Andrew Napolitano on Extra-Judicial Killing


The White House/Instagram

When President Obama decided that he wanted to be able to use unmanned aerial drones in foreign lands to kill people, including Americans, he instructed Attorney General Eric Holder to find a way to make it legal. When later asked about this legal rationale by reporters for The New York Times, Holder declined to provide it, arguing that it was a state secret. He dispatched Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers to court, where they succeeded in persuading a federal judge to deny the Times' application to order the government's legal rationale revealed.

Two weeks after this ruling, the federal appeals court to which the Times appealed unanimously ordered the DOJ to publicly reveal its heretofore secret rationale. The Obama administration is probably right to fear the revelation of this so-called legal way to kill, writes Andrew Napolitano. We already know that behind Obama's veil lies a disingenuous president who claims he can secretly kill fellow Americans. Who knows what else we will find?

NEXT: Brickbat: Now, Hear This

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Who.knows what additional words Judge Napolitano wrote on the topic?

  2. Short and sweet. I like the Judge’s new style.

    1. Yeah. He only asked a single question.

      1. What if an online magazine hinted to a discussion on disposition matrixes but never actually followed through on it. What if currently unelected judges made promises of full disclosure of their views on the subject but the disclosure was never made public beyond a teaser post? What if an entire comments section was wiped out because an editor-in-chief made a posting error?

        1. What if an entire comments section was wiped out

          “I felt a minor disturbance in the Force, as if dozens of snarky voices cried out in frustration and were suddenly silenced.”

          1. *Stands and applauds*

            I think this may be the internet winner. Probably safe to go home for the day.

  3. So… we don’t get to hear their fakey made up secret rationale or murder?

    1. Pretty sure the rationale is just “fuck you, that’s why” dressed up in bullshit legalese. If anything even exists beyond Obama’s whims.

    2. We already know that anyone who questions it is a racist. Dear American voters: Please elect a Republican president in 2016, so that the left can resume pretending to care about these things.

    3. I am guessing either FYTW or Divine Right, two ways of saying the same thing. I am sure the chosen one prefers the latter expression.

    4. I’m confused (it is early): are they going to have to make things public or not? First para says no, second seems to say yes.

      Also, little surprised NY Times is leading the charge on this.

  4. Really. What more is there to say? O’Bozo dispatched his royal court’s legal counsellor to bend the law to cover something that was not clearly legal – also clearly not legal – to construct a CYA justification. The best way for that to stand is to shield it from scrutiny.

    In the 1980’s they used to make “evul government conspiracy” movies based on plots similar to this. IN this day and age the actual government does it practically out in the open.

  5. Process was delivered, duly, to the guilty.

    1. I find that hard to believe, Obozo and Holder are not behind bars. (And Crapper, and Alexander, and….)

      1. No one has ever shown the disposition matrix to be in error. No one.

        1. It is in error by being secret.

          1. Indeed. So the administration should carry out its prime function and sterilize error.

  6. I’m gonna guess the secret rationale is “The military gives me a bunch of people they don’t like, and I get to kill anyone on that list I want, and maybe add anyone I want if they don’t object too strenuously.”

    The wording might be prettied up, but that is probably the gist of it.

  7. I think they forgot to include the link to the entire article. Here is the original, from Lew Rockwell:…..ons-ha-ha/

    1. This is the best example of why the judiciary has failed us. This judge admitted that she believed the executive was acting against the constitution, yet threw the case out because she thought she was bound by precedent. Upholding the constitution comes first your honor.

      1. At least they’re being consistent.

      2. But, but, but what kind of precedent would be set if a judge upheld the constitution instead of precedent? What other precedents would be thrown out? We can’t allow that!

    2. Thanks, prolefeed.

  8. Obama would wet his mom jeans if he ever had to actually do any of his own killing.

  9. While extrajudicial killings are certainly horrible, they’re increasingly unpopular, so I’m sure they will go away on their own if we’re just patient. In any case, it’s unjust to be taking huge amounts of money from taxpayers to investigate this in court and try and ban it via government fiat. Instead we should just use social pressure to convince the people doing the extrajudicial killings that it’s wrong to murder people without trial.

    1. I think this was meant as sarcasm, though perhaps it is poker-faced trolling.

      1. It is sarcastic. I was mocking Napolitano’s odd take on ending slavery.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.