Skip to main content

I've been completely out of the loop on the whole drone strike issue, so I'm not going to try and provide any insight of my own.

I do, however, think that this official response to Rand Paul's filibuster by Atty. General Eric Holder is worth posting:

(if the image doesn't load for some reason, here's the text of Holder's response):
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I Got Huge Issues With Holder, Obama, And (14+ / 0-)

    the drone program.

    But I can't argue that letter, in it straightforwardness and simplicity is refreshing.

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:34:25 AM PST

  •  A little late for the Obama haters (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrAnon, Sybil Liberty, second gen, FG

    and this place has many who lined up to support Paul and trash the President. It would have been nice if they had waited for a clarification before helping the Tea and the Republican party.

    Or for that matter..HR'ing someone who asked questions of them.

    Assholes are assholes. Whether from the right or left.

    ...the GOP seems perfectly willing to hold their breath until the whole country turns Blue.

    by tommy2tone on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:35:53 AM PST

    •  Two years of asking for information. (7+ / 0-)

      2 years of submitting questions to the administration.  And only now, during this confirmation process -- the confirmation of the Daddy of the Drone Program to head the CIA, does the administration

      A) Even formally acknowledge publicly that such a program exists

      B) after a leaked White Paper outlining the legal justifications for the power to target and kill US citizens accused but not charged of any crime on the authority of the president, does the administration agree to share SELECTED OLC legal rationales with the Senate Intelligence Committee -- and ONLY the members of the committee, not their legal staffs.

      C)  Rand Paul isn't the ONLY senator who has been making hay about it.  The ACLU and  Sen. Wyden, a frigging member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have also complained about how their requests for information has been either ignored or rebuffed by the administration.

      Two years it took.

      •  a better question (may have been asked already) (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lina, 4kedtongue

        would be: under what conditions does the Administration believe a drone strike could be used on American soil?

        If the answer above has been two years in the making, I have to believe that my question has already been asked, and the "nibble around the edges" questions have come in response to the administration's stonewalling. I'd still like my question answered, though.

        Reforms come from below. No man with four aces howls for a new deal.
        Keystone XL will raise gas prices!

        by Turbonerd on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:10:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Didn't Holder already answer that? (0+ / 0-)

          With, like, you know, the very 'effing answer everyone found so lacking just yesterday?

          This game of Calvinball is never going to end, is it?

          "Every now & then your brain gifts you with the thought, 'oh, that's right, I don't actually give a **** about this.' Treasure it" -- jbou

          by kenlac on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:16:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see a good answer to your question (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          4kedtongue, Catte Nappe

          In the sense that I think the actual answer is "when faced with an emergency situation where existing procedures and processes seem infeasible."  If the policy is that drone strikes will never be standard operating procedure, but they are reserved as an option on the table when there is no SOP, is there a way to convey that in a manner that would make you feel like your question has been answered?

          •  Well, given Holder's unequivocal 'No'... (0+ / 0-)

            ...which came after his qualified 'Yes', as you have paraphrased in your comment, the confusion is understandable.

            And since it has only been a few weeks since Michael Isikoff's scoop regarding the leaked White Paper which addressed certain OLC legal opinions creating the legal framework behind the Drone Program and Kill List that the administration has even admitted that such programs exists -- after 2 years of unanswered requests from multiple congresspeople and civil liberties groups -- a little confusion is understandable.

            Let's not pretend that Eric Holder has put this issue to rest.  There are still many issues surrounding these programs and the incremental chipping away of our Civil Liberties.

    •  I still love (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OLinda, falconer520, corvo, 4kedtongue

      how anyone who questions anything that Obama says or does must be an Obama hater. And here I thought only Republicans demand everyone to march in lock step.

      "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

      by just another vet on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:11:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Glad you see only one side (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        just another vet

        I questioned a post about Dems supporting a nut job like Paul while questioning the president...and...guess what? I was HR'ed..

        How does that figure in your comments just another vet? Supporting Paul and not one HR..Question supporting Rand Paul and an HR.

