Skip to content

Barack Hussein Obama: America’s New War Dictator

June 1, 2012
America's new war dictator.

America’s new war dictator.

The United States– the land of the free and the home of the brave– has slowly become what its great founding fathers had warned the Americans against: a fascist state. Under the four-year rule of its notoriously Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama, the US government has waged an open-secret private war against its own citizens and its perceived enemies abroad without proper constitutional compliance.

The Obama administration had launched its drone program, an Orwellian government domestic and foreign policy designed to eradicate Obama’s perceived enemies and to keep himself in power, against congressional approval on the pretext of keeping America safe.

With the expose of Obama’s fascist drone program, the US media and political pundits have started to ask whether their President has acquired a new power to kill without proper congressional permission. With the release of the president’s ‘kill list’, everybody knows that Obama regularly presides over secret meetings to decide who gets put on a “kill list” of so-called America’s for strikes. Also, with his newly acquired new [unconstitutional] power to kill, the president personally examines each ‘kill’ nominee and issues his personal ultimate verdict.

But is this perfectly legal and constitutional? Can the president of the first free nation on earth founded by Thomas Jefferson, George  Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison legally call for the assassination of America’s perceived enemies within the United States and abroad?

Former judge Andrew Napolitano, a libertarian constitutional expert, said NO, president obama has no such fascistic power to kill under the U.S. Constitution.

Napolitano explained in his widely syndicated column:

“The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked, or when an attack is so imminent and certain that delay would cost innocent American lives, or in pursuit of a congressional declaration of war. Under federal law, he can only order killing using civilians when a person has been sentenced lawfully to death by a federal court and the jury verdict and the death sentence have been upheld on appeal. If he uses the military to kill, federal law requires public reports of its use to Congress and congressional approval after 180 days.”

He also said the United States has has not declared war since World War II. This means that the Congress, which has the power to wage war, has not permitted the country’s arm forces to launch a military campaign. Napolitano added:

“If the president knows that an attack on our shores is imminent, he’d be hard-pressed to argue convincingly that a guy in a truck in a desert 10,000 miles from here — no matter his intentions — poses a threat to the U.S. so imminent and certain that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no circumstances may he use civilian agents for non-judicial killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force to protect themselves, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel, wherever they go on the planet.”

Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing. He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect. And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents.

However, according to a Wall Street Journal report, a senior Obama official, for the first time, has publicly articulated the legal or constitutional basis for targeted killings. Harold Koh, the State Department’s legal adviser, said that since America is currently faced with an ongoing military conflict, the United States government has the duty to declare war in self-defense.

The Obama official said:

“In this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks.”

However, the fact is the U.S. Congress has not officially declared war against any country. What is clear is that President Obama has continued and extended the Bush administration’s global war on terrorism. But still, any war in which the United States military is engaged must always have congressional approval to be legal or constitutional.

So far, media reports reveal that the Central Intelligence Agency has used drones to murder between 400 and 500 suspected militants since January 2009. What about possible collateral civilian deaths, which Obama critics used to attack the program?  Intelligence officials reveal only about 20 civilians have been killed in that period.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Koh’s defense in March won agreement from national security experts such as Ken Anderson, of the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, who has urged the administration to make a legal case to safeguard what has become an important part of the antiterrorism arsenal.

Mr. Koh’s speech was also noteworthy because, before joining the State Department, Mr. Koh, a human-rights lawyer, was an outspoken critic of most of the George W. Bush administration’s policies regarding the war on terrorism.Legal criticism of the drone program has continued, however. “A number of controversial questions were left unanswered” by Mr. Koh’s speech, says Jonathan Manes, a lawyer on the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “The speech did not say where the government draws the line between legitimate targets—combatants and those taking part in hostitilities—and civilians, who cannot be targeted. The speech also did not set out any rules on where drones strikes can be used to target and kill individuals,” Mr. Manes says.

Again, judge Napolitano, in another syndicated column, maintained that Obama’s drone program is unconstitutional. He made the following statement:

“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 killAmericans 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.

It is very clear that Obama is waging a private war against private persons, including Americans. The main problem with the president’s new unconstitutional power, which definitely will not keep America safe, is that the president has been executing his drone program without congressional authorization, in violation of the Constitution, and in a manner that destroys Americans’ freedom. While I believe that any nation has a right to self-defense, I don’t think it should be done in this manner, which only turns an incumbent president into a ‘war dictator’. Obama’s private war will never keep America safe; it was designed to keep himself in power.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: