I have read this article in today’s LA Times twice, and I find it amazing. George W. Bush has been gone from office for less than six weeks, and already we are seeing the federal government back away from his disturbing unitary executive presidency.
One 2001 opinion concluded that the military could seize suspects in the U.S. like members of an invading foreign army who lacked constitutional rights.
The memos provide a detailed glimpse into the thinking of President Bush’s Justice Department legal advisors at a time of national emergency.
They embraced the view that the president, acting alone, had the authority to override the other branches of government on a broad range of issues.
That the Justice Department now thinks differently about the unprecedented and unconstitutional powers they so earnestly believed he had and needed is nice. But it begs two questions:
In a democracy, if the president seizes powers wrongfully, in a manner openly conflicted with the Constitution, has he not violated his oath of office to defend the constitution?
And if his consigliere conspires with him to violate the constitution, with all the resulting and attending abuses of power and violations of rights and privacies, haven’t they both committed treason and conspiracy? Haven’t many of the memo-hacking soliders in his cosa nostra committed felonies as well?
Obviously, the Obama admistration has enough to do, and I’m not suggesting wasting time and effort on a massive trail of trials. But before we move on, somebody ought to stand up and say, not only here’s the proof of what they all did wrong, but also and they’re damn lucky we’re too busy cleaning up their messes to prosecute them.
Posted by squelch 