Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Are Presidents Entitled to Kill Foreigners?
What is the common term for ordering soldiers to kill vast numbers of innocent people?
A war crime.
But not when it is done on the command of the U.S. president.
Killing innocent foreigners seems to be a perk of the modern presidency--akin to the band's playing "Hail to the Chief" when he enters the room.
Bush is revving up the war threats against Iran. Seymour Hersh reported in the current issue of the New Yorker that the administration is advancing plans to bomb many targets in Iran. British newspapers have confirmed that the Pentagon has a list of thousands of bombing targets. Hardly anyone claims that Iran poses a threat to the United States.
Yet few people in Washington seem to dispute the president's right to attack Iran. It is as if the presidential whim is sufficient to justify blasting any foreign nation that does not kowtow to the commands of the U.S. government.
Jack Goldsmith, a former top Bush appointee in the Justice Department and now a Harvard Law professor, observes in his new book, The Terror Presidency, "The president and the vice president always made clear that a central administration priority was to maintain and expand the president's formal legal powers." And the power to attack foreign nations is one of the most valued prerogatives of today's Republicans.
Bush's top advisors--and especially the vice president--are devoted to a Nixonian view of absolute power for the commander in chief. After he was driven out of office in disgrace, Nixon told interviewer David Frost in 1977, "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal." Frost, somewhat dumbfounded, replied, "By definition?" Nixon answered, "Exactly. Exactly."
This seems to be the attitude of Bush and his war planners towards Tehran. Pentagon Deputy Assistant Secretary Debra Cagan recently told several British Members of Parliament that "I hate all Iranians." Perhaps Cagan got her position because of such prejudice towards nations that Bush formally designated as "evil." At the same time that Congress is considering hate-crime legislation, ethnic hatred may be driving U.S. plans to slaughter Iranians.
For Bush, attacking Iran may simply be a question of checking off another item on his final To Do list--or one more wild swing at making himself a legacy. Bush told a biographer that, after he leaves office, he looks forward to receiving "ridiculous" (in his words) speaking fees of $75,000 per talk. He is also looking forward to putting in some time on his "fantastic" Freedom Institute.
The fact that thousands or hundreds of thousands of Iranians might die is irrelevant. Bush appears far more concerned about baseball statistics than the body counts compiled by the U.S. military abroad. The fact that many Americans could also die--either during the attack or from Iranian retaliation on U.S. forces in Iraq--doesn't appear to be costing Bush any sleep.
No American politician has ever been sentenced to death for ordering U.S. soldiers to kill innocent foreigners. Such orders have gone out many times--from the Philippines in the early 1900s, to Haiti in the 1910s, to Vietnam in the 1960s. There have been many other conflicts in which American presidents rubber-stamped U.S. military rules of engagement that guaranteed carnage among foreign women and children.
Americans cannot expect to have good presidents if presidents are permitted to make themselves tsars. The president and his top officials should face the same perils common citizens face when they are accused of breaking the law. Seeing a president answer for his crimes would be public education at its best. Consider how the subsequent course of American foreign policy might have differed if Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon had been tried, convicted in federal court, and punished for committing war crimes.
Perhaps Bush thinks that starting another foreign war will help boost demand for his speeches among groups that want to see U.S. forces kill more Muslims. But if he cares about freedom as much as he claims, he will cease acting as though he is above the law. And if Bush refuses to restrain himself, Americans should remember the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson: Sometimes the threat of a noose is the best way to keep the peace.
James Bovard serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation and is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books.
© 2007 CounterPunch
24 Comments so far
Show AllA really good clown ... a really good fee.
An insane little pisspot like Bush... priceless.
Having the same person hold the posts of chief executive of the government, commander in chief of the armed forces, and head of state, does seem to me to be something of a flaw in the US Constitution.
It's a simple equation. If the President arrogates to himself the right to slaughter foreigners, then foreigners have the right to kill him.
Too bad that the American people won't clean their own house. Congress has betryed the Constitution and American democracy by failing to even try to bring Bush and his pals to justice. It's nooses all around.
It's a simple equation. If the President arrogates to himself the right to slaughter foreigners, then foreigners have the right to kill him.
Too bad that the American people won't clean their own house. Congress has betrayed democracy by failing to even try to bring Bush and his pals to justice. It's nooses all around.
ricg is right.
Congress is responsible for reining in the President. It has the power, not the will. Why? The President has suckered Congress into joining him in his crimes, making them just as morally and legally liable.
Excuse me? Ridulous fees for giving a speech? He can't string two complete sentences together, how can he complete an entire speech? Pay him to speak? How about paying people to attend one of his speeches.??
Uh, hmmm, uh, duh, hmmmm.
BOVARD says, " He is also looking forward to putting in some time on his "fantastic" Freedom Institute." Wow! This article should be conjoined to the earlier one relating US Homeland security and related policy to 1984.
So Bush does a "Freedom Institute." My imagination can envision it now.... the first ever S & M themepark open to the public, where for a modest fee, entrants will be privileged to particpate in Water boarding, held in impossible postures to see if they can challenge former Guiness Book of World Records, they will be led down dark, most catacombs into simulated secret prisons where they, too, can know the joys of forced confession. Possibly some members of the Catholic Church would be interested in getting on board with this lively initiative. Sounds like great fun for those who resonate with Bush's style of freedom. (French pay double, served with fries or otherwise.)
"Yet few people in Washington seem to dispute the president's right to attack Iran."
One not-so-glaring exception:
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/strength-through-peace/
The best evidence we have suggests that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have killed 1,200,000 Iraqis.
Even liberal writers like James Bovard are reluctant to mention this figure. Is it any wonder that the mainstream media and the Congressional Democrats and the leading candidates talk and act like this Iraqi Holocaust isn't happening?
"Upon entering the George W. Bush Freedom Institute, your family will be split apart, never to meet again. Follow your own guard until he/she disappears, leaving you in one of the 'interrogation rooms'. Sit down on the chair with the straps and wait"
Then the real fun starts!
This has real promise-good going, Siouxrose
"Killing innocent foreigners seems to be a perk of the modern presidency..."
Whereas wiping out the indigenous people of your land was a God ordained prerequisite of all the early presidents. Sorry to interject, you can now go back to your hand-wringing lament about what a great paragon of moral rectitude America was until this Bush guy took power.
"Are Presidents Entitled to Kill Foreigners?"
No.
Members of the Unitary Executive Branch, however, including the Decider, are, in fact, entitled to kill anyone and anything they wish, whether a "foreigner," or 159 Texas inmates, or a million innocent Iraqis, or tens of thousands of innocent Afghanis, or the careers of top military personnel, or 20+ years of dedicated service by a CIA NOC agent, or health insurance for the nation's poor children.
Members of the recently created Fourth Branch of the United States government, which remains unnamed but includes, er, the Vice Unitary Decider and VUD minions, may also kill anything in their sights, including BFF lawyers.
"But if he cares about freedom as much as he claims, he will cease acting as though he is above the law."
It ought to be pointed out yet again that the "freedom" Bush talks about bears no relation to what most Americans think freedom is. The freedom Bush cares about is the freedom of capital, not people.
" Bush told a biographer that, after he leaves office, he looks forward to receiving "ridiculous" (in his words) speaking fees of $75,000 per talk. He is also looking forward to putting in some time on his "fantastic" Freedom Institute."
Isn't it against the law for a criminal to profit from his crimes???
$75,000 to hear Bush speak? When did clowns start to command such fees?
Anyone intending to vote for a candidate from the criminal congress that enabled the President in it's wars in Iraq, and continue to fund the war as it is currently being fought, and who just gave the President a green light to do Iran, are themselves guilty of these crimes. You might not receive any punishment, at least not here on Earth, but you are still guilty.
