7 ms·

Not a fan of Holder's original letter on the topic, and had to give Paul credit, but from an entertainment standpoint, the terse response and answer are pretty

Not a fan of Holder's original letter on the topic, and had to give Paul credit, but from an entertainment standpoint, the terse response and answer are pretty funny. "You have now asked an additional question" -- yes, a 12-hour long question. Either way, happy to have a solid "no" on this answer and annoyed that it took a 12-hour filibuster to bring that about. --- One follow-up point now that I've thought about it: a lot of that statement depends on the definition of "engaged in combat." If I wasn't mistaken, wasn't part of the problem that the definition of this was so loose?

samstave 14y ago
Call me a skeptic, but I see a loophole in that answer: "...not engaged in combat..." Define Combat. Would Christopher Dorner's circumstance been classified as "engaged in combat"? I would suspect that, yes it would be. Thus Eric Holder's position would be that a weaponized drone strike against him would be authorized. However, in congruence with his earlier statement, the Dorner case could be considered "extreme" - as such, we need a much more clear definition of both 'extreme' and of 'combat'. Could anyone opposing any LEO/Fed/gov agent be considered to be "in combat"? What if they (the civilian) are being shot at, have no weapons but are being attacked by an LEO (Like the ladies and gentleman in the two trucks that were shot at by LAPD)? So, while the terse nature of this response is slightly amusing - it's also scary. EDIT: heh - you noticed the same thing I did whilst I was typing this...
- sneak 14y ago
  Additionally, what about US citizens that aren't on US soil (like me, or 16 year old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki)? Don't we deserve the right to trial?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    In-theater military targets have never had a right to trial. When airstrikes are used to kill al Qaeda members, the Administration is not exercising its criminal justice authority.
    - sneak 14y ago
      > When airstrikes are used to kill al Qaeda members Who decides who's an al Qaeda member and who isn't? Is "s/he's a member of al Qaeda" the magic words the admin has to say to not have to provide someone with due process?
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Who decided who was fighting for the Nazis and who wasn't? The Allies engaged and killed US citizens fighting for Germany during WW2. There is no due process that protects you at war. This is why we don't want to be at war, and why we especially don't want to be at war with a brand name.
    - thwest 14y ago
      "In-theater military target" is a lazy set of adjectives and nouns for addressing this situation. The "theater" in the Global War on Terror is the entire globe. The United States is not at war with Yemen. Abdulrahman was not even alleged to have engaged in "military" conduct, merely being a propagandist. He was not a "target", he was collateral damage of a strike on someone else. This is not a heated battlefield death. The nature of war is shifting and using aggressive global militarism as an excuse to handwave around the denied due process of a 16 year old US citizen is disturbing.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Abdulrahman wasn't targeted. He was traveling with someone who was very much targeted: his father, who pulled his son out of safety in the US to live in a war zone under the threat of airstrikes.
        thwest 14y ago
        His father was killed several days prior. Yemen is not a war zone; the US is not at war with Yemen. Sins of the father do not pass to the son.
        14y ago
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    16 year old Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was killed because he happened to be in the company of Ibrahim al-Banna, who was the actual target of the drone strike. Even the best cameras cannot currently tell the age and citizenship of every person in the vicinity of the target. The US views him as an innocent casualty. I find it strange that nobody bothers to condemn his father for bringing him out of the US to live in a community run by Al Qaeda, which seems pretty irresponsible to me.
    - LandoCalrissian 14y ago
      I think I would be more inclined to condemn the drone program that almost always comes with collateral damage. The fact that we can't positively identify those who we are attacking should be reason enough to be critical.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        You think this because drones are new and alien. But airstrikes are not new. Airstrikes in World War 2 killed more innocent people than any drone will ever kill. Tokyo was made of paper and we firebombed it. Drone combat is surgical compared with practically every other way in which we've fought wars. Drone operators are in no personal danger and don't need to act while under the cortisol and epinephrine loads of bullets whizzing by their heads. Drone operators are well-rested (in-theater combat troops are never well-rested). They're more mature than combat infantry. Drone resources are comparatively inexpensive and so missions don't have to be crafted that sacrifice risk of civilian casualties to minimize risks of military casualties.
        harshreality 14y ago
        I agree for the most part, but one of the objections to drone strikes is the vague nature of target selection. The U.S. doesn't want to say flat-out that Yemen, for instance, is a hostile country and a warzone; yet it still wants the ability to kill whoever it wants in that country, for reasons that will never be transparent due to sensitive sources and methods.
