Skip to main content

Bush, Yoo, Etc tried to destroy our Constitutional rights

This further confirms what many of us activists long believed about the modus operandi of the Bush regime. Of course many of us (including myself and 52 others in Maryland) were tracked and labeled terrorists by the Maryland State Police. And a subset of that group was further spied on by the Department of Homeland (Fatherland) Security. Here it is, Bruce Fein explains what happened to the U.S. Constitution following September 11, 2001.

FEIN: End presidential secrecy
Bruce Fein

Congress should swiftly enact a statute prohibiting secret presidential government.

The urgency was demonstrated last week when nine ill-conceived legal memoranda to justify despotism cobbled together by the pliable Jay Bybee and John Yoo in the Justice Department under President George W. Bush were belatedly released.

Their shelf-life would have been nanoseconds if they had been immediately exposed. Their counterconstitutional reasoning would have been instantly discredited. Instead, the memoranda remained intact until the twilight hours of the Bush presidency when their secrecy could no longer be guaranteed under a successor administration.

Like a death bed conversion, all nine were recanted by then- Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in twin disclaimers on Oct. 6, 2008, and Jan. 15, 2009. Similarly, the department backed down from its post-Sept. 11, 2001, claims of presidential authority to torture or to spy on Americans in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) after published leaks to the media. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis lectured, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

The common but chilling theme of the memoranda was that only the commander-in-chief clause of the Constitution remained standing after Sept. 11, 2001. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures could be disregarded in pursuit of suspected terrorists. The First Amendment's protection of free speech could be subordinated whenever the president thought it helpful to defeating international terrorism.

John Yoo, then deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, advised: "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully." Moreover, "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically." Laws or treaties prohibiting torture, warrantless electronic surveillance, mail openings, or even burglary could be defied under the banner of counterterrorism.

The commander-in-chief power was inflated manifold. Alexander Hamilton, the strongest proponent of a muscular chief executive, in Federalist 69 accepted the modesty of the president's war powers under a Republican form of government. He elaborated that the commander-in-chief authority "would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the Constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature."

The department's legal memoranda insist that the president's commander-in-chief authorities exceeds that of the British monarch to include the power to suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus and to hold American citizens as "enemy combatants" indefinitely without accusation or trial.

Indeed, no limiting principle is articulated that would prevent the president from doing anything he believes might assist in waging war against international terrorism. In other words, to borrow from Cicero, Sept. 11, 2001, silenced all laws but one: the commander-in-chief power.

If the executive branch were infallible, then these constitutional abuses would be less troublesome. The victims of the violations would all have been genuine terrorists, "the worst of the worst" in the words of the Bush administration. But the vast majority of Guantanamo Bay detainees held as "enemy combatants" have been exonerated in habeas corpus proceedings mandated by the United States Supreme Court last year because the government had no evidence.

Exemplary are 17 Uighur adversaries of the Chinese communist government who have been detained for more than seven years without a crumb of evidence of hostility to the United States. The Bush administration's constitutional transgressions justified by the nine legal memoranda made the United States less safe by serving as recruiting agents for al Qaeda and discouraging anti-terrorism cooperation from foreign countries like Great Britain, Germany or Italy.

There were no offsetting counterterrorism benefits. Torture yields false information. Thus, Abu Zubaydah, an al Qaeda cipher according to the FBI's leading expert, confessed to everything to relieve the pain of torture. Every authentic enemy combatant or Sept. 11, 2001, conspirator can be criminally prosecuted in civilian courts with the trappings of due process.

Jose Padilla was initially erroneously detained as an enemy combatant. He was later prosecuted for conspiring to provide material assistance to a foreign terrorist organization. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker," was criminally prosecuted and convicted in a civilian court for complicity in the 2001 attacks on America. Every scrap of useful intelligence gathered illegally in violation of FISA could also have been obtained in compliance with the law.

The government also revealed last week that the CIA had destroyed 92 interrogation videotapes of Mr. Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Of that number, 12 involved so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques," a euphemism for torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

Secret government is twice-cursed. Darkness invites lawlessness. And self-government requires public knowledge of what the government is doing. James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned: "A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both."

Congress should enact a statute prohibiting the executive branch from withholding information requested by Congress or the public based on an asserted need for confidentiality. Any adviser whose candor to the president depends on a promise of secrecy should be fired. National security secrets like the Manhattan Project should be disclosed to Congress in executive session.

Sunshine on the presidency has never harmed the United States.

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer at Bruce Fein & Associates Inc. and author of "Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for our Constitution and Democracy."


Popular posts from this blog

A Proposal for We The People to Institute Positive Change

Hello sisters and brothers, subjects of the United States Empire, it has become clear the elected representatives on Capitol Hill no longer truly represent us and our best interests, but rather are serving their elite major campaign contributors. They serve the interests of the extreme rich and large corporations, certainly not the average American worker, student, or retired individual.

In order to improve our government, we, a collective of dedicated social justice activists, propose three demands to those who have power to legislate within the Federal Government. We list those demands here, and will then discuss how to make sure they pass into the law of the land:

1) Universal single payer health care, something that nearly all other developed nations of the world already possess for their citizens. We, as human beings, have a right to good health and to never be financially crippled in this pursuit of our own well-being. We demand that Congress pass House Resolution 676 and a Sen…

Gays and Lesbians Opposed to Violence (GLOV) Reforms

As appeared in Metro Weekly...

Stirred to Action
Viciousness of recent anti-gay attacks spurs community reaction
by Will O'Bryan
Published on September 18, 2008

Perhaps a picture is worth a thousand words. When it comes to motivating a community, a picture -- far more than flow charts of crime statistics or bullet points in a report -- may actually be invaluable. Add to that picture a compelling online essay, and you have the start of a community movement.

With a number of publicized attacks against local gay people in recent months, from Nathaniel Salerno's attack on a Metro train in December to Michael Roike and Chris Burrell being beaten to the ground near the 14th and P Streets NW intersection in August, the viciousness Todd Metrokin suffered in Adams Morgan in July -- written about on The New Gay blog by his friend Chris Farris in late August -- may have been a tipping point.

''There are the anecdotal stories you hear from your friends,'' says Pete Perry, a loca…

A week ago I was in DC Jail -- This is a reflection

A week ago, I was spending my third and last night in DC Jail. A loud, violent and cruel place. A place populated by young black men, as a white inmate I was an extreme minority. And as a gay white man of somewhat slight build, I elected to get the protective custody order from Judge Lynn Liebovitz upon my sentencing. My sentencing, in retrospect was not that severe, and this is because my pre-sentencing officer had recommended probation and I admitted that my days of being arrested for expressing my moral and ethical beliefs (which put me in complete opposition to the U.S. Government’s foreign policy) were over. Perhaps someday, when I am retired and close to my friend Eve Tetaz’s age I may resume nonviolent civil resistance against the moral bankruptcy and downright evil policies of the U.S. Empire, but for now I choose a different life for my lifetime partner and myself.

Many of you have expressed an interest in discussing my experiences further, and I am open to accepting questions…