Share

Bush Memos on Presidential Power Shock Legal Experts

by: David G. Savage  |  The Chicago Tribune

photo
Former President George W. Bush smiling as he arrives at his new residence in Dallas, Texas. (Photo: Tony Gutierrez / AP)

    Administration sought unchecked wartime authority.

    Washington - Legal experts said Tuesday they were taken aback by the claim in the latest batch of secret Bush-era memos that the president alone had the power to set the rules during the war on terrorism.

    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."

    The criticism was not limited to liberals. "I agree with the left on this one," said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. The approach in the memos "was simply not a plausible reading of the case law. The Bush [Office of Legal Counsel] eventually rejected [the] memos because they were wrong on the law, and they were right to do so."

    Defenders of the administration stress that the memos were written during a time of national emergency. Officials feared, and indeed, expected another terrorist attack within the U.S. They were determined to take all possible steps to prevent it. And by the time the Bush administration came to an end, views within the Justice Department had changed dramatically.

    Still, critics said some in the Bush administration took advantage of the moment.

    "This was a period of panic, and panic creates an opportunity for patriotic politicians to abuse their power," Balkin said.

    The newly released memos were mostly written between 2001 and 2003, and they gave the government broad legal authorization for fighting a new war in a new way. Their common theme was that no laws can limit the president's power in fighting terrorists.

    Congress had prohibited the use of torture by U.S. agents, and it said "no citizen shall be imprisoned" in this country without legal charges. The memos said neither law could stand in the way of the president's power as commander in chief.

    A March 2002 memo, for example, said holding prisoners in wartime "is an area in which the president appears to enjoy exclusive authority, as the power ... is not reserved by the Constitution in whole or in part to any other branch of government."

    Duke Law School professor Walter Dellinger said the Constitution gives Congress considerable power for making wartime rules. Article I says Congress has "all legislative powers," including the power "to declare war ... and make rules concerning captures on land and water" as well as "regulation of the land and naval forces."

    "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'?"

    Most of the memos were written by John Yoo, a deputy director of the Office of Legal Counsel. This small, obscure office writes legal opinions for the attorney general and others in the government. Yoo's memos gave legal guidance to the Defense Department and the White House.

    Five days before the Bush administration came to an end, Steven Bradbury, the head

    Bradbury said many of the legal positions issued between 2001 and 2003 are "not consistent with the current views of OLC."

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The Bush regime crimes must

The Bush regime crimes must be prosecuted. Please contact Leahy and Obama and your own representatives with a note similar to: Dear Senator Leahy, The crimes of the Bush regime are unprecedented, they must be charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The American people expect and demand that. AND Sir, we do not appreciate being marginalized by your complicit locutions about 'fixations' (sic!). The United States Senate, Sir, is not FOX TV.

The argument that they acted

The argument that they acted in a "time of crisis" is a bunch of bull. The whole thing about PRINCIPLES is that you stick to them when the going gets tough. It's easy to stick to your principles when everything is fine and dandy. It's when you're really tested, that it matters the most. And that's what makes these guys traitors. Also? Everyone who supports the Bush administration's actions in this matter, needs to think long and hard about whether they'd feel the same support if, say, Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton or Barack HUSSEIN Obama, or ANY other president was granted the same powers. If you give one president that power, you give it to all of them, whether you agree with their ideology and political rhetoric or not. I'm sick of this, I am sick that nobody in this administration will be prosecuted for their crimes. I am sick that as a regular-joe citizen with an arts degree, I'm more clear and level-headed than our national leaders when it comes to this stuff.

"This was a period of panic,

"This was a period of panic, and panic creates an opportunity for patriotic politicians to abuse their power," Balkin said... I would propose that "patriotic" is the antithesis of the description of these people, just as the "patriot" in the "Patriot Act" is. The administration and its supporters may have been many things, but if a "patriot" is someone that believes in our constitutional government these people were nothing of the sort. The really scary part is that these acts were not stopped by our Congress immediately. Have we heard Congress crying out for the repeal of the MCA and the "Patriot" Act, and repealing the unconstitutional modifications to the FISA? There is something terribly wrong in this country.

People should send a copy of

People should send a copy of the movie "The Siege" to their congress people. I watched it several times after the so-called War on Terror was declared. The use of the word War was just a way to become "commander in chief in time of war". A way to justify the loss of civil-liberties. Congress did nothing. I did not understand when Leader Pelosi took impeachment off the table. I cannot understand why the hearings are not going to prosecute anyone. All crimes against the Constitution should be investigated and taken wherever they need to go. We can spend lots of time and monies on prosecuting "main street" crimes. Why not something as important as a President and his administration run a muck? I am surprised that Congress was so willing to give up its power so easily. They can carry on so about so many ridiculous things at any point in time-why not this.

And what comes to mind here,

And what comes to mind here, AGAIN, is 9/11. Anyone with even a twit of common sense knows that 9/11 was created by the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Gonzales cabal. They got what they wanted and needed in 9/11 to carry out these other atrocities on the Constitution and American People. The initial investigation into 9/11 was a total farce, led by a man whose academic specialty was MYTH-MAKING. It was this first domino of 9/11, predicted and celebrated by The Project for a New American Century, that needs to be re-investigated by a group of people who will carry out an impartial and thorough investigation ending in full disclosure of the truth, however disturbing.

Professor Balkin correctly

Professor Balkin correctly characterized this as a "Presidential Dictatorship!" The only difference between what the Bush Regime characterized as the "Unitary Executive" and the Third Reich is that Hitler titled his equivalent as the "fuhrer prinzip (Fuhrer, or leader principle)!" The factors that both Bush and Hitler have in common is that they were both democratically elected, but both led their nations into totalitarian dictatorship and wars of aggression!

Is anyone investigating

Is anyone investigating disbarment for Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez, Addington, Goodling, etc?

I'm just a small town

I'm just a small town attorney who minored in US history as an undergrad. These memos are no surprise to me--they just track what Bush said and the powers he was given by a pandering Congress. It's clear the bushies from about 2000 (see Bush's statements re: China/Taiwan & water from Canada almost as soon as took office) had plans to build a big political machine as well as pretty much a fascist state or a totalitarian state. And what did Congress do to stop them? They passed & repassed the "patriot" act, the military commissions act, didn't refuse to fund gitmo, gave bush every military appropriation he wanted, what didn't they do? they let cheney claim the vp's office wasn't part of the gov't, they let cheney hold secret talks with the energy industry (enron, anyone?), and who knows what I've left out. No surprise to me. Look at AEI's statements/reports, etc. The ones the public has access to.

The war against terrorism is

The war against terrorism is a fraudulent war. Wars are between countries or maybe ideologies but not against occasional gangsters. The real terrorists were the perpetrators of the Bush administration including the head terrorist. Wake up America!!

James Madison quotes

James Madison quotes (American 4th US President (1809-17), and one of the founding fathers of his country. 1751-1836) --- β€œIf Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” --- "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." and --- "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

The problem lies in the

The problem lies in the Constitution itself when it grants Congress the authority to declare war but makes the President the Commander in Chief. Once war is engaged, all kinds of nasty paradoxes rear their ugly heads upon the battlefield and the President is bound to break or bend a few rules. The battlefield extends to the nation itself, as one must assume the existence of spies and saboteurs. After all if we doing our job, we have all kinds of surreptitious, hostile agents permeated throughout our adversaries' turf, so the very least we can expect is for them to return the favor. Thus, one can expect the President's rule-breaking behavior to extend internally as well. Of course if Congress finds any of the Presidents actions too egregious in anyway, it could always cut war funding, or it could even impeach the President, drag she/him to Congress, have him/she account for her/him-self, then strip he/she from office -- that is, as long as the President does not order the Armed Forces to put members of Congress under house arrest first. On the other hand Congress could also wait until the war's conclusion or until a new Commander in Chief is elected to office and then bring civil action against the former President, a bit cowardly perhaps, but far less destabilizing. All in all, it's a messy situation but since when has war not been messy? And since when have national charters been simple, paradox free documents?

An added travesty is that

An added travesty is that John Yoo is still employed as a tenured professor at a respected [formerly at least] Law School in California. To allow him to represent the legal or academic profession and engage in the training and shaping of young minds seeking to enter the legal profession is unacceptable. As noted by both liberal and conservative scholars, the work of Yoo in creating the memos for the Bush Administration was not a "difference of political interpretation," but rather seriously flawed and incompetent legal reasoning. Perhaps they were not intended to be well reasoned opinions and were simple fraudulent "cover" to support an illegal enterprise. If so, add unethical to incompetent. In any event, a respectable and accredited law school should be ashamed to retain Yoo on its staff if there is any contact with students.

He said: "I'm a war

He said: "I'm a war president" - but he misspelt himself