Posts Tagged ‘eric holder’

Obama Asserts Executive Privilege Over Fast and Furious Docs He’s Never Seen. Then Plays Some Golf.

June 20, 2012 Leave a comment

We’re transparent.

Well, everybody else is saying it, so why not us?  “Most Transparent Administration Ever.”  Hahahahahaha.  Not quite.

We’ve commented before about “Fast and Furious,” the Dept. of Justice operation that resulted in large numbers of guns landing in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, that ultimately killed a U.S. border patrol agent.  Well, the House of Representatives has been trying to get to the bottom of whether Eric Holder, head of the DOJ, knew about the operation.  In its effort to figure that out, the House subpoenaed records from the DOJ…which was met with a lot of inaction.  So the House is about to have a vote on whether to hold Holder in contempt for failing to produce required docs.  So what does Holder do?  He calls up his boss.  And what does the Most Transparent President Ever do?  Be completely transparent, if by “transparent” you mean the exact opposite:

President Obama on Wednesday invoked executive privilege to withhold from a Congressional oversight committee some documents and communications among his advisers regarding the failed gun enforcement operation known as ‘Fast and Furious,’ in which weapons purchased in the United States were allowed to cross into Mexico.

And by “some documents,” we mean thousands.  Why would the President do this?  Well, a letter from Holder to The One may shed some light on it:

In a letter to Obama seeking the assertion of executive privilege, Holder said the documents involved related to the Justice Department’s ‘response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries,’ and that release of internal executive branch documents would have ‘significant, damaging consequences.’

You know what the letter doesn’t say?  What those “significant, damaging consequences” are.  I think that’s pretty telling.  You know what else is telling?  The fact that the President hasn’t even seen the documents for which he’s asserting the privilege.  If this were happening in a court of law, such shenanigans are sanctionable.

Personally, I find all of this to be interesting, hilarious, and infuriating all at the same time.  Interesting: What happens if the head of the DOJ is found in contempt (probably not much)?  Hilarious: Obama asserting a privilege over documents he’s never seen, and that obviously contain some juicy info. concerning a bone-headed, Obama Administration program, won’t help him any with independent voters.  Infuriating: That none of the records are actually privileged; that nothing significant will happen to Holder (or Barry); and that we’ll never actually find out anything of substance about how everybody, from Holder to Obama, knew about Fast and Furious, since no one will actually challenge the asserted privilege in court…despite the fact that we, as taxpayers, own every single piece of paper they’re all arguing about in the first place!

At the end of the day, however, this is just one more entry in what will go down as one of, if not the, most corrupt administrations this country has ever seen.  So I guess we have that going for us.


Obama can have you killed. But only if he wants to.

March 8, 2012 3 comments

English: Eric Holder at Obama-Biden National S...

Now that we’re getting closer to election season, I will attempt to write more often.  Who knows…maybe I’ll even start my own radio show.  I’m certainly popular enough, and I have very profound things to say.  And I’m really smrt.  (Note: I spelled “smart” wrong on purpose.  Unlike that Alanis Morrissette song, doing so made the statement ironic.  I had to “note” this because, if I hadn’t, certain somebodies would be embarrassed that they married know me).

As you’ve probably figured out by now, I am a member of the group that does not support our current commander-in-chief.  I’m a member of this group for a lot of reasons.  The most recent reason has to do with his stance on, well, killing Americans.  Here’s the framework that the prez will work through before deciding to kill you, courtesy of Attorney General Eric Holder:

Mr Holder said there were circumstances under which ‘an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful.’

Such circumstances included that a thorough review had determined the individual posed ‘an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States’ and that ‘capture is not feasible.’

Thirdly, the ‘operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,’ Mr Holder told the audience at the Northwestern University School of Law.

Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’ They are not… assassinations are unlawful killings,’ Mr Holder said.

Look, I’m down with killing terrorists.  But the foregoing is asinine.  First, there is so much ambiguity built into the foregoing analysis that it might have been written by one of my kids.  What does “imminent threat of violent attack” or “capture not feasible” mean?  Who decides? The President decides, that’s who.  All by himself.

Keep in mind, this framework was made up by the government that just did the killing.  It hasn’t come from courts, legislatures, or the Constitution.  The Obama Administration simply made it up to support the killing of an American citizen.  That should concern you.  Why?  Well, because there’s nothing in the framework that keeps the government from arbitrarily bombing you; at home or abroad.

I know, I know…I can hear you now.  “But Holder’s comments above were only related to terrorists in ‘foreign countries.’  San Francisco may be full of crazy people, but it’s still America.”  Well, here’s Holder again:

‘Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefield in Afghanistan… We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country,’ he added.

In other words, the battlefield exists everywhere.  Maybe even outside of an abortion clinic.  Of course, all of this stems from our government shooting a missile at Anwar al-Awaki, while he was presumably stroking his ample beard in Yemen.  Anwar was a U.S. citizen at the time.  Our government could have gone through the simple process of renouncing his citizenship or indicting him, but they didn’t.  Instead, they simply decided he was a terrorist and blew him up.  Again, this should concern you.

The Constitution guarantees due process.  What is due process?  It’s basically the government accusing you of something, while giving you the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to defend yourself in open court.  Why do we have due process?  Because the country we ran away from, England, had a habit of arresting people on rumor and imprisoning/executing them without fair trials.  According to the Obama Administration, however, due process doesn’t mean, er, due process:

As Holder put it, ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.’

When it comes to U.S. citizens, due process and judicial process are one and the same.  The Administration’s position on this is astonishing, and it makes any past criticism of water-boarding and Iraq by the Dems border on lunacy.  Here, you have the Attorney General, a guy appointed by the President, abolishing the Constitutional requirement of due process, not to mention mountains of laws and decades of Supreme Court case law, all by himself.  There’s been no vote; no legislative process.  Just one man’s ideas.

I’m not one of those people who likes calling the president a Nazi.  It’s generally inaccurate and otherwise dilutes the point I’m trying to make.  That being said, unilaterally changing laws to centralize more power in one person has been practiced by totalitarian dictators throughout history.  Stalin murdered millions of his own people, simply because they disagreed with him.  So did Hitler.  And Pol Pot.  The list goes on and on, and they all justified it by calling the exterminated “enemies of the state.”

Am I being extreme?  Maybe.  After all, the only reason you, the reader, probably hasn’t heard about Holder’s statements is because no one really thinks it could happen here.  And maybe they’re right.  Of course, once it begins happening, it’ll already be too late.


What about Osama’s Civil Rights? *UPDATE*

May 5, 2011 6 comments

They're actually watching the season finale of "The West Wing"

It’s fascinating, isn’t it?  I wonder if the lefties realize just how inconsistent they’re being over this whole OBL killing thing?  But we’ll get to that in a minute.  Yesterday, we, as the bill-paying children of the United States, were told that we are not going to get any more information about the outcome of Barry’s steel resolve in the face of overwhelming odds: the death of Binny.  Not just the photo of his dead body, but anything.  While the implied reason for the lack of info is mostly “national security,” the real reason is probably that everytime more information comes out, the killing looks more and more like one of those George W. Bush productions that the libs hate so much.

Let’s take all the latest information we have to date and see where we are.  Our glorious president, overflowing with both moral and American values, gives a “kill order” to the SEALs.  Not a “try and capture him so we can bring him to justice and kill only as last resort” order, but a “I expect to see his dead body sinking into the Arabian Sea before anyone knows he’s dead” order.  So, we insert American military far into a sovereign nation, without its consent or knowledge.  We break into a compound under the cover of darkness, kill several occupants, although no guns were ever found in the house.  Finally, we kill an unarmed man, in his bedroom, in the middle of the night.  And if you believe his 12 year old daughter, we had actually taken Laddy into custody before putting a couple of bullets in him.  When asked whether this operation was legal, AG Eric Holder said yes, stating that we were practicing “national self defense.”  Hmmmm.

Now, this is where I need to point out that I fully support what Barry decided to do.  All things being equal, I’m a fan of assassinating our enemies.  If it were a sports team, I’d wear its jersey with pride.  Let’s get them before they get us.  That’s why I always supported going into Iraq.  Next, we should find the Yemeni cleric who was allegedly behind several of the more recent terror attempts, and drop a bomb on his head.  But this is a George W. Bush position to take, not a “Bush should have been impeached and put in jail because he fought an illegal war and illegally waterboarded those terrorists” position.

I’m wondering how long it will take for cracks to appear in the liberal’s support of killing OBL.  Yes, the Pakistani assertions that there were no guns in the house can be taken with a gigantic grain of salt, since their feelings were hurt by not being cc’d on Barry’s email to the SEALs.  Also, I certainly question the credibility of the 12 year old daughter.  But we do know that our Prez gave the “kill” order and that Binny was unarmed at the time we shot him.  That info. came from our own people…and I was told yesterday that not believing our government makes me crazy…and I’m the sanest person I know.

The point is, we all know that, had Bush been behind the raid, all we’d be hearing from those on the left is that it was illegal, or immoral, or not keeping with our American values.  They’d ask why couldn’t we take him into custody and try him in federal court in New York?  Seriously, where’s the ACLU?  OBL’s Constitutional Rights have been taken without due process!  Are the protectors of our Civil Rights too busy harassing public school students as they pray over their fattening lunches to get on this?

Simply put, you can’t be a namby-pamby on national defense that spent eight years constantly hollering about Bush being a war criminal when your current Prez likely broke both international and national law in the killing of an unarmed man in a foreign country, while at the same time, attempting to assassinate Gaddafi in Libya during another ‘illegal’ war…and expect to be taken seriously.  But then again, they’re liberals, and they should never be taken seriously.

[UPDATE] Uh-oh…not only was Binny unarmed, a senior defense official said only one of people killed was armed, and that guy was in the guest house.  War crimes?  Hello?  And that picture at the top of the page?  They may actually have been watching “The West Wing,” since there were “twenty to twenty five minutes” when no one in the situation room knew what was going on because the SEAL’s helmet cam went out. 

Why is this so complicated?

May 10, 2010 Leave a comment

Obama administration looks into modifying Miranda law in the age of terrorism

The issue isn’t when an individual should receive Miranda rights, but who should receive them.  American citizens, who are entitled to Constitutional Rights, should receive Miranda warnings.  That includes American citizens who are terrorists; See Timothy McVeigh and Faisal Shahzad.  The flip side are those who are not American citizens.  They should not receive Miranda rights (or a trial in American courts).

This is such a simple issue that one has to wonder why the Administration’s proposed fix is figuring out how to effectively decrease the rights of American citizens by expanding a narrowly-tailored exception to Miranda.

%d bloggers like this: