*smashes the tumbleweed*

Back on topic, everyone!  X(

+1 -1
-1 +1

Okay, now I'm 100% convinced it's "xeno trying to get Flint to not post here." 

"Forgot" implies that it escaped his memory. 

Warned, Justinian.

on a train?

with a train. 

This isn't exactly a debate in which I'm aiming to get Kemp to tear down his whole philosophy.  Hell, my argument is entirely that, even if we spot Kemp 100% that the Obama Administration is arming for a war against the domestic population (i.e., even if I give the general philosophical narrative full truth value), it doesn't mean this drone issue was within that, given the specific facts at hand in the drone debate (i.e., given the facts at hand, it's very possible Obama was preparing every other form of warfare against the American population, but not drones).  So yeah, he can keep his philosophy for all I care right now. 

One problem, though: There is absolutely no contradiction between your link and my link.  There was no "change" in policy.  It's just a clarification.

These are from your link.

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration believes it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an "extraordinary circumstance" but has "no intention of doing so," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter disclosed Tuesday.

...

The Obama administration, Holder said, rejected the use of military force where "well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat." But in theory, it'd be legal for the president to order such an attack under certain circumstances, Holder said.

...

"For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001," Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise.

*********************

Your cite.  Gives two scenarios of when drone strikes would be usable in the US.  It cites no other scenarios.

Those scenarios are still on the table as scenarios in which drone strikes could occur.  As of my Holder quote, those were on the table.  The only difference... is that a clarification occurred outside scenarios such as those two.  Whereas before, the White House said "we would not do this, it's inappropriate, normal means for dealing with such are sufficient..." the Holder quote I gave simply adjusts that to replace "inappropriate" with "unconstitutional."

Yes... Obama does claim the right that, in an imminent combat situation, drones could be used to bomb threatening Americans.  But guess what: the US could do that anyway.  If you staged an armed Libertarian uprising against the Obama Administration, Obama would be absolutely in his right to bomb you.  Does that mean Obama has the moral high ground?  No.  It just means the conflict would have crossed the line between political and military.

Where, in either of our links, does Eric Holder outright say that he wants to reserve the right to bomb Americans out of combat?  This is what I asked you from the start.  I'm looking at your link, and it still indicates only the imminent threat scenario that was reiterated in my quote.

Am I missing something?  Please copy/paste for me the part where he literally says he wants to bomb out-of-combat Americans in America, so I know what you're talking about, cause I could be missing it here.  Cause remember, you're saying he "literally" said he wanted the right to bomb out-of-combat Americans.  If it's literal, as you say, there should be a quote outright saying exactly that.  I'm not seeing it.