        I actually thought this place was to support Democrats..or..do you doubt Kos as well?

        ...the GOP seems perfectly willing to hold their breath until the whole country turns Blue.

        by tommy2tone on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:12:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I apologize (0+ / 0-)

          for not catching on to the HR part. Seems I was a little quick to respond yesterday. Tend to get testy about the Obama hater line. Who ever HR'd you was wrong to do so and should apologize as well.

          I am not trying to offer support for Rand Paul. He is an asshat to put it nicely. And of course we are here to elect more and better Democrats. As for Kos, well, he doesn't need me to care one way or the other what he says or does.

          We are all on the same team here. At least that's how I see it. Even when we disagree. So again I apologize for getting snippy. It was uncalled for.

          "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

          by just another vet on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:29:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think you've got the order wrong (0+ / 0-)

      Prime directive - trash the President
      Method du jour - cheering Rand Paul.

      The first doesn't change, the second is subject to the prevailing currents of the day.

      "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

      by Catte Nappe on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 02:03:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sure we'll be seeing lots of mea culpas (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radical Moderate, second gen, FG

    from yesterday's rec listers.

    Yup. Any second now.

    "Every now & then your brain gifts you with the thought, 'oh, that's right, I don't actually give a **** about this.' Treasure it" -- jbou

    by kenlac on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:36:32 AM PST

  •  Now define "engaged in combat"... (9+ / 0-)

    If you're not talking about what billionaire hedgefund bankster Peter G. Peterson is up to you're having the wrong conversations.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:36:41 AM PST

  •  Okay, how about (5+ / 0-)

    without a drone?

    •  Or how about if they use a drone... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen

      ...but only maim the target?

      Or what if the target is an American Citizen but doesn't have papers proving so at the time and the attack happens in Arizona and the drone forgets to ask?

      Wait, what about if the target has a bomb on a bus, and there's a puppy next to him, but it's a pit-bull puppy that will someday grow into Hitler's dog, and there's a fat guy you can push into the path of the drone, but if you do several nuns will die and...

      "Every now & then your brain gifts you with the thought, 'oh, that's right, I don't actually give a **** about this.' Treasure it" -- jbou

      by kenlac on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:52:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You sure have a lot of questions. (5+ / 0-)
        But when it comes to Obama's assassination power, this is exactly what his administration has done. It has repeatedly refused to disclose the principal legal memoranda prepared by Obama OLC lawyers that justified his kill list. It is, right now, vigorously resisting lawsuits from the New York Times and the ACLU to obtain that OLC memorandum. In sum, Obama not only claims he has the power to order US citizens killed with no transparency, but that even the documents explaining the legal rationale for this power are to be concealed. He's maintaining secret law on the most extremist power he can assert.
        My question referred to Obama's kill list and whether he has assumed the right to kill Americans without due process. A drone is not necessary and so does not need to be part of the question or answer.
        •  Would he do it with a drone? (0+ / 0-)

          Could he do it on the throne?
          Would he do it with a club?
          Could he do it in a tub?

          So apparently Holder is going to have to answer every possible permutation of the question before we stop with this game.

          "Every now & then your brain gifts you with the thought, 'oh, that's right, I don't actually give a **** about this.' Treasure it" -- jbou

          by kenlac on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:12:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for bringing it...just breaking on teevee (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:53:09 AM PST

  •  Since Paul and so many other (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG

    failed to understand the meaning of the first letter was also a No I guess a simple declarative sentence was in order.

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:58:23 AM PST

  •  oh, OK (8+ / 0-)

    so does he have the authority to send a piloted plane to shoot a cruise missile at an American citizen not engaged in combat on American soil? Does he have the authority to have a private merc shoot such an American citizen with a sniper rifle? If the government develops a satellite-based system of laser weapons, can Obama zap an American with it?

    This letter answers none of those questions. It is written as narrowly as it could possibly be.

    The emphasis on drones is a red herring. The point is whether the president has the authority to summarily kill an American citizen who is not in the process of committing any criminal act. It's not a hard question to answer, but the administration refuses to answer it.

