Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342

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.

dbackjon wrote: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

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342

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.

WWJD?

dbackjon wrote:
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.

Trying to save a little face?

hank scorpio wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
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.

Trying to save a little face?

End of Administration cleaning/shredding/burning...

dbackjon wrote:

hank scorpio wrote:
Trying to save a little face?

End of Administration cleaning/shredding/burning...

Something made popular by Nixon.

Is Bush running for office again.

Gil Dobie wrote:Is Bush running for office again.

No - but his dirty laundry is being exposed.

Would you prefer it all be hidden so the next guy can do worse?

dbackjon wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Is Bush running for office again.

No - but his dirty laundry is being exposed.

Would you prefer it all be hidden so the next guy can do worse?

Lots of scenario's were discussed immediately after 9/11. No action was taken.

dbackjon wrote:No - but his dirty laundry is being exposed.

Would you prefer it all be hidden so the next guy can do worse?

Emmanuel, Browner, Axelrod and Holder are taking care of that...

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:No - but his dirty laundry is being exposed.

Would you prefer it all be hidden so the next guy can do worse?

Emmanuel, Browner, Axelrod and Holder are taking care of that...

Amazing how T knows this sh*t before it happens!

I bow to your excellency!

I think this shows some good restraint by SWB. Most of us were thinking some crazy sh*t in October of 2001. He might have had the support to pull it off with a dash of fear and pinch of anthrax.

I told people in October that this is the perfect time for the government to seize ultimate power. Luckily, it didn't happen completely, but growing the size of the government, the scope and influence of the government, and loss of personal freedom definitely accelerated under Bush.

What fascinates me about this entire discussion, and most notably the press coverage by Newsweek and WAPO, is the absence of attribution to the principle architect of the entire Office of Legal Counsel fiasco...David Addington.
Acting as Cheney's legal counsel, Addington was party to the selection and appointment of Yoo, due to Yoo's exceptional command of constitutional law. Addington was looking for someone to head the OLC, who would be able to draft "untouchable" arguments for virtually any position advocated by the White House. Addington was also the chief architect of the signing statement controversy, in effect nullifying Congressional checks and balances. Yet Yoo has been made the scape goat of this controversy, merely because he authored the Decisions.

I wonder who Addington has dirt on, that earns him a pass in this scrutiny?

Good question, T-man...

Ahhhh........don't you love big government.

Will we ever reclaim our federalist republic?

Is it standard practice for a president to release to the public all the previous president's memos?

AZGrizFan wrote:Is it standard practice for a president to release to the public all the previous president's memos?

It is standard practice for these to be released DURING the presidency...

Just doing some long overdue housecleaning.