Squashed

A blog of politics, law, religion, and the tricky spots where they collide.

Questions? Contact.

pegobry:

atestu:


“not engaged in combat”


“weaponized drone”

So, if we can argue you’re “engaged in combat” (and given that we’ve previously said that “imminent” also means “not imminent” we can pretty much argue you’re “engaged in combat”) you’re fair game. 

And even if we can’t do that, we just have to use something other than a drone. 

Oh, and the utterly graceless, contemptuous tone of the letter.

I’ve observed in the past that libertarians may be the only group of people who hate winning even more than progressives. When the libertarians stumble across an issue where they can get by partisan attention and support, it requires some real talent to nevertheless sound like fringe conspiracy theorists.

First, who can spot the basic logical error in this statement?

So, if we can argue you’re “engaged in combat” (and given that we’ve previously said that “imminent” also means “not imminent” we can pretty much argue you’re “engaged in combat”) you’re fair game.

Let’s break it down. We’ll make “P” mean “engaged in combat” and “Q”  mean “permissible to kill with a weaponized drone.”

¬P → ¬Q

The inverse, that P → Q or that anybody engaged in combat may permissibly be killed by a drone. And it’s utterly irresponsible to suggest that the letter takes a stance on something like ¬P → R, where “R” means “permissible to kill with by any means other than a drone.”

Second, of course the tone was contemptuous. Rand was making wildly irresponsible accusations at Holder in order to hold up Brennan’s nomination. Brennan is essentially Drone Architect #1. But Rand wants answers from … Eric Holder? Because why?

Oh. Because Eric Holder isn’t a former Bush appointee and a neo-con darling.

pegobry:

atestu:

“not engaged in combat”

“weaponized drone”

So, if we can argue you’re “engaged in combat” (and given that we’ve previously said that “imminent” also means “not imminent” we can pretty much argue you’re “engaged in combat”) you’re fair game. 

And even if we can’t do that, we just have to use something other than a drone. 

Oh, and the utterly graceless, contemptuous tone of the letter.

I’ve observed in the past that libertarians may be the only group of people who hate winning even more than progressives. When the libertarians stumble across an issue where they can get by partisan attention and support, it requires some real talent to nevertheless sound like fringe conspiracy theorists.

First, who can spot the basic logical error in this statement?

So, if we can argue you’re “engaged in combat” (and given that we’ve previously said that “imminent” also means “not imminent” we can pretty much argue you’re “engaged in combat”) you’re fair game.

Let’s break it down. We’ll make “P” mean “engaged in combat” and “Q” mean “permissible to kill with a weaponized drone.”

¬P → ¬Q

The inverse, that P → Q or that anybody engaged in combat may permissibly be killed by a drone. And it’s utterly irresponsible to suggest that the letter takes a stance on something like ¬P → R, where “R” means “permissible to kill with by any means other than a drone.”

Second, of course the tone was contemptuous. Rand was making wildly irresponsible accusations at Holder in order to hold up Brennan’s nomination. Brennan is essentially Drone Architect #1. But Rand wants answers from … Eric Holder? Because why?

Oh. Because Eric Holder isn’t a former Bush appointee and a neo-con darling.

  1. other-stuff reblogged this from squashed and added:
    A country of laws conducts trials before sentencing.
  2. squashed reblogged this from pegobry and added:
    Let’s break it down. We’ll make “P” mean “engaged in combat” and “Q” mean “permissible to kill with a weaponized drone.”...
  3. kv96ic28 reblogged this from pegobry
  4. pegobry reblogged this from atestu and added:
    “weaponized drone” So, if we can argue you’re “engaged in combat” (and given that we’ve previously said that “imminent”...
  5. atestu posted this