home

DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in U.S.

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section War on Terror
Posted on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:00:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by Last Night in Little Rock

In a remarkable story for Newsweek hitting the stands today, a DoJ official told a closed door Senate Intelligence Committee that the President has the legal authority to order killings inside the United States. Exclusive: Can the President Order a Killing on U.S. Soil? This is the Administration's logical extension of the argument that it can violate the Fourth Amendment during national security investigations.

The response came in response to a hypothetical question from Sen. Feinstein.

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.

NSA = KGB = Nazi SS?

< Medium Cool: Movies with Politics in Mind | Today's NSA Warrantless Surveillance Hearing >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in U.S. | 59 comments (59 topical)
    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:37:43 AM EST
    Fron the post: suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the Let's see.... suggested.....certain...might.. Yep, looks very conclusive to me.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:57:40 AM EST
    My suggestion that this is part of the wingnut coordinated spin machine is prooving out. Get your rain coats on everybody it will be raining Red herrings, lies and mis direction everywhere. You can expect a real torrent in D.C. and in the Traditional Media. Batten down the hatches here comes PPJ!

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#3)
    by roger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:12:14 AM EST
    Yes Jim, under certain circumstances, I could suggest that I might legally be allowed to rape your wife. Of course, it's all hypothetical, what are you objecting about?

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#4)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:32:21 AM EST
    Hmm. Over the past few days I've seen a formulation that I guess I'll call Jim's Law, since it's certainly unique. It goes like this: Given a possibility to abuse power and violate the rights of its citizens, the government will NEVER do so. One might question this law, given, oh, all of recorded history...

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#5)
    by John Mann on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:02:14 AM EST
    Let's see.... suggested.....certain...might.. Yep, looks very conclusive to me.
    Not surprisingly, Jim, you don't seem to understand that the mere suggestion the President could order killings of "suspects" in the United States is frightening. Given Mr. Bush's track record, I doubt he'd be very reluctant to do so.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:04:03 AM EST
    Roger - Pretty nasty. Didn't think you would be personal. Ed Beckman - Spin? I merely quoted what the post said and noted the qualifier words. I mean I know the Left's spin wants to ignore them... scar - When the Left wants to debate the issue without first saying "domestic spying," then let me know. In the meantime, yes I will take the government's side in the NSA's international wiretapping of terrorist related calls from/to the US.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:07:48 AM EST
    scar - When the Left wants to debate the issue without first saying "domestic spying," Yeah, Scar. Where do you get off asking Jim hard questions anyway?

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:12:38 AM EST
    PPJ-
    Spin? I merely quoted what the post said and noted the qualifier words.
    aaaaww. An innocent little lamb. Your sheep outfit has too many holes in it. The wolf is visable to all but you. Your selective quote method, used in order to deceive,or obfuscate, is also threadbare. No one here is buying it anymore.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:23:08 AM EST
    Squeaky - So I am a wolf in a sheep's skin? That's funny, because it claims that I am being deceptive. Go back and read. I fully described the source and fully described my point, which is that they are qualifier words. You need to look up "deceptive" in the dictionary. edger - What hard question? I offer to debate what the President has done. I can hardly debate what he has not done. I trust you see the difference.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:23:29 AM EST
    Roger Looks like you hit a nerve. Poor Herring tosser PPJ doesn't like it we get personal. Well I guess he doesn't consider himself an American. I feel it's very Personal when the Govt spies on Americans/Me without a Warrant. It's un-American un-constitutional and criminal!

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lora on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:24:13 AM EST
    These hypothetical scenarios have little or nothing to do with the administration saying it can "order killings." Clearly if anyone, regardless of affiliation, is launching a deadly attack, we would expect our government will respond, with deadly force if necessary. This is a set-up to permit abuses of illegal presidential powers without recourse. Okay, left: No Tiannamen Square in the US! No orders to kill! We cannot allow this to continue.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:43:16 AM EST
    scar - When the Left wants to debate the issue without first saying "domestic spying," edger - What hard question? I offer to debate what the President has done. I can hardly debate what he has not done. Oh. Sorry, Jim. I was insensitive there when I mentioned "hard questions". I understand, really I do. Denial is "hardly debate", after all. There, there... you can go back to sleep now.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#13)
    by desertswine on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:50:39 AM EST
    could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil?
    Did they not already do this when Cheney ordered that a hijaked airplane be shot down over PA? It would have killed not only the hijackers but all the passengers as well.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:53:24 AM EST
    Well, PPJ, if you want to pretend that the article ended after the words you quoted, you be be correct in a more than MTS way. However, it's amusing that you missed the part where an Administration official did more than suggest:
    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.
    So, I've quoted what was written and the key qualifier words are: Kill, 'could indeed do this', and 'certain circumstances'. Who, if anyone, has summarized the gist of the story more accurately, I'll leave to the judgement of the peanut gallery here........

