Can president Bush shoot you?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11180519/site/newsweek/
This is a Newsweek story about a white house legal counsel claiming president Bush might have the power to order the killing of a terrorist suspect on U.S. soil. This story of course came up in the context of the NSA wiretapping debate, and again evidences the slippery slope that we could all be sliding down with this post 9/11 thinking of unfettered presidential powers. The basic idea, without going into the NSA problem, is that the Congressional resolution authorizing military force, drafted very shortly after 9/11, gives the president the power to kill terrorists, or people who assist terrorists. This is directly in line with his Commander-in-Chief powers. However, problems arise when the scenario involves actions inside the United States. Proponents argue that the President has the power to spy on U.S. citizens who are talking to potential terrorists overseas without a warrant because it falls in line with his war-time powers. This is a new kind of "war", one which has no clear boundaries or battlefield. Therefore, the President has the power to exercise his commander in chief powers on U.S. soil because this is part of the battlefield. This, as the story suggests, could lead to him claiming he has the power to order killings on U.S. soil because they are potential terrorists. Now, as stated earlier, the wiretapping issue would not be a problem if 2 potential terrorists in Saudi Arabia were being monitored. This is clearly within executive powers for the simple reason that the constitution is not involved. When one involves monitoring a U.S. person on U.S. soil, the 4th amendment comes into play. Now, numerous examples can be cited where a warrant is not needed to meet 4th amendment standards, but those are all judicially or legislatively created. In this case, FISA controls. The executive cannot wholly dismiss this statute at his convenience and hide under his broad umbrella of "commander in chief". Even more, he cannot hide behind a congressional authorization to use force and claim in trumps FISA. The broad authorization says nothing of domestic wiretapping, and no one can claim that it was contemplated by the law makers when it was voted on. Stating that all of the U.S. is a battlefield oversimplifies the issue and could cause serious consequences in the future, i.e. the scenario talked about in the article. If, God forbid, that was to come up, I suspect his actions might conflict with state police powers and ultimately cause a federalism problem. In any case, its all scary stuff.
This is a Newsweek story about a white house legal counsel claiming president Bush might have the power to order the killing of a terrorist suspect on U.S. soil. This story of course came up in the context of the NSA wiretapping debate, and again evidences the slippery slope that we could all be sliding down with this post 9/11 thinking of unfettered presidential powers. The basic idea, without going into the NSA problem, is that the Congressional resolution authorizing military force, drafted very shortly after 9/11, gives the president the power to kill terrorists, or people who assist terrorists. This is directly in line with his Commander-in-Chief powers. However, problems arise when the scenario involves actions inside the United States. Proponents argue that the President has the power to spy on U.S. citizens who are talking to potential terrorists overseas without a warrant because it falls in line with his war-time powers. This is a new kind of "war", one which has no clear boundaries or battlefield. Therefore, the President has the power to exercise his commander in chief powers on U.S. soil because this is part of the battlefield. This, as the story suggests, could lead to him claiming he has the power to order killings on U.S. soil because they are potential terrorists. Now, as stated earlier, the wiretapping issue would not be a problem if 2 potential terrorists in Saudi Arabia were being monitored. This is clearly within executive powers for the simple reason that the constitution is not involved. When one involves monitoring a U.S. person on U.S. soil, the 4th amendment comes into play. Now, numerous examples can be cited where a warrant is not needed to meet 4th amendment standards, but those are all judicially or legislatively created. In this case, FISA controls. The executive cannot wholly dismiss this statute at his convenience and hide under his broad umbrella of "commander in chief". Even more, he cannot hide behind a congressional authorization to use force and claim in trumps FISA. The broad authorization says nothing of domestic wiretapping, and no one can claim that it was contemplated by the law makers when it was voted on. Stating that all of the U.S. is a battlefield oversimplifies the issue and could cause serious consequences in the future, i.e. the scenario talked about in the article. If, God forbid, that was to come up, I suspect his actions might conflict with state police powers and ultimately cause a federalism problem. In any case, its all scary stuff.
posted by gobbie at 6:41 PM
1 comments
