Over the weekend, I spent several hours debating the overlapping topics of drones, the war on terror, Eric Holder, Rand Paul and, yes, semantics with Glenn Greenwald on Twitter. Not shockingly, several of my closest friends wondered out loud why on Earth I would engage in such an endeavor considering how, in their view, Greenwald is incapable of conceding even the smallest point and therefore debating him in 140 characters or less is not unlike smashing my face against a brick wall. Of course, my only response to their concerns is the honest one: I simply can’t help it. Louis CK, in his Live at the Beacon Theater show, observed how women “get to” have perverted thoughts, but men “have to” have them. And so it is with me and debating politics. My friend Chez and others get to. I have to. It’s my nature. It’s not the debate that will give me an aneurism — it’s not having the debate that’ll make my head explode.
I have no intention of recapping the entire debate here. You’ll have to click over to Twitter for the play-by-play, but mainly, though, I’d like to cover a few points that Greenwald and others have made throughout the last week or so on these adjoining topics encompassing the president’s war powers and his use of targeted killings. [continue reading here]