John Bolton Clashes With John Stossel

[Kowalski]

John Stossel's annual show from the International Students for Liberty Conference features not only the usual friendly libertarians, but a handful of liberals and conservatives who willfully engage a potentially hostile crowd of 1,000+ libertarian students.

As our readers are likely aware by now, Ann Coulter happened to be one of the two conservatives brought on to debate the students. And it was, shall we say, tense.

The other conservative featured in the program was John Bolton, former Bush official and he of the "neocon" variety. Last year, Bolton's appearance on Stossel's show (full disclosure, again: Stossel is my former boss) resulted in a bit of controversy. But despite the not-so-warm reception last year, Bolton returned again to discuss why he believes a neoconservative foreign policy is best; and continue his defense of President Obama's "sensible" targeted assassination program.

"It doesn't seem morally right to just take the word of some government officials that this guy's a terrorist and send a machine to kill him, and kill civilians along with him," Stossel said to Bolton.

"The commander-in-chief authority vested by the Constitution in the president gives him the direction over the war capabilities of the United States," Bolton replied. "And his efforts, both in the Bush and the Obama administration, to go after the terrorists, I think is entirely justified."

"So America can kill anybody anywhere?" Stossel asked.

"Of course not," Bolton shot back, "listen to what I just said." He re-asserted that the Constitution authorizes, "subject to congressional checks," the power for the executive to take out enemy combatants.

Stossel then asked the $64,000 question about blowback: "Don't you think that makes us new enemies? When the drone sends something down that kills a group of people, they kill children and cousins. Doesn't that make new terrorists who will try to kill us?"

"I believe that our military does everything that it can to avoid civilian casualties," Bolton said. "That is not avoidable sometimes because of the way the terrorists conduct themselves, living among civilians."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URGF0bHrr-Y

At one point, John Bolton says that during the Civil War hundreds of thousands of citizens were killed without due process, and it WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

I'd really like to punch him for saying that...

[SHaYap]

I'll buy a baseball bat for the job ...

[+and-then]

If we do not use drones to execute these enemy combatants then we will either have to surrender essentially OR use heavy, clumsier means to kill our enemies. So if we risk more soldiers and more civilians to fight this war without drone technology this makes us more moral? Or is the actual issue the unspoken view that the war - maybe ANY war is unjustified and illegitimate?

[ExpandMyMind]

John Bolton is an evil b****** who loves committing the children of others to die in wars that further his warped political ideology.

[Ashotep]

Looks like to me killing children will give you more terrorists. When they do kill them another one will just take their place so what have you accomplished. Don't get me wrong I hate the terrorists. They will kill you or your children in a heartbeat.

[Kowalski]

Comparing killing so called "terrorists" to the Civil War is a little much in my opinion.

It depends on what you define a "terrorist" as. Is it an Al-Quada operative or someone who disagrees with the government policies?

[Yamato]

I can't believe that such a majority of Americans approves of drone strikes on Americans, if I remember the video correctly after viewing it last night. I love the audience's reaction to his repulsive comments at the end. I'm thankful that there are good people among us ready to hold hard onto their rights with both hands and not let go. On thinking about this issue for a long time now, it seems to me that the focus on drones misses the larger picture. To me, it doesn't matter how an American will be killed. It could be by AC-130 or a sniper bullet or whatever else and the concern and the principle is exactly the same. Drones are just another one of many possible instruments the government can use to execute the same policy and violate the same right. I think by focusing on drones we inadvertently miss the larger objection and unwittingly strengthen the arguments of our adversaries trying to defend these foul policies.

[Yamato]

If we do not use drones to execute these enemy combatants then we will either have to surrender essentially OR use heavy, clumsier means to kill our enemies. So if we risk more soldiers and more civilians to fight this war without drone technology this makes us more moral? Or is the actual issue the unspoken view that the war - maybe ANY war is unjustified and illegitimate?

The issue at debate isn't enemy combatants but if that's what we change it to, then we're in Pakistan and elsewhere killing "suspects", not just enemy combatants. The major difference is that we have persistence over an airspace, we don't risk pilots, and we save money. If violating our most sacred rights isn't immoral, it is still illegal.

And for an aside, I'll defend the Confederacy, Mr. Bolton, such that the US Civil War was a travesty that should have never happened. That Lincoln and his Union had no stomach for the independence that created our nation in the first place is nothing to defend the bloodiest war in US history about. The Confederacy should have been convinced and cajoled to return once the differences were blurred in time. The political indoctrination we got in our school systems posing as education, on US history in general and the Civil War in particular, is no reason to celebrate the alleged greater morality of total war.

[Kowalski]

And for an aside, I'll defend the Confederacy, Mr. Bolton, such that the US Civil War was a travesty that should have never happened. That Lincoln and his Union had no stomach for the independence that created our nation in the first place is nothing to defend the bloodiest war in US history about. The Confederacy should have been convinced and cajoled to return once the differences were blurred in time. The political indoctrination we got in our school systems posing as education, on US history in general and the Civil War in particular, is no reason to celebrate the alleged greater morality of total war.

My 3rd great grandfather, served in the 4th Texas (John Bell Hood's Brigade) during the Civil War. He was in battles such as Antietam, Chickamauga, and Gettysburg, mainly the Battle of Little Round Top where he was taken prisoner and then sent to Fort Delaware for the duration of the war.

Here's a sad story about my mother in laws 3rd great uncle:

“My poor boy, Colonel!” The Story of Michael and Hezekiah Spessard

Posted on February 16, 2012

There are few more heart-rendering stories from the Battle of Gettysburg than that of Captain Michael P. Spessard, a forty one year-old native of Craig County, Virginia, who commanded Company C, 28th Virginia Infantry in Garnett’s Brigade of Pickett’s Division, and his son Hezekiah Spessard, a private under his father’s command. Their lives would forever be changed on July 3, 1863, when, barely minutes into the charge against the Union center, Hezekiah fell from the ranks, seriously wounded. Eppa Hunton, Jr., son of the dynamic Colonel Eppa Hunton who commanded the 8th Virginia Infantry, first described the scene in his father’s 1933 autobiography: “My father has frequently told me that as he was going into the battle he saw Major (then captain) Spessard of the 28th Regiment sitting on the ground holding a youth’s head is his lap. As Father approached, Spessard looked up and said, ‘Look at my poor boy, Colonel.’ He must have been dead then, for in a short time Father saw him kiss him tenderly and gently lay his head on the ground. Then the Major rose to his feet, put his sword to his shoulder, and ordered, ‘Forward, boys!’ and continued in the charge.”

Ever seen the movie "The Undefeated" with John Wayne?

Col. John Henry Thomas: [Thomas has just learned that the war ended several days before] Major, I've just received word that Lee surrendered to Grant three days ago.

Maj. Sanders, CSA: Yes, sir.

Col. John Henry Thomas: You knew it?

Maj. Sanders, CSA: We received the news yesterday.

Col. John Henry Thomas: I don't think you understand, Major, the war is over.

Maj. Sanders, CSA: NO, sir.

Col. John Henry Thomas: Are you telling me that you intend to keep fighting?

Maj. Sanders, CSA: Haven't we just proven it, sir?

Col. John Henry Thomas: But why?

Maj. Sanders, CSA: Because this is our land, and you're on it.

Col. John Henry Thomas: We're all Americans.

Maj. Sanders, CSA: Yes, sir... that's always been the saddest part of it.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

Comparing killing so called "terrorists" to the Civil War is a little much in my opinion.

It depends on what you define a "terrorist" as. Is it an Al-Quada operative or someone who disagrees with the government policies?

You nailed it Kowalski. That is "THE" question. If the government can arbitraily label an american citizen a terrorist for publically disagreeing with their suspect policies, we're done. Start detaining citizens with out do-process, start disarmming law abidding citizens, start loading up the Fema camps, start targeting drone strikes on Main St. , Anytown, USA, start martial law in all major urban centers, and of course lets not forget mass executions.

OK all that might be worst case scenerios but the fact remains, imho, it starts with this government being able to label every day average americans as terrorists which will result in the beginning of the end of this great country as we know it.

[Yamato]

The only real enemy is within. It's the policy of this federal government, both foreign and domestic, rearing its ugly head in example after example. Some people will remain blind until the very end. I'm glad that some Americans and some States are starting to wake up to this irresponsible hypocritical menace in Washington DC.

[+OverSword]

If we do not use drones to execute these enemy combatants then we will either have to surrender essentially OR use heavy, clumsier means to kill our enemies. So if we risk more soldiers and more civilians to fight this war without drone technology this makes us more moral? Or is the actual issue the unspoken view that the war - maybe ANY war is unjustified and illegitimate?

Surrender???? Just why would we surrender to a person living in a small village on the other side of the world? I dispute your assertation that we need to be fighting this war at all. Not any war, this war.

[preacherman76]

If we do not use drones to execute these enemy combatants then we will either have to surrender essentially OR use heavy, clumsier means to kill our enemies. So if we risk more soldiers and more civilians to fight this war without drone technology this makes us more moral? Or is the actual issue the unspoken view that the war - maybe ANY war is unjustified and illegitimate?

Any war that hasnt been declared by congress is unjustified and illegitimate. There is a reason we no longer use congress to declare war.