Late last year Congress, in a bi-partisan fashion, wrote into law the requirement that foreign born terrorists captured in the US be held in military custody as enemy combatants. Our president strongly objected to this provision, but signed the enclosing defense spending bill in to law with a “signing statement” recording his disagreement. Even after Congress wrote a codicil enabling the White House to waive the requirement in the interests of national security.
Well, give the man an inch:
Under Mr. Obama’s guidelines, if F.B.I. agents take someone like Mr. Abdulmutallab into custody and think there is probable cause to believe that the prisoner fits the definition of a terrorism suspect covered by the law, they are to notify the attorney general.
The attorney general, in consultation with other top members of the executive branch legal team — the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence — will discuss whether there is “clear and convincing” proof the prisoner is covered by the law.
If so, the officials are to consider whether the prisoner is covered by the waivers Mr. Obama is issuing. Even if not, the administration guidelines allow the attorney general to make other exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
All six members of an interagency national security team must agree before a prisoner is transferred to military custody, effectively giving any of them veto power over complying with the mandate. In addition, even if all six agree that a prisoner should be transferred to the military, the director of the F.B.I. must agree that the timing is right.
So if a terrorist is detained it requires “clear and convincing proof” that he is covered by the law, and even if he is, any one of a six-person star chamber – all of whom report directly to the president – may veto that decision. And if none can be found willing to do so, AG Holder can make exceptions on a “case-by-case basis.”
Why such broad interpretation of the “waiver clause”, which to the disinterested would seem like the executive branch deliberately gutting federal law, without even the intervention of the Supreme Court, the third c0-qual branch of government?
Because the president is smarter than Congress, that’s why.
the law covered americans so turning them over to military tribunals gives me chills. Our civilian courts do a fine job of handling terrorists so i would rather leave the military out of this.
Our civilian courts do a fine job of handling terrorists so i would rather leave the military out of this.
Can you give an example of this?
“[T]he law covered americans”
No, it doesn’t. Section 1022 specifically excludes American citizens, and section 1021 states “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
“Smarter than Congress.” Certainly smarter than Boehner who is seriously lacking either or both smarts / guts.
I sit here daily almost speechless (yes, I know..) in a blind rage as I witness the Elephants in Congress roll over/bend-over as Obama shreds one part of the Constitution/Federal Law after another without seemingly even a whimper. The ONLY reason I can think of is that the GOP is so wracked with “White Guilt” and so cowed by the prospects of being called RAAACIST!!!! by the Donkeys and their un-modulated megaphones in the MSM for daring to even criticize Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional actions, (let alone reign him in in via direct Congressional action or use of the courts via direct Congressional appeal) that they are paralyzed/frozen into inaction fearing a public backlash in an election year. Anyone have any other explanations for the supine stance of the GOP in Congress? Any replies may be directed to “Barbancourt, USA” as after learning of this latest I have serious business there..
I actually think it’s adherence to the rule “when you’re enemy is making a mistake let him.”
Obama wants a fight with Congressional Republicans. He can’t run on his accomplishments so he needs to run against a bad guy. There’s no way he can paint Romney as evil, so he needs the House to come after him. It’s almost as if his campaign team is using episodes of The West Wing for planning.
Much like dealing with a belligerent drunk, the key to winning is to not let him provoke you. This time next week the GOP nomination fight should be wrapped up and we’ll be able to focus on how Obama has made a dog’s breakfast out of, well, everything.
Because the president is smarter than Congress, that’s why.
“Damning with faint praise” is one of my favorite phrases.
Yes, that’s good, Ron, Lex does a nice job of that, but I prefer the old British appellation of “too clever by half” as applied to Obama.
“Committee: The only known form of life with more than six legs and no brain.”
Just another example of government by Executive Fiat used by His Emperor, The Wonness, Barak the First.
Yes, I know what everyone is going to say, but since I’m already listed highly on the earlier Bitter Raaaacist List, I just couldn’t restrain myself. I’m just waiting for the executive order suspending any further Presidential Elections after the 2012 debacle that we are heading toward.
Just sayin’.
For POTUS to manage that, he will have to declare martial law, and take over the political apparatus of all 50 states. The founders gave elections to the states to run. So it will take something more than an EO to end elections. While I think some of the senior ossifers might go along, POTUS will have serious problems with O-5 level and below.
The other part of the issue, is POTUS present and past have gutted the military and he got the troops to do it anymore. I think local citizens might not cooperate either. You’d probably be faced with a real civil war (1861-65 was not a civil war by any definition). I suspect we are headed toward a civil war and break up of the country anyway.
I would also add that the breakdown of support would be less decided by rank than by service. Some services are a bit more zealous about “right and wrong”, and view “Political Correctness” as a disgusting disease. Some services have even been called “extremists” (I think that was the term) by democratic congress critters, and took that as a compliment instead of the insult it was intended as. Of course, I’m not naming names.
Congratulations. You are now echoing the position of a very large number of progressive/liberals, who entertained equally silly ideas before the 2004 & 2008 elections, with respect to President Bush.
All of this is completely moot if said terrorist is “apprehended” in the proper fashion.