Robert Parry: How Close the Bush Bullet

[babylonsister]

How Close the Bush Bullet

By Robert Parry
March 4, 2009


Earlier this decade when some of us warned that George W. Bush was behaving more like an incipient dictator than the leader of a constitutional republic, we were dismissed as alarmists, left-wingers, traitors and a host of less printable epithets.

But it is now increasingly clear that President Bush and his top advisers viewed the 9/11 attacks as an opportunity to implement a series of right-wing legal theories that secretly granted Bush unlimited power to act lawlessly and outside the traditional parameters of the U.S. Constitution.

These theories held that at a time of war – even one as vaguely defined as the “war on terror” – Bush’s powers as Commander in Chief were “plenary,” or total. And since the conflict against terrorism had no boundaries in time or space, his unfettered powers would exist everywhere and essentially forever.

According to his administration's secret legal memos released Monday, Bush could waive all meaningful constitutional rights of citizens, including the First Amendment’s protections on free speech and a free press.

John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department's powerful Office of Legal Counsel – which advises a President on the limits of his constitutional powers – declared that Bush could void the First Amendment if he deemed it necessary to fight terrorism.

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Yoo wrote in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo entitled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.”

Yoo then added ominously, "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

more...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/030409.html

[FiveGoodMen]

1. K&R

[katty]

2. K&R

[gordianot]

3. Who did Yoo think were terrorists?

According to this article just about anyone.

Yoo acknowledged that in “war on terror” cases, an “enemy combatant” may have no formal connection to an enemy group, may have no weapon, and may have no discernable plan for carrying out a terrorist attack. In other words, an “enemy combatant” could be anyone that Bush so designated.

[babylonsister]

4. Exactly, and that's why this had the potential to be so awful. nt

[struggle4progress]

9. Education chief calls teachers union 'terrorist organization' (2004)

By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, "a terrorist organization" during a private meeting with governors Monday ... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-23-paige-remarks_x.htm

[Raster]

5. But it is now increasingly clear that President Bush* and his top advisers

viewed caused the 9/11 attacks as an opportunity to implement a series of right-wing legal theories that secretly granted Bush unlimited power to act lawlessly and outside the traditional parameters of the U.S. Constitution.:kick:

[Politicalboi]

6. You are so

RIGHT!. 9/11 was their tool to do everything they could to take this country down. And 2.3 Trillion dollars from the Pentagon on 09/10/01. I heard that the side of the Pentagon that got attacked was where all their files to track the 2.3 Trillion were at. Just like WTC 7 with all of Enron's papers too. How convenient. And they were NEVER asked again about the 2.3 Trillion dollars.

[Raster]

7. 9/11 was THE KEY that opened all the fascist locks on our government.

9/11 was THE NEW PEARL HARBOR that dispelled all questions about stolen elections and illegitimate presidencies. 9/11 allowed the bush*/cheney* mis-administration to morph from a lackluster, second-rate political scenario into a world-changing, neoCON dynamic.

[seafan]

8. Yoo: "The President’s power to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, ..."

Robert Parry writes in How Close the Bush Bullet, March 4, 2009

.....

Another Yoo memo, dated June 27, 2002, essentially voided the Sixth Amendment and a federal law guaranteeing Americans the right to public trials. In the memo, Yoo asserted that Bush had the power to declare American citizens “enemy combatants” and detain them indefinitely.

“The President’s power to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, is based on his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief,” Yoo wrote, adding that “Congress may no more regulate the President’s ability to detain enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield.”

Yoo acknowledged that in “war on terror” cases, an “enemy combatant” may have no formal connection to an enemy group, may have no weapon, and may have no discernable plan for carrying out a terrorist attack. In other words, an “enemy combatant” could be anyone that Bush so designated.

Under Yoo’s analysis, an alleged “enemy combatant” would have no legal recourse, since Bush’s Commander in Chief powers trumped even habeas corpus requirements that the government must show cause for imprisoning someone. Further, this opinion wasn’t just hypothesizing; it provided the legal basis for indefinitely detaining U.S. citizen Jose Padilla.

Though the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately issued a narrow 5-4 decision overturning Bush’s supposed right to deny habeas corpus and punish “enemy combatants” through his own military court system, many of Yoo’s concepts survived in the Military Commissions Act, which was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2006.

While the law appears on the surface to target only non-citizens, fine print deep in the legislation makes clear that the Bush administration still was asserting its power to detain U.S. citizens who were viewed as aiding and abetting foreign enemies and to punish those citizens through military commissions that denied normal due-process rights to defendants.

“Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” the law states, adding that “any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.”

The reference to people acting “in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States” would not apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda but would cover American citizens.

The Military Commissions Act remains in effect to this day, although President Barack Obama has vowed not to apply it, favoring use of regular civilian or military courts.

.....

To Congress: The Miltary Commissions Act of 2006 should be revisited, to remove John Yoo's work.


And, how much longer will John Yoo walk freely on our streets?