I also disagree. I don't mind if someone in a meeting came up with these arguments.
But they _never_ should have made it to an official recommendation from their legal department And the never, never never should have made it into finished policy that was enacted and in place. On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > No. > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 9/11 pretty much shook up the Etch-a-Sketch. I don't blame them for > > thinking that some of this stuff may have been necessary (which is what > most > > of this article talks about). > > > > The blame would come from actually putting them into practice. > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:36 PM, 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 Counselalong > >> with others made public for the first time Mondayillustrates 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. citizenssteps 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) > >> revokedbut 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, 2009with only five days left before Bush left > >> officeBradbury 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 > >> enforcementsuch as the Fourth Amendment prohibition on "unreasonable" > >> searches and seizuresdid 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:290349 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