    The particular means by which the killing is done of secondary importance. Dead is dead, whether you're killed by drone or gun or knife by being kicked repeatedly in the shins.

    You ask a president whether he claims monarchical power such as King George the III never had, and his administration answers "well, he can't use this particular technological means to exercise that power."

    So what? That says nothing about all the other ten thousand means of killing people that a modern American president has at his disposal.

    This is not a satisfactory answer; it is a purely political ploy intended to get voters off their backs. The American people deserve better than this mealy-mouthed crap.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:14:26 PM PST

  •  Still doesn't address (7+ / 0-)

    the assertion that 2001 AUMF authorizes military force on US soil.

    Indeed, it seems to contradict that assertion.

    If you can use military force on US soil, why can't you use a drone?

    •  Seems to me he is saying you can (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10

      After all, by the U.S. government's thinking, we are perpetually at war with terrorism and the battlefield includes the U.S. So if there is some person or group of people suspected of working with Al Queda or associated forces ("engaged in combat"), the U.S. government reserves the right to take them out.

      The only thing preventing a drone strike is that, as I think Holder himself mentioned in an earlier statement, it's easier to capture them most of the time.

    •  Well, the PRESIDENT can't use a drone... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OLinda, corvo

      After all, he's not qualified on them.  

      /snark

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:27:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The answer states... (0+ / 0-)

      "...not engaged in combat..."

      Yes, many other questions remain open, but this one sentence answer does not contradict the way you're indicating.

      "Every now & then your brain gifts you with the thought, 'oh, that's right, I don't actually give a **** about this.' Treasure it" -- jbou

      by kenlac on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:30:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It does imo (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catesby

        The reason is the President always has the power to act to defend the Nation, under Article 2, when someone attacks the US (as Holder implied in his letter to Paul, a letter that was not exactly what Paul wanted but was not what others insinuated.)

        The question is whether the President has the power, under the 2001 AUMF, to engage "enemy combatants" on US soil even if they are not "engaged in combat" at the time.

        My argument is the President is not so empowered under the 2001 AUMF.

        Holder said yesterday he was.

        He needs to retract that statement imo.

    •  I'd like to know (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando

      what exactly Holder was agreeing with rather than relying on one line from a NYT article as linked in your diary.  Is there a transcript or audio/video of that exchange with Lindsay Graham?  Have you seen it personally, and can you give an account?

      Sometimes journalists write things hastily without knowing the implications of what they wrote.

      •  To add, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando

        I'd like to see the full context of the conversation before drawing any conclusion about Holder's position.

        •  I understand (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jdsnebraska

          I watched it personally so I have no doubts but you are right to want to see it yourself.

          •  Was it in the same hearing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Armando

            where Holder was confronted by Ted Cruz?  Perhaps I can dig it up on C-SPAN's website.

          •  I actually found where Graham speaks. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Armando

            I'll let you know what I think, along with a link for others.

          •  Here's the link. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Catte Nappe

            I guess signing up for a C-SPAN account makes me an official political nerd.  Ha!

            http://www.c-spanvideo.org/...

            The conversation starts out with a question about whether the US military can use force to prevent an imminent attack, say, with Patriot missiles.  The answer is yes, I don't think anybody disputes that.  They talk about how American citizens who join al-Qaeda can be determined to be enemy combatants, which some on this site dispute.

            Here's the questionable part that you alluded to.  Forgive the caps--I'm not going to go through and format what I copied directly from C-SPAN.

            Graham: THE MILITARY HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE TO STRIKE BACK AGAINST AL QAEDA, IS THAT CORRECT?

            Holder: YES.

            Graham: NOW, WHEN WE SAY CONGRESS GAVE EVERY ADMINISTRATION THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST AL QAEDA, WE DIDN'T EXEMPT THE HOMELAND, DID WE?

            Holder: NO, I DON'T THINK WE DID.

