@MikeDrewWhat Which? That he was just First Amendment? Or that AUMF didn't support that?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @MikeDrewWhat
@MikeDrewWhat Still, Blair emphasized POTUS approval, which leads me to believe it was just Art II.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @MikeDrewWhat
@MikeDrewWhat BC if he was established AUMF target presumably you wouldn't need POTUS signoff.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel > up for indiv. sign-off (or even not considered until Awlaki). But this wldn't nec. imlpy extra-AUMF justification. Hypothesis.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@MikeDrewWhat Tho I suspect "sitting next to target" goes back to Kamal Derwish, so 2002.
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.