Bush Can Order People in the US Killed, Says Official

[Eric J in MN]

From an article by Mark Hosenball in the Feb. 13, 2006 issue of Newsweek:

In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States.

Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.

The Bush Administration has taken the authorization-for-war-in-Afghanistan to claim dictatorial powers for Bush.

Congress should amend that authorization to fight back against this expansive view of presidential power.

[flordehinojos]

1. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOOOOOSSSSSH ordering people to the firing

squad here in the U.S., and FIDEL CASTRO doing it in CUBA, SADDAM HUSSEIN in IRAQ, MUSSOLINI in ITALY, and on, and on, and on. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!.

[ComerPerro]

14. Here's the difference: The people Bush has killed are terrorists

and that's how the right wing will frame it.

Just like that.

Now, granted, "terrorist" is a loose term and can really be applied to anyone.

Personally, I think that anyone who uses intimidation and threats of violence as well as those who support them could be considered a terrorist (Fred Phelps, Timothy McVeigh, Americans who commit hate crimes). But the government does not.

And, maybe the Bush administration thinks that any political opponents or US Citizens that oppose Bush are terrorists.

As long as they label their enemies as terrorists and the public doesn't ask too many questions, this line of reasoning will work just fine.

Its how they justify the wire taps, right?

"Well, we only use it on terrorists, not good citizens".

[flordehinojos]

23. well..

fidel castro calls them "enemy of the state", which has the same effects as bush's "terrorists"...they get killed because they oppose the existing regime. SAME DIFFERENCE. I STILL CANNOT SEE ANY BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE OR THE OTHER... perhaps i am myopic.

[thefool_wa]

37. There is an inherent problem in your interpretation

There is a fine line between a terrorist and a revolutionary, and it is usually a matter of opinion or the side history says they were on. No citizen of this country should be ordered dead by our president based on the opinion of anything other than a court of law.

On the flip side, I don't think I have a problem with this only if the person in question is not an American citizen. I'm sure we would have felt it OK for the president to order the death of a known Soviet spy inside the US during the cold war, especially if he or she was intent on destroying a city or killing people.

for clarification: I'm not saying Timothy McVeigh was a revolutionary, he didn't have enough followers. He was just a kook.

[bluesbassman]

60. Not an American Citizen?

So let me see if I understand you correctly. Any non U.S. citizen, who is in this country, that the administration suspects to be a threat to national security can be executed without due process? So following that logic, you would not have any problems with one of our citizens executed in Mexico because Fox suspected them of being a threat? We are a people who operate under the rule of law, even if our so-called elected representatives sometimes do not. To even suggest that the President or anyone else for that matter could be granted that kind of power is a quantum leap towards fascism. My god man, these guys don't even respect what little oversite they are currently responsible to, and you suggest that they be given the ultimate power over life and death? And you can't justify a pre-emptive murder by saying that you are preventing another. That is what we pay the police, FBI and judicial system for. If they have enough information to justify killing someone, then they certainly have enough to arrest them. Or have we become that afraid that it's kill first and ask questions later.

[Tigress DEM]

67. I think first responders ability to assess threats should be more to point

If the FBI or police are following someone they have good reason to suspect is going to plant a bomb somewhere and they have to take them down to keep scores of people from being killed, that is one thing.

I wouldn't trust *ush to count my change at Burger King, much less give orders to kill anyone.

[bluesbassman]

73. Self defense is the point....

I would have no problem with any law enforcement agency "taking down" any individual or group (citizen or not) that were engaged in an act that threatened other human life if that's what it took to stop them. Just as I would defend my family and self. That is a basic human instinct that even the most pacifist among us possess. However, I would not kill some guy across town because my neighbor heard him say that he wanted to kill me. But this is exactly what Bush is proposing, to be able to kill a suspect, just as he has said that he is justified in waging pre-emptive war against nation he believes poses an eminent threat whether they are engaged in actions against us or not.

The statement was made by an "acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel" though, so I suspect that this is merely a trial balloon to see how the general public will react. If enough people think it's ok to kill "suspected" terrorists, then don't be surprised if it really does start happening. All in the name of keeping "Us" safe!

