Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush lawyer, according to Sidney Blumenthal: "Not everything we've done has been illegal."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 01:16 AM
Original message
Bush lawyer, according to Sidney Blumenthal: "Not everything we've done has been illegal."
Edited on Thu Jun-21-07 01:23 AM by BurtWorm
:wtf:


http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/06/21/bush_torture/print.html
Imperial presidency declared null and void

Bush may ignore the 4th Circuit's stinging rebuke of his war paradigm. But his policies are losing the cloak of legality.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Jun. 21, 2007 | In private, Bush administration sub-Cabinet officials who have been instrumental in formulating and sustaining the legal "war paradigm" acknowledge that their efforts to create a system for detainees separate from due process, criminal justice and law enforcement have failed. One of the key framers of the war paradigm (in which the president in his wartime capacity as commander in chief makes and enforces laws as he sees fit, overriding the constitutional system of checks and balances), who a year ago was arguing vehemently for pushing its boundaries, confesses that he has abandoned his belief in the whole doctrine, though he refuses to say so publicly. If he were to speak up, given his seminal role in formulating the policy and his stature among the Federalist Society cadres that run it, his rejection would have a shattering impact, far more than political philosopher Francis Fukuyama's denunciation of the neoconservatism he formerly embraced. But this figure remains careful to disclose his disillusionment with his own handiwork only in off-the-record conversations. Yet another Bush legal official, even now at the commanding heights of power, admits that the administration's policies are largely discredited. In its defense, he says without a hint of irony or sarcasm, "Not everything we've done has been illegal." He adds, "Not everything has been ultra vires" -- a legal term referring to actions beyond the law.

The resistance within the administration to Bush's torture policy, the ultimate expression of the war paradigm, has come to an end through attrition and exhaustion. More than two years ago, Vice President Dick Cheney's then chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and then general counsel David Addington physically cornered one of the few internal opponents, subjecting him to threats, intimidation and isolation. About that time, the tiny band of opponents within approached Karen Hughes, newly named undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, hoping that the longtime confidante of President Bush, now assigned responsibility for the U.S. image in the world, might be willing to hear them out on the damage done by continuation of the torture policy. But she rebuffed them.

Two weeks ago, Hughes unveiled her major report, extolling "our commitment to freedom, human rights and the dignity and equality of every human being," but making no mention of detainee policy. The action part consists of another of her campaign-oriented rapid-response schemes, this one a Counterterrorism Communications Center, staffed by military and intelligence officers, to rebut the false claims of terrorists. Asked whether the administration's policies might be a factor contributing to the problem, Sean McCormick, the State Department spokesman, replied, "You're always going to get people criticizing policy."

...

On June 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, the most conservative in the country, issued a decision striking at the heart of Bush's conception of the presidency. In al-Marri v. Wright, the court ruled that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a resident of Qatar, arrested as a student at Bradley University in the United States, accused of aiding al-Qaida, could not be held in indefinite detention as an "enemy combatant" and must be remanded to the civilian criminal court system. (Al-Marri, in an affidavit, claimed to have been tortured.) The decision acknowledged that al-Marri might have committed serious crimes. But the government's assertion that the president has "inherent constitutional authority," rooted in his "war-making powers," is a "breathtaking claim" contrary to U.S. constitutional law and history.

"The President," the court said, "claims power that far exceeds that granted him by the Constitution." This extraordinary decision, citing the Framers, declared Bush's actions -- and his imperial presidency -- null and void....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 01:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. I must read the whole thing. thanks for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diane in sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. Great article. Another brick in the wall?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
3. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
4.  "Not everything we've done has been illegal."
Damn

like that makes any difference

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
5. Very interesting passages from the court decision in al-Marri v. Wright
snip>

"The President," the court said, "claims power that far exceeds that granted him by the Constitution." This extraordinary decision, citing the Framers, declared Bush's actions -- and his imperial presidency -- null and void. It is worth quoting at some length:

"Put simply, the Constitution does not allow the President to order the military to seize civilians residing within the United States and detain them indefinitely without criminal process, and this is so even if he calls them "enemy combatants" ... Of course, this does not mean that the President lacks power to protect our national interests and defend our people, only that in doing so he must abide by the Constitution. We understand and do not in any way minimize the grave threat international terrorism poses to our country and our national security ... The Court has specifically cautioned against "break faith with this Nation's tradition" -- "firmly embodied in the Constitution" -- "of keeping military power subservient to civilian authority." Reid, 354 U.S. at 40. When the Court wrote these words in 1957, it explained that "he country ha remained true to that faith for almost one hundred seventy years." Id. Another half century has passed but the necessity of "remain true to that faith" remains as important today as it was at our founding."

Then, the court delivered the coup de grâce to Bush's "war paradigm." Having cited the Framers, it now cited the example of Abraham Lincoln.

"In an address to Congress at the outset of the Civil War, President Lincoln defended his emergency suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to protect Union troops moving to defend the Capital. Lincoln famously asked: "re all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Abraham Lincoln, Message to Congress in Special Session (July 4, 1861), in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1859-1865 at 246, 254 (Don E. Fehrenbacher ed., 1989). The authority the President seeks here turns Lincoln's formulation on its head. For the President does not acknowledge that the extraordinary power he seeks would result in the suspension of even one law and he does not contend that this power should be limited to dire emergencies that threaten the nation. Rather, he maintains that the authority to order the military to seize and detain certain civilians is an inherent power of the Presidency, which he and his successors may exercise as they please. To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them "enemy combatants," would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution -- and the country. For a court to uphold a claim to such extraordinary power would do more than render lifeless the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the rights to criminal process in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments; it would effectively undermine all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. It is that power -- were a court to recognize it -- that could lead all our laws "to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces." We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic."

Few, if any, presidents have ever been the subject of such a devastating legal decision. While presidential actions have been ruled illegal or unconstitutional in the past, they were individual acts. But in the case of Bush, the al-Marri decision not only discredits Bush's position but denies his idea of his presidential legitimacy in the American tradition. The decision also declares that Bush's idea is a mortal threat to the Constitution. And this ruling was issued by the most conservative court in the land.

snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. "...this does not mean that the President lacks power to protect our national interests..."
"...and defend our people, only that in doing so he must abide by the Constitution."


You mean he *hasn't* been abiding by the Constitution, your honors?

It's amazing how they just toss that off like a "tsk, tsk." The new normal: The "president" may or may not abide by the Constitution. The courts may or may not remind him to abide by it. Congress probably won't even censure the bastard for violating the fundamental principle of his job.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
6. Great Article - looks there is reason to be more hopeful for our civil rights- but the Patriot Act &
the Military Commissions Act need to be cleaned up - and that is a major cleaning - ASAP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
8. Yeah, and I hear that Ted Bundy never exceeded the speed limit while driving.
I'm am so sick of the Bush administration I could start screaming and never stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brigid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Yeah . . .
and Al Capone loved opera. Funny (peculiar) how much the Bush regime resembles a bunch of gangster thugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anitar1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Oops,PADemocrat. Sounds as if you, too, have Rage
Fatigue. Welcome to the group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
9. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
10. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. ...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. There's a great bumper stick for you
"Bush/Cheney. Only 90% illegal!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Kind of like Drudge's "Now just 20% inaccurate."
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Exactly
And like "Clear skies initiative. Air you can almost breathe."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
17. Meal Times Are the Legal Parts, I Suppose
Hard to break the law while eating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
18. so? what is anyone going to do about this?
nixon was impeached for a traffic ticket compared to these scumbags have done and are still doing. the house and the senate won`t stop them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
19. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
20. OMG, that's priceless
Talk about setting yourself a low standard!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC