Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Bush used the AUMF to authorize the NSA to bypass the FISA courts or perhaps you forgot that little fact.

Does the AUMF give him that ability, or doesn't it? Imagine that I don't know and am just asking.

I dont know who suggested that. Another straw man?

You can drop the snark any time, BTW.

Ashcroft (DoJ)/Gonzales (WH) provided the memo or "finding" to justify (or provide cover for)using the AUMF to give the president the unilateral power to authorize the NSA to bypass FISA.

Rumsfeld (DoD)/Woo(DoJ)/Addington (WH) provided the memo or "finding" to justifying (or provide cover for) using the AUMF to give the president the unilateral power to authorize the circumvention of Geneva Conventions and US Convention on Torture, both of which the US is a signator.

Bush and/or Cheney signed off on both of the above.

No one has suggested going after "all the administration officials." IMO, the decision makers are the ones that should be held accountable and those, for the most part, are limited to the above individuals....not the hundreds of government officials who carried out the activities.

I dont know if those actions are legal...many constitutional scholars believe the actions represented an abuse of power.

IMO, that is why we need an investigation... so that the limits of executive power are clear to Obama and all future presidents.

Snark for snark.

[Undertoad]

I was snarky to sugarpop, and I apologize for that. Any snark you read in my comments to you is strictly your reading of it.

My question is on the table: does the AUMF authorize the bypassing of FISA? I don't know; my guess is that it does, based on some of the Wiki entry on the controversy. But the length of the entry, and its 156 citations, tell us it's a very complex question, at least. The signing of memos taking a position on it (or cover for it) does not alter the question.

My instinctive take on it is from a letter in that article:

The president’s power as military commander in chief, in time of constitutionally authorized war, of course includes the power to intercept enemy communications, including enemy communications with persons here in the United States who may be in league with the enemy, and to follow the chain of such communications where it leads, in order to wage the war against the enemy and, of vital importance, to protect the nation against further attacks.

That sounds reasonable.

As far as the "circumvention" of Geneva and the USCoT, my position is that Geneva doesn't apply, and the USCoT seems to lack the specific language needed to make a legal case. It doesn't mention waterboarding and doesn't give concrete examples in its definition of torture. It's weak, as is the entire notion of international law in the first place.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I was snarky to sugarpop, and I apologize for that. Any snark you read in my comments to you is strictly your reading of it.

My question is on the table: does the AUMF authorize the bypassing of FISA? I don't know; my guess is that it does, based on some of the Wiki entry on the controversy. But the length of the entry, and its 156 citations, tell us it's a very complex question, at least. The signing of memos taking a position on it (or cover for it) does not alter the question.

My instinctive take on it is from a letter in that article:



That sounds reasonable.

As far as the "circumvention" of Geneva and the USCoT, my position is that Geneva doesn't apply, and the USCoT seems to lack the specific language needed to make a legal case. It doesn't mention waterboarding and doesn't give concrete examples in its definition of torture. It's weak, as is the entire notion of international law in the first place.

We obviously disagree but the bottom line is neither of our opinions on the AUMF and the extent of presidential powers it authorizes, or our different perspectives on which branch of our government has the legal authority to interpret US treaty obligations, will carry over to any rule of law. It is an interesting discussion and we can keep it going, but it wont bring clarity to the issue for future presidents.

And when it comes to the extent of presidential "war powers" independent of checks and balances, I would like to see clarity.

That is why I believe further investigation by a bi-partisan independent Commission and a resolution of these issues is in the best interest of the country....and if as a result of such an investigation, compelling evidence emerges that those past actions may have constituted a willful abuse of power, then, IMO, DoJ should consider criminal proceeding against the top decision makers.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

In fact, I think Bush should be investigated and tried for war crimes, among other things.

[classicman]

Perhaps Redux should be investigated, have all his "everything" checked out, his email, under his bed, savings, checking & investments.
Interrogate or question all his friends and coworkers, then...if, IF, the authorities think something is amiss, he should be charged.

I'm probably misreading something in what you are posting here Redux, but I don't think that is the course of action you want to endorse, is it?

[TheMercenary]

Only for anyone in office before Obama and after Clinton. Other than that I don't think he believes anyone should be invesigated for anything.

So far the Demoncrats are off to a grand start. At least they really get complete ownership this time.

Originally Posted by classicman

Perhaps Redux should be investigated, have all his "everything" checked out, his email, under his bed, savings, checking & investments.
Interrogate or question all his friends and coworkers, then...if, IF, the authorities think something is amiss, he should be charged.

