The rationale, bottom line? “In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out. And we will not,” Holder was quoted as saying during the address, per the March 5th latimes.com article, “President may order killing of American terrorists, Holder says”.
To expound, Holder explained the administration is justified in its actions to take down American terrorists based on two things. One, Congress passed a law following the 9/11 attacks authorizing the “president to use all necessary and appropriate force against the perpetrators and those who helped them”. Second, the president has the power “to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack,” Holder was quoted as saying in the article.
Most problematic is that said terrorists, in essence, have no country. To that end, Holder said the president’s authority “is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan.”
Three conditions must exist in order for a targeted killing such as Awlaki to occur, per Holder.
First, the government must have already decided that the person targeted “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S.” In reaching this decision, the “relevant window of opportunity to act,” as well as the harm that could befall civilians, and the probability of stopping future attacks are considered.
Secondly, capturing said terrorist is not practicable.
Thirdly, the process of targeting and killing the terrorist must be in accordance with the ‘rules of war’, which again, appears to present somewhat of an oxymoron. Said rules include the person of interest having value from a military standpoint; as well, he or she must be engaged in hostile acts. As well, there cannot be an excess of collateral damage, and the weapon used to carry out the killing cannot cause undue suffering.
Those against such killings feel they’re illegal, as they feel the president needs to prove in court that said individual is indeed a threat.
Jameel Jaffer, a national security attorney with the ACLU was quoted as saying: “The administration is asserting the authority to kill any American whom the president declares to be an enemy of the state. That's a breathtaking assertion.”
However, Holder defended the administration’s position, saying that the court in fact did not, and perhaps, could not be involved, as often, the executive branch of government were the only ones privy to certain information “in real time”, and thus capable of rendering a swift decision. He also leaned on the Constitution.
Holder did not take any questions from reporters or the law school audience following his address, though originally he’d intended to engage the audience, and cancelled at the last minute.
