Skip to comments.Law, Legalisms and Lying about Libya (Excellent rebuttal of State Dept)
Posted on 09/15/2012 9:07:13 PM PDT by barryobi
First, lets pretend for arguments sake that the paramount consideration in Libya were the criminal investigation rather than national security and political accountability (particularly at a time when the nation is about to choose a commander in chief). Even then, it would not be true that the commencement of a criminal investigation precluded comment by the government.
As a matter of law, grand jury secrecy applies only to evidence that the government learns solely by the grand jury process e.g., I, the prosecutor, give you, the witness, a grand jury subpoena and, under that compulsion, you show or tell me something I would not otherwise have known.
It is entirely appropriate for the public to demand answers about what happened in Libya, even if the Justice Department happens to be investigating some of these events. And the killing of our ambassador and other personnel particularly if it was done by al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists who are enemy combatants under Congresss post-9/11 authorization of military force is an act of war. If we are again adopting the Clinton approach of treating a war as a crime, that, too, is something the public should be told about.
The president used military force in Libya itself when he launched an unprovoked war against the Qaddafi regime when there were no vital American interests at stake he decided that, too, was a military engagement not fit for law-enforcement processes. So now, after all that, youre going to tell us that the killing of our officials by foreign terrorists with whom we are at war is a law enforcement matter that you cant talk about? Are you serious?
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Obama is going to let in about 250K “new” muslims after the election.
Do we really want to give out enough information that our enemies can figure out how we are trying to catch them? I wish my son (Special Forces) were available for me to get his opinion, but he is headed to Afghanistan.
But doncha know that Law 101 in any classroom in the country accepts the fact that democrats are allowed to pull this argument out of hat whenever they need it? Remember Clinton? Think he had an idea of what happened in the oval office with Monica? Of course not! He needed to wait for an investigation to discover what went on. So said he, so said Justice, so said the courts, so said the media and the ABA, Poor Andrew’s living in another world.
Exactly the same excuse they have been giving for covering up the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning to Mexico. It is under “investigation”, therefore we cannot tell you anything. Total BS, but they have the MSM to cover for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.