- SeanKilleen 14y ago
  Agreed -- I think while you were writing that response I'd updated my answer because I feel the same way. definitions are key here, and while I'm encouraged by his sentiment, I'm discouraged by the lack of definition.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The Administration cannot deploy military resources against Christopher Dorner because he is not a person, nation, or organization involved in the attacks on 9/11. Once again: we are at war with al Qaeda brand terrorists and personal hygiene products. It is no doubt our stupidest war ever, but it is an actual war, unlike the war on drugs, and the authorization the Administration has to drone strike people comes from that war and nowhere else.
  - samstave 14y ago
    The road is being paved. What is to stop local law enforcement units from having weaponized drones within 5 years? Honestly, what I beleive will happen is FLIR enabled drones assisting in all LEO efforts. Take a look at my friends video he took this weekend. This is a tri-copter with FPV goggles he uses to fly it. He built one that can hold several pounds and has a gymbal for holding a full size camera. http://vimeo.com/61156472 http://vimeo.com/61156472 Here is the setup: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1718160&page=40#post24085992 http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1718160&... Weaponizing is the easy part - paving the multi-year path until its "authorized" is the tricky part which they are currently attempting.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      The road you're talking about is technology. The road Rand Paul is talking about is endless power grabs from the legislative branch by the executive branch. The road you're talking about is real; the road Paul is talking about is fanciful. The Senate voted to give Bush and his successors this authority 98-0. Incidentally: as long as we're careful about ensuring that technology doesn't allow LEOs to gin up probable cause or introduce evidence that should be excluded, I'm not sure why I should on general principles oppose adoption of technology by LEOs.
      - samstave 14y ago
        The issue is that while it is subtle, the constant adoption of greater and greater technical capability by the LEOs is that its a slow, but constant stepping path toward enabling tyranny. The reason being that 1) a extremely technically enabled LEO system is one that is completely abstracted from the reality of its citizenry. 2) it creates an institutionalized dependence and sense of superiority on and due to said technological capabilities. 3) create a propoensity to rely on the technology more-so than the human instincts and filters, thus, we see much more of a "system" which will victimize people more regularly. Any and all murders by police will continue to be classified as "unfortunate" yet nothing will be done. Police are already far too poorly trained to deal with anything remotely stressful without shooting first. I am fully opposed to any and all pushing of technology onto an already overly trigger happy, callous system in lieu of more, actual training.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Could anyone opposing any LEO/Fed/gov agent be considered to be "in combat"? No. Even being a 'terrorist' does not count; under the terms of the AUMF you would have to be specifically affiliated with Al Qaeda in some fashion to be considered a military target.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Well, technically, any organization the Administration could claim was involved in Al Qaeda. The Taliban, for instance, is probably fair game under the AUMF.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      Absolutely, that's why I used 'affiliated'. To be honest I am just tired of pasting the relevant paragraph from the aUMF over and over again because some people seem incapable of reading it :-/
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  "Thus Eric Holder's position would be that a weaponized drone strike against him would be authorized." Considering police likely intentionally burned Dorner alive [1], a drone strike doesn't seem like that big of a stretch. [1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/the-execution-of-christopher-dorner/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/the-execution-of-chri...
  - tptacek 14y ago
    What do you think of this article? Christopher Dorner shot and killed an unarmed 28 year old woman, along with her unarmed fiancee. The woman was the daughter of an LAPD official. Dorner was killed in that woodland cottage after he shot and killed a San Bernardino County sheriff's officer.
    - samstave 14y ago
      Although, there is a ton of missing context in your post. The way you posted it sterilizes the story. * Dorner took a revenge killing on the daughter of the retired police-officer-turned-attorney who he felt was a plant in the hearing he had. * The police were recorded conspiring to burn down the cabin in a pre-meditated attack against Dorner. Both were outright murders. Both were wrong, however one presentation sways blame away from the "officials". The cops who were recorded as saying "Burn it like we talked about" "Burner deployed, we have a fire" and "Copy; burner deployed, we have a fire" should all be tried for murder.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Do you care why Dorner deliberately targeted and shot to death an innocent unarmed woman and her fiance in a car? If so, I respectfully submit that you should spend a little less time on the Internet. Dorner was a monster. The reason I brought this up was the Counterpunch article, which really does go out of its way to try to make Dorner more sympathetic.
        samstave 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

samstave 14y ago

Call me a skeptic, but I see a loophole in that answer: "...not engaged in combat..." Define Combat. Would Christopher Dorner's circumstance been classified as "engaged in combat"? I would suspect that, yes it would be. Thus Eric Holder's position would be that a weaponized drone strike against him would be authorized. However, in congruence with his earlier statement, the Dorner case could be considered "extreme" - as such, we need a much more clear definition of both 'extreme' and of 'combat'. Could anyone opposing any LEO/Fed/gov agent be considered to be "in combat"? What if they (the civilian) are being shot at, have no weapons but are being attacked by an LEO (Like the ladies and gentleman in the two trucks that were shot at by LAPD)? So, while the terse nature of this response is slightly amusing - it's also scary. EDIT: heh - you noticed the same thing I did whilst I was typing this...

sneak 14y ago
Additionally, what about US citizens that aren't on US soil (like me, or 16 year old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki)? Don't we deserve the right to trial?
- tptacek 14y ago
  In-theater military targets have never had a right to trial. When airstrikes are used to kill al Qaeda members, the Administration is not exercising its criminal justice authority.
  - sneak 14y ago
    > When airstrikes are used to kill al Qaeda members Who decides who's an al Qaeda member and who isn't? Is "s/he's a member of al Qaeda" the magic words the admin has to say to not have to provide someone with due process?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Who decided who was fighting for the Nazis and who wasn't? The Allies engaged and killed US citizens fighting for Germany during WW2. There is no due process that protects you at war. This is why we don't want to be at war, and why we especially don't want to be at war with a brand name.
  - thwest 14y ago
    "In-theater military target" is a lazy set of adjectives and nouns for addressing this situation. The "theater" in the Global War on Terror is the entire globe. The United States is not at war with Yemen. Abdulrahman was not even alleged to have engaged in "military" conduct, merely being a propagandist. He was not a "target", he was collateral damage of a strike on someone else. This is not a heated battlefield death. The nature of war is shifting and using aggressive global militarism as an excuse to handwave around the denied due process of a 16 year old US citizen is disturbing.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Abdulrahman wasn't targeted. He was traveling with someone who was very much targeted: his father, who pulled his son out of safety in the US to live in a war zone under the threat of airstrikes.
      - thwest 14y ago
        His father was killed several days prior. Yemen is not a war zone; the US is not at war with Yemen. Sins of the father do not pass to the son.
        14y ago
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  16 year old Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was killed because he happened to be in the company of Ibrahim al-Banna, who was the actual target of the drone strike. Even the best cameras cannot currently tell the age and citizenship of every person in the vicinity of the target. The US views him as an innocent casualty. I find it strange that nobody bothers to condemn his father for bringing him out of the US to live in a community run by Al Qaeda, which seems pretty irresponsible to me.
  - LandoCalrissian 14y ago
    I think I would be more inclined to condemn the drone program that almost always comes with collateral damage. The fact that we can't positively identify those who we are attacking should be reason enough to be critical.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      You think this because drones are new and alien. But airstrikes are not new. Airstrikes in World War 2 killed more innocent people than any drone will ever kill. Tokyo was made of paper and we firebombed it. Drone combat is surgical compared with practically every other way in which we've fought wars. Drone operators are in no personal danger and don't need to act while under the cortisol and epinephrine loads of bullets whizzing by their heads. Drone operators are well-rested (in-theater combat troops are never well-rested). They're more mature than combat infantry. Drone resources are comparatively inexpensive and so missions don't have to be crafted that sacrifice risk of civilian casualties to minimize risks of military casualties.
      - harshreality 14y ago
        I agree for the most part, but one of the objections to drone strikes is the vague nature of target selection. The U.S. doesn't want to say flat-out that Yemen, for instance, is a hostile country and a warzone; yet it still wants the ability to kill whoever it wants in that country, for reasons that will never be transparent due to sensitive sources and methods.
