Yoo on mandates

The Jane Meyer New Yorker article on the rendition of suspected terrorists mentioned below has another noteworthy passage in which former Bush Justice Department official John C. Yoo defends his legal advice to the President justifying the use of torture:

Yoo also argued that the Constitution granted the President plenary powers to override the U.N. Convention Against Torture when he is acting in the nation’s defense—a position that has drawn dissent from many scholars. As Yoo saw it, Congress doesn't have the power to "tie the President’s hands in regard to torture as an interrogation technique." He continued, "It's the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. They can't prevent the President from ordering torture." If the President were to abuse his powers as Commander-in-Chief, Yoo said, the constitutional remedy was impeachment. He went on to suggest that President Bush's victory in the 2004 election, along with the relatively mild challenge to Gonzales mounted by the Democrats in Congress, was "proof that the debate is over." He said, "The issue is dying out. The public has had its referendum."

Regardless of your opinion of the administration's interrogation practices or their legal justification, this is a clear attempt to suggest that Bush's re-election somehow takes the issue off the table, which is anti-democratic nonsense. First of all, Bush's narrow victory was hardly a mandate, as I've shown at great length. Also, US interrogation policy was not exactly a central issue in the presidential campaign, let alone the subject of "a referendum." And even if it had been a key issue and Bush had won in a landslide, that wouldn't immunize the White House from questioning for the next four years.

(Note: All the President's Spin has a relevant chapter on the administration's attempts to suppress dissent in the wake of Sept. 11.)

Comments

[rone]

Well, since Mr. Yoo probably said it with a straight face, it probably *is* anti-democratic nonsense. HOWEVER, seein' as how the Democrats have become the Loyal Opposition, Yoo's statement is still effectively true. If the Democrats won't fight the issue, the debate IS over. Bush has a clear mandate, not by virtue of the 51% vote, but because the GOP control both halves of Congress.

The problem i see is this: is it worth it to the Democrats to fight everything they can tooth and nail, regardless of any 'obstructionist' whining? Or do they pick their battles? Regardless, if they WON'T fight stuff beyond some cantankerous behavior from Barbara Boxer, then they've bought into the mandate bullshit.

It's all good and well to question the Bush administration's reign of error and lies, but if the people who can make a difference won't, where does that leave us the people? Should we elect people with bigger balls or what? Would they even be nominated?