Home | Community | Message Board

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
yoo .. hamdan ruling "supresses creative thinking" (NYTIMES)...
    #5812811 - 07/02/06 03:53 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt287.html...

Quote:

New York Times

July 2, 2006
The Court Enters the War, Loudly
By ADAM LIPTAK

JOHN C. YOO, a principal architect of the Bush administration's legal response to the terrorist threat, sounded perplexed and a little bitter on Thursday afternoon. A few hours earlier, the Supreme Court had methodically dismantled the legal framework that he and a few other administration lawyers had built after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"What the court is doing is attempting to suppress creative thinking," said Professor Yoo, who now teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley. "The court has just declared that it's going to be very intrusive in the war on terror. They're saying, 'We're going to treat this more like the way we supervise the criminal justice system.' "

While in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003, Mr. Yoo helped write a series of memorandums setting out a bold and novel legal strategy to find, hold, question and punish the nation's enemies. The memorandums said the Geneva Conventions do not apply to people the administration designates as enemy combatants. They contemplated the use of highly coercive interrogation techniques. They justified secret surveillance.


The court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Professor Yoo said, may signal the collapse of the entire enterprise. "It could affect detention conditions, interrogation methods, the use of force," he said. "It could affect every aspect of the war on terror."

He was not overstating his case. True, the decision itself — holding that the government could not try detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for war crimes in a particular way — was narrow, given that it directly affected only 10 men and did not address the administration's broader contention that it can hold those men and hundreds of others without charges forever. And Congress may yet put some or all of the president's programs on firmer legal footing.

But the effect of the decision, constitutional lawyers across the political spectrum agreed, could devastate the administration's main legal justifications for its campaign against the terrorist threat.

"The mood music of this opinion so lacks the traditional deference to the president," said John O. McGinnis, who served in the Justice Department from 1987 to 1991 and now teaches law at Northwestern, "that it would seem to have implications for his other programs."

The administration had built its case in part on a vote by Congress, taken a week after Sept. 11, that authorized the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those who participated in and supported the attacks. The administration has relied on that authorization as legal support for several of its programs.

In 2004, the Supreme Court endorsed a part of this argument, but Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority in Hamdan, was having none of it. There is, he said "nothing in the text or legislative history" of the authorization "even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter" existing laws concerning military trials.

The opinion, Professor Yoo said, seemed to require Congress to specify a laundry list of powers before the president can act.

"I worked on the authorization," he added. "We wrote it as broadly as possible. In past wars, the court used to let the president and Congress figure out how to wage the war. That's very different from what's happening today. The court said, 'If you want to do anything, you have to be very specific and precise about it.' "

The logic of the ruling and its requirement that Congress directly authorize presidential actions even in wartime has broad implications. For one thing, said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, it seems to destroy the administration's argument that Congress blessed the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program when it voted for the authorization.

"That argument is blown out of the water and is obliterated," Professor Tribe said.

Justice Stevens also took aim at the administration's chief constitutional argument, the one that critics call "Article II on steroids."

Because Article II of the Constitution, among other things, anoints the president as commander in chief, Professor Yoo and other administration lawyers have argued the president can ignore or override laws that seem to limit his authority to conduct war. In the current struggle against terrorism, they argue, the entire world is the battlefield.

Perhaps not any more. Steven G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and a founder of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, said this second argument is also in trouble.

"The court is certainly not embracing the broader Article II power," he said.

Indeed, a footnote in the majority opinion, one sure to be read closely, seems tailored to address these other controversies by rejecting the argument that the president is free to ignore Congressional limitations on his power.

"Conceivably the court had in mind controversies like the N.S.A. terrorist surveillance program" in crafting the footnote, said Curtis A. Bradley, a former Bush administration lawyer who now teaches law at Duke.

There are supporters of the N.S.A. program who say that the Hamdan decision does not affect it. They note that a 2002 appeals court decision said that Congress "could not encroach on the president's constitutional power" to conduct warrantless surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence.

The wholesale rejection of the administration's positions in Hamdan may have its roots in part in judicial hostility toward the memorandums Professor Yoo helped prepare several years ago. The justices in the majority, said Professor McGinnis, "have been so skeptical of a variety of legal interpretations coming out of the executive branch, like the so-called torture memos, that they are not giving the president any deference."

But some justices seemed to leave a door open, suggesting that the decision is not so much a judicial attack on executive power as it is an insistence that Congress, rather than a small group of administration lawyers, must play a leading role in formulating the response to terror.

"Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in a brief concurrence that three other justices joined, "judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the nation's ability to determine — through democratic means — how best to do so."

But Professor Yoo was not inclined to accept the decision as a triumph of the democratic process. Instead, he saw it as a judicial usurpation of the president's power to protect the nation. "The court is saying we're going to be a player now," he observed ruefully.

* Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company




i guess it all depends on whether or not "creative thinking" includes neocon mendacity...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: yoo .. hamdan ruling "supresses creative thinking" (NYTIMES)... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #5814871 - 07/03/06 05:58 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

No sir, I didn't rob the bank... I was simply testing out a creative new way to make a withdraw, using a gun...

> "What the court is doing is attempting to suppress creative thinking,"

The court never suppressed his thinking, only the implementation that resulted from the creative thinking.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* new bush terror detainee bill makes george king...
( 1 2 3 all )
Annapurna1 4,741 55 08/11/06 06:17 PM
by Annapurna1
* john "voodoo law" yoo... Annapurna1 361 0 09/21/06 09:55 AM
by Annapurna1
* Leftist think tank
( 1 2 3 4 all )
nugsarenice 7,021 76 06/01/02 03:20 PM
by Great_Cthulhu
* "Creative Destruction"??? ...and the doctrine of "total war" ruskifile 851 4 03/03/03 09:58 PM
by infidelGOD
* Country Ruling pattern 679 9 12/22/02 11:51 PM
by frogsheath
* Creative Cubans (I want one of these things)
( 1 2 all )
wingnutx 1,051 23 07/27/03 08:37 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Regarding The Supreme Court's Anti Medical Marijuana Ruling mjshroomer 2,939 7 05/15/01 09:12 AM
by bivalve
* Forum Rules (Please read or re-read before posting) RonoS 32,220 0 02/25/03 05:57 AM
by Rono

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
372 topic views. 3 members, 1 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.02 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 12 queries.