Clear and Present Danger

"How dare you come into this office and bark at me like some little junk yard dog. I am the President of the United States!
--President Bennett (Clear and Present Danger)

Judge N once again discusses the bin Laden killing. Over the past couple of days, the incident as recounted by the Obama administration has been under constant revision. First the administration claimed that bin Laden was armed and had fired on the Seals who had invaded his dwelling. Supposedly, Bin Laden had also used his wife as a human shield.

Clearly the administration, keeping an eye on the law, was trying to make the case that bin Laden had initiated the violence which subsequently resulted in his death.

The administration then changed its story--apparently because it didn't align with the Seal team's actual experience. Bin Laden was not armed, did not use his wife as a human shield, and did not put up resistance.

Under the law, entry of US troops into the sovereign territory of another nation, without a declaration of war against that nation or permission to enter by that nation, is illegal. Under the law, sending troops to arrest and capture a person wanted for mass murder and directing those troops to return the person to the US has been sanctioned by US courts in the past (but seemingly to me would require a court order first?). But under the law, sending troops to kill someone is illegal.

The law permits the president to capture and charge someone, but it does not allow him to kill someone that he should arrest.

We know that President Obama did not set out to do the former. Otherwise, in his explanation of the incident to the American people, he would have carefully outlined how the operation was designed to follow the law. Instead, he illegally authorized the use of lethal force.

The framers understood this situation all too well, as they frequently witnessed European kings killing whomever they wished in the name of 'safety.' Thus the framers wrote limits to executive power into the Constitution, and subsequent lawmakers wrote statutes to prohibit the arbitrary use of lethal force by executive order.

Now, the administration is suppressing evidence surrounding the event. Bin Laden's body was conveniently dropped into the ocean. Photographs and other evidence is being withheld from the public.

Hard not to view this as another case of poor judgment. At the very least, were I trying to fly a case of poor presidential judgment under the radar, suppressing evidence seems only likely to awaken more people from their state of legal slumber.

As the judge notes, a similar pattern can be seen in Libya. The president has involved us in another war that was not declared by Congress. Subsequently, the administration has given conficting explanations for why we are involved (a.k.a. 'mission creep'). Last weekend, an attack to kill Libyan leader Qadaffi failed, but left three children dead as collateral damage.

Indeed, judge, these are dangerous times. When people can act above the law, liberty is threatened.