Secret Bush administration legal memos released to public

Secret Bush administration legal memos released to public

This is a discussion on Secret Bush administration legal memos released to public within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; This is scary stuff by anyones standards. Secret Bush administration legal memos released to public -- chicagotribune.com "That legal rationale by the Justice Department's Office ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Secret Bush administration legal memos released to public

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298

    Secret Bush administration legal memos released to public

    This is scary stuff by anyones standards.


    Secret Bush administration legal memos released to public -- chicagotribune.com


    "That legal rationale by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, in a memo written six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, would have meant that U.S. soldiers could search houses and seize suspected terrorists without a court-approved warrant. "

    Michael


  2. #2
    Member Array jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    438
    In a speech Monday, Holder said he understood the need to protect America from terrorism. "But we must do so in a manner that preserves, protects and defends the rights that are enshrined in our Constitution, and the rule of law itself."

    Hypocrite
    Note: This post may contain misspellings, grammatical errors, disorganized sentence structure, or may entirely lack a coherent theme. These elements are natural to the process of writing, and will only add to the overall beauty of the post.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array sheepdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    691
    #1-Bush's admin never did any of those things, even the article says. You can always find some lawyer somewhere to say anything you need said.
    #2-Obama could have NO need to release that type of thing except as cover for the stock market DIVING every time he opens his mouth.
    What Would Gumby Do?

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,018
    Just look were it came from....yawn

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Here's MSNBC's blurb that just barely beat the AFP yesterday:

    Bush Justice memos released - First Read - msnbc.com

    The Justice Department today released several Bush-era legal memos, issued in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, that were rescinded in the later days of the Bush presidency or since President Obama took office.

    "Americans deserve a government that operates with transparency and openness," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a written statement accompanying the release.

    The memos argued:

    1. The president has the authority to use the military to detain foreign or international terrorists inside the U.S.

    "A military commander carrying out a raid on a terrorist cell" inside the US would not need a search or arrest warrant.

    Traditionally observed restrictions on military activity inside the U.S. is limited to using the military to carry out law enforcement functions and arresting a foreign terrorist in the U.S. would come under a president's war-fighting authority.

    That conclusion appears to have been withdrawn by another memo issued in the closing days of the Bush Administration -- in October 2008.

    2. A president would have authority to transfer a prisoner held by the military overseas to another country but would have much less ability to do so for a detainee held inside the U.S.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,837
    if they suspect the USA is under attack by terriorist..... and in that situation they did not know how many airplanes, how many teams, and how many other things they might have going on ....

    GO GET EM......... I don't care who's house they are in. At that point it's all about "protecting" people and getting them rounded up by any means before they can cause any more destruction.

    You are "under attack" on your own soil. Do you want them to wait for a friggin warrant ??? What about Pearl Harbor ?? They rounded up anyone they thought were questionable, and did actually catch several 'spies' that had been and were sending the Japanese information, positiions & pic's of ship locations, etc.

    They don't need to go get a Judge first..... it's considered a National Security issue at that point. ..... different rules apply.

    And before it's said, no that does not mean they can arbritrarily take guns away from legal citizens... without due process, unless they are in the act of committing or preparing a terriorist act.

    Sorry... rant off. I get aggravated that some think in those situations we should go get the terriorist a lawyer....

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    if they suspect the USA is under attack by terriorist..... and in that situation they did not know how many airplanes, how many teams, and how many other things they might have going on ....

    GO GET EM......... I don't care who's house they are in. At that point it's all about "protecting" people and getting them rounded up by any means before they can cause any more destruction.

    You are "under attack" on your own soil. Do you want them to wait for a friggin warrant ??? What about Pearl Harbor ?? They rounded up anyone they thought were questionable, and did actually catch several 'spies' that had been and were sending the Japanese information, positiions & pic's of ship locations, etc.

    They don't need to go get a Judge first..... it's considered a National Security issue at that point. ..... different rules apply.

    And before it's said, no that does not mean they can arbritrarily take guns away from legal citizens... without due process, unless they are in the act of committing or preparing a terriorist act.

    Sorry... rant off. I get aggravated that some think in those situations we should go get the terriorist a lawyer....
    What I would like them to do is their job! Congress should declare war. Then there would be no question as to what to do with them. If they are caught on our soil they are spies and could be shot!

    If they are captured on the battlefield they would be prisioners of war. They would be held until the end of hostilities same as other wars.

    Michael

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by sheepdog View Post
    #1-Bush's admin never did any of those things, even the article says. You can always find some lawyer somewhere to say anything you need said.
    #2-Obama could have NO need to release that type of thing except as cover for the stock market DIVING every time he opens his mouth.
    You are correct. Doesn't it bother you in the least that They put a rule in place allowing the military jurisdiction over civillians on our soil?
    Its the rule itself thats dangerous.

    "The memos disclosed Monday also said the military's need to go after terrorists in the United States might override constitutional protections guaranteeing the right to free speech."

    How many of your rights, how much of your freedom are you willing to give up to protect your safety?

    Michael

  9. #9
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,977
    You are correct. Doesn't it bother you in the least that They put a rule in place allowing the military jurisdiction over civillians on our soil?
    Its the rule itself thats dangerous.
    Fact of the matter is, whether one beleives it or not, who ever has the most firepower has the jurisdiction.

    Thats the way it has always been and thats the way it will always be.

    If a war were to come here on the hometurf, the military will do whatever needs to be done to end it. Getting to that point is often very, very ugly.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Fact of the matter is, whether one beleives it or not, who ever has the most firepower has the jurisdiction.

    Thats the way it has always been and thats the way it will always be.

    If a war were to come here on the hometurf, the military will do whatever needs to be done to end it. Getting to that point is often very, very ugly.
    War is the key word. If Congress would do its job and declare war as the constitution meant it to be they would not need these secret memos. I'm in favor of going after them but prefer not to lose what we are trying to protect in the process.

    Michael

  11. #11
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,977
    prefer not to lose what we are trying to protect in the process.
    I'm with ya.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,150
    And if Cuba invaded Florida, would the soldiers on bases their wait for a warrant of Declaration of War before they responded?

    We are fighting them overseas, we should fight them here too.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    And if Cuba invaded Florida, would the soldiers on bases their wait for a warrant of Declaration of War before they responded?

    We are fighting them overseas, we should fight them here too.
    I fully agree. So why not do it and follow the constitution? Best of both worlds. If you prefer to ignore the constitution are we going to be opening up internment camps for American citizens who may have relatives in a muslim country. How bout just the dark skinned ones to start with.

    Personally if I lose my rights, my freedom, I don't really care what government is in control. Don't give up your freedom in the name of safety.

    Michael

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    There are times the process of aquiring a search warrant might not be the right military action. Some reasons are used by LEO often, from plain view searchs to protective sweep searchs.

    The intent of the constitution is to protect (or whatever term you want to use) rights, not to protect criminal acts. I think some extreme threats justify action by the military / President. Sometimes the military / CIA can't provide all the details for security reasons to the courts but they could know of a clear threat. In those rare extremes, if say the military must take immediate action, and it turns out they were right about the threat, I can live with that.

    Yes, it is filled with dangerous possibilities, but both have hypotheticals that result from no action or action. At that hight level, sometimes the ends could justify the means. Operatives, in that situation, need to know someone in government has their back (or they may fail to respond to a threat).

    This gets into an interesting forum rule, of not suggesting that someone break the law. So I'm not sure I can add much more to this post.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    There are times the process of aquiring a search warrant might not be the right military action. Some reasons are used by LEO often, from plain view searchs to protective sweep searchs.
    I'm not susgesting that we break any laws. I'm saying congress should do their job and declare war! We would not need any warants then would we? An enemy on our soil would be a spy, simple. No courts no appeals...shoot him.
    This enemy combatant nonsense is going to come back an bite us someday.

    Michael

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. High Noon Public Secret Rocks!
    By SpringerXD in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 9th, 2009, 02:31 AM
  2. Bush Administration Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of Second Amendment
    By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 29th, 2006, 01:27 PM
  3. TOP SECRET BUSH ADMIN PLAN for NK Missile someone call the NYT
    By Redneck Repairs in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 29th, 2006, 07:25 PM
  4. Bush Lawyers Target Gun Control's Legal Rationale
    By Bravo3 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 9th, 2005, 01:50 AM