Skip to main content

View Diary: Holder responds to Paul (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site