Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Napolitano: Obama Gives Himself Permission To Kill
GOPUSA ^ | 2-7-2013 | Andrew P. Napolitano - Commentary

Posted on 02/07/2013 4:53:51 PM PST by smoothsailing

Napolitano: Obama Gives Himself Permission To Kill

By Andrew P. Napolitano - February 7, 2013

After stonewalling for more than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought the revelation of its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas -- even Americans -- claiming the research was so sensitive and so secret that it could not be revealed without serious consequences, the government sent a summary of its legal memos to an NBC newsroom earlier this week.

This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which the government predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny. She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in "a veritable Catch-22," because the feds have created "a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."

She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legal basis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis.

The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any "informed, high-level official of the U.S. government."

The quoted phrase is extracted from the memo, which claims that the law reposes into the hands of any unnamed "high-level official," not necessarily the president, the lawful power to decide when to suspend constitutional protections guaranteed to all persons and kill them without any due process whatsoever. This is the power claimed by kings and tyrants. It is the power most repugnant to American values. It is the power we have arguably fought countless wars to prevent from arriving here. Now, under Obama, it is here.

This came to a boiling point when Obama dispatched CIA drones to kill New Mexico-born and al-Qaida-affiliated Anwar al-Awlaki while he was riding in a car in a desert in Yemen in September 2011. A follow-up drone, also dispatched by Obama, killed Awlaki's 16-year-old Colorado-born son and his American friend. Awlaki's American father sued the president in federal court in Washington, D.C., trying to prevent the killing. Justice Department lawyers persuaded a judge that the president always follows the law, and besides, without any evidence of presidential law breaking, the elder Awlaki had no case against the president. Within three months of that ruling, the president dispatched his drones and the Awlakis were dead. This spawned follow-up lawsuits, in one of which McMahon gave her reluctant ruling.

Then the white paper appeared. It claims that if an American is likely to trigger the use of force 10,000 miles from here, and he can't easily be arrested, he can be murdered with impunity. This notwithstanding state and federal laws that expressly prohibit non-judicial killing, an executive order signed by every president from Gerald Ford to Obama prohibiting American officials from participating in assassinations, the absence of a declaration of war against Yemen, treaties expressly prohibiting this type of killing, and the language of the Declaration, which guarantees the right to live, and the Constitution, which requires a jury trial before the government can deny that right.

The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked or when an attack is so imminent that delay would cost innocent lives. He can also order killing using the military in pursuit of a declaration of war enacted by Congress.

Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, he'd be hard-pressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here -- no matter his intentions -- poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no lawful circumstances may he use CIA agents for killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force defensively to protect themselves and their assets, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel in their official capacities, wherever they go on the planet.

Obama has argued that he can kill Americans whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any due process whatsoever. No law authorizes that. His attorney general has argued that the president's careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. No court has ever approved that. And his national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are "surgical" and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect, as the folks who monitor all this say that 11 percent to 17 percent of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths have been those of innocent bystanders.

Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes? How about one that plays tricks on federal judges? How long will it be before the presidential killing comes home?

---

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom." To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: andrewnapolitano; goodnapolitano; napolitano
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 02/07/2013 4:53:58 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

License to kill

2 posted on 02/07/2013 4:57:40 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

The good Judge is absolutely correct.


3 posted on 02/07/2013 4:59:45 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

From Chicago With Love (Reggie, that is)


4 posted on 02/07/2013 5:03:16 PM PST by Stormdog (A rifle transforms one from subject to Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Pharaoh Obama Ordered it, Let it be so. < / ridicule


5 posted on 02/07/2013 5:03:24 PM PST by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; P-Marlowe

I think Anwar al Awlaki needed killing. Awlaki was an Al Qaeda planner, a mentor to the Ft Hood shooter, and the designer of an attack on an airliner.

Awlaki is the poster child for why we should not be giving “anchor baby citizenship”. He was born to parents here on a student visa who returned to yemen.

IOW, he wasn’t really an American in the sense that we think of it.

It is a bad idea, though, to build legal justification on an exception. Napolitano is right on most of this, but not about Awlaki.


6 posted on 02/07/2013 5:21:25 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The problem I see with doing this kind of drone hit against Americans is that they seem to be trying to build a justification for doing it against anyone that the president decides is a terrorist threat. I can imagine them declaring the Tea Party to be a terrorist group and then using that as a justification for launching drone attacks on Americans here.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Obama could find a reason to take out anyone who opposed him he would order it done.

The Patriot Act was intended to be used by a law abiding President. Obama is not now nor has he ever been a law abiding President.


