digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Bush OK'd Global Secret Raids

rawstory.com — Citing anonymous U.S. officials, the Times story said the operations were authorized by a broad classified order that then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed and President Bush approved in spring 2004. The order gave the military authority to attack al Qaeda anywhere in the world and to conduct operations in countries not at war with US.

Who dugg this? Made popular Nov 11, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

110 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ricker2005, on 11/11/2008, -2/+29I hate Bush as much as anybody but let's be real. The US (as well as the UK and plenty of other countries) run secret operations in foreign countries all the time. And they did well before Bush was around. That's basically what the CIA and its foreign counterparts do with their time.

    How about we just get Bush on his stealing of our freedoms instead?
  • Wargala, on 11/11/2008, -9/+32Obama will do this as well, just watch. Plus, I don't give a ***** if we're killing Al-Qaeda members in downtown London. A dead Al-Qaeda is still a dead Al-Qaeda. I'm sure we could be nice about it and warn the respective governments, but too many times that warning has lead to important Al-Qaeda leaders getting away.

    Osama/UAE/Sandy Berger anyone?
  • Azohko, on 11/11/2008, -2/+19Hi.
  • MrEthiopian, on 11/10/2008, -11/+26Bush did this to stir up the hornets, so his war profiteer buddy's can have a steady state of income for years to come, The problem is its our money he is playing with.

    I hope after the last 71 days of his presidency are over, the USA and the world look into his work in the last 8 years, their have got to be a multitude of crimes that he can be charged on and his money taken; so he can feel some of the same pain he is putting us through.
  • Reeds2, on 11/11/2008, -0/+15Ummm...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

    So was a good idea when Obama suggested it, or not?
  • cxt70, on 11/11/2008, -4/+19dugg for kickin ass all over the globe.
  • kjizzle, on 11/11/2008, -1/+15Uh, no *****? Did anyone over the age of 12 not actually think that this power has existed forever?
  • alais, on 11/11/2008, -3/+14You fault the guy for not getting Bin Laden then when proof arises that he's taking extraordinary measures to get the guy you slam him on that...
  • solid12345, on 11/11/2008, -1/+12What is the big deal, the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the British, the Israelis, every major nation conducts operations outside it's territory, it is what spies and special ops do.
  • chrissku, on 11/11/2008, -2/+11When it comes to Al Qaeda extremist I say we have to do whatever it takes to capture or kill them while protecting civilians.
  • MediaWeasel, on 11/10/2008, -6/+15Sling the whole gang in jail where they belong.
  • AWBoy666, on 11/11/2008, -5/+14So when Obama sends troops into Pakistan without their permission, are you going to be just as angry? LOL.
  • chickenloco, on 11/11/2008, -1/+10Good for Bush, and I hope Obama continues this. We can't just let terrorists go to another country and once their there, give up.
  • AWBoy666, on 11/11/2008, -2/+10Isn't Obama the one who said he would strike inside Pakistan? So Obama agrees entirely with this executive order.

    As for Bush, I'm glad he did. He should hunt down terrorists wherever they hide. It's his job to defend the lives of US citizens.

  • jgzman, on 11/11/2008, -1/+8If we play by their rules, how are we better than them?
  • inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7Sup.
  • mikelieman, on 11/11/2008, -1/+8If your government doesn't follow the rules, then you're full of ***** about being a Constitutional Republic, with Equal Protection and Due Process and stuff.

    What do we call Countries WITHOUT those Constitutional Guarantees, children?



  • AbominableHoman, on 11/11/2008, -11/+17Do people realize this is the game Al Qeuda is playing? They're not playing by the rules, and unfortunately neither can we.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 11/11/2008, -1/+7And the problem is???
  • Azohko, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5Not much. Just making conversation.
  • inactive, on 11/11/2008, -1/+5Al-Qaeda is our enemy. Bush ***** up several things, but the only thing *****-up about this is that Bush didn't do this sooner. This is what the War on Terror _should_ have been about. Imagine if, instead of invading Iraq, Bush launched attacks on Al-Qaeda worldwide.

    The only good Al-Qaeda is a dead Al-Qaeda.
  • xxAMPLIFYxx, on 11/11/2008, -2/+6terrorists killing civilians is an international crime, but it is not an act of war
  • werkerb33, on 11/11/2008, -5/+9All you idiots have got to be kidding me. Someone puts DRM on your favorite game and they deserve death...someone attacks and kills thousands of your neighbors and you think it unfair to hunt them and kill them wherever they are?

    You need a ***** reality check.

    Oh, wait. Maybe this will help: pretend this is Warcraft and someone just whacked your character. My guess is that means more to you than the real thing.

    Think about it: what would you do if it was your town?
  • mikelieman, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3If the secret is Unconstitutional ( i.e.: Deprivation of Due Process and Equal Protection), then it's not eligible to be kept secret.

    ***ANY*** violation of the Constitution and Law by ***ANY*** government official must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    OR y'all might as well move to Cuba if THAT is the kind of Government you support.
  • HalleBurton, on 11/10/2008, -11/+14How is engaging in hostile actions in foreign countries without their permission, or Congress', not violating international laws; and, is yet another impeachable war crime? Calling Dennis Kucinich...
  • offrdbandit, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3"Assassination is a violation of the Constitution, because the victims of the assassination are deprived an arraignment and trial before being executed."

    Nope. Even if you were right, the incidents in question were combat operations - not assassinations.

    There is an executive order prohibiting assassination of political figures by the military or intelligence agencies, but there is nothing to stop the President from deploying forces where and how he chooses except the Congress (which can only respond retroactively to the President's actions).
  • mikelieman, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3Clear and provable violations of 18 USC 371, and 18 USC 1001. ( 18 USC 1001 is what sent Martha Stewart and Marion Jones away)

  • chompysweat, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3You just smooth talked your way into a +1
  • H3avyC, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3You know, I agree as much as the next guy that Bush is a moron; however, this is exactly how the US should be dealing with Bin Laden. There shouldn't be any place he can hide without our best special operatives being able to hunt him down. They aren't talking about carpet bombing a village. They are talking about surgical strikes designed to specifically punish the people who attacked this country.

    This is coming from a very big Obama supporter who was very much in favor of this idea when he brought it up countless times during the debate. If the other option is full scale invasion of a country to bring a handful of people the justice, I'll take this option every time.
  • TrevorBelmont, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3It seems to me that this is just some guy telling me about a story he read in a more reputable source.
    Blog spam?
  • AWBoy666, on 11/11/2008, -1/+4There is so much logic in the comments here! Amazing!!! For the first time ever, I'm proud of Digg's membership! Why does that quote sound familiar......
  • mongrel, on 11/11/2008, -1/+4Whatever, I much prefer our badass covert ops guys go in and chop heads in cover of darkness than send another 3000 dropout kids to die by suicide bombers.
  • mikelieman, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3I'd insist on arresting and trying the criminals for their crimes.

    For murder, we have a death penalty.

    Why violate the Constitution when you can do it nice and legal?
  • URnotheonly1, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3Iraq was an easy war in the history of war. It never became a hi intensity conflict. God knows you would piss your pants if you ever saw hi intensity
  • HalleBurton, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3These terrorists that you refer to would include people like Timothy McVeigh and the militia movements, Aryan Brotherhood and similar race-based hate groups, and anti-abortion groups that bomb and burn clinics and murder doctors: all finding sanctuary in the US. Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, please report to The Hague.
  • blugill, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3uuummm....yeah being a super power does mean we can do as we please to keep your ignorant body safe and in its ignorant state of being, free from any kind of reality.
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3Another waste of billions no doubt. Likely this makes more future threats. Was any of this in Egypt or Saudi Arabia where the 911 terrorists came from? Didn't think so.
  • odigity, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3Here's a good summary of what we did in Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X78CYn_F6b8
  • Cobra585, on 11/11/2008, -3/+5Well ***** said. At least someone sees whats going on. I hate when people complain about this kind of crap. Anyone who thinks our government and our military tell us everything is as ignorant as a child. First people complain when the government does things without telling them, then they complain when they come out. Some things have to be done behind closed doors.
  • alexkreuz, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3A dead Al Qaeda is 2 new living Al Qaedas.

    You'll run out of money before they run out of children.
    But I don't think you can grasp that concept.
  • rrouse, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2What what point does a Secretary of Defense become a War Criminal?
  • 4321234, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2In what respect, Charlie?
  • ad33lshahid, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2as far as pakistan is concerned they've killed WAY more civilians than any "militants" so i'd be wary of indiscriminate strikes without the respective governments knowing about them. You guys seem to just take everything as its presented to you, ofcourse if they were terrorists youd want em dead. In vietnam we would do thousands of air raids in northern vietnam killing countless "vietcong" but later on we learned it was merely civilians we had been killing for the most part. i'd like to see better proof that what they're doing is actually ridding the world of bad people rather than indiscriminate aerial bombing. Its easy to pass judgement sitting all the way over here.
  • Induane, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Alexkreuz makes a good point about martyrdom. Hunting them down and killing them might not be the most effective way of dealing with it. Even if you succeed in killing them it incites more fanaticism. Of course we cannot let them just get away with it either. Obviously some military force is needed to protect our interests. The trick is balancing everything just right for the best possible outcome at the lowest cost which is a difficult job indeed. I don't presume to have the best answers myself as I'm not cleared to access classified information but I do think we could benefit from a more common sense based approach than we have been doing.
  • YourDoom123, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Their job is NOT to protect the country, its to protect the constitution. Go read the oath of office.
  • odigity, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3Here's a good summary of what we've done in Iraq so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X78CYn_F6b8
  • BlatheringIdiot, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Yeah- we all know that no US president will ever spend a day behind bars. It just doesn't happen.
  • h4ckler, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3Yeah let's forget about the whole last 60 years and our policy of training Osama, Huessain, Chavez, etc. giving them weapons... (Ok good I feel much better about this). That was a good policy, can we please keep that going? Hell maybe we can start a real war. Based on our past record this couldn't possibly blow up in our face.

    You want to stop terrorism? Look at the CIA. World's largest terrorist organization. Overthrowing governments, assasinating leaders and generally making the world unsafe for Americans since 1947. For some reason I remember something about planes registered to the CIA crashing full of cocaine? http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/09/crashed-drug- ...
    (you can google the story for a more reliable source)

    Allowing a president to arbitrarilly attack countries (which is what this is) is asking for trouble and the fact it is being justified by terrorism makes me face-palm.
  • Pillage, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3Every time they conduct one of these raids Rawstory's readership slips a bit.
  • Wargala, on 11/11/2008, -3/+5The fact that I'm getting ANY digg downs shows that some of you out there don't like the truth backed up by facts.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.