According to the protestor's own account, after her having made only a few remarks she "was handcuffed and taken to the basement of the building, where [she] was questioned about [her] background and motives---[and eventually] released." Apparently she was not making any threatening gestures or speaking profanely and was simply countering your remarks based on what she knew to be to be factual reporting of the deadly effects of
Q1. Why did you not intercede and ask your host to give the protestor a little more time to finish her remarks and questions and to give you a little time for a rejoinder?
Q2. By not altering your speech to respond to her remarks were you in effect acknowledging that your speech was intended to be propaganda for the administration's use of drone strikes and not a basis for debate?
On defining terrorism
Q3. I find no actual definition of terrorism in your speech. Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Codes defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." Would you agree that by that definition, the
Q4. Since by definition a terrorist is a person who perpetrates such violence, and since not all of the targeted individuals were involved in the attack on the twin towers, how can targeted individuals not involved be terrorists if they have not actually perpetrated violence in some other way against Americans, and what is the administration's rationale for killing individuals thought to "pose" a threat of violence from afar to the United States?
Q5. Since drones cannot and, as evidence indicates, do not distinguish with precision combatant from noncombatant targets, would you agree that according to the U.S. Code the administration's clandestine use of drones against noncombatant targets on foreign land is an act of terrorism by the U.S. and that perhaps that is one reason why you are the chief advisor on counterterrorism?
Q6. According to a legal dictionary, "Under most modern statutes in the
On your claims about the efficacy of the use of drone strikes by the
You begin your speech by saying you "very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss President Obama's counterterrorism strategy, in particular its ethics and its efficacy." I want to focus on the second particular first, that of efficacy or the ability to achieve the objectives of drone strikes by the
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
