@MikeDrewWhat Yeah, but you've got an American believed to have done no more than First Amendment. Does AUMF override that?
@MikeDrewWhat BC if he was established AUMF target presumably you wouldn't need POTUS signoff.
-
-
@emptywheel But wouldn't have to be established target; could be one-off - *under AUMF*. -
@MikeDrewWhat Possible. Except for things like warrantless wiretap we know there was discussion of who was included. -
@emptywheel Different strokes for different folks?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel ...Cld be that way bc mbe established targets under AUMF exlcuded all US citzns; instd phps such pot. targets were to be kicked>Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel > up for indiv. sign-off (or even not considered until Awlaki). But this wldn't nec. imlpy extra-AUMF justification. Hypothesis. -
@MikeDrewWhat Possible. Tho it WOULD need to be compliant w/Hamdi. Which (as Wyden points out) was limited to hot battlefield. -
@emptywheel Hm,okay. That may be enough to trigger broach of Art II discussion... -
@MikeDrewWhat FWIW, I ALSO think they thot they could get away w/no good reason, but WL release of Saleh convo makes problematic. -
@emptywheel You mean w/o specifying a legal justifcn? That's what I'm driving at. But that dsnt imply an Art. II just., & that's my point. -
@MikeDrewWhat Sure. Except they appear to be keeping that authorization secret based on a claim it was Article II. -
@emptywheel A claim to that effect? There isn't any such claim yet, is there? -
@MikeDrewWhat Pretty sure there is. That's what all those hints from McMahon are about, I think.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.