Recours aux drones: quelles sont les limites du pouvoir présidentiel?

Le président américain peut-il ordonner des attaques de drones quand et comme il le souhaite? Quelles sont les limites de son pouvoir et des justifications présentées pour recourir à cette arme redoutable? La fuite d'un document provoque un débat pertinent.

 "The newly-disclosed document argues that the use of deadly force is justified even when a terrorist suspect with a pattern of engaging in attacks against the U.S. can't be linked to any specific imminent attack in the future.

 "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," the DOJ white paper says. The memo suggests that involvement in recent terrorist activities is enough to make a deadly strike legal, as long as "there is no evidence suggesting he has renounced or abandoned such activities."

 Obama Administration officials have previously said that such an operation could only be undertaken where efforts to capture a terrorist suspect are "not feasible" or would present "undue risk" to U.S. troops or operatives. However, the Justice Department "white paper" gives this argument a very broad sweep, declaring that capture can be deemed infeasible if the country where the suspect is located won't consent to a capture operation or if a cpature operation "could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity."

 The DOJ "white paper" also dismisses arguments, advanced most recently by a federal judge in New York, that killing a U.S. citizen abroad could violate U.S. federal criminal law.

 The memo drew a sharply negative reaction from civil liberties advocates, who maintained their call for release of the more-detailed legal justifications behind the program.

 "This is a profoundly disturbing document, and it’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances. It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority – the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact,” Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement Monday night."

 http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/?ml=bl_jg