SeanKilleen 14y ago
Agreed -- I think while you were writing that response I'd updated my answer because I feel the same way. definitions are key here, and while I'm encouraged by his sentiment, I'm discouraged by the lack of definition.
tptacek 14y ago
The Administration cannot deploy military resources against Christopher Dorner because he is not a person, nation, or organization involved in the attacks on 9/11. Once again: we are at war with al Qaeda brand terrorists and personal hygiene products. It is no doubt our stupidest war ever, but it is an actual war, unlike the war on drugs, and the authorization the Administration has to drone strike people comes from that war and nowhere else.
- samstave 14y ago
  The road is being paved. What is to stop local law enforcement units from having weaponized drones within 5 years? Honestly, what I beleive will happen is FLIR enabled drones assisting in all LEO efforts. Take a look at my friends video he took this weekend. This is a tri-copter with FPV goggles he uses to fly it. He built one that can hold several pounds and has a gymbal for holding a full size camera. http://vimeo.com/61156472 http://vimeo.com/61156472 Here is the setup: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1718160&page=40#post24085992 http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1718160&... Weaponizing is the easy part - paving the multi-year path until its "authorized" is the tricky part which they are currently attempting.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The road you're talking about is technology. The road Rand Paul is talking about is endless power grabs from the legislative branch by the executive branch. The road you're talking about is real; the road Paul is talking about is fanciful. The Senate voted to give Bush and his successors this authority 98-0. Incidentally: as long as we're careful about ensuring that technology doesn't allow LEOs to gin up probable cause or introduce evidence that should be excluded, I'm not sure why I should on general principles oppose adoption of technology by LEOs.
    - samstave 14y ago
      The issue is that while it is subtle, the constant adoption of greater and greater technical capability by the LEOs is that its a slow, but constant stepping path toward enabling tyranny. The reason being that 1) a extremely technically enabled LEO system is one that is completely abstracted from the reality of its citizenry. 2) it creates an institutionalized dependence and sense of superiority on and due to said technological capabilities. 3) create a propoensity to rely on the technology more-so than the human instincts and filters, thus, we see much more of a "system" which will victimize people more regularly. Any and all murders by police will continue to be classified as "unfortunate" yet nothing will be done. Police are already far too poorly trained to deal with anything remotely stressful without shooting first. I am fully opposed to any and all pushing of technology onto an already overly trigger happy, callous system in lieu of more, actual training.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Could anyone opposing any LEO/Fed/gov agent be considered to be "in combat"? No. Even being a 'terrorist' does not count; under the terms of the AUMF you would have to be specifically affiliated with Al Qaeda in some fashion to be considered a military target.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Well, technically, any organization the Administration could claim was involved in Al Qaeda. The Taliban, for instance, is probably fair game under the AUMF.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Absolutely, that's why I used 'affiliated'. To be honest I am just tired of pasting the relevant paragraph from the aUMF over and over again because some people seem incapable of reading it :-/
tlrobinson 14y ago
"Thus Eric Holder's position would be that a weaponized drone strike against him would be authorized." Considering police likely intentionally burned Dorner alive [1], a drone strike doesn't seem like that big of a stretch. [1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/the-execution-of-christopher-dorner/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/the-execution-of-chri...
- tptacek 14y ago
  What do you think of this article? Christopher Dorner shot and killed an unarmed 28 year old woman, along with her unarmed fiancee. The woman was the daughter of an LAPD official. Dorner was killed in that woodland cottage after he shot and killed a San Bernardino County sheriff's officer.
  - samstave 14y ago
    Although, there is a ton of missing context in your post. The way you posted it sterilizes the story. * Dorner took a revenge killing on the daughter of the retired police-officer-turned-attorney who he felt was a plant in the hearing he had. * The police were recorded conspiring to burn down the cabin in a pre-meditated attack against Dorner. Both were outright murders. Both were wrong, however one presentation sways blame away from the "officials". The cops who were recorded as saying "Burn it like we talked about" "Burner deployed, we have a fire" and "Copy; burner deployed, we have a fire" should all be tried for murder.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Do you care why Dorner deliberately targeted and shot to death an innocent unarmed woman and her fiance in a car? If so, I respectfully submit that you should spend a little less time on the Internet. Dorner was a monster. The reason I brought this up was the Counterpunch article, which really does go out of its way to try to make Dorner more sympathetic.
      - samstave 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]