Released Bush Memos

[purrfectpear]

Hey now, I''m keeping MY pants on. Wall Street is already trying to take our shirts.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 3/3/2009 9:06:43 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 3/3/2009 8:24:08 PM

Author: purrfectpear

This whole Dems vs. Repubs and Liberals vs. Conservative thing is getting ridiculous when you attempt to paint each other with the brush of whose President abused power the most.


I seriously doubt if any President in the last 60 years has not contemplated, plotted, or actually abused their power and the constitution.


Good lord is there nothing we can agree on? Naive much

sure there is...

we can all agree that Dems should keep their pants on.

Pretty sure the Duggars aren''t Dems...

 

[ksinger]

Date: 3/3/2009 8:24:08 PM
Author: purrfectpear
This whole Dems vs. Repubs and Liberals vs. Conservative thing is getting ridiculous when you attempt to paint each other with the brush of whose President abused power the most.

I seriously doubt if any President in the last 60 years has not contemplated, plotted, or actually abused their power and the constitution.

Good lord is there nothing we can agree on? Naive much

Hardly. Trying to cast what Bush et al tried to do and DID, as equivalent to what any president has thought about doing, is an extremely weak justification in my view. Bush tried to upset the balance of the branches in a such a way as to LEAVE them that way in perpetuity, not just a little "abuse" on his watch. And while some on this board shrug and try to justify the secrecy and extraordinary powers by "it''s a brand new war we''ve never seen the like of" blah blah blah, legal scholars on both sides of the aisle are staggered at the errors of legal justification contained in those memos.

Bush administration memos on presidential powers stun legal experts
Secret memos from the Justice Department said that only the president could set rules in the war on terrorism -- which law professors say flies in the face of the Constitution.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 3/4/2009 7:17:33 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 3/3/2009 8:24:08 PM

Author: purrfectpear

This whole Dems vs. Repubs and Liberals vs. Conservative thing is getting ridiculous when you attempt to paint each other with the brush of whose President abused power the most.


I seriously doubt if any President in the last 60 years has not contemplated, plotted, or actually abused their power and the constitution.


Good lord is there nothing we can agree on? Naive much

Hardly. Trying to cast what Bush et al tried to do and DID, as equivalent to what any president has thought about doing, is an extremely weak justification in my view. Bush tried to upset the balance of the branches in a such a way as to LEAVE them that way in perpetuity, not just a little 'abuse' on his watch. And while some on this board shrug and try to justify the secrecy and extraordinary powers by 'it's a brand new war we've never seen the like of' blah blah blah, legal scholars on both sides of the aisle are staggered at the errors of legal justification contained in those memos.


Bush administration memos on presidential powers stun legal experts

Secret memos from the Justice Department said that only the president could set rules in the war on terrorism -- which law professors say flies in the face of the Constitution.

Great link!

"
Yale law professor Jack Balkin called this a "theory of presidential dictatorship. They say the battlefield is everywhere. And the president can do anything he wants, so long as it involves the military and the enemy."


"You can never get over how bad these opinions were," said Dellinger, who headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Clinton administration. "The assertion that Congress has no role to play with respect to the detention of prisoners was contrary to the Constitution's text, to judicial precedent and to historical practice. For people who supposedly follow the text [of the Constitution], what don't they understand about the phrase 'make rules concerning captures on land and water'?"

Bush's Executive Tyranny - opinion

 

[AllieGator]

Date: 3/4/2009 7:17:33 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 3/3/2009 8:24:08 PM

Author: purrfectpear

This whole Dems vs. Repubs and Liberals vs. Conservative thing is getting ridiculous when you attempt to paint each other with the brush of whose President abused power the most.


I seriously doubt if any President in the last 60 years has not contemplated, plotted, or actually abused their power and the constitution.


Good lord is there nothing we can agree on? Naive much

Hardly. Trying to cast what Bush et al tried to do and DID, as equivalent to what any president has thought about doing, is an extremely weak justification in my view. Bush tried to upset the balance of the branches in a such a way as to LEAVE them that way in perpetuity, not just a little ''abuse'' on his watch. And while some on this board shrug and try to justify the secrecy and extraordinary powers by ''it''s a brand new war we''ve never seen the like of'' blah blah blah, legal scholars on both sides of the aisle are staggered at the errors of legal justification contained in those memos.


Bush administration memos on presidential powers stun legal experts

Secret memos from the Justice Department said that only the president could set rules in the war on terrorism -- which law professors say flies in the face of the Constitution.

Ksinger, I love when you post! I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said.

Just out of curiosity, does the name "Ksinger" come from Henry Kissinger, or something totally unrelated?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 3/3/2009 12:26:13 PM
Author: beebrisk


We have never fought a war like we are fighting now.

In your opinion. God isn't speaking to you, is He?

If we have never fought a war like the the one we are fighting now, what does that mean? Does it mean that new wars mean countries automatically suspend all laws; everything they have learned; their culture; their pacts with other nations? But I digress. For that is really a philosophical question. "The war we are fighting now" must first be discussed!!!

Because I would argue that first, we are fighting two real wars: one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.

I do not believe that simply calling an attitude "the war on terror" makes it into, constitutes, a real war.

I think that the words "the war on terror" are just verbiage, propaganda. Those words actually describe our curent foreign policy. And I believe that the "war" to which you refer, the "war" of the kind we have supposedly never seen, is the so-called "war on terror", no?

I have a problem-a major problem-with the notion that we have never fought a war like the "war on terror" before, since we fought "The Cold War" with verbiage and propaganda. Yes, I think we have fought such a "war" (using the term loosely-very, very loosely) before. And during the Cold War the USSR posed real life dangers to the United States, just as al-Qaeda now poses real-life dangers to the United States. In fact, since the USSR could have decimated the United States with its nuclear weapons, one could argue that it posed even more of a threat to the United States during the Cold War than al-Qaeda does to the United States today.

So I am afraid that I do not buy that argument that these times are extraordinary times, times different from all others, times in which we should allow our Constitution to be trampled because the executive branch is able to frighten the people into docility. I will not be frightened into giving up my rights. I have studied history. Like swimmer.

Deborah

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 3/4/2009 5:47:17 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 3/3/2009 12:26:13 PM

Author: beebrisk



We have never fought a war like we are fighting now.

In your opinion. God isn't speaking to you, is He?


If we have never fought a war like the the one we are fighting now, what does that mean? Does it mean that new wars mean countries automatically suspend all laws; everything they have learned; their culture; their pacts with other nations? But I digress. For that is really a philosophical question. 'The war we are fighting now' must first be discussed!!!


Because I would argue that first, we are fighting two real wars: one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.


I do not believe that simply calling an attitude 'the war on terror' makes it into, constitutes, a real war.


I think that the words 'the war on terror' are just verbiage, propaganda. Those words actually describe our curent foreign policy. And I believe that the 'war' to which you refer, the 'war' of the kind we have supposedly never seen, is the so-called 'war on terror', no?


I have a problem-a major problem-with the notion that we have never fought a war like the 'war on terror' before, since we fought 'The Cold War' with verbiage and propaganda. Yes, I think we have fought such a 'war' (using the term loosely-very, very loosely) before. And during the Cold War the USSR posed real life dangers to the United States, just as al-Qaeda now poses real-life dangers to the United States. In fact, since the USSR could have decimated the United States with its nuclear weapons, one could argue that it posed even more of a threat to the United States during the Cold War than al-Qaeda does to the United States today.


So I am afraid that I do not buy that argument that these times are extraordinary times, times different from all others, times in which we should allow our Constitution to be trampled because the executive branch is able to frighten the people into docility. I will not be frightened into giving up my rights. I have studied history. Like swimmer.


Deborah

I would assert that you are actually the one being "propagandized" that this is "not" a war on terror. While you may call it an "attitude", I call reality.

I realize that our new president has made it a priority to expunge the term from his vocabulary, but that doesn't mean he's right. Oh, I would say he's actually quite wrong. And yes, that is my opinion.

No one, not even the God that perhaps talks to you, is asking you to "buy it". And no one is asking you to be "frightened" into giving up your rights.

I'm glad to hear you've "studied history too" I suspect many have who would venture to disagree with you. Including me. Cause you see, I've actually learned from it.

 

[tradergirl]

Beebrisk, life is to short for this . . . . .

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 3/4/2009 7:09:49 PM
Author: tradergirl
Beebrisk, life is to short for this . . . . .

You probably have a point there!

 

[tradergirl]

I couldn''t be happier with Obama''s first few weeks . . .

 

[AGBF]

Date: 3/4/2009 7:09:49 PM
Author: tradergirl

Beebrisk, life is to short for this . . . . .

For what, tradergirl? For writing about politics on a political forum in response to someone else's polite and coherent posting?


Deborah

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 3/4/2009 7:16:04 PM
Author: tradergirl
I couldn''t be happier with Obama''s first few weeks . . .

 

[AGBF]

Date: 3/4/2009 7:03:48 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 3/4/2009 5:47:17 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 3/3/2009 12:26:13 PM
Author: beebrisk



We have never fought a war like we are fighting now.

In your opinion. God isn''t speaking to you, is He?


If we have never fought a war like the the one we are fighting now, what does that mean? Does it mean that new wars mean countries automatically suspend all laws; everything they have learned; their culture; their pacts with other nations? But I digress. For that is really a philosophical question. ''The war we are fighting now'' must first be discussed!!!


Because I would argue that first, we are fighting two real wars: one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.


I do not believe that simply calling an attitude ''the war on terror'' makes it into, constitutes, a real war.


I think that the words ''the war on terror'' are just verbiage, propaganda. Those words actually describe our curent foreign policy. And I believe that the ''war'' to which you refer, the ''war'' of the kind we have supposedly never seen, is the so-called ''war on terror'', no?


I have a problem-a major problem-with the notion that we have never fought a war like the ''war on terror'' before, since we fought ''The Cold War'' with verbiage and propaganda. Yes, I think we have fought such a ''war'' (using the term loosely-very, very loosely) before. And during the Cold War the USSR posed real life dangers to the United States, just as al-Qaeda now poses real-life dangers to the United States. In fact, since the USSR could have decimated the United States with its nuclear weapons, one could argue that it posed even more of a threat to the United States during the Cold War than al-Qaeda does to the United States today.


So I am afraid that I do not buy that argument that these times are extraordinary times, times different from all others, times in which we should allow our Constitution to be trampled because the executive branch is able to frighten the people into docility. I will not be frightened into giving up my rights. I have studied history. Like swimmer.


Deborah

I would assert that you are actually the one being ''propagandized'' that this is ''not'' a war on terror. While you may call it an ''attitude'', I call reality.

I realize that our new president has made it a priority to expunge the term from his vocabulary, but that doesn''t mean he''s right. Oh, I would say he''s actually quite wrong. And yes, that is my opinion.

No one, not even the God that perhaps talks to you, is asking you to ''buy it''. And no one is asking you to be ''frightened'' into giving up your rights.

I''m glad to hear you''ve ''studied history too'' I suspect many have who would venture to disagree with you. Including me. Cause you see, I''ve actually learned from it.

You wrote, "We have never fought a war like we are fighting now." A statement of fact.

I, on the other hand, wrote, "I do not believe ...."

and "I think...."

etcetera.

The reason that I pointed out that it was not God''s truth, but only your opinion, that you voiced above is that you acted as if anything you

stated must be true!!! I, on the other hand, made clear that my beliefs were just that: my beliefs. Not the Deity''s. So I don''t need the

reminder that God is not speaking to me personally, thank you.


Deborah

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 3/4/2009 8:32:55 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 3/4/2009 7:03:48 PM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 3/4/2009 5:47:17 PM

Author: AGBF

Date: 3/3/2009 12:26:13 PM

Author: beebrisk




We have never fought a war like we are fighting now.

In your opinion. God isn't speaking to you, is He?



If we have never fought a war like the the one we are fighting now, what does that mean? Does it mean that new wars mean countries automatically suspend all laws; everything they have learned; their culture; their pacts with other nations? But I digress. For that is really a philosophical question. 'The war we are fighting now' must first be discussed!!!



Because I would argue that first, we are fighting two real wars: one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.



I do not believe that simply calling an attitude 'the war on terror' makes it into, constitutes, a real war.



I think that the words 'the war on terror' are just verbiage, propaganda. Those words actually describe our curent foreign policy. And I believe that the 'war' to which you refer, the 'war' of the kind we have supposedly never seen, is the so-called 'war on terror', no?



I have a problem-a major problem-with the notion that we have never fought a war like the 'war on terror' before, since we fought 'The Cold War' with verbiage and propaganda. Yes, I think we have fought such a 'war' (using the term loosely-very, very loosely) before. And during the Cold War the USSR posed real life dangers to the United States, just as al-Qaeda now poses real-life dangers to the United States. In fact, since the USSR could have decimated the United States with its nuclear weapons, one could argue that it posed even more of a threat to the United States during the Cold War than al-Qaeda does to the United States today.



So I am afraid that I do not buy that argument that these times are extraordinary times, times different from all others, times in which we should allow our Constitution to be trampled because the executive branch is able to frighten the people into docility. I will not be frightened into giving up my rights. I have studied history. Like swimmer.



Deborah

I would assert that you are actually the one being 'propagandized' that this is 'not' a war on terror. While you may call it an 'attitude', I call reality.


I realize that our new president has made it a priority to expunge the term from his vocabulary, but that doesn't mean he's right. Oh, I would say he's actually quite wrong. And yes, that is my opinion.


No one, not even the God that perhaps talks to you, is asking you to 'buy it'. And no one is asking you to be 'frightened' into giving up your rights.


I'm glad to hear you've 'studied history too' I suspect many have who would venture to disagree with you. Including me. Cause you see, I've actually learned from it.

You wrote, 'We have never fought a war like we are fighting now.' A statement of fact.


I, on the other hand, wrote, 'I do not believe ....'


and 'I think....'



etcetera.



The reason that I pointed out that it was not God's truth, but only your opinion, that you voiced above is that you acted as if anything you


stated must be true!!! I, on the other hand, made clear that my beliefs were just that: my beliefs. Not the Deity's. So I don't need the



reminder that God is not speaking to me personally, thank you.



Deborah

I would think you would understand the implication of my statement "We have never fought..." was in fact, my OPINION. Was that implication too subtle??

But alas, my opinion is based on FACTS, so that might be an issue for you.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 3/4/2009 3:41:20 PM
Author: AllieGator


Ksinger, I love when you post! I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said.

Just out of curiosity, does the name ''Ksinger'' come from Henry Kissinger, or something totally unrelated?

Thanks AllieGator, that''s very nice of you to say. I don''t post that much anymore actually. But I''ve been pretty consistent in my concern over this issue, hence the comment.

ksinger? Just from my first name and the fact that I''m a singer. A rusty one who''s vocal range may be starting to deteriorate a tiny bit due to age (my once-solid high D kinda comes and goes), but I claim the moniker of singer nonetheless.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 3/4/2009 5:47:17 PM
Author: AGBF

I will not be frightened into giving up my rights.

You must be REALLY concerned about the Federal Government using it''s power in the FCC to censor the overly-conservative radio media!

 

[trillionaire]

One cannot ''fight'' terror. Though one could fight a ''terrorist''. Or better yet, a specific group of people that are actually responsible for some wrong doing, or the plotting of wrong doing, or the harboring of wrong-doers. Defining the ''war'' as he did, Bushie made it seem like a culture war between a group of nebulous foes and the united states. for this reason, we have americans who wantonly associate muslims with terrorists, needless profiling innocent and peaceful people. Racial profiling is inefficient and ineffective. We erroneously attacked a sovereign nation, something not taken lightly in the international community. We have dishonored our duty to our own troops by needlessly putting them in the way of danger without fully and honestly inerrogating the facts. Current Prez is wise to actually define our targets, because Us vs. Them nativistic thinking is particularly dangerous in a country as diverse as ours. The "You''re either with us, or against us" line was probably the worst propaganda ever for non-reflective and easily manipulated people.

And as far as "this war is different from ever other war..."

Every war is unique and context and situation specific. Clearly. With every war, we adapt new strategies and try out new ideas to become better at protecting ourselves and our country. The constant in each situation, the only constant, is our own laws, our own understanding of justice and fairness and privacy, of rules and jurisprudence. If we allow ''our enemies'' to cause the very foundation of our democracy to be slowly chipped away, then truly they have won, and in a way that is much more dangerous and insidious than a bomb. It''s the different between depriving lives of a few, and depriving the lives of an entire nation.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 3/4/2009 8:59:22 PM
Author: beebrisk


I would think you would understand the implication of my statement ''We have never fought...'' was in fact, my OPINION. Was that implication too subtle??

But alas, my opinion is based on FACTS, so that might be an issue for you.

How can one assume that what you present as fact is meant to be construed as opinion? What do you mean by your "opinion being based on facts" might "be an issue" for me? Can you translate that into English?


Deborah

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 3/4/2009 9:04:58 PM
Author: Rank Amateur

Date: 3/4/2009 5:47:17 PM

Author: AGBF


I will not be frightened into giving up my rights.

You must be REALLY concerned about the Federal Government using it's power in the FCC to censor the overly-conservative radio media!

I think this is a little off-topic, but I will say that while I am uncomfortable with the idea of infringing on freedom of speech, I do feel that it is the responsibility of those who provide news and information to the public to do so in a way that does not grossly misrepresent reality. For one thing, the fairness doctrine swings both ways, so let's be clear on that. Second, it is negligent to essentially lie to your listeners and never allow them to hear anything to the contrary. It's a sticky situation for sure. You should bump the thread on this topic if you would like to continue the discourse.

/threadjack, apologies!

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 3/4/2009 9:08:01 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 3/4/2009 8:59:22 PM

Author: beebrisk



I would think you would understand the implication of my statement 'We have never fought...' was in fact, my OPINION. Was that implication too subtle??


But alas, my opinion is based on FACTS, so that might be an issue for you.

How can one assume that what you present as fact is meant to be construed as opinion? What do you mean by your 'opinion being based on facts' might 'be an issue' for me? Can you translate that into English?



Deborah

The very same way one can assume that the "facts" Trillionaire refers to above regarding profiling, dishonoring our troops and "Bushie's" use of a "culture war" are her "opinion". As of yet, I haven't seen your post imploring her to qualify those statements, even though there wasn't much use there of the predicates "I believe" or "I think".

So exactly WHEN will you be asking her when G-d last spoke to her??

Yeah, didn't think you would.

And as a side note, I can only wonder about the rankling that would ensue had I ever referred to him as "Obamie".

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 3/4/2009 10:05:52 PM
Author: beebrisk

The very same way one can assume that the 'facts' Trillionaire refers to above regarding profiling, dishonoring our troops and 'Bushie's' use of a 'culture war' are her 'opinion'. As of yet, I haven't seen your post imploring her to qualify those statements, even though there wasn't much use there of the predicates 'I believe' or 'I think'.


So exactly WHEN will you be asking her when G-d last spoke to her??


Yeah, didn't think you would.


And as a side note, I can only wonder about the rankling that would ensue had I ever referred to him as 'Obamie'.

Obamie isn't very cute sounding. Maybe Barry or 'Rackie would be better. or BO, that's always good for a chuckle. I actually typed Obamie, but thought it sounded stupid.

I welcome you to submit nicknames, we all need something to laugh about these days.

And a god would have to exist to speak to me, so no need for anyone to ask me about it.

Further, what sort of proof are you looking for to prove that these Bush memos represented illegal or unconstitutional actions? Legal scholars interpret the law, and give a legal opinion. It just depends on what your job is as to how much a particular person's opinion matters. if you are a SCJ, then your opinion matters a lot. Bush's legal counsel rescinded the memos because they overreached. Bush disregarded national and international policies on torture 'because he felt he should be able to' (my opinion, to be clear). Unfortunately, IMO, the US doesn't have the balls to prosecute a former sitting prez. that doesn't mean that none of his actions were unsound or illegal.

