Skip to main content

View Diary: Holder responds to Paul (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Perhaps if it were a law colloquium. (0+ / 0-)

    But I think I'll need more than a Senate hearing, during which the only kind of military action Graham referenced is self-defense for an imminent threat, to be convinced that Holder believes that military actions can be authorized on US soil by the President absent such a threat.

    I know Lindsey (I've been misspelling his name all this time) Graham is a lawyer, but he's also a politician.  Is he asking a specific legal question about whether the AUMF authorizes military strikes inside the US absent an imminent threat, or is he asking a political question about defending the homeland against imminent threats?  Tough to tell.  Do you think Graham would agree, as a lawyer, that Posse Comitatus prevents military action inside the United States absent an imminent threat?

    There is too much uncertainty for me to agree conclusively.  It raises the possibility, I'll give you that much, but it's not enough for me.

    But the constructive conversation was helpful, and we can disagree like gentlemen, thank you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site