All Episodes
Previous Next
April 9, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
27:13
COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Will Trump Deport Americans?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, April 10th, 2024.
My dear friend, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson joins us now.
Colonel Wilkerson, a pleasure.
Thank you very much for joining us.
These are dark days and unpleasant subject matters to discuss.
Do you have a moral objection to folks
swooped up off the streets in America and without any appearance before a judge dispatched to a dungeon in a foreign country from which it appears there is no extrication or
escape?
Moral, ethical, and legal objections.
And as I told one of my buddies this morning who was emailing me on the same subject, I said, you know what we're doing here is the same thing George W. Bush did with his rendition.
Interrogation Detention Program, RDI.
We are creating a state-sponsored trafficking in people situation.
We aren't putting the people down in Guantanamo where Trump said we would.
There are fewer than 30 people down there, I'm told.
We dispatched the military down there, the guard, but they're not down there.
What we're doing is we are hiring private airlines and we're flying them on these airlines.
And if you've seen the articles that have come out, The protests that are being made by the flight attendants, for example, being put on an airplane with maybe one or two Customs and Border Patrol guards, and 200 men shackled from neck to feet.
They're not very comfortable with it, and they weren't hired under those conditions.
But these airlines are making a lot of money, and they probably are part of the MAGA group.
The article that you sent me, if I read it correctly, explained why every time you see these poor souls, they're so bent over because their hands are shackled to their ankles.
Very much.
It's not permitted in American jails.
But for some reason, the Department of Homeland Security does that in Texas, which is the United States of America, from which the planes leave.
And then, of course, they're kept that way until they're actually behind bars in El Salvador.
Discussions, Judge, we had at the State Department were over the rendition program the CIA ran and Congress thoroughly investigated and then held the report back.
Those conversations included words like this from Colin Powell and others and Will Taft, his lawyer.
We're going to teach this country to do some things we aren't going to be happy with in the future.
That's precisely what we've done.
This is the same way and even worse that we rendered people to Syria and Egypt so they could be tortured.
Did you participate?
In conversations during the Bush administration, in which senior members of the administration contemplated rendition, a euphemistic phrase for shipping somebody overseas so they could be tortured and brought back here.
My boss certainly did, and he came back and debriefed me, and I could tell you exactly who was there and what they said.
Who was there and what did they say?
I can't go into that.
I just can't.
That's like the small group of Trump's principles committee and their conversations on Signal.
You know, I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement when I left government too.
Okay, understood.
Understood. What was your boss's attitude about this?
Can you reveal that?
Yes, he thought it was not only criminal, but as I said, it was precedent setting.
And that's what we did as we discussed all the things we violated from the Patriot Act to the torture program and
the greatest ramifications of it, not only destroying America's image and reputation in the world, but setting precedents for future presidents.
Because one thing Powell knew, having served several of those presidents, was once power is gained, it is not discarded.
Here is President Trump.
This is reprehensible, but we'll analyze it.
On Air Force One, being asked if he can foresee the deportation, it's the wrong word, but we know what they're talking about, of Americans to this hellhole in El Salvador.
Chris, cut number nine.
The president there said he would be willing to take American citizens in the federal prison population.
Is that one of the ideas?
Well, I love that.
If we could take some of our 20-time...
Wise guys that push people into subways and that hit people over the back of the head and that purposely run people over in cars.
If you would take them, I'd be honored to give.
I don't know what the law says on that, but I can't imagine the law would say anything different.
If they can house these horrible criminals for a lot less money than it costs us, I'm all for it.
But I have suggested that, you know, why should it stop just the people that cross the border illegally?
We have some horrible criminals.
American grown and born, and if we have somebody that bops an old woman over the head, if we have somebody that is in jail 20 times and goes back as a bad judge or a bad prosecutor that do nothing about him,
all they worry about is politics, they don't worry about that.
I think if we could get El Salvador or somebody to take them, I'd be very happy.
Not a word about their process.
Let's take a look at this.
Push people in front of subways, hit somebody over the head, run somebody over with a car, hit an old woman on the head.
These are not federal crimes.
These are state crimes.
A, does he know what he's talking about?
B, does he give a damn about the Constitution he swore to uphold, which includes the Fifth Amendment, which requires due process?
A hearing before a neutral judge at which the government must prove fault before it can take anyone's life, liberty, or property.
No, no, and no.
But he does know that that kind of language appeals to about 40 to 45 million of his shall we say most tightly held followers.
That's the kind of language they love.
That's what got him elected in many respects.
Here's his Over the weekend, President Trump said that he would be willing to have U.S. citizens deported to El Salvador with the cooperation of President Bukele.
How would that work legally and how many people would potentially be available for that?
So the President has discussed this idea quite a few times publicly.
He's also discussed it privately.
You're referring to the President's idea for American citizens to potentially be deported.
These would be heinous, violent criminals who have broken our nation's laws repeatedly.
And these are violent, repeat offenders in American streets.
The President has said...
If it's legal, right?
If there is a legal pathway to do that.
He's not sure.
We are not sure if there is.
It's an idea that he has simply floated and has discussed very publicly in the effort of transparency.
So during the Bush administration, at the advice of Lindsey Graham and Alberto Gonzalez, you know what I'm about to say, George W. established the Devil's Island in Guantanamo Bay because Graham and Gonzalez said to him,
Well, don't worry about it.
It's Cuba.
The federal laws don't apply.
The Constitution doesn't apply.
And best of all, Mr. President, those pesky federal judges can't tell you what to do.
The Supreme Court ruled in five cases against the Bush administration and said wherever the government goes, the Constitution goes.
These people seem to think, as British kings attempted to do, which is why we have habeas corpus in the Constitution, That they can send human beings out of the reach of the Constitution, out of the reach of the laws, out of the...
I can't believe we're having this conversation other than in a law school hypothetical venue, but this is real.
And out of the reach of federal judges, they honestly think they can do that.
That's the unitary executive and the theory thereof.
That was George W. Bush and Richard Cheney's, and Trump has taken that to new levels.
What we're talking here about, really, is trafficking in people.
And we're talking about our democracy.
And a democracy means the people make some of these decisions, if not verify all of them.
A democracy that can't handle its criminals, can't run its jails, can't run its courts, can't run its legal system.
And states that can't do that, too.
That's what we're admitting to if we buy Trump's formula for how to deal with this situation.
It's preposterous, but it's understandable given this unitary theory of the executive, which simply says I have the power.
The Constitution is clear on that.
Cheney always said the Constitution was clear on that.
I have the power to do anything I damn well want to do.
And the Republicans in the Congress yesterday voted to strip federal judges of certain jurisdictional authority.
Gee, I wonder if they'd be doing this if the president's name were Kamala Harris.
Somehow I don't think they would.
They really should be careful what they ask for.
Trump is not going to be president forever, and hopefully the Constitution will survive him, although that's questionable at the moment.
Before we get into more substantive things...
Let me say one thing, Judge.
Your comment, almost word for word, was made by Will Taft, Powell's lawyer, with regard to departing Geneva and instituting a formal state-sponsored torture program.
Wow. Before we get to some substantive issues about the United States, Israel, and Iran...
I want to play a clip for you from the State Department spokesperson and tell me if this person would have worked for you when you were in the State Department before we jump to it.
The setting is an inquiry by a reporter about the execution-style murder of 15 Palestinian UN workers in Gaza.
Who were each shot in the head, one after another after another, and then buried in a shallow grave.
They confiscated the phones from them, but they forgot from one, and of course that one showed a video with some of the horrific things that happened, sort of screaming from the grave about what they did to this person.
But here's the State Department spokesperson, full disclosure, I know her well and worked with her at Fox News for...
About 10 years.
Her efforts to avoid answering the question.
Cut number 14. The UN's humanitarian affairs office has said that 15 paramedics, civil defense, and a UN worker were killed, in their words, one by one, by the RDF.
They have dug bodies up, they said, in the shallow grave that have been gathered up, and also vehicles in the sand.
Have you got any...
Well, I can tell you that for too long, Hamas has abused civilian infrastructure, cynically using it to shield themselves.
Hamas's actions have caused humanitarians to be caught in the crossfire.
The use of civilians or civilian objects to shield or impede military operations is itself a violation of international humanitarian law.
And of course, we expect all parties on the ground to comply with international humanitarian law.
But this specifically a question on any, it's a question about accounting and accountability given that may have been the use of US weapons.
So it's a question about the State Department rather than Hamas.
Well, every single thing that is happening in Gaza It's happening because of Hamas.
Every single dynamic.
I'll say again, I've said it I think in every briefing, all of this could stop in a moment if Hamas returned all the hostages and the hostage bodies they are still holding and put down its weapons.
There is one entity that could stop it for everyone in a moment, and that is Hamas.
Well, she could have, instead of saying Hamas, she could have said President Trump, who could stop it with a phone call.
But listen to this.
We expect all parties on the ground to comply with international humanitarian laws.
