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
JimWhiteGNV RT @APDiploWriter: KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - #Afghanistan, #US sign security pact allowing US forces to remain in country past end of year.
49mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @JackofKent: Today the Tories will deride the Human Rights Act, which you can enforce in court, and praise Magna Carta, which you cannot.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MonaHol @emptywheel It absolutely is worth it. More people should understand what's being done. It is just sad this is "news" cause its not
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MonaHol I believe it can be shown to be either non-compliant or partial, but haven't looked closely yet. @bmaz
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MonaHol What is actual news abt ACLU release is govt has now committed to what their 12333 compliance is. @bmaz
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MonaHol Glad docs are out so other people stop getting snookered by sources. But that was easily avoidable. @bmaz
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MonaHol It was also laid out in FISCR opinion declassed in 2009. Big part of 2007 debate on FAA. And so on and so on @bmaz
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MonaHol For those who haven't read 2009 docs this might be surprising. But far more substantive details already in record. @bmaz
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MonaHol Not in the least surprising. Many of my 50+ posts on all this lay that out. Clarke testified to same. @bmaz
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @pwnallthethings First shot at Awlaki may have been parts of DOD going rogue, but generally agree. @normative @BradMossEsq
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @pwnallthethings That said, on both torture and Awlaki killing, case is strong POTUS did not comply w/Findings reqt @normative @BradMossEsq
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @pwnallthethings Actually think Findings like system is minimal change that should have come fr Snowden's leaks. @normative @BradMossEsq
5hreplyretweetfavorite
September 2014
S M T W T F S
« Aug    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930