David Rutherford Show: What Gives America the Right to K!ll? — Navy SEAL Breaks It Down - The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What gives United States of America the right to kill?
Today on the David Rutherford Show, What's Up? Team, Welcome
back to the show. Incredibly grateful for you all and

(00:22):
your support. We've been covering some pretty heavy things lately.
There's a lot going on in the news. We've got
the election stuff that's beginning to percolate all over the place.
I'm going to have more shows on this coming up.
We have the build up of the US military in

(00:45):
off the coast of Venezuela. We have the Ukrainian peace
talks that seem to be devolving a little bit. We've
got some seditious intent from sitting US CO and senators
that are Democrats. We've got probably a continued fraction in

(01:08):
the MAGA movement America First Movement. We've got a lot
going on, and the thing that I think is gaining
the most traction for both sides, because you've got obviously
one side. The left are saying, you know, this guy's

(01:31):
a king, he's illegal, he's a tyrant. He's going to
take imperial control over the US government without any guard rails.
He's destroying democracy. And I mean we've been hearing this
for going on nine years now, that's their attack. He's hitler,
he's this, he's that. We heard it all to where

(01:53):
to point now, Thank god, none of that has any
true impact on people, normal people in the middle. And
you know, then you have even traditional kind of Republicans
who are beginning to kind of shy away from supporting
the president in his policies and what he's tried to do,

(02:18):
because I think, you know, he came in under the
guys that he would start no new wars, and that
was a big promise to the American public, and I
think that really pulled in a ton of people that
were in the middle, so to speak, on both sides, right,
people that wanted a more common sense approach to US
foreign policy instead of what we've seen for the last

(02:41):
thirty five forty years. And I I I think the
greatest kind of unifying idea that brings most most people
that have a strong moral declination, if you will, is
the fact that America in the US government, the Department

(03:05):
of Defense or the second Department of War now, the
Intelligence community, Homeland Security, I Sport of Patrol, you name it,
that they have a responsible moral responsibility to adhere to
certain laws that have been on the books for very

(03:27):
long time in some cases and others they're relatively new
after nine to eleven and the Patriot Act and what
that promoted in terms of sacrificing a significant portion of
our liberties as well as really taking the gloves off
the intelligence community and what DoD can do in terms
of kinetic operations and covert operations around the world. I

(03:51):
wanted to address this because I think this is going
to be the fundamental issue that has brought forth to
attack the MAGA movement America first movement in the mid terms,
and then it will be amplified because I believe our
elections are still compromised in a very deep and sinister

(04:16):
level with an international conspiracy, including a domestic conspiracy that's involved.
And we're going to break really jump into that over
the next month or so here, and I will continue
to cover that throughout this year because it's so critical
too the future of America. And what you're gonna have

(04:38):
is you're going to say, all right, we have lost
the moral the moral stance. We have lost our ability
to stand on top of the hill and say we
do things the right way, which there are still quite
a few people in this country that believe that that
there is a unique way that we engage as opposed

(05:02):
to all the other desk spots in the world, the
the Putins and the Ji's and the Mulahs of Iran,
and the communist Maduro and and all these other you know,
Kim Jong yun and all these other people around the
world who treat their their populations as slaves. And Americans

(05:28):
seem to believe that there, uh, there is this moral
high ground that we occupy, and so I wanted to
cover this today. I wanted to get into this because
this is going to be a key component of what
will be used against the Trump administration and then moving
forward with whoever takes his place as the cannon, most
likely JD. Vance and a lot of people are saying

(05:49):
Marco Rubio will be his running mate, and that's yet
to be seen or to understand, but these narratives are
definitely going to be used. They're already being used to
the point where there are City and US Senators Mark
Kelly in particular, who's going to run for president absolutely
who is basically advocating for a US military personnel and

(06:13):
intelligence community personnel and homeland security personnel to defy rightful,
lawful orders. So I wanted to dig into what gives
the American government the right to kill? All right, the
first question you have to ask yourself is what gives

(06:35):
you the right to kill? So, Jordie, Jordy, what would
you say gives an American the right to kill? Not murder? Right?
That shall not murder. That's in that's ingrained and not
only our biblical law, but also in our actual law.
You can't go out and just murder somebody. So what

(06:56):
gives us the right to kill? What would you say?

Speaker 2 (07:00):
I would say, regular citizens, you have the right to
kill in self defense. If you are if you are
someone you know or love is facing grave bodily harm
or imminent death, you have the right to kill.

Speaker 1 (07:13):
Yep. And that would be in your vehicle. If you're
getting carjacked, that would be in your home. If your
home is being broken into, that would be on the street.
If somebody attacks you, uh, and you have imminent ineminent
bodily harm you know, coming your way, Right, you would say,
are there any other places?

Speaker 2 (07:33):
Well, I was gonna say it does depend on which
states you live in. It's a little iffy if you
have that right, I got it in the States. But
it's all on your self defense any other any in
any other way.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
I can't you intervene with somebody that's under attack and
kill the person that's trying to kill the other person?
You think that that's a that's that's a right. Yes, okay?
Do you think you can? You watch somebody kill somebody
or the vehicular manslaughter and they run into somebody and

(08:07):
then try and run away, can you run after them
and kill them? No? Yeah, all right, So it's pretty
it's pretty narrow when you think about it. Right, when
you or your loved ones, or someone innocent person on
the street is under a threat of their their life
is in danger, then you know the good Samaritan law.
If you will or or stand your ground law, or

(08:30):
your castle is your home, you know your castle, your
domain law, whatever that is. You can you can in
essence defend yourself and kill another human being and still
remain in that definitive higherarchy of morality. Agreed, Agreed, Okay,

(08:51):
I think the same thing. I believe that we there
are circumstances where we have the right. That's why we
have the Second Amendment. That's why you know, we have
a lot of these laws. I live in Florida, Uh,
pretty much one of the best states in the Union
to be able to defend you your property or your family, yourself,
your property, your family, And so you're right, Okay, Now

(09:16):
here's the kicker. How many laws do you think are
on the books that place guard rails on on who
the government i e. The Executive branch can turn the
green light on and engage in kinetic a covert action

(09:39):
on America's behalf where killing is involved. How many laws?

Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah, I'm gonna say a lot, but and I'd probably
say it's a little too many.

Speaker 1 (09:51):
Yeah, the technical number is a fuck ton Okay, And
so I'm gonna go through some of these. Yeah, yeah,
that's the Latin response. So I'm going to go through
these because what I wanted to do is give everybody
put it into context, just the scope that the United
States military intelligence communities, homeland agencies, all those law enforcement

(10:15):
agencies that gives them the right to engage in killing
or inflicting bodily harm on its enemies or perceived enemies, right,
all right? You know, so this is essentially a detailed,
legally grounded overview of the primary lawful mechanisms which the

(10:38):
United States can authorize and conduct kinetic military strikes, missiles,
air strikes, drone strikes, special operations, raids, et cetera against
foreign governments, terrorist organizations, and other national security threats. These
are the actual domestic and international legal basis the US
government relies on and relies on in practice as of

(10:59):
twenty twenty five. All right, here you go the War
Powers Resolution of nineteen seventy three Public Law ninety three
DASH one four eight five zero USC five four to
one DASH one five four eight. And this was past
seven November nineteen seventy three. Over over President Nixon's veto

(11:23):
right now purpose as it is state and then loss
itself to fulfill the intent of the framers of the
Constitution and ensure that the collective judgment of both Congress
and the President will apply to the introduction of the
United States armed forces into hostilities. In reality, it has
become one of the most contested and widely ignored or

(11:46):
reinterpreted statues in US national security law. All right, here
are the core provisions, and they place these in three
buck buckets. Right. The law divides all possible uses of
military harry force into three categories and imposes different rules
on each. Number one congressional authorization. This is an actual

(12:06):
declaration of war. Do you know the last time we
had an actual declaration war like US Congress World War two?
Bengo after the company, after the Jea Jordy Thay, that
was last time, buddy, your ancestors, So it was. It

(12:27):
was after the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor. We had a
declaration of war, all right. This is specific statutory authorization
two thousand a treat There's also a treaty obligation that
requires it Article five of NATO. Right, that would warran
US Number two. If the president has one of the
three of these, the clock and reporting lose rules below

(12:51):
do not apply at all. This is number three a
sixty day clock hostilities or imminent hostilities, and this is
the statue one five for for b Bravo. If US
are introduced into these situations without prior congressional authorization, into
actual hostilities, or into foreign territory airspace or waters while

(13:13):
equipped for combat except for supply repair, etc. Or into
situations where involvement in the hostilities is clearly indicated by
the circumstances. The famous imminent hostilities clause. So the legal
minds of the Department of Defense or Department of War say,

(13:34):
you know what, there was imminent hostilities, So that gave
us the right to flip the switch and send missiles
down range? All right? Number four, Yeah, President must report
to Congress in writing within forty eight hours a quote
war powers letter end quote. Forces must be withdrawn within
sixty days of the report ninety days if the President

(13:54):
certifies unavoidable military necessity for safety. After that deadline, all
all funding is automatically cut off, the so called funding
cutoff or automatic withdraw provision. So there is a vision
that Congress can come in and be like, now time's up,
We're caanking the money, bring them all back. And then

(14:15):
number five everything else, right, training missions, ship visits, flyovers, evacuations,
missile defense deployments, et cetera. No reporting or clock is
required for that, all right. All right, So that's pretty
established stuff right there of what it requires. All right.
So presidential non compliance. Since nineteen seventy three, every president

(14:40):
from Nixon to the second Trump administration twenty twenty five
president has taken the formal position that the War Powers
Resolution is unconstitutional to the extent it limits Article two
Commander in chief powers. In practice, however, they have followed
a con distant work around. All right, and we're gonna,

(15:07):
all right, we're gonna say, we're gonna go through some
of these, all right, President Ford. The Maya Guayz Rescue
nineteen seventy five submitted report, consistent with the War Powers Carter.
The Iran hostage rescue attempt consistent with again. Reagan Lebanon
eighty two, eighty three, Grenada eighty three, Libya bombing eighty six,

(15:29):
consistent with the War Powers resolution. George H. W. Bush
Panama eighty nine, go for build Up ninety claim Article
two authorization and got an au MF anyways, that's an
authorized use of military force anyways, all right, Clinton Bosnia
ninety five, Kosovo ninety nine, Suday in Afghanistan ninety eight,

(15:52):
consistent with but ignored the sixty day clock in Kosovo.
George W. Bush Afghanistan, Iraq three. But he did get
au MS. It's authorized military force in those w War
Powers resolution largely irrelevant because of the one two au MS.

(16:13):
Obama Libya twenty eleven explicitly claimed action did not trigger
hostilities definition. Most aggressive reinterpretation of the War Powers resolution.
People didn't count. No, we'll get to that. It gets better.
I have a lot here to deseventy. All right, Then
he had Trump strikes seventeen eighteen, Solomia strike twenty twenty,

(16:38):
Biden Syria, Iraq strikes twenty one through twenty four, Yemen
Hohoti strikes twenty four to twenty five, and then Trump
again ongoing Yemen Yemen campaign twenty five. And then you
could argue probably the Iranian strikes. And then now what
he's doing with the boat strikes against Venezuela and who's
been designated as a terrorist organization to have you know,

(17:01):
so you know all these and what they say, what
they said in the they said, what it said in
the research is that Libya twenty eleven controversy was the
high water mark of executive defiance, right, and that was
March nineteenth, the US begins air naval campaign in Libyan
Operation Odyssey Dawn. To unified protector Obama Administration's legal position,

(17:27):
State Department Legal Advisor Harold co and OLC the operation
had limited mission, low risk of escalation, no troops on
the ground, therefore no hostilities under the War Powers Resolution,
just an illegal arms deal, illegal presence of of CIA operations.

