Do the Secret Bush Memos Amount to Treason? Top Constitutional Scholar Says Yes

I just need to ask one thing.

When is the Bush bashing going to end? Obama screws up and Bush gets blamed. Something happens in the Obama administration and something about Bush surfaces.

Can't we just move on? Its like those who scream about Obamas Birth Certificate, just let it go already. Its getting stale

Originally posted by jd140
I just need to ask one thing.

When is the Bush bashing going to end? Obama screws up and Bush gets blamed. Something happens in the Obama administration and something about Bush surfaces.

Can't we just move on? Its like those who scream about Obamas Birth Certificate, just let it go already. Its getting stale

I have a feeling that the Bush bashing will probably go on as long as the Clinton bashing. And there is still a fair amount of Clinton bashing as we speak. so......

topic....I don't know if Bush himself is guilty of treason as he was just following orders.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa


Oh I agree.

Bush and Clinton share some responsibility for the shape of the economy today. But Some of the Bush bashing is borderline ridiculous

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


"You fail to speak up or stop it when you see it, you are complicit."

Hear hear!!!! (Stomps foot)

"All that is needed for tyranny to gain a foothold is for men of good conscience to remain silent."


Well spoken.

To the best of my knowledge, none of these emergency protocols were enacted.

Through our history, especially since the Cold War, there have been contingency plans in the event of destabilization of governments.

The post seems to reflect contingency plans in the event of such an event. No such event occurred. Therefore, isn't this a non-issue?

I'll grant there were real abuses by the past administration. These were not those abuses.

reply to post by Iago18


"For those who do not know, the memo's gave a certain legal credence to a variety of "unconstitutional" actions, including, but not limited to:
*Torture
*Troops being deployed inside US borders
*Troops acting as a de facto police force
*The suspension of the 1st amendment
*The suspension of the 4th amendment
*The suspension of the 5th amendment
*The expansion of electronic surveillance
*Warrantless wiretapping"

6 of those 8 were enacted to a degree.

So yeah, we see the ground work of a coup here.

Edit - I should qualify that with "in my opinion" as there has been no trial and I haven't seen anything with Bush's signature on it. But hell, I expected this much all along.

PS - Actually, they tried to remove the First Amendment as well with his "You're either with us or against us" comments and his "We will not tollerate any 'conspiracy theories' comments immediately following 9-11. So we'll say 7 of 8.

Like someone else mentioned, it appears they just never got the American Public scared enough to turn to them for "help."... They just couldn't get it done without tipping their hand. People were on to him.



[edit on 26-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


I understand your claim, and it has been made repeatedly in many venues. However, I would make the claim that none of these were actually used in a destructive way.

Bush was in office for 8 years, not a shred more. He seems to have obeyed the law and did not really seize power.

He was granted profound powers and leeway by Congress, but, he didn't become a king or a tyrant.

You can claim he was a failure as a president, or even that he abused his power in office. Though I am wont to disagree, I'll grant you those points. However, I certainly don't feel that a challenge of these policies this late in the game can really do anything aside from make such a challenge look petty.

reply to post by Iago18


What we see here is the possibility of a "legal" groundwork for a takeover.

If these memos are genuine, it matters not if they ever made it to fruition.
As I stated above, you can see the strides that were made in this direction regardless, and yes, each and every one of these moves was unconstitutional, which is in and of itself treasonous as it deliberately subverts the stability of this government.

Everything else you say is nothing more than "it didn't work so don't worry about it" speech.
I'm sorry, but I don't forget so easily.

The next criminal that comes along can say "Look at what this dude did and nothing happened to him. Now I know what I need to fix."

NO, CRIMINALS ARE TO BE PUNISHED IF THERE IS A CRIME - PERIOD. No man is above the law.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Actually, I completely agree that there were steps taken in that Administration to move closer to something unrecognizable to our American ideals.

I also agree that vigilance is needed for the future.

My problem arises that the things that the previous president did were, mostly, contained in the letter of the law. These laws, which were passed under the supervision of the same administration, were generally upheld under challenge.

Therefore, my question would be... if all three branches of government are agreeing to be above the law together... then, what recourse do you have?

Prosecution after they leave office just starts massive movements of unrest that the United States does not have the flexibility or the tolerance for, now. Thus my suggestion, remember it, but now's a good time to just let it go and look to the future and try to find a way to preserve the Constitution against unjust laws.

reply to post by Iago18


Also, I would counter your claim by saying that if you were the one being wiretapped without a warrant, you may in fact consider it destructive... as it is an invasion of your privacy.
If you don't see how that is destructive, then I guess we'll agree to disagree.

reply to post by Iago18


I'll appologize if I don't take a defeatist attitude to agree with you.

In fact, all that needs be done is to send a strong message to our representatives that they must begin to do their jobs.

It reminds me of that douche the other day who suggested that the AIG reps "kill themselves"... I understand where he is coming from, but what is he admitting to?
He is admitting to not doing his job. And the only reason he is saying anything about it now is because the people are pissed.

