老澳门开奖结果

It鈥檚 October 15. Is Christmas 鈥渋mminent鈥�? According to an about the United States鈥� targeted-killing program from The Intercept, the government seems to think so.

In May 2013, President Obama announced that he had issued a classified document, known as a Presidential Policy Guidance, that would govern the government鈥檚 use of lethal force in areas outside of active hostilities 鈥� places like Yemen and Somalia, where the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict under the laws of war. Among the restrictions, summarized in an unclassified White House 鈥�,鈥� was a requirement that any target 鈥減ose[] a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.鈥�

The word 鈥渋mminent鈥� was not defined in the fact sheet. Nor was it defined in a July 2010 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum 鈥� unearthed, in 2014, by the 老澳门开奖结果 in litigation under the Freedom of Information Act 鈥� giving legal cover to the killing of a U.S. citizen. In fact, the government has never given a public definition of 鈥渋mminence,鈥� even as it has repeatedly relied on it publicly as a limitation that cabins its use of lethal force outside of war zones.

Today, The Intercept鈥檚 coverage gives us a clue. Among a bevy of new revelations and a cache of classified documents published this morning, we that the president鈥檚 authorization to target an individual with lethal force, based on a 鈥渃ontinuing, imminent threat鈥� to the United States, has in the past lasted for 60 days. (Perhaps that鈥檚 what then鈥揂ttorney General Eric Holder meant when he said, in a March 2012 given at Northwestern University School of Law, that the government views 鈥渋mminence鈥� as 鈥渋ncorporat[ing] considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act鈥� against suspected terrorists.)

The example cited by The Intercept took place prior to the president鈥檚 imposition of the PPG, so the new report primarily sheds light on how the government was interpreting its obligations before issuing the new policy. But in announcing the PPG, the president made clear that at least some of the restrictions were 鈥渁lready in place.鈥� If 鈥渋mminence鈥� was one of them, The Intercept鈥檚 story would inform how the government applies its policy today, as well.

The new documents also call into question other aspects and applications of the government鈥檚 policy. The president has justified the use of drones by asserting that they are more 鈥減recise鈥� than manned aircraft. But The Intercept that the government鈥檚 ability to track potential targets in places like Yemen and Somalia is 鈥減oor鈥� and 鈥渓imited,鈥� often based on hazy and incomplete signals intelligence, or SIGINT. (One researcher the visual surveillance drones provide to watching the world below through a 鈥渟oda straw.鈥�) And while the president鈥檚 policy purports to restrict strikes to occasions on which the government has a 鈥渘ear certainty鈥� that no bystanders will be killed, the website government data suggesting that, in a five-month period during one U.S. operation in Afghanistan, more than 90 percent of the individuals killed were not the targets of the strikes.

The Intercept鈥檚 series is primarily on 鈥渁 source within the intelligence community who worked on the types of operations and programs described in the slides鈥� who 鈥渄ecided to provide the[] documents 鈥� because he believes the public has a right to understand the process by which people are placed on kill lists and ultimately assassinated on orders from the highest echelons of the U.S. government.鈥�

We agree.

That鈥檚 why in three separate lawsuits, the 老澳门开奖结果 continues to seek the legal basis for the government鈥檚 program, as well as basic facts and statistics about who the government is killing and why. The government continues to stonewall 鈥� some might say troll 鈥� despite mounting official disclosures and other information in the public domain about the program. Its silence is damning, and Americans 鈥� indeed, the world 鈥� deserve better.

One nice thing about words is that . But the secrecy surrounding the government鈥檚 targeted-killing program means we can鈥檛 know for sure if we鈥檙e all using the same dictionary. It鈥檚 high time for the government to tell the public whether its supposed 鈥渓imits鈥� on targeted killing are real limits, or limits in name only.