the “Rule of Law”

So I assume you read the post just before this concerning Obamacare waivers and the rule of law not actually applying equally to all concerned and how that might, you know, affect business, which, you know, affects the economy, which, you know, affect whether you have a job or not.

Well, this gave me a chuckle. It’s a serious subject about the US Judge banning a witness in the Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani trial. Why? Because the witness’s name was found during questioning of Ghailani during interrogations.

“The court has not reached this conclusion lightly,” Kaplan [the judge] wrote. “It is acutely aware of the perilous nature of the world in which we live. But the constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests. We must follow it not when it is convenient, but when fear and danger beckon in a different direction.”

…..

On that point, Kaplan said, “Abebe [the potential witness] was identified and located as a close and direct result of statements made by Ghailani while he was held by the CIA. The government has elected not to litigate the details of Ghailani’s treatment while in CIA custody. It has sought to make this unnecessary by asking the court to assume in deciding this motion that everything Ghailani said while in CIA custody was coerced.”

The judge noted that he had previously rejected defence motions to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that Ghailani was deprived of a speedy trial and that his treatment by the CIA was so outrageous as to require termination of the charges.

So somehow the constitution which is a rock upon which our nation rests must be followed in not allowing Abebe to witness, BUT it’s not such a rock that Ghailani should have a speedy trial OR that Ghailani should ever have any proceedings showing that he had harsh interrogations taken with him.

As Ed said,

Now there is no standard at all, except for whatever Kathleen Sebelius Judge Kaplan decides she he likes — and whom she he wants to favor.

Q(s)OTD

All by Ed Morrissey concerning the waivers from the White House to companies – some companies, not all companies – for Obamacare requirements.

1 –

If the marketplace had uncertainty before, the administration has made the situation much, much worse:

2-

The proper action would have been to repeal at least this portion of the law in order to give a level playing field to everyone. By granting a few dozen waivers at the outset, though, the White House has amplified the uncertainty and arbitrariness in ObamaCare even further.

3-

Now there is no standard at all, except for whatever Kathleen Sebelius decides she likes — and whom she wants to favor.

4-

From the start, ObamaCare lacked any clarity in regulation. Congress filled the bill with the phrase “The Secretary shall determine” in place of establishing rules and regulations for the massive regulatory regime Congress created. Now, the White House has added arbitrary enforcement to uncertain regulation and opaque processes. This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.