And what are we debating here? There is political consensus across the aisles that Bush was WAY out of line, and are glad the memos were rescinded. We have a new prez who thinks that our rights should be protected, even when we are in difficult times. All good things. We can all be happy

An international commission on Bush Crimes (I don't presume that this is unbiased, but could be a good starting point for what crimes to explore.) Enjoy the read!

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 3/4/2009 10:19:37 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 3/4/2009 10:05:52 PM

Author: beebrisk


The very same way one can assume that the ''facts'' Trillionaire refers to above regarding profiling, dishonoring our troops and ''Bushie''s'' use of a ''culture war'' are her ''opinion''. As of yet, I haven''t seen your post imploring her to qualify those statements, even though there wasn''t much use there of the predicates ''I believe'' or ''I think''.



So exactly WHEN will you be asking her when G-d last spoke to her??



Yeah, didn''t think you would.



And as a side note, I can only wonder about the rankling that would ensue had I ever referred to him as ''Obamie''.

Obamie isn''t very cute sounding. Maybe Barry or ''Rackie would be better. or BO, that''s always good for a chuckle. I actually typed Obamie, but thought it sounded stupid.

I welcome you to submit nicknames, we all need something to laugh about these days.


And a god would have to exist to speak to me, so no need for anyone to ask me about it.


Further, what sort of proof are you looking for to prove that these Bush memos represented illegal or unconstitutional actions? Legal scholars interpret the law, and give a legal opinion. It just depends on what you job is as to how much a particular person''s opinion matters. if you are a SCJ, then your opinion matters a lot. Bush''s legal counsel rescinded the memos because they overreached. Bush disregarded national and international policies on torture ''because he felt he should be able to'' (my opinion, to be clear). Unfortunately, IMO, the US doesn''t have the balls to prosecute a former sitting prez. that doesn''t mean that none of his actions were unsound or illegal.


And what are we debating here? There is political consensus across the aisles that Bush was WAY out of line, and are glad the memos were rescinded. We have a new prez who thinks that our rights should be protected, even when we are in difficult times. All good things. We can all be happy

And I appreciate the decidedly toned-down snark of your post. Well, except for the admittedly punny Obamie stuff. Really.

However, I will humbly disagree with you about our new president protecting our rights. Case in point: What about the rights of health care workers who choose not to be involved with abortions? Latest word is the administration is seriously considering tossing those (Bush-instated) protections leaving nurses, doctors and others vulnerable to job termination because of their beliefs. In fact, it is expected his intention is to be published sometime this week.

I don''t want to get into another conversation on abortion, but if ALL our rights are to be protected that must also include those who choose to honor their consciences...no matter what side of the aisle.

 

[trillionaire]

not sure what snarking you are referring to. The only thing I maybe could read that way was Obamie sounding stupid. What I meant was, I typed it that way in the same post as I typed ''Bushie" (severals posts back), it just felt wrong, so I went with plain old boring Obama.

ANYway, I look forward to the upcoming legal actions and memos from the ''Obamie'' administration. I agree wholeheartedly that people should have protected rights to be conscientious objectors. I don''t think people should be required to sign loyalty oaths to work in CA state and government jobs, I don''t think that prison guards or doctors should ''have'' to kill prisoners. I think all possible precautions should be taken so that people who feel compromised in being asked to preform duties that are part of their job description have co-workers who do not feel that way, so that consumers have the full range of options available to them, and not a circumscribed set of options. however, people need to exercise personal responsibility, and not unduly put themselves in jobs where they constantly feel at odds with their job description. Perhaps another line of worth would be more suitable. If I was Jehovah''s Witness, and didn''t believe in blood transfusions, perhaps it is not best to be a doctor, because the level of care that you can offer to patients is not the highest level of care available.

Further, the distinction between people losing jobs for refusing to perform work functions (legal and most states anyway) is far and away from absolving the basic civil liberties guaranteed to all americans, as the critiques of the Bush memos indicate. (free speech, freedom from search and seizure, rights of habeus corpus). As a former constitutional law professor, I will be very interest in BO''s legal briefs and memos, and will keep a close eye on whether they are exclusionary in nature, as you suggest.