Macranger

April 10th, 2008 at 8:19 am
2

Amateur lawyers at FDL aside, the opinion in Youngstown v. Sawyer, which was the Government’s attempt to o avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers in April 1952, isn’t even remotely similar in scope. Additionally subsequent rulings notwithstanding the War Powers act give the President authority.

Sorry, no dice.
“”

This must be one smart a$$!!

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpr…..succeed-2/

Even a Democratic administration would be loathe, he observes, to use up scarce political capital in attempting to indict or prosecute anyone in the Bush administration. Foreign governments that might be tempted to do so would have to confront persuasive efforts, considerably weightier than Chile’s, that indicting and trying former senior American officials is not consistent with a good longterm relationship with the United States.

I think those are fair points. But if a Clinton or Obama administration follows Jack’s logic, I think it needs to do at least two things. One, investigate the hell out of the most prominent claims. No doubt several will reveal domestic crimes within the administration, Congress and the private sector that cry out for criminal prosecutions. Rapes and murders by private contractors in Iraq and billion dollar frauds against the US taxpayer come to mind. Selected political prosecutions, clearly beyond any reasonable understanding of prosecutorial discretion, are another.

Two. Those dozens of investigations that do not proceed to prosecution or trial will nevertheless document extensive government excess, which will provide adequate justification, if any were needed, to undo much of what this administration has wrought.

That’s what Obama or Clinton should focus on (not forgetting two active wars, a budget deficit bigger than Cheney’s ego, a possible financial meltdown, etc.). The list is as endless as this administration’s excesses. It should include revoking much or all of the reprehensible MCA and other fig leaves for this administration’s lawlessness; closing our secret prisons, most of whose inmates should be set free with apologies and reparations, with others going to trial or being set free for time served because no credible case can be presented that does not rely on torture-derived evidence; revising or canceling hundreds of outsourcing contracts; and replacing probably dozens of Executive Orders and OLC opinions based on bad law.

The littlest of those is sure to bring screams of outrage from the Orrin Hatches and Matt Drudges and Grover Norquists. Democrats should toughen their hides, and polish up their counter-PR machine. They’ll need it.

No. The power to pardon is a plenary power spelled out in Article 2.

Nor is it that Yoo represented a client many find offensive, as criminal lawyers sometimes do, or that he acted offensively in zealously representing his clients viewpoints or interests. Had he done that, it would be unfair to confuse his clients behavior or views with his.

It’s that Yoo’s actions as a government lawyer are allegedly criminal and brought both the law and his government into disrepute. Mr. Yoo is not simply exercising his First Amendment rights, he has corruptly practiced law to enable criminal conduct.

Obviously, there’s a proof problem; some of those are unproven allegations. But his published memos go a long way toward meeting that burden.

Yoo apparently did maintain the “Obedience to hierarchy ” more, but the rational is much closer at hand: ambition. he was such a good servant IMO because it is the way to get ahead in a Republican administration – U.S.A Mary Beth Bucanan (and probably countless others) fell into the same trap.

terrorists aren’t covered under the geneva convention, wrap your brain around that one.

it should win a prize or something.

Nope. Look up “lawful enemy combatant” “unlawful enemy combatant” (or leave out the ‘enemy’ part) and “enemy combatant”.

Which one doesn’t fit?