(17:50):
One of my closest buddies was one of the country
leads during that whole thing. Really interesting stories. Even many
liberal law professor called it a clear violation. All right,
current practices, as of December twenty twenty five, every administration
files a forty eight hour War Powers letter for any

(18:12):
significant combat operation, drone campaign, serious strikes, Hooty Strikes Center.
The letter always says President is reporting consistent with the
War Powers Resolution, deliberately not pursuant to avoid conceding the
law's constitutionality. The sixty day clock is universally treated as
a dead later letter. No president has ever withdrawn forces

(18:33):
because of the clock expired. Congress has never enforced the
funding cutoff. It would require passing a law cutting funds,
which is potentially impossible when US troops are in combat.
All right, There have been attempts to strengthen and replace
the War Powers Resolution that all failed. Now here's the
bottom line of the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers

(18:55):
Resolution remains on the books, as is ritually cited in
every presidential lets to Congress, but it has zero practical
restraining effect. On the executive branch. The combination of the
two thousand and one au MF plus expansive Article two
theories in congressional inaction has effectively sidelined it for virtually
all post nine to eleven kinetic operations. Most constitutional scholars

(19:19):
across the political spectrum now described as a failed statute.
All right, So pretty much the one thing that this
war powers resolution right restricts this kind of open engagement
limited engagement warfare has been blown off by every president

(19:41):
up to including Trump. Right, So that's the first one,
all right. Congressional declaration of war Article one, Section eight
US Constitution. Full scale war against another sovereign state requires
an actual joint resolution or declaration of war passed by
both housands of Congress, signed by the President, or passed

(20:03):
over for veto last used eleven December nineteen forty one
against Germany and Italy. Extremely rare in modern practice. It's
a non issue, right Our Article one is just a
non issue, all right. Now, These are where it gets interesting.
This is where the whole dynamic of our involvement overseas,

(20:24):
conducting all these strategic military strikes and special operations missions,
as well as the intelligence community conducting special activities in
all these different areas. All right, authorization for military for

(20:46):
use of military force passed by Conrad the most common
modern mechanism for sustained military campaigns. The two thousand and
one au MF Public Law one zero seven Desk. Four
zero is passed on eighteen September two thousand and one.
Just what was it? Nineteen days or no September eleventh,
so it'd be eight days seven days after nine to

(21:07):
eleven this thing was passed, right, This authorizes the President
to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or person he determines he determines planned, authorized, committed, or
aided in the nine to eleven attacks, or harbored such

(21:28):
organizations or persons. Primary legal basis for virtually all post
nine to eleven counter terrorism strikes against al Qaeda, the
talban isis al Shabab, AQAP, etc. Meaning every other terrorist
deemed organization falls in line. Still enforced in twenty twenty five,
repeatedly interpreted by successive administrations Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden and

(21:53):
now the second and Trump adminisigation to cover associated forces
and successors. All Right, here you go, just in case
the nine to eleven AUMF wasn't good enough. Guess what
was passed basically the following year, two thousand and two
Iraq AUMF Public Law one zero seven Dash two four

(22:17):
to three specifically authorized force against saddamus sins Iraq. Now
this did, however, get formally repealed in twenty twenty three,
but residual residual operations were folded under the two thousand
and one AUMF or New authorities proposed new AUMs example
two zero one to eight Dash two zero two three

(22:38):
attempts to replace the two thousand and one AUMF or
authorized force against Iran back militias have repeatedly failed to
pass in Congress. But guess what that didn't stop Trump's
administration for bombing to holy living shit out of the
nuclear facilities in Iran, which, by the way, don't get
me wrong, go for more power to you if those

(23:01):
people don't have. But it is rolling the dice with
a greater, wider spreader conflict, all right, all right. Authorition
for Use of military force the two thousand and one
AUMF Title Public Law one zero seven Dash four zero
Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed
Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against

(23:22):
the United States. And this was a vote in the
Senate ninety eight to zero. In the House four hundred
and twenty to one, Representative Barbelie voted no on that.
All right, exact tex here's the exact text of the
operational section, all right that the president is authorized to

(23:43):
use all that. And the reason I'm doing this because
I want you to understand as you listen to this,
I want you to understand that they have these legal
I don't want to call them loopholes because they built
they built the loophole into the language that they chose
to use. So listen to the language. And that's the

(24:05):
critical aspect, right. That's how the lawyers which crack me up,
the UCMJ or the Defense Department lawyers or you know,
homeland Er State Department, they all sit around and they're like,
what do you think who's going to tell them we
can't do it? Nobody says anything, and so what they
just keep doing it over and over and over again.

(24:25):
And I know what you're saying. You're like, hey, rot,
WTF right now? Weren't you a dude that that was
able to conduct operations as a result of these Yes,
I was. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that
they don't have their place in time, Absolutely not. And
I'm going to get to that at the end. So

(24:46):
just bear with me. Why read you the laws as
as they as I summarize them as best I could.
All Right? The extended text of the operative section of
Session two day that the President is authorized to use
all necessary an appropriate force against the nations, organizations, or
persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the

(25:09):
terrorist attack that occurred on September eleventh, two thousand and one,
or harbored such organizations as persons, in order to prevent
any future in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations,
or persons. And that last piece right there, the language
just opens it up, right, So it's what allows you

(25:31):
to go from nine to eleven al Qaida, the tab
not even the Talb, but al Qaida and al Kaida
financiers and other government sponsored financial operatives or whatever. And
then you opened all the way up. So now you've
got this whole area of anybody that's committing terrorist attack,
I e. Why do you think now all the cartels

(25:53):
are labeled as terrorists. You just recently so thought the
different sections of the Muslim brotherhood were able to tear
us as well too. All right, key legal elements in
how they have been interpreted from two thousand and one
to two thousand and five. Right, the quote he determines
authority is explicitly delegated to the president alone. Congress does

(26:16):
not need to approve specific groups or countries. The President
simply notifies them, usually in classified annexes of periodic war
powers letters. So these are classified letters that help put
out to the headshed of the Senate in the House,
right and say hey, this is what I'm gonna do
now again, I'm not gonna get into that now, all right,

(26:40):
original core targets al Qaeda, the Talban, anyone who planned,
authorizer committed or eight to nine to eleven tenens expansion
number one. And this is in quotations associated forces, all right,
This is two thousand and two to President Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden,
and the second Trump administration all adopted the same legal theory.

(27:02):
Groups that fight alongside al Qaeda, the tileband, or share
their objectives against the US are covered. Right. So that
is the expansion. So anybody who has labeled the terrorist
organization now, all of a sudden, why do you think
the Biden administration got away with breaking the law when
they were labeling people, especially the January sixth people, as

(27:26):
what you know it, I know it, domestic terrorists. Right.
As soon as you get that terrorist label right on
whatever cable or whatever authorization thing, forget it, You're done.
You're all the entire mte of the US is wide
open to come down on your head. And again, listen,

(27:48):
there are times where this is a necessity. Right, I'm
not saying this is a comprehensive bad thing. The problem
is when it's abused, and we have seen it abused
over and over and over again. All Right, No statutory
definition or list exists. The executive brand decides unilaterally. Current

(28:09):
associate forces as of December twenty twenty five, officially include
ices all branches Iraq, Syria, Corson, Sahul, Somalia, West afric ETCA,
al Qaeda in the Arabian pronouncer AQAP and Yemen, al
Kaita in the Islamic Maghreb, Aqim al Shabab, Somalia, Talban
still Tarique E Tylabh Pakistan, TTP certain fractions of the

(28:35):
higherat tarhir hyat Tareer al Sham in Syria when fighting
alongside al Qaida elements, i e. The new president of Syria,
former al Qaeda member, So he definitely knows that if
he steps out of line, he falls right back underneath
that right, all right? Expansion two quotations successor entities. When

(29:00):
a covered group changes its name or splinters, the executive
claims the new entity inherits the original authorization. Example Isis
is treated as a successor to Al Kaita in Iraq.
Very interesting how Isis came about? If you want to
really dive into a phenomenal history of the war on Terror,

(29:25):
there's a great book out there. I still haven't read
it yet. It's on my desk at my house. I'm
trying to get through these other books. First by Scott
Horton that's called Enough Already, And this is a book
that outlines the entire history of our involvement in the
Middle East, going all the way back to the nineteen seventies.

(29:46):
So in what's taken place and who's led the charge
to destabilize the region at the highest level. All Right,
geographic scope. The law contains no geographic limitation whatever whatsoever.
So if they're operating in Mexico, have at it. If
they're operating in Panama, have at it. If they're operating

(30:08):
in Canada, have at it. If they're operating in Venezuela,
have at it. All right. Used in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Siria, Iraq, Kenya, Niger, Cameroon,
molly Bikina, Fossil Chad, Djibouti, Philippines, Cuba, Guantanamo Detention, and others.
There's no sunset or expiration day. Unlike nineteen ninety one

(30:30):
in the two thousand and two AUMs, the two thousand
version has no termination clause. Why because terrorism never ends. Right.
When you fight against a adjective, a verb, or some
infinite grammatical definition, Guess what, man, that's great for business.

(30:55):
If you're in the business of waging war and training
and taking back guys off the battlefield, then there's nothing
better than to go after the anomalous, constantly evolving terrorists
that exists in the world. All right, no sunset I

(31:15):
read that types of operations authorize Here we go ground
can't combat to Afghanistan two thousand and one to twenty
twenty one. Boy, we walked away with a huge victory
on that one, didn't we. Who Yeah, awesome job, guys,
all right, and again again I fought on the ground
there for ten years, all right, in different capacities with

(31:36):
the sealed teams, Blackwater, and the Central Intelligence Agency, and
there I worked with incredible human beings that were willing
and did sacrifice their lives for what we believed was
a righteous mission. Okay, just so you know that I'm
not hammering the guys that were on the ground and
men and women that were doing the job. That's not

(31:57):
what I'm saying, all Right. I love my service, I
love the people I served with, and I feel incredibly
honored to have been part of that unit and the
units that I was a part of. All right, Drones
strikes and air strikes thousands in Pakistan. I was in
Pakistan for a bunch of twenty eleven more than drovenes
strikes and every other year combined conducted Yemen Somalia Special

(32:22):
Forces raids right or Special Operations Force raids. Example the
twenty eleven bin Laden raid, which took place where in
a sovereign country of Pakistan that we had no war
powers resolution against. But because of the AUM, they're on
the battlefield. All right. Also the twenty nineteen but god

(32:46):
bagdaddy raid And by the way, greatest Trump after action
speech in the history of Trump's speeches, where he talks
about killing Baghdaddi. But if you want to watch a
hilarious thing, Shane McGillis has a bit on this, absolutely phenomenal,
hilarious but again outside the general purview of kinetic actions, right,

(33:07):
presidents like, we're gonna kill him, Let's kill him. He
died like a dog, Like a dog. He died like
a sad dog, crying, Oh, please take the dog off
my balls, please, man, I gotta work on that. I'm sorry.
My impressions suck. All right. Cyber operations when classified as
a use of force, that's what I love, all right,

(33:28):
Cyber operations anywhere, anytime against terrorists and can be in
quotations as a use of force. Right all right. Now,
there have been a bunch there have been people out
there who are like, you know, this is ridiculous, dude.
We can't keep just this open book of kinetic opportunity.

(33:49):
It's just not. It's not right, man, It's not morally right.
And so what they do is they rogered up and
they wanted to fight against the system. They wanted to
do the right thing because they felt that the moral
high ground we had allowed ourselves to move down into
the trenches of the very Malthusian realities to what it

(34:16):
means to wage war against the people that want to
wage war against us. And and also, i just want
you to know, I'm not a moron. I'm not naive,
I'm not Pollyannic, I'm not stupid. I do realize that
there are many, many millions of people around this world

(34:39):
that would like to see the United States collapse. That's
just the way it is. It's the way it's been
in every major civilization throughout human history, that everybody wants
to take the big guy down on the block. Just like,
how did we get our start? We thought we'd kicked
the snot out of the Brits, and we did, and
we got our own country, all right. So I'm not

(35:01):
saying that this isn't a reality. I'm not saying that
all right. Now, here's the deal. There's also been multiple
attempts to repeal these au MS. But before I do that,
I just want to give a huge shout out to
one of our favorite sponsors by far Man, Patriot Mobile.

(35:21):
I just love this organization. I love the people that
run it. They're such They're incredible, group, unbelievable, and every
so often something happens that reminds us just how fragile
our freedoms are. Right, we talk about this show as
a reminder that we can't afford to take our rights
for granted. We must draw a line in the sand,

(35:42):
and our friends at Patriot Mobile have been doing just
that for more than twelve years. The truth is, there
is only one provider that boldly stands in the gap
for Americans who believe freedom is worth fighting for. And
I am that guy. There's no doubt that I don't
believe freedom is worth fighting for. This company that I
stand behind Patriot Mobile. They believe that not only are

(36:05):
they leading the red economy, they're also outpacing the competition
and technology. Patriot Mobile is one of the only carriers
offering premium access on all three major networks, giving you
the same or better premium coverage as the main carriers.
They also offer unlimited data plans. Mobile hotspots, international roaming,

(36:27):
and more. Switching is easier. Never activate in minutes from
your own home or office. You can keep your number,
You keep your phone or guess what you can upgrade
If you want to take your stand today and go
to Patriotmobile dot com forward slash Rutherford or call nine
to seven to two Patriot or use promo code rutherford

(36:50):
r U t H E r f O r D
for a free month of service. That's Patriotmobile dot com.
Forward slash Rutherford or call nine seven to Patriot and
make the switch today. Who yah? All right? So there
have been multiple attempts right twenty thirteen to twenty twenty one,
Obama and Biden administration both publicly called for repeal replacement,

(37:13):
but never pushed that hard. Right, we're gonna repeal the AUM.
Vote for me now when they get in, let them
have it. Twenty twenty one House and Senate vote voted
to repeal the two thousand and two Iraq AUM. Successful,
and that's great. Let's repeal this one and make it
look like we care. Right. March twenty three, Senate voted

(37:34):
sixty six to thirty to repeal the two thousand and
one Bipartisan led by Tim Kaine and Todd Young. It
died in the House didn't even get to a vote
twenty twenty four to twenty five. No serious repeal efforts
succeeded under the second Trump administration. Instead, the administration continued
to cite cite IT for Hoothy strikes, Sirie Iraq military strikes,

(37:54):
and ongoing and counter ISIS operations and now what other
operations we just enhanced? Right, all these cartels that are
now terrorist organizations with the top one on the food
chamber in Venezuela. Now all right, current status still fully
enforced primary legal basis for every US counter terrorism kinetics

(38:15):
strike worldwide, except purely defensive actions against national nation state forces. Example,
Hoothy missiles defended under pure Article two, but offensive strikes
against ruthy targets sometimes folded under the two thousand and
one AUMF when AQAP elements are co located. The Biden
and the second Trump administration both submitted identical classified lists

(38:36):
to Congress every six months, naming the same twelve to
fifteen associated forces. So the reality is the two thousand
and one September eleventh, nine to eleven reaction is that
AUMF is the pretense for all the strikes you're seeing
take place. Right now, that's the reason why we're allowed

(38:59):
to go around and whack people all over the world,
because they're terrorists, all right. Now, here's the next one.
This is Article two Commander in Chief authority. This is
presidential unilateral action. Now, listen, I understand this a lot
of information, but you come here because you want all

(39:21):
the information. You want to contextualize it. You want to
hear the reality of it instead of the little bits
and the pieces and the propaganda on both sides. Right,
So this is the totality of it. And I'm not
I mean, I could go on for each one of these.
I could do an entire two hours on. So I'm
just trying to abbreviate it. Sorry, Just bear with me.
Article two Commander in Chief authority. All right, The executive

(39:41):
branch claims inherent constitutional authority to use military force without
prior congressional approval in three main scenarios hey national self defense,
respond to actual imminent attack. Classic example, strikes to prevent
an imminent armed attack on US territory, embassy, or forces.
The twenty twenty Solamani strike and Baghdad was justified partly

(40:05):
under imminent threat theory. Eminent threat theory. Always love when
the three the critical theories come out, right, all right,
b protection of US persons or critical national interests abroad.
There you go. Let's say we've got an embassy, We've
got a big corporation that has a headquarters somewhere, it's

(40:26):
people are being terrorized or whatever. That gives us the
author the authority, all right, Okay, see collective self defense
of allies under treaty obligations. All right, this is the
famous one that's been all over the place because of
the Ukraine War. Right, if we allow Ukraine to become
a member of NATO, they fall into this most clearly.
NATO Article five invocation after nine to eleven only time

(40:49):
ever invoked. Also used for defense of partners, example, defending
Iraqi government or SDF SDF partners against ices. This has
a war Powers resolution overlay. President of both parties or
both of both parties takes the position that the WPR

