Seriously. I'd like to know what limit, if any, there is to Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Bush said that the New York Times jeopardized national security and the war on terror by publishing its story revealing that he broke the law by spying on Americans. So, can Bush have New York Times reporters arrested and executed for treason? Or at the very least, when the NYT executive editor met with Bush at the White House to discuss whether or not to run the story, could Bush have simply had the NYT editor shot?
I'm serious, I want to know. We've been told that Bush can do anything he wants so long as it's to help the war on terror, so are there any limits?
Check out the latest from the Bush administration:
Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."The resolution says nothing about wiretaps, read it:
The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States.
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.Not a word about spying on Americans. Bush inferred it, so why not infer murder?
Clearly the Bush administration feels that the resolution permits Bush to do ANYTHING so long as he says he's doing it to further the war on terror.
So I ask again, can Bush have New York Times reporters assassinated? And if not, why not? If Scott McClellan says "of course not," then ask him to give us the legal explanation of what in the law is tying the president's hands. I'll bet he can't come up with anything, because this is the power the administration is claiming. The power of a dictator.