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:57:01 AM EST
    ppj-
    You need to look up "deceptive" in the dictionary.
    I took your advice and oddly enough one of the examlpes for "deceptive" was: see PPJ's comments at Talk Left. Wonder why everyone gets it but you? I guess it is natural.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 08:09:44 AM EST
    Wonder why everyone gets it but [PPJ]? Jim is a shill paid by the American Enterprise Institute to test market talking points. That limits his range of responses and prevents him from actually thinking.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 08:31:37 AM EST
    it IS domestic spying, it is done on american soil on americans. The DoD admittted it, the nsa admitted it, bush admitted and dozens of 'unnamed'[ officials admitted it. Now they admit they'll kill you w/o arrest, warning, trial, you know, all those quaint things. And I persnoally don't think Roger was being nasty to ppj. hypothetically raping someone is not as bad as hypothetically killing someone.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 08:39:04 AM EST
    Repack Rider-
    Jim is a shill paid by the American Enterprise Institute to test market talking points.
    That would be believable if PPJ's BS appeared before wingnuttia's msm talking points. PPJ is metely an echo chamber. If he is on the payroll they have big problems, and that is good.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#19)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:26:37 AM EST
    Let's see.... suggested.....certain...might.. Yep, looks very conclusive to me.
    Jim, If your neighbor told you that he might, under certain circumstances, sneak into your house at night and murder your wife and kids in front of you, would you take it as a threat? After all, it's not conclusive.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#20)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:38:05 AM EST
    And, Jim, I'd be willing to debate "the right" if they'd use facts. Secret evidence doesn't count. In every single civil liberties thread, rather than respond to the dangers of an unchecked executive branch, you merely state that "you can't prove that they've overstepped their bounds yet". This is a decent standard for situations where verifiable records exist, but when we get into secret courts and secret evidence, it all becomes a matter of taking things on faith. I see no logical difference between saying "there's ironclad proof that this secret program has never been used on anything other than proven terrorists; you just can't see it" and "secret scientists have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god, you just aren't allowed to know why". Both are logically impossible. And as for taking matters on faith, well I'm not exactly a man of faith, but I will never trust the government again until they release more than the current four frames of the security videos showing what happened to the Pentagon on 9/11. Or until they tell me what happened to the other ones, or at least why I'm not allowed to see them, because it's quite obvious that they do in fact exist. Trust has to be earned, at least, that's how it used to be.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:46:44 AM EST
    PPJ posts always "after" the talking points are released, which of course goes to argument for original thought. He gets too much attention, I personally prefer the in party debating as the left needs more of that. They spend too much time arguing the rights' spin machines and have been devoid of a consistent message for years. The party in power typically has the privilege to twist the other party like a pretzel, I only wish that the left would harden up a bit so that they are not so distorted at the end of the twists.....

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:49:25 AM EST
    jim, that an attorney, presumably trained in an accredited, u.s. law school, and well versed in our constitution, working for DOJ, would even hypothosize that the president, under any circumstances, has the inherent authority to specifically order someone murdered, is a damn frightening concept. that it goes right over your head doesn't surprise me, but it does scare me. even during actual, congressionally declared wars, no one ever suggested that. now, we have no declared war, and a president, and his minions, suggesting he has taken on the mantle emperor. this should scare the bejeezus out of you. the really eerie thing is that all of our right-wing rant nuts sound so rational, when they get interviewed, etc. it's only when they think no one's looking, that their other face shows itself. someone once said something about the face of evil being so banal. in the context of the nuremburg war crimes trials, i believe. it's deja vu all over again.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#23)
    by roger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:01:23 PM EST
    Jim, I hope that you realize that I have no intentions of harming anyone, much less you or your family. I was mearly attempting to re-phrase the argument so that you could see what a poor/offensive argument it was. From your reply, I conclude that I was successful. Different when it is you, isn't it?

