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.
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.
I know this is fox news but the article is written by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a source that I have found to be above the usual fox nonsense and a
voice of reason in unreasonable times. I encourage everyone to read the entire article because their is much left for the discussion that I am unable
to add to this thread.
Pakistan has asked us to stop using drones to attack people in their country. International law prohibits entering a sovereign country without its
consent. The justification the White house uses is that the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by congress in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks
(to go after the terrorist accused directly of the attacks) gives the president the power to kill anybody, anywhere for whatever reasons that
president see's fit.
This combined with Eric Holders reinterpretation of "Due Process" allowing the President to order the death of even American citizens without any
trial, arrest or even charges filed paints a grim picture.
When realized (as the article states) that over 300 drones are already owned by local American Governments how long before these attacks start being
ordered a little closer to home? They are already clearing airspace for them.
This is extremely disconcerting. Hundreds of innocent people have already been killed, the president has the "legal" authority to kill anybody he
likes in the world and the United States has been declared a "battle field" in the war on terror with the 2012 NDAA.
Even if you completely trust President Obama, these unconstitutional "laws" and assumed powers are not going anywhere. How long do you think it will
be before their is a president in office that you don't trust?
It is clear that no one person should have the power to be the judge, jury and executioner of any person. These powers are going to be slowly used
against us, whether it takes 1 year, 10 years or 100 years, the presumed authority and legal defense is already on the books. How long do you think
it will be before it is unleashed on the american public? It is simply an eventuality. The rule of law is being bypassed in the name of "fighting
terror" and it will only be a matter of time before it bites us.
How long before these drones will be used on "home grown terrorist" without charges filed, arrest made or any due process observed? When given the
broad definition of what the government considers to be "home grown terrorist" we should all be very, very worried here in the States. By accepting
that the President can kill innocent people in Pakistan we are accepting that the President can also kill us. This President or any President in the
edit on 3-5-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)