"What? No, I have never done that, I am certainly not going to do that."
Holder said nothing of the kind.
Holder said nothing of the kind.
...
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.
That leaves the option to use drones if they decide they're the "best means" 100% open.
"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."
"Hopes" are as meaningless as "intentions" in this context.
I'm choosing my words carefully there, by the way. I don't remember the actual wording, but that was literally one of Cheney's doctrines.
The former vice president, who is promoting his memoir, defended Obama against critics who challenge the legality of Friday's attack because al-Awlaki was an American citizen.
"I think the president ought to have that kind of authority to order that kind of strike, even when it involves an American citizen," Cheney said.
"It is different between a law enforcement action and a war," Cheney said. "And we are at war. We believe we are in war. We believe the war started when they killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11."
He didn't.
You will note the ancestor post above '[Rand Paul] has several times said all he wants is explicit clarification that drones will not be used against non-combatants, which people piloting a hijacked aircraft would clearly not be.'
And yes, Holder did say that the administration is not going to do that. If you think otherwise then I invite you to cite the specific statement you disagree with.
Why don't you cite the specific statement where he said that?
This: "We will not use drones for extrajudicial executions of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil." would qualify as such a statement.
"Intentions" and "hopes" do not.