7 posted on 02/07/2013 5:31:57 PM PST by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

He wasn’t an American in much of any sense, but hard cases make bad law. Making an exception for one American citizen (no matter how tenuous his citizenship) means that “exceptions” can be made for others, purely at the whim of the executive. Incidentally, other people in the executive branch are apparently being given the power of deciding who should be killed.

They didn’t have to give him a full trial, simply because it’s unlikely they ever would have caught him. But they most certainly should have charged him with treason and attempted to get him in the normal way, on the battlefield. It’s pretty obvious that he was a traitor, but Obama’s Holder Justice Department hasn’t charged anybody with treason, including the Fort Hood shooter, and one of the reasons for this whole easy-way-out drone tactic is to prevent Muslims from being charged with terrorism or treason, as applicable. It might give them a bad name, ya know...


8 posted on 02/07/2013 5:32:07 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

You are incorrect. He was an American. As such, he gets due process of law.

Paul of Tarsus used the fact of his Roman Citizenship to demand a trial in Rome. That was 2,000 years ago. The rule of law has to be followed. Obama can otherwise decide that the next Paul to come along is a thorn in his side, and order him whacked.


9 posted on 02/07/2013 5:34:16 PM PST by steerpike100
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; Sioux-san; Youaskedforit; KirbDog; Teófilo; mojo114; malkee; missingwv; HalfIrish; .
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

10 posted on 02/07/2013 5:36:15 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
What ???

You still searching the Constitution ???

Nah it aint in there...

Just get ya some more ammo

and a heat seeking missile


11 posted on 02/07/2013 5:36:32 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; Sioux-san; Youaskedforit; KirbDog; Teófilo; mojo114; malkee; missingwv; HalfIrish; .
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

12 posted on 02/07/2013 5:36:58 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; livius
His little game with the federal judge would get him a contempt of court out of me if I were the judge.

Telling me he couldn't give me documents but then giving them to the media.

That is contemptuousNth degree

I don't know how they could have shown more utter disregard for this judge short of using the drones in question.

13 posted on 02/07/2013 5:38:57 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: xzins

He was born to parents here on a student visa who returned to yemen.

IOW, he wasn’t really an American in the sense that we think of it.
_______________________________________

Obama was born to a parent here on a student visa

and he got to be president of the United States...

Meanwhile the 16 yo son was an American born here with American parents who were born here...

That is serious...

plus his American friend...


14 posted on 02/07/2013 5:42:35 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Ha ha ha.

I wish someone would just scream GO!


15 posted on 02/07/2013 5:45:50 PM PST by bigheadfred (call animal control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins

There are many levels of dishonesty.

Any public servant, ESPECIALLY THE POTUS, SHOULD BE HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD.

When he decides it is otherwise, ya best it yer head down.


16 posted on 02/07/2013 5:56:57 PM PST by bigheadfred (call animal control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

drudge running headline that dhs is buying another 22 million rounds.

i know why.

they want to keep ammo out of citizens hands. they have unlimited funds so they’ll keep ammo supplies tight and artificially costly for the rest of us.


17 posted on 02/07/2013 5:57:37 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Napolitano is right on most of this, but not about Awlaki.

And what, pray tell, precluded Obama from getting a warrant from a judge that Al Awlaki was an enemy combatant? There is no possibility that that punk could have taken an action so imminent as to have made the delay problematic when it came to protecting Americans.

The ONLY reason Zero went to all this trouble was because Al Awlaki was the perfect case with which to extend his powers to be used here against Americans.

This means you. That's why it's bad.

18 posted on 02/07/2013 6:00:42 PM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred; xzins

“it yer head down”

“get yer head down”

that is what happens when you are reloading and trying to type at the same time


19 posted on 02/07/2013 6:00:59 PM PST by bigheadfred (toys toys toys in thae attic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Basically, what you’re saying is that they shouldn’t issue me any drones to use against fake americans.

:>)


20 posted on 02/07/2013 6:05:55 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred

“get yer head down”

Seems like good advice to me on this thread.

They have me outnumbered, BHF. :>)


21 posted on 02/07/2013 6:13:17 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Having him in the sights at that point in time.

When you got the deer in the sights you pull the trigger. You don’t call your wife and say, “Dear I have this awesome deer in my sights right now!”


22 posted on 02/07/2013 6:16:38 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: steerpike100

fake american


23 posted on 02/07/2013 6:18:24 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

2,300 drone strikes? That’s like two per day, seven days a week. And they complain over Gitmo?!


24 posted on 02/07/2013 6:21:05 PM PST by blackdog (There is no such thing as healing, only a balance between destructive and constructive forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man; xzins

hahaha

dhs has 200,000 employees

my wife has 207,000 friends on facebook

x will “get” this.

i have a nephew in Leavenworth

dhs had better train their people in will


25 posted on 02/07/2013 6:43:47 PM PST by bigheadfred (all it takes is one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Had Awlaki ever killed an American? Did he ever even destroy any American property? How about his son? Or his son's friend? Did they even have the means to kill anyone? Like an assault rifle?

It looks like 0bamugabe's justification is that Awlaki "said bad things about America." That doesn't sound much like 'imminent threat' to me.

26 posted on 02/07/2013 6:47:33 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Who shouldnt ???

Obama has all the marbles errr drones...

Hes not going to share his toys...


27 posted on 02/07/2013 6:55:34 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Where are the checks and balances to that?

- PJ

28 posted on 02/07/2013 6:58:23 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The target was turned to dust because of HIS ties to Obama.

George Orwell would recognize this corrupt, lying Administration.

Facts Ignored:
Army Major (Hasan) was on the Presidential Transition Team
and Hasan served on the Homeland Security Policy Institute’s
presidential transition task force

Fact: The Obama Caliphate (U.S.Government) Pays $23,000 a Month
to the Mosque of Ft. Hood Shooting Supporter Al-Awlaki
.

29 posted on 02/07/2013 7:06:06 PM PST by Diogenesis (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Another consideration is that this technology will not be exclusively American for any significant length of time. When others build it, on what legal or moral basis can we say that they can’t use it exactly the way the U.S. government is using it?


30 posted on 02/07/2013 7:09:43 PM PST by hitkicker (The only thing worse than a politician is a child molester)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

That’s the Obama way...


31 posted on 02/07/2013 7:12:05 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

What hypocrisy! http://www.naturalnews.com/038844_DHS_assault_weapons_documents.html


32 posted on 02/07/2013 7:16:40 PM PST by Delmarksman (Pro 2A Anglican American (Ford and Chevy kill more people than guns do, lets ban them))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Awlaki was scum. I have no sympathy whatsoever for him or any other American who would go overseas to give aid and support to our enemies in their designs to cause this country harm. He deserved his fate.

That said, hasn’t Obama crossed a line here in taking upon himself powers that not only cannot be found in the Constitution but rather blatantly contradict it? I mean, he is arguing that he is within his rights to order the deaths of American citizens without a trial. He has openly broken the highest law of our land. All of the legal arguments and case law in the world shouldn’t take priority over the Constitution.

Perhaps I’m off base here, in which case I apologize, but shouldn’t we talking impeachment? These powers he is claiming could theoretically eventually be turned against any one of us.


33 posted on 02/07/2013 7:19:19 PM PST by MWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

34 posted on 02/07/2013 7:44:54 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Obama Gives Himself Permission To Kill
And nobody cares.

Just make sure the government checks arrive on time.

35 posted on 02/07/2013 7:51:15 PM PST by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MWS

I don’t think you’re off base at all. No anonymously written tricked out DOJ “white paper” can ever trump the US Constitution. Obama is in open defiance of the document he swore an oath to defend.


36 posted on 02/07/2013 8:04:13 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xzins
When you got the deer in the sights you pull the trigger.

You would have tags for that deer or you would be a poacher. Your argument is a non sequitur. Deer aren't American citizens.

We already knew Al Awlaki was a problem long before we located him. There was plenty of time to obtain a warrant. If you haven't got anything better than that, you don't have anything.

37 posted on 02/07/2013 8:09:54 PM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MWS

Extra judicial killings = murder.


38 posted on 02/07/2013 8:11:02 PM PST by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
More than 15 years ago I was quoted in an Air University paper as saying that the unmanned aerial vehicle was the most dangerous weapon ever developed because it would remove a politician's natural propensity for waging unnecessary war.

Turns out that my quote was too optimistic.

39 posted on 02/07/2013 8:46:27 PM PST by Nip (BOHEICA and TANSTAAFL - both seem very appropriate today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

What is this garbage from Napolitano? Is the War on Terror over? Last I checked, a bunch of camel-loving Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists in a desert area in Yemen are illegal combatants in a congressionally-approved war, even if some Islamist convert from Oregon decides to join them.

Funny, no one seemed to care when Obama acted in Libya without permission from Congress, or did nothing to stop our ambassador from being killed, but carrying out a sanctioned war on our actual enemies is some sort of controversy. WTF?


40 posted on 02/07/2013 8:48:36 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Americans are supposed to disarm, voluntarily

new Yorkers are having their weapons confiscated

the fedgov has bought 1.6 billion rounds in 10 months

and now drones can kill anyone, without proof or legal argument... on the merest whim of the current _resident

........


41 posted on 02/07/2013 8:58:45 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steerpike100

Did we give trials to Americans who joined up with the Nazis in WWII, who were physically located in Germany or occupied areas of Europe? I’m not “getting” this seemingly newfound concern for those who join our enemies. These are treasonous and traitorous saboteurs, caught in the act, overseas plotting terrorist attacks against our nation. No, my stance on killing our enemies doesn’t change because its a different administration pulling the trigger.


42 posted on 02/07/2013 9:00:14 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sten

Bombing Al Qaeda cells in Yemen doesn’t equate to tyranny at home. No one is bombing American citizens who haven’t already turned their back on the rest of us, joining up with our enemies. Just consider it a revocation of citizenship.


43 posted on 02/07/2013 9:06:29 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SunStar

to one world govt types... do you think they believe there is a difference between Riyadh and Toledo?


44 posted on 02/07/2013 9:15:42 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: livius

>> But they most certainly should have charged him with treason and attempted to get him in the normal way, on the battlefield.

Agreed, but Obama’s followers might have made that an impossibility — easier to ask for forgiveness than permission no doubt the hypocrite thought.


45 posted on 02/07/2013 11:28:06 PM PST by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; P-Marlowe
If you haven't got anything better than that, you don't have anything.

I'd shoot him and any other Al Qaeda planner without batting an eye, legal or not. He could be Arnold Schwarzeneggar's lovechild, and wrapping himself in the Red, White, and Blue, but if he was an Al Qaeda planner, I'd pull the trigger first and shed crocodile tears later.

Go the "Al Awlaki Killed" threads from last year(?) and see how many were grieving.

People on here are acting like this government has never run a hit on anyone in the past. That's crazy.

46 posted on 02/08/2013 7:42:01 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in "a veritable Catch-22," because the feds have created "a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."

If it seems "incompatible with" the Constitution, why are you agreeing with the corruptocrats in Obama's Totalitarian Regime, judge lady? You're worthless.

47 posted on 02/08/2013 8:16:06 AM PST by subterfuge (CBS NBC ABC FOX AP-- all no different than Pravda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I'd shoot him and any other Al Qaeda planner without batting an eye, legal or not.

So now we're down to "ends justify means," expecting government to just kill fellow citizens without any due process just because they (supposedly) threaten you, thus putting you on the level of Lenin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Congratulations. Just how much of a threat was Al Awlaki to you, personally, ginning up idiot terrorists in Yemen? Really. Please list the threats he posed that were so imminent you feel it necessary to blow off the Fifth Amendment because you couldn't wait for a judge to issue a warrant.

Go the "Al Awlaki Killed" threads from last year(?) and see how many were grieving.

As I said, this has NOTHING to do with whether or not he should have been killed, but whether we should empower the administrative branch of government to kill a citizen without the due process of law pursuant to the Constitution for the United States.

You know, that document that supposedly protects you that you'd now like to water down to nothing. I guess you don't care about that.

People on here are acting like this government has never run a hit on anyone in the past.

An American citizen is not just "anyone."

That's crazy.

No, you are, as you have amply shown. You are setting up provisions just as dangerously self-destructive as was the PATRIOT Act. We didn't need warrantless wiretaps to protect this country. We needed citizens to gather evidence, round up those Muzzie thugs, bring them to a court, and get them deported.

48 posted on 02/08/2013 9:02:18 AM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Would these air strikes against Al Qaeda camps, whether in Afghanistan, Yemen or anywhere else, not be directly warranted by Congress under Public Law 107–40?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

...

(a) IN GENERAL. — That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

If an American citizen is fighting alongside our enemies in a war authorized by Congress, and they are killed in the course of that war, what is at issue? Are they not traitors, enemy collaborators, and illegal combatants in a war against the United States? If so, why is their "citizenship" worthy of protection?

Are many of you just being inconsistent with your ideology because it's the Obama Administration pulling the trigger instead of the Bush Administration?

49 posted on 02/08/2013 12:00:56 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
If an American citizen is fighting alongside our enemies in a war authorized by Congress, and they are killed in the course of that war, what is at issue?

There is no issue in killing an American traitor fighting with the enemy in a declared war. That is not equivalent to a government issuing an order for a targeted killing of an American citizen not engaged in active battle in a foreign country.

You do understand the distinction? I made that distinction when I posted. Please be more careful.

Are many of you just being inconsistent with your ideology because it's the Obama Administration pulling the trigger instead of the Bush Administration?

Not a bit. Are you being inconsistent with regard to the distinction vis a vis the Constitution? Absolutely.

50 posted on 02/08/2013 12:48:44 PM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson