Constitution meant Nothing to Bush Administration
It's hard to believe, but it just keeps getting worse. From the New York Times, today:
"WASHINGTON — Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men....according to former administration officials."
Testing the Constitution. Really. Testing it by openly violating it and seeing if anyone had the guts to try to stop them.
"...Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the....suspects...."
Now a side light about the words I left out above. Yes, these guys were (however ludicrously) regarded as terrorism suspects. I didn't leave that out to hide the fact, but because it doesn't make any difference. The law is absolutely clear that what was proposed here is totally illegal, no matter what the excuse:
"....both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.
....In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose."
Sure.
"The memorandum — written by the lawyers John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty — was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales"
Surprise, surprise! Who could have ever guessed that Yoo and Gonzales would be involved?
The material was "advanced by Mr. Cheney, his legal adviser David S. Addington and some senior Defense Department officials. "
Addington too. Was every right wing scum in the administration in on this?
"Senior military officials were never consulted, former officials said."
Why bother?
"Former officials said the 2002 debate arose partly from Justice Department concerns that there might not be enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the suspects in Lackawanna. Mr. Cheney, the officials said, had argued that the administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them enemy combatants and keep them in military custody."
Well, I guess that justifies it then. There wasn't enough evidence to convict them, so let's just seize them anyway and throw them in jail without a trial. That works, huh?
My God, and people still refuse to face how close we came to a police state with these guys running things. This is not a mindless slur like the wingnut claims that Obama is the new Hitler. It's the simple truth.
"The lawyers, in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote that the Constitution, the courts and Congress had recognized a president’s authority “to take military actions, domestic as well as foreign, if he determines such actions to be necessary"
More of the brilliant legal logic of Berkeley Law Professor Yoo. You know, California is in a big budget mess. I've got an idea how to save $80,000 or so, really easily. Can you guess what it might be?
These people were nothing but criminals. They got into White House through Supreme Court corruption, and then proceeded to do everything they could to destroy this country. It is a sick perversion that they are not all in prison.
"WASHINGTON — Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men....according to former administration officials."
Testing the Constitution. Really. Testing it by openly violating it and seeing if anyone had the guts to try to stop them.
"...Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the....suspects...."
Now a side light about the words I left out above. Yes, these guys were (however ludicrously) regarded as terrorism suspects. I didn't leave that out to hide the fact, but because it doesn't make any difference. The law is absolutely clear that what was proposed here is totally illegal, no matter what the excuse:
"....both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.
....In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose."
Sure.
"The memorandum — written by the lawyers John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty — was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales"
Surprise, surprise! Who could have ever guessed that Yoo and Gonzales would be involved?
The material was "advanced by Mr. Cheney, his legal adviser David S. Addington and some senior Defense Department officials. "
Addington too. Was every right wing scum in the administration in on this?
"Senior military officials were never consulted, former officials said."
Why bother?
"Former officials said the 2002 debate arose partly from Justice Department concerns that there might not be enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the suspects in Lackawanna. Mr. Cheney, the officials said, had argued that the administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them enemy combatants and keep them in military custody."
Well, I guess that justifies it then. There wasn't enough evidence to convict them, so let's just seize them anyway and throw them in jail without a trial. That works, huh?
My God, and people still refuse to face how close we came to a police state with these guys running things. This is not a mindless slur like the wingnut claims that Obama is the new Hitler. It's the simple truth.
"The lawyers, in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote that the Constitution, the courts and Congress had recognized a president’s authority “to take military actions, domestic as well as foreign, if he determines such actions to be necessary"
More of the brilliant legal logic of Berkeley Law Professor Yoo. You know, California is in a big budget mess. I've got an idea how to save $80,000 or so, really easily. Can you guess what it might be?
These people were nothing but criminals. They got into White House through Supreme Court corruption, and then proceeded to do everything they could to destroy this country. It is a sick perversion that they are not all in prison.
Comments
I understand Obama's intent to give the Republicans no knee-jerk issues to latch onto, until he can pass a decent health care bill. I am encouraged by the fact that he is seeing to it that information like this keeps dribbling out, to keep this issue alive. Once he has accomplished the passage of a decent health care bill, I believe he is going to be willing to let this issue take off- I hope I am not being a foolish optimist about his willingness to put a stop to this abomination once and for all.