Telecom immunity = Bush immunity

NOW, we're gettin' down to it...

Bush wants to keep Senators clueless because telecom immunity also gives Bush immunity. Telecom immunity includes by definition the approval of two condition precedents: Bush had constitutional authority for the warrantless surveillance and the surveillance was determined to be lawful. Under the doctrine of Congressional ratification, the effect of this approval is to retroactively "legalize" Bush's authority and program. This means that Bush may have immunity from prosecution. Moreover, for years, Bush could not cite any statutory authority for his theory of unitary presidential prerogatives. Bush will now have precedent.

did anybody think for a second that bush wasn't attempting to cover his own sorry ass...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Whitehouse (the Senator, not the building) affirms that the president is the SOLE decider

anybody who thinks these findings are at all surprising simply hasn't been paying attention... very clear, observable patterns have demonstrated these specific, criminal, unconstitutional approaches to the rule of law countless times over the past seven years... the "legal propositions" uncovered by senator whitehouse, taken together with the concrete, factually-demonstrated policies that they've informed, have led the united states to, and, some would argue, OVER the precipice to an authoritarian, police state... what more do we have to know to seriously tackle the challenge of getting these criminals out of office...? waiting for 20 january 2009 is simply not acceptable...

Whitehouse said he has “spent hours poring over” secret opinions issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — and he took notes.

Whitehouse is a lawyer, a former U.S. Attorney, a former legal counsel to Rhode Island’s Governor, and a former State Attorney General. He said he sought and received permission to have his notes declassified because he wanted to show the public “what the Bush administration does behind our backs when they think no one is looking.”

“To give you an example of what I read,” Whitehouse said on the Senate floor, “I have gotten three legal propositions from these secret OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note-taking could reproduce them from the classified documents”:

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

it is impossible for the united states to even BEGIN the long road back to regain everything we've lost until the current cabal is removed from office, and, to cling to the myth that electing and inaugurating a democratic president is going to fix things is both wrong and irresponsible...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bush mocks teenagers

In an act of monumental hypocrisy, Bush mocked teenagers, in a speech, Tuesday. (from ABC):

The president said Congress is like "a teenager with a new credit card" for wanting to spend $22 billion more than the White House would allow on nonwar-related funding bills."

Bush took the cheap shot at teenagers perhaps because he regards them as essentially powerless to object, as they are still largely denied suffrage and in most cases, cannot vote.

Bush seems to have overlooked better and much-closer-to-home examples of profligate spending such as that by those members of his own party, so notorious for sheer pork-style spending, such as that of Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska's infamous Gravina Island "Bridge to Nowhere".

Bush did manage to avoid invoking the standard and shopworn cliché of "spending like drunken sailors". Presumably, most sailors can vote.

Bush seemed to ignore his own record deficit spending while showering his wealthy and elite supporters, again and again, with fabulous tax breaks. He didn't mention the billions and billions of dollars which have virtually gone missing in his war and on his watch. He didn't mention his affinity for doling out no-bid contracts so generously to his powerful friends, either.

It remains interesting that many prominent people such as HBO's comedian Bill Maher loudly call for amending Section 5 of Article II of the Constitution to allow for Austrian-born, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. The argument advanced, goes the same as by those that insisted that the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution should be repealed, in order to allow Ronald Reagan to run for a 3rd term: "The People should be allowed to choose anyone they want to be their president."

And yet if these same proponents were intellectually honest, they would include calls for repeal of the age requirement clause in Section 5 of Article II as well. But bigots in general do not often rise above hypocrisy. As evidenced by Bush's speech as recently as Tuesday, Ageism is still as popular as ever as rampant bigotry.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

WaPo on Mukasey's confirmation hearing: a "ceremonial waltz" that has senators "swooning"

oh, lovely... a "ceremonial waltz"...

Mr. Mukasey's Answers
The attorney general nominee speaks clearly -- and senators swoon.

THE CONFIRMATION hearings for attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey began yesterday with the sober pronouncement by Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) that, if confirmed, Mr. Mukasey would inherit a Justice Department facing its gravest challenge since the "Saturday Night Massacre" of Watergate infamy. Then it quickly turned into a ceremonial waltz, with members of both parties swooning as Mr. Mukasey delivered informed, concise and responsive answers. The senators' reaction was understandable, given the conspicuous difference between Mr. Mukasey's testimony and the chronic evasions of Alberto R. Gonzales. But senators shouldn't be surprised if, as attorney general, Mr. Mukasey adopts many of the same positions as his predecessor -- albeit with more reasoned and legally sound justifications.

[...]

The Senate should confirm him promptly -- and with eyes wide open.

so, mukasey will adopt "more reasoned and legally sound justifications," eh...?

(from glenn greenwald who was live-blogging the mukasey hearing...)

To Mukaskey ... it is an open question whether the President can imprison U.S. citizens, arrested on U.S. soil, with no charges of any kind. Shouldn't that be a rather significant hurdle to his becoming Attorney General, to put it mildly?

[...]

Mukasey will clearly support the Ashcroft/Comey/Goldsmith view that the President possesses Article II power to eavesdrop for foreign intelligence purposes, even on U.S. soil, and that FISA cannot restrict that power.

mukasey comforts me not in the least, particularly in light of the senate throwing its support behind telecom immunity...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments