NYT October 28, 2015 by Charlie Savage
The lawyers decided that a unilateral military incursion would be lawful because of a disputed exception to sovereignty for situations in which a government is “unwilling or unable” to suppress a threat to others emanating from its soil.
Invoking this exception was a legal stretch, for two reasons. Many countries have not accepted its legitimacy. And there was no precedent for applying it to a situation in which the United States did not first ask Pakistan, which had helped with or granted consent for other counterterrorism operations. But given fears of a tip-off, the lawyers signed off on invoking the exception.
There was also a trump card. While the lawyers believed that Mr. Obama was bound to obey domestic law, they also believed he could decide to violate international law when authorizing a “covert” action, officials said.
Well, isn't that revealing. Especially considering that the Obama Regime has argued the opposite, at least as regards to domestic law. Both publicly and before courts, especially during the Arizona controversy, the Regime has claimed that the President can ignore domestic law, especially if it involves any implication on foreign policy, and that deporting any alien is not part of domestic law, but of foreign policy. Even more interesting is that it was Jeh Johnson who was arguing that the President can't ignore domestic law, or, more properly, American law, as opposed to international law. Clearly the Obama Regime has an openly Marxist attitude to the law, the ends justify the means.