That which should be beyond debate

Awhile back, Canadian Cynic suggested that the best way to pin the right down on war crimes is to ask them to define just what is beyond the realm of acceptable conduct.

By that theory, one can at least give Bushco credit for not being hypocritical. In the administration's view, absolutely anything goes for the president, and the only question is how long it takes to convince the public that the War on Terra necessitates the action.

The latest evidence comes from Newsweek, as it becomes clear that Bushco considers the president entitled to order the extrajudicial killing of any "terrorist suspect" in the U.S.:

In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States...

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this...

The administration's public response has been to claim that the discussion is purely theoretical. Which, as pointed out by one commentator, is exactly what Alberto Gonzales said when discussing wiretaps in 2005 - before the then-ongoing program was made public.

Not that there's any indication that the same has yet happened with killings - but given that the administration's stance is identical on the two issues, it's hard to be confident that it'll treat the issue differently in the long run. And in keeping with CC's example, we can only hope that Bush's term as president runs out before Bushco's legal advisors start floating similar trial balloons about the president's inherent authority to publicly torture innocent children to death if he deems it necessary to fight terror.

(Via two Kos diaries.)

(Edit: typo.)