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#24)
    by Al on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    Jim, the Head of DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel is saying it is legal for the President to order a hit on someone in the United States. That's plenty conclusive. Notice he didn't even say "Of course, there would have to be a trial first".

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    What is special about the scenario desertswine posits? "Did they not already do this when Cheney ordered that a hijaked airplane be shot down over PA? It would have killed not only the hijackers but all the passengers as well." The hijaked airplane was en route to crashing into a building and killing more people, who would die anyway if no action was taken. Bringing down that plane would have been just as lawful, under general principles of criminal law, if a private citizen, overhearing radio traffic, understood what was going on, rammed his own private plane into the hijacked aircraft causing it to crash and somehow escaped alive. The use of deadly force in true self-defense (and the related defense of others) from an unavoidable deadly threat actually in progress is uncontroversial, particularly in a case like that where the choice of evils (everybody on the plane dies, or everybody on the plane and everybody on the ground where it hits dies) is clear. But, FBI directors, Judges, Mayors and Sheriffs almost never give orders to kill somebody within the U.S. The lawful and usual order is to use the force necessary to arrest a dangerous person, either someone who has committed a crime or someone who is attempting to commit a crime (which is itself a crime). Deadly force might be justified in making that arrest if necessary to prevent imminent harm to the person making the arrest or others, in the immediate circumstance, but this isn't something that is lawfully ordered up front. But, this is war, you say. The AUMF makes it legal. Not so fast. The AUMF authorizes necessary force. It is very, very hard to imagine any scenario where an assassination ordered by the President in advance is necessary in a place where the courts are functioning in the United States, in circumstances which would not be lawful in the absence of a Presidential order. Does the President assert the right to, for example, assassinate someone acquitted of terrorist conduct in a court of law, because he thinks he know that the person is guilty and will commit another terrorist act, because the legal system is unavailable for vindicating the past offense? Could the President order the assassination of one of a proposed terrorists three innocent infant children to show that he is serious and will kill the others if the alleged terrorist doesn't comply? Do we want to not only negotiate with terrorists but negotiate like terrorists? You can spin hypotheticals all you want, I don't think that there is ever a legitimate justification for a Presidential assassination ordered in advance on U.S. soil. The United States (and indeed, most of the civilized world) is not a battlefield, no matter how paranoid national security official might get. Orders to kill are made by military offiers, against well defined enemies, in places where killing is necessary because there is insufficient law and order to try and arrest someone. Obviously, it is impossible for Marines to arrest German soldiers in a pillbox with a machine gun atop the cliffs of Normandy. Obviously, arrests can turn bad when the subject of the arrest pulls a gun and prepares to fire back, instead of surrendering. Obviously sailors in one boat can't arrest the soldiers in another boat that is firing upon them. But, these necessities don't come up in places where law and order prevail and the courts are functioning.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    Since the U.S. is at war apparently with people within it own borders, are residents of the U.S. protected by the Geneva Conventions instead of the U.S. Constitution?

