The President’s Private War
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?
Read more by Andrew P. Napolitano
- Tyranny Around the Corner – May 22nd, 2013
- Storm Clouds Gathering – May 15th, 2013
- Why We Should Mistrust the Government – May 8th, 2013
- More Holes in the Fourth Amendment – May 1st, 2013
- Boston and Freedom – April 24th, 2013
skulz fontaine
May 4th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
"The President's Private War" would be, presidential anarchy?
JLS
May 4th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
" 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."
Only if the US is under attack or threat of immenent attack. Just a technicality in a country whose government routinely ignores its own laws I guess.
Tom Mauel
May 4th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Very good article with one important exception. Your estimate of the percentage of civilians killed by U.S. drone strikes is wrong by a very wide margin. Two landmark studies were completed last year, one by the Brookings Institute which found that fully 90% of those killed in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan were civilian. I believe the other study, based on accurate scientific sampling data, was by a London based human rights organization and they found 95% of U.S. drone strike victims were civilian. How was the U.S. military and CIA able to pull off such a horrendous civilian death toll? Part of the credit for these astronomical civilian death tolls is the apparent policy of the CIA to attack those attempting to assist the victims of the initial strike. Another obvious reason for the ridiculously high level of civilians killed in these cowardly attacks is the methodology employed to target militants. The CIA targets militants by some random formula that fails to even identify who the actual targets might be thus killing dozens of innocent people. The numbers you quote are inaccurate and I will be doing some extra research on the "New American Foundation", which sounds like some right wing think tank that is attempting to white wash these figures and make the murderous drone program an easier sell to the public.
And why is the Obama administration employing such a reign of drone terror on Pakistan and Afghanistan? Because the U.S. is failing badly in the Afghan war and has been completely overwhelmed by the Taliban militarily and politically. The Obama administration believes this is one of the only tools it has been able to employ "successfully" in Afghanistan and they are escalating just as Johnson and Nixon escalated bombing in the face of the on going disaster in Vietnam.
the Lion
May 5th, 2012 at 12:47 am
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?
Under the Justifications of the US Federal Government, Cuba has every right to use drones to take out those that wish to commit terrorist attacks on Cuba, So does China, Worse still Pakistan has the right to take out the very members of the Administration that are ordering civilians killed in Pakistan, Think seriously what that means, it was OK for the US to take out Bin Ladin, and the leaders of the Taliban remembering that the Taliban were the Lawful Government of Afghanistan, remembering that the US called them Terror attacks because the Players were not Military, one MUST remember that the CIA isnt Military either they are civilians, Bush thought he was clever by half to use the CIA, to get around the Military asspect but that means that they are instantly commiting crimes, Obama has continued that crime! The Crime is Terrorism, the worst sort of terrorism, STATE sponsored Terrrorism!
It seriously pains me that America once the Bastion of Law, has become worse than the worst criminal state of the past, because it still claims to be a country of law!
Watson
May 5th, 2012 at 8:30 am
Miami went through a decade of car bombs and assassinations brought by Cuba against anti-Castro groups, newsmen, etc, here and killing many civilians as well who were not party to either side. Yes, we got pissed off.
moe7
May 5th, 2012 at 8:31 am
"How long will it be before even the semblance of our Constitution is gone?"
====
Going, going, gone…
Generalissimo X
May 5th, 2012 at 8:42 am
brennan: our strikes are within the framework of the law. yeah, hitler and the nazis used the same awesome logic. worked out well for them as i recall.
JLS
May 5th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
"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? "
That perfectly illustrates the danger of having an "exceptional" nation! The US alone can get away with those kinds of things because the US government is not held to the samew standards as everyone else. Very sick.
drdhwsq
May 5th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
The Pakistan air force would make short work of the drones if the people in charge would let them. I think they like American money more than they dislike drones.
the Lion
May 5th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
And who would have thought that according to both Bush and Obama, because in reality Bush came up with this nonsense, all those Bombings and Assinations were in fact totally legal under International lawL
Duglarry
May 5th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
I think it's more accurate to state that 100% of the victims of drone strikes in Pakistan are civilians. The number who were uniformed military is zero; the number who were proven, tried, and convicted criminals is also zero. The number actually engaged in combat against Americans, by virtue of the fact that they are hundreds of kilometres from the nearest American, is also zero.
Some of these people might be guilty of having fired at Americans in the past. They might also be guilty of conspiring to harm Americans. But they're still civilians.
When the French occupiers of Spain during the Napoleonic Wars shot people they claimed had taken up arms, they called them terrorists; some may have been, but as they were never enrolled in any military force, they never stopped being civilians. What they started doing was being dead civilians.
So that's what is going on. 100% of the drone targets are civilians.
RickR30
May 5th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Not to disagree with the horrendousness of it all, but obviously, the was majority of the victims will be civilians. The US isn't fighting a war against the Pakistani military or any other nation's military for that matter, they are to cowardly in DC to do that. They just like to bomb supposed terrorist who all happen to be civilians and who can't fight back. That's the beauty of the post-911 world. The US gets to use overwhelming force against defenseless populations and somehow the affected governments don't do anything about it. What if Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the other victims officially declared war against the US? Could the establishment then hide behind secrecy?
Wolfgang9
May 6th, 2012 at 1:18 am
Yes, I agree: there are two ways of talking between Pakistan and the US. The public one and the secret one. During the secret talking there are symbolically flowing greenbacks From US to Pakistani Politicians and Generals. Or have you ever found that Pakistani Army ever tried to shoot down a US Drone? This is the way how poor countries are governed, Pakistan, Thailand, Philipines and now Vietnam too. There are public statements and very different actions!
curmudgeonvt
May 6th, 2012 at 7:43 am
"How long will it be before even the semblance of our Constitution is gone?"
As soon as the first "elected" Congress took the oath of office, the semblance of our Constitution was replaced by the creed, "What can I get out of this?"
When the American people realize that only 1% (maybe less) of those elected have the best interest of the country foremost in their hearts and minds, then we will possibly be on the road to real government as it was envisioned. But, that's a lot of "IFs" I think.
WashingtonDC goddamn
May 6th, 2012 at 10:34 am
What was despicable, illegal, immoral, outrageous and impeachable in Nixon's time has become normal in the modern war state.
tom mauel
May 6th, 2012 at 10:57 am
The London Bureau of iInvestigative Journalism conducted an exhaustive study of U.S. drone strikes in Pakiststsan and Afghanistan. The study dug into every shred of evidence available from local sources and then employed scientific sampling methods to determine the number of civilians killed at ninety five per cent. Several articles appeared in AntiWar and in the media with these results. Now almost a yaer later Andrew Napolitano quotes the New American Foundationian with civilian casualty figures at eleven to seventeen per cent, nearly opposite the findings of the London Bureau. Ninety to ninety five per cent civilians killed is genocide. Eleven to seventeen per cent is a price that can be easily sold to the public as a reasonable cost of the war on terror.
Bianca
May 6th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Or monarchy?
Bianca
May 6th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
I agree. There is no provision in international law that justifies one country to determine individual targets in another country and kill them at will. There are no provisions in American law that allows it either. There is no approved war, no plans to ask for approval of war, and no requests for extradition of individuals we claim have harmed or are planning to harm US. If we applied this logic to other countries, each country will have the right to kill their own "enemies" in our country, and certainly each government will have the right to attack and kill anyone that uses force internally. In Syria, we support such militants that have political disagreements with the Government, and use rocket lauchers to express it. Our logic is so screwed up, and our reputation in the world has plummeted. Super power would have to be EXTRA carefull with the use of force, and the compliance with the international law. That would be the best way to get others to follow us, and give support to our initiatives. But if we believe in force only, other tools in international relations will no longer work for us.
Bianca
May 6th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Exactly. The President, elected on emotional response after his wife's death — was famous Mr. 10%, and was sitting out his exile years along with his wife in the Gulf states, waiting to be brought back to power by US. And so he was. He and the crew that he brought with him are on board with the drone strategy, they just need to do some dancing for the sake of "public opinion". Nothing new in Pakistan.
Bianca
May 6th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
A lots of '"IFs", I agree. But what has happened recently, has changed the Constitution beyond recognition. Supreme's Court's decision on First Amendment right of corporations has turned the Amendment into the Right to Conduct Commerce. No longer is the Amendment the bastion of free speach, but it is now a bastion for the protection of profit-making. Now, buying politicans and administrators is legal — as it is impossible any longer to prove corruption, other then in some very clumsy cases (a case of congressman comes to mind that had a menu of his "services" and the price list that went with it). So, killing kittens on video is protected by First Amedment, even though the only reason for making the video is to make money. There is no habeas corpus, no protection under the law, no law that cannot be broken with impunity by the powerfull — and the politicians will change the law to protect them — retroactively. Is there anything left of the Constitution?
Goldbug36
May 9th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
The gross error I see throughout the article and also the comments is the referral to "the President." Mr. Barry-Barack-Hussen-Obama/Soetoro-Soebarkah-/Dunham-Bounel, or whatever his real name is, is NOT our President. He has usurped the Office of President and needs to be removed before he finishes his task of destroying our economy, our currency, our Constitution and our Republic. Congress make no noise about it, because they are complicit in his crimes of treason of sedition. Sad, very sad.