Newsweek: DoJ has declared that the president may order killings within the U.S. At what point will Bush supporters become outraged? When the president starts killing kittens with hammers?
Comments are closed.
Open source, procurement, and gov tech.
Newsweek: DoJ has declared that the president may order killings within the U.S. At what point will Bush supporters become outraged? When the president starts killing kittens with hammers?
Comments are closed.
The only objection some would give would be that Bush didn’t use a really big gun to kill the kitten. Even if he’d used the butt end and just crushed the little whimpering cranium, if there’s killin’ to be done, it’s gotta involve a gun.
This seems like a non-issue. You’re talking about situations like Flight 93. Police use lethal force all the time.
Police use lethal force in defense in cases of an individual presenting an immediate danger to the life of another. That’s wholly different than the president ordering the murder of somebody who does not present an immediate threat who is merely suspected of being a bad guy.
I agree with Paul. This situations this article speaks of are similar to those in Afghanistan and Iraq. President Bush would never be allowed to authorize the assasination of someone who maybe, could have once spoken to someone who knew an al Qaeda operative. When there is an immediate threat though, President Bush (or any potential, future presidents) could authorize the use of force, even if it results in death, in ending that threat. Better to have five terrorists dead than hundreds of innocent people. From what I can see, you are reading too much into this Waldo.
You’re drawing a line that doesn’t exist in law or as expressed by the DoJ. If the president can order murders on U.S soil, I’m aware of no legal standard that would ensure that he would “never be allowed” to kill people who don’t pass certain threshold tests.