@MikeDrewWhat Webster report says they did not believe him to be operational on 12/24/09 when they first targeted. IC briefers have repeated
@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 -
-
-
@emptywheel ...But yeah, I think this is likeliest, where "no good reason" = explicit bt very loose reliance on AUMF that ultimately fails. -
@MikeDrewWhat That may be retroactive--w/the torture FOIA ruling, they know they can keep all taht MON secret. So just claim it to hide it. -
@emptywheel Don't follow that. If anything, seems to me Art. II would come up as later defenses of real-time loose AUMF reliance fail.
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.