Fuhrer’s Law

Do the Secret Bush Memos Amount to Treason? Top Constitutional Scholar Says Yes

By Naomi Wolf, AlterNet. Posted March 25, 2009.

Legal expert Michael Ratner calls the legal arguments made in the infamous Yoo memos, "Fuhrer's law."

Adolf Hitler In early March, more shocking details emerged about George W. Bush legal counsel John Yoo's memos outlining the destruction of the republic.

The memos lay the legal groundwork for the president to send the military to wage war against U.S. citizens; take them from their homes to Navy brigs without trial and keep them forever; close down the First Amendment; and invade whatever country he chooses without regard to any treaty or objection by Congress.

It was as if Milton's Satan had a law degree and was establishing within the borders of the United States the architecture of hell.

I thought this was -- and is -- certainly one of the biggest stories of our lifetime, making the petty burglary of Watergate -- which scandalized the nation -- seem like playground antics. It is newsworthy too with the groundswell of support for prosecutions of Bush/Cheney crimes and recent actions such as Canadian attorneys mobilizing to arrest Bush if he visits their country.

The memos are a confession. The memos could not be clearer: This was the legal groundwork of an attempted coup. I expected massive front page headlines from the revelation that these memos exited. Almost nothing. I was shocked.

As a non-lawyer, was I completely off base in my reading of what this meant, I wondered? Was I hallucinating?

Astonished, I sought a reality check -- and a formal legal read -- from one of the nation's top constitutional scholars (and most steadfast patriots), Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been at the forefront of defending the detainees and our own liberties.

Here is our conversation:

Naomi Wolf: Michael, can you explain to a layperson what the Yoo memos actually mean?'

Michael Ratner: What they mean is that your book looks moderate in respect to those issues now. This -- what is in the memos -- is law by fiat.

I call it "Fuhrer's law." What those memos lay out means the end of the system of checks and balances in this country. It means the end of the system in which the courts, legislature and executive each had a function and they could check each other.

What the memos set out is a system in which the president's word is law, and Yoo is very clear about that: the president's word is not only law according to these memos, but no law or constitutional right or treaty can restrict the president's authority.

What Yoo says is that the president's authority as commander in chief in the so-called war on terror is not bound by any law passed by Congress, any treaty, or the protections of free speech, due process and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments -- gone.

What this actually means is that the president can order the military to operate in the U.S. and to operate without constitutional restrictions. They -- the military -- can pick you or me up in the U.S. for any reason and without any legal process. They would not have any restrictions on entering your house to search it, or to seize you. They can put you into a brig without any due process or going to court. (That's the Fourth and Fifth amendments.)

The military can disregard the Posse Comitatus law, which restricts the military from acting as police in the the United States. And the president can, in the name of wartime restrictions, limit free speech. There it is in black and white: we are looking at one-person rule without any checks and balances -- a lawless state. Law by fiat.

Who has suspended the law this way in the past? It is like a Caesar's law in Rome; a Mussolini's law in Italy; a Fuhrer's law in Germany; a Stalin's law in the Soviet Union. It is right down the line. It is enforcing the will of the dictator through the military.

NW: The mainstream media have virtually ignored these revelations, though it seems to me this is the biggest news since Pearl Harbor.

MR: I think that's right. We had a glimmering of the blueprint for some of this -- when they picked up Jose Padilla, the military went to a prison and snatched an American citizen as if they had a perfect right to do so.

Now we can see that these memos laid the legal groundwork for such actions. We knew the military could do this to an individual. We did not know the plan was to eliminate First Amendment constitutional rights for the entire population.

NW: If Bush only wanted these powers in order to prosecute a war on terror, why does he need to suspend the First Amendment? Isn't that the smoking gun of a larger intention toward the general population?

MR: Part of this plan was actually implemented: for instance, they tried to keep people like Padilla from getting to a magistrate. They engaged in the wiretapping, because according to these memos there was no Fourth Amendment.

They had to be planning some kind of a takeover of the United States to be saying they could simply abolish the First Amendment if the president believed it was necessary in the name of national security. It lays the groundwork for what could have been a massive military takeover of the United States.

Here they crept right up and actually implemented part of the plan, with Padilla, with the warrantless wiretapping. Yet they are saying in the White House and in Congress that it is looking backward to investigate the authors of these memos and those who instructed Yoo and others to write them.

But investigation and prosecutions are really looking forward -- to say we need the deterrence of prosecution so this does not happen again.

NW: What about the deployment of three brigades in the U.S.? How should we read that?'

MR: With terrorism as less of a concern to many, but now with the economy in tatters there is a lot more militant activism in U.S. -- the New School and NYU student takeovers, protests around the country and strikes are just the beginning. I think governments are now concerned over people's activism, and people's anger at their economic situation. I don't think those brigades can be detached from the idea that there might well be a huge amount of direct-action protest in the U.S.

There could have also been a closer election that could have been stolen easily and then a huge protest. Those troops would have been used to enforce the will of the cabal stealing the election.

NW: As a layperson, I don't fully understand what powers the memos actually manifest. Are they theoretical or not just theoretical? What power did the memos actually give Bush?

MR: They were probably, in fact almost for sure, written in cahoots with the administration -- [Karl] Rove, [Dick] Cheney -- to give them legal backing for what they planned or wanted to carry out.

What I assume happened here is people like Cheney or his aides go to the Office of Legal Counsel and say, "We are going to need legal backing, to give a face of legality to what we are doing and what we are planning." When the president then signs a piece of paper that says, "OK, military, go get Jose Padilla," these memos give that order a veneer of legality.

If you are familiar with the history of dictators, coups and fascism (as I know you are), they (the planners) prefer a veneer of legality. Hitler killed 6 million Jews with a veneer of legality -- getting his dictatorial powers through the Reichstag and the courts.

These memos gave the Bush administration's [lawless] practices the veneer of legality.

NW: So are you saying that these memos actually created a police state that we did not know about?

MR: If you look at police state as various strands of lawlessness, we knew about some of this lawlessness even before this latest set of memos.

But the memos revealed how massive the takeover of our democracy was to be -- that this wasn't just going to be a few individuals here or there who suffered the arrows of a police state.

These memos lay the groundwork for a massive military takeover of the United States in cahoots with the president. And if that's not a coup d'etat then, nothing is.

NW: Can I ask something? I keep thinking about the notion of treason. In America now, people tend to read the definition of treason in the Constitution as if they are thinking of a Tokyo Rose or an American citizen acting as an agent for an enemy state -- very much a World War II experience of the traitor to one's country.

But I've been reading a lot of 16th and 17th century history, and it seems to me that the founders were thinking more along the lines of English treason of that era -- small groups of Englishmen, usually nobility, who formed cabals and conspired with one another to buy or recruit militias to overthrow the crown or Parliament.

The notion that a group might conspire in secret to overthrow the government is not a wild, marginal concept, it is a substantial part of European, and especially British, Renaissance and Reformation-era history and would have been very much alive in the minds of the Enlightenment-era founders. (I just visited the Tower of London where this was so frequent a charge against groups of English subjects that there is a designated Traitor's Gate.)

So clearly you don't have to act on behalf of another state to commit treason. The Constitution defines it as levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. It says nothing about the enemy having to be another state.

When the Constitution was drafted, the phrase "United States" barely referred to a singular country; it referred to a new federation of many united states. They imagined militias rising up against various states; it was not necessarily nation against nation.

Surely, when we have evidence Bush prepared the way to allow the military to imprison or shoot civilians in the various states and created law to put his own troops over the authority of the governors and the national guard of the various states, and when the military were sent to terrorize protesters in St. Paul, [Minn.], Bush was levying war in this sense against the united states?

Hasn't Bush actually levied war against Minnesota? And if our leaders and military are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, and there is clear evidence now that Bush and his cabal intended to do away with it, are they not our enemies and giving aid and comfort to our enemies? Again, "enemy" does not seem to me to be defined in the Constitution as another sovereign state.

MR: You are right. Treason need not involve another state. Aaron Burr was tried for treason. I do think that a plan to control the military, use it in the United States contrary to law and the Constitution and employ it to levy a war or takeover that eliminates the democratic institutions of the country constitutes treason, even if done under the president of the United States.

The authority given by these memos that could be used to raid every congressional office, raid and search every home, detain tens of thousands, would certainly fit a definition of treason.

This would be the president making war against the institutions of the United States.

Comments

Please review the Terms of Service before reading or responding to comments.

RECLAIM AUSTRALIA IS DOOMED

Although I agree with many of their ideas, the forces reigned against RAM are too great, violent, statist and reactionary for them to remain a non-political, broad based, multi-ethnic, community protest group for much longer. The Left and their Antifa nihilist fellow travelers are already pushing them towards the extreme Right, by calling them racists and Islamophobes and so on. Whilst the extreme Right have aligned themselves with RAM. With fascists of the Left and Right pressuring them they will not be able to remain beyond the Left-Right divide and will inevitably move to the Right - the extreme Right. Which is already happening. A development which will alienate decent Australians of all ethnic backgrounds many of whom currently support them.

The RAM leadership have already established open alliances with the Patriotic Front (the ape in the photograph is a Patriot Front supporter at a recent Richmond demonstration) Australia First and Golden Dawn, a Greek neo-Nazi party. Members of these collectivist groups are currently attending RAM demonstrations all over Australia.

There is a real need in Australia to establish a political movement beyond the Left-Right divide and their vested interests, a movement that questions the current direction Australia is heading i.e. the direction the Left/Right and their extremes would like to take it; that questions the efficacy of state sponsored multiculturalism, as opposed to a proper, non-discriminatory immigration policy; that questions the validity of political correctness; that is politically neutral, anti-war and pro environment; that is opposed to all collectivists ideologies (fascisms of the Left and Right); that would dismantle the power pyramids of corporations and banks and their ability to impact on government; that would dissolve all anti-terror laws and all laws that impose on the rights and freedom of the individual and the people.

(The ape in the photograph is a Patriot Front supporter at a recent Richmond demonstration)

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/reclaim-australia-rally-set-for-sydney-on-sunday-20150718-gifb9s.html

http://australiafirstparty.net/news/reclaiming-australia-queensland-senate-campaign/

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 07 26 - 15:36:56
From the entry 'Dylann Roof: soldier in a new race war or just a pawn in the game?'.

Hello there I am so thrilled I found your web site, I really found you by error, while I was searching on Digg for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thanks for a incredible post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I don韙 have time to go through it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep up the great work.

By Prova a Adidas Neutro Originals Nizza Nero Giallo on 2015 07 20 - 08:41:30
From the entry 'Statism, the greater good and the big lie'.

I second Keith’s assertion that Mike Holt from Restore Australia is very much a fake. He bangs on about Halaal being a scam and money maker for Islam (and no I don’t support Halaal whatsoever), but makes excuses for its counterpart Kosher as being a somehow legitimate. Double standards? When I confronted him about this fact he went off on a convoluted tirade about Israel being some sort of “Bastion of Democracy” in the middle east…Really!, I will leave that one up to the readers to decide on. I found that MH came across as disingenuous to say the least.

By Citizen Scorn on 2015 07 19 - 07:33:43
From the entry 'Restore Australia!'.

Without doubt, TNR is one of the best, if not the best alternative news source on the net. Which doesn’t mean Herewood is always right. His job, I believe, is to present the facts as he sees them as an objectively as possible, without fear or favor. For this, he has my respect and support. But I believe he needs to be careful and to think a little deeper about the problems of “racism,” in Australia. He has labelled the Reclaim Australia Movement as racist. I’m wondering if his objectivity is a little weak on this point, a little without foundation.

Of course all political movements have its fringe groups and individuals. We make a distinction between, for example, a Muslim and a fundamentalist Muslim (Islamist), and by so doing we don’t claim that all Muslims are blood thirsty fanatics. If its good for the Muslims, then its good for RAM, which is bound to attract a few lunatics and real racists. But to brand the entire movement as “racist” is wrong; it is the same ploy that is used by the mainstream media and its left-wing, establishment Marxist boot boys.

One of the first things I noticed when i attended a RAM rally recently were the amount of non-white people in attendance, including Aboriginals. In fact the main banner of RAM contains an Australian flag and an Aboriginal flag. Speakers at their rallies have included Jews, Arabs, Indians, Aboriginals, Chinese and so on. What does this tell you? Is this really a fascist-Nazi-racist movement whose stated aim are the eradication and exclusion of other cultures, in place of some sort of Aussie white Reich, or is this just propaganda that is being propagated by the left for their own political interests. Consequently, we all know where the culmination of their politics have led, historically speaking, which are to the imposition of terror and dictatorships.

We can be thankful for small mercies, in terms of the Left, which today mostly tends to attract collectivists, establishmentarians and the privileged sons and daughters of the upper bourgeoisie, who seems to share one thing in common, nativity….

By Eugene on 2015 07 18 - 16:03:54
From the entry 'Dylann Roof: soldier in a new race war or just a pawn in the game?'.

Mike Holt from Restore Australia is very much a fake. He hasn’t even been citizen for but a few years. But, he makes out like he was born there. ALSO - this guy spent 30 years in Thailand working shady businesses. I would wager that his primary purpose in being an activist is that he wants to make money off selling merchandise.

By Keith on 2015 07 17 - 20:51:15
From the entry 'Restore Australia!'.

good to see you putting out some new shows heraward

freely the banana girl is to a certain extent a troll, as is her boyfriend durian rider. they have been trolling the fitness community on youtube for some time… and yes they are extreme but they are also trolls. They use their trolling to spread their message. currently, another dude called vegangains is trolling the fitness community as well.

i am a vegetarian, and it was seeing this documentary on the pork industry that started me on the vegetarian path. for anyone interested, its pretty off the charts disturbing and its australian as well. its pretty much made by dudes breaking into pork farms and filming what they find

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KArL5YjaL5U

Would the world be better if people cared where their food came from? probably, they might then care about other things too

do you become a better person if you dont eat meat? i feel like a better person mainly because animals aren’t being hurt because of me. i dont feel humans have to eat meat really… or at least not much. How can you watch that documentary on pork, know that that is pretty much whats going on and turn a blind eye to it? I think its basic empathy and just saying well ‘i like bacon so yeah’ is in my opinion wrong and i can see freleys point of view to an extent. In my opinion, at least these people believe in something. i see my money as my vote, henceforth im ethical as to what i do with it. free range eggs became mainstream for exactly this reason… although im pretty sure woolies and coles lobbied the state to change the definition of the word ‘free range’ at some point. I dont eat beef because the amount of resources that go into growing a cow are pretty crazy. Think about how much grass that cow needs to eat before it is harvested and how much space it requires. think of how many vegies you could grow in the same space with the same amount of water. lamb? comon, think about what your doing here… but that being said i think most vegans are total loons. People like freeley should be advocating for the destruction of lions and tigers, as lions and tigers murder other animals in truly horrific style. if we humans are smart enough to not harm animals, then we should be stopping the animals that harm other animals from existing. Freeley also kills birds when she flies in aeroplanes so she is a hypocrite.

feminism is one of the biggest problems in society today and although there is some valid historical basis to it, the liberation of the human female from their biology is in my opinion largely a product of the technological advance of humans. sufferagettes where never machine gunned on the streets, unlike the men that where drafted and sent off to war to die just a few years earlier. as technology has advanced, women have advanced as well, however now its going way too far and is pretty blatantly anti male in many respects. i view feminism in its modern context as a tool of the social marxists that really isnt doing society a great deal of good at this time. its screwing up gender dynamics and is wrecking women and men for each other. i see it as low frequency, lowest common denominator idiocy, just like a lot of the the race baiting ‘is this racist’ stuff getting around that is being perpetuated pretty much as a distraction, divide and conquer strategy by the power elite. idiots love this kind of bicker and beef… it would be funny if it wasn’t so serious

anyway

I agree with steven friar. gods a maniac

good show… keep making them

By r0Kb3B0p on 2015 07 14 - 21:05:32
From the entry 'Addictions, obsessions, fanaticisms and distractions'.

Really truthfull.

By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:56:36
From the entry 'Defending your personal health choices'.

Yeah sure authority aware.

By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:28:55
From the entry 'What is the future of Australia?'.

Stay tuned for more rules here as usually is the case!!!

By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:21:50
From the entry 'Mass media disinformation and brainwashing dissected'.

Almost two months since the last broadcast! How the hell can you expect people to donate when you don’t broadcast? Looks like the ship of truth has sprung a leak. This broadcast has been part of my life almost since its inception…it is one of the few alternative news sources that hasn’t gone off the deep end, by dilution credible information with crap e.g. Fairdinkum Radio and Info Wars…Pittard started FR with some incredibly interesting material, but then he flipped…Today he sounds like a fundamentalist preacher, the Christian equivalent to a Fanatical Islamist. As an atheist, I think he’s really ###### up a potentially good show. As for Info Wars, all they would have to do to improve is dump Alex Jones, what a shit-for-brains. I reckon Jones and Pittard are allowed to proliferate, because they’re so stupid and harmless. I suppose they have some entertainment value, and along with David Icke are living examples of how low the alternative media has sunk. Truth News Radio is, or should I say was, way ahead of them all ahead of them all in terms of credibility How sad that its come to this.

By Eugene on 2015 06 28 - 17:28:56
From the entry 'Introducing Internet.org: Mark Zuckerberg's free 'private' internet which will soon be rolled out to 4 billion+ people'.

Fuhrer’s Law

Comments

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories