TheAgitator.com
“Exclusive”
Friday, May 23rd, 2008More adventures in word parsing from John Yoo and the Office of Legal Counsel. Even though the 1979 FISA statute state that the statute itself provided the “exclusive” means by which the executive could eavesdrop on American citizens, Yoo determined that the Bush administration’s plan for spying wasn’t covered by the word “exclusive” because even though Congress used the word “exclusive,” the bill didn’t explicitly include a prohibition on warrantless spying in the specific context of national security.
In other words, “exclusive” doesn’t really mean “exclusive.”
It’s an astonishingly obtuse reading of the statute, but pretty consistent with how Yoo and Cheney’s office looked at any legislation aimed at curbing presidential power.
You know, I supported (and still support) the impeachment of President Clinton. But in the grand scheme of things, his parsing of the word “is” seems downright innocent by comparison, doesn’t it? Then you had a powerful public figure lying to cover up his caddish ways. Granted, it was by lying under oath in a deposition. And as I said, I think he should have been impeached for it. But where does that leave guys like Yoo? Here we have powerful public officials playing word games in the course of writing completely disingenuous justifications for government spying, indefinite detainment, torture, and unchecked presidential authority. That’s quite a bit more of a threat to the stability of the republic, is it not?
If Clinton deserved impeachment, what do Yoo, Addington, and the gang deserve?
MORE: Note, “what do [they] deserve?” was a question asking what sort of sanctions (professional? criminal?) might be in order. Please refrain from wishing bodily harm on high-ranking members of the Bush administration. If not out of good taste, then at least so I don’t get a visit from men wearing dark sunglasses.
They deserve to be fired, and all the policies that their parsing allows thrown out. Heck, even let people who were caught up in them somehow sue the government for damages caused by breach of the Constitution.
If you could tie in personal culpability for this, I don’t know if I’d be too opposed.
“If Clinton deserved impeachment, what do Yoo, Addington, and the gang deserve?”
A wall, a blindfold, and a cigarette.
A pistol whipping.
I’ve become a big fan of idea of pistol whipping politicians as standard punishment for their transgressions against our rights.
Surprised you have no comment on the court ruling in Texas reguarding the children that were removed from their homes. Is it becuase you don’t like people of faith? The Constitution says nothing about pot, but a lot about freedom of religion. Be consistant and fair.
Pat,
“Consistent and fair” would be you starting your own blog if you feel others don’t spend enough time covering the subjects you find important, not expecting other people to subordinate their interests to your own.
What do they deserve? Oh, wow. I dunno for sure, but I think it should, at minimum, involve angry, rabid badgers, burlap sacks, and a car battery.
If Clinton deserved impeachment, what do Yoo, Addington, and the gang deserve?
They should be tortured. But, only using legal administration-approved techniques, of course.
Dave,
I think you mean “aggressively interrogated”. :)
Crawford, why have a comments section? Some guy thinks you’re ignoring a huge issue as it relates to freedom on a blog dedicated to freedom and freedom of choice. I swear you left leaners are the most thin-skinned.
“I swear you left leaners are the most thin-skinned.”
U whined about something that WASN’T printed here, and u call others “thin-skinned”?
Pat –
It’s on my list. Only so many hours in the day, man.
And I did put up a post shortly after the raid.
Sorry, missed it.
Pat,
To discuss the topic the author posted on.
That’s why people should start their own blogs when they don’t feel the topics they like are given sufficient coverage. Last I checked, you could still do that for free.
Actually, I hang more to the right…unless it’s really cold out or I see a girl with really nice legs. ;)
The simplest thing is a boycott…
Whenever you are in the market for a lawyer ask what law school they attended. If they say Berkley, sadly inform them that you won’t hire anybody who was trained at a school that would have an incompetent like John Yoo teaching Constitutional Law. Explain that would be like hiring a geologist who was trained at a school where the dean of the Geology department was a member of the Flat Earth Society.
If enough people stop hiring Berkley graduates, you’ll see John Yoo bounced out of that law school very quickly tenure or no tenure.
Radley,
Jeez, man…you’d think by now that you’d be able to anticipate the kind of responses you’ll get from libertarians and bloggers when you ask for suggestions on what politicians deserve. We’re a dark, evil bunch out here on the Internet :)
tarran,
A guy I know who went to U of Minnesota’s law said that the faculty at the school had already started shunning people who were members of the Bush administration’s legal team and protesting any move to hire them because they felt it would bring their school’s reputation into disrepute. So that’s already going on in academia.
Of course, you could then make the case that public schools refusing to hire people based on their political affiliations is discrimination and liberal bias…but then those are the kind of problems you’re always going to run into when you have a public education system.
But Radley, the prescribed punishment for treason is bodily harm.
The wall and the blindfold are fine, but the cigarette is certain to attract a lot of negative press.
First of all, maybe we should wait to actually find out what the memo says before we order hangings all around. The post managed to point out that we have zero idea what the context was or even what the title of the damn memo is.
I keep asking people where it says the presidency has to bow to the wishes of the legislative branch on issues where the constitution rests sole responsibility of the executive branch. If this memo was actually about “foreign intelligence” then FISA can kiss his ass.
“Please refrain from wishing bodily harm on high-ranking members of the Bush administration.”
How about harm to their souls after their long, happy life ends in the far future?
For instance, I like to think about John Yoo’s soul spending eternity with his excretory system full of angry fire ants and scorpions.
I would rather have a capable president that is a crappy husband, than a crappy president who is a good husband. Chris Rock once said, “A man is only as faithful as his options, no more or no less. He’s just the president. He’s not reverend Clinton. He’s not pastor Clinton. He’s not the maharajah Clinton. He’s just the president.” If we fired everyone who is good at their jobs but crappy at marriage there would be no one left to run anything.
“If we fired everyone who is good at their jobs but crappy at marriage there would be no one left to run anything.”
It wasn’t about Bill cheating on Hillary. It was about Bill lying under oath about it. If he’d just come out and said, “Yeah, I did it. And I’d do it again if I had the chance,” I wouldn’t have cared. But the fact is, he lied. And because he committed the crime of perjury, it was right and good of Congress to impeach him.
Trust me, I believe that what Bush’s cronies are doing in the White House trumps Clinton’s perjury, but that doesn’t excuse Clinton for lying under oath.
“If Clinton deserved impeachment, what do Yoo, Addington, and the gang deserve?”
Indefinite detention at an undisclosed location. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Well, doesn’t wishing criminal sanctions against someone necessarily involve wishing bodily harm on them?
There’s nothing wrong with Yoo’s reasoning. Judges do it all the time. It’s called finding the result you want no matter what the law says. “JUST DO IT.”
It is the #1 reason we need vigorously contested, partisan judicial elections. Somebody needs an incentive to keep government officials, whether in EOB offices or Judge’s Chambers, intellectually honest. Good breeding and mild criticism don’t work.
I’ve seen a state Supreme Court decide that “shall” in a statute means “may” if it gets to their desired result or that a final conviction of a “misdemeanor” can be a considered a “felony” (the offense originally charged) if the court thinks the legislature really didn’t mean to change the meaning when they changed the language of the statute. All done by a state Supreme Court in someone’s “Top 5 List.”
Partisan Judicial elections are going to cure the problems with the judiciary. Exposing judicial decisions to the realm of “hmmm… the law says this, but people are never going to understand why I’m siding with NAMBLA, KKK, ELF, etc… I’m just going to say the Constitution doesn’t say what it says because I want to get re-elected” Yeah I see this ending real well.