drone semantics: obama’s definition of ‘combat’ may be unlike ordinary humans’
This battle to 13-
Senator Rand Paul, who managed to get an answer from the attorney general for an hour of obstruction of the marathon.
Eric Holder\'s letter says the president has no right to \"kill an American who is not fighting in the United States using an unarmed drone \".
RT talked to Col.
Former chief prosecutor for terrorism trials at Guantanamo Bay, Maurice Davis, said that even this reluctance to publicly limit the president\'s power to kill drones could be smaller than what the public thinks.
Now Brennan has been confirmed, what impact will he have on the CIA? We\'ll see a lot of changes, or just businesses like Morris Davis: It\'s still to be seen.
He played a role in the Bush administration\'s torture program.
Under the Obama administration, he has been at the White House and at the heart of the drone program, which does not bode well.
But at his confirmation hearing, he said he wanted to get the CIA out of what looked like a real military operation and return it to the Pentagon.
If he insists on what he says, then, I think, it may be a good thing, but his record does not bode well.
The White House\'s response is unusual: it\'s just a brief statement about drones.
Is it addressing concerns about the project in any way or is it just to get the confirmer aheadMD: The letter comes from the Minister of Justice.
If you look back on what happened during the conflict in Libya, America\'s war Rights Act says the president has to get congressional permission after a while.
The Justice Department won\'t give the White House the cover they want.
The Ministry of Defense eventually pushed it to the State Department, Harold Ko, to get the opinion that our actions in Libya are not equal to the hostile actions.
In his letter, the Attorney General stated that the answer to Rand Paul\'s question was \"no\", which was the opinion of the attorney general.
But you haven\'t seen Barack Obama stand up and say \"No, I promise I won\'t use Jones in the US.
RT: The government says only Americans can kill them if they are involved in fighting on US territory.
So, if the gun owner inTexas worryMD: it\'s still to be seen again, they will decide who is fighting with who is not a fighter.
The government\'s use of English is rather loose.
You see this in the white paper, which recently leaked the \"imminent threat of attack\" they were talking about \".
Some say their definition of \"immind\" goes against all logic.
So how they define \"combat\" may not be the definition that most ordinary people will think of when they think of the word \"fight.
RT: Does this statement mean that it can leave room for explanation in md: The way it is worded.
This is clearly limited to US and US citizens.
I think they left a lot of room for distortion in the wording of the statement.
Of course, they used to be very free in terms of how to choose terms that are in their interest.
The law allows the president to attack at any time and anywhere he chooses anyone.
But they refuse to publish legal analysis explaining how they interpret the law.
I commend Rand Paul-I never thought I would see the day I praised Rand Paul for standing up for freedom-but of course it was yesterday\'s 13 th --
The one-hour marathon gave me hope that at least everyone on Capitol Hill just bent over to give up national security and let the president do whatever he wanted.
One of the criticisms of the drone program is that our use of drones is too loose.
We chose to kill people instead of catching people and going through the trouble we had at Guantanamo.
They recently arrested the son of Osama bin Laden. in-
Lawyer Suleiman Abu gais
We have him in New York, and apparently he is working together there and not being tortured.
He will be charged in federal court. and-
The real way to get people to a fair trial before trial.
I\'m glad we didn\'t use the drone program on him.