which to defend Americans in a manner that has both a high likelihood of success and sufficiencly reduces the probabilities of civilian casualties.

[snip]

By its nature, therefore, the threat posed by al-Qa’ida and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat, making the use of force appropriate. In this context, imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity, the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks on Americans.

[snip]

With this understanding, a high-level official could conclude, for example, that an individual poses an “imminent threat” of violent attack against the United States where he is an operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force and is personally and continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States. Moreover, where the al-Qa’ida member in question has recently been involved in activities posing an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, and there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities, that member’s involvement in al-Qa’ida’s continuing terrorist campaign against the United States would support the conclusion that the members is an imminent threat.

Even assuming this is the justification they used to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, they killed him about 20 months after the alleged attacks (the UndieBomber and plotting against British Airways) in which they sort of have evidence against him (though DOJ has always managed to make sure that evidence was not challenged in an antagonistic setting).

If you measure from the toner cartridge plot — in which other AQAP members seem to have been the operational leaders — it was a year between the plot and the killing.

Anwar al-Awlaki may have been dangerous and surely was a hateful man. But it appears clear that DOJ had no evidence he was an imminent threat — at least as traditionally defined.

So they just redefined it.

Update: See Opino Juris for an assessment of this definition from an IHL and IHRL perspective.

Update: I’ve corrected my transcription of the imminent passage above (I had had “Second” instead of “Moreover”).

 

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel Hmmm. Wait for @ddayen's Chain of Title to come out on Audible, which means I'll read it sooner, or buy now? https://t.co/Nc9TfThh1N
17mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @theurbansherpa Pretty deadly too.
23mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @hshaban: RNC and DNC handing out thumb drives: “Those thumb drives are the number one way to infect a computer." https://t.co/VwJHlFyvv
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @quibbler Yes. As I said, pointedly NOT one of the servers known to have been hacked by Russia.
25mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @theurbansherpa Ut oh. Did you get some horrible disease again?
27mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Pedinska @ggreenwald Whistleblowers
28mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @quibbler That's not one of the govt networks the Russians are known to have hacked, but others are.
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Pedinska @ggreenwald Uh, no, I have no problem with the way the statute is being interpreted. Though similar deference ought be given WB's.
33mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @palliddh Agree, and while I'd be happy to be rid of Trump I don't much approve of doing it w/Intel panic.
34mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Will_Bunch Will, she need to know to ascertain how far to the right to move to pick up a few hundred of them.
38mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel You'd almost think the GOP didn't want IRS to have enough enough inspectors to collect taxes from rich people... https://t.co/55qaukWH2v
39mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ai002h I'll agree you changed the framing from my original tweet and thus created your own distinction from my statement.
44mreplyretweetfavorite
May 2016
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031