Published: Monday, March 18 2013 10:05 a.m. MDT
Mr. Holder did clarify that the President did not have the authority to use a
drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil unless that person was actively
engaged in combat against our country.I agree 100% that the HSBC
decision was a travesty. A kid caught selling pot on a street corner is going to
get prison time, but HSBC can launder hundreds of millions of dollars for the
drug cartels and they only have to pay a fine? We've always known the rich
and powerful get preferential treatment. I guess Mr. Holder's mistake was
saying it in public.
There are many laws on the books that are not enforced. Polygamy for example.
Hardly the "Holder doesn't think we are a nation of
laws" moment you are making it out to be.
One of the constitutional duties of the president is to "take care that the
laws be faithfully executed." We assume that this is to be done even when it
has negative impacts on rich and powerful friends of the president. If the laws
are not applied equally to all, we no longer live under the rule of law.
To "Roland Kayser" actually Eric Holder only said that the President
can't order a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil who is not engaged in
combat. If the President decides that a person's activity are to be
considered combat, he can authorize a drone strike.
Re: "We've always known the rich and powerful get preferential
treatment. I guess Mr. Holder's mistake was saying it in public."No. His mistake is not faithfully executing the laws of the land, giving
preference to cronies, who are fast becoming rich and powerful, expecting
preferential treatment in return for their political favors.If it we
just the odd law he objected to and couldn't bring himself to enforce, that
would be one thing. We all have our quirks. But Mr. Holder finds ways not to
enforce laws, or of just making up new laws as he goes along. Always to benefit
one or another important Democrat constituency.From election laws,
to Defense of Marriage laws, to immigration laws, to environmental laws, to
gun-control laws, to property rights and land-use laws, to pharmacy and medical
regulations, to the banking laws he insists he's too small to enforce --
this regime recognizes NO law or Constitutional provision as a limitation on its
actions.Which is the very definition of the rule of men, not of law.
For the record, Katrina vanden Heuvel's last name is 'vanden
Heuvel' not simply "Heuvel." That mistake would seem to explain
why a writer for the DN is quoting the editor of The Nation, one of the most
liberal publications in the country - he does't really know who she is,
only that she is criticizing the Attorney General.But let's not
get picky here. I welcome the DN staff illustrating that "the left" is
not afraid to criticize the President or his Cabinet when they make bad choices,
like not prosecuting the leaders of the worlds largest banking enterprises
simply because they are too big to jail. Those who have done serious research
since the 2008 meltdown of the economy have pointed directly to Wall Street as
the primary culprits in the troubles the world has been experiencing since then.
And instead of the top managers at those organizations suffering in any way,
least of all going to jail, they have enriched themselves with lavish bonuses,
some of which were funded by taxpayer bailouts. Shame on the Attorney General
and hooray for Katrina vanden Heuvel.
"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government, but illegal
for the citizenry." Thomas JeffersonIn any other administration, Eric
Holder would be prosecuted and bounced out of the Dept. of Justice!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments