- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 35,187
- Reaction score
- 27,054
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
This strikes me as an entirely manufactured controversy. The administration were asked a leading question and gave a perfectly reasonable answer based on their interpretation of the law.
They were murky (intentionally or unintentionally idk) with their response.
Here's the memo coming from the Administration concerning "imminent threats":
Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, 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 will take place in the immediate future.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...cans-twists-imminent-threat-like-bush/272862/