I can't believe I am responding to this but, yes, yes it does. There aren't more items in quote tags because I didn't really want to retype from image verbatim, but I gave page numbers for you if you choose to read it your self. here's the link
It doesn't seem like you are disputing the whole you a member of al-Qa'ida, because we say so. So i'll skip the down to the part i have in quote tags.
Here is where we get to the whole imminent threat part. The quote
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
is directly lifted from the document that you don't need clear evidence. 9/11 was used right after this statement as an example of why you can't wait for clear details, except there was evidence of a clear and imminent threat in this case as the 9-11 report details. I used the whole "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" document as an example since it is well known. You are correct that the document asserts that
certain members if al-Qa'ida (including any potential targets of lethal force) are continually plotting attacks against he United States
what you miss is the rest of the rational in the same sentance
; that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks regularly to the extent it were able to do so; that the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qu'ida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur
. Think about this argument, even if you accept that whole "they are always plotting against us" thing, the rest is there is always an imminent threat because there may be a secret threat that we don't know anything about. By this logic, any time a "sovereign citizen" leaves the country can they be assassinated since that group has a track record of plotting against the US and has engaged in terrorists acts? How about survivalists, another group with a track record of terrorist activities? KKK member leaves the country can we kill them, their certainly they are a terrorism organization who actively plots against the US? Let's set aside the US citizen thing, if someone post to a message board from outside the US how they would like to see the US government fall is the US justified in murdering them? After all, they are outside of the US, probably can't be captured, and to their extent possible would be plotting against the US.
At the top of page 10 we get there is not proper court to adjudicate this.
Finally, the Department notes that under the circumstances described in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations...Were a court to intervene here, it might be required to inappropriately issue an ex ante command.
Basiclly, there is not court with jurisdiction to adjudicate and if one were to intervene their ruling may not be proper.
And in section III on the same page
Section 1119, however, incorporates the federal murder and manslaughter statutes, and thus its prohibition extends only to "unlawful killing[s]"
Killing someone is only murder or manslaughter if it's unlawful
Section 1119 is best construed to incorporate the "public authority" justification
There is a "public authority" justification that can be used to exempt someone fro the letter of the law
As this paper explains below, a lethal operation of the kind discussed here would fall within the public authority exception
This paper is going to tell you that killing someone falls within this exception
It therefore would not result in an unlawful killing
Therefore it's OK to kill someone(as we saw before the authors already believe there is no court to adjudicate this claim)
In some instances, therefore, the best interpretation of a criminal prohibition is that Congress intended to distinguish persons who are acting pursuant to public authority from those who are not...for example, the application of a speed law to a policeman pursing a criminal or the driver of a fire engine responding to an alarm
An example of the public authority exception is emergency workers speeding.