Reply #39: That's not really how he's using Hamdi

[alcibiades_mystery]

He's saying that they made a determination in 2001 that the AUMF could be interpreted in the way it was (i.e., to authorize domestic wiretaps in contravention of FISA, though they will say it doesn't contravene FISA because FISA has a provision that allows subsequent statutes to void it!). That determination was made on the basis of internal discussions. The Hamdi case, which was obviously subsequent to the beginning of the NSA spying program, is being used to bolster the determination made in internal discussions. he's not saying that they made the determination based on Hamdi, but that Hamdi proves that the determination they made was a legal interpretation of the UAMF. That's two different things. You didn't think catching a professional liar in the act would be that easy, did you?