[Yoo] was a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on national security and terrorism matters arising from the September 11 attacks. He served as general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee under Chairman Orrin Hatch. Upon graduating from law school, professor Yoo served as a law clerk for Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court.His thesis tonight was that almost all of the "consensus" great presidents have pushed the envelope on executive powers, generally in response to great challenges.
Whether or not his thesis is true (I think it is), his lecture provided splendid historical context on the issue of how fascist or dictatorial or autocratic (or unprecedented?) George Dubya Bush's executive actions aren't.
For example, did you know that FDR authorized the wire-tapping every single phoneline in America, without a warrant, prior to WWII (here, here)? I figured not.
As I said above, Yoo argues that the American presidents viewed as "great" aggressively used their executive powers to defend America's interests during exceptionally challenging periods. Despite a 24/7/365 Left-wing demolition effort from the first Wednesday in November 2000 till today, it is interesting to consider how history will treat George W. Bush and his way-paving in the war against global Jihadists.
2 comments:
it is interesting to consider how history will treat George W. Bush and his way-paving in the war against global Jihadists.
You mean his war against American citizens, but nevermind that.
When was the last time you read about FDR being praised for wire-tapping phone lines. "Great" presidents may have broken the rules, but generally speaking (I can think of no examples), the actions they took that are in violation of the constitution are not considered great.
Are you of the mindset that history looks kindly on FDR's internment of Japanese Americans?
My point is, that if George W. Bush wants to be remembered as a great president, he actually needs to accomplish something MORE than just breaking the rules. Great presidents who break the rules are remembered as great DESPITE breaking the rules, not FOR breaking them.
It is important to note that John Yoo, a neocon, has publically said the president has a right to torture children and assume complete power during a time of war. He also wrote memos supporting torture at Abu Ghraib, inciting a federal complaint in Germany for his complicity in War Crimes.
He goes against the Federalist society's main tenents - "the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution," and that the duty of the judicial branch is "to say what the law is, not what the law should be.
He is a true blue authoritarian, just like Ned.
Post a Comment