(41:11):
is constitutionally only the extent it recognizes Article to authority.
In practice, every administration since seventy three files WPR letters
within forty eight hours, introducing forces into hostility or situations
where hostilities are quotation imminent, but almost never seek specific
congressional approver within the sixty to ninety day client All right,

(41:34):
the next one, number four United Nations Security Council resolutions,
which basically have you know, no weight whatsoever. I mean,
there's been all kinds of people that have said we
need to do this. The most famous one, obviously was
the Iraq War, when you had Colin Powell. You know,
you know, this is a slam dunk comment, you know,

(41:57):
all made up intelligence, all bogus, all bull convincing the
world that sono I'm Hussein was a part of all
Kaita hadn't tend to get a new all garbage. Everybody
knows that it's not disputable. If you still live in
a place where you think the Iraq War was justified,
then you know, go back to you know, watching your

(42:17):
daytime soap operas and check out, because you're one hundred
percent irrelevant in terms of your foreign policy understanding. All right,
It's just that's been settled and done for years now.
All right, Now, this provides international legal authority, not domestic
or US authority, but often cited as additional justification. You

(42:39):
had the golf war, did it? Libya? No fly zone?
You know, some other measures A right host nation, all right,
next host number five host nation consent or invitation when
the recognized government of the country in which strikes occur consents.
Iraq consented, Syria has consented, but you did have no

(43:00):
consent from the Assad regime. So US relies on Article
two plus inability slash unwillingness theory against ices. That's a
little tricky right there. The whole war in Syria. Scott
Horton talks about that, how we essentially funded Al Kaida
and ices to go into Syria to take down the

(43:22):
Assad regime in order to do what potentially put in
our own puppet. At the time. Kind of it seems
odd that we would put in an Al kaid of
puppet like we do now. But you know, again, when
you when you evaluate these powers and what it gives
the government of what it gives our government the opportunity

(43:43):
to do in the name of quotations terrorism is really
vast and it allows us to begin effectuating politics in
a overt war way instead of doing covert warfare that
the Central Inteli Eligence Agency and its predecessor of the
OSS had been doing since World War Two. Right OSS

(44:06):
worked in conjunction with different mafias around the world, different
criminal organizations in the prosecution of World War two, and
then in nineteen the most famous one immediately after the
CIA's participation in rigging the Italian elections to get rid
of the fascist communists, and then fifty three ousting the

(44:26):
democratically elected head of Iran and putting in the Shah
because we didn't want that, and then all these dozens
of other operations. Right host nation consent all right, number
six unable or unwilling. That's in quotations doctrine, customary international
law claim. I'm going to blow over that current December

(44:48):
twenty twenty five actively legal basis and youse all right
here you go. Virtually all counter terrorism drone slash air
strikes worldwide fall under the one AUMF article in Article
two ongoing strikes against WHO these and Yemen red sea
shipping attacks Article two Self Defense eight two thousand and
one AUMF, and to the extent aqap is involved strikes

(45:11):
in Serie Iraq against Iran, I ran back militious Article
two Protection of US Forces two thousand and one AUF
au MF ISIS or peer self defense. Potential strikes on
Iranian nuclear facilities or leadership would almost certainly be justified
on Article two imminent threat theory, exactly as twenty twenty

(45:32):
sol mona strike was all right, all right, So what'd.

Speaker 2 (45:38):
You learn in that, JORDI, Well, I mean, I have
a pretty extreme reaction to this, and you might have
to talk me off a ledge or talk some sense
into me. But that sounded like a lot of complicated
ways to say we can do whatever we want to do.

Speaker 1 (45:55):
Oh, that's one hundred percent accurate. And in these legal
doc I mean I'm skimming the headline of these things.
And you can go and you can you can dig
deeper on all these which I recommend you do. Go
to chat EPT, go to GROC. I think Rock's the
best one. That's where I do most of my research from.
And then I just keep digging in and digging in.
So if you can go and you look at these
whole statutes, these things are like this, right, They're not

(46:18):
just you know, in the Constitution a couple you know,
war powers resolution and all that, or you know war
powers act like these are nuanced, very particular language that
remains ambiguous so that we can have this vast, this

(46:38):
vast array of opportunities under the guise of this AOMU,
which is targeting terrorism. And that's been this tool that
nobody's wanted to restrict or pull back because why it
means like you know, you can come out of the
shadows and you're you don't have to wage clandestine, covert
or that is illegal. But under the the main commentary

(47:01):
of plausible deniability, right, they get away with many other
things or or whatever they you know, and the intelligence
community they classify under these same things as well too.
It's not just the Department of War. All right, are
you ready, let's shift, let's talk. But what you're saying, yes,

(47:21):
pretty much, if we designate somebody at terrorists, we can
authorize a kinetic strike on them. Well, that you know
is everything from drones to cyber special ops, to covert, clandestineops,
to kidnappings to you know, everything everything you can think

(47:42):
of in the middle of that.

Speaker 2 (47:44):
I don't know if you want to get into this now,
but sometimes I want to bring up I don't think
that I mean, this is a lot of words and
a lot of documents to say you have this authorization.
I don't think they need any kind of law. Can
they do whatever they want to do with or without
these authorizations? I mean, who's gonna stop then?

Speaker 1 (48:06):
Well, now you're getting into the moral conundrum, and I'm
going to address that here at the end. All right,
So let me just work through this, all right? All right?
What is illegal for the government to do? What is it?
Verbatim said illegal? Huh? Can they do anything illegal? According
to who? Oh yeah, there's a bunch. I'm gonna give

(48:27):
you some right now. Lethal uses? All right, this is
what's what is illegal? All right? Legally grounded summary of
kinetic actions, lethal uses of force, airstrike, dne striked raids,
sabotage with explosives, assassination, etc. That are prohibited for three
categories of US actors as of December twenty twenty five.

(48:48):
Illegal means either a flatly prohibited by the US statue
or binding an executive order, or b only lawful under
extreme narrow conditions that almost never meet in practice. All Right,
here we go. So this is the for the intelligence community,

(49:09):
the CIA, and to a lesser degree, other Title fifty agencies,
and I think there's a seventeen or nineteen intelligence agencies
so assassination targeted killing of specific individuals by name in
a protected status. All right, there's a all right example.

(49:31):
They cannot put together a foreign leader on a kill
list the way DoD can with an HVT under the
two thousand and one aun F. So the agency can't
do it, but dd could probably get away with it,
all right, got it? Covert lethal action not reported to
Congress under Title fifty, all right, must give prior notice

(49:52):
to the Gang of eight or finding plus retroactive notice
in external ordinary cases. No presidential find, no lethal court action.
The CIA cannot legally run its own independent drone or
raid campaign unless the President signs of finding and notifies Congress.
Then yeah, yeah, right, any kinetic didn't They didn't Obama

(50:13):
killed never mind anyway, any kinetic action in a country
where the US is not in arm conflict. Right, and
this is where the this is includes DoD AUMF Article two.
CIA has no independent war authority at piggybacks on dods AUMF.
All right. CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somali four

(50:34):
to eighteen were legally justified only because they were folded
under the DODZ OH one au MF authority and conducted
in coordination with jaysok. Right, and that's Seal Team six,
that's Delta. That's a couple of covert units. Pure CIA.
Unilateral strikes in non battlefield countries are illegal. All right,

(50:56):
Here you go, Department of Defense Title ten, Forces Convention,
Military JAYSCK, etc. Any offensive kinetic action not covered by
declaration of war specific AUMF Article two, self defense, actual
eminent tech host nation consent the SOFA implied authority. We
went through all those, right, all right, here's some of

(51:19):
the other things. Use of military force inside the United
States against US persons, except for very narrow expectations. And
this is the posse Coomatatas Act one to eight USC
one three eight five plus DD regular regulations. DoD drone
strikes or raids on US soil are against against the

(51:43):
US citizen terrorists is illegal. The only real exception is
eminent self defense or military bases. Huh. All right, oh,
here we go, Here we go. This is what everybody's
been employing US military personnel to enford forced domestic law. Again,

(52:03):
posse Coomatatas same statue. National Guard can be used under
state control or Title thirty two, but regular military cannot
conduct arrest, raids, etc. Inside the US. That's what everybody's
going nuts. But Trump is doing what who's he using?
National Guard? Reserve? National Guard? We just saw that poor

(52:26):
girl get murdered on the streets. All right, NGOs non
government organizational all right, true NGOs, private military contractors when
not under DoD contract charities, et cetera, any lethal kinetic
action on behalf of the United States one eight USC
nine Murder of US nationals abroad and nine to five

(52:46):
six conspiracy to kill kidnap abroad. Neutrality laws, Arms Export
Control Act, it TAR, and general federal murder slash assault statues.
Private US citizens or NGOs have zero legal authority to
conduct air strikes, raids, or assassinations on behalf of the
US government. Examples of illegal actions a private drone company

(53:08):
launching hell fires and Yemen on CIA requests without d
d oh, that's my favorite. Blackwater style contractors conducting offensive
raids not not under Title ten Command Post two thousand
and eight rules require they be under DoD chain of
command for lethal operations, and NGO or church groups sabotaging

(53:29):
Iranian centerfuges with explosives that cross that crosses into terrorism.
All right. Private military contractors are part of that, conducting
offensive combat operations all right, uh contractors, dude, yeah yeah,
And then there was a summary table of what's flat

(53:49):
flat out illegal uh more the same it's it's you know,
private companies or NGOs or cutouts or contractors doing this.
So it's kind of if the government.

Speaker 2 (54:03):
If the executive branch says it's okay, then it's okay.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
And if they don't, it's not okay. Well the executive
branch first has to like go big and be like
this is it. This is the deal, right ter, Yeah,
get they're terrorists, so you're cleared hot for these type
of operations. Then what you do is you wrap your
intelligence community underneath your DoD operations and you combine them

(54:27):
with jaysock. So jasock always gives you the top cover
to conduct these types of operations. So it comes from
the president saying they're terrorists one hundred percent. The whole
thing starts right there under the two thousand and one
aumf right, that's where the whole thing is. All right,

(54:50):
Now that's a lot again, and we're fifty four minutes
into this thing, so I'm going to try and wrap
it up here, So I just want to touch on
one thing, all right. I asked Rock this, and I
thought that this was fascinating. How many prosecutions and convictions
of these crimes has there been since nineteen forty five? Right?
Legit questions? How many illegal operations that we found out about?

(55:13):
Right government overthrows, targeted assassinations, illegal weapons sales, whatever? All right,
all right, I'm going to read it, all right, based
on a comprehensive review of historical records, legal analysis, and
official reports, the number of US government officials, including military
personnel from the Department of Defense, members of the Department

(55:37):
of War, members of the intelligence community such as CIA officers,
and any other federal actors prosecuted for the kinetic related
crimes outlined in prior discussions. Example, unlife, unlawful offensive strikes
not covered by AUMF Article two, peacetime assassinations under e E.
Executive Order one two three three three, violations of War

(55:59):
Powers Resolutions, possecomment Tatis Act breaches involving leth form or
independent private lethal operations on behalf of the US since
ninety five? Is how many what's your guests, Jordie two
that would be setto yeah, I was just being optimistic.
Yeah you were. There have been no prosecutions. So what

(56:22):
JORDI was insinuating that this is wide open, nobody's going
to contain it, nobody's going to control it. That's the truth. Now,
I don't know what it's doing to you or what
it makes you feel, but let me give kind of
a counterpoint to this, right, all right, I think everybody knows.

(56:50):
I think after after the COVID, where we realize how
much of what we've been told in the past has uh,
let's say, moral flexibility built into the information or narratives
that have been pitched for many, many, many decades, not
just whatever you know, all the way even before World
War Two. This goes way back. You know, you have

(57:13):
to recognize that the reality is when you are a
dominant factor in any particular political endeavor, militaristic endeavor, industrial endeavor,
financial endeavor, shipping endeavor. I mean, just go down the list, right,

(57:34):
whether you're talking about oil extraction and production, whether you're
talking about finance, whether you're talking about weapons developing, weapons sales,
or you're talking about criminal enterprises, or you're talking whatever
it might be. The reality is is when you represent

(57:55):
a threat to other people and their desire to a
cue emulate wealth, power and control. There's going to be
these types of warfare that engages espionage. Cyber warfare now
is exploding. You have criminal enterprises that are partnering with

(58:17):
public officials. You have criminal enterprises that have involved themselves
in our politics and our voting and all different just
I highly recommend the book Stolen Elections, you know, as
well as documentary by Professor David Clements. Let my people
go in. What you need to recognize now, back back

(58:42):
what one hundred you know, not even you know eighty
plus years ago when people wanted to when leaders wanted
to capture land, change things, they just would overthrow the government,
or they'd create their militaries, or there were revolutions all
over and they would do it. Well. Now the life

(59:02):
has become so sophisticated with how we do. We've entered
into a permanent state of what many people call hybrid
warfare or fifth generation warfare, or psychological warfare, a covert
clandestine warfare that includes all the above. That's the reality

(59:23):
of what we face. China is a threat. Are they
going to invade us? Not likely? Are they going to
launch nuclear missiles. Not likely. But are they actively working
with other groups or organizations or political leaders around the
world that want to take us down? Yes, they make
TikTok if they Russia, Iran, South Africa, India. You know,

(59:51):
everybody's got their own interests, every country, every leader has
their own interests, and sometimes these interests come together because
of a grander plan or grander desire. And then what
does that have And also we have that taking place
internally domestically. Anybody that tries to convince you that open

(01:00:14):
borders is a good thing for a sovereign nation is
trying to take you down. Period. Anybody that is trying
to imprison or indict its political opponents is against the
American system. It's just the way it is. Anybody that
is requiring defund the police wants the system to collapse.

(01:00:39):
Anybody that is committing in insane fraud with the taxpayer
dollars to fund the invasion which has taken place over
the last thirty years in this country, probably around sixty
million people live here. Imagine what would take place with
our tax dollars if we didn't have to pay for

(01:01:00):
all of that. So you have to begin to realize
that even though I lay out this reality that the
US government, essentially the president can engage in any type
of clandestine or over kinetic warfare, covert warfare under this
AM two thousand and one AUM or the presidential you know,

(01:01:23):
his powers, executive orders, whatever. That's the reality, and that's
what they believe is necessary to combat this other thing.
But we still get back to the fundamental question at hand.
Do we have the right to kill whomever we believe

(01:01:43):
is a threat? And that's the question that's on the
table because I think what many people are still holding
on to is they're still holding on to this mythology
or this illusion that somehow America because of the society

(01:02:04):
that we have, and you for the most part, you
get to, you know, do what you want. You can
earn your own living, you can go and live wherever
you want. Obviously, taxation is I believe is the worst
the legality that we have going right now. We don't
own anything, We rent everything from the government. And then
you know, I also believe that a lot of the

(01:02:25):
institutions have been captured or corrupt by I don't know
if it's nefarious characters are just radicals, right, people don't
believe that the American dream is a reality. They think
it's fabricated. There's corruption at all levels. It doesn't matter anymore,
and this all is so overwhelming the process. But I

(01:02:46):
go back to the central question of what is what
gives us the right to kill? And that's something I
believe after we address the current situations that our country
is facing, because I believe for the past thirty years,

(01:03:06):
the fox is in the henhouse deeply in every aspect
of our government, in every aspect of our institutions, and
every aspect of industry out there. That's the various people
have become so entrenched in corruption that they're willing to

(01:03:27):
live a moral, relativistic life where as long as I'm
getting paid, as long as I'm getting mine, who cares
what happens. And then there's other active people that are
trying to tear it down. So the question I've put
forth to you don't want you to think about, is really,
what are the things that America can do to regain

(01:03:47):
the moral high ground? What is it the things that
we have to do right now in order to regain
our country first, Because if you don't try and think
about those, if you don't process those questions, then you
are going to live in a very, oh, a very

(01:04:08):
conflicted state of being. You have two things pulling you
apart at any one given time, or multiple things pulling
against your consciousness, your sense of righteousness, your moral code.
But I am here to tell you that America is
under attack, and so it's really difficult to answer the question,

(01:04:32):
who do we have the right to kill? All Right,
I can't thank you all enough. I really appreciate it.
Make sure you go like and subscribe to everywhere you're
hearing this or watching it. Please go over to YouTube,
like post, give a comment. It gets us in the algorithm.
Share our content with your friends. That's what we need most.
If you want to check out what I'm doing, go

(01:04:53):
visit Dave Rudford dot com. Or follow me on my
social media on X or Instagram and that's at Team
frog Life. Or follow the show at David Rutherford Show
on all social media the exception of X on ex
it's at de Rutherford Show. Go give Jordy a follow
out there, pump him up. He needs some love, for sure.
He's the one who makes this whole thing happen, and

(01:05:15):
I just can't thank you enough God, bless America and
glad bless you and your morality. Who yah

All Episodes

David Rutherford Show: What Gives America the Right to K!ll? — Navy SEAL Breaks It Down

Episode Transcript

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News

Follow Us On

Hosts And Creators

Clay Travis

Buck Sexton

Show Links

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Are You A Charlotte?

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}David Rutherford Show: What Gives America the Right to K!ll? — Navy SEAL Breaks It Down