The unitary executive finds its power to order summary executions (Hellie)

Given that a central Bush Gang program from day one was to legitimize Bush's lawyers writing law which Bush would then ratify as such, it was only a matter of time before Bush would declare himself to have the legal right to murder:

Newsweek reports that a Justice Department official discussed the possibility that the President ought to be able to order assassination on US soil under the current AUMF.

Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), 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, at least in certain circumstances.

Interesting. Does that include assassinating US citizens -- without a trial, without properly ascertaining whether or not they are innocent or guilty, without anything other than the say of the Preznit? Do you trust this Administration to make these sorts of choices without messing up?

Would you bet your life on it?

Sure, there are options for dealing with suspects who pose an immediate physical threat -- say holding controls for an explosive device or an AK-47 in a crowded shopping mall. But a Presidential ordered assassination without any particular showing of exigent circumstances and immediate need? That's a Constitution of a different color altogether.

Given what has happened with Jose Padilla, is anything truly beyond imagination from this Administration in terms of trampling on liberty without any adequate oversight or notification? Who would stop them if they were about to kill an innocent citizen -- and who would call them on it, even if they did?

[...] When we throw out due process of law, can we continue to call ourselves a beacon of liberty and democracy? Or are we just another two-bit dictatorship? Should we re-animate Stalin now, or what?