[Video] Napolitano: Bombing Syria - 'No One Seems to Care About the Law'

[orenbus]

On Thursday afternoon, two of Fox News’s more outspoken anti-war voices in Judge Andrew Napolitano and Shepard Smith spoke out against what they believe would be a “war crime” if the United States were to militarily intervene in the Syrian civil war, even after a potential congressional rejection vote.

“It is illegal under international law and illegal under the Constitution,” Napolitano told his colleague. “You can use military force to attack somebody that attacked you or you can use military force to attack one that is about to attack you. Neither of those apply with respect to Syria.” He added that, however, a country may legally use military force to enforce international norms when authorized to do so by the United Nations — a situation which has not happened here.

Napolitano also noted for Smith that, technically speaking, “the president can start any war he wants, against anybody he wants for 90 days and nothing congress can do about it” under the War Powers Act. However, he added, that law is unconstitutional.

“If the president is unleashed to do whatever he wants in Syria,” Napolitano lamented, “Congress cannot stop him from putting the 75,000 boots on the ground that General Dempsey said would be necessary.”

“So if they do this, we have committed a war crime,” Smith asserted.

Napolitano agreed, adding that, in the event we strike Syria, there will be no way of stopping the United States. “No judge is going to stop this; no one is going to prosecute the president,” the judge said. “The American people don’t want this to happen; our allies in the region don’t want this to happen. Who wants this to happen besides John Kerry and the president?”

The judge concluded by suggesting that any president can become “lawless” when they have a powerful military at their disposal. “No one seems to care about the law here,” he said. “They just seem to care about politics. Congress lets the president start a war; the president doesn’t care what international law says. He wants to be vindicated politically.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/judge-na...ervention-no-one-seems-to-care-about-the-law/

 

[paulbot24]

 

[kcchiefs6465]

When the attack first broke (reports of some 1400 killed by Assad in chemical attack) Smith was calling for US intervention. Something about "how would the history books describe US and its inaction." Judge Napolitano must have talked to him. (or someone else, I don't know)

Good to see Shepard Smith has changed his views on the subject. I hope he is legitimately coming around to seeing the foolishness of our foreign policy.

 

[Lucille]

That was the first thing I thought about, and was just coming to post that clip! LOL

 

[orenbus]

LOL!!!

 

[Barrex]

Was it over the line? It was never important to me before but now I am wondering....

 

[JJ2]

So who is right? Judge Napolitano or Rand/Amash? The Judge claims the War Powers act says the President can use any force he wants to for any reason for 90 days. Rand Paul and Justin Amash say this is a misinterpretation of the War Powers act.

Who is right?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

So who is right? Judge Napolitano or Rand/Amash? The Judge claims the War Powers act says the President can use any force he wants to for any reason for 90 days. Rand Paul and Justin Amash say this is a misinterpretation of the War Powers act.

Who is right?

Both.

Practically speaking, the president can. (considering every president since the WPA was enacted has done so)

Congress dropped the ball. Rand Paul, Thomas Massie and Justin Amash have pointed out the text of the Act. John McCain (and his ilk) argue that the vague clause pertaining to "statutory authorization" is what allows the president to act unilaterally. It has not been challenged and the Congress has yet to impeach a president for acting outside of Congress committing acts of war unilaterally.

They are only three people. The attitude needs to be prevalent throughout the Congress to actually matter or to effectively impeach the president.

A majority of the House Judiciary Committee needs to vote to draft the articles of impeachment. (hard enough to do) Then two-thirds of the House must vote to approve and two-thirds of the Senate must vote to approve as well. That's just to remove him from office. To actually have him charged with a crime and face prison time would be a hell of lot harder to try and accomplish.

Judge Napolitano speaks practically. He speaks of earlier precedents being set. He understands that Congress is the branch of government entrusted with declaring war and he understand the original intent of "declare". He has spoken on it a few times and has written about it in the couple of books that I've read.

 

[presence]

There was a dry, lingering, almost eerie silence to the background of their words.