What a difference a president makes! The NY Times' editorial this morning urged France to take a back seat on the bombing of Libya. (I write "bombing" because that is what I see happening. I have no idea what they mean by a "no-fly zone".) The editorialists urge that NATO take command of the campaign. NATO, of course, means the U.S., because the North Atlantic Treaty demands that an American general or admiral be the top uniformed officer in the alliance.
Nordicus is not sure whether he thinks we should be trying to topple the Libyan tyrant. But I know that he poses no threat whatsoever to the U.S. I also know that President Obama has not discussed the matter with Congress. So, the NY Times editorial board has not only endorsed U.S. imperialism, but an autocratic imperialism, whereby the Commander-in-Chief commits our armed forces to whatever whim moves him day to day, without any checks or balances.
John Boehner has written the president an eminently appropriate letter, respecting his authority as Commander-in-Chief, but firmly reminding him that his predecessors never executed such actions without consulting Congress.
In a similar vein, the Wall Street Journal reports that Attorney-General Eric Holder intends to further diminish the Miranda rights of terrorist suspects by administrative fiat, instead of asking Congress to amend the relevent laws. (See Evan Perez, "Rights curtailed for terror suspects," WSJ 3/24/11.)
As with respect to Libya, Nordicus has no opinion on these suspects' rights. But it's amazing to watch the media cheerlead presidential actions for which they would have been demanding impeachment, if executed by George W. Bush.