Yoo Memo

[Chilly]

I'm somewhat surprised this story hasn't been posted here yet.

 

From http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/04/02/D...ance/index.html

 

WASHINGTON—For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.

 

That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.

 

.....

 

"Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations," the footnote states, referring to a document titled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States."

[GG]

Linky no worky

[Chilly]

Replaced with link to the same story on Salon.com

[UConn James]

BF, I don't exactly think anyone's surprised by this Admin's readiness to take a red pen to the Constitution.

 

Not like the title of the document blatantly describes activity that violates Posse Comitatus or anything.... But, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

[GG]

The article is heavily swayed by the opinion of people quoted. The Executive offered this rationale.

 

Seems like a disagreement in interpretation of powers granted to the executive during wartime. To be decided in the courts, or by clarifying legislation, not on the pages of Salon.

[OCinBuffalo]

The article is heavily swayed by the opinion of people quoted. The Executive offered this rationale.

 

Seems like a disagreement in interpretation of powers granted to the executive during wartime. To be decided in the courts, or by clarifying legislation, not on the pages of Salon.

Due process? Separation of powers? The fact that the Bush administration doesn't control either? That he doesn't control every person in every federal office? Blasphemy. Don't you know that the minute Bush got elected suddenly he became dictator of America and omnipotently aware of every thing every single thing that every single Federal employee does, and is therefore responsible for it, but at the same time is an idiot, and a good liar to boot?

 

</sarcasm>

 

Seriously, it's this endless oversimplification = BushBad = that has made all of these arguments cliched. They may have had some value, um probably in 2006 sometime, but whatever value is long gone, thanks to repeating the same thing over and over again, which is all the democrat "leadership" seems capable of doing. God forbid they propose a workable idea, and lead on how to implement it....what? nothing? oh yeah, tell us about how bad Bush is again.

 

I promise that these guys will stop hearing Bushbad the minute they stop saying, well, Bushbad. I know it's an addiction and I know it's a hard habit to break. How about if they provided 1, just 1, workable idea about how to improve things in Iraq, instead of endlessly defining the problem, again? Better yet, how about offering 1 workable idea about how to make sure we don't mess with the Constitution, but still get the NSA, CIA, FBI and HS the tools they need to prevent another 911?

 

<crickets for five minutes....then "Bushbad">

 

The fact is that with 9/11 we didn't even have the law on the books to figure out who was supposed to do what and how regarding so many issues that anybody would have been accused of "running roughshod" over the constitution by doing anything. Again, it's cliched. I'm interested in getting things right and results, not blame.

 

I guarantee that whoever spends most of their time on that this time around wins.