The President's Private War

[Guest]

Judge Andrew Napolitano

Did you know that the United States government is using drones to kill innocent people in Pakistan? Did you know that the Pakistani government has asked President Obama to stop it and he won't? Did you know that Pakistan is a sovereign country that has nuclear weapons and is an American ally?

Last week, the Obama administration not only acknowledged the use of the drones; it also revealed that it has plans to increase the frequency and ferocity of the attacks. White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan argued that these attacks are "in full accordance with the law" and are not likely to be stopped anytime soon.

Brennan declined to say how many people were killed or just where the killings took place or who is doing it. But we know that Obama has a morbid fascination with his plastic killing machines, and we know that these machines are among the favored tools of the CIA. We also know that if the president had been using the military to do this, he'd be legally compelled to reveal it to Congress and eventually to seek permission.

We know about the need to tell Congress and ask for permission because of the War Powers Act. This law, enacted in 1973 over President Nixon's veto, permits the president to use the military for 90 days before telling Congress and for 180 days before he needs congressional authorization. Obama must believe that he can bypass this law by using civilian CIA agents, rather than uniformed military, to do his killing.

The Constitution limits the presidential use of war powers to those necessary for an immediate defense of the United States or those exercised pursuant to a valid congressional declaration of war. In this case of Pakistan, the president has neither. And international law prohibits entering a sovereign country without its consent. But Brennan argued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which Congress enacted in 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11 to enable President Bush to pursue the perpetrators of 9/11, is essentially carte blanche for any president to kill whomever he wants, and that the use of drones, rather than the military or rather than arresting those the government believes have conspired to harm us, is a "surgical" technique that safeguards the innocent.

Attorney General Eric Holder made a similar unconstitutional argument a few months ago when he stated in defense of the president's using drones to kill Americans in Yemen that the AUMF, plus the careful consideration that the White House gives to the dimensions of each killing and the culpability of each person killed, somehow satisfied the Constitution's requirements for due process.

What monstrous nonsense all this is. These killings 10,000 miles from here hardly constitute self-defense and are not in pursuit of a declaration of war. So, what has Congress done about this? Nothing. And what have the courts done about this? Nothing.

Prior to the president's ordering the killing of the New Mexico-born and unindicted and uncharged Anwar al-Awlaki, al-Awlaki's American father sued the president in federal district court and asked a judge to prevent the president from murdering his son in Yemen. After the judge dismissed the case, a CIA-fired drone killed al-Awlaki and his American companion and his 16-year-old American son.

In his three-plus years in office, Obama has launched 254 drones toward persons in Pakistan, and they collectively have killed 1,277 persons there. The New America Foundation, a Washington think tank that monitors the presidential use of drones in Pakistan, estimates that between 11 and 17 percent of the drone victims are innocent Pakistani civilians. So much for Brennan's surgical strikes. So much for Holder's due process.

The president is waging a private war against private persons -- even Americans -- whose deaths he obviously believes will keep America safe. But he is doing so without congressional authorization, in violation of the Constitution, and in a manner that jeopardizes our freedom.

Who will keep us safe from a president who wants to use drones here? How long will it be before local American governments -- 313 of which already possess drones -- use them to kill here because they are surgical and a substitute for due process? Can you imagine the outcry if Cuba or China launched drones at their dissidents in Florida or California and used Obama's behavior in Pakistan as a justification?

How long will it be before even the semblance of our Constitution is gone?

http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandr..._war/page/full/

[Dottie]

I heard Jose' Rodriguez, the author of a new book, "Hard Measures," talking on the radio about the use of drones versus using people to get information. He said that when drones are used, not only are innocent people killed, but the persons who are the targets of the drones are killed. They are no longer able to give information which could be useful in protecting U.S. citizens.

[Guest]

He said that when drones are used, not only are innocent people killed, but the persons who are the targets of the drones are killed. They are no longer able to give information which could be useful in protecting U.S. citizens.

Amazing.

[Woody]

And they called BUSH a murderer.

Amazing.

[Guest]

Unbelievable! Harumph, harrummph!

[Bravus]

We're actually in agreement on this. (With the exception that I don't want to use it *purely* for political capital.)

It's a terrifying travesty, and should be resisted with all our might. (Well, your might. Those of you who have the vote!)

Has Romney pledged to cease drone strikes? Not asking in terms of political point-scoring, just in terms of alternative voting options for you guys.

This *is* a travesty... but so would it be if you had no choice...

[Guest]

I'm going to cast a vote harder than I have ever cast one before. Maybe if I cast it hard enough, it will count as two.

You know, gotta try to do something to counter all those dead democrats that will be voting.

[lazarus]

Are conservatives against drone strikes now?

Like Bravus I find this deplorable but I thought conservatives liked this sort of thing.

[phkrause]

Exactly Lazarus, it has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal, it has to do with which party is in office.

[Guest]

I thought conservatives liked this sort of thing.

That just shows how much you really know about conservatives. Not much.

[Guest]

It's a terrifying travesty, and should be resisted with all our might. (Well, your might. Those of you who have the vote!)

If I can get by with casting two votes, I'll call one of them yours.

[lazarus]

That just shows how much you really know about conservatives. Not much.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday called last week's CIA drone strike against al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki a validation of the George W. Bush administration's terrorist- fighting strategy and said President Barack Obama should apologize for his past criticism of those policies.

Read more: Cheney says drone strike validates Bush policies - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19026955#ixzz1uzpB37cD

Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: RLH

That just shows how much you really know about conservatives. Not much.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday called last week's CIA drone strike against al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki a validation of the George W. Bush administration's terrorist- fighting strategy and said President Barack Obama should apologize for his past criticism of those policies.

I wonder if many of you can grasp the fact that while Bush was a republican he was not a conservative.While I have a great deal of respect for him in his conduct and actions following 911 it doesn't not put me or any other conservative in complete agreement with all his actions.

Reacting to a new and dangerous situation many things were put into place that carried threats to the american people.

The important part of this article is Obama's words and actions during Bush's presidency and following and expanding on that which he condemned. Bush was a traitor for the deficit I believe,Obama is a "so called great leader by some" for doubling and tripling down on what he condemned.

The praise heaped on him for ending the Iraq war is a good example.

"Let me Obama, stick to Bush's plan while I condemn him and all my followers will call me great"

Obama is president now and as such is responsible for his decisions.He can't grasp that,everything is the fault of someone else. Hopefully the american people will want a grown up in office after experimenting with a narcissistic child

[lazarus]

So are you saying that you don't agree with either Obama's of Bush's drone strike policy?

[bonnie]

So are you saying that you don't agree with either Obama's of Bush's drone strike policy?

,

Not quite what I said concerning Bush.

Following 911 we were in new territory.While many think they know what the military should do in defense of the country armchair governing is not always the wisest course.

Personally I think drones can be highly effective but also can be abused in the wrong hands.

Was the Bush admin always right in every drone attack?Don't know.Has the Obama admin always been wrong in every drone attack.More than likely not.

What is disturbing with Obama is the escalation of it's use.

In 2008 I believe drone attacks were used 30? times

Bush policies condemned and ridiculed by the man that is using same now on steriods.

2009 it was used 53 times,2010 it was used 118 times andrising in 2011.I think there was a report a drone was used on a family in S.Dakota. Obama has a complete disregard for the rule of law,the constitution gets in his way,he preens and struts without shame using everything he condemned.

[Woody]

Quote:

Obama has a complete disregard for the rule of law,the constitution gets in his way,he preens and struts without shame using everything he condemned.

This is shocking news Bonnie.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Obama has a complete disregard for the rule of law,the constitution gets in his way,he preens and struts without shame using everything he condemned.

This is shocking news Bonnie.

Not really.Obama gave us a pretty good look into his mentality and ideology while he was campaigning.What is pretty amazing is

the acceptance of a man with his stated ideology as US president

[Guest]

I wonder if many of you can grasp the fact that while Bush was a republican he was not a conservative.While I have a great deal of respect for him in his conduct and actions following 911 it doesn't not put me or any other conservative in complete agreement with all his actions.

Ditto! He was not a conservative...he was a big gov't guy. But he was certainly better than the alternative.