ShrinkRap
07/16/2009Common Cause lists these as issues that need to be investigated and calls for a special prosecutor to be appointed:
- Warrantless spying on Americans.
- Misuse of the state secrets doctrine.
- Preventive detention and secret prisons.
- Use of torture and other interrogation abuses.
- Deliberate flaunting of Congress’ oversight role.
- Politicization of the Justice Department.
- Abuse of executive privilege.
- Misuse of signing statements to override laws duly passed by Congress.
That seems to me more than sufficient to mandate an investigation. But I would add one glaring omission:
After I read this, I got to wondering why we don’t immediately go to the Invasion of Iraq as the most egregious of the Bush Administration’s abuses of power [and other things]. The Campaign against Iraq began in September 2002 with a media blitz, headlining the Vice President, among others:
|
September 8, 2002 MEET THE PRESS
TIM RUSSERT: One year ago when you were on MEET THE PRESS just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein… Has anything changed, in your mind?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn’t he there, again, it’s the intelligence business.
TIM RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that and the president?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: It’s credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it’s unconfirmed at this point. We’ve got…
TIM RUSSERT: Anything else?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is – again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we’ve had recently since the operations in Afghanistan – we’ve seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein has, over the years, been one of the top state sponsors of terrorism for nearly 20 years. We’ve had this recent weird incident where the head of the Abu Nidal organization, one of the world’s most noted terrorists, was killed in Baghdad. The announcement was made by the head of Iraqi intelligence. The initial announcement said he’d shot himself. When they dug into that, though, he’d shot himself four times in the head. And speculation has been, that, in fact, somehow, the Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein had him eliminated to avoid potential embarrassment by virtue of the fact that he was in Baghdad and operated in Baghdad. So it’s a very complex picture to try to sort out.
TIM RUSSERT: But no direct link?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t – I’ll leave it right where it’s at. I don’t want to go beyond that. I’ve tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments, and I hope that everybody will recognize that.
|
Bush went to the U.N. a few days later [September 12th]. Meanwhile the Department of Justice got in the act:
|
October 23, 2002 OLC Memo by John Yoo
You have asked our Office whether the President has the authority, under both domestic and international law, to use military force against Iraq. This memorandum confirms our prior advice to you regarding the scope of the President’s authority.1 We conclude that the President possesses constitutional authority for ordering the use of force against Iraq to protect our national interests. This independent authority is supplemented by congressional authorization in the form of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, Pub. L. No. 102-1, 105 Stat. 3 (1991), which supports the use of force to secure Iraq’s compliance with its international obligations following the liberation of Kuwait, and the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001), which supports military action against Iraq if the President determines Iraq provided assistance to the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In addition, using force against Iraq would be consistent with international law, because it would be authorized by the United Nations (“U.N.”) Security Council, or would be justified as anticipatory self-defense.
|
The U.N. acted, and passed UNSCR 1441, which laid out stiff requirements for resumption of inspections in Iraq and Hussein agreed. The U.N. Resolution was passed on November 8th, 2002. But Yoo was ready. This OLC Memo was released on the same day, just to cover the fact that the UN resolution didn’t bind the President or affect his ability to make war on Iraq, no matter how things came out:
|
November 8, 2002 OLC Memo by John Yoo
You have asked our Office to analyze the effect of United Nations (“U.N.”) Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted on November 8, 2002, on the President’s authority under international law to use military force against Iraq. We recently advised you that the use of military force against Iraq would be consistent with international law under existing U.N. Security Council resolutions (“UNSCRs”), or as an exercise of anticipatory self-defense. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Authority of the President Under Domestic and International Law to Use Military Force Against Iraq (Oct. 23, 2002) (“Iraq Opinion”). The terms of UNSCR 1441 do not alter our earlier conclusion: the United States continues to have the authority, under international law, to use force against Iraq.
We emphasize at the outset that U.N. Security Council authorization is not a necessary precondition under international law for the use of force. On numerous occasions, states have, consistent with international law, used force without prior authorization from the Security Council. Such uses of force have been based on the inherent right to national self-defense recognized and affirmed in article 51 of the U.N. Charter. See generally Iraq Opinion at 30, 35-42. Under the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, the United States may use force against Iraq if the President determines the use of force would be necessary due to an imminent threat, and a proportional response to that threat. See generally id. at 30-46. We also emphasize that the question of legality of the use of force against Iraq under international law has no bearing on the President’s authority under domestic law. As we have advised you previously, the President has full constitutional authority as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief to use force against Iraq. Id. at 6-8. Congress most recently supported the President’s authority in this context by passing H.J. Res. 114, Pub. L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498 (2002).
|
But we now know that this UN business was all for show. The outcome was already assured. Note the date JULY 23rd.
|
July 23, 2002 The Downing Street Memo
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
|
The inspectors didn’t find anything in Iraq, but there was inadequate documentation. The UN was continuing to pressure Iraq. But when it became obvious that the Security Council wasn’t yet ready to declare war, we acted unilaterally.
It’s abundantly clear that the plan top invade Iraq was already a fait accompli before the media campaign, or Bush’s U.N. speech, or the inspections. As the Downing Street Memo says, "no patience with the UN route." If you read over Yoo’s Memos, there’s no real Cassus Belli [cause for war] that was close to true, even by Yoo’s standards:
-
No immediate threat
-
No WMDs
-
No harboring of Terrorists
-
No involvement in 9/11
I don’t know why we aren’t still beyond outraged, and Common Cause didn’t even list it in its reasons for a Special Prosecutor. To paraphrase Hussein from long ago, it’s the MOTHER of all reasons. Are we too embarassed to even turn over that rock?…
Do you remember the prosecutor of Charles Manson, Vincent Bugliosi? He wrote a book “The Prosecution of George W Bush For Muder”. In the book he says there is conclusive evidence that Bush lied to us about there being conclusive evidence that we could be attacked by Iraq any day. Bugliosi proves from the evidence that just days before that address to the nation that Bush had a classified report involving 16 intellegence agencies that Iraq did not have the capability to attack. The author lays out the lies ,the evidence and even gives the questions to cross examine the defendent and more. I think your point about turning over the rock is probably true. Is that what other nations did when they realized there leaders were murderers and liars? Are there nations in history who were broughttheir leaders to justice by their own courts or did other nations have to do the job for them?
[…] a position to look into whether that fact is going to be swept under the rug or examined carefully. Recently, I was looking over John Yoo’s OLC Memos coming from the DoJ in the leadup to the war. For […]