Hour 2
Mich. Judge Reinstates Voting Fraud Case Following Forensic Probe Of Dominion Voting Machines
Biden Signs Executive Order To ‘Provide Voting Access’ To Citizens In Federal Custody
Court Denies Father Interim Custody of Kids Because Of His Anti-Masking Beliefs
Holmes Norton: Capitol Security ‘Approaching Being Overdone’ – ‘Can’t Keep Being Afraid in Our Own Capitol of Our Own People’
California Bill Would Ban Boys And Girls Sections In Large Retail Stores
Hour 3
Report: ‘Smart’ Doorbells Sold on Amazon, eBay Filled with Security Vulnerabilities
Ring Recalls Video Doorbells After Several Catch Fire
FLASHBACK: Amazon Admits Employees Have Secretly Watched Ring Camera Customers
Everything You Already Forgot About 2020
Doh! IRS Sent $34 Million In Stimulus Checks To Non-Citizens In Foreign Countries
Fellow Republicans file articles of impeachment against Ohio governor
The debate has raged for some days now … was the killing of al-Awlaki in Yemen illegal?
Rep. Ron Paul says it was, but he says everything is illegal.
There are two primary arguments alleging the illegality of al-Awlaki’s killing.
First, he was a US citizen, and as such, was due a trial.
Second, the US violated international law by assassinating him in Yemen.
Neither argument holds up, both morally or legally.
First I’ll address international law.
Neither the Hague Convention of 1899, or the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949 forbid al-Awlaki’s killing by international law. Right off the get go, proponents of this argument are off to a bad start. In fact, the international law community has often taken the stance that killing an adversary can often fall within the confines of international law.
The clauses that traditionally have been construed as prohibiting “targeted killings” are far from clear prohibitions. In the Hague Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (29 July 1899), Article 23b states that it is prohibited “to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.” Treachery is not explicitly defined, and it can be argued that using missiles to attack a car in which a target is traveling, while brutal and having a high probability of injuring bystanders, does not fall within the purview of treachery. Similarly, targeted killings can be argued to fall outside the Protocol I Article 37 prohibition on killing, injuring, or capturing “an adversary by resort to perfidy”—described as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence.” Article 37 gives examples of perfidy including “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or surrender” and “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status.”
Basically, you can’t ‘assassinate’ under false-flag circumstances. No such circumstance existed with the al-Awlaki killing. It should be noted that this provision addresses someone belonging to a hostile nation OR army. While al-Awlaki did not belong to a hostile nation, he did belong to a hostile army. This is important later when I argue the relevance of his US citizenship.
In addition to this international law, the US has NO LAW forbidding foreign assassinations. We do, however, have a policy of not undertaking assassinations. Policy does not equal law.
The second component to this operation is that Yemen fully approved, and supported the killing of al-Awlaki. So no argument can be made that we violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation.
The other argument making its way around is that al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal because he was a US citizen. As such, an assassination order by the President of the United States would violate his constitutional right of due process. It should also be noted that al-Awlaki was not the only American killed in the attack.
Al-Awlaki’s ties to terrorism are not in dispute, his actual influence is. So can the president order his killing, or not?
8 U.S.C. § 1481 addresses the issue of US citizenship in situations like this.
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention ofrelinquishing United States nationality –
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
The law also addresses taking up arms against the United States in section 7. Considering al-Awlaki’s Yemeni citizenship, which does not recognize dual-citizenship, and his taking up arms against the US, it would appear that he renounced his US citizenship long ago.
Section 7 automatically revokes his citizenship because of his terrorist activities, but requires capture and tribunal. Since he was in Yemen, we revert to international law which permits his killing in order to prevent a further loss of life. More relevant is local Yemen law. Again, they assisted in the killing of al-Awlaki.
Is his killing a gray area? Only in the perpetually unrefined laws of US citizenship. Laws that most Americans agree need to be revamped, but the law nonetheless.
The only component missing to classify al-Awlaki as a non-citizen appears to be a mere formality of choreographed theater that would only serve to satisfy the selfish needs of third party citizens, not the parties directly involved. It’s pretty clear that al-Awlaki, the US, and Yemen were all on the same page.
Both al-Alwaki and Yemen agree that he is a citizen of Yemen. The US agrees that he revoked his citizenship. Who are you to swoop in and negate those facts?
The only sources of outcry appear to come from the ignorant, and those with a vested interest in ideological pacifism. Not from a position of morality or legality.
Ultimately, this is a debate that will fall upon opinion. If you think al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal, you’ll likely never change your mind. Same goes for those who think it was legally justified. Each individual will have to decide for themselves if international law, US law, or Yemeni law should reign supreme.
I’ve often asked this question in my writings and on my show. Most often, in discussions with the ignorant about Saddam being the innocent victim of Bush/Cheney aggression.
No clear answer has been given by pacifists to the question: “What would justify war?”
The pacifist hordes often give conflicting answers. For example, Ron Paul (who claims a form of pacifism) was interviewed by John Stossel in 2007, and was asked what would justify a war.
If you’re attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.
That sounds nice, but I found Paul’s answer interesting, and vague. What constitutes an attack? Is it on your property, your citizens, or must it be within your national borders? Pacifists have been unable to clarify this position for me over the years.
What does this have to do with Iraq, and my greater point later?
Before the 2003 Iraq invasion, Saddam was repeatedly ‘attacking’ the USand her allies in a little discussed conflict in the no fly zones. Yet Ron Paul, and others, have frequently said that there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq. So … shooting/attacking US citizens, and destroying US property is not an attack?
I’m of a different viewpoint, and my training to invade Iraq under Clinton proved that even Slick Willy agreed with me.
So why bring this up now? Iraq was a resounding success, and Saddam is dead. Because we may be heading for another war.
Tensions have been rising with Pakistan for years. The killing of Osama bin Laden only catapulted those tensions to the mainstream. During the aftermath of that operation, we clearly learned that Pakistan is no friend of the US. Yet, something far worse was kept from us.
A group of American military officers and Afghan officials had just finished a five-hour meeting with their Pakistani hosts in a village schoolhouse settling a border dispute when they were ambushed — by the Pakistanis.
Yep. Ambushed by the Pakistanis … ahem … allegedly.
Maj. Larry J. Bauguess lost his life in the attack.
This blatant act of war was covered up by both the Pakistanis and Washington. In fact, Pakistan has been well-known to retaliate for collateral damage by US forces with open attacks on US personnel.
Some will blame America for the incident, and say that Pakistan was just retaliating for their losses. An interesting point, albeit one that ignores Pakistan’s hindering our intelligence, and often openly helping the enemy against us.
Then there’s Iran. We know they are sending weapons across the border into Iraq to help kill Americans. There have even been clashes with US and Iranian military forces. Something that was also kept quiet, and has happened more than once.
Right about now someone will say that none of this would happen if we weren’t there to begin with, so we are still the aggressor. That’s about as intelligent as inviting someone over for dinner, and then calling them a burglar.
Am I calling for war with Pakistan or Iran? No.
Were those two incidents justification for war in my opinion? Yes.
I’m saddened that neither party has an option for president that touts legit military credentials. We have, after all, been at war for a decade with no truly experienced military veteran in the White House. Going forward, we may not have an option for peace either. It makes me wonder … how different things would be if a competent military commander were also sitting in the White House.
** Updated March 2, 2014 to include the video of the exchange with Dina Titus
The People Aren’t The People … We Are The People
For years now, I have repeatedly made the case that many politicians who quote or cite the U.S. Constitution have never actually taken the time to read the document. This is in spite of the fact that any U.S. citizen can obtain a free copy from their congressional representative through a simple visit to his/her office. You’d think that an elected official who distributes this document might at some point actually pick it up and see what all the fuss is about.
Over the past several elections, many politicians have tried to corner the market as the ‘Constitution guy’ in order to secure votes. Unfortunately, they’re just as ignorant of the wording in the US Constitution as the next guy. They always get caught misquoting it, or providing their own interpretation of what the founding fathers were ‘really’ thinking.
My biggest issue comes from the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights and is known as the “Reserved Powers” amendment. Why? Because it reserves powers, of course. Many listeners have asked me over the years why Congress gets away with their unconstitutional power grabs when the Tenth Amendment clarifies their limited authority quite well. I always have the same answer. Members of the US Congress believe THEY are “the people.”
Congressional representatives have determined that the Tenth Amendment’s “or to the people” provision is actually talking about THEM. The people elected them, so they are the people’s representatives. Therefore, they are the people.
The more I talk about this issue, the more examples surface to prove my point.
See I Told You So
KXNT’s Ciara Turns attended the recent health care town hall held by Dina Titus (D-NV) and got to speak with Rep. Titus for a few minutes. During their conversation, Ciara asked Titus what part of the US Constitution granted the federal government the authority to intrude on the private sector as it is doing with health care reform. The response: “The Tenth Amendment.”
Here’s the video of that exchange:
See, I told you so.
Titus said that the Tenth Amendment “allows anything not prohibited in the first nine amendments to be done by states or by government.” That is a direct quote from video taken at the public event.
Titus then went on to say that the US Constitution was a document that was “written to be flexible over time.” After which she went on to argue against freedom of speech by citing the example of yelling fire in a theater and some other nonsense. Those darn strict constructionists!
Looks like the whole ‘living, breathing document’ theory is alive and well in Nevada politics. Titus completely ignores the way in which our constitution is actually designed to be flexible – and it is. The flexibility exists in that a constitutional amendment to the Constitution can be proposed, and then ratified – not in the ability to reinterpret the words written by our founding fathers. To amend the document requires a ¾ approval from state legislatures, or the approval of a constitutional convention. So: it is flexible, but only after tremendous effort.
Rep. Titus believes that the Tenth Amendment grants the federal government the authority to address health care the way it is doing. She is misguided, and this is evident in her inability to cite the meaning of the Tenth Amendment correctly in her discussion with Ciara. (Wasn’t she a political science professor?)
For the record, the Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Notice it says that authority reverts back to the states, or “to the people” … not to government. Nor does the Tenth Amendment apply only to the first nine amendments, as Titus seemed to indicate. This is where my statement that Congressmen believe they are the people is relevant. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip when she said government instead of people.
Two’s Company
Today, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) stated that the US Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ clause granted the government the authority to require American citizens to buy health insurance.
Funny … the General Welfare clause is not in the Tenth Amendment. Someone should tell Dina Titus. It would seem these two Democrats can’t agree on what part of the US Constitution grants them the authority to impose mandated health insurance. In other words, they are grasping at straws. Let’s hope they prick their fingers on a needle instead.
Article I, Section 8, outlines the powers of Congress, including raising taxes. It does not allow for Congress to mandate the purchasing of any item, good, or service. You can read it here.
Now what did the Tenth Amendment teach us earlier about authority not granted to the federal government by the Constitution? It is supposed to revert to the states, or to the people. And, just like Titus: Hoyer believes he is the people.
Three’s Not A Crowd, It’s The Forming Of A Pack
In my last interview with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), which got national attention, I brought up the fact that Congress was passing unconstitutional bills. He was perplexed and asked which were unconstitutional. I began bringing up the retroactive legislation Congress was enacting in dealing with the AIG bonuses. Again, he was perplexed and asked how those were unconstitutional.
Now, before I go further, we have to understand that he is the Majority Leader in the US Senate. He’s the highest ranking official in the more prominent of the two houses of our federal legislature. Shouldn’t he be able to understand these issues? It is, after all, his job.
I answered Reid’s question by stating that Congress had violated the Ex Post Facto clauses. To which he responded that, no, they didn’t. Here we go again. Another member of our US Congress who doesn’t understand basic constitutional law. I’d give you a big “SURPISE!” here, but somehow a “ho-hum” feels more appropriate.
Ex Post Facto laws are governed by two clauses in the US Constitution: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. These clauses forbid Congress from passing retroactive legislation. Which is exactly what Congress was doing at the time I interviewed Reid, soon after he went on tirade about how evil AIG was for those bonuses. And before I asked him about this issue.
In 1798, in the case of Calder v Bull (3 US 386), the US Supreme Court ruled:
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.
The Pandemic Is Upon Us
In recent years the constitutional ignorance, or bemoaning – take your pick – from elected officials has become much more common and mainstream.
I’m reminded of Pittsburgh Councilwoman, Tonya Payne, who last November gave a statement about an unconstitutional bill just passed by the Pittsburgh City Council requiring a citizen to report a stolen firearm within 24 hours or face a fine. She said:
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional? This is what’s right to do.”
Damn that pesky piece of parchment!
While my citations here are just a few recent examples and center on Democratic officials, this problem is in no way unique to Democrats. Republicans are ‘almost‘ just as guilty.
When you ask a conservative to name a Republican who respects and adheres to the Constitution, you will likely get Newt Gingrich’s name. But I’ve been screaming at the top of my lungs for years to beware of this man. He is a fraud. Finally, some are starting to heed my warnings. My good friend Mark Levin is among them.
Gingrich defended William Jefferson (D-LA) when the FBI raided his congressional office. Jefferson is the guy who hid his bribe money in his freezer, took over rescue equipment after Hurricane Katrina so he could rescue his personal belongings, and was still promoted by Pelosi.
Gingrich said the FBI raid violated the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. Gingrich would argue repeatedly on TV and radio that the FBI has no right to raid any congressional office … no matter the crime being investigated, simply because they were a part of the Executive Branch.
The Constitution disagrees with him, and so did the US Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the search did not in fact violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court also had previously ruled that such a search is not unconstitutional, but Newt apparently couldn’t care less about either.
The Speech and Debate clause is found in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, and it reads as follows:
“Sec. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
Jefferson was being investigated for a felony, and was eventually convicted.
In the case of Williamson v. United States (1908) the Supreme Court wrote:
“It is not asserted that it has ever been finally settled by this court that the constitutional privilege does not prohibit the arrest and punishment of a member of Congress for the commission of any criminal offense. The contention must rest, therefore, upon the assumption that the text of the Constitution so plainly excludes all criminal prosecutions from the privilege which that instrument accords a congressman as to cause the contrary assertion to be frivolous.”
Until the American people begin to hold their politicians accountable for their meandering ways, we are doomed to live out Lord Christopher Monckton’s eulogy for the United States. Lord Monckton was speaking about the UN Climate Change Treaty on Oct. 14, 2009 when he said:
“Thank you America. You WERE the beacon of freedom for the world. It is a privilege to merely stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free.”
