Skip to main content

In his recent CNN op-ed, House Speaker John Boehner explained "why we must now sue President Obama." As it turns out, the legal mastermind behind the House GOP's lawsuit "to compel President Obama to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country" is David Rivkin. Arguing that "Obama's legal end-run around Congress" has caused genuine "institutional injury" through "nullification of legislative power," Rivkin is hoping to overcome the steep hurdles to Congress's standing to sue the executive branch.

If that name sounds familiar, it should. It was Rivkin who helped push the ultimately failed effort to have the Obamacare insurance mandate declared unconstitutional. And when Republican George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office, it was David Rivkin who insisted the president could ignore Congress and international law alike by electronically spying on Americans without warrants and subjecting terrorism detainees to torture.

In December 2005, the American people learned about NSA's program of warrantless domestic surveillance carried out in obvious violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) first passed in 1978 to govern such activities. In 2007 and 2008, some of the administration's previously illicit practices were codified in revisions to the FISA law. But in early 2006, Rivkin echoed the line of the Bush White House that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the president's "inherent authority" as commander-in-chief made the FISA law irrelevant:

Although enhanced congressional oversight of the NSA program may well be constitutionally permissible and even sensible as a policy matter, the requirement of a warrant for this type of surveillance would trench upon the president's constitutional power as commander in chief to monitor enemy communications in wartime. Far from being a "pervasive" domestic spying program, the NSA has simply intercepted the communications of al Qaeda operatives into, or out of, the U.S. As described by former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, communications entirely within the U.S. are not targeted, and only those international communications involving al Qaeda on one end are collected and analyzed. All else is speculation (or wishful thinking) by the administration's political opponents.
As the revelations from Edward Snowden confirmed, the fears about the Bush domestic surveillance programs were neither speculation nor wishful thinking, but the tip of the iceberg. As it turned out, the government wasn't merely warehousing the electronic communications it was collecting in bulk. Just this week, we learned that the NSA and the FBI monitored the emails of several prominent Muslim-Americans from 2002 to 2008.

Continue reading about David Rivkin's tortured logic below.

But the ferocity of Rivkin's continued defense of the NSA programs pales in comparison to his cheerleading of President Bush's "enhanced interrogation techniques" carried out in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988.

In its June 2008 ruling in the Hamdan case, the United States Supreme Court declared that terror detainees held at Guantanamo Bay could appeal their detentions. To David Rivkin, the Court's decision was the worst thing since slavery and Jim Crow:

But to be honest, and not to be too dramatic, it's one of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court I've ever read, on par with Dred Scott decisions and Plessy v. Ferguson.
In Rivkin's view, Gitmo detainees not only didn't have habeas corpus rights, they essentially had no protections at all.

When in 2009 the Obama administration released four controversial Bush torture memos authored by Steven Bradbury, Rivkin took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to claim "The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture." Of course, Bradbury himself not only questioned whether waterboarding and other techniques even worked ("It is difficult to quantify with confidence and precision the effectiveness of the program"), he specifically rebuked the Bush administration for depending on a military training program, Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, (SERE) to assess the risks that a suspected terrorist might face when being waterboarded. As McClatchy reported:

"Individuals undergoing SERE training are obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation; SERE trainees know it is part of a training program," Bradbury wrote, borrowing from the IG report's conclusion.
Nevertheless, Rivkin argued that:
All of these interrogation methods have been adapted from the U.S. military's own Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (or SERE) training program, and have been used for years on thousands of American service members with the full knowledge of Congress. This has created a large body of information about the effect of these techniques, on which the CIA was able to draw in assessing the likely impact on the detainees and ensuring that no severe pain or long term psychological impact would result.
Rivkin's Bizarro World conclusion?
Far from "green lighting" torture--or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees--the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation.
To make that claim, David Rivkin would have to pretend that white is black and up is down. And when President Bush and Vice President Cheney boasted about their use of waterboarding, they were also confirming their refusal to faithfully execute the laws and treaties passed by Congress.

But apparently, that was different for John Boehner and David Rivkin. Because now, a Democrat is president.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  From _Foundation for Defense of Democracies??_ (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caryltoo, RichM, 207wickedgood

    and they want to weaken executive power?

    First time there's a Republican in office and some middle eastern nation is spotted not yet in ruins, that organization is going to be very sorry for this if they succeed.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:30:49 PM PDT

  •  Same old bullshit different day (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caryltoo

    Boehner and bozo what a pair.  I thought they were gonna dust off ole Chertoff to be their lead goon again.  I liked listening to his nonsense during the Clinton hullabaloo,  that ole gravely scratching annoying voice of his droning on and on.

  •  Obama has made several mistakes... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, kurt

    But perhaps his biggest is not prosecuting these guys when he came into office.  (And the banksters).  He is guaranteeing that it will happen again.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:26:17 PM PDT

  •  More "do as I say, not as I do" from the (0+ / 0-)

    strict patriarchal crowd.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:35:14 PM PDT

  •  "As it turns out, the legal mastermind (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt

    behind the House GOP's lawsuit "to compel President Obama to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country" is David Rivkin."

    How is a Congressional lawsuit going to compel anything from anyone, especially from the President?  The Congress passes legislation, the President signs or vetoes it.  The Congress can override his veto.  If the Congress thinks the President is not executing the legislation they have passed, they can gather evidence through Congressional investigations, and if the investigation uncovers wrongdoing that meets the criteria of an impeachable offense or offenses, they can impeach him in the House and convict him in the Senate.

    So, Congress can pass legislation for the President to execute and they can remove him from office through impeachment.  But Congress simply has no power to force the President to do anything.  And a civil lawsuit can't compel behavior from anyone, other than requiring them to make some form of restitution for whatever damages they have been found to cause.  So, this lawsuit, if brought, would be both baseless and pointless.  Legal mastermind, indeed.

    This is Civics 101.  Obama's an attorney and taught Constitutional law.  He knows the entire concept of this lawsuit is a joke, hence why he taunted Boehner to sue him.  He knows Boehner can't.

  •  Oh....Now I Get It (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, KenBee, kurt

    A Republican President can ignore congress & nullify legislative powers like George Bush did when he set up warrantless surveillance per David Rivkin.  

    However, a Democratic President is not permitted to exercise his constitutional right to issue an executive order.  If he does, he's going to get sued ya hear me? He's going to be sued.

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha....brought to you by the same crowd who tried to repeal Obamacare 52 times.  

  •  ... proving, once again, (0+ / 0-)

    that it sometimes insists upon floating, no matter how many times you flush.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site