Which is worse?

Post #372,682 by drook 3/19/13 1:10:16 PM Reply	Which is worse? To claim that the law allows something which you don't, in practice, intend to do? Or to do whatever is expedient and retroactively justify whichever of those actions people seem to be bothered by? Yes, I'm presenting a false dichotomy, but I believe my phrasing is more like reality than unlike. -- Drew
Post #372,683 by mmoffitt 3/19/13 1:30:20 PM Reply	Really? Doesn't "in practice, intend to do?" Hmmmm....... Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists who have been targeted by American military drone strikes, three men -- all killed in the fall of 2011 -- were U.S. citizens. http://usnews.nbcnew...-controversy?lite
Post #372,684 by drook 3/19/13 1:42:38 PM Reply	So Americans count for more? -- Drew
Post #372,689 by mmoffitt 3/19/13 3:56:39 PM Reply	Um, no. Not my point at all. You said "has no intention of killing Americans" despite the fact that he'd already done it.
Post #372,690 by drook 3/19/13 4:45:11 PM Reply	No I didn't I said, "something which you don't, in practice, intend to do". The filibuster was about killing Americans in America with drones. Where those killings happen is as much a part of that as who is being killed, isn't it? I don't want armed drones flying over where I live. That's (one of the many reasons) why the AUMF needs to be scaled back or rescinded. I think it's much more likely I'll accidentally be in a place designated a "zone of interest" than that I personally will be declared a "person of interest". -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!