posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:34 AM
Full Article Here
Neil A. Lewis writes in the New York Times: "The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the
president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and
conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.
"Some of the positions had previously become known from statements of Bush administration officials in response to court challenges and Congressional
inquiries. But taken together, the opinions disclosed Monday were the clearest illustration to date of the broad definition of presidential power
approved by government lawyers in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks."
Josh Meyer and Julian E. Barnes write in the Los Angeles Times that one Bush administration lawyer told them the memos are "just the tip of the
iceberg" in terms of what was authorized.
Law professor Jack Balkin blogs about "reasoning which sought, in secret, to justify a theory of Presidential dictatorship...
"This theory of presidential power argues, in essence, that when the President acts in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, he may make his own rules
and cannot be bound by Congressional laws to the contrary. This is a theory of presidential dictatorship.
"These views are outrageous and inconsistent with basic principles of the Constitution as well as with two centuries of legal precedents. Yet they
were the basic assumptions of key players in the Bush Administration in the days following 9/11."
Scott Horton blogs for Harper's: "We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a
dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the
Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we know now is likely the least of it."
Glenn Greenwald blogs for Salon: "Over the last eight years, we had a system in place where we pretended that our 'laws' were the things enacted
out in the open by our Congress and that were set forth by the Constitution. The reality, though, was that our Government secretly vested itself with
the power to ignore those public laws, to declare them invalid, and instead, create a whole regimen of secret laws that vested tyrannical, monarchical
power in the President. Nobody knew what those secret laws were because even Congress, despite a few lame and meek requests, was denied access to
Greenwald also writes, with some vindication: "Yet those who have spent the last several years pointing out how unprecedentedly extremist and
radical was our political leadership (and how meek and complicit were our other key institutions) were invariably dismissed as shrill
Finally someone in the 'mainstream' media comes out and says it and backs it up ... i love it ... thoughts?