# "Takeover," by Charlie Savage, and the "imperial presidency" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2008, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350 "2008-02-12T22:11:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/41 "2008-02-14T23:34:53Z")
[And, in other news . . .](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=455754) ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/42 "2008-02-18T22:04:34Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Absolutely right. If only FISA warrants had to be submitted to a [a court.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court) If only Hamdi had been able to be heard by the [Supreme Court.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html) If only Padilla were allowed to plead [his](http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_1027/) case. If only there were some [possible way](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/national/main3515237.shtml) to prevent Bush from riding roughshod over Congress with regard to the telecoms. Would that [some federal judge](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/national/main3515237.shtml) could affect the status of prisoners at Gitmo even a little. If any of these things were even remotely possible, then there might be some hope for the rule of law. Then ravings about how the Bush administration was ignoring the courts would be seen as a bunch of whiny-assed nonsense. But, alas… Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Sorry to bump the thread, but I missed Shodan’s little rant. It was so cute, too, I just couldn’t let it go without comment. Here’s the thing, Shodan. Yes, FISA required court approval. But you know what Bush did? He didn’t. He surveilled US citizens WITHOUT a warrant. For years. In secret. So, oddly enough, there was no court oversight. But after we found out about it and courts began to hear the challenges, you know what Bush did? He decided he would comply with FISA after all. Then, and only then, did he try to change the law. So, with cases challenging his actions, he’s argued (succesfully sometimes) state secrets. Then he argued mootness. And now he wants a telecom immunity bill so he doesn’t have to let the facts out in those cases. At every turn, he’s avoided any court oversight for his actions. So, he didn’t ask the law to be changed, and he done everything to avoid court rulings on his actions. Shall we go on? How about Hamdi. As pravik pointed out, guess how he got his day in court? By petitioning the judiciary. And this adminstration has, as I pointed out, taken every opportunity to deny him that. I suppose you could pretend that Bush was fine with courts considering his actions. But that would just be pretend. And do you know where Hamdi is now? Where do you think? Did this incredibly dangerous terrorist get his trial? Did the facts come out? Now, Bush cut him lose rather than try him. Apparently he wasn’t the bad guy they thought he was for years. Padilla, same thing. He was locked up, without charges for 3.5 years until he was finally charged with a criminal offense only because the case was in posture of going to the Supreme Court. So, while they did have their days in court, oddly enough it was DESPITE the President, and not thanks to him in any way shape or form. More, you say? OK. As to telecom immunity, it is only the House that is holding out against being Bush’s accomplice. But, again, this administration has done everything in its power to avoid these cases from being heard. They’ve reclaimed evidence, they’ve hidden behind state secrets and standing challenges. And, at least in some cases, they’ve lost. So, rather than let the facts out and defend their actions, they’ve asked Congress to shut these cases down. And the spineless people in the Senate would give even that to him. Guantanamo? Where are we there? How hard did they fight to deny habeas? How hard are they fighting to avoid any court trials for them? And, even now, they’ve planned to try what? 16 of the how many? 500, 600 prisoners who have been in Guantanamo? Yeah, they’re really all about the rule of law. So, Shodan. It’s pretty clear to me, if you look at how this administration has conducted itself, it is obvious that “this administration has gone out of it’s way to avoid making their (mostly bullshit) arguments in court.” So stuff your “whiny nonsense” and educate yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/43 "2008-02-18T22:09:24Z")
Indeed. Arguing that the administration (and a complicit Congress) hasn’t tried to shut down the courts on these issues isn’t even within the parameters of the current debate. All sides admit that administration is doing that. The MCA explicitly strips federal court jurisdiction over habeas cases. The only debate is whether that is a bad thing. It’s like arguing that CO2 doesn’t exist in a debate about Global Warming. It’s just way outside of what either side is saying. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2008, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/44 "2008-02-19T03:32:59Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] So stuff your “whiny nonsense” and educate yourself. [/QUOTE] Tis is a lot closer to attcking the poster than attacking the post or the argument. If you need to express this sentiment, take it to the **Pit**. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2008, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/45 "2008-02-19T03:55:25Z")
[QUOTE=unconventional] Add to the list Bush’s executive authority to suspend the Geneva Conventions. **This administration made decision and formed legal opinions in secret. Information was removed from agency websites and rubber stamped classified or not for public dissemination. Opposition to the administration was curtailed with intimidation. It is hard to control a president who will not follow the rules. Walker v Chaney challenged the administration’s secrecy and nondisclosure policy, but the court sided with the VP and dismissed the case. I do agree with you. The courts seem like the only place Congress can go to challenge an unlawful president and take back the authority to control executive power with laws.** _The rule of law is the enemy of the powerful_. – Charlie Savage [/QUOTE] Well that’s certainly a new concept. :rolleyes: Not defending Bush, but to act like this kind of behavior hasn’t been occurring for decades is just ludicrous. Signing statements…pffft… ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2008, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/46 "2008-02-19T04:00:59Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Tis is a lot closer to attcking the poster than attacking the post or the argument. If you need to express this sentiment, take it to the **Pit**. [/Moderating] [/QUOTE] I’m not attacking Shodan, simply pointing out his accusation that my post was “whiny nonsense” was baseless and his post reflects a serious lack of knowledge of the facts. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2008, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/47 "2008-02-19T04:12:34Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] Sorry to bump the thread, but I missed Shodan’s little rant. It was so cute, too, I just couldn’t let it go without comment. Here’s the thing, Shodan. Yes, FISA required court approval. But you know what Bush did? He didn’t. He surveilled US citizens WITHOUT a warrant. For years. In secret. So, oddly enough, there was no court oversight. But after we found out about it and courts began to hear the challenges, you know what Bush did? He decided he would comply with FISA after all. Then, and only then, did he try to change the law. So, with cases challenging his actions, he’s argued (succesfully sometimes) state secrets. Then he argued mootness. And now he wants a telecom immunity bill so he doesn’t have to let the facts out in those cases. At every turn, he’s avoided any court oversight for his actions. So, he didn’t ask the law to be changed, and he done everything to avoid court rulings on his actions. Shall we go on? How about Hamdi. As pravik pointed out, guess how he got his day in court? By petitioning the judiciary. And this adminstration has, as I pointed out, taken every opportunity to deny him that. I suppose you could pretend that Bush was fine with courts considering his actions. But that would just be pretend. And do you know where Hamdi is now? Where do you think? Did this incredibly dangerous terrorist get his trial? Did the facts come out? Now, Bush cut him lose rather than try him. Apparently he wasn’t the bad guy they thought he was for years. Padilla, same thing. He was locked up, without charges for 3.5 years until he was finally charged with a criminal offense only because the case was in posture of going to the Supreme Court. So, while they did have their days in court, oddly enough it was DESPITE the President, and not thanks to him in any way shape or form. More, you say? OK. As to telecom immunity, it is only the House that is holding out against being Bush’s accomplice. But, again, this administration has done everything in its power to avoid these cases from being heard. They’ve reclaimed evidence, they’ve hidden behind state secrets and standing challenges. And, at least in some cases, they’ve lost. So, rather than let the facts out and defend their actions, they’ve asked Congress to shut these cases down. And the spineless people in the Senate would give even that to him. Guantanamo? Where are we there? How hard did they fight to deny habeas? How hard are they fighting to avoid any court trials for them? And, even now, they’ve planned to try what? 16 of the how many? 500, 600 prisoners who have been in Guantanamo? Yeah, they’re really all about the rule of law. So, Shodan. It’s pretty clear to me, if you look at how this administration has conducted itself, it is obvious that “this administration has gone out of it’s way to avoid making their (mostly bullshit) arguments in court.” So stuff your “whiny nonsense” and educate yourself. [/QUOTE] The only reasons this pisses me off is that it required complicity from what is now a Democrat-controlled Congress, AND that the judiciary has been equaly compliant. How dare that asshole Bush go after those that attack us, engender unsupportable legislation to do so and dodge the key issues while he’s at it? The nerve! I guess that in SPITE of Congressional votes and SCOTUS complicity, W has been running the government all by his retarded self, without any objections…until now. Wait, I forgot, it’s Dick Cheney’s fault, and Karl Rove’s, they’re the true masterminds behind this evil. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2008, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/48 "2008-02-19T19:54:39Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] Well that’s certainly a new concept. :rolleyes: Not defending Bush, but to act like this kind of behavior hasn’t been occurring for decades is just ludicrous. Signing statements…pffft… [/QUOTE] Bush isn’t the only president to issue signing statements, but his administration has used it to challenge the constitutionality of legislation more than all previous presidents combined. According to Charlie Savage, Bush issued signing statement for approximately 150 Bills and challenged 1,100 sections of legislation. Instead of vetoing legislation, Bush used signing statements to justify breaking the law he just signed. :rolleyes: Has any other administration operated with the same reckless, disregard of the law? Nixon resigned. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2008, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/49 "2008-02-19T20:35:15Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] Well that’s certainly a new concept. :rolleyes: Not defending Bush, but to act like this kind of behavior hasn’t been occurring for decades is just ludicrous. Signing statements…pffft… [/QUOTE] That’s the point of Savage’s book – it **has** been occurring for decades, under administrations of both parties; but never this thoroughly or systematically or ideologically. And the next president will inherit whatever expansions of power for which the Bush-Cheney Admin has succeeded in establishing a precedent – unless Congress and the courts rein in the process, and it is this administration’s (that is, Dick Cheney’s) position that they **can’t** do so constitutionally. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/50 "2008-02-20T15:54:35Z")
Savage also recounts how the politically-appointed general counsels were put above military lawyers in the services’ JAG Corps. Now we see a [practical result of that:](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/tuttle) > [@](#): > > Now, as the murky, quasi-legal staging of the Bush Administration’s military commissions unfolds, a key official has told The Nation that the trials are rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo’s military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees in an attempt to foreclose the possibility of acquittal. > > \ > > When asked if he thought the men at Guantánamo could receive a fair trial, Davis provided the following account of an August 2005 meeting he had with Pentagon general counsel William Haynes–the man who now oversees the tribunal process for the Defense Department. “[Haynes] said these trials will be the Nuremberg of our time,” recalled Davis, referring to the Nazi tribunals in 1945, considered the model of procedural rights in the prosecution of war crimes. In response, Davis said he noted that at Nuremberg there had been some acquittals, something that had lent great credibility to the proceedings. > > “I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process,” Davis continued. “At which point, [Haynes’s] eyes got wide and he said, ‘Wait a minute, we can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can’t have acquittals, we’ve got to have convictions.’” > > Davis submitted his resignation on October 4, 2007, just hours after he was informed that Haynes had been put above him in the commissions’ chain of command. “Everyone has opinions,” Davis says. “But when he was put above me, his opinions became orders.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2008, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/51 "2008-04-02T18:27:29Z")
[Breaking story:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102213.html?nav=hcmodule) > [@](#): > > The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president’s ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes. > > \ > > Sent to the Pentagon’s general counsel on March 14, 2003, by John C. Yoo, then a deputy in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the memo provides an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war. It contends that numerous laws and treaties forbidding torture or cruel treatment should not apply to U.S. interrogations in foreign lands because of the president’s inherent wartime powers. > > “If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network,” Yoo wrote. “In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch’s constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions.” > > Interrogators who harmed a prisoner would be protected by a “national and international version of the right to self-defense,” Yoo wrote. He also articulated a definition of illegal conduct in interrogations – that it must “shock the conscience” – that the Bush administration advocated for years. > > “Whether conduct is conscience-shocking turns in part on whether it is without any justification,” Yoo wrote, explaining, for example, that it would have to be inspired by malice or sadism before it could be prosecuted. More goo from Yoo . . . ---
**Author:** ![The\_Them](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/898d66/32.png) [@The\_Them](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Them)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2008, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/52 "2008-04-04T01:17:51Z")
**Brain Glutton,** sorry for taking so long to respond. In part, this is the sort of thing I’ve learned to avoid; poli. sci. is NOT my preference. “The Imperial Presidency” from 1973 isn’t the book I mentioned, though it may well have been a subsequent edition with updates. My book mentioned the Iran-Contra affair as something ongoing. This is nitpicking, but I want to be clear on my references, even when my google-fu doesn’t even reach white belt. Lame humor? Never heard of it. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2008, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/53 "2008-04-06T18:03:59Z")
[Consortiumnews.com](http://consortiumnews.com/2008/040608a.html) Yoo our constitution hating lawyer suggests that the president had the authority to brush aside the constitutional rights of American citizens ,if he decided to. These guys believe in an imperial presidency. That is clear. Can we go back? That is the question. Bush grasped authority ,will the next one be willing to racthet back. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2008, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/54 "2008-04-06T18:42:13Z")
Looking at it from afar, how is this not simply a typical case of the government expanding? We’ve had similar issues here in the U.K., both with Blair and Thatcher, and the Law Lords. Sometimes people stand up to them, sometimes they don’t. Fortunately, the U.S. has the benefit of a tightly-defined constitution and the willingness of people to say, “Hey, this is a problem.” ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/55 "2008-04-07T04:39:00Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] Looking at it from afar, how is this not simply a typical case of the government expanding? We’ve had similar issues here in the U.K., both with Blair and Thatcher, and the Law Lords. Sometimes people stand up to them, sometimes they don’t. Fortunately, the U.S. has the benefit of a tightly-defined constitution and the willingness of people to say, “Hey, this is a problem.” [/QUOTE] Something extra here. Bush used a plethora of signing statements. He assumed the ability to exempt himself from many bills that came to his desk. It is rejecting the will of congress and therefore the will of the people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350.md?page=2)