The Week That Was

I have been inundated with materials concerning the DOJ release of the Yoo memos and the various arguments for a Truth Commission and the prosecution of Bush officials. Kudos go to Harpers 'Scott Horton for his piece " George W. Bush's Disposable Constitution". Matthew Rothschild in "We Came an Inch from Martial Law, Bush Justice Department Memos Reveal" in The Progressive is worth a read. Long-time Bush-basher Robert Parry writes in consortiumnews.com "How Close the Bush Bullet". The most worrisome news came from an anonymous Bush Administration official who said,"the worst is yet to come."

John Yoo is fighting back through the pages of the Wall Street Journal in his ope-ed,"Yes, We Did Plan for Mumbai-style attacks in the U.S." to justify his position on suspending the Fourth Amendment.

While the prominent papers gave due notice of the revelations contained in the released DOJ memos, the odds are slim to none that there will be prosecutions or even a Truth Commission. Leon Panetta this week reassured CIA agents involved in "enhanced interrogations" that they would not face prosecution. The Obama Administration would love to have this issue disappear since the prospect of proscution and investigations have produced a backlash in the national security community. It's enough in their mind to "move forward" and try to change strategy and behavior.

The real issue is that a full-scale assault on our democratic system can not be revealed to the public. If the full picture were really known such as the FEMA plans for concentration camps and the dictatorial powers of the Presidency, then the myth of America would be shattered. We had a similar situation during the Watergate Days, when the ambitious plans of Richard Nixon to reorganize the entire federal bureaucracy were conventiently left out of the investigation and debate. The same applies to the Clinton impeachment proceedings, which serious proponents argued should have been based on the extent of the White House's dealing with Mainland China and its agents. In that case, presentations by Bill Cohen and Madeliene Albright to former OSS man Henry Hyde killed that line of inquiry.

In the case of George W. Bush, Pat Leahy also voiced the intention to uncover the role of Democrats in enabling warrantless wiretaps and the suspension of basic liberties. As Dick Cheney hinted in his exit interviews, key Democratic leaders were briefed and OK's everything from warrantless wiretaps to torture. It's a classic case of greymail.

The American people have always given a sitting President a wide lattitude in conducting wars. As Bush supporters point out, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and FDR interned Japanese Americans. After the Civil War, the American Congress passed laws forbidding any of Lincoln's violations in the future and a large consensus has emerged in America that the internment of Japanese Americans was a blot on our history.

But these exceptions, to my mind, do not entail an Administration's own lawyers writing legal opinions that would justify a presidential dictatorship. What is curious about the DOJ memos so far is that their are no counter-arguments or hesitations registered in these memos--no admonitions that some of these positions should not be taken. There is no indication that other lawyers had inputs that may have reflected real constitutional thought and not the blathering of John Yoo and his compatriots.

Remember Congress gave George W. Bush permission to wage the war against terror with all means necessary. The Bush Administration took that literally and without any hesitation. While Democrats thought the war meant to eliminate Al Qaeda, the Bush Administration security types thought it meant all islamic terrorists. And another subset felt it meant to wage war on all organizations that might lend material or intellectual support to people engaged in terrorism. The latter gets you the Sierra Club on the terrorist list because its enviromental positions might encourage eco-terrrorists in the Pacific Northwest, even though there is no direct link. If the actual foe is not defined, this becomes a recipe for a totalitarian system.

Bits and pieces of this policy are all over the landscape and ,frankly, no one in public office wants to put it all together. Homeland Security providing evidence against anti-war activists in nearby Maryland to justify their surveillance is just a small example. No matter the justification of such policies and such loony things such as the Patriot Act, it is always useful to remember that such policies are always implemented at the lowest common denominator. Sheer force will always dominate over subtlety or a graduated response.

The conservatives are now in high dungeon on the prospects of investigations or prosecutions to avoid any blunt reflection on the vast extent of the Bush Administration's constitutional over-reach. One only had to witness the reaction by the right to Justice Kennedy's Supreme Court decisions months ago concerning the habeas corpus rights of Gitmo detainees. In fact, alot of the posturing now, including the frequent media appearances of Karl Rove and other Bush officials, is meant to be prophylactic against legal prosecutions. Expect more John Yoo op-eds.