And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of our own
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
--The Who
The killing of Osama Bin Laden has sparked celebration among many Americans. Even those who oppose most of this administration's policies have congratulated President Obama for sanctioning the hit.
The media has mostly done the same. Although there have been scattered questions about whether celebrating someone else's death is ok to do--even if that someone is a mass murdering terrorist--there seems little doubt among most Americans that this operation was a 'good kill.'
Last night, the only person that I could find questioning the legitimacy of OBL's murder was Judge N. Like myself, he confessed that his emotional and patriotic side was glad that all of those who experienced loss from 9/11 could experience some closure. However, his moral and legal side perceives the action sanctioned by the president as dangerous and unlawful.
The lawful power of the president to have someone killed is governed by the Constitution, by international treaties, and by federal statutes. Killing by government is a crime except in self-defense situations where attack is eminent, on battlefields after formal declarations of war, and as the result of trial-by-jury verdicts.
None of those conditions existed in the case of Bin Laden. Yes, he was wanted for horrific crimes and deserved to be brought to justice. But that is justice accord to the law and not according to the president.
There can be no doubt by the reactions of Americans that this particular killing was quite popular. But this does not excuse the fact that this killing violated the law. When the rule of law is ignored, there is no protection against the emotional urges of the mob or against the discretionary whims of the powerful.
As the judge observes, the president took an oath to uphold the rule of law. He has violated that oath, and continues to operate in a manner that is above the law.
A president who operates in this manner is a bigger threat to liberty than Bin Laden ever was.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
A Safe Haven for Liberty
Websites
My Blog List
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(448)
-
▼
May
(35)
- The Capitol Building Loves Anacott Steel
- Better Late than Never
- Cash is Not Trash
- Chicken Littles
- Why Progress Against Disease is Impaired
- Silverado Tornado
- Deflation Dimension
- Red to Gold
- Chinese Checker
- Bargain Hunting
- Gradual Slavery
- Selling Strength
- The Real Economic Experts
- Police State
- Locavore Store
- Defining Politics
- The True Addiction
- Leveraging Time
- Transition Condition
- Central Bank Revolution
- The Age of Ron Paul
- Unemployment is the Law
- Capital Punishment
- Antebellum
- Yielding the Way
- End It
- Oil Spill
- Clear and Present Danger
- White Lightning
- Extra-Judicial Killing
- When Real is Unreal
- Above the Law
- Widening Divide
- Closure
- Pinch and Flinch
-
▼
May
(35)
Labels
- agency problem (312)
- antifederalists (62)
- asset allocation (344)
- balance sheet (171)
- baseball (53)
- Bible (208)
- bonds (378)
- bureaucracy (232)
- Bush (52)
- capacity (199)
- capital (278)
- cash (111)
- central banks (391)
- China (116)
- climate (91)
- Clinton (97)
- commodities (137)
- competition (213)
- Constitution (513)
- contracts (99)
- credit (247)
- debt (759)
- deflation (259)
- democracy (214)
- Depression (490)
- derivatives (54)
- dollar (177)
- education (177)
- endowments (6)
- energy (101)
- entrepreneurship (184)
- EU (365)
- externalities (11)
- Fed (630)
- financial services (13)
- football (16)
- founders (286)
- freedom (784)
- fund management (121)
- gold (351)
- government (923)
- health care (578)
- immigration (27)
- inflation (737)
- institution theory (367)
- intervention (1060)
- Iran (26)
- Israel (12)
- Japan (72)
- Jefferson (135)
- JFK (12)
- judicial (217)
- leverage (393)
- liberty (732)
- lifestyle (157)
- Lincoln (89)
- manipulation (625)
- manufacturing (11)
- markets (706)
- measurement (764)
- media (1262)
- money (224)
- moral hazard (259)
- mortgage (95)
- natural law (485)
- North Korea (9)
- Obama (436)
- oil (97)
- pharma (52)
- ponzi (82)
- productivity (424)
- property (287)
- public choice theory (21)
- Reagan (3)
- real estate (106)
- reason (796)
- regulation (227)
- republic (24)
- retirement (32)
- revolution (34)
- rhetoric (223)
- risk (1044)
- Russia (129)
- saving (211)
- science (9)
- security (300)
- self defense (431)
- sentiment (859)
- silver (128)
- socialism (1397)
- socionomics (130)
- specialization (96)
- supply chain management (58)
- tariffs (73)
- taxes (386)
- Tea Party (154)
- technical analysis (847)
- terrorism (76)
- theory (88)
- time horizon (272)
- Trump (295)
- uncertainty (38)
- urban planning (35)
- valuation (206)
- war (800)
- Weimar (39)
- Wilson (4)
- yields (426)
About Me
- fordmw
- b school prof interested in markets and freedom, among other things.
Disclaimer
Under no circumstances does information appearing on this blog represent investment advice, or an offer to buy or sell securities. No contributor to this blog can provide investment advice or respond to requests for recommendations.
15 comments:
I don't know, Matt. You don't know the circumstances. Or at least I don't. It has been described as a firefight - unless I've missed something, I haven't heard that it was an execution. In fact, I've heard that they used women in the compound as human shields.
I think it's very dangerous to judge the way Navy Seals carried out their job.
Were the orders from the president to execute him?
And this is where my pragmatic person comes out. The logistics of a trial? Where would the trial be held? The attention he would have gotten for a trial? The influence he would have had in the meantime?
And, finally, I mention the argument that has been used ad nauseum for Gitmo. OBL was not an American, therefore not constitutionally protected.
In Sunday nite's announcement, Obama noted that he had directed CIA to make 'the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda.'
The tone of his entire announcement leaves little doubt that this was a carefully premeditated assault, and that capture was not the top priority.
The three legal conditions that govern lethal govt force are not restricted to Americans. None of the three conditions were in place w/ BL.
Matt, I don't think the "tone" of a press conference matters. Tone is subjective and I don't think military missions are launched based on intuition.
If his orders were to kill or capture, then those were the orders. If the Navy Seals determined that he had to be killed, then I honor their expertise. Like I said, it's pretty dangerous to say otherwise.
How far are you willing to take that? Prosecute the person who pulled the trigger? And if you want to make a case that this war and others are illegal too, are you really willing to say that presidents and the military are murderers who should be put on trial?
This kill order was sponsored by the commander in chief who in his speech took full credit for authorizing and directing the op.
By law, only Congress can declare war. The last time this was done was WWII. Since then, president after president has initiated or perpetuated conflict w/ tacit approval of Congress.
Both president and congresspeople take oaths to uphold the rule of law. Yet they continually fail to do so.
Obviously, oaths no longer constitute binding pledges...
The way to eternal peace does not lead through strengthening state and central power, as socialism strives for. The greater the scope the state claims in the life of the individual and the more important politics becomes for him, the more areas of friction are thereby created. Limiting state power to a minimum would considerably soften the antagonisms between different nations.
~Ludwig von Mises, 1919
Yes, Matt. To capture or kill. That's not the same as "to kill." We train our Navy Seals to use their judgment in this situation. What you are really doing is questioning the Navy's use of force.
And you say the oath "no longer" means anything. Do you really believe it's ever been done any other way?
No. Seal team was operating within scope of orders authorized by the commander in chief. That authorization for lethal force, given by the president, was against the law.
So... if he'd said to capture him only and that meant some Navy Seals would die, that would be ok with you?
It is questionable whether the president even had the authority to authorize a 'capture only' mission. Regardless, what he did authorize was lethal force, which is unlawful as outlined in the original post.
Definitely think that's a matter of opinion.
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
Jessep: I did the job that—-
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?!
Jessep: You're goddamn right I did!!
~A Few Good Men
You hit on it. When the rule of law is discarded, what rules is...opinion.
Nice one bro!
No, the law is not opinion. How you define things like "eminent danger" is. I choose to believe that our country did the right thing. You have chosen to believe something different.
I can't help but wonder where all this criticism was during the Bush administration? He's the one who said OBL was wanted Dead or Alive.
Bush broke the law--as is this president. Because I let the emotion of the moment cloud my judgment, I supported the 'war on terror' in its early stages. I was wrong.
Over the past few yrs, I have been trying harder to work toward the truth, however inconvenient it may be. Not sure how much progress I've made, but I'm sleeping much better at night.
Perhaps it's a conscience thing...
Post a Comment