Bush & the gangster Cheney should be tried for war crimes among a long laundry list of other swindles, fraud, corruption,
and oh! going to war without valid reason.

Seems you just can't win when you are the one in charge.

After the World trade center attacks in 2001 the 9/11 commission tried to determine if more could have been done to prevent the attack. The following was made public.......

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

The tape proved the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11.

“We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,” said President Clinton’s former national security adviser James Steinberg.

One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”

Bush should of locked down our borders. The money going out the window to AIG and the rest is small change compared to securing the country. They have admitted that theres tHOUSANDS of bad guys in this country right now.

theres tHOUSANDS of bad guys in this country right now

Who knows? You could be one of them.

In the linked article, it says that officials watched a raid in real-time. Legalities aside, its actually pretty neat we can do the Patriot Games thing now.

If you aren't outraged you're not paying attention!
But I (and others)have been saying that for 8 years now.
71 days left....I hope we last that long.

I think we'd all like to get Al-Qaeda, but in terms of just doing whatever we want wherever we want, we have to be prepared for the consequences.

By that I mean, does it pass the empathy test? How would we feel if Syria or Iran were carrying out covert military actions on targets in America? We'd declare it a terrorist act and immediately start prepping for war. Is it any different because we're big and bad-ass, expecting other countries to just 'deal with it'? This double standard is one reason we've been so loathed in parts of the world.

"The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere,"

Good.

What would you have? A congressional hearing and the New York times reporting ahead of every attack on our enemies?

If you're outraged you're too busy counting how many days are left and imagining we may not last that long.

The only outrage here is the continued traitorous reporting by the New York Times. I can't wait until this rag's circulation hits zero (which at present rates won't be long).

"Seems you just can't win when you are the one in charge."

Whenever I hear this I think about the August 6, 2001 Presidential daily briefing "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S" that GWB ignored so he could continue to vacation on his ranch. Forget bombing other countries, he ignored the warnings, and blew our chance to thwart the 9/11 attacks. What might have been?

The idea of securing our borders implies that Bush was interested in national security. That was a hoax. What these people wanted was the power to do anything. Bush and Cheney were authoritarian rulers - the Constitution was just an obstacle to them. I'm still not 100% sure they'll give up power when the time comes.
The Global War on Terror is also a hoax. This "war that will not end in our lifetimes", is the basis for permanent war powers forever. By any measure, terror has gotten much worse under President Bush and the rule of law has been brutalized.
The new millennium was supposed to be a leap into the future but President Bush went the other way.
It will be interesting to see if we try this people. I see the Hague has taken noticed.
The proof that Bush and Cheney know they've committed war crimes is their scramble to get their actions legalized here in America after the fact, immunizing them from prosecution.
The McCain administration was supposed to be an opportunity for them to cover their tracks. It didn't happen, and one of the reasons Bush is so tearful these days, is that he knows he's personally in jeopardy. The one time sociopaths feel genuine emotions is when they themselves are hurt or scared. It's compassion for others that they lack which is one reason Bush labeled his movement Compassionate Conservatism - his life has been an endless struggle to hide his true nature from the public while engaging in what he loves: the vicious infliction of pain.
Think about it: Killing hundreds of thousands in Iraq was a thrill but President Bush really wanted to inflict pain on us. I'm sure he will enjoy the huge depression we are about to enter. The idea of millions of Americans suffering is the only thing that keeps him going right now.

One large measure of Obama's presidency will be based on the extent to which he restores the constitutional principles that Bush and the neocons have destroyed. Early indications, sadly, are not favorable.

I wonder how carefully Bush will plan his foreign travel itinerary once he is the former commander in chief. Pinochet was embarassingly detained in London for his war crimes before he was sent apackin' back home to face the music. Folks have long memories for the types of abuse Bush and Co. inflicted.

So what's the story ... GWB's tactics are the exact same that Obama and McCain campaigned they would employ - we reserve the right to use military force, even in a friendly country, if we have to.

