Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul

[WorldWatcher]

No, they do not show that I am wrong. They only repeat the government line since it came out that the boy was only 16 years old and they had to come up with a quick excuse. So they tried to make it look like it was all one strike. It was not.

So I provide reporting by reputable news organizations and you have provided what?


Nothing, but to just say "your wrong".


>>>>

 

[SinJinsg]

No, they do not show that I am wrong. They only repeat the government line since it came out that the boy was only 16 years old and they had to come up with a quick excuse. So they tried to make it look like it was all one strike. It was not.

So I provide reporting by reputable news organizations and you have provided what?


Nothing, but to just say "your wrong".


>>>>

Ok, first of all there were as many as five attacks that nigh:

Al-Qaida's Yemen media chief dies in US drone attack | World news | guardian.co.uk

The teenage boy was killed with a group of their friends while going out for dinner, not in the private house where they killed al-banna:

Awlaki Family Protests U.S. Killing of Anwar Awlaki's Teen Son - ABC News

And the US has refused to give any explanation, on the record, for why this boy was killed:

Obama administration needs to explain drone strikes : Stltoday

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, they do not show that I am wrong. They only repeat the government line since it came out that the boy was only 16 years old and they had to come up with a quick excuse. So they tried to make it look like it was all one strike. It was not.

So I provide reporting by reputable news organizations and you have provided what?


Nothing, but to just say "your wrong".


>>>>

Ok, first of all there were as many as five attacks that nigh:

Al-Qaida's Yemen media chief dies in US drone attack | World news | guardian.co.uk

The teenage boy was killed with a group of their friends while going out for dinner, not in the private house where they killed al-banna:

Awlaki Family Protests U.S. Killing of Anwar Awlaki's Teen Son - ABC News

And the US has refused to give any explanation, on the record, for why this boy was killed:

Obama administration needs to explain drone strikes : Stltoday

From you own link...

" A U.S. official familiar with the strike said that the U.S. government had not yet confirmed that Awlaki's son had been killed in the strike.

The strike was conducted by the US military in an effort to target al-Banna, who US officials describe as a "big deal," though they did not elaborate. One official asserted that Banna was "operational." A second official said the strike was carried out by a U.S. military drone. The elder Awlaki was killed by a CIA strike. "​

Thank you for providing a 3rd link that shows the target of the attack was not the 16-year old, but was actually al-Banna.


"The Strike" singular of course says that the 16-year old and al-Banna were killed in the same strike, not another strike conducted that night.


>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you're saying that if the President declares an American citizen an enemy combatant then he could use lethal force against them within the United States, up to and including drone strikes, without a trial despite this letter?

Oh, and include that this hypothetical person is not an immediate threat, in that they're not presently engaging in violent behavior.

Enemy combatants do not have to be 'engaging in violent behaviour' to use your alteration of the atty general's words, in order to targeted for killing.

I used the example of enemy troops asleep in a barracks. Can you bomb the barracks or not?

Are you going to answer the question?

The answer is yes. Now answer my question.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Enemy combatants do not have to be 'engaging in violent behaviour' to use your alteration of the atty general's words, in order to targeted for killing.

I used the example of enemy troops asleep in a barracks. Can you bomb the barracks or not?

Are you going to answer the question?

The answer is yes. Now answer my question.

So you're saying that Eric Holder was lying in his response to Rand Paul today.

Enemy troops in a barracks implies that all of the appropriate legal and constitutional measures have been taken to declare these people enemies, and we are openly at war. So sure, why not? I personally wouldn't like it, and wouldn't support it, but that's not really a political or legal concern, at least as far as I'm able to understand the scenario. Of course, this scenario has nothing to do with Rand's question, so I'm not sure why you asked it.

 

[asaratis]

Enemy combatants do not have to be 'engaging in violent behaviour' to use your alteration of the atty general's words, in order to targeted for killing.

I used the example of enemy troops asleep in a barracks. Can you bomb the barracks or not?

Are you going to answer the question?

The answer is yes. Now answer my question.

This begs the hypothetical question:

If Obama can legally target (for execution by any method) an American citizen in America for appearing to be an enemy (of the United States) combatant while that citizen is not actively engaged in combat (say...relaxing in his living room at home), should not Obama immediately target and execute the man (and wife) in whose living room Obama was introduced to the political machine that elected him?

What's his name? That guy that bombed the WTC the first time...hasn't repented...said there should be more bombings? What is his fuckin' name? Oh Bill Ayers! Let's target his ass! ....and Bernadine! Kill 'em both!!! TOMORROW!!!!

Bill Ayers: The Left Must Utilize Its ?Absolute Access? to America?s Classrooms | Video | TheBlaze.com

Ayers first found fame for his involvement in plots to set off explosives at the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a police station, two Army recruiting stations and a New York judge’s home while his family slept inside.

Put that on your To Do list, Obozo!!! Kill Bill!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you going to answer the question?

The answer is yes. Now answer my question.

So you're saying that Eric Holder was lying in his response to Rand Paul today.

Enemy troops in a barracks implies that all of the appropriate legal and constitutional measures have been taken to declare these people enemies, and we are openly at war. So sure, why not? I personally wouldn't like it, and wouldn't support it, but that's not really a political or legal concern, at least as far as I'm able to understand the scenario. Of course, this scenario has nothing to do with Rand's question, so I'm not sure why you asked it.

We are at war with Al Qaeda.

The wording of Paul's question creates another semantic problem. He used the phrase 'not engaged in combat'. What, exactly, does that mean,

and as importantly, who decides what it means?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you going to answer the question?

The answer is yes. Now answer my question.

So you're saying that Eric Holder was lying in his response to Rand Paul today.

Enemy troops in a barracks implies that all of the appropriate legal and constitutional measures have been taken to declare these people enemies, and we are openly at war. So sure, why not? I personally wouldn't like it, and wouldn't support it, but that's not really a political or legal concern, at least as far as I'm able to understand the scenario. Of course, this scenario has nothing to do with Rand's question, so I'm not sure why you asked it.

Do those troops in that barracks fit the description of 'engaged in combat'? Or are they 'not engaged in combat'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you going to answer the question?

The answer is yes. Now answer my question.

So you're saying that Eric Holder was lying in his response to Rand Paul today.

Enemy troops in a barracks implies that all of the appropriate legal and constitutional measures have been taken to declare these people enemies, and we are openly at war. So sure, why not? I personally wouldn't like it, and wouldn't support it, but that's not really a political or legal concern, at least as far as I'm able to understand the scenario. Of course, this scenario has nothing to do with Rand's question, so I'm not sure why you asked it.

Here's one for you.

If Bin Laden had had American bodyguards, could the Seals have legally shot them on contact to get to Bin Laden?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The answer is yes. Now answer my question.

So you're saying that Eric Holder was lying in his response to Rand Paul today.

Enemy troops in a barracks implies that all of the appropriate legal and constitutional measures have been taken to declare these people enemies, and we are openly at war. So sure, why not? I personally wouldn't like it, and wouldn't support it, but that's not really a political or legal concern, at least as far as I'm able to understand the scenario. Of course, this scenario has nothing to do with Rand's question, so I'm not sure why you asked it.

We are at war with Al Qaeda.

The wording of Paul's question creates another semantic problem. He used the phrase 'not engaged in combat'. What, exactly, does that mean,

and as importantly, who decides what it means?

It means exactly what it sounds like. Perhaps you're walking your dog, or sitting at a cafe which was Rand's example. Or maybe you're just driving along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you are an avowed enemy of the US engaged in supporting and aiding the forces allied against the US, don't think sitting in a café in Yemen is going to protect you.

If you are such an holed up in a bunker on a mountain side in North Carolina and you won't surrender, don't think that you are drone proof.

Remember that drones don't kill people, people kill people