If the people were to show them that they were pissed about this matter, they would self-correct.

The system relies on us looking towards the future and not punishing anyone in the present.
It must stop.

Edit - What you do is force them to do their jobs under threat of losing their own and then toss them out on their ass anyways.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


I should have nothing to fear, as I have done nothing wrong. It's inconvenient, and if they falsify charges, then there is a major problem, but, even with this current administration, I would hope that they are surveying me to keep me safe.

I really think people are a tad too paranoid about their privacy. That being said, I can see that I do hold a double-standard in my criticism of the current administration's expansion of domestic policies.

I guess it is a question of where one thinks the line is that shouldn't be crossed.

EDIT: Reply to second post.

Well, call your congressman, see what good it is going to do you.

Then, go out and hold a rally, see what change will be.

After that, bring up a civil suit against the previous administration, I'm sure it will get a lot of press.

Sarcasm aside, I can understand your frustration, though I disagree with you. The system is fundamentally rigged to prevent democratization of the same. That is something I agree with. The average joe should not be able to be privy to major amounts of information and what the government is doing. They have a right to their secrets, and I hope they have a few good ones.

I know, change comes from large groups and such, but, look, this movement, which is begun out of anger and fear will not go anywhere. And I think that's the only real conclusion I can draw from reading the posts in this thread.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Iago18]

reply to post by Iago18



"I should have nothing to fear, as I have done nothing wrong."

Tell that to the hundreds of people that were held in Gitmo who were never brought on charges.
Look, we can talk about how the Government is actually looking out for the sake of the little guy and not themselves until the cows come home, but the simple fact is, they aren't.

These memos pretty much prove they aren't.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
PS - Actually, they tried to remove the First Amendment as well with his "You're either with us or against us" comments and his "We will not tollerate any 'conspiracy theories' comments immediately following 9-11. So we'll say 7 of 8.

In addition, those co-called 'free speech zones', were/are a direct violation of the First Amendment. What happened/happens in those zones is certainly NOT freedom of speech.

reply to post by Iago18


Time will tell, my friend.

I see the writing on the wall. It is going to get interesting soon.

Edit - But I will agree with you on one thing. If the people aren't vocal enough, this will be buried like everything else.
They are being backed against the ropes right now...
But they are hoping for this, to a point. The problem with the whole situation is JUST HOW HARD are they going to be pinned against the ropes.



[edit on 26-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

The time will come when these rallies will be all over the MSM. And the congressmen will be forced to listen. Persistence is the key.
I've written my reps many, many times over the past year and I know there are a lot like me. This is why we now see the Brit that lambasted Brown on our MSM. These stories are gaining ground. The tide is changing, and this story is evidence of it.

Another thing to think about is the possibility that "these people" (now known to be, without a doubt, Henry Kissinger and his cohorts) put their cards in for George Bush and that hand lost.
So, do they try a new approach? Through outright Socialistic ideals first rather than brute military force?

How would they approach that? Would they oust Bush and throw him under the bus to get the people to rally behind their new leader?

Is this just another distraction?


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


Bush was in on 9/11, if nothing else he should be tried for murder X 3,000 plus. Let it go ?

reply to post by Vitchilo


I concure , he should have went after them first.....he's protecting them. Say hi to the new boss , same as the old boss....or worse

Originally posted by Iago18I should have nothing to fear, as I have done nothing wrong.

Any American who says this has completely missed the point of what it means to be American.

Amazing that for all the folks on this site who claim strict Constitutional viewpoints, this attitude is so prevalent. Fact is, if you don't have your right to personal privacy and security, you have NOTHING. And if you support this kind of nonsense you deserve nothing.

Isn't government surveillance in our private lives part of why we supposedly fought the Cold War? When I was a kid it was always explained that we had to defeat Them and "free the Russian People" because they lived under a totalitarian dictator. Is government surveillance of innocent citizens not the same thing?

Oh, and let's not forget Bush also violated the 2nd Amendment. During the Katrina debacle he ordered troops and Blackwater mercenaries to confiscate weapons, something we were always told to fear when Clinton was President. But, because it happened to poor people/brown people/potential criminals I guess that's okay with the Reich Wing.

When will the Bush bashing stop? Maybe when Bush is in jail, or in his shack in Peru avoiding extradition and probably not even then.

History repeats, especially if it's forgotten too soon, so it's important to not sweep such issues under the rug for those who think he did wrong.

I'm a little surprised at this becoming more of an issue now. I don't remember this much outrage when the memos came out a few years ago.

Anyone remember this gem?

Jan. 12, 2006 | "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"

"No treaty," replied John Yoo

www.salon.com...

As others have mentioned, Yoos whole theory seems to revolve around the idea that the President can override any law at any time, essentially that the US President is a Dictator.

en.wikipedia.org...

That seems a little odd to me.