Yoo, Tortured Logic

OK, so there have been thousands of articles written about this subject, I’ve looked through at least 10 google pages myself trying to find the exact 81 page memo they were all talking about. I couldn’t find it attached to any of them. And I’m not just going to write about something everybody else is writing about without seeing it for myself. It is no longer good enough for me just because someone else says so.

So I looked for a good 30 minutes trying to find this one particular memo. Page after page after page of articles but not one with the actual memo attached. So how can everybody draw the same conclusion without having actually read it? How do they know what it says exactly? And just because everyone is mimicking everyone else, doesn’t make it true, we know this.

I got sick and tired of looking at google articles with no memo attached. So I went to the DOJ website and looked there, and found it, but not until after getting the run-around even there! Talk about a hard document to track down. Geesh! Since it is 81 pages long, I’ll include a copy here but won’t post the entire document. You’ll have to download that yourself from the yoo-81-page-memo Talk about tortured logic and tossing the Constitution of the United States of America, this does a fine job! I’m going to be referring to the Constitution and Yoo’s Memo as a layman not a lawyer, so if I’m wrong here I hope someone will point it out, nicely.

In the first paragraph we have Yoo stating that:

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President’s authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the war-powers-act, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. �� 1541-1548 (the “WPR”), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

Excuse me here if I disagree with Yoo, but our constitution doesn’t give any such powers to the president, especially not this one. And if you notice the wording on this paragraph, he is allowing the bush administration to come into ANY State, or Person or Home or Organization, which may harbor a terrorist. The word terrorist has been so broadly defined as to now mean anyone who disagrees with the administration. It could be anyone! If you have a bar-b-que with friends and get to talking politics and you disagree openly with the administration, you could be considered a gathering of terrorist. That is far too broad a definition for my liking.

YouTubeFreedom of Speech and H.R. 1955 pt. 1

1. Related. Save | Clear. Display: List View Grid View List

Watch video – 10 min

YouTubeFreedom of Speech and H.R. 1955 pt. 2

BrasscheckTVhttp://www.brasschecktv.com/Find your Senatorhttp

Watch video – 10 min

Now, the tortured path Yoo had to go through to justify what the bush administration has done goes through some hoops I’m not sure I could manage intellectually. But then I’m not a lawyer. I can’t twist the truth till it becomes a lie or vise versa. These guys are professionals. The more money you have, the more professional they are…

Even the War Powers Act you really have to be a lawyer to twist this language around. it is hard to imagine just how cynical you would have to be to be a lawyer. Somehow you would have to wrap your brain around the fact that guilt or innocence doesn’t matter, only money counts. Yoo needs to have his law degree pulled as well as his teaching certificate. The man is truly delusional. Read on what Yoo has to say…

We now turn to the more precise question of the President’s inherent constitutional powers to use military force.

Constitutional Text. The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency. Article II, Section 2 states that the “President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” U.S. Const. art. II, � 2, cl. 1. He is further vested with all of “the executive Power” and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, � 1. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. (3) During the period leading up to the Constitution’s ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch. (4)

Now the Constitution truly limits the powers of the president. They don’t give the president broad powers as Yoo wants you to believe. That is his tortured mind at work. The text of the Constitution is underlined above. What Yoo fails to mention is that the powers the president has is limited to Congress’s power to declare war or authorize financial support for a war, etc. Congress is the overseer of the president and the president cannot do anything without the express permission of Congress. But it sounds good doesn’t it? As for this part:

the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch. (4)

I call pure bullshit! Not in the history of the United States of America has this been the case. The cases that Yoo sites have nothing to do with true war, only mentions of war. Remarkable! I find the hoops through which Yoo leaped to be most amazing! Please see for yourself though and don’t take my word for it. I’m happy to hear from those who can point out to me that I’ve misunderstood what I’ve read here.

I can possibly see why no one in Congress has actually questioned it either. Just because I, as a lay person do, means nothing I suppose, but then I didn’t drink the kool-aid and I don’t get my palms greased by special interest, and I don’t have a University teaching job waiting for me either…

But what I really want to know is why this took so long to get out? And why on EARTH hasn’t bush been called onto the carpet for his crimes? This citizen wants to know. How much more proof do we need, how much more blatant can you be, about bush being a criminal?

I just shake my head in wonder that Congress just sits there day after day, feeling justified in its existence, and allows this to continue. I have to wonder just how many of you out there will continue to vote these people in instead of getting the attention of Congress by voting them OUT! These poor excuse for fools want to do nothing, let them do nothing on their own time, away from where we need them. Things like this just can’t be allowed to happen any more.

Now, I’m equally positive that Yoo’s conclusions will be, in some way, valid, he is a lawyer after all. But I do not understand how this was allowed and not stopped on the way up the chain of command. Of course I understand why bush would use it, anything that backs his position is usable by his standards. That is thug logic for you. Billy Badass thumping his chest so to speak. But honestly, some attorney actually tried to justify it?

Well, not sure you’ll enjoy, but I’ve given you the documents to read anyway.

Articles on this memo:

Former Bush Administration Lawyer Asked to Testify Before Congress

by Elana Schor
Memo: Bush’s power trumps laws on torture
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon Tuesday made public a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects, saying President Bush’s wartime authority trumps any international ban on torture.
Memo: Laws Didn’t Apply to Interrogators
Advertisements

~ by justmytruth on April 10, 2008.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: