Hillary Clinton has declined interviews, saying “We will seek our attorneys,” over breaking news that US assistance to Syrian rebels in order to oust the Assad government, could violate the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
Admittedly, the Obama administration is caught between upholding the NDAA, on the one hand, and charging itself on the other, in which case it can be arrested without habeus corpus and held without charge, indefinitely.
The problem is indicated by increasing reports and intelligence showing the Syrian rebels and opposition forces are largely staffed with Al Qaida, declared by the United States to be enemy combatants, and who was much in the minds of those who created the NDAA in the first place.
Reporters are asking how can Al Qaida be our comrades-at-arms? Does supporting them against the Assad regime violate the NDAA? Or should Al Qaida be excepted from the NDAA when it is attacking other people the US wants to attack, as happened previously in Afghanistan in the 1980’s?
While declining to be interviewed, Hillary did assert carefully, “Um. We of course are always on the side of those fighting for democracy against violations of their rights. That is our, um, only interest in Syria. If the protesters happen to be Al Qaida we will need to consider exceptions to the NDAA statute. We are quite sure there is no inconsistency here. But we will need to get with our lawyers.”
But could the President, as Commander-In-Chief, actually arrest and incarcerate himself? That is the question, since after all he is ultimately responsible for the US position in the Syria quandary. And could he then hold himself without trial in detention with no end in sight?
There was no answer to this question although one reporter did purport to read Hillary’s lips as she retired from the microphones, in which Hillary seemed to be saying, “First, we have a re-election campaign to run.”