[Tigress DEM]

75. People are such wusses at times.

I'm a liberal hawk and yet I would prefer not to hurt anyone if it can be avoided, but these chickenhawks floor me. They won't "sully their beautiful minds" with the thought that some terrorist could get them so they give up all their power to *ush to protect them from evil.

Puuulleese~~

All these lock and load rednecks should get a clue and realize once hunting season starts on US Citizens it will never quit until the nation is blood soaked and bereft of life.

[Safe as Milk]

66. But there is no process

For documenting and verifying:

1. that a person in question is not an American citizen.

2. whether that person is actually the agent of action deemed threatening to the US.


The matter is exactly what the rule of law demands. That is why we have a court system. The President, or the A.G., or the Negropontes of the US should and do NOT have the power to decide unilaterally whether any identified person deserves execution until that person is recognized through due process as stripped of the right to live. And that can only occur through the action of the court.

Otherwise, we no longer live in a country ruled by laws. But this is what Bush is pushing for. This is what he wants. He wants to make "that god-damned piece of paper", the Constitution, irrelevant, of making the courts irrelevant, of making the Congress irrelevant.

And he's right on the verge of getting what he wants. And by design, we are right on the verge of losing what we had.

We, as citizens, have the perfect right to be enraged. We have the right to be enraged at every Congressperson, no matter which party, who is not standing up, right now, and expressing their outrage. They should be standing before cameras and hemming and hawing. They should be walking out in protest at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that refuses to insist that Gonzales speak only under penalty of perjury.

Republicans and Democrats alike have abdicated their right to govern when they do not stand up against that wimp Gonzales, after Gonzales says to Senator Leahy, something to the effect that "that's not why we're here". How does Gonzales get the authority to tell the Senators what their agenda is, and GET AWAY WITH IT? ANY Senator who doesn't stand up and shout that little wimp back into the mouse-hole from where he came deserves a defeated country, a shredded Constitution.

All we want is a Patriotic Act.

But because no one is willing to act, we lose our country. Because no one is willing to make a defining moment to force the tipping point, we forever will fall victim to the next bullying act, the next browbeat.

[SPKrazy]

52. I'm Sure Castro Frames It In A Palatable Way To Him As Well!

No difference between Booooosh and Castro, except that Castro provides his people with healthcare, and Boooosh will just let you die.

[FreedomAngel82]

57. And of course they don't prove they were terrorist's

[Vanje]

19. Theres a big difference

Bush will kill his own citizens under the direction of his jesus.
George Bush is a Godly President.

[flordehinojos]

24. and so was,

Hitler?

[Frank Cannon]

2. Don't be a moran. There's a HUGH difference.

Our dictator is better than their dictators!! We're Americans!!!111! :crazy:

[tocqueville]

4. LOL

[Peter Frank]

5. Holy Irony Batman! - Hysterically Funny & Tragically True...

[chaz4jazz]

42. Moron, Moron, Moron - Moran is an Irish name

[Horse with no Name]

44. Hmmm

Can someone find the "moran" picture?

[TahitiNut]

48. See ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x190#m

[Frank Cannon]

51. It's an inside joke, Chaz

See TahitiNut's link. And welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Cha]

54. You mean

"thier" dictators ;)

[tocqueville]

3. even if the suspect is American citizen ?

interesting...

[Eric J in MN]

6. Yes, if the authrorization for war in Afghanistan lets Bush

order people in the US he suspects of working for Al Qaeda killed, that would include US citizens.

I don't believe that was the intent of Congress with the war authorization, but some Bush officials are claiming that.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

35. Don't you get it MORAN

Congress meant exactly what Bush decides they meant, whether they meant it at that time or not, they certainly mean it now, even though they might mean something else tomorrow!:crazy:

[chaz4jazz]

45. Will everybody stop spelling Moron - Moran - please...

[TahitiNut]

49. See ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x190#m

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

76. It's called a humor. You might try it once in a while.

nm

[ClintonTyree]

7. How far away can the internment camps.........

and the "political cleansing" of America be? So, now they've claiming that our mentally diseased, petty dictator with the room temperature IQ has the right to execute anyone he wants without due process of law? I don't think so pal!
These assholes are getting more brazen with each passing day. Fuck them! :grr:

[Vanje]

20. We're just about there....with the help of Halliburton

Halliburton Awarded Contract To Build Detention Camps in the US

Tom Hennessy writes for the Press Telegram: "Maybe a lifetime in the
news business makes one paranoid. Or maybe it was just a matter of
timing. The story showed up in Tuesday's Press-Telegram, as I was
reading 'Night,' Elie Wiesel's horrifying autobiography of a teenager
in Buchenwald and Auschwitz. Appearing on page A5, the story said the
federal government had awarded a $385 million contract for the
construction of 'temporary detention facilities.' These would be used,
the story said, in the event of an 'immigration emergency.' "
http://www.democrats.com/node/7681

[NastyRiffraff]

53. More on the Halliburton detention camp contract

BERKELEY, Calif.--A Halliburton subsidiary has just received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities."

The contract -- announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR -- calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when.

(snip)

After 9/11, new martial law plans began to surface similar to those of FEMA in the 1980s. In January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets. One month later John Brinkerhoff, the author of the 1982 FEMA memo, published an article arguing for the legality of using U.S. troops for purposes of domestic security.

Then in April 2002, Defense Dept. officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-NORTHCOM) for the continental United States. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called this "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946."

More here, and it's indeed scary:
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

And it's strange I could find nothing in the MSM about this...no NYT, WaPo, CNN, nothing. Can anyone else?

[Tigress DEM]

68. So can we say Nazi now?

[B Calm]

8. Will he be loading box cars with Americans who's ancestors

came from the Middle East?

[earth mom]

31. Or will "terrorists" be anyone who disagrees with *...?

I find this beyond chilling. :scared:

[Safe as Milk]

70. You're on the money.

"Terrorist" will be, as we used to say in our old psychology classes, "operationally defined."

"Terrorist" will be anything the President wants it to be. If not, then please show me a definition of "Terrorist" that has been defined legally, and show me a precedent that has been set, and which is legally binding on the President or any member of the executive branch. There isn't any, and that's because the President can frame any action he desires as one against "terrorism." The process is simple. Any threat to his power can be a threat against the government, and an act of terrorism.

This thread can be viewed as an action of a terrorist cell. We can be wiretapped, raided, our possessions confiscated; we can be detained without due process, or even murdered under Bush's view of his expansive war-making powers. His enemy is who he wants it to be.

And no one will stop Bush. No one. We're watching, right before our eyes, our nation collapsing, our nation of laws disintegrating.

That Bush still has an approval rating above 15% is absolutely astonishing. But we, as a country, are so frightened, that we will permit Bush to do whatever he wants, as long as he leaves "US" alone. If we don't bother him, he won't bother us. Right? We'll keep his propaganda media blaring into our bedrooms and living rooms, day and night. We'll buy whatever he tells us to buy. When we're in a crisis, and he tells us to "go shopping", we will.

But something won't seem right. Because your son or your cousin or your uncle or your teacher might say or do something that falls under the surveillance cameras or the eavesdropping programs and one of Bush's fascist lackies sees an arrest and a detention as a way to kiss a superior's ass, and then someone in your life is suddenly missing, with no way of telling what happened. And you call the police to ask for help, and they tell you that they'll get back to you about this problem and you never hear from them. And then you see the cars cruising your street at night, and they stop at a house and they enter and drag another "terrorist" into the darkness, and in a week, someone else moves in and they won't tell you how they were able to close the deal so quickly, and they have no idea where your neighbor went.

We're here, right now. We're at that point in our history when this kind of scenario can and will happen. It depends on the arbitrary whim of a dictator. And all we have to defend ourselves is our cowardice.

[earth mom]

77. Awesome post!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[PinkyisBlue]

74. Terrorists

There's a group of peace-loving Quakers in Pennsylvania that have been wiretapped by the govt. I think they're terrorists! Round 'em up.

[abex]

9. he is a terrorist nt

[Disturbed]

10. Pm Allawi got away with killing "Terrorist Suspects".

Now some Neo Fascist claims that the Prez. of USA can do so, also. America is heading towards the very concepts that our Constitution and Bill of Rights proclaims that America is against. Will the USA become a Fascist Police State in a few years?

[leftchick]

11. wasn't Negroponte asked this as well last week?

on TV no less but he hemmed and hawed and never denied it? It is staggering what the amerikan public is letting the little dictator get away with. Nary a blink! :argh:

[HereSince1628]

12. When you have ALL the power you are Judge, Jury and Executioner

and there is no doubt that Cheney and the cabal want the president to have ALL the power.

As we are finding out, the Constitution can't enforce itself. After all it turns out it IS only a piece of paper. Enforcing it's provisions can only be done by people with the power and the will to do so.

[area51]

13. Bush = nazi

I love it when some people still deny that Bush is a nazi, & that the republican party has morphed into the American nazi party.

[blindpig]

15. Imperium.

Divinity is just around the corner.

[Berserker]

16. I'm sure we ALL feel safer now

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. That's just peachy keen.

Now they want to give Little Lord Pissypants the power to kill anyone he sees fit? They want to give a psychotic sociopath THAT kind of power? Please, Ted Kennedy. ASK Gonzales about this today! EXPOSE these fascist assholes for what they are!

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Boy this al CIAda excuse

is sure getting old.

In the meantime, they still haven't convicted one single terrorist.

Clinton got convictions in open court and Bush with all his dictatorial powers can't even keep the really bad ones in prison.

[gordianot]

21. George Bush becomes "M" who is 007?

[Deep13]

27. One of his idiot friends.

Actually no one. 007 is like Superman. They're just made up. I wish Republicans were.

[gordianot]

34. Bond was based on Sidney Reilly a freelancer for British Intelligence.

Ian Fleming claimed that the real Sidney made James Bond look like an amateur.

[Pryderi]

22. ...as if he and his father haven't already done it....

[Marr]

25. Well, there it is.

They claim the Great Leader can have you killed any time he likes, on a whim. No trial of any sort.

It's sickening to hear it put so plainly, but it's a natural extension of allowing the Bush Administration to ignore the 4th Ammendment. If they're above the law, they're above the law. If you have no rights, you have no rights. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Yay for America, home of the free. A nation of laws, not men. Ha.

[Deep13]

26. Fatherland! Fatherland! show us a sign,

Your children have longed to see!
A morning will dawn where the world is mine!
Tomorrow belongs to me!

[eppur_se_muova]

28. "How can you tell if you've shot the right person?"

"Easy...you just roll them over afterwards."

*'s thinking is not much more involved than this.

[Stand and Fight]

29. Suspect people -- suspect is the key word.

Dictionary.com defines suspect as “a person suspected of a crime… a person apprehended for but not yet charged with an offense.”

[number6]

30. Bush is winning the war OF terror

Bush 30,000 +
Osama 3000 +

one more step to dictatorship

George W. Bush " things would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship
so long as I'm the Dick - Tater"

[McCamy Taylor]

32. He can declare martial law. That is the only way.

[Safe as Milk]

71. That's the logical way.

If his power becomes threatened, that's exactly what he'll do.

[EC]

33. I was wondering on Feinstein's questioning on this

and she asked Negroponte(sp) if ** had anyone killed on U.S. soil, he didn't really answer, he just said he didn't know...which made me wonder about it, since he didn't directly say No....

[Disturbed]

38. If any suspect is later found not to have been in violation

of any law and was killed, a letter of apology will be sent to his family. The family can claim the body. Case closed.

[jazzjunkysue]

36. The Cardassians claim they can kill w/o a trial in court, because

they wouldn't be prosecuting anyone unless they were guilty, anyway.

"It's a waste of time to prosecute an innocent person."

You have to trust them to "know" who's innocent and who's guilty.

[Joey Liberal]

39. I guess the right to a fair trial means nothing to Bush

And I guess the idea of being innocent until proven guilty is a thing of the past to the Nazi-republicans.

What this means is that anyone that dares to oppose Dear Leader Bush is fair game.

[nolies32fouettes]

40. Has he even READ the Constitution to know what he's VIOLATING?

Wow. My nightmares just found new purchase on my thoughts. He says he can WHAT?! I wonder if he's even READ the Constitution to know all the protections he's VIOLATING!

[Joey Liberal]

46. I don't think he cares

And that smug little fuck, Attorney General Gonzalez, doesn't care either.

[Safe as Milk]

72. You don't matter.

So of course neither Bush nor Gonzales care. They care about who they are and what they can do to control others. Nothing else matters.

But now that you mention it, I was listening to clips of Gonzales on the radio this evening, and I couldn't get over the man's voice. He sounded like a spoiled, precocious 11 year-old bully. He sounded like his testicles hadn't dropped yet, and he was doing all he could to keep this odd slice of knowledge from others. If there ever were a prototypical sycophant, it's Alberto.

[bullwinkle428]

41. "HAVE THE ROLLING STONES KILLED!"

I just had a Simpsons flashback with * playing the role of Montgomery Burns, after hearing "Sweet Neo-con" for the first time. Wait a minute, what am I saying. I mean, when someone EXPLAINS the meaning behind "Sweet Neo-con" to him...

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. Mr. Bush sir! Someone is using their expense account to order room service

The NSA Red Light is flashing!

How DARE they, Smithers -- er, I mean, Condi!

Release the Flying Monkeys!

Fly, my pritties, FLY!!!!!!

--Chimperor Montgomery Bush

[Just Me]

43. I am repulsed at the idea of assasinations, anywhere. But, this,...

,...is about as fascist a concept as one can conceive because judgment is left in the hands of one unleashed power base: the executive. Fuck! What's next? Bombing building SUSPECTED of holding "terrorists"?

This is just,...nuts.

[SmokingJacket]

47. Suddenly he's Henry the 8th?

And suddenly it's 1540?

[neuvocat]

50. Hey Freepers, you peeing your pants yet?

You think you're gonna be safe just because you think you agree with Bush? Yeah, didn't think so. Maybe you should start going back to trying to take away executive powers.

At least while you still have the chance to.

[HBK]

55. Unbelievable

I emailed this story to Alex Jones. This is bad, very bad indeed. :scared:

[FreedomAngel82]

56. BEEF: better than your town's mafia

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HBK]

59. Don't give up...

Don't cash in just yet. We need as many people on our side as possible to fight against Bush and the neocons. They're not going to take our freedoms away without a good fight!!! Hang in there. :patriot:

[LibertyorDeath]

64. Well don't let me stop you Lars

You better put a sarcasm label on that Lars
considering your history here or people might think
you are making light of the situation. Lars

[Octafish]

61. What DID happen to Paul Wellstone's airplane?

Or John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s aircraft?

"Unfortunate accidents" appear to strike the Liberal Democrats more than, say, right-wing kooks.

[Leopolds Ghost]

62. Honest question: How do we distinguish between this and covert action?

US Spies killing Soviet spies covertly -- thiat is OK, but spies killing suspected terrorists is not? How do they distinguish between cloak-and-dagger "wet work" and political assassinations? Or did they ever?? Is this really a new phenomenon? Where does the line get drawn? Was there ever a line prohibiting this sort of covert activity on US soil?

[AndyTiedye]

65. Methinks He Already Has

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Karen Hughes called the 1.2 Million pro-choice marchers in DC "Terrorists"

Hmmm. Boggles the mind. I guess he could have had us all killed.

[CHORONZON]

78. It would surprise me if he hadn't already.

Just like the bit about wire tapping. Bush made sure to cover his ass by pretending to comply with Fisa, making statements about how it was necessary to wiretap legally etc. Now it turns out that he was listening to all our phones without warrants anyway, and the argument has become "if you are talking to al-queda we want to know why."


When it turns out that certain strategic hits were ordered we will all have to listen to: "If the enemy is mobilized on our own soil it is my responsibility as president to protect the american people" (note: an resemblance to any previous presidential quotes is purely coincidental, lol) even though it will turn out that the deceased were Quakers and dissenters who worked in the government.
If this is sounding far fetched maybe you need to be reminded that Valerie Plame's life was put in danger by having her identity revealed, and that was all for a retaliatory backstab.


Bush and co. have always taken the stance that they would fight "the enemy" using any power available (or unavailable) to them. Who is the enemy? Anyone who threatens republican power or agenda.

[Justmakingsense]

79. This is crazy

Are you sure he can kill anyone?!?

[Nothing Without Hope]

80. Shrubbie is always RIGHT, so there's no need for trial or oversight.

Isn't it obvious? The American people would prefer to just drink their beer and watch junk TV - don't worry their heads about such unnecessary complexities...

:sarcasm: