The expansion of Presidental power/authority (news analysis)

[rodeodance]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17legal.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

December 17, 2005
News Analysis
Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - A single, fiercely debated legal principle lies behind nearly every major initiative in the Bush administration's war on terror, scholars say: the sweeping assertion of the powers of the presidency.

From the government's detention of Americans as "enemy combatants" to the just-disclosed eavesdropping in the United States without court warrants, the administration has relied on an unusually expansive interpretation of the president's authority. That stance has given the administration leeway for decisive action, but it has come under severe criticism from some scholars and the courts.

With the strong support of Vice President Dick Cheney, legal theorists in the White House and Justice Department have argued that previous presidents unjustifiably gave up some of the legitimate power of their office. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made it especially critical that the full power of the executive be restored and exercised, they said.

The administration's legal experts, including David S. Addington, the vice president's former counsel and now his chief of staff, and John C. Yoo, deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, have pointed to several sources of presidential authority.
.................................

[rodeodance]

1. talks of Yoo--the Bush legal consel who helps with legal advice

Mr. Yoo, who is believed to have helped write a legal justification for the National Security Agency's secret domestic eavesdropping, first laid out the basis for the war on terror in a Sept. 25, 2001, memorandum that said no statute passed by Congress "can place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response."

That became the underlying justification for numerous actions apart from the eavesdropping program, disclosed by The New York Times on Thursday night. Those include the order to try accused terrorists before military tribunals; the detention of so-called enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret overseas jails operated by the Central Intelligence Agency; the holding of two Americans, Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, as enemy combatants; and the use of severe interrogation techniques, including some banned by international agreements, on Al Qaeda figures.

Mr. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, declined to comment for this article. But Bradford A. Berenson, who served as associate counsel to President Bush from 2001 to 2003, explained the logic behind the assertion of executive power.

"After 9/11 the president felt it was incumbent on him to use every ounce of authority available to him to protect the American people," Mr. Berenson said........

[rodeodance]

2. here is another story about Yoo that I posted previously.

Fri Dec-16-05 08:48 PM

Shame on Yoo



Yoo also argued that the "Geneva Conventions Do Not Apply to Detainees":


http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Civil%20Liberties
Shame on Yoo

The New York Times reports today that soon after 9/11, “President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.”

Who provided the legal justification to spy (perhaps illegally) on Americans without judicial oversight? None other than former Justice Department official John Yoo. It’s not the first time Yoo has advised the administration to push moral, legal and ethical boundaries:

Yoo Argued Interrogation Wasn’t Torture Unless It Resulted In Organ Failure or Death: Yoo also wrote an infamous torture memo which argued that interrogation techniques only constitute torture if they are “equivalent in intensity to…organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” The Bush administration was forced to repudiate that memo once it became public. Yoo continues to defend it, saying the new torture definition “makes it harder to figure out how the torture statute applies to specific interrogation methods.”

Yoo Argued President Bush Didn’t Need To Ask Congress Before Invading Iraq: Yoo has also argued that “President Bush didn’t need to ask Congress for permission to invade Iraq.” The 1973 War Powers Resolution, according to Yoo, is “irrelevant.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed the argument when she told a congressional committee that “the president has the right to attack Syria, without congressional approval, if he deems that a necessary move in the war on terror.”........

[dusmcj]

3. The Presidency is Answerable to the People. nt

[petgoat]

4. Berkeley Students Protested in October

http://dailycal.org/article.php?id=20154



http://www.worldcantwait.org/