Spud, I hope you're not suggesting you buy into the notion that Bush (or anyone else in our government) ought to face international war crimes scrutiny for what has happened in recent years. We can both agree that the "war on terror" took a wrong path almost at the start, but there are limits, I think, to how much someone's hatred of Bush / neo-cons should go. Ringing up the POTUS on such such charges will only diminish the office for the future presidents, including Obama.

Truman didn't ask for declaration of war for Korea. Kennedy and Johnson didn't ask for a declaration of war for Vietnam. Nor Reagan for Grenada. Nor Bush I for Kuwait. I don't remember who was calling the shots during Panama.

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't have, I'm just saying that's what happened.

I think the cold war changed it. The nuclear deterrent force was set up to be unleashed only by presidential authority. They certainly weren't going to be able to call congress together during the twenty minutes it would take for the missiles to arrive. I think all the presidents since have taken that authority and broadened it to include conventional conflicts.

Wayne Morse warned us over the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

"This gives the president the ability to go to war without a declaration of war," I think is what he said.

The murder of his own citizens and more pointedly for war crimes charges, foreign nationals, is what gets types like Pinochet into trouble. My understanding is that a Spanish judge listened to testimony and ordered Pinochet's detention in London.
"You're only as sick as your secrets" applies to individuals and governments.
When a government uses secret renditions, torture, etc...it ultimately undermines the rule of law and thus, security for everyone.

"How would we feel if Syria or Iran were carrying out covert military actions on targets in America"

9/11 was overt, not covert, and many believe that Syria and Iran were at least indirectly responsible.

The true test will reveal itself now that Obama has had a full security briefing. I think he will do the right thing. If the order stands, then you can bet Bush was on the right track.

I hope Obama continues the use of strikes against our enemies and keeps it secret.

There's something sick and what should be criminal with annonymous officials and the NYT revealing secrets.

Hopefully the Obama White House, Defense Department and military will also decline to comment.

B. Obama stated several times during the campaign that if intelligence reveals the existence of high level threats in places like Pakistan, he is more than ready to move in on them if their government is "unable or unwilling to do so". When a foreign government allows a terrorist organization to operate freely within its borders, voluntarily or involuntarily, it is in the best interests of the world at large that these organizations are eliminated with prejudice.

9/11, the Madrid subway bombing, the London Tube bombing. When these groups organize to the point where they can carry out sophisticated, high casualty, cold-blooded murder on innocent citizens something has to be done about it.

It is completely constitutional and a legitimate exercise of executive power to eliminate known threats by use of covert operations before they develop into tragedies our soil and allied soil. In my opinion it is completely naive to believe that we can completely contain this threat by "traditional" means.

Obviously congressional oversight at some point along the way is necessary. Over time "carrot and stick" style diplomacy is the best way to get permission to operate in these regions. In places like Somalia nobody is really in charge, so you gotta do what you gotta do.

I think everyone in Congress tends to conveniently forget that they control by power of the purse and that itself can be used as a "declaration" of war or opposition to the war. They just have to have the cajones to actually vote against a war appropriations bill typically loaded down with local pork.

It is completely constitutional and a legitimate exercise of executive power to eliminate known threats by use of covert operations before they develop into tragedies our soil and allied soil.

Thank you, Alberto Gonzales. But I think you're wrong about that. Especially when it involves the regular armed forces.

You are sick, Bill McDonald. Oppose Bush, oppose his policies, his administration, his VP, whatever; but to state "the idea of millions of Americans suffering is the only thing that keeps him going right now" is just plain sick.

"Thank you, Alberto Gonzales. But I think you're wrong about that. Especially when it involves the regular armed forces."

O.K. you want to make it personal (calling me Alberto Gonzales is a real shot below the belt) as opposed to coming back at me with specifics. That's cool, but do you seriously think that the constitution prohibits the Commander In Chief from protecting the country from known threats regardless of where they exist? Keep in mind that the situation on the ground can change very rapidly and it isn't practical for the executive branch to confer with the legislative before a strike must be initiated. It doesn't make sense that the constitution prohibits the President from acting to defend the country from shifting threats even if those threats reside in nations that we aren't officially at war with.

"Keep in mind that the situation on the ground can change very rapidly and it isn't practical for the executive branch to confer with the legislative before a strike must be initiated."

Sure it's practical. It doesn't have to be tactically specific based on real-time intel. Instead, the President simply could go to Congress ahead of time, lay out the possibilities, and ask for a sufficient blanket authority. (For instance: "Raiding ten miles into Pakistan is allowed, but no raids at all into Iran are allowed".) If the President can't convince Congress to grant sufficient authority... tough. Can't win 'em all.

(Also, please keep in mind that there are often other ways to "protect from known threats" than launching unannounced raids into the territory of other sovereigns.)

The problem with the President having the sole authority to order military action without any legislative consultation is that a foolish or overconfident President might overreach and start a war that Congress is not prepared to back. This limitation on Presidential power is very much by constitutional design.

Obamastheone,
Bush was the one torturing animals as a kid, and torturing adults as the President. That's sick.
I've followed Bush's policies and I think they've been an assault on the American People. I can't blame that all on incompetence. When you see a pattern over 8 years you start playing amateur psychiatrist.
I think he enjoys inflicting pain. He started showing the tendencies really young and he hasn't stopped.

It is completely constitutional and a legitimate exercise of executive power to eliminate known threats by use of covert operations before they develop into tragedies our soil and allied soil.

And this is based on what constitutional principal? And behind what doors does who determine what is a "known threat?"

And does this constitutional principle of aggressive self defense apply to ALL countries who are struggling to be democractic and open societies...or just the United States?

No, the budget process is not an acceptable substitute for "declaring war" or not. Declaring war on other countries is serious stuff, and the fact that Congress ignores its responsibilities --and Presidents take advantage of that--
has no bearing on what is "constitutional" or not, at least based on the separation of powers explicitly spelled out in our constitution.

The Congress shall have Power...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining,the Militia...

That's what the Constitution says. Maybe people should read it before they suggest what is --or isn't-- Constitutional.

"Sure it's practical. It doesn't have to be tactically specific based on real-time intel. Instead, the President simply could go to Congress ahead of time, lay out the possibilities, and ask for a sufficient blanket authority. (For instance: "Raiding ten miles into Pakistan is allowed, but no raids at all into Iran are allowed".) If the President can't convince Congress to grant sufficient authority... tough. Can't win 'em all."

O.K., so Osama bin Laden is hanging out in a cave 15 miles over the border into Pakistan. The current intelligence, considered to of very high reliability, states that he is actively working with his organization to launch a biological weapons attack on a major U.S. city. He is going to be on the move in two hours. It's 3 a.m. in Washington D.C. and Congress is out for a 3 week holiday. A special ops strike team is 30 minutes away from bin Laden's hide out with their choppers warmed up ready to go. The Pakistani Army has no troops in the area that are sufficiently trained or equipped to successfully complete the mission. So the President is just supposed to let him slip away? Yep... "...tough can't win 'em all."

I have no doubt that a Pres. Obama would act under this scenario. Establishing an arbitrary restriction on military action against targets such as Al Qaeda isn't workable. To state the obvious...they move around to avoid to avoid getting killed.

"And behind what doors does who determine what is a "known threat?""

I don't think it's too hard to figure out what the known threat is when they crash hi-jacked airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network are pretty much "known threats".

"That's what the Constitution says. Maybe people should read it before they suggest what is --or isn't-- Constitutional."

I did read it.

"Article II. Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

The president's power as Commander in Chief to use the military to protect our interests from threats such as Al Qaeda without being micro-managed by the legislative branch is not seriously questioned by constitutional scholars.

Civilian --not military-- control of the government is part of what distinguishes democracies from dictatorships. The constitutional authority of Congress --not the president-- to declare war is what it is, and couldn't be spelled out any clearer.

Civilian, Congressional oversight of the government isn't "micromanagement", its the law. And probably the most important bedrock principle of our Constitution.

I'm sorry you don't get that, Usual Kevin.

Frank, I'm no constitutional scholar (although I did take Kantor's class at L&C), but I think you miss out on two points:

1. Since the President is granted the authority to act as commander in chief, you can't simply say that Congress alone has "civilian control" over the military. I don't think I am the only one who reads into that that the President is entrusted and is expected to use his discretion and judgment - it is impractical to run everything in a war by committee or congressional act. By the way, last I heard, the President is also a civilian.

2. I see no reason why Congress cannot limit the scope of the military's utilization by saying, for example, "there shall be no preemptive military strikes in Iran." They presently choose not to limit the President's authority to act in defense (or on offense to prevent a potential attack), then bitch about it later when they didn't give the green light. How about just giving him a red light in the beginning? They can and should follow the Constitution just as they expect from the President.

O.K., so Osama bin Laden is hanging out in a cave 15 miles over the border into Pakistan. The current intelligence, considered to of very high reliability, states that he is actively working with his organization to launch a biological weapons attack on a major U.S. city. He is going to be on the move in two hours. It's 3 a.m. in Washington D.C. and Congress is out for a 3 week holiday. A special ops strike team is 30 minutes away from bin Laden's hide out with their choppers warmed up ready to go. The Pakistani Army has no troops in the area that are sufficiently trained or equipped to successfully complete the mission. So the President is just supposed to let him slip away? Yep... "...tough can't win 'em all."

I'm sure one could come up with any number of fictional scenarios - some of them even plausible! - in which a President might be restricted from bagging Bin Laden or some other boogieman of the week by the limits of Congress' authorization. Could happen.

But in the scenario above (or some other equally unlikely one) if the President or a senior officer was really that confident in the intel and our capability, he could always ignore the restriction and face the consequences for disobedience if the move fails. (If the boys come back with Bin Laden's head, no doubt all would be forgiven.) But breaking the restrictions that Congress is Constitutionally empowered and duty bound to provide on behalf of the People is and ought to be a matter of extremes, not routines.

I don't get this debate. Bush's use of signing statements to override Congress is unprecedented. 700 plus laws passed by Congress were signed and then ignored. Do we really need more proof that the guy thinks he IS the law?

The day he opened a freakin' prison camp in Cuba was the day I knew that our republic was in deep trouble.

the President is entrusted and is expected to use his discretion and judgment - it is impractical to run everything in a war by committee or congressional act. By the way, last I heard, the President is also a civilian.

You can put up all the straw men you want and boldly knock them down, but the Constitution is explicit --explicit! in English!-- that Congress, and Congress alone, has the authority to declare war.

And, not only that, it is Congress --NOT the "Commander in Chief"-- that make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

You have different ideas about what kind of government you want is fair game for discussion. But OUR constitution is very clear on the role of the the president, and it ain't as monarch. And the two years limitation on military appropriations speaks specifically to this country NOT being an empire at continual war with the rest of the world.

I have to add, with no sense of irony, that in 1969, the year I graduated High School and still subject to the draft...when I was called to serve, my allergies kept me from being shipped to Vietnam.

When I reported to my draft board, they found me "unfit" to be drafted --then a classificatio called 1-Y-- UNLESS we were at war. That Vietnam was never a "declared" war kept me home.

Tell the tens of thousands of dead Americans --and the couple of million dead Vietnamese-- that we were never "at war" with a straight face...

And I'll tell you Congress shirked its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities big time.

Re-reading my earlier post I had to laugh...

I didn't report to my "draft board" which sounds so orderly and court-like, with men in suits and ties deciding my fate.

I was ordered to report --and did report--to the induction center where 95% of the guys there --and, yes, all guys-- couldn't tell you what induction meant. Let alone speak English. No college students. That kept you out of this war.

And we were all in the same room when they gave the hearing test, except everyone was talking and laughing so loud I couldn't hear it. But we all passed.

It wasn't a doctor's note --there was none-- that defined me, but the rash on my arms and legs that did. They rejected me. When they abolished the 1Y classification and sent me a new 4F draft card --permanently unfit for service-- I mailed it back saying I was no Frank Sinatra bugging out of my responsibilities and would fight them anytime, anyplace. I told them I'd already burned my 1Y card.

Crazy times...