Krauthammer: If You Take Up Arms Against The United States You Have Forfeited Your Rights

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I really don't understand this sort of hysteria over the idea of killing Americans who have taken up arms against the United States. Thousands of Americans, Southerners, died in Antietam without any due process. When we stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-day, and Americans approached German bunkers, I don't think anybody asked if they were any German-Americans here, I want to read you the Miranda rights. If you take up arms against the United States you were a target because it was an act of war and you forfeited those rights.

I agree that were thus Bush the overwhelming majority conservatives would applaud. Likewise, libs would be screaming bloody murder and the MSM running nightly scandal pieces on it. Or, if it’s Fox, running nightly apologies defending it.

I do not consider this a good thing.

“The issue is the joining of a foreign army actively engaged in warfare against the United States”

Is it? I read much more into the administration’s defense of the policy. Also, what constitutes “joining”? And what “army” are we talking about? Who are we at war with? These are all questions that are supposed to he settled by Congress, which has been even more lilly-livered than the courts.

Among anti-terror warriors there is a remarkably cavalier attitude to the scope and intention of the “war on terror.” I’m not speaking now of the ones who wanna nuke all muslims, whom I don’t take seriously. I mean the ones who grant gubmint license to kill basically anyone anywhere even remotely connected to the amorphous blob of muslim extremism. Not even Middle Eastern muslim extremism, and not even those that have actually engaged in terror, but basically total global “war” against anyone who might possible plan a 9/11. Which is loosely defined, to say the least.

I might not have so much a problem with it if Congress would declare war on Al-Queda and the administration could produce evidence of collusion with the person it blew up. As it is we’re sacrificing WAY too much to the whims of the fightin’ branch.

“This seems consistent with Bush’s policies in the war against terror”

I don’t remember Bush claiming power to assassinate undefined enemies, even U.S. citizens, without having to bother producing evidence or anything like that. I don’t remember his administration claiming the right to blow up any Al-Queda member or fellow traveller anywhere on the globe, let alone any enemy as per this administration, not necessarily Al-Queda affiliated.

Can you point me to what Bush policy this fell under or was implied by? I continue to wonder why John Walker Lindh was tried in U.S. court.

“a proven terrorist, at war with Americans”

What war? When did Congress declare it, and against whom? These are not idle questions. Our national government has been on perpetual war footing since the lead-in to WWII, and it has bred a panoply of evils. There are those of conservatives who believe in the National Security State and those of us who think it’s as bad as the Welfare State. Nevermind for now what’s more truly conservative. I am of the latter.

Let Congress declare war on Al-Queda and members or fellow travellers of whomever you want to kill. Let the White House be prepared to prove itself whenever it wants to kill U.S. citizens. After the fact, if that’s what the situation demands. But don’t give me this privilege crap. Show judges or Congressmen in secret if you absolutely must.

“the Branch Davidians torches that compound, not the government”

You are a stooge. Why would they? I could see, perhaps, by accident. But whose fault would that be, really? Anyway, it wasn’t. Our federal government did it. You can see it on the tapes.

Can you point me to what Bush policy this fell under or was implied by?

Jusk ask Bush's former UN Ambassador John Bolton since those are his exact words. He goes on to say the following:

“It seems to me that the approach that the Obama administration is following is consistent with and really derived from the Bush administration approach to the War on Terror,” Bolton told [Fox News] host Jenna Lee. “And I think it is entirely sensible. Whether it is foreign citizens who are involved with Al Qaeda or American citizens, we are in a war. They have attacked us. We have a congressional authorization to use military force in response. And that’s what’s at stake here.”

And that is the way I see it as well. I just don't have any problem blowing up American citizens that run off and join al-Queda. It does not concern me if they are incinerated with their jihadi brethren.

And quite honestly, the folks I see most upset with this largely come from the peacenik left (Code Pink, ACLU, etc) and isolationist/conspiracy minded right (Libertarians/Paulbots/InfoWars crowd) - and I don't like or find myself in agreement with either of those two groups. The fact that they are the ones most opposed just reassures me that the Bolton position on this is correct.

I disagree with pretty much your whole point, but let’s focus in on one little aspect. Say rights belong in mock quotes, and all these people have given them up by joining this or that foreign power which the White House claims we’re at war with. Are you willing to take their word for it that the blown up person in question had, in fact, sacrificed their rights? Need they never have to worry about producing any evidence whatsoever? Why, on earth?

Why would we care about one unlucky kid, given the probably millions of innocent civilians US armed forces have slaughtered in pursuit of something or other.

Sorry, but you sound like a paulbot. This is exactly the kind of comments one would expect to find on Ron Paul forums. And it is precisely the reason Ron Paul could never win the GOP nomination. Conservatives just do not agree that the US armed forces have been "slaughtering" civilians for no good reason. That is naive, paultard libertarian thinking.

But that’s precedent for holding someone who falls into the category of enemy combatant. Sounds as if the government was obliged to justify its actions, as well, given what you know of his case. Nowadays, at least, they’re simply refusing to tell why.

I see the point. “Hey,” says John Bolton, “if we can detain and torture them why not kill em? Makes no difference due process-wise.” Is that the case, however? How was this person captured? By special mission, or in the course of normal warfare? There is a difference between casually sitting back and plotting an American’s death from Washington and treating an American like all the other combatants you meet in the field.

Certainly Bush’s policy was never targeted assassinations, even if the legal logic from detaining without due process or habeas corpus and with torture extends for some minds to outright killing. Was it? Anyway, all I want is three things:

1). Congress to declare war, and for us only to be able to capture and detain or assassinate members of what we’ve declared war on, or people actively helping them;
2). the White House to be able to justify itself afterwards, if called upon to answer why US citizens were deprived of rights.

Organized? Not really. Anyway, even if he planned and executed every detail, we still could have stopped it by Nanjing the guys that were actually over here, you know, in our country. The one we’re supposedly defending by shepherding “democracies” halfway across the world.

Organized? Not really. Anyway, even if he planned and executed every detail, we still could have stopped it by nabbing the guys that were actually over here, you know, in our country. The one we’re supposedly defending by shepherding “democracies” halfway across the world.

By the way, I see you qualified him as “actively engaged in planning acts of terror.” Have you actually read the administration’s defense of the drone policy? There’s no active engagement requirement. Nor need it be an entity we’re actually at war with like the Taliban. It’s basically any enemy anywhere in the world affiliated with anything whatsoever that the White House says they think are a threat.

All that, and we just have to take their word for it.

Okay, though I notice most libs falling in line with Obama’s supposed Bushiness, critics of the robot assassin policy do tend to be either lefties or libertarians, which apparently is to you a bad word. I wouldn’t say Bolton being in favor of it is enough to dissuade me, but he certainly doesn’t help.

The only thing I ever liked about him was that we sent a guy who isn’t a fan of supernational gubmint to the UN, though I suspect he’s not as opposed as he’s made out to be, and whatever is his beef with the UN he probably dislikes it for the wrong reasons. Still, we should be appointing people to posts based on their disbelief in its worthiness. The tendency toward special pleading must be undermined.

By the way, I asked for the specific Bush policy, and this is merely a general argument from Bolton. I suppose what we’re talking about is indefinite detention and torturing of combatants caught in the field. It’s true they were denied due process. I don’t see drone strikes as related.

Sorry, but I don’t care. Since at least the Civil War our armed forces have demonstrated criminal unconcern for the lives and safety of innocent civilians. You tell me how to justify Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. I don’t recognize the difference between killing people face to face at My Lai and oops, my bad killing children who happen to be near a purported bad guy from a distance.

Too bad, wrong place at the wrong time, doesn’t cut it for me. I may have exaggerated my argument a bit for effect. Granted, it is longterm policy not to care so much about innocents. But occasionally saying too bad, so sad, to a kid killed with a robot dispatched from afar gets to me.

“Conservatives just do not agree that the US armed forces have been ‘slaughtering’ civilians for no good reason.”

Or they simply ignore it. Either way, all the worse for them Conservatives weren’t always this way. To me the military is the biggest Big Government program of all. “War is the health of the state.”

I think you are a paulbot and I really don't have time to rehash all the reasons conservatives are not libertarians. You seem like a libertarian trying to convince conservatives to join your cause, and I'm sorry but conservatives are never going to be libertarians.

You tell me how to justify Dresden, Hiroshima, etc.

Because I hold populations responsible for their governments. Where we got in trouble post WW2 was our attempts to separate the two. I'd argue needlessly killing civilians is simply a counter productive military strategy, but shattering cities in an attempt to break an enemy nations spirit is perfectly reasonable and acceptable in my book. That strategy won wars. There is a good reason there were no insurgencies in Germany and Japan post WW2 - those populations knew we wouldn't bat an eye about wiping out entire towns if they harbored terrorists. I believe we should STILL be fighting wars that way.

To me the military is the biggest Big Government program of all.

I know, that's because you're an anti-military libertarian. I don't agree with you, nor do the vast majority of conservatives. Conservatives tend to think the military is the one major thing the government SHOULD be funding. It's the rest of the stuff we'd curtail, cut, eliminate or let the states deal with.

I've given a lot of thought about this...in terms of "if we were to do this all over again...how would I write a constitution to address this?"

Here was my answer: Every citizen has their rights. They forfeit their citizenship (and thus their rights) when 1) They take up arms against the citizens of the country who are fighting in a war on foreign soil or 2) They support, by means of treasure, any group which has taken up arms against the citizens of the country on foreign soil.

At that point...you are an enemy combatant...and all bets are off.

To wrap up, and thanks for all in this discussion,

What worries me a lot is the increasing threshold of public tolerance with regards to dictatorial tendencies.

The slow (drip drip drip) erosion of our liberties. Like the proverbial 'frog in the boiling water'.

Are you kidding? Wow, you Koreshophiles are hilarious. What I hear on the tapes are Branch Davidians talking about pouring Coleman Fuel and lighting fires...”Can I light this now?” etc. I guess you think they were grilling burgers...

As to why they would do it...you want me to rationalize the behavior of a bunch of lunatics for you? Why do cults so often commit mass suicide? These peole believed David Koresh was the messiah. Yeah, great standard bearers for the conservative cause, those guys...if they had obeyed a lawful warrant they would be alive today.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.