FamilySecurityMatters.org recently took part in a conference call about President Obama’s nomination of Harold Koh to serve as legal advisor to the State Department. Co-sponsored by the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, the Heritage Foundation, Center for Security Policy, RedState.com, Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin, the call featured Andrew McCarthy and Ed Whelan, both of whom have written extensively about Koh’s nomination and what it means for both American sovereignty and security.

 

The call was moderated by Frank Gaffney, Jr., who described McCarthy and Whelan as thoughtful observers of the national security and legal arenas, and who have both extensively studied Koh’s record and his views – and as such, are credible critics of the Koh nomination.

 

Andrew McCarthy began by stating that Koh’s record clearly indicates that he is a post-sovereign transnationalist, and as America’s jurisprudence is built on the concept of national sovereignty, Koh would undermine that, as he sees a world order where the U.S. is simply one voice among 190 plus nations. It is, McCarthy emphasized, important to note that “opposing Koh is not an attack on his integrity or a claim that he is not a very brilliant, thoughtful law professor. You can oppose someone on policy grounds and not think they are the devil incarnate.” McCarthy’s views on what Americans need as far as security concerns go are very different than Koh’s.

 

Ed Whelan continued the theme of Koh’s position as a “radical transnationalist,” noting several ways in which Koh’s installment into the State Department would adversely affect Americans. For one, Koh would like to see the Supreme Court interpret our Constitution by taking into consideration of international and foreign law, which would erode American rights. He also wants to add new “rights” that are favored by the left. Koh would also encourage the misuse of treaties, often called “human rights treaties,” to enforce “social justice.” Speaking of treaties, Koh also believes that even if the U.S. rejects a treaty, it can be binding on the U.S. if other nations have consented to it. And Koh is in favor of a ban on the U.S. government taking action on anything that could pose a threat to American security if it is not sanctioned by other nations via the UN. He also supports the idea of American officials being prosecuted by foreign countries for what they deem as war crimes. This is the man, Whelan reminds us, who would be advising senior officials in the State Departments on the legal positions the U.S. will take on these and other critical issues.

 

During the question and answer period, it was noted that the recently foiled terror plot in New York is a reminder of the threat that continues and is international in nature – the ideology is one that is international and driven internationally, and even though we haven’t had an attack in nearly eight years, the problem has not gone away. Koh has opposed many policies that have kept us safe.

 

Koh’s underlying philosophy about the Constitution was described as his viewing traditional sovereignty as obsolete and that transnationalism is right regarding how laws govern us here at home. While Koh is not always consistent in his views, they are opposite of the traditional views of sovereignty and American rights and exceptionalism.

 

Even more worrisome is the concept that pushing for terrorists to be tried in the U.S. judicial system – something Koh supports – means that foreign intelligence agencies, that give our intelligence agencies information in the strictest of confidence, might be unwilling to cooperate with us in the future, as this information would eventually be made public during the trial process.

 

A question was asked as to why Republicans in the Senate have been relatively quiet on Koh’s nomination, and we were told not to assume that Republicans will roll over, but that moderate Democrats need to be encouraged to look seriously at Koh’s record and what his nomination will mean for American security and sovereignty. It was also noted that Koh must consider that anyone who voted to authorize intervention in Iraq are, in essence, war criminals because he believes that our decision to go into Iraq violated international law. These are many of the same people who will be voting whether or not to install Koh into the State Department.

 

How hard would Obama fight for Koh’s approval by the Senate? We were told that while Koh and Obama are on the same page as far as transnationalism and radical beliefs, essentially, Koh is a Hillary Clinton pick. There is a gap between campaign rhetoric and the realities faced as president. Koh will present problems for Obama now that Obama is governing, more than he realized. When push comes to shove, it’s likely that Obama will not fight very hard for Koh.

 

When asked about Koh’s stance on the radical Islamic wish to impose Sharia law here in the U.S., callers were cautioned not to accuse Koh of wanting the same thing – Koh, like others, is simply blind to the threat of what weakening American sovereignty could do in this and other security arenas.

 

Ordinary Americans who are concerned about Koh’s nomination as Legal Advisor to the State Department are encouraged to contact their senators to express their concerns. The confirmation process will likely be taken up in June, shortly after Congress returns from the Memorial Day recess.

---

 

Senator contact information- click here 

If you prefer, call the Senate Switchboard  (202) 224-3121

 

 

 

 

 

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: