Skip to main content

View Diary: Holder responds to Paul (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

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

    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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site