|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:23 pm Post subject: John Yoo: President Can Nuke Whoever He Wants - No Checks |
 |
|
Article here.
| Quote: |
One of the most shocking revelations in the DOJ�s recently-released report on its lawyers who supported Bush-era torture policy is John Yoo�s admission that he believes the President of the United States could unilaterally order �a village�to be massacred.�
Today, Yoo doubled-down on this statement in an interview with San Francisco radio station KQED. After the host asked him if he stands by his prior support of Presidential massacres, Yoo raised the stakes to endorse the President�s unilateral authority to use nuclear weapons:
| Yoo wrote: |
| Look at the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. � Could Congress tell President Truman that he couldn�t use a nuclear bomb in Japan, even though Truman thought in good faith he was saving millions of Americans and Japanese lives? � My only point is that the government places those decisions in the President, and if the Congress doesn�t like it they can cut off funds for it or they can impeach him. |
First of all, Yoo�s claim that Congress could cut off funds for a nuclear attack or impeach the President after he makes the decision to launch nuclear weapons does little to prevent a nuclear attack. Even assuming that a supermajority of senators supported taking swift action against a rogue President, the fact that Congress subsequently cut of funding for nuclear launches or removed the President from office would be little comfort to the tens of thousands of people already killed in the attack. Yoo�s solution amounts to shutting the barn door long after the horse has fled.
More importantly, Yoo misrepresents the law. As far back as 1804, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Little v. Barreme that Congress has sweeping authority to limit the President�s actions in wartime. That case involved an Act of Congress authorizing vessels to seize cargo ships bound for French ports. After the President also authorized vessels to seize ships headed away from French ports, the Supreme Court held this authorization unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress� decision to allow one kind of seizure implicitly forbade other kinds of seizure. More recently, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court held that the President does not have the power to unilaterally set military policy (in those cases with respect to detention); he must comply with statutory limits on his power. Taken together, these and other cases unquestionably establish that Congress has the power to tell the President �no,� and the President must listen.
John Yoo is a moral vacuum, but he is also a constitutional law professor at one of the nation�s top law schools and a former Supreme Court clerk. It is simply impossible that Yoo is not aware of Little, Hamdi and Hamdan, or that he does not understand what they say. So when John Yoo claims that the President is not bound by Congressional limits, he is not simply ignorant or misunderstanding the law. He is lying. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I"ll accept for now that he is (as far as I can tell) lying. What should be done? Who else should be questioned? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| I"ll accept for now that he is (as far as I can tell) lying. What should be done? Who else should be questioned? |
I just think it's of value to highlight the sort of thing that's been happening in our government. The government hiring lawyers to intentionally and knowingly lie in their interpretations of the law to try to justify illegal activity is madness. Citizens should be outraged about this kind of thing, and that outrage should inform their voting. How much more questioning really needs to be done before people start deciding it's time to stop tolerating it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| How much more questioning really needs to be done before people start deciding it's time to stop tolerating it? |
I ask the same question all the time.
Bad joke, but anyway I know how you feel. More....
http://www.slate.com/id/2245531/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
As bad as the example in the OP is, the one that has been around for a while that horrifies me...
I would really like an explanation from the pro-torture crowd for just when and under what circumstances any government anywhere, anytime, except ours, says it's OK to crush the *beep* of a boy in front of a parent to get information. I really would like an explanation of that one.
That is not the country I was born in, grew up in and lived my adult life in.
I understand that in wartime a president's powers must be expanded. I do not understand the total and entire abolition of law and tradition the past administration insisted on. That was a new claim. Further, I deeply mistrust anyone who insists on a state of permanent war against anyone for any reason--it is far too tempting to abuse that situation. I've said for several years now that the 'conservative' movement is not conservative; they are radical extremists engaged in changing our entire system.
From the days of Hamilton vs Jefferson, the Hamiltonians--big business, republicanism--have been elitists who are not committed to the idea of democracy as we understand it. I have my problems with Jefferson, but there is a reason why the Democratic Party holds Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmmm....apparently *beep* is a forbidden word. How about gonads? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The guy is a nutball. I have no idea how he's a law professor at Cal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Drop a bomb on 'em and pour a dom on 'em
As soon as the track come on I transform on 'em
Keep gangsta sh#t pumpin through my system
Strobe lights flashin can't miss 'em" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: John Yoo: President Can Nuke Whoever He Wants - No Check |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Article here.
| Quote: |
One of the most shocking revelations in the DOJ�s recently-released report on its lawyers who supported Bush-era torture policy is John Yoo�s admission that he believes the President of the United States could unilaterally order �a village�to be massacred.�
Today, Yoo doubled-down on this statement in an interview with San Francisco radio station KQED. After the host asked him if he stands by his prior support of Presidential massacres, Yoo raised the stakes to endorse the President�s unilateral authority to use nuclear weapons:
| Yoo wrote: |
| Look at the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. � Could Congress tell President Truman that he couldn�t use a nuclear bomb in Japan, even though Truman thought in good faith he was saving millions of Americans and Japanese lives? � My only point is that the government places those decisions in the President, and if the Congress doesn�t like it they can cut off funds for it or they can impeach him. |
First of all, Yoo�s claim that Congress could cut off funds for a nuclear attack or impeach the President after he makes the decision to launch nuclear weapons does little to prevent a nuclear attack. Even assuming that a supermajority of senators supported taking swift action against a rogue President, the fact that Congress subsequently cut of funding for nuclear launches or removed the President from office would be little comfort to the tens of thousands of people already killed in the attack. Yoo�s solution amounts to shutting the barn door long after the horse has fled.
More importantly, Yoo misrepresents the law. As far back as 1804, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Little v. Barreme that Congress has sweeping authority to limit the President�s actions in wartime. That case involved an Act of Congress authorizing vessels to seize cargo ships bound for French ports. After the President also authorized vessels to seize ships headed away from French ports, the Supreme Court held this authorization unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress� decision to allow one kind of seizure implicitly forbade other kinds of seizure. More recently, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court held that the President does not have the power to unilaterally set military policy (in those cases with respect to detention); he must comply with statutory limits on his power. Taken together, these and other cases unquestionably establish that Congress has the power to tell the President �no,� and the President must listen.
John Yoo is a moral vacuum, but he is also a constitutional law professor at one of the nation�s top law schools and a former Supreme Court clerk. It is simply impossible that Yoo is not aware of Little, Hamdi and Hamdan, or that he does not understand what they say. So when John Yoo claims that the President is not bound by Congressional limits, he is not simply ignorant or misunderstanding the law. He is lying. |
|
According to these links though, he is correct about the president using nuclear weapons.
http://epwilbur.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Presidential-Power-nuclear-article2.pdf
http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch
Don't know how reliable the second one is, but the first seems to have some decent credentials. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It looks to me like the first article is making a different case than Mr. Yoo is making.
| Quote: |
| The only check on this authority is the possibility that one or more individuals in the chain of command will disobey the order. Because the chain of events from authorization to launch can happen almost instantaneously, there may be very little time for intervention. |
This says that because the process happens so quickly, it could be very difficult for, say, Congress to intervene. And yes, that's a fairly obvious and unfortunate reality: Congress can't vote to stop the President if Congress doesn't have time to vote after all. John Yoo seemed to be making a stronger case, though, which asserts that even if Congress has time to vote, they would not be legally able to stop him, doesn't seem to be borne out in the law; the President may have the authority to deploy without consulting with others, but if Congress pre-emptively forbids him, the appliable judicial rulings seem to imply that he must comply. They are not limited to either impeaching the President or defunding nuclear weapons programs.
Of course, the case for Congress having the right to do that is spelled out by example with regards to other military activity rather than specifically with regards to nuclear weapons, so a Supreme Court willing to completely overturn precedent -- like, for instance, our current Supreme Court -- could rule in favor of the President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
