Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Picture this scenario an American citizen exercises his First Amendment right to the freedom of speech but the president believes that his words are actually inciting terrorism.
President doesn't have to -- -- -- merely has to believe this.
Next US drones so -- drone strikes come crashing through the roof of the Americans car killing him and his teenage son.
You would be outrage that this happened here.
That would have mattered do you have this person -- -- Muslim sounding last name for instance like -- all a lock key.
Would that change your mind on whether this scenario was lawful and constitutional.
Our constitution was created to protect all persons and guarantees everyone's right to due process under the law.
President has already run roughshod over those rights in the killing of the New Mexico born New Mexico born.
On our -- locking in how congress is busy.
Hitting the president even more power.
To allow the military to arrest Americans in the streets.
-- back -- panel Peter Silberman reason magazine associate editor retired united states army colonel Douglas Macgregor.
And James -- as an -- be university professor.
Of economics and philosophy Peter should the president be impeached for unilaterally murdering an American citizen without a trial without a charge without a judge without a jury in and -- violation of the constitution and federal law.
Impeached is strong action indeed but he is someone who took strong action himself.
And certainly people need to be talking about it more need to be up paying more attention to and I don't think it's I I just don't think it's something that people have paid nearly enough attention to that the president has basically asserted as you said the power to take out -- -- That he deems.
That he has the authority to take out -- -- decides.
Are you surprised that it's -- eleven where we're actually seriously debating.
Whether the rule of law is superior to the president.
Or the president disappeared to the rules while this was a -- a debate parliament had about the king and 1628.
-- so this one before -- we didn't we we have but.
So why isn't that these things keep happening this so called liberal professor of constitutional law lover of liberty decides.
He can't kill somebody on the basis of secret evidence.
-- -- look it it it's a frightening prospect I'm glad you mentioned New Mexico by the way that is part of the United States and I myself was born in New Mexico yes that's part of the United States.
People in New Mexico are entitled in the same freedoms and under the constitution as every other citizen supposed to be entitled to.
But I think judge what's really going on here's a kind of training in obedience.
American citizens are getting trained to be -- -- look what happens to TSA any with the TSA in the airports -- all getting trained to be obedient to the authorities I don't think.
Colonel McGregor what what do you suspect would be the reaction of members of the military all of whom are volunteers today and each of whom.
Is a professional the president asked them to restrain or to kill -- Someone without due process American or not we're not -- on the battlefield which heard about somebody giving a speech or somebody riding in a car.
-- most of the members of the armed forces are very uncomfortable and interfering in domestic affairs.
And that's really what you're talking about we're talking about suspending the rule of law inside the United States right -- a special category of people presumably Muslims.
Who are suspected of terrorism.
Who could essentially be apprehended or killed -- will.
That's not something that people in the armed forces want to be involved with.
But the issue unfortunately really resides with the congress it is.
Being complicit in all of this because ultimately the armed forces willow bay they will do what they are asked to do.
I have argued -- -- just because something is legal doesn't make it constitutional.
So if the congress for example and they're debating this as we speak says the president.
Do colonel McGregor does painting nightmare scenario but this is one that's actually being debated in the congress that the president can use the military.
To arrest people in the United States and ship them to Guantanamo Bay they can't see a -- in the never see a -- -- forget about a jury.
Just because it's legal doesn't make -- constitutional the Fifth Amendment couldn't be clearer.
No person shall suffer a loss of life liberty or property without due process of little.
Look the constitution that was put in place.
To protect us from unbounded executive power.
But congress has a job to enforce that if they don't there's not a lot to do but I mean -- it it is a nightmare scenario.
When I Jay Carney the president's chief press spokesperson was asked you to justify killing an American his answer was.
Well he he waived his own American citizenship by the words he articulated.
Now if that's the position the president's going to take he could make that argument that up about anybody.
Let's say that about Mitt Romney the words he used waved as American citizenship -- ship them to Guantanamo Bay.
I'm -- -- that that can be applied to all sorts of people in the country but -- the United States has a constitution and there's a question I'd like to ask mr.
Do we have a constitution -- not.
You raised your right hand you sworn militants.
And part of that constitution was the First Amendment part of a cost issue is the Fifth Amendment as you articulated do we have -- anymore do we not let's ask them the question here with -- say.
What whatever you thought at -- McGregor and I know your historian as well as a political philosopher about presidents from.
FDR to Ronald Reagan.
America was decidedly.
Different at its core from Nazi Germany.
And from the Soviet Union.
Those were war is one hot one cold where you could see right and wrong you could appreciate what the American government was doing.
Is the American government in danger of becoming similar.
To the evil empires.
We have battled against in the past.
Well we certainly have a lot of evidence that external war is used to justify authoritarian measures at home.
Measures were very harsh after war was declared against Germany large numbers of people opposed it and were sent to jail.
His laws are actually harsher than the Patriot Act Patriot Act and harsher than what we've seen under George Bush.
But the bottom line is that.
As long as we have this sense of an external enemy.
Real or unreal and clearly whatever the enemy is -- terrorist enemies is capabilities have been grossly exaggerated.
Out of all proportion to reality.
But as long as that is maintained the easier it is for people inside the united states of the government to justify the kind of intrusive federal government you're describing got it.
Colonel Douglas Macgregor -- sermon -- modest and it's been a pleasure thanks for joining us guys.
Filter by section