3 ms·
Yeah the problem is that the Justice Departments definition of "imminent threat" is so loose that you could pretty much classify anything as "imminent". They a
by LandoCalrissian 14y ago
Yeah the problem is that the Justice Departments definition of "imminent threat" is so loose that you could pretty much classify anything as "imminent".
They are playing really fast and loose with the lexicon they use.
- tptacek 14y agoThis is why I pointed out that the question was phrased in multiple different ways, because I realized I was writing on a message board for nerds and that someone was going to try to litigate the meaning of the words "imminent" and "threat". If you watch the testimony, it was more specific than that.
- LandoCalrissian 14y agoThis is from the Memo to congress from the Justice Department: "The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future"
- tptacek 14y agoThat refers to al Qaeda militants overseas. It is exactly the same logic as the logic that allowed Allied airstrikes against Nazi armor and troop placements in Europe.
- rosser 14y agoBut you're writing on an internet message board, for nerds or otherwise, so appeals to the primary sources are generally going to be ignored in favor of a rush to judgement and mischaracterization of the actual issues.