you would be :)

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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
>> Counsel—along with others made public for the first time
>> Monday—illustrates 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. citizens—steps 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) revoked—but 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, 2009—with only five days left before Bush left
>> office—Bradbury 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
>> enforcement—such as the Fourth Amendment prohibition on "unreasonable"
>> searches and seizures—did 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:290317
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5

Reply via email to