DEFECTIVE U.S. CONSTITUTION ALLOWS BUSH TO RECKLESSLY FIRE MISSILES INTO PAKISTAN

Sandy Levinson writes in the legal blog Balkinization about our defective Constitution. Levinson points out how George W. Bush still can make lots of trouble not only for Americans but the rest of the world in his last three months in office, notwithstanding his low approval ratings and the disapproval of many in his theory of the "unitary executive." I commented on Levinson's post and here I reproduce some of my comments after editing.

The fact that even now on the eve of the presidential election Bush can still order missile strikes into Pakistani agrarian towns and villages is another reason why the Constitution needs amending.

We have today another example of Bush's dictatorial powers in a story from the website of The Washington Post as reported by Ishtiaq Mahsud:

"Suspected U.S. missiles slammed into two villages close to the Afghan border Friday, killing 27 people, including an Arab al-Qaeda operative and other foreign fighters, intelligence officials said.

"The strikes raised the number of such attacks to at least 17 since August. The surge has angered many Pakistanis and strained a seven-year U.S. alliance with Pakistan, where rising violence is exacerbating economic problems and undermining the nuclear-armed country's stability."

So it seems in his final days bellicose Bush is determined to antagonize the entire population of Pakistan in his quest to kill a few "Al Qaeda types." It doesn't matter how many innocents are killed at the same time provided that the target person is killed. In the story from the WaPo, we see at least 27 lives taken. Imagine how many innocent children and families lost their lives.

Additionally, I wonder how the CIA guy who pushed the button firing the missile into the targeted homes in Waziristan can sleep at night and whether he ever equates those children he killed with his own.

Some say this is legally justified by AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force). But there must be a test of proportionality. To kill 27 people in order to kill one "Al Qaeda type" does not I argue meet this test. Furthermore, I submit that even killing of one innocent destroys the proportionality.

For this reason I find Bush's powers as president to order these strikes deeply troubling. Bush should have no authority to kill innocent civilians. His actions provide enough material to form the basis for charging him in the International Court with war crimes.

OBAMA IS RIGHT IN EMPHASIZING TALK RATHER THAN WAR

Steve Clemons at The Washington Note writes today on the disagreement between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the question of dealing with those leaders and regimes that Republicans like to call "enemies," for example, President Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Sanchez of Venezuela.

Steve says exactly the right things. We should praise Obama for being willing to break the current Bush policy of refusing to talk or negotiate with those regimes and leaders who disagree with Bush or U.S. policies and actions. Bush believes that anyone who disagrees with him is "evil" and an "enemy." Obama believes that the U.S. should deal with such leaders and discuss differences. After all, talking and diplomacy never killed anyone.

Hillary is too politically calculating to come right out and agree with Barack. She says she would be resistant to engage in talk and diplomacy until it was clear these antagonistic world leaders were not simply using her for propaganda purposes. But then she adds she would elevate diplomacy to a new higher level.

Obama is correct in calling her "Bush-lite." Many in the U.S., especially Republicans, think that the only way to solve world disagreements is through waging war and dropping bombs. Hillary needs to admit that this is the wrong approach, just as she still needs to admit she made a horrible mistake in voting for the AUMF, the authorization for Bush to use military force in Iraq.