Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: George Bush's admin had a legal memo too - to define torture as necessary for security. [View all]Catherina
(35,568 posts)11. "Yet here we are almost a full decade later"
6. Making a mockery of "due process"
The core freedom most under attack by the War on Terror is the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. It provides that "no person shall be . . . deprived of life . . . without due process of law". Like putting people in cages for life on island prisons with no trial, claiming that the president has the right to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield without any charges or trial is the supreme evisceration of this right.
...
It is fitting indeed that the memo expressly embraces two core Bush/Cheney theories to justify this view of what "due process" requires. First, it cites the Bush DOJ's core view, as enunciated by John Yoo, that courts have no role to play in what the president does in the War on Terror because judicial review constitutes "judicial encroachment" on the "judgments by the President and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force". And then it cites the Bush DOJ's mostly successful arguments in the 2004 Hamdi case that the president has the authority even to imprison US citizens without trial provided that he accuses them of being a terrorist.
The reason this is so fitting is because, as I've detailed many times, it was these same early Bush/Cheney theories that made me want to begin writing about politics, all driven by my perception that the US government was becoming extremist and dangerous. During the early Bush years, the very idea that the US government asserted the power to imprison US citizens without charges and due process (or to eavesdrop on them) was so radical that, at the time, I could hardly believe they were being asserted out in the open.
Yet here we are almost a full decade later. And we have the current president asserting the power not merely to imprison or eavesdrop on US citizens without charges or trial, but to order them executed - and to do so in total secrecy, with no checks or oversight. If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable.
- Glenn Greenwald, "Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens", The Guardian
The core freedom most under attack by the War on Terror is the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. It provides that "no person shall be . . . deprived of life . . . without due process of law". Like putting people in cages for life on island prisons with no trial, claiming that the president has the right to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield without any charges or trial is the supreme evisceration of this right.
...
It is fitting indeed that the memo expressly embraces two core Bush/Cheney theories to justify this view of what "due process" requires. First, it cites the Bush DOJ's core view, as enunciated by John Yoo, that courts have no role to play in what the president does in the War on Terror because judicial review constitutes "judicial encroachment" on the "judgments by the President and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force". And then it cites the Bush DOJ's mostly successful arguments in the 2004 Hamdi case that the president has the authority even to imprison US citizens without trial provided that he accuses them of being a terrorist.
The reason this is so fitting is because, as I've detailed many times, it was these same early Bush/Cheney theories that made me want to begin writing about politics, all driven by my perception that the US government was becoming extremist and dangerous. During the early Bush years, the very idea that the US government asserted the power to imprison US citizens without charges and due process (or to eavesdrop on them) was so radical that, at the time, I could hardly believe they were being asserted out in the open.
Yet here we are almost a full decade later. And we have the current president asserting the power not merely to imprison or eavesdrop on US citizens without charges or trial, but to order them executed - and to do so in total secrecy, with no checks or oversight. If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable.
- Glenn Greenwald, "Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens", The Guardian
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
81 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
George Bush's admin had a legal memo too - to define torture as necessary for security. [View all]
Bonobo
Feb 2013
OP
And General Ricardo Sanchez while he's at it. (Sanchez presided over
coalition_unwilling
Feb 2013
#21
Sprinkle in a little John Yoo... Imagine the possibilities! They sure have. Waterboard for all!
Ed Suspicious
Feb 2013
#31
When Eugene Robinson thinks a Dem is doing wrong, he needs to reflect. So do you. nt
Bonobo
Feb 2013
#12
The issue here is not the killing, but the killing of an American citizen without the due process
JDPriestly
Feb 2013
#32
"Targeting terrorists" - WTF? By whose standard and according to what
coalition_unwilling
Feb 2013
#22
George W. Bush justified his invasion by claiming he was only going to kill terrorists. Seems Pres
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#29
There have always been situations where it has been LEGAL for our government to KILL people.
Ian David
Feb 2013
#5
There have always been circumstances where that has been legal. We may have just expanded them.
Ian David
Feb 2013
#67
It says right in the Constitution that Congress can make wars and the President commands an army.
Ian David
Feb 2013
#65
No, the dumbasses are the ones thinking citizens have special due process rights.
jeff47
Feb 2013
#70
I have no problem with a Democratic or a Republican administration using drones...
EastKYLiberal
Feb 2013
#14
Drones against somewhat "suspected" of being a member of a group loosely affiliated with AQ
Bonobo
Feb 2013
#16
I don't think the OP intended to defend Obama at all. His or her point, as I read it, is that
coalition_unwilling
Feb 2013
#24
Best OP I've read on the subject thus far (including, but not limited to, my own :). Tip
coalition_unwilling
Feb 2013
#25
Obama also signed HR347 which makes it a federal crime to protest where SS are present.
Fire Walk With Me
Feb 2013
#58
The other question: given this new info, why would one believe we have actually stopped the torture?
Demo_Chris
Feb 2013
#28
Amazingly Reagan had an Executive Order saying assassination was illegal
kenny blankenship
Feb 2013
#47
On one hand, it is not surprising. But it an excellent illustration of human nature.
Bonobo
Feb 2013
#74