While the Obama administration deservedly revels in the success of the US operation to kill Osama bin Laden this week, one question remains: Why is the Justice Department threatening criminal prosecution of the men who made the mission possible?Compounding the idiocy, Obama the other day turned his back on Debra Burlingame when pressed on this outrage.
CIA Director Leon Panetta has acknowledged that the initial information that led to the discovery of bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad came, in part, from information obtained by "enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees." Yet Attorney General Holder persists in what appears to be a vendetta against these very CIA interrogators.
In August 2009, Holder ordered a continued investigation into "enhanced interrogation" techniques used by the CIA, even though an earlier investigation by career prosecutors concluded that no crimes were committed. The irony in all of this is made worse by President Obama's acknowledgment of intelligence agencies' role when he announced that bin Laden had been killed.
So with that in mind, here's the focus of Eric Holder this week.
A dancer from Venezuela who married an American man in a same-sex ceremony had his deportation placed on hold yesterday, one day after Attorney General Eric Holder set aside an immigration ruling in a similar case.In Eric Holder's world, gay illegal aliens have more rights that our military heroes.
Henry Velandia, 27, a professional salsa dancer from Caracas, wants to be allowed to remain in the United States as the spouse of US citizen Josh Vandiver, 29. The couple live in New Jersey but were married last year in Connecticut, where same-sex marriage is legal.
Yesterday, an immigration judge in Newark adjourned Velandia’s case until December, citing Holder’s decision a day earlier. In that case, Holder set aside a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling allowing the deportation to Ireland of Paul Wilson Dorman, a gay man illegally in the United States is in a civil union with his partner.
The board based its decision in the Dorman case on the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Holder asked the board to determine if Dorman would be considered a spouse under immigration law were it not for the act.