Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
Robert Delahunty and I have a piece in the Daily Caller today delving further into Obama's limp claim that the Libyan war does not count as "hostilities" under the War Powers Resolution. From the candidate, and his party, that accused the Bush administration of placing itself above the law, comes the claim that spending a billion dollars to use drones to attack Libyan ground forces, including their leader, does not violate the War Powers Resolution because there are no ground troops involved and hence no possibility of US casualties. Under this logic, the US could drop bombs on Caracas and try to kill Hugo Chavez without crossing the boundary into a war.
It also turns out that the Obama administration played games with the way legal positions are developed within the executive branch. Instead of the Justice Department, where Robert and I both worked under Bush, setting forth the views of the executive branch, the Obama folks solicited views from different agencies and just picked the one it found most convenient for a decision already made. DOJ lost, and seems to have lost its once exclusive role as the law interpreter and enforcer for the executive. Does anyone else here think it's time for Eric Holder to resign?
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
"Does anyone else here think it's time for Eric Holder to resign?"
Yes! Along with about a half dozen of his top assistants.
Nov '10
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
"Does anyone else here think it's time for Eric Holder to resign?"
Yup. Never should have been hired in the first place.
Oct '10
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
resign? what about seppuku?
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
He should not resign until he is made to explain the full story behind the ATF conniving in the running of guns to the drug cartels in Mexico. Let him twist and twist in the wind -- until his master has to get rid of him as a liability.
In the meantime, the folks consulted at DOJ should resign in protest at what Obama has done.
May '10
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
cdor: "Does anyone else here think it's time for Eric Holder to resign?"
Yes! Along with about a half dozen of his top assistants. ยท Jun 20 at 10:44am
What is the old joke - what do you call a double decker bus full of lawyers going over a cliff with one empty seat? A missed opportunity. Freely substitute Holder et al in the above.
This Administration really does not have a clue does it? Foreign Policy, the AG and DOJ, Trials of terrorists, Black Panther thugs at voting booths, record borrowing, record unemployment, borders like sieves, ignoring the constitution when you feel you must have your policies delivered by the bureaucratic class.
(On the Black Panther thuggees, in my home electorate in Australia all cavassing is banned within 30m of the enterance to a voting area; and at the last election I had a union sponsored representative removed from within the polling booth bounds - the kid didn't know the law)
Jan '11
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
I'm exasperated at the utter lack of shame in playing word games, rather than to defend a policy or appeal to the public for support. They show no signs of caring whether the people support them. They consider the authority of government to be a plaything, captured like a flag, which they brandish as if it was now their property.
Oct '10
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
This is to imply that they are not trying to wreck the country on purpose. I'm fairly certain that their game is to undermine the foundations and institutions of our country and make it more amenable to their ideology. To ascribe to them mere incompetence is to fail to recognize the very real threat.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
By the logic used it would not be an act of hostility subject to congressional control/oversight to just nuke someone. We can do that from the middle of the ocean and endanger no service members in the process. It would be overkill, but at least Obama wouldn't be considered a wimp anymore.
Nov '10
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
Here is another laughable Holder moment
Oct '10
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
One thing to remember, Obama stated, I Won ! Now there is a stance that pulls many things into perspective and speaks volumes about the man.This seems to be say it will be his way no matter what...Something that rises from a blunt and unreasoanable person.
May '10
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
Holder deserves the Ramsay Clark Award for most absurdly incompetent AG since Ramsey Clark.
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Farcical Definition of "Hostilities"
I would love to write more about this, but it is a bit too close to what I do for a living. I will comment that the War Powers Act is, at best, only marginally consistent with the Constitution. Certainly, no SCOTUS would ever take a case to make such a determination.
My experience is that past administrations have regarded the Act not so much as proscriptive law as the framework for a political compromise between Congress and POTUS - in that sense, the current administration is taking an approach that five prior Presidents, of both parties, did not. The contention that our actions in Libya are not hostilities is tantamount to open defiance of the War Powers Act. In the context of what I noted above, this is not so much an illegal act as an aggressively political one. The only answer to such an action must also be political.
Others here have said everything I could or would about the current Attorney General.