Dianne Feinstein Commits the Drone and/or Targeted Killing Fallacy

I’m not sure whether Dianne Feinstein is this dumb, or this exchange — from follow-up questions to John Brennan’s confirmation hearings — is just an effort to trick people like Rand Paul into believing that the Administration doesn’t believe it can kill imminent threats in the US.

Could the Administration carry out drone strikes inside the United States?

The Administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so.

Obama offered a similar answer in a Google hangout last night, so this must be a developing authorized line.

There has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil.

The white paper that has everyone so worried about drone strikes in the United States is titled — and is about — “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”

Lethal is lethal, whether it comes from a drone or a gun or a poison pill.

And thus far, the Administration has fallen far short of denying that it has used lethal force — targeted killing — inside the US.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+1Email to someone

6 Responses to Dianne Feinstein Commits the Drone and/or Targeted Killing Fallacy

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @MasaccioFDL Despite what clients and many outside forces always want to portray, it is truly almost never a sound idea.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @TyreJim I was trying to be kind, i.e. without going the Belgian Ale reference.
19mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Seriously, living in a Mark Geragos world is maddening. You do NOT help your client by "keeping media abreast" or yakking at CNN. #JustStop
26mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @TeekeeMon Worked for 30-40 years; far more than it should have. That is not a good counter.
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Both the clients and otherwise decent crim defense attorneys are idiots. Silence, from the client AND attorney are ALWAYS the smartest play.
31mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Criminal clients THINK they need to "fight back" against the "media". Idiot criminal defense attys think they MUST fight back against media.
32mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz .@LegallyErin Criminal lawyers earn my respect by shutting the fuck up, and staying shut the fuck up. Always. That's how you do it.
35mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @cody_k That is not "may have", that is "did". I knew that variation from MO law when the GJ started, and I am in AZ.
37mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @TyreJim Flat Tyre
42mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @LegallyErin These pricks HAD DONE SO AWESOMELY WELL by sitting the fuck up until now. Hubris overtook the fools. This just shoot me stupid
45mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @McBlondeLand @CNN ANY good lawyer would have told him to do so; however, that doesn't mean he gets pension or his job back.
47mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2013
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728