I am surprised you are surprised that the writer considers it surprising. On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hadn't seen this. I am surprised that the writer considers it surprising > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Larry Lyons <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > You have to give them credit at least for being consistent. I'm surprised > that no one has commented on this already. > > > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342?from=rss > > > > Extraordinary Measures > > > > A new memo shows just how far the Bush administration considered going in > fighting the war on terror. > > Michael Isikoff > > Newsweek Web Exclusive > > > > In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly > gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and > office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance > against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment > freedom-of-the-press rights in order to combat the terror threat, according > to a memo released Monday. > > > > Many of the actions discussed in the Oct. 23, 2001, memo to then White > House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's > chief lawyer, William Haynes, were never actually taken. > > > > But the memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal > Counselâalong with others made public for the first time > Mondayâillustrates with new details the extraordinary post-9/11 powers > asserted by Bush administration lawyers. Those assertions ultimately led to > such controversial policies as allowing the waterboarding of terror suspects > and permitting warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizensâsteps that remain > the subject of ongoing investigations by Congress and the Justice > Department. The memo was co-written by John Yoo, at the time a deputy > attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel. Yoo, now a professor at the > Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, has > emerged as one of the central figures in those ongoing investigations. > > > > In perhaps the most surprising assertion, the Oct. 23, 2001, memo > suggested the president could even suspend press freedoms if he concluded it > was necessary to wage the war on terror. "First Amendment speech and press > rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war > successfully," Yoo wrote in the memo entitled "Authority for Use of Military > Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States." > > > > This claim was viewed as so extreme that it was essentially (and > secretly) revokedâbut not until October of last year, seven years after > the memo was written and with barely three and a half months left in the > Bush administration. > > > > At that time, Steven Bradbury, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel > throughout Bush's second term, concluded that Yoo's statements about > overriding First Amendment freedoms were "unnecessary" and "overbroad and > general and not sufficiently grounded in the particular circumstance of a > concrete scenario," according to a memo from Bradbury also made public > Monday. > > > > Kate Martin, the director for the Center for National Security Studies, a > Washington think tank, said the newly disclosed memo by Yoo and Robert > Delahunty, another OLC lawyer, was part of a broader legal reasoning that > gave President Bush essentially unfettered powers in the war on terrorism. > "In October 2001, they were trying to construct a legal regime that would > basically have allowed for the imposition of martial law," said Martin. > (Yoo, also a visiting scholar at the conservative American Enterprise > Institute, did not respond to a request for comment. Gonzales's lawyer, > George Terwilliger, said he had not yet had a chance to review the newly > released memo and also declined to comment.) > > > > On Jan. 15, 2009âwith only five days left before Bush left > officeâBradbury also rescinded three other legal memos written during the > president's first term that claimed broad powers to unilaterally suspend > treaties, bypass restrictions on domestic surveillance and take other > actions to combat terrorism without the approval of Congress. Bradbury said > in a separate legal memo that the claims made in these earlier memos were > based on unsound legal reasoning and should not be viewed as > "authoritative." But he offered no explanation for why he waited until the > waning days of Bush's presidency to withdraw them. > > > > The most controversial, and best known, of Yoo's legal opinions was his > Aug.. 1, 2002, memo that effectively approved the president's right to > disregard a federal law banning torture in ordering the interrogation of > terror suspects. An accompanying (and still unreleased) memo from the same > day approved the CIA's authority to use "waterboarding" (or simulated > drowning) against terror suspects. > > > > In a related matter, the CIA acknowledged in a legal filing Monday that > it has destroyed 92 interrogation tapes of two suspects who were subjected > to waterboarding. While it was previously known that the agency had > destroyed some tapes, the number of destroyed tapes was far more "systemic" > than had previously been known, according to Amrit Singh, a lawyer with the > American Civil Liberties Union, which has been seeking records about the > destroyed evidence under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. > > > > A U.S. government official familiar with the matter said all of the > destructions took place in November 2005 and mostly involved the > interrogations and detention of Abu Zubaydah, a "high-value" detainee who > was captured in March 2002 and remains today at the U.S. detention facility > at Guantánamo Bay. A small number of the destroyed tapes also involved the > interrogation and detention of another suspect, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, an > alleged architect of the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Justice > Department special counsel John Durham, who is investigating the destruction > of the tapes, previously said he planned to finish his interviews by the end > of February, but has given no indication of whether he plans to charge > anybody involved with a crime. > > > > The newly disclosed Oct. 23, 2001, memo was in response to a request from > Gonzales, at the time President Bush's top lawyer, and Haynes, who was chief > counsel at the Pentagon, to determine if there were any restrictions on the > use of the U.S. military inside the country in targeting terror suspects. > The Yoo memo essentially concluded there were none. The country, he argued, > was in a "state of armed conflict." The scale of violence, he argued, was > unprecedented and "legal and constitutional rules" governing law > enforcementâsuch as the Fourth Amendment prohibition on "unreasonable" > searches and seizuresâdid not apply. > > > > At one point, the memo says, the U.S. military could be used for > "targeting and destroying" a hijacked airline or "attacking civilian > targets, such as apartment buildings, offices or ships where suspected > terrorists were thought to be." At another point, the memo advices: > "Military action might encompass making arrests, seizing documents or other > property, searching persons or places or keeping them under surveillance, > intercepting electronic or wireless communications, setting up roadblocks, > interviewing witnesses or searching for suspects." > > > > URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342 > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:290316 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
