Mesogen
03-03-2009, 03:36 PM
You all know who John Yoo is. He's the guy that said that the president had the power to order the torture of children in order to get their parents to talk.
Well, John Yoo seems to believe that the president is all powerful and can do anything he damned well pleases.
Check it out:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memomilitaryforcecombatus10232001.pdf
We conclude that the President has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States. We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations.
...
These authorities demonstrate that the President has ample authority to deploy the military against terrorist threats within the United States.
It says that the Posse Comitatus law only pertains to the use of the military for law enforcement procedures. So a terrorist isn't breaking the law?
It also says that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to military forces in the United States. WRONG. The 4th amendment applies to the government. All of the government, including armed forces.
He then says that the use of the military within the US is A-Ok because we've done it in the past. We put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Yeah, that was cool, huh? We used the military against Indian tribes. Yeah, that was cool, huh?
He then says that the president can do anything he damned well pleases with the military because of the Vesting Clause. I guess he slept through some law school because he forgot about Section 2, where it says that the President is only CIC when the armed forces are "called into the actual Service of the United States."
It just gets worse from there.
Here are some more links.
This is another memo saying "Uh, hey guys, let's be careful when listening to John Yoo."
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memoolcopiniondomesticusemilitaryforce10062008.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-181.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm
http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342/output/print
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Yoo wrote in the memo entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States."
The most controversial, and best known, of Yoo's legal opinions was his Aug. 1, 2002, memo that effectively approved the president's right to disregard a federal law banning torture in ordering the interrogation of terror suspects.
At one point, the memo says, the U.S. military could be used for "targeting and destroying" a hijacked airline or "attacking civilian targets, such as apartment buildings, offices or ships where suspected terrorists were thought to be."
(In the case of a nuke about to go off, maybe.)
Oh yeah, don't forget the icing on the cake.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18063.html
Obama lawyers set to defend Yoo
Well, John Yoo seems to believe that the president is all powerful and can do anything he damned well pleases.
Check it out:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memomilitaryforcecombatus10232001.pdf
We conclude that the President has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States. We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations.
...
These authorities demonstrate that the President has ample authority to deploy the military against terrorist threats within the United States.
It says that the Posse Comitatus law only pertains to the use of the military for law enforcement procedures. So a terrorist isn't breaking the law?
It also says that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to military forces in the United States. WRONG. The 4th amendment applies to the government. All of the government, including armed forces.
He then says that the use of the military within the US is A-Ok because we've done it in the past. We put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Yeah, that was cool, huh? We used the military against Indian tribes. Yeah, that was cool, huh?
He then says that the president can do anything he damned well pleases with the military because of the Vesting Clause. I guess he slept through some law school because he forgot about Section 2, where it says that the President is only CIC when the armed forces are "called into the actual Service of the United States."
It just gets worse from there.
Here are some more links.
This is another memo saying "Uh, hey guys, let's be careful when listening to John Yoo."
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memoolcopiniondomesticusemilitaryforce10062008.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-181.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm
http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342/output/print
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Yoo wrote in the memo entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States."
The most controversial, and best known, of Yoo's legal opinions was his Aug. 1, 2002, memo that effectively approved the president's right to disregard a federal law banning torture in ordering the interrogation of terror suspects.
At one point, the memo says, the U.S. military could be used for "targeting and destroying" a hijacked airline or "attacking civilian targets, such as apartment buildings, offices or ships where suspected terrorists were thought to be."
(In the case of a nuke about to go off, maybe.)
Oh yeah, don't forget the icing on the cake.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18063.html
Obama lawyers set to defend Yoo