Sunday, February 05, 2006


OK For Bush To Order Killings Within U.S.?

What if the “terrorist” had no ties to, say, Al Qaeda? If ELF and ALF are the “major” terrorists threats in this country, as the FBI has said, would Bush have the authority to order offing a member a member of either of those groups? What if there was a “credible” report of say, a dirty nuke or anthrax or...? How about if Bush is incapacited due to falling off his bicycle or something—can Cheney then order a killing?

The COINTEL operations essentially arranged the killings of several people, most notably Anna Mae Aquash and Fred Hampton. They did it, but got somebody else to pull the triggers. In Anna Mae’s case, it was members of AIM, under the impression she was a snitch. Fred Hampton was done in by the Chicago P.D.. It’s argued that the shoot-out in L.A. that did in the Symbionese Liberation Army was a set-up, too.

So, what this means is that Bush-Cheney feel secure enough, just about, to simply by-pass the middlemen.

Welcome to the New World Order, Chapter Two.

Exclusive: Can the President Order a Killing on U.S. Soil?

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - 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.

Current and former government officials said they could think of several scenarios in which a president might consider ordering the killing of a terror suspect inside the United States. One former official noted that before Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, top administration officials weighed shooting down the aircraft if it got too close to Washington, D.C. What if the president had strong evidence that a Qaeda suspect was holed up with a dirty bomb and was about to attack? University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein says the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Al Qaeda empowered the president to kill 9/11 perpetrators, or people who assisted their plot, whether they were overseas or inside the United States. On the other hand, Sunstein says, the president would be on less solid legal ground were he to order the killing of a terror suspect in the United States who was not actively preparing an attack.

A Justice Department official, who asked not to be ID'd because of the sensitive subject, said Bradbury's remarks were made during an "academic discussion" of theoretical contingencies. In real life, the official said, the highest priority of those hunting a terrorist on U.S. soil would be to capture that person alive and interrogate him. At a public intel-committee hearing, Feinstein was told by intel czar John Negroponte and FBI chief Robert Mueller that they were unaware of any case in which a U.S. agency was authorized to kill a Qaeda-linked person on U.S. soil. Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told NEWSWEEK: "Mr. Bradbury's meeting was an informal, off-the-record briefing about the legal analysis behind the president's terrorist-surveillance program. He was not presenting the legal views of the Justice Department on hypothetical scenarios outside of the terrorist-surveillance program."

—Mark Hosenball

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?