Klinker,

I want to schedule some vacations, can you let me know when the hostilities are going to end?

I'll be very surprised if there is a declaration ending the hostilities in my lifetime. For the same reason authoritarian governments maintain a "state of emergency" for decades: local politics.

ZOMG HOW DO YOU STILL NOT GET IT!@!!!!??

So frustrating.

There will not be an end to the "hostilities." Consider this the lull before the next world war.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/atto...ges/singleton/

The title of that article is a perfect example of why GG is a dishonest hack. By saying that Holder is justifying "executions", he is implying that Holder is talking about prisoners we have under control. But Holder's central argument is that drone strikes are only warranted when capture isn't possible and there is an immediate threat of attack.

Article I read with Holder's side of the story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7945340.story

lol

"we can't find these guys" is not a very good argument considering they kinda have to know where they are in order to assassinate them.

Which is why I didn't make that argument.

He did not say "only" when capture isn't possible.

Also, execution does not imply "prisoner who is under control."

plz explain what "capture is not possible" means

they have super boss powerups?

This. Not sure why Iron pulled that assertion out of his butt.

oh come on.

Shhhhhhhh

I know I was terrified that 16 year old was literally seconds away from launching a chemical strike on DC. Good thing we caught him at the family barbeque in time.

(a) No, he isn't implying that. Look up the definition of execution. That's you doing the implying. BTW, the US does execute (actual) prisoners, no?

(b) Holder says that the Awlaki offing was warranted under the drone program. However, the program also may warrant killing under other circumstances. Salon.com seems to be down so I can't quote, but IMO you missed the whole point of the article so just reread it all later.

Also, the whole "I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists even though Barry uses it to get laid" that Holder does, is that an homage to Israel's nuclear program?

Yes, it does. That's not how GG meant it, but that's why he's dishonest.

You know what's dishonest? The Obama administration pretending there is due process here.

Why do you think that it does?

Because very few people would use the word "execution" to describe a drone strike.

I don't think they are:

The point of the balancing approach is that due process doesn't always apply.

Man the GG haters are really grasping at straws with this argument.

An execution is basically the carrying out of a death sentence. Seems like a very appropriate description of what took place with AAA.

Oh, that's terrible reasoning Iron81. There is no reason to make that assumption about execution implying prisoner under control. It's a fair word to use.

Which I guess is the crux of the disagreement. I know most fanbois here like to use the word because they dislike drone strikes and feel that using that word helps make their emotional case. But GG fanbois are a small subset of the population and thus GG is using a non standard definition of the word.

The funny thing here is that its pretty clear that there is a specific reason why he chose to use "execution" in his headline when, in the past, he has always said "due-process-free assassination" but that reason is basically the opposite of what you appear to be accusing him of.

Assassination, the word he has been using, implies that the killing was extralegal. Definitions of assassination:

But the word execution implies something that was done as part of the legal process. The definition of execution:

Normally when he talks about al-Awlaki's killing, when he says "due-process-free assassination," he is saying the US government, operating outside of the legal system, murdered one of it's own citizens.

Then yesterday Holder said "well, actually there was due process even if the dronee wasn't charged and the judicial department wasn't involved."

So today Greenwald's headline implies "Holder claims that a legal execution was carried out (as opposed to an illegal assassination) with due process, despite the fact that the executed was never even changed."

Now, if we can move past the headline, I'd suggest reading the actual post. It was really good.

It's hardly non-standard, imo, but I'm one of those fanbois so therefore my standard usage is automatically non-standard, by definition.

I don't know what you're supposed to call surgical death via a process that claims to abide by due process rules. It's a politically charged term, but it's not dishonest.