Obama ignores law requiring military trials of al Qaeda

WSJ:
President Barack Obama issued an order Tuesday giving civilian investigators broad power to handle the cases of U.S. terrorism suspects despite a law passed late last year that favors military custody.
The decision is likely to raise hackles of lawmakers who included the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, and it could provide an election-year issue for Republicans.
Mr. Obama signed the bill under protest Dec. 31 and attached a statement saying he intended to disregard portions interfering with his presidential powers.
The law requires military detention for non-U.S. citizens accused of planning or carrying out an attack for al Qaeda and associated groups. At the White House's insistence, it included discretion for the president to waive the requirement if necessary to avoid disrupting terrorism investigations led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Tuesday's order takes advantage of that discretion to the fullest, preserving for the FBI and other civilian authorities the leading role in handling terrorism arrests in the U.S. Military detention would be an option in limited cases, largely at the discretion of the attorney general and federal investigators.
Mr. Obama's interpretation of the waiver authority is likely to clash with the wishes of the bipartisan group of lawmakers who pushed the military custody provision.
Republican Sen. Charles Grassley earlier called Mr. Obama's signing statement an "unconstitutional power grab" that Mr. Grassley said was part of a pattern, including bypassing the Senate to recess-appoint four nominees who had been blocked by Republicans.
...
Obama has become quite capricious in observing the rule of law.  He has become a law unto himself who decides what laws he will enforce and what he will ignore.  We have seen this earlier with immigration cases, his "recess" appointments and now on cases involving national security.  Ignoring the will of Congress can have its repercussions.  I think he will also hear about his high handedness on the campaign trail.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more