George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution

[Metullus]

Wrong to fabricate them out of whole cloth.

Does this mean that you do not hold that it was wrong for Bush to seek legal opinions in these cases?

You say "fabricate them out of whole cloth". So, the authors made up things? What did they make up? About what did they lie?

That we might not agree with the interpretations or opinions reflected in the memos does not, of necessity, mean that they are lies.

For example, here are a couple legal blogs and a Slate blog discussing the outrageousness of claiming these were just honest legal opinions. They refer to specific memoranda disclosed a year ago.

John Yoo's war crimes; 4/08; Slate

The “John Yoo, Let’s Pretend We’re Lawyers” Game

Yoo's Utter Glib Certainty

You will forgive me if I do not get all worked up about what Slate says on the matter, just as I would not give Rush Limbaugh's opinion a great deal of weight. You did note that even Slate acknowledges that the Yoo memoranda were rescinded, right?

 

[Texas]

Harper's just published this article on the operating memoranda Bush had his henchmen draft to cover any activities Bush had planned to do or actually had carried out that were illegal. The memoranda were for CYA. Even though they had to have known these things were illegal, by putting out the memoranda they could claim they didn't know it was illegal.

George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution

Between this and the Justice Department firings investigation, it's about time this dangerous stuff gets addressed. "Worse than Watergate" by John Dean is currently out of stock on Amazon. I wonder if that is from a renewed interest? Mother Jones had an article on the subject back in 07 and it only generated one reader comment.

Did you bother to read the actual memos? They all are written with extensive legal precedent cites from the Constitution and USSC opinions.The first amendment reference was a single sentence in a memo discussing what restrictions regarding secret national security information, troop movements ETC would be made should the US military be engaged in combat operations within the United States should we suffer a another massive attack. The same holds true for the 4th amendment exception for the military in hot pursuit of the enemy on US soil.

 

[Skeptic]

You and your facts again.

Bush is evil! Don't you see that's all there is to it! He was a dictator!

Yes, he was a dictator who for some mysterious reason had to stand for election and reelection and left office exactly when the Constition he nullified and destroyed said he should, but that's because he was a SECRET dictator, you see.

Harper's says so, so it must be true!

 

[Texas]

You and your facts again.

Bush is evil! Don't you see that's all there is to it! He was a dictator!

Yes, he was a dictator who for some mysterious reason had to stand for election and reelection and left office exactly when the Constition he nullified and destroyed said he should, but that's because he was a SECRET dictator, you see.

Harper's says so, so it must be true!

I would bet money that no more than one or two members have read the memos. I spent 2 days reading them because they are so filled with legal precedents.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is alot of material to read, you can't blame people for being skeptical of claims that use such loaded words.

Oh it's real hard to read a couple samples of the memoranda to see what the facts are.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; those comparing Bush to Hitler or any dictator are not maximizing Bush's evil or minimizing Hitler's. They are putting themselves in the position of those few brave souls who stood up to Hitler (or any real dictator). It's a new type of self-esteem movement.

This isn't even Maquis apres guerre, it's Maquis sans guerre.

Now I see what the problem is. Some people in this discussion don't recognize that the nuance of the word, dictator, in this context is about ignoring the separation of powers. It has nothing to do with Hitler or any other historical dictators. This is not about calling Bush a tyrant, it is about ignoring the Constitution.

Here, let me help move this discussion along.

Definition of Dictator

a. An absolute ruler.
b. A tyrant; a despot.

1. a ruler who has complete power
2. a person who behaves in a tyrannical manner

Notice there are TWO definitions for the word, dictator. Perhaps some people were not aware.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does this mean that you do not hold that it was wrong for Bush to seek legal opinions in these cases?

You say "fabricate them out of whole cloth". So, the authors made up things? What did they make up? About what did they lie?

That we might not agree with the interpretations or opinions reflected in the memos does not, of necessity, mean that they are lies.

You will forgive me if I do not get all worked up about what Slate says on the matter, just as I would not give Rush Limbaugh's opinion a great deal of weight.

Do you think this is my or only the left wing's interpretation of the events here? This is the opinion of most legal scholars. It is their opinion that the memoranda were so obviously unconstitutional any competent lawyer would have known. You don't have to take my word for it. This is all coming out into the daylight now. This is only the beginning.

In case you missed the earlier citations, here's one for those who are attention span challenged:

US Constitutional Law, 101: Youngstown references.

The Precedent Youngstown Sets When It Comes to Broad Use of Executive Authority

That precedent is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. There, the Justices considered the constitutionality of President Truman's executive order seizing private steel mills during the Korean War. In the end, they held the order unconstitutional.

The Youngstown Steel case arose from President Truman's decision that an impending strike by steelworkers could jeopardize U.S. participation in the Korean War. To head off the strike, Truman ordered the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate the nation's steel mills. The Secretary followed this directive, and Truman then immediately notified Congress (and thus, the public), which took no contrary action.

Truman had no statutory authorization for the mill seizures, but he took the view that they were valid under his inherent authority as president and commander in chief.

