>"Holder is saying the administration can launch strikes against al Qaeda." He actually took great care not to say that. He is carefully not limiting the pres

>"Holder is saying the administration can launch strikes against al Qaeda." He actually took great care not to say that. He is carefully not limiting the president to action only against AQ. The phrase "al Qaeda and associated forces" is deliberate. He is expressly reserving the power to decide who is "associated" to AQ and in a "leadership" position, and to take lethal action based on those decisions. All of these decisions are completely opaque and unchecked by any power outside of the executive. The 2001 AUMF is a sideshow. Holder doesn't think he needs it. He has opined that congress has no authority over the president in this area anyway, and that includes military action on U.S. soil: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/does_eric_holder_know_the_law/ http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/does_eric_holder_know_the_la... I consider this a dangerous concentration of power that the president should reject. This appears to be the crux of our disagreement, yes?