George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

The Oct. 23 memorandum also said that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”

John Yoo’s Constitution is unlike any other I have ever seen. It seems to consist of one clause: appointing the President as commander-in-chief. The rest of the Constitution was apparently printed in disappearing ink.

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.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well... if Mother Jones says so...

 

[BPSCG]

I decided to have a look, seeing as how skeptigirl was kind enough to not do her usual link-dump-as-argument here.

From the first page of the link:

We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended.

That was where I decided to stop reading.

 

[GStan]

I decided to have a look, seeing as how skeptigirl was kind enough to not do her usual link-dump-as-argument here.

From the first page of the link:

That was where I decided to stop reading.

Duh! Could that have anything to do with the fact that that was the last paragraph of the article!? (ETA: oops, no it wasn't, that was just the first page )

In any case, aside from whatever merits there are to the claims that have arisen from the release of these memos, Scott Horton writes like a truther (at least this article anyway).

 

[DavidJames]

Bush Be Gone - let's move on.

 

[INRM]

DavidJames,

Unless we learn from the mistakes made in the past, we have no way of being able to avoid repeating them again

 

[Beerina]

Are these actual, operative memos, or just truly "pre-crafted" ones whose purpose is to explore legal explanations for this or that possibility, but they haven't been "activated", so to speak, and never may be?

Not that I agree with the arguments in it, but there's a world of difference between somebody's intellectual exercise and actual operations.

 

[BPSCG]

Are these actual, operative memos, or just truly "pre-crafted" ones whose purpose is to explore legal explanations for this or that possibility, but they haven't been "activated", so to speak, and never may be?

Not that I agree with the arguments in it, but there's a world of difference between somebody's intellectual exercise and actual operations.

Outside of government, this is what's commonly known as "brainstorming."

"C'mon, people, let's have all your ideas, no matter how outlandish..."

 

[Alt+F4]

What's new here?

Lincoln - Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Wilson - Espionage Act, Schenck v. U.S.
FDR - Ex parte Quirin, Korematsu v. U.S.

 

[BPSCG]

What's new here?

Lincoln - Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Wilson - Espionage Act, Schenck v. U.S.
FDR - Ex parte Quirin, Korematsu v. U.S.

You mean apart from the fact that the article in the OP appears to be about things that the Bush administration considered doing, while your list is a list of things presidents actually did?

 

[Alt+F4]

You mean apart from the fact that the article in the OP appears to be about things that the Bush administration considered doing, while your list is a list of things presidents actually did?

Pray tell, you're right! Lincoln wiped his with the Constitution. FDR was a war criminal. I'm throwing out all my pennies and dimes right now.

I guess is the last hurrah for the "Bush is Hitler" crowd.

 

[BPSCG]

Pray tell, you're right! Lincoln wiped his with the Constitution. FDR was a war criminal. I'm throwing out all my pennies and dimes right now.

Don't throw them out. Send them to me and I'll dispose of them for you.

 

[JihadJane]

That was where I decided to stop reading.

How come you didn't decide to stop posting?

 

[BPSCG]

How come you didn't decide to stop posting?

JJ, I love you. Your posts are devoid of the slightest shred of logic, fact, linear reasoning, and rationality.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What's new here?

Lincoln - Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Wilson - Espionage Act, Schenck v. U.S.
FDR - Ex parte Quirin, Korematsu v. U.S.

I don't think anyone's saying it's new. I think we're saying that it's wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well... if Mother Jones says so...

I take it you prefer to discredit the messenger rather than actually look at the evidence?

The memoranda and the actions of the Justice Department speak very clearly for themselves.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Zzzz...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I decided to have a look, seeing as how skeptigirl was kind enough to not do her usual link-dump-as-argument here.

From the first page of the link:

That was where I decided to stop reading.

First, "link dump" as you call it is actually called, providing citations supporting one's position. And I'd pick out the relevant paragraphs for you to save you having to read anything, but the mods want what's quoted limited.

And as for not bothering to read any of the evidence to judge for yourself or be able to intelligently criticize the conclusion because you don't like the conclusion, that explains why you continue to support people like Bush.

 

[Brainster]

The New York Times, that well-known neocon rag, doesn't hyperventilate as much as Scott Horton:

In a memorandum dated this Jan. 15, five days before President George W. Bush left office, a top Justice Department official wrote that those opinions had not been relied on since 2003. But the official, Steven G. Bradbury, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel, said it was important to acknowledge in writing “the doubtful nature of these propositions,” and he used the memo to repudiate them formally.

So apparently the dictatorship that Horton obsesses about ended sometime in 2003.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And as for not bothering to read any of the evidence to judge for yourself or be able to intelligently criticize the conclusion because you don't like the conclusion, that explains why you continue to support people like Bush.

Bush wasn't good for this country but that article trashes its own point with that dictatorship comment. Bush certainly came out with amendments I didn't like and ones I wish Obama would discontinue, but his practices were not that of a full-fledged dictatorship whether by lack of initiative or whatever. Bush derangement syndrome at its finest though...