Andrew McCarthy tries to mount a defense, "Torturing Good Governance" of the legal memorandums from DoJ and DoD at NRO. However, the very first lines of his argument invokes the false argument to emotion. "It was the chaotic aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. I can't remember if it was the next day, a few days later, or maybe even longer than that." He then goes on to a laundry list of so-called impediments to investigators of suspected terrorists, including the discredited argument that there was a "wall" against sharing information between criminal and intelligence agents.
This is Mr. McCarthy's views on the Fifth and Fourth amendments to the Constitution: "There was, of course, Miranda, the Supreme Court's fabled bolstering of the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause, which systematically required police, before trying to talk to detainees, to discourage them from speaking. There was the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures, which presumptively barred investigators from arresting people or searching locations absent probable cause that a crime had been committed."
Mr. McCarthy sees fit to invoke 9/11 three times in order to "scare" the reader into accepting his argument that there can only be the Bush view in prosecuting his faux "war on terror". He does not address the underlying thesis that only the President, without the enumerated checks and balances as defined by the Constitution, can set aside U.S. law and international law.
The list of prominent and thoughtful people who consider Mr. Bush's policies harming national security is growing. Mr. McCarthy's article argues that "the government memos should still be able to recognize that they were sober and necessary treatments by able legal minds. Their insights edified the policymakers, who, by the way, never adopted the most provocative suggestions." As Sen. Kennedy graphically pointed out that the prison torture at Abu Ghraib was encouraged by the illegal and immoral intent and actions from the highest levels of civilian and military commanders.
For a more concise analysis on the OLC memo go here.
This is Mr. McCarthy's views on the Fifth and Fourth amendments to the Constitution: "There was, of course, Miranda, the Supreme Court's fabled bolstering of the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause, which systematically required police, before trying to talk to detainees, to discourage them from speaking. There was the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures, which presumptively barred investigators from arresting people or searching locations absent probable cause that a crime had been committed."
Mr. McCarthy sees fit to invoke 9/11 three times in order to "scare" the reader into accepting his argument that there can only be the Bush view in prosecuting his faux "war on terror". He does not address the underlying thesis that only the President, without the enumerated checks and balances as defined by the Constitution, can set aside U.S. law and international law.
The list of prominent and thoughtful people who consider Mr. Bush's policies harming national security is growing. Mr. McCarthy's article argues that "the government memos should still be able to recognize that they were sober and necessary treatments by able legal minds. Their insights edified the policymakers, who, by the way, never adopted the most provocative suggestions." As Sen. Kennedy graphically pointed out that the prison torture at Abu Ghraib was encouraged by the illegal and immoral intent and actions from the highest levels of civilian and military commanders.
For a more concise analysis on the OLC memo go here.
posted by Ken at 11:29 AM
<< Home