@MikeDrewWhat BC he was neither an imminent threat (per IC) nor on battlefield.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Doesn't AUMF leave those determinations explicitly to POTUS' judgment, not the IC's? Again, assume bad faith on O's part.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MikeDrewWhat
@MikeDrewWhat Yeah, but you've got an American believed to have done no more than First Amendment. Does AUMF override that?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel No. Bt surely you don't think that was *their* view? My only aim rt now is to think abt what they thought their authority was...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MikeDrewWhat
@MikeDrewWhat Which? That he was just First Amendment? Or that AUMF didn't support that?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel That his actions had amounted to no more than protected expression. Do you think they thought that?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MikeDrewWhat
@MikeDrewWhat Webster report says they did not believe him to be operational on 12/24/09 when they first targeted. IC briefers have repeated1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Webster report says who did not believe that?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MikeDrewWhat
@MikeDrewWhat Webster report and IC briefers say IC did not believe Awlaki was operational until 12/25/09 (or maybe later)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Again, if AUMF give POTUS the call, and the High Priest of Drone Death Rectitude had POTUS' ear...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@MikeDrewWhat Which gives you waht Blair gave: actions that led to actions that threatened Americans, rather than later standard.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.