George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution

Skeptic Ginger · 6th March 2009, 02:39 AM

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

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2009, 03:18 AM

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

BPSCG · 6th March 2009, 04:40 AM

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:

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2009, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by 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:

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 · 6th March 2009, 07:35 AM

Bush Be Gone - let's move on.

INRM · 6th March 2009, 09:40 AM

DavidJames,

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

Beerina · 6th March 2009, 10:05 AM

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 · 6th March 2009, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 6th March 2009, 10:59 AM

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 · 6th March 2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 6th March 2009, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 6th March 2009, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

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 · 6th March 2009, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

That was where I decided to stop reading.

How come you didn't decide to stop posting?

BPSCG · 6th March 2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

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 · 6th March 2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Skeptic Ginger · 6th March 2009, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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 · 6th March 2009, 01:46 PM

Zzzz...

Skeptic Ginger · 6th March 2009, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by 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:

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 · 6th March 2009, 01:59 PM

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

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2009, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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...

Skeptic Ginger · 6th March 2009, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

If you've been following the story over the years, this crowd not only acted on many of these memos, they crafted them as cover before engaging in the activities after the activities were planned.

The most outrageous things which were done:

Fired career Republican prosecuting attorneys from the department of justice because they would not carry out politically motivated prosecutions in their districts.
Used the DoJ to carry out politically motivated prosecutions.
Fired hundreds of career prosecuting attorneys and replaced them with new graduates from Pat Robertson's then unaccredited Regents School of Law. (It has since become accredited but remains a 4th tier college, the lowest ranking.)
Implemented wide spread domestic spying programs with the purpose of wiretapping reporters to find out who in the White House was leaking politically damaging information.
Leaked their own stories to the Media to influence public opinion including the outing of the CIA agent to discredit Ambassador Wilson's evidence the Iraq-yellow cake story was false and threaten future leakers with similar retaliation.
Arrested domestically and held at least one American in a military jail for ~5 years without trial or access to the courts.
The whole Gitmo, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary renditions, and torture episodes

Skeptic Ginger · 6th March 2009, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

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...

The point of the dictator reference is that Bush ignored the other two branches of government and acted on the premise the President was separate and UNequal.

Skeptic Ginger · 6th March 2009, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

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

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

Are you agreeing then, the memos were acted on?

Quote:

The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.

And, gee what a surprise, the very people involved claimed they quit acting on the memos:

Quote:

The memorandum issued by Mr. Bradbury this January appears to have been the Bush lawyers’ last effort to reconcile their views with the wide rejection by legal scholars and some Supreme Court opinions of the sweeping assertions of presidential authority made earlier by the Justice Department.

(emphasis mine)

The Central Scrutinizer · 6th March 2009, 02:15 PM

Do you have any dirt on Eisenhower by chance?

jj · 6th March 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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

I must be doing something right, I guess, if you're so deeply impressed. Or did you mean somebody else this time?

Metullus · 6th March 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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

Wrong to seek legal opinions? Or wrong to not implement them?

KingMerv00 · 6th March 2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Lincoln - Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Suspending Habeas Corpus is constitutional if the proper channels are used. (I don't remember, did Lincoln use the proper channels?) To give him a little credit, Lincoln was dealing with a civil war. A big one.

Quote:

Schenck v. U.S.

An understandable and difficult decision. I'm of two minds on this one.

Quote:

Korematsu v. U.S.

Shameful miscarriage of justice.

Doesn't really matter though. Your examples are irrelevant because you are relying on the tu quoque fallacy. The fact that other presidents did potentially bad things does not excuse Bush for doing potentially bad things.

BPSCG · 6th March 2009, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by jj

I must be doing something right, I guess, if you're so deeply impressed. Or did you mean somebody else this time?

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

INRM · 6th March 2009, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

If you've been following the story over the years, this crowd not only acted on many of these memos, they crafted them as cover before engaging in the activities after the activities were planned.

The most outrageous things which were done:

Fired career Republican prosecuting attorneys from the department of justice because they would not carry out politically motivated prosecutions in their districts.
Used the DoJ to carry out politically motivated prosecutions.
Fired hundreds of career prosecuting attorneys and replaced them with new graduates from Pat Robertson's then unaccredited Regents School of Law. (It has since become accredited but remains a 4th tier college, the lowest ranking.)
Implemented wide spread domestic spying programs with the purpose of wiretapping reporters to find out who in the White House was leaking politically damaging information.
Leaked their own stories to the Media to influence public opinion including the outing of the CIA agent to discredit Ambassador Wilson's evidence the Iraq-yellow cake story was false and threaten future leakers with similar retaliation.
Arrested domestically and held at least one American in a military jail for ~5 years without trial or access to the courts.
The whole Gitmo, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary renditions, and torture episodes

They also deliberately screened out liberals applying for jobs in the DOJ.

BPSCG · 6th March 2009, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Suspending Habeas Corpus is constitutional if the proper channels are used. (I don't remember, did Lincoln use the proper channels?) To give him a little credit, Lincoln was dealing with a civil war. A big one.

The only mention of habeas corpus in the Constitution is Article I, section 9, which reads in part:

Quote:

Section 9 - Limits on Congress
...
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

It was argued that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, that only Congress had that power. Congress was not in session at the time that Lincoln had John Merryman arrested. Merryman sued for his release, and Chief Justice Roger Taney heard his complaint (not as part of a Supreme Court hearing). Taney ruled (in Ex Parte Merryman) that Lincoln had exceeded his authority. Lincoln disregarded the ruling, and asked Congress, rhetorically, "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"

Congress eventually got around to suspending habeas corpus anyway, so while Lincoln may have exceeded his powers, Congress confirmed the suspension.

I just noticed something. The Constitution says habeas corpus is a privilege, rather than a right. I wonder what that's about...?

Skeptic Ginger · 6th March 2009, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Metullus

Wrong to seek legal opinions? Or wrong to not implement them?

Wrong to fabricate them out of whole cloth.

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

KingMerv00 · 6th March 2009, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

The only mention of habeas corpus in the Constitution is Article I, section 9, which reads in part:

It was argued that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, that only Congress had that power. Congress was not in session at the time that Lincoln had John Merryman arrested. Merryman sued for his release, and Chief Justice Roger Taney heard his complaint (not as part of a Supreme Court hearing). Taney ruled that Lincoln had exceeded his authority. Lincoln disregarded the ruling, and asked Congress, rhetorically, " "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"

Congress eventually got around to suspending habeas corpus anyway, so while Lincoln may have exceeded his powers, Congress confirmed the suspension.

I just noticed something. The Constitution says habeas corpus is a privilege, rather than a right. I wonder what that's about...?

Ah, memory lapse. I knew Congress needed to approve but for some reason I thought the President needed to sign off on the Congressional act too. Guess not.

I least I was right to say that the suspension of HC is constitutional if the proper channels were used.

Skeptic Ginger · 6th March 2009, 02:59 PM

Here's a link to the memoranda texts and a list of a whole slew of these not yet disclosed.

The Missing Memos

And some more useful links:

Bush Administration War on Terror Memos; Center for Media and Democracy

Find Law link to the memoranda, Bush Administration’s Legal Debate Over Torture, Interrogation Policies, Treatment of Enemy Combatants and Detainees, and the Applicability of Prisoner of War Status

The American Presidency Project is a source for all sorts of Presidents' papers and speeches.

Pardalis · 6th March 2009, 03:01 PM

Are they the same memos as discussed here?

Skeptic · 6th March 2009, 03:07 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmm...........

From "The Onion":

Quote:

Local President Bush Hating Man Decided to become Ex-President Bush Hating Man

January 23rd, 2009, by our Reporter

"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." said James Smith (35), whose web page, www.ihatepresidentbush.com had recently been moved to www.ihateexpresidentbush.com . In a three-hour interview, Smith said...

OK, this is a fake fake news item -- it didn't really appear in "The Onion" -- but really, what's the difference (apart from the fact that "The Onion"'s writers intend to write nonsense people will laugh at, that is)?

Even Harper's deadpan satirical style is the same as "The Onion"'s.

Skeptic Ginger · 6th March 2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Are they the same memos as discussed here?

Yep. I looked for a thread before starting one. I may have missed that one because torture is not the main topic I had in mind. I am concerned about abuse of power.

Skeptic Ginger · 6th March 2009, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

It was???

Damn, all those presidential and local and senate elections -- including the ones the Republicans Bush supported lost -- must have been one big fake.

I also seem to have missed the reeducation camps, the constant unending praise for Bush in the media, and a few other minor things dictatorships tend to have.

I suppose this is the king's new dicatorship: only smart men (who read Harper's, I suppose) can see it.

I tale it you also have not bothered to find out what this is all about?

Pardalis · 6th March 2009, 03:24 PM

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

Sword_Of_Truth · 6th March 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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

Mother Jones = Alex Jones... with hairier legs

Brainster · 6th March 2009, 03:49 PM

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.

6th March 2009, 02:39 AM	#1
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,536	George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution 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 Quote: 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.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

6th March 2009, 04:40 AM	#3
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	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: Quote: 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

6th March 2009, 06:38 AM	#4
GStan Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wheeling, WV Posts: 1,342	Originally Posted by 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: 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).
	__________________ On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling "Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate Last edited by GStan; 6th March 2009 at 06:40 AM.

6th March 2009, 07:35 AM	#5
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,085	Bush Be Gone - let's move on.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

6th March 2009, 09:40 AM	#6
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	DavidJames, Unless we learn from the mistakes made in the past, we have no way of being able to avoid repeating them again
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

6th March 2009, 03:18 AM	#2
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Well... if Mother Jones says so...

6th March 2009, 10:05 AM	#7
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	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.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

6th March 2009, 10:26 AM	#8
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by 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. Outside of government, this is what's commonly known as "brainstorming." "C'mon, people, let's have all your ideas, no matter how outlandish..."
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

6th March 2009, 10:59 AM	#9
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,780	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.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

6th March 2009, 11:59 AM	#10
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by 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. 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?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

6th March 2009, 12:05 PM	#11
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,780	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

6th March 2009, 12:09 PM	#12
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

6th March 2009, 12:10 PM	#13
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,714	Originally Posted by BPSCG That was where I decided to stop reading. How come you didn't decide to stop posting?
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

6th March 2009, 12:33 PM	#14
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by JihadJane 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

6th March 2009, 12:37 PM	#15
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,746	Originally Posted by 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. I don't think anyone's saying it's new. I think we're saying that it's wrong.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

6th March 2009, 01:43 PM	#16
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,536	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth 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.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

6th March 2009, 01:46 PM	#17
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,899	Zzzz...
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

6th March 2009, 01:47 PM	#18
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,536	Originally Posted by 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: 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.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

6th March 2009, 01:59 PM	#19
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,424	The New York Times, that well-known neocon rag, doesn't hyperventilate as much as Scott Horton: Quote: 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.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

6th March 2009, 02:01 PM	#20
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	Originally Posted by skeptigirl 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...
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

6th March 2009, 02:04 PM	#21
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,536	Originally Posted by 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. If you've been following the story over the years, this crowd not only acted on many of these memos, they crafted them as cover before engaging in the activities after the activities were planned. The most outrageous things which were done: Fired career Republican prosecuting attorneys from the department of justice because they would not carry out politically motivated prosecutions in their districts. Used the DoJ to carry out politically motivated prosecutions. Fired hundreds of career prosecuting attorneys and replaced them with new graduates from Pat Robertson's then unaccredited Regents School of Law. (It has since become accredited but remains a 4th tier college, the lowest ranking.) Implemented wide spread domestic spying programs with the purpose of wiretapping reporters to find out who in the White House was leaking politically damaging information. Leaked their own stories to the Media to influence public opinion including the outing of the CIA agent to discredit Ambassador Wilson's evidence the Iraq-yellow cake story was false and threaten future leakers with similar retaliation. Arrested domestically and held at least one American in a military jail for ~5 years without trial or access to the courts. The whole Gitmo, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary renditions, and torture episodes
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

6th March 2009, 02:06 PM	#22
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,536	Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear 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... The point of the dictator reference is that Bush ignored the other two branches of government and acted on the premise the President was separate and UNequal.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

6th March 2009, 02:08 PM	#23
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,536	Originally Posted by Brainster The New York Times, that well-known neocon rag, doesn't hyperventilate as much as Scott Horton: So apparently the dictatorship that Horton obsesses about ended sometime in 2003. Are you agreeing then, the memos were acted on? Quote: The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants. And, gee what a surprise, the very people involved claimed they quit acting on the memos: Quote: The memorandum issued by Mr. Bradbury this January appears to have been the Bush lawyers’ last effort to reconcile their views with the wide rejection by legal scholars and some Supreme Court opinions of the sweeping assertions of presidential authority made earlier by the Justice Department. (emphasis mine)
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 6th March 2009 at 02:13 PM.*

6th March 2009, 02:15 PM	#24
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,268	Do you have any dirt on Eisenhower by chance?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

6th March 2009, 02:23 PM	#25
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,503	Originally Posted by BPSCG JJ, I love you. Your posts are devoid of the slightest shred of logic, fact, linear reasoning, and rationality. I must be doing something right, I guess, if you're so deeply impressed. Or did you mean somebody else this time?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

6th March 2009, 02:23 PM	#26
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 3,963	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I don't think anyone's saying it's new. I think we're saying that it's wrong. Wrong to seek legal opinions? Or wrong to not implement them?
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

6th March 2009, 02:25 PM	#27
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 Lincoln - Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus Suspending Habeas Corpus is constitutional if the proper channels are used. (I don't remember, did Lincoln use the proper channels?) To give him a little credit, Lincoln was dealing with a civil war. A big one. Quote: Schenck v. U.S. An understandable and difficult decision. I'm of two minds on this one. Quote: Korematsu v. U.S. Shameful miscarriage of justice. Doesn't really matter though. Your examples are irrelevant because you are relying on the tu quoque fallacy. The fact that other presidents did potentially bad things does not excuse Bush for doing potentially bad things.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust? Last edited by KingMerv00; 6th March 2009 at 02:30 PM.

6th March 2009, 02:35 PM	#28
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by jj I must be doing something right, I guess, if you're so deeply impressed. Or did you mean somebody else this time? I was afraid that was going to happen. No, you're jj, not JJ.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

6th March 2009, 02:45 PM	#29
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Originally Posted by skeptigirl If you've been following the story over the years, this crowd not only acted on many of these memos, they crafted them as cover before engaging in the activities after the activities were planned. The most outrageous things which were done: Fired career Republican prosecuting attorneys from the department of justice because they would not carry out politically motivated prosecutions in their districts. Used the DoJ to carry out politically motivated prosecutions. Fired hundreds of career prosecuting attorneys and replaced them with new graduates from Pat Robertson's then unaccredited Regents School of Law. (It has since become accredited but remains a 4th tier college, the lowest ranking.) Implemented wide spread domestic spying programs with the purpose of wiretapping reporters to find out who in the White House was leaking politically damaging information. Leaked their own stories to the Media to influence public opinion including the outing of the CIA agent to discredit Ambassador Wilson's evidence the Iraq-yellow cake story was false and threaten future leakers with similar retaliation. Arrested domestically and held at least one American in a military jail for ~5 years without trial or access to the courts. The whole Gitmo, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary renditions, and torture episodes They also deliberately screened out liberals applying for jobs in the DOJ.
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

6th March 2009, 02:47 PM	#30
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Suspending Habeas Corpus is constitutional if the proper channels are used. (I don't remember, did Lincoln use the proper channels?) To give him a little credit, Lincoln was dealing with a civil war. A big one. The only mention of habeas corpus in the Constitution is Article I, section 9, which reads in part: Quote: Section 9 - Limits on Congress ... The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. It was argued that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, that only Congress had that power. Congress was not in session at the time that Lincoln had John Merryman arrested. Merryman sued for his release, and Chief Justice Roger Taney heard his complaint (not as part of a Supreme Court hearing). Taney ruled (in Ex Parte Merryman) that Lincoln had exceeded his authority. Lincoln disregarded the ruling, and asked Congress, rhetorically, "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Congress eventually got around to suspending habeas corpus anyway, so while Lincoln may have exceeded his powers, Congress confirmed the suspension. I just noticed something. The Constitution says habeas corpus is a *privilege*, rather than a right. I wonder what that's about...?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia. Last edited by BPSCG; 6th March 2009 at 02:48 PM.

6th March 2009, 02:48 PM	#31
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,536	Originally Posted by Metullus Wrong to seek legal opinions? Or wrong to not implement them? Wrong to fabricate them out of whole cloth. 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
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 6th March 2009 at 03:09 PM.*

6th March 2009, 02:51 PM	#32
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by BPSCG The only mention of habeas corpus in the Constitution is Article I, section 9, which reads in part: It was argued that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, that only Congress had that power. Congress was not in session at the time that Lincoln had John Merryman arrested. Merryman sued for his release, and Chief Justice Roger Taney heard his complaint (not as part of a Supreme Court hearing). Taney ruled that Lincoln had exceeded his authority. Lincoln disregarded the ruling, and asked Congress, rhetorically, " "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Congress eventually got around to suspending habeas corpus anyway, so while Lincoln may have exceeded his powers, Congress confirmed the suspension. I just noticed something. The Constitution says habeas corpus is a *privilege*, rather than a right. I wonder what that's about...? Ah, memory lapse. I knew Congress needed to approve but for some reason I thought the President needed to sign off on the Congressional act too. Guess not. I least I was right to say that the suspension of HC is constitutional if the proper channels were used.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

6th March 2009, 02:59 PM	#33
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,536	Here's a link to the memoranda texts and a list of a whole slew of these not yet disclosed. The Missing Memos And some more useful links: Bush Administration War on Terror Memos; Center for Media and Democracy Find Law link to the memoranda, Bush Administration’s Legal Debate Over Torture, Interrogation Policies, Treatment of Enemy Combatants and Detainees, and the Applicability of Prisoner of War Status The American Presidency Project is a source for all sorts of Presidents' papers and speeches.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 6th March 2009 at 03:10 PM.*

6th March 2009, 03:01 PM	#34
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Are they the same memos as discussed here?

6th March 2009, 03:07 PM	#35
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Hmmmmmmmmmm........... From "The Onion": Quote: *Local President Bush Hating Man Decided to become Ex-President Bush Hating Man* January 23rd, 2009, by our Reporter "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." said James Smith (35), whose web page, www.ihatepresidentbush.com had recently been moved to www.ihateexpresidentbush.com . In a three-hour interview, Smith said... OK, this is a fake fake news item -- it didn't really appear in "The Onion" -- but really, what's the difference (apart from the fact that "The Onion"'s writers intend to write nonsense people will laugh at, that is)? Even Harper's deadpan satirical style is the same as "The Onion"'s.
	Last edited by Skeptic; 6th March 2009 at 03:34 PM.