Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

National Security & Defense

dixiegrrrrl

(60,175 posts)

2. apparently the US just ..redefined....imminent threat

Reply to unhappycamper (Original post)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 10:48 AM

Oct 2014

the USA definition, as John Oliver pointed out last week, completely runs counter to the standard meaning of imminent.

"

According to a Justice Dept. memo, an "imminent threat does not require the United States to have clear evidence that that a specific attack on U.S. persons or interests will take place in the immediate future"

btw...note the word..."interests".
And note how many times it is used in standard WH speech.." our interests here and abroad" being a common use.

Yet, never clearly defined.
But WE know, don't we?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What laws of war? We do what we want!: Obama Admits US Bombing Attacks in Syria Pay Little Heed to P [View all] unhappycamper Oct 2014 OP

Rules of War relating to armed conflict between Armies PeoViejo Oct 2014 #1

apparently the US just ..redefined....imminent threat dixiegrrrrl Oct 2014 #2