We are not at War?

OK - so DiFi did a pretty good job of pinning Gonzales into a corner on circumventing FISA because of "war powers".

However, the US has not declared war on anyone (because we haven't found a state enemy), even though we are essentially fighting a war in two countries as authorized by the AUMF.

Gonzales even ADMITS that we are not at war.

Gonzalez: Well, of course, there has been no declaration of war here, so we can't take advantage of that particular provision. Our judgment is that it does not affect the legality of the TSP program, but let me explain why . . .

F: Whoa, whoa. But if I might just interrupt you, then you're saying clearly that the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force (in Afghanistan and Iraq, which the administration has used as an authorization/justification for its actions that might otherwise be out of legal bounds)] does not carry the full Constitutional weight of a declaration of war.


...


F: Yeah, well, see I, uh, think that Congress did . . . um . . . prepare for that eventuality, by providing the 15 days, and you're saying, well, it really doesn't apply. Well. . . in essence you're restricting the AUMF, which I think should be restricted, so you are in essence agreeing with my point.

G: Well, I agree with your point that the authorization to use military force is not a declaration of war - that is certainly true.

OK - let's follow this logice:

Some transcripts attribute this to the session, but the clip I have seen does not.


1. "So you're saying that the AUMF does not amount to a declaration of war?"
2 "Obviously they are different."
3. "So if the AUMF is not a declaration of war, the president shouldn't have WAR powers!"

Now, all we have to hope is that someone in the Senate or House picks this ball up and runs with it.

Essentially, the DOJ seems to be claiming that the AUMF is stronger than a full declaration of war. I don't believe that any senator that voted for this would believe that and EACH and EVERY ONE of them should BE ASKED THIS QUESTION:

"Senator, do you support the DOJ's claim that the AUMF provides the executive branch with more power than a declaration of war?"

Will anyone do so? I certainly hope so.

Naturally, the spin meisters are going to have a field day with this one.

Especially, watch the following hedges by Gonzales:

G: Senator, I beg your pardon. I'm going to go back and look at the transcript of your question, and I, I, I probably will want to modify - I want to make sure I'm being as accurate as I can about what we're doing because there may be some things here that may affect my response.

F: I would appreciate that because the way I view it a very conscious effort has been made not to submit certainly content collection to the FISA court.

G: Senator, this is something that you and I should have a . . .

F: Ok.

G: . . . a conversation about.

So - we'll see what's next.

These criminals have been "gotcha'd" many times but always seem to slither away.