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

Skip to comments.

(Krauthammer) In Defense of Obama’s Drone War
National Review Online ^ | 2-14-2013 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 02/15/2013 8:05:06 AM PST by Sir Napsalot

The nation’s vexation over the morality and legality of President Obama’s drone war has produced a salutary but hopelessly confused debate. Three categories of questions are being asked. They must be separated to be clearly understood.

1. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of enemies abroad? What criteria justify assassination?

Answer: (a) imminent threat, under the doctrine of self-defense, and (b) affiliation with al-Qaeda, under the laws of war.

(snip)

2. But al-Awlaki was no ordinary enemy. He was a U.S. citizen. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of an American? Where’s the due process?

Answer: Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process.

(snip)

3. Who has the authority to decide life-and-death targeting?

In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander-in-chief and those in the lawful chain of command to whom he has delegated such authority.

This looks troubling: Obama sitting alone in the Oval Office deciding what individuals to kill. But how is that different from Lyndon Johnson sitting in his office choosing bombing targets in North Vietnam?

Moreover, we firebombed entire cities in World War II. Who chose? Commanders under the ultimate authority of the president. No judicial review, no outside legislative committee, no secret court, no authority above the president.

...... (Be sure to read the whole article)

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Remember Krauthammer also said (2/6/2013) "If You Take Up Arms Against The United States You Have Forfeited Your Rights"

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2986326/posts

This is further argument from Dr. Krauthammer on Obama's kill list. In previous 2986326 post, some of the questions had been address, you can go back and check if interested.

1 posted on 02/15/2013 8:05:11 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
(One good remark from the comment section)

doglesby@comcast.net•13 hours ago−

"Excellent analysis. There are only three possible excuses why Obama/DoJ hasn't justified its actions using this analysis: (1) it legitimizes Bush's actions, including Gitmo; (2) it underscores how inconsistent Obama's pursuit of the war against jihadists has been (sometimes they view the fight as law enforcement, e.g., Major Nidal/Fort Hood, or take no action at all, e.g., Benghazi); or (3) DoJ analysts are stupid."

And others' response to doglesby by Michael Berry •5 hours ago−

"Good comment. If we are at war, duly approved by the Congress, then Mr. Krauthammer is correct. If we are engaged in a law enforcement action then Mr. Obama is wrong. And it is Mr. Obama that wants to make this a law enforcement action and for the reasons you articulate. Good comment."

2 posted on 02/15/2013 8:13:15 AM PST by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
We are free to use drones to vaporize terrorists (Islamic or otherwise) whenever and wherever they might be found.

Who are the terrorists? Anyone who does engage or plans to engage in acts of war against our people, our government, our institutions, our laws, our traditions or our way of life.

3 posted on 02/15/2013 8:21:25 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Kraut hammer has, er, jumped the shark on this one.


4 posted on 02/15/2013 8:24:41 AM PST by GSWarrior (Do you think Jack White and Jack Black get along?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Right now I'm going to be a little specific. If a person is in Pakistan or Afghanistan, Yemen or other Near Eastern country hostile to the U.S.; and if a citizen of the U.S. goes to one of those countries and actively wages war against U.S. troops, is engaged in preparing to make war in a training camp; or is actively engaged in supply operations, or is actively engaged in Anti American propaganda, then kill him.

Other areas of the world such as Europe and mainland America no drone strikes as long as the courts remain open.

5 posted on 02/15/2013 8:41:52 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
You know now that I think about it, it used to be the law that if one joined a foreign military or entered into a foreign government one surrendered one’s American citizenship. Does any one know whether or not that ever was or still is the law? I'm too lazy to research that area of the law. Thanks in advance.
6 posted on 02/15/2013 8:47:13 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander-in-chief

We've been in perma-war my whole life.

7 posted on 02/15/2013 8:48:05 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

There needs to be a very sharp dividing line established in the future, between fighting an enemy overseas, and police actions in the US.

That is, only a small part of the Patriot Act has ever been used against foreign enemies in other nations. The vast majority has been used almost exclusively to erode and undermine the civil rights of Americans in America.

This must stop. While we can all support attacking and monitoring enemies in other nations, this does *not* means that we need to be controlled and policed in this way ourselves, in our nation.

The best argument that exists for doing this is still a farcical one: that unless we live in a police state, enemy agents who have infiltrated the US will be able to use our freedoms and liberties against us.

This is both paranoid and wasteful. Just because we put criminals in prisons doesn’t mean we all have to be imprisoned, “for our safety from criminals”.


8 posted on 02/15/2013 9:01:19 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

Even if one is only ‘suspected’ of such actions? How about the specific elimination of 16-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi? The US now advocates assassination of US minors for ‘suspicion’? We are becoming those we fight.


9 posted on 02/15/2013 9:52:09 AM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

Since when are we at war in Pakistan or Yemen? People really want to blow things up, don’t they? Any sliver of a rationalization will do.


10 posted on 02/15/2013 10:07:09 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

bookmark


11 posted on 02/15/2013 10:12:57 AM PST by nutmeg (Who and WHERE are the Benghazi survivors??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

“under the laws of war”

What war? Did Congress ever declare war on Al Queda? And does that mean we can kill any Al Queda agent or anyone affiliated with Al Queda anywhere in the world for any reason? And what does “take up arms” mean? Not literal arms, presumably.

The president will decide when arms have been taken up, who is a terrorist, and when he can order their death. Because apparently to Krauthammer he is a dictator. I certainly got the feeling from most neocons that’s what they wanted Bush the Younger to be. I bet Krauthammer worships Lincoln.

See, they want to make this like some kid whose parents immigrated from Germany, and even though he was born a US citizen he answers the Fatherland’s call and our boys are face to face with him on Omaha beach. But it’s not like that.

By the way, since when are assassinations legal? I thought there were laws against it.


12 posted on 02/15/2013 10:15:07 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
The president will decide when arms have been taken up, who is a terrorist, and when he can order their death.

I know it sounds wrong, but I think the honest answer is that you have accurately described what now exists.

I remember when Ed Meese, Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, was asked about the need for innocent suspects to have access to an attorney during questioning. "That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."

So, if a person isn't a dangerous terrorist, the president won't kill him. And, if the president kills someone, that someone obviously wasn't innocent.

13 posted on 02/15/2013 10:22:24 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

This wouldn’t happen were Congress and the courts not simpering, cowardly enablers. I remember a judge not long ago admitting they had to take the administration’s word for something because piercing the National Security State veil, which has been drawn over the executive branch since Truman, is too much of a bother.


14 posted on 02/15/2013 10:37:56 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

Even if that is a law, Al Queda foreign but it certainly isn’t a foreign government. It’s not even a military, persay. You don’t have to join it, but merely be somehow affiliated with it. And I don’t think it’s limited to Al Queda, but any terrorist group plotting against the US. Or suspected to be plotting. Or maybe not even a group, but one guy suspected of maybe not plotting, but badmouthing the US government.

I’m not being glib. We really have no idea what the standard is. As Krauthamner says, it’s up to the War Chief, err, president.


15 posted on 02/15/2013 10:44:05 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
3. Who has the authority to decide life-and-death targeting?

In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander-in-chief and those in the lawful chain of command to whom he has delegated such authority.

Statist BS. Congress, who are the direct Representatives of the People, has ultimate authority, even in war. They can stop the funding of the military or make it illegal for the President to bomb certain people. They can Impeach him for not following the law.

16 posted on 02/15/2013 10:53:23 AM PST by Count of Monte Fisto (Republicans are to the Democrats as the Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

“Who are the terrorists? Anyone who does engage or plans to engage in acts of war against our people, our government, our institutions, our laws, our traditions or our way of life.”

And who decides who the terrorists are? Obama.

And how does he define terrorists?

Returning veterans, pro-lifers and opponents of abortion, as well as other Americans he has, in the past, referred to as “enemies.”

Welcome to Changed America.


17 posted on 02/15/2013 10:54:51 AM PST by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears (Hey Rush, you forgot to tell us when to panic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
It is difficult to define terrorists. All I know for sure is that if an American president kills someone, he/she was a terrorist. That's for sure.

As President Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."

I don't know why so many people don't understand these simple principles.

18 posted on 02/15/2013 10:58:58 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Haha, love your sarcasm. ;-)


19 posted on 02/15/2013 11:00:56 AM PST by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears (Hey Rush, you forgot to tell us when to panic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I’m always amused at Krauthammer being hailed as some sort of ‘conservative’ seeing that he was a Mondale speechwriter trying to defeat Ronald Reagan.

If he ever expressed regret over that I never saw it. He’s just one more liberal opportunist posing as a conservative, of which we have far too many in the ‘conservative’ media.


20 posted on 02/15/2013 11:24:20 AM PST by Pelham (Marco Rubio. for Amnesty, Spanish, and Karl Rove.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Count of Monte Fisto
I agree Dr. Krauthammer’s 3rd question is awkwardly phrased.

But ONCE Congress authorizes war, it is left up to CinC, executed by his commanders/generals/military to carry out the ‘life-and-death targeting’.

However, we, the US, never intend to have one person making the call of life-and-death on individuals. The program, currently as is, does not have any oversight. Basically Obama and DoJ simply said “Trust Me/us”.

21 posted on 02/15/2013 11:35:23 AM PST by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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