It’s sports bar all the way down
By Thoreau
In that respect, what’s been really quite radical are the president’s and the vice president’s views that in numerous cases, statutes duly enacted by the Congress are not necessarily binding on the president to the extent that they impinge on his discretion about how to best fight the enemy.
The Bush Administration has claimed the constitutional power to defy a number of extant statutory restrictions on executive war powers that would otherwise cabin the Commander in Chief’s discretion.
It was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman, who were both lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, and was signed by Mr. Barron. The office may have given oral approval for an attack on Mr. Awlaki before completing its detailed memorandum. Several news reports before June 2010 quoted anonymous counterterrorism officials as saying that Mr. Awlaki had been placed on a kill-or-capture list around the time of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009. Mr. Awlaki was accused of helping to recruit the attacker for that operation.
The Teabaggers were right: We really do have a death panel. Just not the sort of death panel that they were rallying against. And some of the people who wanted restraints on executive power when there was a Red boot stomping on a human face will serve as death panelists when there’s a Blue boot stomping on a human face. Just as the Teabaggers were silent for 8 years.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
October 9, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
“And the people who wanted restraints on executive power when there was a Red boot stomping on a human face will serve as death panelists when there’s a Blue boot stomping on a human face. ”
Change that to “some people who wanted restraints…” Because it’s not true of all. Many Obama voters (unfortunately not all) dislike boots which stamp on faces no matter what the color.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 9, 2011 @ 12:51 pm
Good point. I’ve changed it.
Comment by Hugh Akston —
October 9, 2011 @ 4:18 pm
Thoreau, I know the Tea Party betrayed and killed your father, but I don’t see how they can be at fault for not condemning what happened before they formed.
Pingback by Absolute Corruption | Man Are We Screwed —
October 9, 2011 @ 7:13 pm
[...] power and absolutes and corruption apparently applies even more when you are given the power to write legal opinions for the Obama White House. You come in with your principles of transparency and respect for law. You end up fighting for your [...]
Comment by The Heretik —
October 9, 2011 @ 7:19 pm
Don’t know if it is related. Or has anything to do with conscience. But Barron resigned his position at the OLC right after signing this memo.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 9, 2011 @ 7:26 pm
Hugh, I am not asking for a Teabag Time Machine buddy comedy movie. I am just pointing out that there was very little anti -governnent activity from the right until the office changed Teams, so I assume that the Teabaggers are more anti-Blue than anti-state. Lord knows there were plenty of good reasons to fear the federal government in the Bush years, yet the right was too busy cheering for the team and immunizing telecoms.
Comment by the innominate one —
October 9, 2011 @ 7:48 pm
The teabag party might not have been formed, but the teabaggers certainly had been born, Hugh. They could have and should have objected to Bushian overreach and illegal actions.
Since Obama is in office and the republicans rule the house, maybe we can get some impeachment proceedings in the hizzouse.
Comment by Hugh Akston —
October 9, 2011 @ 10:37 pm
Some of them probably were, noname. IIRC, the Tea Party’s early momentum came from Ron Paul’s ‘08 campaign. They opposed the bailouts and TARP, both of which were Bush policies that Senator Obama voted for. The whole movement has since been pretty much co-opted by Team Red, but even if that weren’t true, I wouldn’t blame them for failing to address gov’t overreach stretching back to the Louisiana Purchase.
The Occupados might be making some pleasing noises about an end to the korporate state, but 9/10ths of them will still drop their marble into the fishbowl for Obama, who has worked tirelessly to carry on every legacy of his predecessor.
It’s just fortunate for Dr. T that the populist movement he’s sympathetic to has some OGs to mitigate the insanity and hypocrisy, while the one he hates with such inexplicable passion is a big dumb monolith. Really streamlines the whole blogging thing.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 9, 2011 @ 10:47 pm
I’m sympathetic to the message of “People are broke and the system is rigged for rich guys” because, um, yeah, pretty much.
I have nothing but scorn for “I just discovered at 12:01pm on Jan. 20, 2009 that the federal government is big and dangerous” because, um, seriously, they didn’t notice this sooner?
I’m aware that a few of the OG’s in the Tea Party were Ron Paul supporters who were pissed about war and torture in 2001-2008. They are no longer the main energy of the Tea Party.
As to the Occupados/99 percenters/whatever (I need a funnier name for them), I actually would not be surprised if a substantial portion of them either stay home or pull the lever for a Green Party candidate. The portion of the far left that actually goes into the streets is know for its support for fringe candidates.
Comment by Barry —
October 10, 2011 @ 9:00 am
Comment by Hugh Akston —
“Thoreau, I know the Tea Party betrayed and killed your father, but I don’t see how they can be at fault for not condemning what happened before they formed.”
As has been pointed out, the Teabaggers were around. And last I heard, they are not primarily Ron Paul supporters, but standard right-wingers.
I haven’t noticed too much anti-corporate /anti-war action on the part of the Tea Party; if so, we’d have seen it. These people were quite willing to send the USA into default, but not willing to take radical action against corporate subsidies or eternal war.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 10, 2011 @ 10:36 am
To be fair, the Tea Party is talking more seriously about defense spending cuts than anybody has for a long time.
We’ll see if that translates into action. I’m not yet ready to buy Waziristan real estate futures in anticipation of the oncoming outbreak of peace.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 10, 2011 @ 10:41 am
Nor am I ready to short-sell real estate in the El Segundo and Redondo areas, in anticipation of aerospace companies going bankrupt.
Comment by soullite —
October 10, 2011 @ 2:47 pm
#1: that just isn’t true. You support Obama’s administrations, so you support ALL of the administration. You don’t get to play Choose Your Own Adventure with your vote; you vote for it all or you vote for none of it.
Own your god-damned choices and stop pretending you shouldn’t be judged by them.
Comment by dhex —
October 10, 2011 @ 6:50 pm
not that i think the tea partiers are very serious but isn’t “sending the us into default” by necessity taking a radical action against eternal war?
Pingback by Watch the Constitution die right now as we burn a 2452 year old vital legal precedent « Fabius Maximus —
October 10, 2011 @ 7:11 pm
[...] a Blue boot stomping on a human face. Just as the Teabaggers were silent for 8 years. — Thoreau at Qunualified Offerings, 9 october [...]
Pingback by All linky, no thinky « Blunt Object —
October 10, 2011 @ 11:59 pm
[...] It’s sports bars all the way down The Teabaggers were right: We really do have a death panel. Just not the sort of death panel that they were rallying against. And some of the people who wanted restraints on executive power when there was a Red boot stomping on a human face will serve as death panelists when there’s a Blue boot stomping on a human face. Just as the Teabaggers were silent for 8 years. [...]
Comment by Barry —
October 11, 2011 @ 10:49 am
Comment by dhex —
“not that i think the tea partiers are very serious but isn’t “sending the us into default” by necessity taking a radical action against eternal war?”
Unless one thinks that even a default with radical consequences for the US economy would still be partial enough for the military-industrial complex to survive and continue (note: survive, not flourish; a number of parties within that complex might lose out).
Comment by Killing in the Lame of —
October 11, 2011 @ 9:06 pm
I’ll tell ye what: Craig Robinson would be left on the cutting-room floor for Hot Teabag Time Machine.
Comment by dhex —
October 12, 2011 @ 9:54 am
that’s a good point, barry; i’ll amend that to “accidental semi-radical action”. their general lack of concern regarding adventures abroad is one reason it’s hard to take seriously their noises about fiscal restraint.
Comment by wrb —
October 18, 2011 @ 11:46 am
This would be a reasonable post if the use of military force against this group had not been expressly authorized by congress. But it was. What Obama is doing is legal without any need to claim unitary powers. Unlike Bush’s actions.
You are equating two things that are different. Lederman and Barron are being entirely consistent. You are slandering them.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 18, 2011 @ 11:49 am
Bush never invoked the AUMF for extraordinary actions against people whom he claimed were linked to Al Qaeda?
Comment by JENNY —
October 21, 2011 @ 3:11 am
good articles thanks for sharing .http://www.nskbearing.cc/