Bush suddenly an interesting character again

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Bush wanted to use an Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) issued by Congress immediately after 9/11 (and then a second AUMF for the invasion of Iraq) to be able to justify any subsequent action in the name of fighting terrorism, including spying on citizens and denial of basic rights to and torture of detainees.

Sorry but there really is no evidence to support that Bush specifically said, "Hey guys, go figure out how to spy on citizens and deny of basic rights to and torture detainees." That is a fantasy of people who hate Bush. Those were events which evolved over time with subsequent results. It was not till much later that it was evident in the vagueness of the directives that people began to realize what they had unleashed.

So he goes to his AG and asks for a legal opinion to justify broader powers than those specified in the AUMF. In my opinion (and I am not an attorney) the resulting memos were crafted in such a way that it provided the plausible deniability ("oh sorry, those underlings who implemented my orders just misunderstood my intent").

Broader powers, sure, but who says he set out to prevent basic rights and to torture? Certainly there must be a smoking gun right?

And he had the balls to send his staff to get that legal cover while his AG is in a hospital bed groggy from just coming out of surgery.

And they were denied.

The role of the AG is to enforce the law on behalf of the "people", not provide a president with justification or lega cover to skirt the law in future actions.

Sure, and as we discussed before Reno did the same thing.

Clinton....show me where he ever asked his AG to write a legal opinion to provide cover for any future actions he might want to take.

Obama...show me where he has done the same in the last two weeks?

Kennedy....I would have been a supporter but I was too young at the time, but I think having your brother serve as AG is a bad idea.

It is not so much about what Obama has not done yet, it is about the history of all presidents back at least to the days of Kennedy, whom was more involved in the day to day operations of military and clandestine activity, where they all use plausible denial.

[Undertoad]

Clinton....show me where he ever asked his AG to write a legal opinion to provide cover for any future actions he might want to take.

The Executive branch constantly gets DOJ legal review of things. It's supposed to work that way.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The Executive branch constantly gets DOJ legal review of things. It's supposed to work that way.

I dont think many previous DoJ legal opinions were kept secret in order to allow subsequent actions.

I believe there is evidence that Bush reversed the process. along the lines of (paraprashing) "I know the law says we have to abide by our international treaty obligations, I want a DoJ memo to give me the cover to get around it in our war on terrorism."

All the more reason to have the above cited memos declassified.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Fine...all the more reason to have those DoJ memos declassified.

I agree they should be declassified. In 50 years. Maybe more. I do not support the idea the public needs to know every tidbit of info. That is what we elected officals for. Let them provide the oversight. It does not always need to be released for every arm-chair Monday morning quarterback to review so they can weave conspiracy theory into it. I would never support that.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I agree they should be declassified. In 50 years. Maybe more. I do not support the idea the public needs to know every tidbit of info. That is what we elected officals for. Let them provide the oversight. It does not always need to be released for every arm-chair Monday morning quarterback to review so they can weave conspiracy theory into it. I would never support that.

How can Congress provide oversight w/o access to these documents?

I guess we have different beliefs on transparency and accountability as being in the best interest of the people and ensuring rule by law.

[TheMercenary]

Select committees should have some oversight. Anyone with a computer and a FOIA request should not.

Shouldnt the courts ultimately determine when the 4th amendment applies, not a DoJ attorney opinion?

One of those secret memos:

This memo, titled Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States, concludes that the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless search and seizure don't apply to military operations, even when the operations take place on U.S. soil.

How do you ensure the rule of law when actions are based on secret memos that may be questionable in their interpretation of the law?

Sure other presidents received DoJ opinion memos, but I dont know that they were kept from the public.

[TheMercenary]

How do you know what may or may not have happened if the memos are secret? Those are best taken care of by people with appropriate authority and oversight. Not by armchair quarterbacks second guessing every move.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

How do you know what may or may not have happened if the memos are secret? Those are best taken care of by people with appropriate authority and oversight. Not by armchair quarterbacks second guessing every move.

You didnt answer my question.

How do you ensure that the rule of law is followed when actions are based on secret memos (including being withheld from Congress) that may be questionable in their interpretation of the law?

Congress cant conduct appropriate authority and oversight w/o having access to documents that explain WTF the administration is doing or intending to do based on internal (and unilateral) legal interpretations of the law.

These documents have been withheld from Congress..that is a fact! On every request by the Judiciary Committees in both the House and Senate, the previous White House denied the request with dubious claims of executive privilege.

[TheMercenary]

I can't and don't defend the action of withholding the information from the Judiciary Committees. I do defend the right of government not to release infromation to the general public.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I do defend the right of government not to release infromation to the general public.

I guess that is one NO vote for the Freedom of Information Act

I defend the peoples right to know unless there are clear and unambiguous threats to national security or the invasion of personal privacy by the release of information.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I guess that is one NO vote for the Freedom of Information Act

No.

I defend the peoples right to know unless there are clear and unambiguous threats to national security or the invasion of personal privacy by the release of information.

That is way to broad. There are many reasons not to release information. So you want to see the information and they you get to tell us whether or not it would be a threat to national security? There are other people who are paid to do that. You just aren't one of them. And special interest groups are not either. There is a system in place for this process. It works.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

....There is a system in place for this process. It works.

I agree that the system will work if FOIA is returned to its original intent as indicated in Obama's memo.

It did not work for the last eight years when Bush, through an executive order rather than by asking Congress to change the law if he thought it needed changing after 9/11, radically and unilaterally altered the intent of FOIA.

That is not how the framers of the Constitution envisioned the system of checks and balances working.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

It did not work for the last eight years when Bush, through an executive order rather than by asking Congress to change the law if he thought it needed changing after 9/11, radically and unilaterally altered the intent of FOIA.

Objective citation please.

That is not how the framers of the Constitution envisioned the system of checks and balances working.

Controversial opinion.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No.

That is way to broad. There are many reasons not to release information. So you want to see the information and they you get to tell us whether or not it would be a threat to national security? There are other people who are paid to do that. You just aren't one of them. And special interest groups are not either. There is a system in place for this process. It works.

Not any more it doesn't. Hopefully that will be restored with the new administration.