Today, in an article of the New York Times, it is revealed that the Bush Administration had secretly authorized the use of American military units to attack "suspected" Qaeda targets in countries that are not involved with the "war on terror."

"Bush administration officials have shown a determination to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provides a legal rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries’ consent."

The details of one of those aborted operations, in early 2005, were reported by The New York Times last June. In that case, an operation to send a team of the Navy Seals and the Army Rangers into Pakistan to capture Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, was aborted at the last minute.

Mr. Zawahri was believed by intelligence officials to be attending a meeting in Bajaur, in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command hastily put together a plan to capture him. There were strong disagreements inside the Pentagon and the C.I.A. about the quality of the intelligence, however, and some in the military expressed concern that the mission was unnecessarily risky.

Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director at the time, urged the military to carry out the mission, and some in the C.I.A. even wanted to execute it without informing Ryan C. Crocker, then the American ambassador to Pakistan. Mr. Rumsfeld ultimately refused to authorize the mission.

Last month, I sent an email to my Representative, Devin Nunes (R) CA-21 and in that email, I noted that from a historical perspective, we are going to be remembered as the "most dangerous country to ever exist."  This observation managed to inflame Mr. Nunes to the point that he sent me a letter telling me that I was welcome to move to North Korea if I didn't like it here.

Today's revelation about secret raids and Executive Orders authorizing murders around the world inside the borders of sovereign nations just makes this point so much clearer.  The Times articles mentions that these missions are well thought out so that the Administration will have a cover story ready in case something goes wrong. 

It also states what has to be the most revealing part of the story: the Administration has vetoed several missions because they felt that the political fallout wasn't worth the risk of a particular operation if it was to go sour.  Translated, this means that Mr. Bush and his cronies are all very aware of the immorality and questionable legality of what they are doing.  They make sure that the only targets that are approved are located in some backwater location that no one is likely to ever hear about.

What is the most disturbing of all is that the American government is going around the world killing people that it believes to be Queda members or operatives.  Can someone tell me when the government has gotten that information right before?  How many innocent people have been lingering in Gitmo, or some other legal black hole location thanks to the government's determination that they were enemies of the state?  This is the same group now approving assassinations in foreign countries?

What it doesn't make a bigger issue out of is the fact that these murders by the military are not being handled like a firing squad execution.  In societies that are concerned about justice, these targets would be arrested, and then given a fair trial before they got their fine executions.

What are these folks thinking?  Can they honestly say that killing people because of their "suspected" affiliation with a particular group is justification for violation of US and International laws?  We need to make mention that the moral foundations upon which America likes to claim it sits upon is being undermined as well.

We are collectively in deep trouble America.  We have taken a minor threat against this country and coupled it with our anger over 9-11, thus allowing our response become a dangerous beast in our desire to lash out at the invisible terrorist groups that the government claims to be hiding everywhere.

In the documentary "Taxi to the Darkside", Mr. Bush makes the claim that the Geneva Convention is too vague for him to determine what is a violation of human dignity.  If he isn't sure, perhaps Mr. Bush should endure some himself, such as being forced to masturbate in front of soldiers, being handcuffed while naked to the ceiling of your cell and left there for up to 40 hours or perhaps Mr. Bush would like to have a dog collar on his neck with a leash leading to his "handler" while he is forced to act like his is sodomizing a fellow human.

The fact that he claims to be a "Christian" and that so many people followed him and voted for him based upon this claim doesn't say much for Christianity.  If Jesus was to say that he couldn't determine what is the difference between right and wrong, he would probably be more likely to have been considered the Devil.  After all, even someone as dumb as George Bush knows that being stripped naked and sexually battered is a violation of not only the Geneva Convention, its also a violation of Christian dogma.