            Graham: WOULDN'T THAT BE KID OF CRAZY TO EXEMPT THE HOMELAND, THE BIGGEST PRIZE, TO SAY THAT THE MILITARY CAN'T DEFEND AMERICA HERE IN AN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCE?

            Holder: NO, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.  THE QUESTION OBVIOUSLY IS WHAT FORCES DO WE USE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

            Graham:  AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF CAPTURE IS VERY HIGH IN AMERICA AND WE HAVE A LOT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AVAILABLE AND THAT WE WOULD PUT THEM OUT FRONT.
            BUT CERTAINLY MOST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES I KNOW OF DON'T HAVE PATRIOT MISSILE BATTERIES, SO THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE MILITARY CAN PROVIDE CAPACITY TO PROTECT THE HOMELAND AGAINST A TERRORIST ACT THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN'T.

            Holder:  AND THAT WOULD BE -- THAT WOULD BE THE RARE CASE.  BUT IN THE LETTER THAT I SENT TO SENATOR PAUL, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I REFERENCED SEPTEMBER 11th.

            I think it's too vague to know for sure what specifically Holder is advocating, especially since this is in the context of defending the United States against imminent threats.  The only "authority" Holder claims here is the authority to "defend America [...] in an appropriate circumstance."

            Maybe the most questionable part is when Graham asks if we did not exempt the homeland from the AUMF.  Holder answers, "I don't think we did."  Maybe that part would raise eyebrows, but it's kind of an odd question to ask.  The alternative would be to give a legal mumbo jumbo argument to the effect of "we do not launch military actions in the United States except in extreme circumstances" and then get jumped all over for not sufficiently protecting America.  I think that's what Holder may have been alluding to when he said that it would be a rare case.

            At any rate, it certainly seems different to me than believing the president can authorize any military action in the United States underneath the umbrella of the AUMF, and there was certainly nothing there that suggested a conflict with Posse Comitatus.

            This is just a layman's perspective of just analyzing the conversation in context, along with a superficial understanding of the legal framework, so I'm interested to hear a lawyer's point of view.  My mind is open.

            •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jdsnebraska

              Graham's question is perfectly clear as is Holder's answer:

              Graham: THE MILITARY HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE TO STRIKE BACK AGAINST AL QAEDA, IS THAT CORRECT?

              Holder: YES.

              Graham: NOW, WHEN WE SAY CONGRESS GAVE EVERY ADMINISTRATION THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST AL QAEDA, WE DIDN'T EXEMPT THE HOMELAND, DID WE?

              Holder: NO, I DON'T THINK WE DID.

              In Afghanistan we have deployed tens of thousands of soldiers, fired innumerable, munitions, killed thousands of people.

              Graham is asserting, and Holder is agreeing, that the President has been empowered to use military force like we have outside of the United States.

              To wit, "the Homeland is not exempt." Now is it likely, appropriate, good policy? That's a different point. The point they are making is the President is empowered to do what he feels is appropriate. There are no legal restrictions from a Constitutional point of view, no due process issues, no nothing.

              The folllowing exchange highlights this point:

              Graham: WOULDN'T THAT BE KID OF CRAZY TO EXEMPT THE HOMELAND, THE BIGGEST PRIZE, TO SAY THAT THE MILITARY CAN'T DEFEND AMERICA HERE IN AN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCE?

              Holder: NO, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.  THE QUESTION OBVIOUSLY IS WHAT FORCES DO WE USE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

              The question is "what forces to use, but I think we have that authority."

              This is directly a Posse Comitatus problem as I outline in my post from yesterday.

              •  Doesn't the Insurrection Act cover it? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jdsnebraska

                It appears to bypass Posse Comitatus issues in some circumstances that would be similar to the sorts of circumstances where drone use is being hypothesized.

                "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

                by Catte Nappe on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 02:17:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Insurrection Act (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Catte Nappe

                  refers to attempts to overthrow the government.

                  The Civil War is an example of what would be covered there imo.

                  To me the issues discussed on the WoT and the AUMF fall squarely into Posse Comitatus.
                   

