Bush's Office of Legal Council Documents Released

“So... for many many years I (and others of similar thinking) had to suffer through some twisted and flat out WRONG "legal" arguments and opinions WRT many of President Bush's unconstitutional power grabs.

Those of you who support(ed) Bush would argue ad nauseum that he was not violating the Constitution (which he swore an oath to uphold!)... You'd apologize for him for days without food or drink, trying to convince us that he wasn't doing anything wrong...

Yet, yesterday, the DOJ released NINE documents issued to President Bush from the Office of Legal Council. Bush and company used these documents to justify all of their abuses of power and violation of OUR Rights!

Now... you may say that there's no evidence that he abused power or violated our rights...

Why then, did the OLC release THIS document right at the very end of the Bush presidency??? www.usdoj.gov%252Fopa%252Fdocuments%252Fmemostatusolcopinions01152009.pdf

This sounds like a case of CYA (Cover Your Ass) to me!

If what they'd done was so above board and LEGAL, then why suddenly distance yourself from it? Why not embrace it? Stand beside it? OWN IT?

I'll tell you why: Because they were breaking the law and violating the Constitution all along!!! Just like WE told You!

Your Bush boys and girls are criminals of the highest degree, engaged in an effort to bypass the Constitution and seize as much power as possible!

Thank GOD they didn't succeed with their Anti-American dream.


For ALL of the released documents, go here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm
last edited: 3/03/09 5:51:10 AM”

“while, your opinion and a court room won't even get you a cup of coffee. Try some real evidence for a change.”

“These guys made Nixon look like a piker except for Dickie being responsible for many more American deaths.”

“We'll see... But if you bother to read those OLC Documents, you can't help but notice what was going on...

And again, WHY in the world would they drop it and walk away from it if they actually believed any of it to be credible??

It's curious that BushCo used them as justification all along... then suddenly stepped away.

I call BS.”

“call what ever you want. You aren't an unbiased observer so your opinion is suspect”

“I love it....lets look at the last President who faced a REAL national threat.....FDR....want to talk about walking on civil rights, violations like Threatening the press, controlling free speech...sure Marky Mark..have another one.”

“No thanks XLax, I don't smoke that stuff.”

“Holy shyt! Some politician in Washington screwed us and only Iky and his ilk were smart enough to prophesy it?

This is me amazed...”

“No... that's not the astonishing part, Nigal.

At least not to me.

What astonishes me are the people who blindly supported, defended, and apologized for BushCo all along the way... refusing to see what was going on... ...and, apparently, even now, can't accept it. A very PRIME example of people insisting upon their ideology above and beyond the laws and Constitution of this country.”

“Well of course it doesn't astound you that you were the lone voice of reason in the wilderness. You already know how awesome you are. You called it from the get go and I am truly humbled to even be in your company. :)”

“Your first link is broked.”

“So... for many many years I (and others of similar thinking) had to suffer through some twisted and flat out WRONG "legal" arguments and opinions WRT many of President Bush's unconstitutional power grabs.

What astonishes me are the people who blindly supported, defended, and apologized for BushCo all along the way... refusing to see what was going on... ...and, apparently, even now, can't accept it. A very PRIME example of people insisting upon their ideology above and beyond the laws and Constitution of this country.


WIG nominee #3.

Have you been keeping up with the news since January, icky? I didn't think so.”

“Bite me, Nigal... you know that's not what I'm saying... quit moving the goal posts. Focus.

Of course it wasn't just me... there were MANY who were pissed about Bush's power grabs from the beginning... and we shouted about it...

And (perhaps you) others simply refused to hear anything we said... And, apparently, you're still refusing to... it's astounding.”

“Noncom... at risk of assisting you in hijacking the thread... would you care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you're asking...”

“That's not surprising.”

“You assume much Grasshopper. I've known and said Bush was RINO for a long time and I have always been against his attempts to circumnavigate the constitutional rights of Americans. The fact that I don't screech like a howler monkey on crack from the roof tops until I make myself completely irrelevant doesn't mean I have been silent nor ignorant.”

“Okay each of those smacks of using the 9/11 attacks to consolidate power.....I agree, kinda like I disagreed with the Federalizing of Baggage Inspections. If you think about it there was NOTHING increasing the Federal Payroll could have done to prevent what happened.

NOW http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604548985015461.html

Should scare the crap out of you if you give charitable donations.

Nonprofit leaders are reeling from the recent news that President Barack Obama's proposed budget would limit tax deductions on charitable contributions from wealthy Americans. But now the philanthropic world has something else to worry about. Today the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), a research and advocacy group, will release a report offering "benchmarks to assess foundation performance." Its real aim is to push philanthropic organizations into ignoring donor intent and instead giving grants based on political considerations.

