My real job has been keeping me busy lately, thus I haven’t been able to post much. However, a story appeared from out of nowhere about 30 minutes ago and I feel compelled to make note of it.
In a rare, recent posting, I called into question the Obama Administration’s sincerity regarding its position on the Supremacy Clause and its decision to take Arizona to court over the tough immigration law the Grand Canyon State passed and signed into law. Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ), in its decision to sue Arizona using the Supremacy argument, seemed to be looking the other way when it came to other issues, such as sanctuary cities and medical marijuana on California.
With regards to sanctuary cities, I asked:
Much has been made of Arizona’s immigration law. From San Francisco all the way to the White House, liberals have panned the state, its governor, its legislators, and its citizens for coming to grips with what the federal government refuses to recognize: the border between the United States and Mexico isn’t really a border at all and something must be done to curtail the drug runners, gang-bangers and human smugglers. As it stands today, there’s virtually no difference between going from South Dakota to North Dakota and going from Mexico to Arizona, California or Texas.
But this isn’t about debating whether or not Arizona took the appropriate steps to deal with illegal immigration or whether the federal government has abdicated its responsibility in controlling the border and properly dealing with illegal immigrants already here. The courts, public opinion and politics will take care of that debate (as for public opinion, “nearly six in 10” support Arizona’s immigration law).
John Schwartz with The New York Times has an article highlighting a rift among “conservative legal scholars” over the ad released last week by Keep America Safe which targeted the U.S. Department of Justice’s hiring of seven lawyers who “worked in the past on behalf of detained terrorism suspects.”
“. . . Beyond The Expected Liberal Outrage, The Tactics Of The Group, Which Is Run By Liz Cheney, The Daughter Of The Former Vice President, Have Also Split The Tightly Knit World Of Conservative Legal Scholars.” (John Schwartz, “Attacks On Detainee Lawyers Split Conservatives,” The New York Times, 3/9/10)
Should advocates of alleged terrorists and detainees in the War on Terror be working in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)? A silly question, sure, pretty much a no-brainer. So why ask the question? Because believe it or not, there are Obama appointees inside the DOJ and lawyers inside the White House OLC that advocated on behalf of detainees and suspected terrorists.
On Friday, February 19, 2010, Byron York reported on Attorney General Eric Holder’s confession to housing nine Presidential appointments within the DOJ that “represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department.”
An interesting poll by Rasmussen shows that 58% of Americans would support “waterboarding” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of plotting with Al-Qaeda to blow-up Delta-NWA flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan on Christmas Day.
58% Support Enhanced Interrogation Of Abdulmutallab. “Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.” (“58% Favor Waterboarding Of Plane Terrorist To Get Information,” Rasmussen Reports, 12/31/09)
According to a post by Greg Sargent on The Plum Line, there is strong opposition to the Obama Administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) and others in New York for the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.
Greg Sargent: “I asked CNN for an age and party breakdown of their latest poll on this question, which found that two-thirds overall oppose trying KSM and his co-conspirators in a New York court, rather than a military commission. The results:
• “Dems prefer a military court 54%-43%. While that’s far less than the 79% of Republicans who prefer a military commission, that’s still a majority of Dems.
• “Independents prefer a military court, 62%-36%.
According to Josh Gerstein over at Politico, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is to be the keynote speaker in Detroit, Michigan, on November 19, 2009, at the "first annual awards banquet of Advocates and Leaders for Police and Community Trust, a coalition of several dozen law enforcement and community groups."
ThinkFY's full feed
