Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Targeted Assassination of Osama Bin Laden
When he announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed by a Navy Seal team in Pakistan, President Barack Obama said, “Justice has been done.” Mr. Obama misused the word, "justice" when he made that statement. He should have said, "Retaliation has been accomplished." A former professor of constitutional law should know the difference between those two concepts. The word "justice" implies an act of applying or upholding the law.
Targeted assassinations violate well-established principles of international law. Also called political assassinations, they are extrajudicial executions. These are unlawful and deliberate killings carried out by order of, or with the acquiescence of, a government, outside any judicial framework.
Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed conflict. In a 1998 report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted that “extrajudicial executions can never be justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war.” The U.N. General Assembly and Human Rights Commission, as well as Amnesty International, have all condemned extrajudicial executions.
In spite of its illegality, the Obama administration frequently uses targeted assassinations to accomplish its goals. Five days after executing Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama tried to bring “justice” to U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who has not been charged with any crime in the United States. The unmanned drone attack in Yemen missed al-Awlaki and killed two people “believed to be al Qaeda militants,” according to a CBS/AP bulletin.
Two days before the Yemen attack, U.S. drones killed 15 people in Pakistan and wounded four. Since the March 17 drone attack that killed 44 people, also in Pakistan, there have been four drone strikes. In 2010, American drones carried out 111 strikes. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that 957 civilians were killed in 2010.
The United States disavowed the use of extrajudicial killings under President Gerald Ford. After the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disclosed in 1975 that the CIA had been involved in several murders or attempted murders of foreign leaders, President Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. Every succeeding president until George W. Bush renewed that order. However, the Clinton administration targeted Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, but narrowly missed him.
In July 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel denounced Israel’s policy of targeted killings, or “preemptive operations.” He said “the United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”
Yet after September 11, 2001, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer invited the killing of Saddam Hussein: “The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less” than the cost of war. Shortly thereafter, Bush issued a secret directive, which authorized the CIA to target suspected terrorists for assassination when it would be impractical to capture them and when large-scale civilian casualties could be avoided.
In November 2002, Bush reportedly authorized the CIA to assassinate a suspected Al Qaeda leader in Yemen. He and five traveling companions were killed in the hit, which Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz described as a “very successful tactical operation.”
After the Holocaust, Winston Churchill wanted to execute the Nazi leaders without trials. But the U.S. government opposed the extrajudicial executions of Nazi officials who had committed genocide against millions of people. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who served as chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, told President Harry Truman: “We could execute or otherwise punish [the Nazi leaders] without a hearing. But undiscriminating executions or punishments without definite findings of guilt, fairly arrived at, would … not set easily on the American conscience or be remembered by children with pride.”
Osama bin Laden and the “suspected militants” targeted in drone attacks should have been arrested and tried in U.S. courts or an international tribunal. Obama cannot serve as judge, jury and executioner. These assassinations are not only illegal; they create a dangerous precedent, which could be used to justify the targeted killings of U.S. leaders.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
116 Comments so far
Show All"Will no one rid me of this priest."
(cleric)
Henry II, 1170 AD
Been going on a long time.
The priest is gone, so kill a choir boy.
I see that we are now re-naming World War II "The Holocaust". That aside, it now seems that the US Government gets its values and thus rules of engagement from Mafia-style gang warfare practices.
So who exactly are the real crooks?
Backwards. The Cosa Nostra patterned its structure and values after government militaries: the rank and file call themselves "soldiers," who report to "capos," who kick made money up to "bosses." The chain of command is, supposedly, all encompassing. Killings are supposed to be approved by the bosses.
They are criminals, certainly "real" ones, but the extent of the crimes they commit and perpetrate are small time in comparison with what the various associates of the United States Government -- agencies and corporations aligned with and operating for the benefit of -- do.
Obama's rhetoric is all about sounding good but meaning nothing..."war is peace". From his speech last weekend; "some Americans are still facing personal recessions". So now justice equals revenge and a President equals judge, jury, and executor.
That's very true, JJW. It's hypocrisy at its finest, if one gets the drift.
Obama is Orwell's ultimate nightmare.
Hilary Clinton, when asked what her favorite book was as a child, said 'Animal Farm'. I suspect that she identified herself as the barnyard pig. In any case, The Hill reminds me of the barnyard in the book.
Except for the "Holocaust" slip, Cohn's argument on this subject, like Greenwald's in other pieces, is of course spot on. I do find it distressing, however, that these left pundits keep drinking the Osama Kool-Aid. They seem not to realize that the Osama farce is, at least for now, and in a large sense, THE justification proffered for these targeted killings and the whole GWOT. Puncture that balloon, and you've got nothing whatsoever, except a nearly endless string of war crimes.
A little skepticism about these unsubstantiated spectacles shoved down our throats by governments that don't govern but simply meddle with human lives and create their own reality would go a long way towards removing the first bricks in the wall of lies. If even a small handful of these pundits started applying real pressure every single time these "news" stories issued by the government services showed serious contradictions and presented no concrete evidence for their claims, we might start to get somewhere.
Otherwise, no matter how "right" Cohn and Greenwald may be in their ethical and legal arguments, these will, in the end, not stick, but simply slide off the slimy wall of lies.
"..removing the first bricks in the wall of lies."
clo, they don't dare take the chance of losing their place in the pecking order.
Moore comes somewhat close at times, but the next day he's onto something else. No focus.
CLOVIS: Thank you. Important post & points.
'I do find it distressing, however, that these left pundits keep drinking the Osama Kool-Aid. '
It is THE problem facing us. It's easy for most people to see through a limbaugh or a beck, but not so easy when the 'liberal' media, which very accurately and correctly oppose republican policies, make excuses for the very same policies as executed by O and the democrats. This media also use fear as well as limbaugh, scaring people into believing that voting democratic is their only choice because republican policies are different IN KIND--when it's only a difference of degree. The outcome most assuredly will be the same.
As planned by corportists, what we're seeing is an America that now unquestioningly accepts neoliberal policies--whether legal, social, or economic--because those policies are less frightening coming from democrats than republicans.
This is not to minimize the bright spots like the people's movement in places like Wisconsin.
"If even a small handful of these pundits started applying real pressure every single time these "news" stories issued by the government services showed serious contradictions and presented no concrete evidence for their claims, we might start to get somewhere.
"Otherwise, no matter how "right" Cohn and Greenwald may be in their ethical and legal arguments, these will, in the end, not stick, but simply slide off the slimy wall of lies."
AMEN to this. After seeing the results of picking up and running with the phony WMD stories and pushing the Iraq war, I'm stunned that the Fourth Estate isn't calling shenanigans on this stunt by the Obama administration. I keep thinking it's either a failure of collective memory or lack of rudimentary conscience among reporters, pundits, editors, and publishers. Either one makes me sick.
Here I am-------but not so much as a 'progressive' (what ever that is) but as a person who reads a lot and has a memory here in the United States of Amnesia. There was an announcement in Pakistan newspapers nearly ten years ago that Osama had died of kidney failure and there was a funeral service and his body was put in the ground.
For our nation to celebrate an illegal invasion of any nation to kill someone and dump the body (and the evidence) into the sea is NO REASON for celebration. Obama said that justice had been done and this clearly shows his conception of 'justice'. He who supports torture, also supports murder.
Behind all this misinformation and failure of any moral or ethical standards in our nation's capital, is the unspoken fact that the terrible attack on New York City on 9/11 was not an attack by 19 Muslims with box cutters. The official story of the event of that day are not true. This attack was a 'false flag' operation of our government (with the assistance of the Israeli secret police) to cause a spectacular event to so upset and frighten the American people that we would support the illegal and immoral wars for corporate profits in the Middle East.
Now, if you believe that 9/11 was an attack masterminded by the evil Osama bin Laden, why do the wars go on and intensify in even more nations in that area? We are bombing Libya for 'humanitarian' reasons? You believe that too?
Our nation is bankrupt. The dollar is about to collapse and become worthless. Our government is in no way 'our' government. The government of the United States is owned and operated by the corporations and the richest 1% of our population.
And you are still voting for the Democrats?
Turn of that damn TV and get out and talk to the people in your town. Are they frightened we may be invaded by the people of Muslim faith; or are they scared about how they can feed their kids and worry that a family member may get sick? Do the people in your town want the wars to end and the richest people and corporations to pay more in taxes? Is anyone looking forward to austerity and terrible cuts in all of our domestic spending?
So you turned off your TV and talked to your neighbors or people in your town about Osama being dead because:
"There was an announcement in Pakistan newspapers nearly ten years ago that Osama had died of kidney failure and there was a funeral service and his body was put in the ground."
And then you told your neighbors to turn off their TV, that 9/11 was a "False Flag" operation and that Obama should have given Osama a fair trial instead of killing him again after he was dead for ten years?
How did your neighbors and people in town respond?
Yes, I turned off the TV because I know there is nothing there (in terms of news) but lies. Same goes for the major press. I read of the news report in the Pakistani press on the internet. There is still some chance to get some truth there---of course there is a lot of trash too; but by continuing to follow up on articles, I am better able to evaluate what I read or watch on the internet.
The evidence that 9/11 the official story of the events of 9/11 is not true is on many web sites. I especially recommend the Architects and Engineers on 9/11 because they do not say anything about who or how the event was planned, but only deal with the scientific facts of the collapse of the three buildings at the World Trade Center.
Everyone with whom I have discussed the issue of the tale of the capture and murder of Osama bin Laden agree that it was an illegal and immoral action because they think that anyone accused of a crime should be given a trial -- and not just shot in the head and his body tossed into the sea.
The other point I am always making when I talk to people is: don't vote for any corporate candidate EVER AGAIN. I ask people to look at the results of choosing between two evils and trying to figure out which set of bastards are the less evil. We start by admitting they are BOTH EVIL---what a choice! Can't win that way, if you want a tad of democracy in our nation.
I have not been able to convince loyal Democrats to make a resolution to not vote corporate for the next Presidential election. I have gone to a demonstrations for peace and for labor justice with a sign asking people to resolve not to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican. Most people agree to resolve not to vote corporate but some Democrats are unable to make such a resolution. These people firmly believe that to not vote for either a D or an R is to 'throw your vote away'. I guess they also think the votes are counted and there is a difference between the D's and the R's.
My sign shows the accomplishments of the bipartisan efforts of the D's and R's---you know, endless war, bankster bailout, torture, loss of habeus corpus, health care controlled by the for profit insurance companies, cuts in all of our critically vital domestic programs and serious threats to Social Security and Medicare coupled with tax cuts for the billionaires and the corporations.
Hey, Jim---what do you think about 'austerity'? You still got a job? Kissing
someone's tail end to keep it? .Got any kids you would like to go to college? And, how is your health? Wanna work until you're seventy or so---or till you drop dead? And a pension---want a pension some time? Consider voting non corporate. There are other candidates on the ballot. We need a chance for new political parties to develop so we can get some new ideas on how to get our elected officials to pay attention to their constituents over the concerns of their contributors.
I am also weary of Corporate money in elections yet the Supreme court considers unions corporations too.
I don't know who I will vote for at this stage but did you also sign a pledge to vote only for someone who believes in the pre planned demolition on 9/11 or one of the 9/11 Architects and Engineers?
It would be great if a real peace candidate could win.
If the Truthers just ask questions why do they attack anyone who does not buy the package? Are you still kissing Truthers asses?
Sounds like you are gonna be real disappointed in the results and I will turn off my TV when you turn off your computer.
"still kissing Truthers asses"
Just for the record Jim. Do you still believe that Saddam was threatening us with WMD? If you don't, do you actually believe that Bush Co and our corporate media were making honest mistakes, (despite having zero evidence to back up their story)? It couldn't be that they actually LIED to us, could it now? LIED in about 50 different ways simultaneously. LIED through their teeth for practically a year straight. Continued to LIE years after the event? Why is it that you still have such blind trust in the corporate media? Faith? Fool me once?
Braithwa842
Excellent questions for Jim G.
IT IS THE 'ANTI TRUTHERS' THAT ARE KISSING ASSES.
WANT REAL: Thank you for speaking the stark truth. I agree with every point you raised.
Well said.
My question for people like Marjorie Cohn is simple: where is your evidence that OBL was actually killed last Sunday, other than words coming out of the mouths of known liars?
I cannot remember of a more a accurate analysis of post 9/11 blogs that cover the causes of our present situation than wantrealdemocracy's.
Thank you,WRD
Has there been any proof that it really was Osama that was shot in the face and dumped in the ocean? (Oh yeah, the instant DNA evidence.) Can you really believe anything that the psyops tell you? Have you already forgotten the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tilman legends?
As I mentioned in another thread, it was a useful fiction for both sides to pretend that Osama was alive these last ten years. This fairy tale operation just ties up everything, albiet very sloppily with the disposal of the evidence and the weak reasoning behind it. But it is great politics for Obama and a great recruitment tool for the 100 Al Qaeda members left.
The story exemplifies the age old problem of telling a lie. As inconvenient facts came out, they had to keep revising the tale. Unfortunately, people believe anything that the Ministry of Truth tells them, and rapidly forget yesterday's inconsistencies.
and yesterday's murder of innocent children and grandchildren.
Maybe Osama's three wives will testify that he was dead while they were living with him in Pakistan.
I might believe them.
We'll See
How is it exactly that Pakistan has OBL's 3 wives and 9 children in custody, when they KNEW NOTHING OF THE COVERT OPERATION TO ASSASSINATE Bin Laden? Please elaborate on this glaring contradiction Mr. Glover.
BP, I don't know what Pakistan knew.
Do you?
What does that have to do with his wives being left at the compound.
Maybe you can elaborate on what one has to do with the other.
Wonderful quote by Ms. Cohn of Robert. H. Jackson. Will any of our less than intrepid journalists and reporters ever ask Obama if he thinks that his actions overrule the beliefs of former Supreme Court Justice Jackson?
This type of article deserves to be printed in publications such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. But in the case of the alleged liberal Times it is, unfortunately, highly unlikely that this will happen given the fact that it published two essays this past Sunday by two of its columnists which excused and justified what Obama and the SEALS had done against the man they they and the government and the military claim to be Osama bin Laden.
Erroll,
Following is a link to an excellent assessment of the propaganda that passes for journalism in the US. Like Ms. Cohn's piece, it risks exposing US citizens to truth and a critical examination of the criminal, gangster-like organization that has supplanted any semblance of democratic governance; therefore; it is highly unlikely an article of this caliber will ever reach a mass readership.
*****
Obama on “60 Minutes:” A political assessment
By Bill Van Auken
http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/obam-m10.shtml
Excerpt:
"In his first and so far only interview since the assassination in Pakistan of Osama bin Laden, US President Barack Obama spent half an hour on the CBS News program “60 Minutes” reveling in the details of the extra-judicial killing, while insisting that anyone who questioned the action must be insane.
The interview, conducted by CBS’s Steve Kroft, epitomized the role of the corporate media. In its sycophantic and wholly uncritical celebration of the Bin Laden killing, it is indistinguishable from a propaganda arm of the US government.
There were no probing questions, including on the many contradictions and absurdities in the official version of events. There were no attempts to examine the implications of targeted assassinations for relations between states. Nor was there any challenge to the US president on the connection between this killing and broader US policy in the region and internationally.
Among Kroft’s first questions:
“Mr. President, was this the most satisfying week of your presidency?”
“Was the decision to launch this attack the most difficult decision that you've made as commander-in-chief?”
“Was there a sense of excitement? Did this look promising from the very beginning?”
Another line of questioning centered on how Obama was able to keep the planned kill operation secret while going about his public appearances as president. This included:
“Was it hard keeping your focus?”
“Did you have to suppress the urge to tell someone? Did you want to tell somebody? Did you want to tell Michelle? Did you tell Michelle?”
The interview was organized as part of a well-orchestrated campaign to rebrand Obama, exploiting the killing of Bin Laden to cast him as a “war president” along the lines of George W. Bush. It is one more indication that domestic political concerns played a pivotal role in the decision to organize the assassination.
Faced with a deepening economic crisis and mounting social tensions at home, the killing is seen, on the one hand, as a means of diverting popular anger and, on the other, forging a more solid political base within the military, the intelligence apparatus and the most reactionary sections of the financial-corporate elite." [...]
Giovanna
Bene grazie for the link. It is difficult to know who is more contemptible, Barack Obama claiming in that 60 Minutes interview that he was proud to have given the order for the SEALS to assassinate the alleged bin Laden or Steve Kroft for lobbing soft questions at the assassinator-in-chief. Not exactly a shining moment for our less than intrepid mainstream media or our leader of the Free World, for that matter.
GIOVANNA: Great post, and it demonstrates why I often state that in the U.S. Mars (god of war) rules. Imagine, that for all the alleged centuries of enlightenment, education, and purported civilization, the so-called leader of the free world celebrates the blood of an engineered enemy as if its possession signifies some crowning moment of glory. It doesn't get more raw, bloody, and primitive than this! Salutations to Mars, hardly reflective of the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Moses or Mohammed.
I am absolutely DISGUSTED by what passes for leadership, and at a time when REAL leadership is so urgently required. Instead of courageously assembling teams to rebuild our nation and GREEN its decaying infrastructure, the dummies set up 21st century-style Roman arenas and train the masses to thrill at the sight of "Other's" blood.
To the few in this forum that take any and every occasion as cause to blame the Left, while also suggesting that there are no leaders on the Left, I encourage you to look at what passes for leadership, and precisely what (and whom) is allowed the remotest proximity to the ersatz American throne!
Grotesque! It's a dance macabre as Vashkar Kim has often related.
Hi Sioux.I couldn't agree more. And where are Vashkar/Kim in this our hour of need?
Thanks,Rose of the Sioux,
What is in the highest position of the U.S.government is not leaders, but want-to-be RULERS.Rulers don't care about LAWS...they only care about POWER.
Of course, they too are subservient to the MONEYCHANGERS.
The most infuriating part of Obama's interview was when I learned that, apparently, those who believe that the Geneva Conventions apply to everyone -- no exceptions -- NEED TO HAVE THEIR HEAD EXAMINED:
"In his final remarks in the interview, Obama concluded: 'The one thing I didn’t lose sleep over was the possibility of taking Bin Laden out. Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn’t deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.'”
http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/obam-m10.shtml
So sayeth the murderer-in-chief, the world's judge, jury and executioner, and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Anne
Obama's ability to sleep at night without any difficulty whatsoever is reminiscent of the remarks of George W. Bush who, I believe, said essentially the same thing during the bellicose time that he was in office. Obama also said basically the same thing in a speech that he gave in Cairo, Egypt in June of 2008 when he talked about 9/11/01. He believed that Al Qaeda was responsible was responsible for those attacks. He also basically stated in his speech what he said in the 60 Minutes interview when he said of Al Qaeda's [supposed] involvement in 9/11/01 that these opinions were not to be debated.
It would appear that Obama is strongly implying that he is not going to tolerate anyone who dares disagree with what he says and that if anyone does that that person or persons are candidates for being sent to a mental institution. That, of course, is what happened in the old Soviet Union when the regime would lock people up because they would claim that anyone who criticized the government must also be mentally unstable.
Whether it is an openly repressive government like the Soviet Union or a more covert one like the United States it becomes clearly evident that the last thing that authoritarian governments desire is for their citizens to think for themselves. And if they do then their government will claim that they should be viewed as supposedly being mentally unstable.
Excellent points, Erroll. Perhaps it is Obama who should have his head examined, particularly if he has no trouble sleeping at night with all the blood on his hands. Scary times indeed for anyone who dares defy or even question the powers that be.
Although from a legalistic point of view Obama is responsible for the extra-judicial murders that occur during his presidency, I suspect that our military establishment is free of civilian control and does whatever it pleases. Obama, reduced to being spokesman, a press agent for our loose cannon, is left to explain their actions and make what use of it he can. American patriots should note the ominous timing of the attempted murder of al-Awlaki in Yemen, hard on the heels of the execution of bin Laden. A deliberate point is being made here and all citizens should take this as a direct threat. Nothing could be more foreign to our Constitution, more of a rape of its basic spirit than an executive declaration of the right to murder citizens without any due process at all. All the barbarities that we commit overseas are coming home to plague us and perhaps faster than we think.
Tony Vodvarka
Tony V -
Great post. I entirely agree.
The Special Ops/black ops tail has been wagging the White House dog for over a decade. It is a very ominous development that the civilian politicians of both major parties believe there's partisan points to score by taking credit for the occasional successes. The long term domestic blowback will fall on thee, and me, and the rest of us common citizens who are on the outside looking in.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill: If you read "JFK & The Unspeakable, Why He Died & Why It Matters," I believe you'd amend your comment. The Special Ops contingent has influenced the White House quite directly since l963, with Eisenhower warning against the dark rising powers of the MIC back in l960.
Did I read you wrong on a recent post where you seemed to APPLAUD the efforts used to "get" Osama? It seemed to me by your verbiage that you were stating that torture and direct military target assassinations "work." Now you seem to be applauding the higher legal ground.
TONY: One of your best comments ever. Thank you.
Gracias, Souixrose, and ditto on "JFK and the Unspeakable". That the political elites of our nation accepted the treachery to the Constitution and civilized norms of the ambush in Dallas and, as the facts began to emerge over the decades, most of the rest of us did the same, lay the origin of the rat hole in which we presently find ourselves.
By the way, Siouxrose, speaking of "Special Ops contingent has influenced the White House quite directly since 1963", very clear press photographs of high-ranking CIA agent Howard Hunt being led by police from the railroad yards (the three hobos) behind the grassy knoll from where the decisive shot was fired are freely available on the internet. Hunt made a recent death bed confession to his role in the assassination. Howard Hunt, of course, was convicted of being the leader of the Plumbers, a black-ops team operating out of the Nixon White House basement which comitted the Watergate burglaries.
We have to face facts. The US is now a thoroughly criminal government: it has made war against weak and defenceless countries, it has destroyed their infrastructure and overthrown their governments, it has killed and displaced millions of civilians, it has adopted medieval torture as a deliberate practice, it routinely practices assassinations, and it no longer respects the right of individuals not to be arbitrarily arrested and held.
Jim Shea
JIM S: I totally agree, and have been pointing out that our government is illegitimate for some time (here in this forum and anywhere else I can relate the message).
You might also add the amount of crony capitalism going on, that even while so many are being RENDERED destitute, divested of the savings they thought consolidated into their home values, yet more of the public's treasury is being lavished on the already way too rich. Then you might speak about the lie being spun off as health CARE reform, when in reality, it's another obligatory tax... in the form of enforced homage to the CORPORATE insurance carriers.
Finally, I would add that elections themselves are an expensive charade. From the Supreme Court stepping in to insure the necessary electoral outcome, what with 911 probably already in the works, and the next war being planned... to the 2004 fraud executed in Ohio, among likely other states.
I mean fraud is not a strong enough word to define the levels of corruption, illegality, and sheer malice directed at MILLIONS... the full scale of criminality exceeds what the sane imagination can take in!
(This is the part of the movie where stooges funded by the Koch Brothers intone the chorus, "Support our troops! They're fighting for YOUR freedoms!")
Absolutely, Sioux. Corruption is too tame a word. (I am currently working on a poem titled "In a Time of Grievous Murder.")
I'm really enjoying this thread, and you're on a roll today.
Cohn sez: "Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed conflict."
***
"If the president does it, that means it's not illegal."
-- Barack W. Nixon
It appears that our presidents now believe that they must be war criminals to be "good" presidents. Our Founding Fathers were far from perfect, but surely could not foresee such a development!
Hmmmmm...I don't know about this:
"Our Founding Fathers were far from perfect, but surely could not foresee such a development!"
For starters, George Washington did warn against becoming embroiled with foreign affairs.
Secondly, if the United States' long history of an interventionist foreign policy (dating back more than 50 years) is any indication, this had been a long time coming.
Actually, the "Founding Fathers" were quite competent as war criminals, including the sainted Thomas Jefferson, who encouraged the elimination of the native population.
Of course they did!
That is what Impeachment and the Constitutional Amendment and Convention powers are all about!
First Congress should check the President-cum-Emperor, then, if they fail, the States and the People are given the power to change the Constitution in part or whole to rein their Representatives and President in and restore the Republic or create it anew.
Congress has failed.
The time for single Amendments and slight revisions has passed.
Constitutional Convention now!