Imagine if the "rails to trails" or other backpacking charitable organizations are deemed "not racially approved". Or better yet...what if they begin setting Racial Quotas? OR does this matter?”

““You assume much Grasshopper. I've known and said Bush was RINO for a long time and I have always been against his attempts to circumnavigate the constitutional rights of Americans. The fact that I don't screech like a howler monkey on crack from the roof tops until I make myself completely irrelevant doesn't mean I have been silent nor ignorant.”
Nigal

OK, then... I assume these documents being brought to light might provide some kind of vindication to you as well... ???”

“OK, then... I assume these documents being brought to light might provide some kind of vindication to you as well... ???

Which brings us back to my original point. You're surprised? Why would this bring vindication to me? I have no use for gotcha games or trying to prove i was right.”

“Nigal subscribes to the philosophy that everyone is corrupt and therefore, you can't do anything about it and should let it all transpire because it's feutile to change the system.

In other words, he's a coward.”

“If such proof would lead to justice, then, yes, I think you should be glad to have these documents.”

“Okay I missed it but...what was the liberal response to um Pardongate and other things following Slick's removal? I mean we are talking about influence to change an election (remember her thighness got elected)....I am certain the libbies were in high dudgeon over the abuses right?”

“Justice? What justice? Bawhahaha! There is no justice in Washington.”

“Slick who? Pardongate? Hillary (I assume that's who you're refering to) got elected?”

“ROTFLMAO...no kidding...I agree Nigal. I do not know how many on both sides are guilty of just blantant abuse and it seems the voters are just sheep....

Years ago I worked in a campaign for a Liberal Democrat, because I knew he was more of a 60's liberal than the socialist crap we have today. I worked AGAINST a Republican (the REP was a jacktail).”

“Rosey, WTF is "feutile"??”

“The only thing that the release of the letters yesterday has done for me is make me very afraid that the fight against terrorism will soon be fought within our borders. Obama saying that he has temporarily repealed Bush's orders as pertained to hunting down terrorist within our own borders and Obama releasing prisoners from Guantanamo makes me very nervous. It hasn't been blind luck that has kept terrorist attacks away from the US.”

“These are your two parties that you have voted for, so, can't you a least post one in Sunni red and the other in Shia blue?
last edited: 3/03/09 7:53:33 AM”

““The only thing that the release of the letters yesterday has done for me is make me very afraid that the fight against terrorism will soon be fought within our borders. Obama saying that he has temporarily repealed Bush's orders as pertained to hunting down terrorist within our own borders and Obama releasing prisoners from Guantanamo makes me very nervous. It hasn't been blind luck that has kept terrorist attacks away from the US.”
hyway

What a load of crap.

1) 9-11 occurred while Bush was president.

2) The claim that Bush kept us safe since 9-11 is false! The anthrax attacks happened AFTER 9-11. He didn't keep us safe from that, now did he?

3) Terrorist attacks world wide increased after the US invaded Iraq. I'm quite sure we are making enemies faster than we can kill them... and they will strike eventually despite any unconstitutional methods employed to prevent it from happening.

The only people the unconstitutional power grab hurts are the law abiding good citizens of this country... and anybody who believes in Liberty and Justice. Our enemies (terrorists) could give a crap about any of that...”

“anthrax was a home grown terrorist attack. Are you suggesting that legal citizens of the US should have their rights evoked too?”

“"It hasn't been blind luck that has kept terrorist attacks away from the US."

And it hasn't been Operation Iraq Liberation/O.I.L.

The various intelligence agencies(and brother, we got a lot of them!) and the F.B.I. and intelligence services of U.S. allies have kept terrotist attacks away from the U.S.......in spite of the mayhem in Iraq.

Those are the same agencies that should have sniffed out the Sept 11, 2001 attacks.”

“why are we talking about Iraq. The issue is the documents that Bush used to allow him to authorize operations against enemies of the state within the US borders. Why change the subject?”

“Are you suggesting that legal citizens of the US should have their rights evoked too?

Where were you when the Patriot Act passed? How about the wireless phone records law that let the feds obtain your phone records without a warrant? I guess those rights don't matter to you, but they do to a lot of us.”

““anthrax was a home grown terrorist attack. Are you suggesting that legal citizens of the US should have their rights evoked too?”
hyway


evoked?

Do you mean, revoked?

And of course I'm not suggesting that... Actually, that's what I'm upset about... These documents show that Bush thought he had the power to hold "anybody" without charges, indefinitely... as long as such persons were taken during an "anti-terrorist" raid...

Boy, do I feel safer!”

“Basically, it's suspension of habeus corpus, along the lines of Gitmo for any "suspect." that was one of Bush's major gaffes...never defining "terrorism" for the American people from the get go. It was just, "get 'em!"”

“you should feel safer. I do. I don't have the fear that the government is going to kick in my door and drag me downtown for questioning. I have no problem with my government tracking my overseas donations (not that I have any) or if they find something suspicious tracking where my wealth comes from (not that i have any). I do fear my government trying to take that wealth when they find it and giving it to someone less deserving of it. But thats a whole different matter.”

“How about tapping your phone because you checked out a book about Islam?”

“1) 9-11 occurred while Bush was president.

The blame for the rise of Islamic terrorism and 9/11 rests on the shoulders of many past presidents, Bush included.

2) The claim that Bush kept us safe since 9-11 is false! The anthrax attacks happened AFTER 9-11. He didn't keep us safe from that, now did he?

That is the stupidest conflation I've seen for a while. You suggesting that the anthrax attacks were Islamofascist terror attacks on the level of 9/11 is MarkO-Dumb! worthy.

3) Terrorist attacks world wide increased after the US invaded Iraq.

No, actually they decreased. There hasn't been any major terrorist attacks since 9/11. Some minor ones like london, etc, but none coming close to the devestation and upset brought about by 9/11.

Now, local jihadism in the name of AQ did seem to increase. That you're saying that is "terrorism" in the context that 9/11 is terrorism is intellectually dishonest to say the least, and very indicative of your emotional bias. In fact, one could make the argument that the Iraq war only created a convenient opportunity for jihadism, that jihad sentiment has been high for decades with no practical outlet. And that the jihadists were roundly humiliated and disgraced, not only from their military losses, but their treatment of fellow Muslimes.

You're hopelessly biased, Icky, looking at the world through the lens of wingnutism and emotional crybabiness.”

“Oh that's right. Mutt defined "terrorism" for the U.S.”

“Got tah have an enemy and by having military stationed all over the world as the US, enemies can pop up when ever one is needed. Ike know what WWII would do to americans and then the falling wall capped it off to the point no return.”

“No... the NUMBER of attacks have gone up.

wrt the Anthrax... the original quote was:

““The only thing that the release of the letters yesterday has done for me is make me very afraid that the fight against terrorism will soon be fought within our borders. Obama saying that he has temporarily repealed Bush's orders as pertained to hunting down terrorist within our own borders and Obama releasing prisoners from Guantanamo makes me very nervous. It hasn't been blind luck that has kept terrorist attacks away from the US.”
hyway

There was no distinction made between domestic and foreign terrorists.

I pointed out that there were terrorist attacks and no amount of unconstitutional measures prevented them from happening.”

“Muslimes.

You're hopelessly biased, Icky, looking at the world through the lens of wingnutism and emotional crybabiness.”
Mutt
9:38:39 AM
3/03/09

"Muslime"
Does that indicate any sort of bias, prejudice or perhaps racial and religious intolerance?”

“because Bush's executive orders were based on finding non-domestic terrorism. The methods he used was aimed mostly at non-citizens. It was not a blanket order to investigate every american citizen. If your activities didn't fit a profile that could possibly benefit islamic terrorist then you wouldn't be targeted. My point was that Bush used just enough to target the threat from islamic terrorism not general crime conducted by US citizens. I asked if you thought he should have gone further.”

““Muslimes.

You're hopelessly biased, Icky, looking at the world through the lens of wingnutism and emotional crybabiness.”
Mutt
9:38:39 AM
3/03/09

"Muslime"
Does that indicate any sort of bias, prejudice or perhaps racial and religious intolerance?”
MarkO
12:00:31 PM
3/03/09

More an indication of your near-sightedness.”

““because Bush's executive orders were based on finding non-domestic terrorism. The methods he used was aimed mostly at non-citizens. It was not a blanket order to investigate every american citizen. If your activities didn't fit a profile that could possibly benefit islamic terrorist then you wouldn't be targeted. My point was that Bush used just enough to target the threat from islamic terrorism not general crime conducted by US citizens. I asked if you thought he should have gone further.”
hyway

These documents CLEARLY show Bush thought he had the right to do whatever he wanted, WHEREVER he wanted to. US soil was not sacred.

And... there's no distinction between foreign or domestic in these documents.
last edited: 3/03/09 9:06:51 AM”

“Save your "breath", Ick.

You are dealing with those who are reality challenged.”

“Just issue another signing statement, George! As Shrub showed, the President can be accountable to NO ONE!”

“People who support this crap have no concept of what the Constitution is about. Either that or they do not support the core principles of the United States. I remember how they tossed around terms like 'sedition' when people weren't as firmly attached to Dubya's ass. Well look in the mirror, kiddies.

They probably won't get Bush... Maybe not Cheney.... but Addington, Yoo and Rumsfeld should be very nervous. Send 'em to Gitmo? Nah.... Send 'em to ATLANTA where the walls are very thick and there is no parole.”

“bingo”

“Perhaps Dubya's fans simply have no morals at all.”