Like his DoJ "torture memo." Which is, simply put, staggering. In short, it gives the President the power to violate laws or statutes at his discretion:
... the memo provides an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war. It contends that numerous laws and treaties forbidding torture or cruel treatment should not apply to U.S. interrogations in foreign lands because of the president's inherent wartime powers.
"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," Yoo wrote. "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."
In another memo, Yoo wrote that "the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations," which served as a handy legal opinion for the government's recent eavesdropping program.
Coincidentally, according to Yoo, it's the president who decides when we're at war, and when the nation is under threat. As a body, Yoo's Justice memoranda gave the president the legal basis for unlimited power. As long as the president claimed he was defending the nation in time of war - which he alone defines - from threats - which he alone defines - any action is permissible.
Naturally, as Firedoglake's looseheadprop reminded us, the SCOTUS has already determined the president has no such powers. In short, 1952's Youngstown Steel decision stated that the president is subject to the laws of the country and bound to enforce them, even in time of war.
Justice Frankfurter, from that decision:
Not so long ago it was fashionable to find our system of checks and balances obstructive to effective government. It was easy to ridicule that system as outmoded - too easy. The experience through which the world has passed in our own day has made vivid the realization that the Framers of our Constitution were not inexperienced doctrinaires. These long-headed statesmen had no illusion that our people enjoyed biological or psychological or sociological immunities from the hazards of concentrated power. It is absurd to see a dictator in a representative product of the sturdy democratic traditions of the Mississippi Valley. [343 U.S. 579, 594] The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority.
In short, even a dim-witted and uneducated blogger sees the gaping holes in Yoo's argumentation that are either the product of gross ignorance or malice. You pick.
So. What to do with the information that Dick Cheney et al knew and approved of torture? Take satisfaction his fate in Dante's Inferno is immersion in boiling pitch? Or do you think he's a traitor to his benefactors and lords - the American people - and should be found in the deepest pit of Hell, eternally frozen in ice?
Remember, here's all you need to know about torture: torture makes terrorism worse, it's not effective, and it's immoral. Oh yeah. And illegal.
At what point do you put impeachment back on the table? It's in Congress' best interests to set a precedent that an executive grab for unlimited power will not be tolerated, right? I mean, they want to preserve their power, right? |
