<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Sunil,<div><br></div><div>I'm puzzled by the actions of the government in light of the US being a signatory of the UN Charter, specifically Article 2 (4):</div><div><br></div><div>"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence </div><div>of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations."</div><div><br></div><div>When viewed in light of Art VI, clause 2 of the US Constitution, which reads:</div><div><br></div><div>"The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,</div><div>under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing </div><div>in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."</div><div><br></div><div>The US Constitution incorporates the UN Charter, as a treaty, as part of the "supreme Law of the Land", and as such, anything done</div><div>that violates that charter becomes unconstitutional.</div><div><br></div><div>Now, having said that, how does the violation of the UN Charter, i.e. the invasion of the airspace of Pakistan, and the killing of people on Pakistani</div><div>soil, even if done via drones as opposed to manned aircraft, meet any kind of Constitutional justification? Add to that the actual invasion of Pakistan</div><div>to kill Osama Bin Laden by US military forces, are not both of those acts unconstitutional and subject to prosecution? Shouldn't the President,</div><div>no matter who it is, and no matter what it is in response of, uphold the US Constitution? And if he/she doesn't, shouldn't they be held accountable?</div><div><br></div><div>Or is it a matter of the president can even ignore the US Constitution as long as it's against someone/some country we don't care for at the time?</div><div><br></div><div>Wayne</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Sep 25, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div class="hmmessage" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; "><div dir="ltr">Here is a link to Glenn Greenwald's discussion of a report by researchers from NYU and Stanford's law schools, on the Obama drone policy:<br><br><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths</a><br><br>Given these policies, are there any limits on the power of the executive branch?<br><br>Sunil<br></div>=======================================================<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================</div></span></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>