War Under Contract Law

Examining the President’s statement on the terrorist attack in Paris at the Kosher supermarket and White House spokesman Josh earnest’s “clarification” of it reveals a truly frightening picture. When we consider what characteristics are present and which are missing, it truly paints vista of true, real life, “breaking now” news of an Orwellian reality.

Here’s President Obama:

“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concern when you have a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shot a bunch of folks in a Deli in Paris.”

Now here Josh Earnest’s “explanation” in an exchange with ABC’s Jonathan Karl:

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: Jon, it is clear from the terrorists, some of the writings they put up afterwards what their motivation was. The adverb that the president chose was used to indicate that the individuals who were killed in there terrible tragic incident were killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be.

KARL: They weren’t killed because they were in a Jewish deli, though, they were in a kosher deli?

EARNEST: Jon, they were not targeted by name. This is the point.

KARL: Not by name but by religion, were they not?

EARNEST: Well, Jon, there were people other than just Jews who were in that deli.

This is a worldview based on legalism rather than morality. This is what one gets when one’s government completely disregards morality and completely depends on the legal system for identification of Islamic terrorism.

Before anyone gets twisted up over me condemning the morality of Islam, let me point out this one fact – this attack, regardless of its motivations, resulted in innocent people being killed. As a matter of fact, that was its stated purpose. The perpetrator, Amedy Coulibaly, admitted as much when he phoned French channel BFM-TV at height of siege and told them he was specifically targeting Jews.

In almost every culture, and specifically in Christianity, killing another in any other situation other direct self-defense is considered murder. The sixth of the Christian Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill.” Where the Holy Bible does not differentiate murder, the Koran does. There are suras that not only excuse the murder of non-believers, they command observant Muslims to kill infidels in the “protection” of Islam. Whether the majority of Muslims act on those suras is immaterial, it simply cannot be argued that they are there.

Setting that aside and getting back to the President’s words, I have actually dealt with attitudes like those displayed by the President and by Josh Earnest my entire career and I recognize them as easily as I recognize pictures of my own children.

This all sounds like a review of a DOD contract.

This is an example of what it looks like to fight a war using contract law. In contract law, we argue over what is allowed or prohibited based on the language of the contract. If the contract says that I must do X and not do Y, and I reasonably perform according to the contract language, the other party has no ability to go after me for damages, even if the other party does not like how I do it – or even if doing or not doing it produces a result the other party doesn’t want, I’m still insulated by the contract.

Earnest’s contortionist “explanation” that attack was not motivated by Islamic religious hatred even though the Koran commands such killing “in defense of Islam”, the perpetrator specifically wanted to kill Jews and he specifically chose a Kosher deli to attack because he didn’t specifically name his victims, this renders the event “random” and therefore it was not preventable and is not religiously motivated terrorism.

It is tortured language bordering on madness.

The same goes for the President’s and deceptive request of Congress for a new Authorization of Military Force against ISIS. This document is not designed to provide for the destruction of ISIS, it is the equivalent of a contract favorable to the administration for NOT destroying them. From the 3 year time limit to the caveat preventing use of boots on the ground, this is nothing but a cynical political statement which will allow the Obama White House to crow that it is “serious” about fighting terrorism because “Look! We are so super serious about fighting ISIS, we got Congress to act!” while actually asking for provisions that limit what we allow ourselves to do.

They do this because they know that half of America is so superficial and gullible, that they will only know that Obama went and got a AUMF but never know what they AUMF really says or means. This administration always adopts the idea of “let’s don’t do anything and just say we did.”

That is exactly what this AUMF request represents. Obama doesn’t actually want to do the work – he has demonstrated that over the past 6 years – he just wants contractual protection.

It is a bad contract that Congress should not sign.

One thought on “War Under Contract Law

  1. It seems to me the Fraud-in-Chief merely reiterated YET AGAIN what he ( and the US Military) WILL not do. As well as take YET ANOTHER swipe at G W Bush.

    In short it was “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.