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    Dark Avenger writes: From the first part of the post.
    Let's see.... suggested.....certain...might..
    From the latter part:
    ..believed....at least....certain circumstances.
    What is it about qualifiers that you don't understand? And....
    I'll leave to the judgement of the peanut gallery here........
    Sir, have you no respect for your audience? I see only talented, smart, erudite people... at least on the right side of the aisle.... ;-) scar writes:
    And, Jim, I'd be willing to debate "the right" if they'd use facts. Secret evidence doesn't count.
    What "facts" are you writing about? Bush has defined what the NSA is doing. So what "facts" do you have that disproves this? scar, absent these "facts," all you can claim is "secret evidence." There is nothing to debate. BTW - I might be unhappy with my neighbor. But whether or not he has made a threat is another matter. sailor - If you read today's USA Today you will see an article that says that the long haul carriers, ATT, Sprint and MCI have assisted because they own the telecom gateway systems that send and receive international traffic over (mostly) fiber optic cables laid on the ocean floors. The connection point between the cables and the switches is called the embarkation/de-embarkation point. On side is the "international" cable crossconnect/switch and on the other side is the "US" crossconnect/switch. Think of it as the international arrival/departure areas in an airport. They say that the NSA is on the "international" side. Now you may claim otherwise, but you have no facts to dispute the NSA's claim. Squeaky - I see you still have the smear machine on. Shall I post some of your earlier statements? But come on, Squeaky. Let's see some facts rather than just personal attacks. Prove that the words aren't qualifiers. Prove that the NSA is spying on domestic only telephone calls without warrants. Ed Beckman writes:
    I feel it's very Personal when the Govt spies on Americans/Me without a Warrant. It's un-American un-constitutional and criminal
    Ed, the only time that might happen to you is if you receive a call from a known/suspected terrorist outside the US, or make an international call to the other party. Bush and many others say it is legal. You and many others say it is not. Let the games begin. And yes, Ed. I always avoid making comments about other people's families. It is juvenile and in very poor taste. Repack Rider writes:
    Jim is a shill paid by the American Enterprise Institute to test market talking points.
    Ah, only if it were true. The Left's dogged actions preventing the drilling for new energy sources in the US has caused my Palatial Retirement Compound, Catfish Pond and BBQ Stand's utility bill to be very high, plus I have had to start traveling Coach on my trips to LA and Vegas to ply my avocation. And only last night, while watching the Super Bowl, I had to turn the thermostat down to 74. Oh, the sacrifices I must make. Roger - Actually, I never doubted you. And it would be different if it were you. Someone might note that in no comment did I agree that this would be good policy. My point was that the Left ignores the qualifiers and starts dancing around the camp fire. I would, for instance like to know the circumstances that he envisions. cpinva writes:
    and a president, and his minions, suggesting he has taken on the mantle emperor.
    What bothers me is that you may actually believe that.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:08:17 PM EST
    Jim: Bush has defined what the NSA is doing. So what "facts" do you have that disproves this? Because if the NSA were doing only what Bush says the NSA is doing, there would be no difficulty in getting warrants for everything the NSA is doing, which would have made it all legal. But Bush has refused to get warrants, which makes what the NSA is doing illegal, even if all the NSA is doing is what Bush says it is doing. So, why is Bush committing a crime, when - if he is telling the truth about what he's doing - he could have done everything legally? You're starting from the presumption that Bush won't lie to you. What facts do you have to prove that Bush isn't lying to you? Ed, the only time that might happen to you is if you receive a call from a known/suspected terrorist outside the US, or make an international call to the other party. Really? What facts do you have to prove that Ed will only have his calls tapped if he receives or makes a call to a known/suspected terrorist outside the US? Cite them.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    Jesurgislac - I can only note what Bush has said. If you, Ed B, or anyone can prove him wrong, do it. In the meantime, sitting around chanting Bush lies proves nothing.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:05:13 PM EST
    If you, Ed B, or anyone can prove him wrong, do it. Prove him right. Bush is simply claiming he doesn't have to follow existing laws. Bush has not claimed the applicable laws are invalid or not in force or don't apply to him. You're supporting his claims. The onus is on him, and on you if you support him, to prove him right, not on others to prove the laws apply. He has not denied they don't. Prove him right.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#31)
    by Johnny on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:10:23 PM EST
    Edger has a good point... No need to prove the law is right. You need to prove violating the law (remember they lock people up for that?) is the correct path, and then undertake proceedings to change the law if it is deemed the appropriate path... (Remember that whole democracy thing?)

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#32)
    by Johnny on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:12:38 PM EST
    Having elected leaders arbitrarily decide which laws are applicable to them and which laws are ok to pi$$ on is not a power I like to see vested in the president. Jim, you of all people like to remind us how a democracy works, am I off base here?

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#33)
    by Johnny on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    Because other's on this board have been attacked, ok strong word.. reprimanded by you for deciding certain laws are or should not be, applicable.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:25:39 PM EST
    Jim: I can only note what Bush has said. If you, Ed B, or anyone can prove him wrong, do it. So, you acknowledge that you have no idea yourself if he's actually telling the truth - no proof to justify your faith? As someone else pointed out to you: "Just trust us" does not appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Why do you think it does? In the meantime, sitting around chanting Bush lies, as you do, proves nothing: your chanting his lies merely shows you make a good voicebox.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:32:30 PM EST
    Well? You've had twenty minutes. Bush has no hesitation claiming he doesn't have to follow a law that he doesn't deny applies to him. It does't take Bush twenty minutes to make his outrageous claim. What's keeping you? Prove him right.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:38:23 PM EST
    Awful quiet all of a sudden, aren't you?

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:52:24 PM EST
    Look, Jim. If you can't prove him right just say so. It's no big deal. The sky will not fall, and you know what? Your reputation will improve and people here will actually think highly of you...

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:19:22 PM EST
    PPj Herring tosser, Let's try this again the constitution protects Americans from Warrantless searches. It does not say "except during an UN-declared War time" You or the preznit have no right to suggest otherwise. If the preznit said he only wanted to put PPJ in jail for ever with out a warrant I MIGHT reconsider my position.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#39)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:26:09 PM EST
    Wow, quite the response there, Jim. If I didn't know better I'd guess you were just making little meaningless inflamattory comments to make this a "PPJ thread". Anyway, I'd like to introduce everyone to a coalition of wild-eyed liberals opposing this program (via Digby)

    Brad Jansen
    Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute
    Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
    American Civil Liberties Union
    American Conservative Union
    Americans for Tax Reform
    American Policy Center
    Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    Free Congress Foundation
    Libertarian Party
    Gun Owners of America
    Second Amendment Foundation Pernicious, effete handwringers, the whole gun-loving tax-hating lot of them. One can only imagine what PPJ must believe in to consider himself ten miles to the right from these people. I almost suspect he's posting from a 10x12 shack in the Montana wilderness, somehow using a manual typewriter... ;)

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:41:18 PM EST
    10x12 shack in the Montana wilderness, somehow using a manual typewriter... ;) An "underwood", scar? ;-) Keerist! Those are older than me..

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:06:05 PM EST
    You know, it occurs to me here Jim, that when the US starts killing its own citizens, it's a pretty safe bet that end of the legitimacy and the term of the incumbent president follows not far behind... I think most poker players would agree, don't you?

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:27:49 PM EST
    ppj-
    Squeaky - I see you still have the smear machine on. Shall I post some of your earlier statements?
    Knock your self out. You seem to get pleasure from your simpleminded deceptions. You do not have many friends here and your credibility is as low as it can get. More of the same is not going to change things for you. But your main function here is to be a troll, divert threads and get bashed. What ever turns you on. Go for it.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:42:23 PM EST
    edger, Squeaky, we all know better, and next time I take the bait, please admonish me;-)

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:00:39 PM EST
    Squeaky - I don't have many friends here? I am shocked, yes shocked. And you're very welcome. I'll be glad to demonstrate some of your positions anytime. I'll be glad to debate you whenever you want. I am here only to please. But first you have to say something. Unsupported claims aren't edger - My comment was simply this. Bush has defined what he has done. You think it illegal. He does not. I do not. This point will be settled by better legal minds than you or I. Now, the Left claims that he has spied on domestic only calls. He says he has not. There is no legal issue there. What is at issue is the Left's claim of domestic spying. So prove it and give up on the snarky comments already. You wrote:
    I think most poker players would agree, don't you?
    Why do you think I should speak for "most poker players?" Are you running a fever? scar - Nice group there. I'd guess they are mostly libertarian. And your point is?

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:01:41 PM EST
    Sailor... no problem. Anytime!

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:42:23 PM EST
    thanks Sailor. Edgar- I second that

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 05:22:10 AM EST
    What is it about qualifiers that you don't understand? PPJ, you forgot the word kill which was in my list, and which I don't consider can be modified or qualified much unless one is using the word in a metaphorical sense, which the DOJ official, you can call me crazy here, wasn't doing, IMHO. Anyway, as I've noted in the past(and you've ignored, as a perusal of the TL archives would show) having unchecked, unmonitored executive power has always worked out well in the past, hasn't it? As for a lack of understanding, that can be found in the spades here.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 06:08:58 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - My comment was simple. The statement was loaded with qualifiers. My point was that it would be bad policy, but I would like to hear what would be the special circumstances, etc. You know, hear what a guy has to say before going postal. If you don't, fine with me. Make up your own answers and proceed as usual.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 06:15:13 AM EST
    DA, check out Sailor's comment ;-)

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 10:01:00 AM EST
    Can the President Order a Killing on U.S. Soil? This is the Administration's logical extension of the argument that it can violate the Fourth Amendment
    He can. Just as he can violate the fourth amendment and wiretap US citizens. Can he do these things legally? Maybe, maybe not. It will probably take a Supreme Court decision or an impeachment trial to come to a final decision on this. Can he justify these things morally and ethically? It doesn't take a court or an impeachment trial to determine that. It's already been decided in the court of public opinion. This president(?) has issued a challenge to the entire country. He is daring the entire country. He is daring 295,734,134 people. He is rubbing it the noses of 295,734,134 people and saying "I can do whatever the f**k I want. Try and stop me. Just try, and I'll kill you!" He is saying "I am conducting a terror war, and if you're not terrified enough yet after all the things I've done since 2001, if you're not terrified enough yet after I told you I will ignore your Constitution and your rights, if you're not terrified enough yet after I told you I will wiretap you and peer into every private aspect of your lives... then I will simply kill you."

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 11:34:11 AM EST
    Ok, I didn't read all of the vitriol left above in the comments section because...well frankly, who has the time listen to small people with narrow minds. My .02 cents equals: If, god forbid, a terrorist gets a hold of another plane in flight and is flying it toward a sensitive site (say a nuclear power plant) I would expect, I would even demand that, the President give the order to have that terrorist "killed"; without a trial or any further evidence than that persons potential to compromise national security. In my mind that would be just one the "certain circumstance" in which the President would order someone killed. That scenario is no different than a scenario in which Cuba sends a fighter jet across the Gulf (assuming it's possible) and the President ordering it shot down. I know this is the "TalkLeft" website, but surely your partisan views stop at national security. Surely you're not juvenile enough to suggest the President (any American President) will abuse his powers and randomly kill American citizens...surely not.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    So, if the 42nd President had declared Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky to be suspected terrorists, then he could have had them killed? And his presidency (and perhaps that of his VP's) saved? Not that the leader of the free world would ever be tempted to do such a thing. Any so-called "eco-terrorist" who is planning to resist oil drilling should be very afraid.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 11:49:06 AM EST
    PPJ, you haven't touched upon the actual quote from a real DOJ official answering questions from a real American Senator, as I noted in my first comment.
    My point was that it would be bad policy, but I would like to hear what would be the special circumstances, etc.
    You could've read the testimony and give us your analysis of it, but that you haven't done so is no fault of mine or anyone else here. You know, hear what a guy has to say before going postal. And how long have you had this bigotry against people who work for the USPS? ;) You've used this thread in your continuing effort to demonize the Left, you've repeated your claim that if the President says something he does is legal, that makes it so, and you've not dealt with the actual content because, why? If you don't, fine with me. Like I need permission from you to post here? I guess being patronizing isn't an insult, in the eyes of some at least..... Make up your own answers and proceed as usual. It's called projection, folks, and it isn't pretty.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    Alright, I apparently do have the "time (to) listen to small people with narrow minds" as I have read through the rest of the comments and I have to point out a glaring "fallacy of argument". Edgar/Jim "Shifting the Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise." This is a glaring "fallacy of argument" that I can't get past. It's useless. P.S. Please do not presume this particular post is an argument in support or against my particular views on this topic...lest I be painted with my own brush.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    Three hundred years ago, courts of justice could be blinded by superstition. In those dark times, people in positions of power could snuff out the light from any candle of hope that the condemned still held for life. Innumerable falsely accused victims were burned at the stake, ignited by the flames of flourishing injustice, and fanned by the falsehoods spoke by their peers. Sadly, no joyous sunrise would come to end their tortured nights of captivity. [remainder deleted due to length. This space is for comments, not reprinting your articles or those of others at length]

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 01:14:19 PM EST
    I find it amusing that we are having this discussion about the President having the right to order a killing. As a point of fact, all Presidents order killing at some time. Clinton did in Kosovo; Carter did in the failed hostage rescue, as well as LBJ. Any order of troops into combat is a order to kill. As far as that goes, when a Chief of Police orders a swat team member to shoot a criminal that is a direct order to kill an American citizen. The president is the chief law enforcement office in this country as well as the commander in chief. I wonder what the response would be if the President said he would never order the killing of an American citizen, even if that citizen was planning to detonate a WMD imminently.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#58)
    by Johnny on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 04:21:25 PM EST
    All I can really think about is the Brazilian the brits murdered in cold-blood, for the heinous crime of being brown.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 05:34:47 PM EST
    ppj-
    Let's see some facts rather than just personal attacks. Prove that the words aren't qualifiers. Prove that the NSA is spying on domestic only telephone calls without warrants.
    [insult deleted]Thanks for the invite. Maybe some other time.

    Re: DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 09:51:30 PM EST
    Not just any American can be slain willy-nilly--they must be a registered Democrat. Bonus points for homosexuals, women, persons of color, and residents of San Francisco or Seattle.

    DoJ Official: President Can Order Killings in U.S. | 59 comments (59 topical)