Forget the surface
Dec. 21st, 2005 11:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI've been mentioning, of late, the Gonzales and Yoo memos, about presidential power in time of war.
Bruce Schneier sums it up pretty damned well here (it was also an op-ed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but he goes into more detail on his blog, if I read it right).
My complaint with the Bush administration's views is that they argue the president has unlimited powers during wartime. This is the idea which led Bush to say his telling the NSA to spy on people was legal, and to allow torture, hold citizens as, "enemy combatants" and all the other things people (at this point on both sides of the aisle, from Bob Barr [of all people] to the ACLU).
But on to what Bruce had to say on it.
Here's the opening paragraph of the Yoo memo. Remember, think of this power in the hands of your least favorite politician when you read it:
There's a similar reasoning in the Braybee memo, which was written in 2002 about torture:
The crucial point, is here, "Yoo starts by arguing that the Constitution gives the president total power during wartime. He also notes that Congress has recently been quiescent when the president takes some military action on his own, citing President Clinton's 1998 strike against Sudan and Afghanistan.
Yoo then says: "The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks. ... The President's power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader."
This is novel reasoning. It's as if the police would have greater powers when investigating a murder than a burglary.
More to the point, the congressional resolution of Sept. 14, 2001, specifically refused the White House's initial attempt to seek authority to preempt any future acts of terrorism, and narrowly gave Bush permission to go after those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
Yoo's memo ignored this. Written 11 days after Congress refused to grant the president wide-ranging powers, it admitted that "the Joint Resolution is somewhat narrower than the President's constitutional authority," but argued "the President's broad constitutional power to use military force ... would allow the President to ... [take] whatever actions he deems appropriate ... to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters."
Even if Congress specifically says no.
And that's what scares me. This president believes he is the final arbiter of what is legal.
When I look at the GAO saying the Ohio vote was suspect, and probably corrupt, the President's supporters arguing that it's more important to investigate those who leaked that spying of questionable legality was going on (never mind that those to whom they leaked sat on it for a year; that's another issue altogether, one which ties into whom the Press is serving, and how much it can be trusted in these days) rather than to ponder the idea that the president has been, for the past four years, engaging in wiretaps without warrants. When I see real harm to our intelligence efforts being done, and those same supporters saying that's just business as usual, "nothing to see here, move along." When I see the Courts being used to avoid review (for which the 4th Circuit just slapped the administration upside the head; with statements that the credibilty was in jeopardy, because questions of similar nature would come up again, and this makes it hard to think them acting in good faith), when I see the president saying he can declare anyone, anywhere, an enemy combatant; at which point they lose all civil rights, when I see him ignoring the findings of the tribunals he constitutes, and holding those deemed innocent by them...
When I see things like that, I begin to think him a threat to the republic, as great a threat as we have ever faced.
I begin to see an American Caesar.
Bruce Schneier sums it up pretty damned well here (it was also an op-ed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but he goes into more detail on his blog, if I read it right).
My complaint with the Bush administration's views is that they argue the president has unlimited powers during wartime. This is the idea which led Bush to say his telling the NSA to spy on people was legal, and to allow torture, hold citizens as, "enemy combatants" and all the other things people (at this point on both sides of the aisle, from Bob Barr [of all people] to the ACLU).
But on to what Bruce had to say on it.
Here's the opening paragraph of the Yoo memo. Remember, think of this power in the hands of your least favorite politician when you read it:
You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
There's a similar reasoning in the Braybee memo, which was written in 2002 about torture:
In a series of opinions examining various legal questions arising after September 11, we have examined the scope of the President's Commander-in-Chief power. . . . Foremost among the objectives committed by the Constitution to [the President's] trust. As Hamilton explained in arguing for the Constitution's adoption, ‘because the circumstances which may affect the public safety’ are ‘not reducible within certain limits, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority, which is to provide for the defense and safety of the community, in any manner essential to its efficacy.’ . . . [The Constitution’s] sweeping grant vests in the President an unenumerated Executive power . . . The Commander in Chief power and the President’s obligation to protect the Nation imply the ancillary powers necessary to their successful exercise.
The crucial point, is here, "Yoo starts by arguing that the Constitution gives the president total power during wartime. He also notes that Congress has recently been quiescent when the president takes some military action on his own, citing President Clinton's 1998 strike against Sudan and Afghanistan.
Yoo then says: "The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks. ... The President's power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader."
This is novel reasoning. It's as if the police would have greater powers when investigating a murder than a burglary.
More to the point, the congressional resolution of Sept. 14, 2001, specifically refused the White House's initial attempt to seek authority to preempt any future acts of terrorism, and narrowly gave Bush permission to go after those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
Yoo's memo ignored this. Written 11 days after Congress refused to grant the president wide-ranging powers, it admitted that "the Joint Resolution is somewhat narrower than the President's constitutional authority," but argued "the President's broad constitutional power to use military force ... would allow the President to ... [take] whatever actions he deems appropriate ... to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters."
Even if Congress specifically says no.
And that's what scares me. This president believes he is the final arbiter of what is legal.
When I look at the GAO saying the Ohio vote was suspect, and probably corrupt, the President's supporters arguing that it's more important to investigate those who leaked that spying of questionable legality was going on (never mind that those to whom they leaked sat on it for a year; that's another issue altogether, one which ties into whom the Press is serving, and how much it can be trusted in these days) rather than to ponder the idea that the president has been, for the past four years, engaging in wiretaps without warrants. When I see real harm to our intelligence efforts being done, and those same supporters saying that's just business as usual, "nothing to see here, move along." When I see the Courts being used to avoid review (for which the 4th Circuit just slapped the administration upside the head; with statements that the credibilty was in jeopardy, because questions of similar nature would come up again, and this makes it hard to think them acting in good faith), when I see the president saying he can declare anyone, anywhere, an enemy combatant; at which point they lose all civil rights, when I see him ignoring the findings of the tribunals he constitutes, and holding those deemed innocent by them...
When I see things like that, I begin to think him a threat to the republic, as great a threat as we have ever faced.
I begin to see an American Caesar.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 08:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 05:44 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 08:50 am (UTC)You see rightly.
And what I cannot understand is why Jerry Pournelle, for all his classical education and talk of Republic vs. Empire, doesn't see Bush in this way.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-23 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 10:35 am (UTC)When I see things like that, I begin to think him a threat to the republic, as great a threat as we have ever faced.
My "favorite" part of that speech on Monday was when he got visibly agitated in the press conference, and started demanding that we trust him to do his job. Why should we?
Then, of course, they definitely want THIS investigated, when the Valerie Plame leak was "well, that's the way...".
It's not that I don't agree we need to keep America safe - I just do not trust him to not abuse the power. Or not even him, necessarily. It doesn't have to go that high. But he has surrounded himself with people in the government that share his viewpoint - and I don't trust *them* either. As one of our Canadian friends said during the first election, it's not that he's a horrible, horrible person. He's just surrounded himself with people who all think along similar lines, and there's no one to provide a breath of fresh air.
As far as America's intelligence having credibility, if it hadn't been used to support #1 of how many theories now, maybe it would have more credibility. Intelligence CANNOT flourish in a situation where the people who produce it are not open to interpret everything, where the senior people have made it clear that they want intelligence to support a certain view. You can't just ignore intel you don't like, and you can't tell your intel people what box to put their information in, and what bow to use when they tie it up - not if you want accuracy.
Just my opinion, in no way reflects the opinion of anyone else around me.
DV
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 05:49 pm (UTC)Things like the NSA crap, and Padilla, and the Canadian (Mahar?) we kidnapped and sent to Syria to be totured, those offend me. They even piss me off.
Abu Ghraib, the Salt Pit and things like the death of Dilawar, those insult me, shame me and raise some specific angers.
Plame. That threatens me. It threatens people I know, or know of.
It also makes the nation less safe, which, in it's abstract way also bothers me, but the basic idea of outing an agent; for domestic political gain, and cheap gain at that, it makes me want to smash things.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-12-25 01:17 am (UTC)The imperial conceit is not new with Bush, you know, though perhaps Republicans get it worse. Because the Constitution puts the President in charge of diplomacy, there's a longstanding notion that foreign policy is nobody else's business. There's also firm precedent that the Bill of Rights does not apply to foreigners outside US territory - though no one has explained to me how the US can have any authority at all in the absence of the Constitution.
Anton (http://www.ogre.nu/)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 03:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-25 01:18 am (UTC)Anton (http://www.ogre.nu/)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 05:51 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 05:58 pm (UTC)Succession
Date: 2005-12-22 09:52 pm (UTC)Which is why I both dread and look forward to January, 2009. I really want someone else in charge, but I'm not at all certain how tightly the schedule will be kept to.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 10:21 pm (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2005-12-23 04:14 am (UTC)If I recall correctly, he was quoted as saying during his first term, "This job would be a whole lot easier if I was dictator".
He has been a threat to this nation and all others from day one.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-25 01:24 am (UTC)Day One being the fourth of March 1789.
anton (http://www.ogre.nu/)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-25 01:46 am (UTC)Or when investigating a "Corrupt Organization".
Or as if it were easier to convict two people of a felony for considering a crime than to convict one of a misdemeanor for doing it.
Anton (http://www.ogre.nu/)