2001 Memo Reveals Push for Broader Presidential Powers

[jonnyo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732484/site/newsweek/

2001 Memo Reveals Push for Broader Presidential Powers
A Justice Department lawyer may have been laying the groundwork for the Iraq invasion long before it was discussed publicly by the White House
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 5:45 p.m. ET Dec. 18, 2004

Dec. 18 - Just two weeks after the September 11 attacks, a secret memo to White House counsel Alberto GonzalesÕ office concluded that President Bush had the power to deploy military force ÒpreemptivelyÓ against any terrorist groups or countries that supported themÑregardless of whether they had any connection to the attacks on the World Trade Towers or the Pentagon.

The memo, written by Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, argues that there are effectively Òno limitsÓ on the presidentÕs authority to wage warÑa sweeping assertion of executive power that some constitutional scholars say goes considerably beyond any that had previously been articulated by the department.

Although it makes no reference to Saddam HusseinÕs government, the 15-page memo also seems to lay a legal groundwork for the president to invade IraqÑwithout approval of CongressÑlong before the White House had publicly expressed any intent to do so. ÒThe President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of Sept. 11,Ó the memo states.

The existence of the memo, titled ÒThe PresidentÕs Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them,Ó was first reported by NEWSWEEK in the fall of 2001. But its contentsÑincluding the conclusion that Bush could order attacks against countries unrelated to the 9/11 attacksÑwere not publicly available until late this week when, with no notice to the public or the news media, the memo wasÊ posted on an obscure portion of the Web site of the Justice DepartmentÕs Office of Legal Counsel. (There is nothing on the site calling attention to the memo. It is was simply added to a list of previously published memos posted for the calendar year 2001.)

[KennedyGuy]

1. Why this would be a suprise to anyone is beyond me..

The question I have is..When will it start to make a difference?

[Maccagirl]

2. The question is

Does anyone give a shit. I've run out of patience waiting for the "citizens" of this country to wake up.

[Just Me]

3. Who are you going to persecute?

The American people?

Where are you going to spend your energy?

Are you going to spend it attacking those who want to "believe" in a governance that deceives them,...or against that leadership which betrays their trust?

Wanna be effective? Define your target.

Wanna be destructive,...have no faith in anyone.

[Stand and Fight]

4. Yeah, you and me both.

Seems like this president is wholly above the law, and anyone on his coattails is just as safe. Sad, but true.

[pinerow]

5. One thing troubles me...Gonzalez, John Yoo, Powell, Rice...

all people of color...that is very troubling...

[merwin]

13. Bush is a person of color, that color is cowardly yellow n/t

[Just Me]

20. GREED is the "color",...it has always involved servitude,...

,...by hook or crook or,...

,...as all talented power-mongerers have utilized,...psy-op skill.

It does make me cringe that the pigment insufficient male thingy is dominating our screens,...with a here and there WELL-PAID pigment rich spokesperson.

It's greed that's killing us.

[Nordic]

22. fascists come in all colors

It only bothers me in that it's all part of Bush's "cover" to use people of color for his crimes.

So he can scream "what, you don't like latinos?" when we complain about Gonzales for instance.

[Gloria]

6. Forces seem to be gathering to slam Gonzales during his

confirmation hearings....

[Corgigal]

7. Just two weeks after the September 11 attacks

This report was concluded. Ok, press...when was it asked to be acted upon? That would be the real story to me.

[Nordic]

23. people did a whole lot of speed-writing after 9/11!!!

The Patriot ACt was presented to Congress only 8 days after 9/11

232 pages. 56,000 words. Eight days.

Yeah ....... right .......

[nashville_brook]

8. i've never understood this "laying the legal groundwork" crap

since when does the president's men make law in secret that can have any meaning?

[impeachthescoundrel]

9. Nobody

and I don't care if you are King Of The World, is above the law.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

15. Executive actions, which are within the framework of the laws

that Congress passes have the force of law when they have these "groundwork" memos.

All of the Executive Branch governance is done this way, always has been. Is it a gray area? Yes, but it allowed Lincoln to keep the Union together, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson to force civil changes just as it allowed Hoover, Reagan, Bush, and ** to fuck things up.

Sometimes you take the good with the bad.

[sandnsea]

10. Bait and switch

Nominate Gonzales, but make a scandal about that really bad guy Yoo, and thank heavens he's not working for the government anymore. Glad we've got that nice boy, Alberto, in charge now.

Just wait and see.

[liberalmuse]

11. I'm shocked. SHOCKED!

I'm SO effing not.

[UpInArms]

12. four plus years of this?

will definitely make the shocking not so shocking

[Rose Siding]

14. I wonder who in the WH pointed it out to Isikoff

Being as there was "nothing on the site calling attention to the memo" found on an "obscure portion" of Justice's site, someone had to lead him to it. But why would they have considered it leak-worthy at this point?

edit: maybe as an issue for Gonsales' confirmation hearings, but that's light ammo against the American Exceptionalism crew.

[KoKo]

18. On Edit I see after reading article Issikoff is expanding on his 5/19/04

article for Newsweek with some new "leaked info." There was much written about the Yoo aricle and the implications back then...but it's good it's resurfacing for more discussion. :shrug:
EDITED:
Plus: "San Francisco Gate" online had the same story that Issikoff is talking about in his own Web Exclusive back in June. Hopefully the new information will get the MSM to revisit the stories they broke way back on this. :eyes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------


"San Francisco Gate" online and Issikoff's own article!

NOTE THE DATE: May 19, 2004 where he calls it a "Web Exclusive."

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
Newsweek
Updated: 9:14 a.m. ET May 19, 2004

May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Furor over UC prof's brief on war
He advised Bush on prisoners' rights
- Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, June 7, 2004

A UC Berkeley law professor is under fire for his former role as a legal adviser to the Bush administration in its war against terrorism, with critics saying he served as the intellectual author of policies that led to the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers.

As a Justice Department aide, John Yoo wrote a legal brief in January 2002 arguing that fighters captured by U.S. troops in Afghanistan are not covered by the Geneva conventions -- the treaties that embody the laws of war.

Yoo's memo led to the controversial decision by President Bush that al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners being held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not qualify as prisoners of war and have no right to lawyers or a trial. The result, human rights activists say, has been a legal twilight zone in which abuses against prisoners in U.S. custody abroad have occurred.

The controversy pits a rising star at Boalt Hall School of Law against liberal sentiment on the Berkeley campus. Ever since Yoo's memo was disclosed by Newsweek magazine last month, students and graduates have rallied and petitioned. At the law school commencement ceremony on May 22, about one- quarter of the graduates wore black armbands to protest Yoo's role and called on him to resign.

"I'm a conservative professor, so I'm used to people objecting to my views," Yoo said in an interview with The Chronicle.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/07/MNGKP721F21.DTL&type=printable

[lovuian]

16. Dictator!!!

This is so Hitlarish!!!

[alfredo]

17. I remember reading that the best thing that could happen for the

Democratic party is 4 more years of Bush.

[steely]

19. Here's the link FWIW....

it's big, and it's in legalese

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

Here is the overview - last paragraph says it all:

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

[LynnTheDem]

21. Dictatorships are just so much easier for bush. If he's the dictator.

Which appears to be his plan.

[DeepModem Mom]

24. kick

[For PaisAn]

25. This paragraph really says it all

...snip...
But the memo concludes that this should not in any way restrict the president from ordering whatever military actions "in his best judgment" he believes are necessary to protect the country. In the exercise of his power to use military force, "the president's decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable."
...snip...

Chilling.