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 Sort of a non-responsive answer but I guess Brennan is still fuming. https://t.co/QCuWYBTzOM
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Shorter Heinrich: Say, can you get your buddies in KSA to start fighting ISIL? Brennan: ME is instable.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RMFifthCircuit I'd have no idea, the @ESPN enforcer goons did not let me get within proximity of them. Far different than SuperBowl yr ago.
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RMFifthCircuit I've loved that show, both on am commute radio+TV later, for far over a decade. I was met by asshole ESPN goons.
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Brennan fuming. "I'm still awaiting review by Senate. Separation of powers goes both ways."
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RMFifthCircuit Absolutely. I tried to go there, a block from court, early in morning+never seen such goonish asshole security in my life.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Brennan: Do not say that we spied on committee files or computers.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Brennan: I think you mischaracterize what's in those reports. And I apologized to Chair and Vice CHair.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Shorter John Brennan: Fuck you.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Come on, Wyden. Go ahead and just say Brennan is a liar! https://t.co/mhNfTYYUBQ
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel At a time when "Insider Threat" already listed as a key threat, it seems a question about CIA spying on SSCI is fair, but Brennan disagrees
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Wyden: Would you agree CIA's 2014 search of senate files improper? Brennan: This is annual threat assessment is it not?
12mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2016
S M T W T F S
« Jan    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
2829