                  •  Still looks like ample wiggle room to me (0+ / 0-)
                    Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
                    But you are the lawyer ;)

                    "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

                    by Catte Nappe on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 02:45:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I disagree that (0+ / 0-)

                Graham is asserting that the same power under AUMF exists outside the US as inside.  The focus of his line of questioning seems to be surrounding imminent threats.

                Here was the conversation that occurred directly before the blockquote posted above:

                Graham:  SO THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THERE ARE PATRIOT MISSILE BATTERIES AROUND THIS CAPITOL AND OTHER KEY GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURES TO PROTECT THE CAPITOL FROM AN ATTACK, IT WOULD BE LAWFUL FOR THOSE BATTERIES TO LAUNCH, IS THAT CORRECT?

                [crosstalk]

                Graham:  IF THERE WAS A -- IF THERE WAS INTELLIGENCE THAT AN AIRPLANE WAS COMING TOWARD THE CAPITOL OR THE WHITE HOUSE, IT HAD BEEN HIJACKED -- IT WOULD BE OKAY FOR OUR MILITARY TO ACT, WOULDN'T IT?

                Holder:  YES.

                Graham: THAT WOULD BE AN IMMINENT THREAT.

                And this portion was discussed directly after the blockquote posted above.
                Graham:  WHAT WOULD WE ALL GIVE TO HAVE THOSE PATRIOT MISSILE BATTERIES AVAILABLE ON SEPTEMBER THE 10th, 2001, IN NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON? IT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT WE'D HAVE LOST A PLANELOAD OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, BUT WE'D SAVE THOUSANDS MORE.  THAT'S THE WORLD IN WHICH WE LIVE IN.
                It seems to me that the most we can without a doubt ascertain from this conversation is that Holder agrees that the President can use military force to stop an imminent attack.  You're right, I don't think such a thing would be authorized specifically by the AUMF, but it's a power held naturally by the government, to stop imminent threats or attacks from happening.  As far as I understand it, Posse Comitatus does not prevent the government for taking action when law enforcement is not able--this would be such a case.

                But from this piece of tape alone, it is unclear at best whether Holder would agree that the President can order military strikes inside the United States without an imminent threat, like we're doing in Yemen or Pakistan.

                Of course if we disagree on that point that's certainly okay.

                •  We'll just have to disagree (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jdsnebraska

                  I think it is exceptionally clear on the legal issue.

                •  I'd add (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jdsnebraska

                  that you are correct that the President has constitutional power and duties to defend against imminent attack.

                  There is no need to even reference the AUMF for that.

                  That is the point. The reference to the AUMF is why it is clear that the argument is that the President was granted equivalent authority by the AUMF in the US as he has outside the US.

                  Otherwise there is no point to the question.  

                  •  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.

              •  But the act says this: (0+ / 0-)
                From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ;
                So doesn't an act of Congress - in the AUMF - override it?
  •  At this point I have to ask (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt

    why I should believe anything he says.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:37:21 PM PST

    •  believe him when he says that SS needs "reform" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo

      because he keeps floating the idea again and again after it's been repeatedly slapped down by the public.

      Other that, I dunno. I mean, he completely reinterpreted the "due process" clause in the Fifth Amendment to mean "whatever I or my subordinates decide upon," when it's meant courts and trials since at least the days of the Magna Carta.

      So given how he seems to think that the meanings of words are completely and totally fluid, I don't know how anyone could believe what he says. Because he may interpret what he says to mean something completely different from what you think he says, whenever it's convenient for him.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:50:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I was actually asking about Holder (0+ / 0-)

        but you're still right.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:51:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, define "combat" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, BigAlinWashSt

    or "giving support to" the enemy.  They sure haven't so done in the NDAA lawsuit.

    ..the smoker you drink, the player you get....

    by Diane Gee on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:27:50 PM PST

  •  Doesn't matter. End the War of Terror. (0+ / 0-)

    End U.S. Imperialism.

    "The Global War OF Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:38:26 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site