Bush could not have done what he has done without a lot of help. The Dems are partners in crime. I believe Hillary has been elected already by those who make up the so called shadow government that really control things (CFR, Bilderberger, Trilateral Commission, and perhaps AIPAC) with Republicans getting back the Senate with a slight majority and Dems keeping the House. How else do you explain the candidates the Republicans have put out there, they must be conceding the election to help maintain the illusion of Democracy. The Dems have probably promised to continue the current war policies in order to get back the Presidency, and may be given a bone on some domestic issues. It will be interesting to see who Hillaries running mate will be. My bet it is someone who may be on the hawkish side, just in case Hillary tries to walk out of Iraq.
The Bush Freedom Institute? That belongs in the same league as the Josef Mengele School of Medicine, The Alberto Gozales College of Law and the Augusto Pinochet Institute of Humanitarianism.
75,000 to hear Bush speak? When did clowns start to command such fees?
When Americans are gullible enough to pay them . Americans still pay to hear LBJès butcher ( Henry Kissinger )
speak, I mean double-speak.
Question: "Are Presidents Entitled to Kill Foreigners?"
Er... now that's a tricky one! -so I got on the phone to God and checked it out :::
[Me]: "Hi Big G, we wuz just wonderin' - are presidents allowed to murder foreign people at all?"
[Big G]: "Nope!"
[Me]: "Not even a little bit, like when they want more votes or anything?"
[Big G]: "Nope!"
... and then He just boomed in that big voice of his, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL!" and hung up on me.
~ I wonder what he meant by those words?
@UN-common-dreams
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!" and hung up on me.
~ I wonder what he meant by those words?
Probably not much; Looking at the "smiting" record of your god, he doesn't seem to give a flying-fuck about those who fall outside some (arbitrary to me) "chosen-people" designation. :)
Its not just the killing. It was interesting to me that left wing Americans were shocked that an act of the American Congress could deny the right of habeas corpus, "even to American citizens". It seems never to have occurred to them how strange it seems to imagine that an act if the American Congress should be able to deny that right to foreigners any more than to Americans...
Just imagine Ben Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and the other big players in the drafting of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights sitting back over their tankards of ale in some pub in Philadelphia after a hot, contentious all day session towards the end of the summer of 1787.
The power to declare war, the power to raise an army and maintain a navy, and the power to promulgate rules for US the land and naval forces is delegated to the Congressin article I of the Constitution. The power of being Commander in Chief of the army and navy is delegated to the President as head of the executive branch in article II of the Constitution.
"Wait a minute, Ben. What about the power to murder? Which branch of the new government should be delegated the right to draw up a hit list of enemies, foreign and domestic, and arrange for their assassinations?"
"Oh Tommy, there you go again with your silly jests, and your Deist cynicism! Only mad divine right monarchs would even dream they had such a power - a power to murder. And how many goddamn times do we have to put it down in black and white in the Constitution that no man can behave like a tyrant King on American soil?"
"Jimbo's right, Tom. Killing folks is only for soldiers, or for executioners carrying out the sentence of a Judge. But if you really feel strongly about it - if you really think some President some day would be craven asshole enough to just draw up a hit list and start whacking people - we can stick a provision over in the Bill of Rights to say nobody can ever be deprived of life except by due process of law. That should fix your worry."
"But what about foreigners, folks who aren't covered by the Bill of Rights?"
"Tommy, Tommy, don't sweat the odd case details. Ours is a federal government of limited, enumerated powers. We no more need to declare the President has no power to murder than we need to declare nobody can rape, or steal horses, or piss in the Senate's spitoons."
"I agree. Methinks Mr. Madison has it covered."
"Okay, I guess you guys are right. The next round's on me, and then I got to get back home to the wife and family....."
Bill from Saginaw
"
As a non-American, I strongly encourage each and every one of you to vote,
For your president not being able to kill me without a really good reason.
I am strongly against the nutcase running the US now, but face the facts cowardly george has never killed anyone It is the sheep ( soldiers and mercenaries) that are giving him his power.
Someone said bush ordered soldiers to kill. Someone else commanded
"THOU SHALT NOT KILL"
To whom are the people listening to ??