@emptywheel @speechboy71 @DanielLarison Then aren't you just saying that, regardless of imm. def., problem is they went ahead abs jud rev.?
@MikeDrewWhat I'm suggesting that we can't get to your issues--legality--w/o first getting real info, which comes thru SoP.
-
-
@emptywheel >> have to provide your view on those questions just on the basic requirements of the law if you don't want to. But if you want> -
@MikeDrewWhat I think you do need more detail. After all, 1st attempt on Awlaki not legal under the White Paper standards, according to IC. -
@emptywheel You don't need any detail to say what the requirements of the law in general are.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel >but if you want to, I'm interested to hear (in particular) your analysis of them. May be too elementary for you, though.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel - bc it's necessary to have them settled in order to make any judgments abt actual events - do not. But you don't have to >>Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel ...So ultimately some of my issues require more info abt events to be answered, but the first few - which I primarily care abt>>Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel >requirements the law places on an Executive who thinks U.S. security interest may require him to take this kind of action.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel I think my issues, except the last ones about whether actions satified them, can be answered with abstract descriptions of the >Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.