I'm probably misreading something in what you are posting here Redux, but I don't think that is the course of action you want to endorse, is it?

I never took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

And no one is talking about checking under the bed etc.

The issue at stake is a serious national policy issue...how far do the rights of executive power extend, particularly when a president claims we are in a "state of war" and no such proclamation has been issued by Congress. Does a president have the right to unilaterally interpret that an AUMF provides the same executive authority as a War Powers Resolution or Declaration of War. I dont think so, nor do many constitutional scholars.

If that is not serious shit that affects all the American people (much more than lying about a blow job), then I dont know what is.

The secondary question is if there sufficient evidence that Bush/Cheney and a small handful of top advisers willfully and intentionally took those executive powers beyond the Constitutional limits.

Or we would just do away with the oath of office and Constitutional checks and balances and Obama and future presidents can use whatever power they want, as long as they say we are in a "state of war" and their actions are to protect America.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I never took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Boy I never would have guessed that.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Boy I never would have guessed that.

Thanks for responding to the substance of my post!

[Shawnee123]

Cops out r us

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

The secondary question is if there sufficient evidence that Bush/Cheney and a small handful of top advisers willfully and intentionally took those executive powers beyond the Constitutional limits.

I don't think that's even secondary. They did what they did, "willfully and intentionally";
1- because they thought it was their right, maybe I should say the right of their offices.
2- because nobody stopped them, reinforcing their beliefs.

So while I agree the issue should be investigated and resolved as to exactly what the limits are, I'd rather it not be a witch hunt.

[Kaliayev]

Ahem. Moving the topic back to the OP...watch the Iranian elections. If Ali Khamenei throws his weight behind Mohammad Khatami's or Mehdi Karroubi's challenge to Ahmadinejad's Presidency, things could get interesting. It could be that they intend to use the nuclear issue to hang him in the elections, let him be the face of the rejectionist camp and take the fall for it at a time when many states are willing to consider rapprochment with the US, North Korea nonwithstanding.

It seems the main worry among Iran's diplomatic corps is that Obama's change in tack is purely tactical and done to shore up world opinion - in other words to get them into talks, make unreasonable demands that Iran could never accept, have the talks collapse and let world opinion hang them. I don't think that is his intention here, but international politics is not a game where loser's get off easy.

For his part, Obama is almost certainly aware of the poisonous levels of infighting among the Iranian leadership, and wishes to proceed cautiously, for fear of insulting one or favouring another to the degree it sets the factions off into another round of infighting. In a country where there is no single, unified command of the armed forces, that is usually a bad idea.

Isn't diplomacy fun?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Thanks for responding to the substance of my post!

You are welcome. I see that your understanding of those who have taken such an oath is limited. It really puts things in perspective for me.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You are welcome. I see that your understanding of those who have taken such an oath is limited. It really puts things in perspective for me.

You're the man!

But your personal attacks wont change the facts or my opinions.

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

Ahem. Moving the topic back to the OP...watch the Iranian elections. If Ali Khamenei throws his weight behind Mohammad Khatami's or Mehdi Karroubi's challenge to Ahmadinejad's Presidency, things could get interesting. It could be that they intend to use the nuclear issue to hang him in the elections, let him be the face of the rejectionist camp and take the fall for it at a time when many states are willing to consider rapprochment with the US, North Korea nonwithstanding.

It seems the main worry among Iran's diplomatic corps is that Obama's change in tack is purely tactical and done to shore up world opinion - in other words to get them into talks, make unreasonable demands that Iran could never accept, have the talks collapse and let world opinion hang them. I don't think that is his intention here, but international politics is not a game where loser's get off easy.

For his part, Obama is almost certainly aware of the poisonous levels of infighting among the Iranian leadership, and wishes to proceed cautiously, for fear of insulting one or favouring another to the degree it sets the factions off into another round of infighting. In a country where there is no single, unified command of the armed forces, that is usually a bad idea.

Isn't diplomacy fun?

I think Obama might proceed on multiple diplomatic tracks to subtlety pressure Iran.

Working with the Russians by showing a willingness to abandon Bush's plan for US missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republican in return for more Russian pressure and/or stiffer economic sanctions on Iran.

Opening discussion with Syria to persuade them, perhaps with incentives, that it is not in their interest to be a Iranian puppet state.

And working quietly and behind the scenes through these renewed external relations with the more "moderate" elements in the Iranian government.

Diplomacy can be fun and productive if applied more effectively than the bullying approach of the last eight years.