Reply #7: A FREEPER interpretation

[MadisonProgressive]

To: eyespysomething

Here's the bottom line of this memo.
Under Article 11 of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1 863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized but hound to resist by force . . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority");

"Force" means the application of military power, of which intelligence collection is one aspect. The following explains the scope of that mandate a little further.

The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, . . . in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." 5 2(a),

Okay, but isn't Al Qaida only in Afghanistan? How does that make it legal to go after them in America?

The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America.

That's basically it. Al Qaida personnel in America are considered agents of a foriegn power, and that foriegn power is in an open state of armed conflict with us. Simply put, they are not criminals, they are invaders.


33 posted on 12/22/2005 7:41:17 PM PST by Steel Wolf (* No sleep till Baghdad! *)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies >