When lawyers go to war

The U.S. bombing campaign, as it happens, is walking a fine legal line because according to national security experts, we are operating under a very specific law.

You may remember that right after the 9/11 attacks Congress passed an “Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” or AUMF, which was very specific.

“The AUMF actually defines al Qaeda as ‘that group of people who carried out 9/11,'” explained Mary Habeck, who served as an al Qaeda specialist in the Bush Administration.

That very specific definition of al Qaeda, Habeck said, raises a potential legal problem.

“If it’s physically limited to the people that belong to al Qaeda on 9/11, under AUMF you have no right to carry out strikes against anybody,” she said.

That’s the potential legal glitch in all this.

Since the last thing Congress wants to do is hold another vote on the use of force, President Obama, right now, only has permission to go after al Qaeda, most of whose members are supposedly enjoying their heavenly reward.

Ah – but lawyers – especially Constitutional lawyers – always find a way.

“There is a separate authority you have to carry out attacks against imminent threats.”

And, in a remarkable coincidence, this is exactly how the Pentagon’s spokesman described that new terrorist group, the Khorasan, which we’re now bombing.

“In terms of the Khorasan group, which is a network of seasoned al Qaeda veterans, these strikes were taken out to disrupt imminent attack plotting against the United States and Western targets.”

He described them both as part of al Qaeda, and an imminent threat.

And therefore, it is all completely legal.