I have the right to do a lot of things that people don’t even know about
August 16, 2020 12:55 PM Subscribe
A new Ted Koppel report today @CBS about the presidential emergency action documents (PEADs), classified orders granting vast presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations. PEADs are so secret even Congress cannot see them – and that troubles constitutional scholars.
John Yoo - what a malevolent little chuckle-head.
posted by bonobothegreat at 2:06 PM on August 16, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by bonobothegreat at 2:06 PM on August 16, 2020 [8 favorites]
Mod note: OP said their last link intentionally goes to a MeFi search result, carry on.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:24 PM on August 16, 2020
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:24 PM on August 16, 2020
Huh, I'm sure those anti-tyranny militias are freaking out about this, and will strongly protest as soon as they are finished cruising on their party barges which are flying four different Trump 2020 flags
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:41 PM on August 16, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:41 PM on August 16, 2020 [9 favorites]
That should trouble all of us, TBH
posted by Windopaene at 3:36 PM on August 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Windopaene at 3:36 PM on August 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."
"What the hell are you talking about?" Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. "How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?"
"The soldiers with the hard white hats and clubs. The girls were crying. 'Did we do anything wrong?' they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. 'Then why are you chasing us out?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. All they kept saying was 'Catch-22, Catch-22.' What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?"
"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"
"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?"
"Catch-22."
posted by delfin at 4:05 PM on August 16, 2020 [29 favorites]
"What the hell are you talking about?" Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. "How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?"
"The soldiers with the hard white hats and clubs. The girls were crying. 'Did we do anything wrong?' they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. 'Then why are you chasing us out?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. All they kept saying was 'Catch-22, Catch-22.' What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?"
"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"
"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?"
"Catch-22."
posted by delfin at 4:05 PM on August 16, 2020 [29 favorites]
The guy who looked up PEADs at the Brennan Center had it right: the more we talk about it, the less likely they are to use it. For the interim, and certainly before the election, the best we can do is shine a spotlight on the egregious use of PEADs and make it toxic.
Also how is John Yoo now determining what congress gets to see? What gives him that power? How does he even have a job after the Bush administration? I need to fail harder.
posted by geoff. at 4:12 PM on August 16, 2020 [8 favorites]
Also how is John Yoo now determining what congress gets to see? What gives him that power? How does he even have a job after the Bush administration? I need to fail harder.
posted by geoff. at 4:12 PM on August 16, 2020 [8 favorites]
Recall that John Yoo not only wrote the memos authorizing Bush's human torture policies, he also once argued in a debate that the president had the authority to order the crushing of the testicles of a person's child to get the parent to talk.
He's just the kind of guy you want to help you write new presidential emergency action documents.
posted by JackFlash at 5:07 PM on August 16, 2020 [19 favorites]
He's just the kind of guy you want to help you write new presidential emergency action documents.
posted by JackFlash at 5:07 PM on August 16, 2020 [19 favorites]
We should all be scared shitless.
posted by briank at 7:37 PM on August 16, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by briank at 7:37 PM on August 16, 2020 [10 favorites]
John Yoo is a war criminal.
posted by tclark at 8:17 PM on August 16, 2020 [22 favorites]
posted by tclark at 8:17 PM on August 16, 2020 [22 favorites]
In the last couple decades, I'd seen people hand wave the implications of increased power concentrated at the executive level. "But institutions... checks and balances..." or some such reason why the kinds of abuses we're all witnessing couldn't happen or would have no effect. We were simply relying on the good will of the people in power.
But it's plain to see now that it wasn't institutions kept authoritarian thugs from power. Reasonably gracious leadership and/or ineptitude was what kept us safe. In absence of such leadership, turns out institutions and checks and balances are too feeble and slow to be effective against determined corruption.
Rectifying this flaccid state of power to keep corruption and abuse from flourishing is going to be among the biggest tasks Democrats will be facing regardless the result of the election. It's going to be tough because the executive branch hasn't been willing to cede power for decades, and nobody in power is willing to do so regardless of intentions. This is the existential threat to the US, not terrorism, or crime, or whatever gets Americans shitting themselves these days. And I'm not sure it can be done.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:24 PM on August 16, 2020 [17 favorites]
But it's plain to see now that it wasn't institutions kept authoritarian thugs from power. Reasonably gracious leadership and/or ineptitude was what kept us safe. In absence of such leadership, turns out institutions and checks and balances are too feeble and slow to be effective against determined corruption.
Rectifying this flaccid state of power to keep corruption and abuse from flourishing is going to be among the biggest tasks Democrats will be facing regardless the result of the election. It's going to be tough because the executive branch hasn't been willing to cede power for decades, and nobody in power is willing to do so regardless of intentions. This is the existential threat to the US, not terrorism, or crime, or whatever gets Americans shitting themselves these days. And I'm not sure it can be done.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:24 PM on August 16, 2020 [17 favorites]
Authority has to be derived from someone granting it. You can't just assert you have it. Or rather, you can, but it invites someone to prove you wrong with force.
He's been driving us to that for years. I'm increasingly convinced we're going to see it.
posted by ctmf at 8:28 PM on August 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
He's been driving us to that for years. I'm increasingly convinced we're going to see it.
posted by ctmf at 8:28 PM on August 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
He has legal theories that almost no other scholars accept, and yet he's tenured faculty at Berkeley and continues to guide federal policy. How? Why?
posted by 1adam12 at 8:30 PM on August 16, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by 1adam12 at 8:30 PM on August 16, 2020 [13 favorites]
Because he's a useful tool (for evil people).
posted by Saxon Kane at 8:35 PM on August 16, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Saxon Kane at 8:35 PM on August 16, 2020 [6 favorites]
Who passed these laws, and why can't our members of Congress see them? Okay, hang on; we have several other living presidents. Are they all okay with this?
Looks like our frog is boiled.
posted by mule98J at 9:46 PM on August 16, 2020 [5 favorites]
Looks like our frog is boiled.
posted by mule98J at 9:46 PM on August 16, 2020 [5 favorites]
Authority has to be derived from someone granting it. You can't just assert you have it.
Ye-es, but the problem is that Trump really does have the authority to issue lawful and constitutional orders to the US military and executive. The problem is that Congress has handed the President the (ostensibly) lawful authority to do all sorts of things that would horrify most people. Congress could take that away, but the Republican majority isn't going to do it; and the USA would still have a fundamental problem with its imbalance between executive power and any restraints upon it.
That is, while executive power can be exercised easily, swiftly, and often secretly; checks on that power tend to be slow, difficult, and subject to a comparative lack of resources. For instance, the President could literally order a nuclear strike on a Canada; and the "remedy" for that would be impeachment. Or more practically: he could order prosecutors not to prosecute, the IRS not to tax, immigration officers not to admit; and there's not much that anyone can do about it. I suppose people injured by the order can apply for a court order to protect their interests - but only if they know about it, and only if they have standing, and only if a court agrees that the matter is justiciable. And even then they have to win their case, and hope that the whole thing isn't moot.
The USA's system of government was not designed to cope with a corrupt President enabled by a corrupt party. It's been running less and less regularly for decades, but now the wheels have fallen off. There's a decent chance that Trump will be elected again, fairly or otherwise, in which case the USA will be like Spain under Franco - or more likely, Uganda under Idi Amin.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:51 AM on August 17, 2020 [25 favorites]
Ye-es, but the problem is that Trump really does have the authority to issue lawful and constitutional orders to the US military and executive. The problem is that Congress has handed the President the (ostensibly) lawful authority to do all sorts of things that would horrify most people. Congress could take that away, but the Republican majority isn't going to do it; and the USA would still have a fundamental problem with its imbalance between executive power and any restraints upon it.
That is, while executive power can be exercised easily, swiftly, and often secretly; checks on that power tend to be slow, difficult, and subject to a comparative lack of resources. For instance, the President could literally order a nuclear strike on a Canada; and the "remedy" for that would be impeachment. Or more practically: he could order prosecutors not to prosecute, the IRS not to tax, immigration officers not to admit; and there's not much that anyone can do about it. I suppose people injured by the order can apply for a court order to protect their interests - but only if they know about it, and only if they have standing, and only if a court agrees that the matter is justiciable. And even then they have to win their case, and hope that the whole thing isn't moot.
The USA's system of government was not designed to cope with a corrupt President enabled by a corrupt party. It's been running less and less regularly for decades, but now the wheels have fallen off. There's a decent chance that Trump will be elected again, fairly or otherwise, in which case the USA will be like Spain under Franco - or more likely, Uganda under Idi Amin.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:51 AM on August 17, 2020 [25 favorites]
The word tyrant in not used enough in characterisations of Trump.
posted by Pouteria at 6:05 AM on August 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Pouteria at 6:05 AM on August 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
...Congress could take that away, but the Republican majority isn't going to do it...
Pipedream: Republicans in the Senate realize that Trump will likely lose this election, so they strip the Executive branch of as much of its prerogative as they can, so Biden and Harris will have less raw power. Win/Win.
Then I wake up; make sure I have my ID card and travel permits handy when I go down to the supermarket, holding onto that warm and fuzzy feeling I get when dream that our Dear Leader
finally dismantles his Emergency Powers Act, lets Congress convene, and lifts martial law. Ah. Yes. Don't forget to pin on the MAGA button.
posted by mule98J at 7:49 AM on August 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
Pipedream: Republicans in the Senate realize that Trump will likely lose this election, so they strip the Executive branch of as much of its prerogative as they can, so Biden and Harris will have less raw power. Win/Win.
Then I wake up; make sure I have my ID card and travel permits handy when I go down to the supermarket, holding onto that warm and fuzzy feeling I get when dream that our Dear Leader
finally dismantles his Emergency Powers Act, lets Congress convene, and lifts martial law. Ah. Yes. Don't forget to pin on the MAGA button.
posted by mule98J at 7:49 AM on August 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
John Yoo is a war criminal.
And a psychopath!
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:53 AM on August 17, 2020 [4 favorites]
And a psychopath!
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:53 AM on August 17, 2020 [4 favorites]
The GOP (and its foreign backers) have found a significant exploit in the US political system. All you need is control of the Senate and an out-of-control Executive branch to fulfill your wishlist of grift, abuse, and other corruption. Having co-conspirators on the SC helps, too, but honestly I'm not sure how much would be different without that component.
posted by Godspeed.You!Black.Emperor.Penguin at 10:14 AM on August 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Godspeed.You!Black.Emperor.Penguin at 10:14 AM on August 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
I went to high school with John Yoo's wife. She didn't seem like someone who would make such poor choices, but I really didn't know her that well.
posted by AJaffe at 1:32 PM on August 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by AJaffe at 1:32 PM on August 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
a corrupt President enabled by a corrupt party
And that's the actual problem. A single dude, no problem. A single dude PLUS a majority of one of the legislative houses, PLUS a big chunk of the judiciary, PLUS consent of a not-small fraction of the population... well you don't leave the rest of us too many choices. And we may have to choose.
posted by ctmf at 2:43 PM on August 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
And that's the actual problem. A single dude, no problem. A single dude PLUS a majority of one of the legislative houses, PLUS a big chunk of the judiciary, PLUS consent of a not-small fraction of the population... well you don't leave the rest of us too many choices. And we may have to choose.
posted by ctmf at 2:43 PM on August 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
John Yoo, 3 years ago: Executive Power Run Amok
posted by ASCII Costanza head at 3:45 PM on August 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
Faced with President Trump’s executive orders suspending immigration from several Muslim nations and ordering the building of a border wall, and his threats to terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement, even Alexander Hamilton, our nation’s most ardent proponent of executive power, would be worried by now.And a year ago
I worry sometimes that by overextending presidential power at times that don't justify it, you risk falling into becoming more like a Nixon rather than becoming like a Lincoln.He wrote the book on how to be a monster (and get away with it), but he's got a good bibliography.
posted by ASCII Costanza head at 3:45 PM on August 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
I suppose it is encouraging that the scenario described in the Atlantic did not happen, imagine if the author had known about the pandemic.
The most alarming part of this is that the article ends with reassurance that
"the dangers posed by emergency powers that are written into statute can be mitigated through the simple expedient of changing the law."
and we're kiiiiinnnnda running out the clock on even expedient law-changing.
posted by shenkerism at 2:11 PM on August 18, 2020
The most alarming part of this is that the article ends with reassurance that
"the dangers posed by emergency powers that are written into statute can be mitigated through the simple expedient of changing the law."
and we're kiiiiinnnnda running out the clock on even expedient law-changing.
posted by shenkerism at 2:11 PM on August 18, 2020
I suppose "We tried telling you" is a little late at this point.
Americans really haaalwaya had something of a love-hate relationship with the idea of democracy, as well as a love of strongman. And while it's most evident on the Right, the Left isn't free of it as well, given the number of people here who have said "Well, if Democracy won't give us what we want, then we should get rid of it."
This time, the Right got to the goal of ending American democracy first. But the idea that democracy is a nuisance they gets in the way of a perfect union is an old refrain.
posted by happyroach at 4:21 PM on August 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
Americans really haaalwaya had something of a love-hate relationship with the idea of democracy, as well as a love of strongman. And while it's most evident on the Right, the Left isn't free of it as well, given the number of people here who have said "Well, if Democracy won't give us what we want, then we should get rid of it."
This time, the Right got to the goal of ending American democracy first. But the idea that democracy is a nuisance they gets in the way of a perfect union is an old refrain.
posted by happyroach at 4:21 PM on August 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
I can't believe after 3+ years, my best hope for american democracy's survival is on The Donald's inability to think past the next 15 minutes. Imagine if someone similar with a working brain was in his position right now. (You should be imagining Tom Cotton, beware 2024).
posted by Harry Caul at 11:15 AM on August 19, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 11:15 AM on August 19, 2020
« Older Yusef/Cat Stevens reimagines Tea For The Tillerman... | How is an AI like a duck? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 1:36 PM on August 16, 2020 [4 favorites]