Jeh Johnson Quotes

Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen - even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaida in a foreign land - is among the gravest that government leaders can face.

I think we need to ask serious questions about how we engage militarily, when we engage militarily, and on what basis we engage militarily. What kind of intelligence do we have to justify a military engagement?

Under well-settled legal principles, lethal force against a valid military objective, in an armed conflict, is consistent with the law of war and does not, by definition, constitute an 'assassination.'

I am not a pacifist and I would back a lawful, coherent and compelling case for the use of military force by the U.K. against Isis.

If we can kill Saddam, we should.

Philosophers and theologians have argued for centuries over the morality of targeted assassinations - a technique that the Israelis use with some frequency - without ever reaching anything approaching consensus.

Some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and more broadly that they're not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom.

Our enemies are real. But so are the moral questions and long-term political implications of drone strikes.

We believe the use of force against Iraq, especially with reference to previous resolutions of the UN Security Council, has no grounds, including legal grounds.

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis for our War on Terrorism.

Governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate self defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted.

The preemptive use of force has always been part of international law.

… it was not necessary to make any definition of "aggressor" or "self-defense." I do not think it can be done, anyway, accurately. They have been trying to do it in Europe for six or eight years, and they never have been able to accurately define " aggressor " or " self-defense.

Our calculus with the Drone Program is very simple. Kill them before they kill you!

Pre-emptive war might fall within the framework of international law.

No right can come by conquest, unless there were a right of making that conquest.

The utterly fallacious idea at the heart of the pro-war argument is that it is the duty of the anti-war argument to provide an alternative to war. The onus is on them to explain just cause.

I believe in not attacking a country pre-emptively unless you're sure of what you're doing and you're working with allies.

The Liberals have been pressing for the brief on the basis of which he said there was authority for war.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

No, the United States does not target civilians.

I cannot grasp the difference between killing people with drones or rifles and knives. The objective in war is to kill the enemy before he kills you. I can't fathom the almost religious zeal with which the use of drones is being opposed.

An order to fire on people that do not fire on you is a completely illegal order.

Today, war of necessity is used by critics of military action to describe unavoidable response to an attack like that on Pearl Harbor that led to our prompt, official declaration of war, while they characterize as unwise wars of choice the wars in Korea, Vietnam and the current war in Iraq.

If America has the right to target Osama bin Laden, or terrorists, of course Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism.