Bush suddenly an interesting character again

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Certainly you don't believe for one minute that Obama, or for that matter Clinton did not receive the same treatment. The days of Kennedy are long gone.

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.

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").

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

That is why I believe that these memos, written by DOJ attorney John Woo et al, in the months after 9/11 could very well be the evidence and should be declassified:

Fourth Amendment doesnt apply to military operations..in the US

Laws and treaties regarding treatment of prisoners

Options for interpreting the Geneva Conventions

Convention against torture has limited applications in the US

Legality of communications intelligence activities

...and the whole damn list.

http://www.propublica.org/special/missing-memos?s=1

The public has a right to know and it would pose no threat to national security.