The steel industry, however, challenged Truman's executive order. The industry claimed that Congress, when it passed the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, had provided the exclusive framework for settling labor disputes; and that Congress had explicitly rejected a seizure provision when considering Taft-Hartley.

At the Supreme Court, Truman's view of the law lost 6-3.

You did note that even Slate acknowledges that the Yoo memoranda were rescinded, right?

And you did see that it only occurred when the jig was up and they were scrambling to cover their asses, right?

 

[Texas]

Now I see what the problem is. Some people in this discussion don't recognize that the nuance of the word, dictator, in this context is about ignoring the separation of powers. It has nothing to do with Hitler or any other historical dictators. This is not about calling Bush a tyrant, it is about ignoring the Constitution.

Here, let me help move this discussion along.

Definition of DictatorNotice there are TWO definitions for the word, dictator. Perhaps some people were not aware.

How did Bush violate separation of powers? Every move he made was with the full knowledge of Congress and with legislative sanction from water boarding to the Patriot Act to the IWR.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did you bother to read the actual memos? They all are written with extensive legal precedent cites from the Constitution and USSC opinions.The first amendment reference was a single sentence in a memo discussing what restrictions regarding secret national security information, troop movements ETC would be made should the US military be engaged in combat operations within the United States should we suffer a another massive attack. The same holds true for the 4th amendment exception for the military in hot pursuit of the enemy on US soil.

Oh ya, I read them. And I also read the opinions written about them by a number of different experts on Constitutional law. But how hard is it to figure out wiretapping of every single phone call in the US without warrants is illegal, even for a President? How hard is it to figure out that when FISA courts can issue warrants after the fact, and only turn down a tiny fraction of the thousands of warrants requested, and a President refuses to seek FISA warrants, there must be something that President is doing that is not about national security, but has to be about something sinister?

 

[jj]

I was afraid that was going to happen. No, you're jj, not JJ.

Oh, ok. You got mine right, by the way. I don't use caps, except when stupid text editors persist in trying to help me out.

 

[jj]

How did Bush violate separation of powers? Every move he made was with the full knowledge of Congress and with legislative sanction from water boarding to the Patriot Act to the IWR.

So, even the stuff he didn't report to congress was done with the full knowlege of congress.

Interesting thinking there.

 

[Allen773]

The Bush Administration lied to Congress and the American people. They compromised national security by outing a CIA agent to ruin a whistleblower's reputation. They improperly fired U. S . Attorneys. They authorized the unconstitutional wiretapping of American citizens.

Nope, not a single crime committed, no siree...

 

[Texas]

The Bush Administration lied to Congress and the American people. They compromised national security by outing a CIA agent to ruin a whistleblower's reputation. They improperly fired U. S . Attorneys. They authorized the unconstitutional wiretapping of American citizens.

Nope, not a single crime committed, no siree...

No they followed the authorisation given to them by the patriot act. Plame was a desk jockey and there was not a single person that didn't know that she worked for the CIA. Hell her idiot husband introduced her as his "little spy". Please post a "lie" Bush told to congress. He fired 9 AT WILL employees for not doing their jobs.

 

[Allen773]

No they followed the authorisation given to them by the patriot act. Plame was a desk jockey and there was not a single person that didn't know that she worked for the CIA. Hell her idiot husband introduced her as his "little spy". Please post a "lie" Bush told to congress. He fired 9 AT WILL employees for not doing their jobs.

Judging from your reply, it's obvious that you don't care. I know your admiration of Bush blinds you, but I'll let you have your fantasy.

 

[Texas]

Judging from your reply, it's obvious that you don't care. I know your admiration of Bush blinds you, but I'll let you have your fantasy.

I am exposing fantasies not creating them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

 

[Allen773]

I am exposing fantasies not creating them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Take it up with Patrick Fitzgerald.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is interesting thinking as well. Defending this stuff kind of stuff is really unfortunate.

In this memoranda, for example, from Yoo on 9/25/01 (warning large pdf file) it states warrantless searches can be Constitutional "when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable." Yoo goes on to make the case, when the President does it, it isn't illegal. It's absolutely foolish to think these guys weren't just setting up cover for planned mass surveillance that they then carried out.

FISA warrants were easy to come by. Bush wanted to record literally every phone call both within and without the US, that was supposedly the impractical to get a warrant circumstance. Well, d'uh. Just what probable cause was there for wiretapping everyone?

Did Congress agree? No.

Russ Feingold, 2006

Bush's Warrantless Wiretapping Program is Illegal and Unconstitutional...
...But, almost in the same breath, the President openly acknowledged that he has ordered the government to spy on Americans, on American soil, without the warrants required by law....
...The President issued a call to spread freedom throughout the world, and then he admitted that he has deprived Americans of one of their most basic freedoms under the Fourth Amendment -- to be free from unjustified government intrusion....
...Unfortunately, the President refuses to provide any details about this domestic spying program. Not even the full Intelligence committees know the details, and they were specifically set up to review classified information and oversee the intelligence activities of our government. Instead, the President says * "Trust me."

Ed Kennedy, 2005

On wiretapping, Bush isn't listening to the Constitution...
...Not just above the law, this administration seems to be saying that it IS the law. It contends that it can decide on its own what the law is, how to interpret it, and whether or not it has to follow it.
The president, the vice president, the secretary of state, and the attorney general tell us that the president can order domestic spying inside this country -- without judicial oversight -- under his power as commander in chief. Really? Where do they find that in the Constitution? Time and time again, this president has used his express, but limited, constitutional power to command the military to justify controversial activities -- after the fact.
The president is the commander in chief of the military. That doesn't give him the power to spy on civilians at home without any judicial oversight whatsoever, without ever revealing those activities to even well-established courts that review these matters in secrecy. Otherwise, every phone and computer in America should now come with a warning label: Warning: the privacy of your communications can no longer be guaranteed, by order of President Bush....
...The president has admitted, without any remorse, that he has repeatedly authorized his own advisers at the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on individuals inside the United States, without the prior court approval required under well-established laws. This president is focused on scapegoating The New York Times for breaking the story that brought this questionable spying program into the light of day.

2005, Boston Globe: Bush bypassed compliant court on wiretapping - Warrants rarely denied

The court that authorizes wiretaps on terrorism suspects had not rejected a government request for a warrant in its 22-year existence to 2001, when President Bush issued an order allowing agents to wiretap citizens without judicial approval.
Bush's actions surprised many lawyers familiar with the court's workings, because federal law allows the US attorney general to authorize wiretaps without waiting for a warrant, as long as federal agents later present evidence to a judge.
Bush and his advisers have argued that the need for rapid monitoring of international telephone calls involving terrorism suspects had justified his decision to allow agents to bypass the surveillance law.
The court ''doesn't provide the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of threat," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said yesterday.
But many lawyers familiar with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as the group of judges who secretly authorize national security wiretaps is known, challenged Gonzales's description of the court procedures as cumbersome. Records showed that the court had rejected none of more than 11,000 requests for warrants from 1979 through 2001. Since then, it has rejected just four of more than 5,200 applications.

CNN 2005

President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11.

2005 - Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense

BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want — I don’t need to consult any other branches — that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.

2006 - Bush's Wiretaps Ruled Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Detroit says the Bush administration's domestic wiretap program violates both federal law and the Constitution and orders the warrantless suveillance program shut down. The ruling is the first definitive response to a barrage of legal suits. The Justice Department will appeal. In the meantime, both sides in the suit agree to a hold on the order to shut down the program.

John Dean, 2005

George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security

 

[Texas]

Take it up with Patrick Fitzgerald.

He caught Libby in a perjury trap. So what? He sure as hell didn't convict him of outing a super spy. Fitsmas never came.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No they followed the authorisation given to them by the patriot act. Plame was a desk jockey and there was not a single person that didn't know that she worked for the CIA. Hell her idiot husband introduced her as his "little spy". Please post a "lie" Bush told to congress. He fired 9 AT WILL employees for not doing their jobs.

Your facts on Plame reflect NeoCon talking points but are not supported by the evidence.

The Patriot Act was never intended to permit widespread eves-dropping. FISA already existed and was adequate for that and included at least some judicial oversight. Congress did expand the wiretapping powers of the NSA in 2007. Hopefully they will rescind those prone to abuse rights of the government to spy on anyone without cause after the economic priorities are resolved.

If this was spying for national security, the arguments FISA was insufficient do not hold water. The only reason this makes any sense is if Bush was spying to keep politically damaging whistle blowers in check.

There was no reason whatsoever to out Plame except to discredit Wilson's whistle blowing that Bush was faking the evidence Saddam had weapons. And guess what? No yellow cake, no WMDs, and the yellow cake story was known to be false before Bush put it in his State of the Union speech.

But do tell us, Tex, why out Plame regardless of what she did for the CIA, and why discredit Wilson's now known to be accurate report?

 

[Texas]

Your facts on Plame reflect NeoCon talking points but are not supported by the evidence.

The Patriot Act was never intended to permit widespread eves-dropping. FISA already existed and was adequate for that and included at least some judicial oversight. Congress did expand the wiretapping powers of the NSA in 2007. Hopefully they will rescind those prone to abuse rights of the government to spy on anyone without cause after the economic priorities are resolved.

If this was spying for national security, the arguments FISA was insufficient do not hold water. The only reason this makes any sense is if Bush was spying to keep politically damaging whistle blowers in check.

There was no reason whatsoever to out Plame except to discredit Wilson's whistle blowing that Bush was faking the evidence Saddam had weapons. And guess what? No yellow cake, no WMDs, and the yellow cake story was known to be false before Bush put it in his State of the Union speech.

But do tell us, Tex, why out Plame regardless of what she did for the CIA, and why discredit Wilson's now known to be accurate report?

No one "outed" Plame she was outed in the nineties.Get your facts straight. As to Wilson he is a hopeless liar and that is why his lawsuit has been laughed out of court. He should be in jail. Read the link I posted. The yellowcake story was not known to be false it was in fact true. From the link

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.