 |
| Dreamstime.com |
President Obama has many times shown his disdain for the
United States Constitution. One example is his defiance of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held that his “recess”
appointments of National Labor Relations Board members were unconstitutional.
These appointees have participated in many decisions since their appointments
including several since the court decision. Obama has now officially nominated
them for these positions, but has them still in place making decisions. The
court decision has been ignored by the president
If the Administration followed the rule of law, these
appointees would have been relieved of their duties until a final decision
comes from the Supreme Court, or, if the Supreme Court chose not to handle this
case, the Appeals Court
ruling would be regarded as final. Or so I think as a non-lawyer. So far, the
Administration has not appealed the decision.
This kind of blatant disregard of law is only too common in
the Obama Administration. Many of the violations of the rule of law and the
principle of checks and balances have been chronicled, ranging from “czars” who
wield cabinet-level-type authority but have had no Senate confirmation, to crony
capitalist deals that have resulted in business failures following
multi-million-dollar government payouts (with executives getting large
bonuses).
Now we’re told that the Executive Branch has given itself
the “authority” to kill American citizens who are not engaged in warfare against
the U.S.
at the time, but are believed by high-level bureaucrats to be associated with
al-Qaida or some affiliated group. They’ve already killed three American
citizens without so much as offering them an opportunity to surrender and
without an attempt to capture them. They have interpreted the Constitution to
mean little to nothing and therefore, they’re free to act as not only
policeman, but judge, jury, and executioner. Due process? Forget it. This, of
course, is in line with the government’s recently asserted position of being
authorized to detain American citizens indefinitely.
President Obama willingly admits he dispatched CIA agents to
kill an American and his teenage son and the son's American friend while they
were in a desert in Yemen
in 2011. He says he did so because the adult had encouraged folks to wage war
on the United States
and the children were just “collateral
damage.” He says further that he'll
do this again when he is convinced that killing Americans will keep America safe.
He says he knows the adult encouraged evil, and his encouragement caused the
deaths of innocents. The adult was never charged with a crime or indicted by a
grand jury; he was just targeted for death by the president himself and
executed by a CIA drone.
[Emphasis added]
The president and his advisors are fond of invoking some
supposedly higher principle to justify their lawlessness, like “keeping people
safe” to justify drone killings of citizens, trying to deny Second Amendment
rights, rogue regulators, and TSA groping and nude scanners; “intellectual
property protection” to go after people who have done nothing wrong just on the
basis of someone’s complaint, and subjecting people to criminal charges for
what should be a civil matter. And so on.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, in part, states the
following:
…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence be
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law… [Emphasis added]
Article. III., Section 3 of the Constitution states as
follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only
in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid
and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of
two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have the Power to declare the Punishment
of Treaon, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Corruption of blood is
defined
as follows:
|
(Law) taint or impurity of blood, in consequence of an act of
attainder of treason or felony, by which a person is disabled from inheriting
any estate or from transmitting it to others.
|
As Napolitano points out, there is no thought given to due
process in drone killings. Now we are going to have drones patrolling our own
country. How long until armed drones start taking out people the Administration
finds objectionable, due to some perceived future threat? Of course, there
might be “collateral damage,” but c’est
la vie. What a tool to go after people who didn’t pay their taxes, or who
spoke out against the abuses of government in some way that was politically
uncomfortable. As far-fetched as it seems (and I wish it truly were), these
things are not all that far from where we are now.
Beyond the question of a formal declaration of war, the
constitutional rights abuse inherent in this and other Obama policies should be
thoroughly investigated by Congress, a body whose authority Obama habitually
usurps. So far, little has been done to try to stop this trend.
The possibility of establishing a secret court to authorize
these killings is “unthinkable” according to Napolitano, and to do so would do
nothing to make these things constitutional.
This is how dictatorships get started.
As killing a U.S.
citizen is a graver deed than waterboarding a terrorist plotter to get
information to save lives, Obama, who bewailed Bush’s detention, rendition and
interrogation policies, appears guilty of manifest hypocrisy.
But with 3,000 to 4,500 now killed by drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Somalia and Yemen over 10
years, and an estimated 200 children and other civilians among the “collateral
damage,” it is past time for a debate on where we are going in this “war on
terror.”
Beyond the killing of Americans, which is manifestly
unconstitutional, the overall question of drone killing needs to be examined.
Bill Wilson at Americans for Limited Government’s
NetRightDaily website writes,
Where this ends is anyone’s guess.
For example, it is hard to see where geography would come
into play under the type of precedent that is being created. Would the
authorization to use military force against U.S.
citizens also apply to U.S.
soil?
The answer is, if this Administration, or any
administration, merely took a broader view of what Congress has authorized it
to do, geography would be no limitation whatsoever to the exercise of war
powers here.
While the memo may not have been intended to address “what
might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen
lawful in other circumstances,” it did not need to. It would essentially be the
same argument.
The very serious concerns about spy drones and surveillance
drones on American soil pale in comparison to the possible domestic use of
armed drones to kill Americans. This Administration believes it can justify practically
anything, so don’t be too shocked if this is the next step. What should shock
us is that so little is apparently being done to stop it or even strongly
question it. Judge Napolitano, Senator Rand Paul, and a few others are very
concerned, but the Administration will likely just label them as “libertarian
extremists” and go further on their merry way in this new incarnation of
Stalinism.
