Let me assure you that President Obama’s drone program makes me extremely uneasy. But there’s absolutely no evidence for Judge Andrew Napolitano’s accusation that the purpose of the program is for Obama’s political expediency or that it’s because “he doesn’t have the courage” to put terrorists on trial in Guantanamo Bay. Yet, that’s what Napolitano said on Fox & Friends this morning. Predictably, there was no challenge from host Brian Kilmeade, even though he made clear his support for the drone program.
As “ASSASSINATION COURT” and “LICENSE TO KILL?” blared in banners on the screen, Napolitano batted aside the notion that some kind of judicial oversight of the program would be acceptable.
The Constitution makes no exception for “the government shall not take your life without a jury trial.” …This is a transfer of the power to kill from nowhere! The president has just seized it, himself. He’s given himself permission to kill - to judges meeting in secret.
…I’m not sure which is worse. By putting the burden on the judges, the president takes the heat off himself. Let me tell you why the president’s killing: because he doesn’t have the courage to address the issue of Guantanamo Bay, which he said he would close and he hasn’t. Because he doesn’t have the courage to put these people on trial who are in Guantanamo Bay, which he said he would and he hasn’t. He thinks it would be easier politically to kill them. He might be right.
Rather than ask for anything like grounds to make such an accusation, Kilmeade gave it credence. He said enthusiastically, “He’s only captured one and we don’t even know where that guy is.”
Nobody mentioned, as even Bill O’Reilly did last night on Letterman, that drones are safer and less costly for our troops because we don’t have to send Special Forces into extremely risky situations, that they supposedly terrorize jihadists who are now in danger while preparing for their operations and there’s an argument to be made that they cause fewer civilian casualties.
Again, don’t get me wrong. I’m not justifying the program. And I think there are plenty of compelling arguments against it. But I have no reason to believe – and nobody on Fox offered any – to think that it was designed because Obama "thinks it would be easier politically."
Dumbya iz sending da military for to fight the man who threatened hiz daddy cuz he don’t have da courage to put Saddam on trial.
I really disagree with the drone policy. It is difficult because Al Qaeda is such a horribly destructive and oppressive group that really needs to be destroyed.
Drones in the US? they’d only have to kill one innocent and that would be the end of that program on our soil. But Drones in other countries apparently kill innocents all the time, and there is no one to stop them. This kind of activity probably does more damage to our country in the form of additional enemies and retaliatory attacks than it prevents.
Despite the protests of the same people who conveniently forgot John McCain penned the “Indefinite Detention” provision, Drones against Americans is a morality issue at this point. The LAPD is already making the case for how they can be abused in real time taking little side trips hunting Dorner.
Imagine someone like, say… Mitt Romney with control of something like this.
The major remaining legal issue is the geographical boundaries; oversight and final clearance are both being reformed. It’s funny how Fox News is bitching about the reform, while largely treating the dismissive attitude towards boundaries as an afterthought. It says a lot about them.