Is she forgetting about the IDF?
Is she forgetting about the Netanyahu regime?
That's their propagandistic technique.
They point the finger at the other person, particularly Hamas in this case, and they overlook their own crimes.
You can't stand there.
And say, reason I broke the law, the reason I murdered, the reason I mercilessly killed these people is because you killed us.
That's not a defense in any court in the land that I know of, except perhaps maybe some of the courts overseas like Mubarak used to run, or some of the other characters like Assad used to run.
That's not a defense.
Bear with me just a minute, Colonel.
By the way, Haaretz carried a headline this morning supposedly gained from IDF defense officials that Hamas' strength right now is 40,000.
40,000.
Netanyahu's strategy is working really well.
40,000 fighters.
Here's 40,000 fighters.
40,000 fighters.
That's larger than the IDF, is it not?
Yes. Well, no, it's not larger than the IDF.
IDF probably has somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 what I'll call operational soldiers and pilots and things like that left.
But even then, Horat's also carried the headline.
Almost a thousand reservists and veteran reservists of the Israeli Air Force have just been summarily dismissed from their whatevers in Israel, maybe their citizenship, and called traitors by Netanyahu because they dared to get together and write a letter
saying they decried some of the things that were happening.
I mean, this is how Jacob.
Here is the president of the Red Crescent.
Cut number 15. Refat Redouane was one of 15 killed.
His phone was found with his body and he recorded the whole event.
His last words before being shot.
Forgive me, mum.
I just wanted to help people.
I wanted to save lives.
Forgive me, Mom.
I just wanted to help people.
I wanted to save lives.
And then they put a bullet in his head.
You saw a picture of him.
He looks to be about 15 or 16 years old.
Will the 40,000 Hamas fighters effectively resist or repel the IDF from Gaza, or will it take the President of the United States?
Who doesn't appear interested in doing that to make that happen?
The latter, I think.
I will say this.
I think Hamas has demonstrated quite conclusively that it's willing to fight to the last person.
And if the ratios hang in there somewhat equivalent to what they have been over the past few months, Hamas and the IDF are going to be looking at each other across a ditch, each with a dagger in his hand and blood in their eyes.
They're destroying each other.
When Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump had lunch together at the White House on Monday, the BBC and The Economist magazine both reported that Netanyahu was bitterly disappointed.
This is before Trump changed his mind on the tariffs.
Netanyahu wanted to talk Trump out of imposing the tariff on Israel.
According to the BBC and The Economist, he failed.
He wanted to talk President Trump into publicly blasting President Erdogan of Turkey.
According to these two British reports, he failed, and mainly wanted to talk President Trump into commencing war against Iran, and Netanyahu was stunned when Trump announced I
think he was so stunned that you saw him for one of the first times in his life be flabbergasted and not know exactly what to say and off his mark, so to speak.
And the one that really floored him, I think, most of all.
Israel has announced it's holding talks with the Turks in Ankara, and the subject of the talks is Syria, so you can bet those are going to be serious talks.
But I think what really knocked him off his speed was the comment about Iran, because Trump flat-told Netanyahu to his fat face that there was going to be no war with Iran if Witkoff were successful.
And he gave an impression that he thought Witkoff might be.
And to Netanyahu, it was inconceivable, just as it was inconceivable that the Americans would be talking to Hamas, it was inconceivable that the Americans would be talking to the Iranians.
Directly, maybe.
Maybe. The recipe right now is for there to be indirect talks with both parties present, Witkoff and the foreign minister on the other side.
There's no reason whatsoever with that kind of physical proximity if both parties agree, boom, you have direct talks.
How do you have indirect talks with both parties present?
Just have them in separate rooms?
We did that with the Chinese orchestrating it with the North Koreans because Dick Cheney said our emissary could not talk directly to the North Koreans.
Couldn't even talk through a translator, which was normally the way it was.
So the Chinese had to listen to the North Korean discussant.
Then they had to either give it to the translator, or if they spoke English, and in some cases they did, give it to the U.S. representative.
Because of Chinese strictures, our representative was always in that straitjacket.
And that sometimes pertains to diplomacy, although normally when you have indirect talks, you don't have the parties who could do direct talks present.
That's what makes me think that there's expectations that we might go to direct talks in Oman.
Wow. Here's President Trump being asked if he would contemplate military operations against Iran.
Chris, cut number four.
Is the United States, under your leadership, ready to take military action to destroy the Iranian nuclear program and remove this threat?
I think if the talks aren't successful with Iran, I think Iran is going to be in great danger.
And I hate to say it, great danger, because they can't have a nuclear weapon.
You know, it's not a complicated formula.
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
That's all there is.
Right now we have countries that have nuclear power that shouldn't have it.
But I'm sure we'll be able to negotiate out of that too as part of this later on down the line.
But Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
And if the talks are successful, I actually think it'll be a very bad day for Iran.
He was seated next to the prime minister of a country that has nuclear weapons illegally.
Why was there no reference to that?
Or was he Really trying to give Netanyahu hard palpitations by intimating that the Israelis shouldn't have nuclear weapons, the technology for which they stole from the United States.
Thank you, Jonathan Pollard.
Well, the rumors are rampant that Putin, Xi, and Trump have talked telephonically.
They have talked about each of the parties to the nuclear talks they want to have to talk about cutting our stockpiles.
Welcome talks, in my view.
They've talked about bringing their parties in who are reluctant to enter into such agreements.
Well, you know who that means for the United States.
Of course, for Russia it means North Korea, and for China it might mean Pakistan, ostensibly.
And for us it might mean India as well, because we need everybody in these discussions if we're going to have a multilateral treaty regime, and that's the only way to really bring the danger level down.
I guess you'd have to bring Great Britain and France in too.
That was Putin and Sergei Lavrov's hint, strong hint, that they ought to be there too.
Now it might be a little more difficult.
But in the long haul, what gave me some comfort, and I had begun to back away from my theory that we were looking for a deal ultimately over the last 96 hours, but listening to some experts on Iran and others, I've come back to my original conclusion.
I think Trump wants a deal.
And I don't think the deal is going to be as his decision memorandum or information memorandum directive, whatever it was, that listed the seven or eight points we were going to cause to happen is really realistic.
It certainly isn't to the Iranians.
So I think his emphasis on the nuclear weapon there was a very important emphasis.
That's what he wants.
He wants a verification regime.
And that's where the details are going to be difficult for Witkoff because If you recall, Moniz was involved, the Secretary of Energy.
Zarif was involved.
Zarif, our equivalent in Iran, Salehi, was involved.
You need a lot of expertise to do this kind of verification regime, especially to make it acceptable to people like Trump and ultimately the Congress.
So this could be a long, drawn-out set of talks, and during the whole thing, Netanyahu's going to be, if he's still leader, and I'm...
Seriously concerned.
Not concerned.
I'm seriously expecting him not to be the leader much longer.
But it's going to be really hard for him to bear this because these talks are going to go on and on.
And they're going to ultimately judge.
They're going to ultimately revolve around probably lifting not only secondary sanctions, but primary sanctions, which means American business can go back into Iran, which will be the biggest defense of the agreement.
Because you'll have ExxonMobil and all these other companies in there saying, leave this country alone.
Apparently the president of Iran heard what President Trump said because he said this.
Cut number 17. They keep trying to push the narrative that Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb.
What kind of assurance are they looking for?
You've verified us a hundred times.
Verify us another thousand if you want.
Verify us another thousand if you want.
And who agrees with that?
The American intelligence community, as of two weeks ago, agrees with what he just said.
When I met with Ahmadinejad in New York during UN General Assembly meetings, he said to me, talk to my foreign ministers.
Foreign ministers spoke fluent English.
He said to me, in fluent English, he said to me, what do I need to do, Colonel?
Do I need to go to the UN Security Council and operationalize?
That's a good word, isn't it?
He said, you're a military guy.
Operationalize the fatwa that says we disdain nuclear weapons, that they're anathema to Islam, that we don't want nuclear weapons.
What do I have to do?
Sign it in blood in front of the UNC?
Yeah, that's probably what you'd have to do.
Look at Netanyahu.
20 years ago, Netanyahu was saying in two weeks, Iran will have a bomb.
15 years ago, he was saying in a week, Iran will have a bomb.
They don't have a bomb yet.
Thank you, Colonel.
Thank you so much for your passion.
Thank you for your dedication to first principles, which you never fail, no matter what we're talking about and no matter who's in power.
It's a pleasure to be your friend and colleague, Colonel.
Hope you'll come back again next week.
Well, let me just say thank you for yours.
Thank you.
You're getting to people.
Thank you.
And I know you're going to be with Chief Sergeant Major Fritz.
Please remind him that we love him.
I'll do that.
Thank you, Colonel.
All the best.
Take care.
You too.
And coming up at 3 o'clock this afternoon, the always worth waiting for, Professor John Mearsheimer.
▲
Export Selection