Bush administration memos on wiretapping, torture stun legal experts

[bascule]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush-memos4-2009mar04,0,643986.story

 

Here's some background:

 

The newly released memos were mostly written between 2001 and 2003, and they gave the Bush administration broad legal authorization for fighting a new war in a new way. Their common theme was that no laws can limit the president's power in fighting terrorists.

 

Congress had prohibited the use of torture by U.S. agents, and said "no citizen shall be imprisoned" in this country without legal charges. The memos said neither law could stand in the way of the president's power as commander in chief.

 

A March 2002 memo, for example, said that holding prisoners in wartime "is an area in which the president appears to enjoy exclusive authority, as the power . . . is not reserved by the Constitution in whole or in part to any other branch of government."

 

The recently released memos and their dense legalese are still being deciphered by lawyers. They appear to lay out a rationale for massively expanding executive power, which is, well, what we saw with the Bush administration.

 

They don't exactly appear to be in line with the Constitution. I certainly hope these serve to aid whatever legal action is going on against Bush.

 

The memos are available online, although they're unreadable by humans, only lawyers can understand them:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/secret-bush-memos-release_n_171221.html

[ParanoiA]

Their common theme was that no laws can limit the president's power in fighting terrorists.

 

A freaking breeding ground of exception. I'm glad this didn't go as far as it could have.

 

Defenders of the administration emphasize that the memos were written during a time of national emergency after the Sept. 11 attacks. They say officials feared, and indeed expected, another terrorist attack within the U.S., and they were determined to take all possible steps to prevent it.

 

By the time the Bush administration came to an end, the views within the Justice Department had changed dramatically.

 

But critics said that some in the Bush administration took advantage of the moment.

 

"This was a period of panic, and panic creates an opportunity for patriotic politicians to abuse their power," Balkin said.

 

This is similar to how I view things and how I think history will eventually view 9/11, terrorism and the Bush response.

 

Terrorism, at least to our culture and mindset, was still relatively new. Hadn't had a 9/11 to jolt us into any real fear of international terror plots. Just stuff that popped up from time to time with those "religio extremists" and they seemed to happen everywhere else and if they did happen here, it was minor and out of the news cycle relatively quickly.

 

So, not surprisingly, like parents reacting to an intruder, we were tossed in a chaotic, insecure atmosphere where we could just as easily overreact as we could underreact - no real feel for balance, or reference. As a country, we were inadvertantly choosing security over liberty without realizing it yet. The Bush administration certainly went that direction, and I clearly remember waking up every morning to check the news expecting some major terror event follow up 9/11.

 

Then, of course, the people finally had some time to soak these things in and realize the liberty/security principles and that the sky wasn't actually falling and we don't actually need to declare essential Marshal Law to catch terrorists. 9/11 was a big deal - to us. That's not to say it wasn't a big deal, but to emphasize that it wasn't an invasion by China or Russia, or a cloud of nukes sent by N Korea - it was a highly successful mass murder. The kind we should be ashamed of.

 

From this point, I think Bush romanticized his duties and the threat, and used 9/11 and the fear of terrorism to roll out what he truly believed to be necessary. He chose security over liberty. He was that patriotic politician that abused his powers.

 

I think it's important to note the noble intent - because like I've repeated so many times during my membership here: abuses, bigotry, shameful trampling of rights NEVER feels wrong at the time. It's ALWAYS justified with some stretch of rationale. (just like AIG, contempt for the rich).

 

(I see Obama in a similar dilemma, by the way. The fear of economic collapse. Overreaction, underreaction. The same potential to abuse power by the patriotic politician. Security over liberty in the market. Noble intentions that challenge consistency with the constitution, including potential abuses of power (going after AIG bonuses), which I note he has not exercised yet and pledges not to.)

[jackson33]

Islamic Extremist Attacks on US interest, under al-Qa'ida, neither stopped or started on 9/11/2001. Methods to handle or address CHANGED...

 

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page7930

 

While you were daily expecting additional hits on US soil, at least 19 attempts were foiled in the US, many more on US interest around the world and we have no idea how many failed for lack of a viable leadership, kept on the run...

 

Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld nor any member of the GWB Administration will ever have charges brought against them by or under any US authority. I would bet my life on that.

[waitforufo]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush-memos4-2009mar04,0,643986.story

 

Here's some background:

 

 

 

The recently released memos and their dense legalese are still being deciphered by lawyers. They appear to lay out a rationale for massively expanding executive power, which is, well, what we saw with the Bush administration.

 

They don't exactly appear to be in line with the Constitution. I certainly hope these serve to aid whatever legal action is going on against Bush.

 

The memos are available online, although they're unreadable by humans, only lawyers can understand them:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/secret-bush-memos-release_n_171221.html

 

KOlbermann@msnbc.com

[bascule]

While you were daily expecting additional hits on US soil, at least 19 attempts were foiled in the US, many more on US interest around the world and we have no idea how many failed for lack of a viable leadership, kept on the run...

 

Are you saying that justifies them having patently unconstitutional policies? Ignoring the Constitution is the price we need to pay to prevent 19 terrorist "attacks"? Are you saying it would've been impossible to prevent these "attacks" without unconstitutional policies?

 

If you aren't arguing any of these things, bringing this up is just a red herring.

 

Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld nor any member of the GWB Administration will ever have charges brought against them by or under any US authority. I would bet my life on that.

 

Too late

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

KOlbermann@msnbc.com

 

Yeah actually 71% of Americans want Bush investigated, not just Keith Olbermann (I see you responded similarly on that thread too... kind of a one trick pony, aren't you?) Well, keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears and keep telling yourself it's all a big conspiracy made up by Keith Olbermann... I'll continue to follow the reality of the situation, thanks.

Edited March 25, 2009 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[jackson33]

Are you saying that justifies them having patently unconstitutional policies? Ignoring the Constitution is the price we need to pay to prevent 19 terrorist "attacks"? Are you saying it would've been impossible to prevent these "attacks" without unconstitutional policies?

 

If you aren't arguing any of these things, bringing this up is just a red herring

 

Under 'law enforcement' after the first 'Twin Tower' bombing, nothing much was prevented. After 9/11, War Powers were invoked with the consent of Congress, giving additional executive powers. Under precedence established by other Presidents, including Lincoln/FDR, Bush was authorized to do a number of things, which IMO still were with in his authority even with out those powers. ARE YOU SAYING, no attacks on the mainland since 9/11 or the thwarted attempts here and around the world, would have been prevented regardless of executive action???

 

OK, let me reword something. Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld will never be convicted of criminal activity, much less ever appear in a court. There will always be accusations, charges thrown around, activist Judges willing to authorize investigations or a hearing, so long as their are others to back them up. Some former Judge out there is still trying to collect $54M over a DELAY in getting his pants back from a Cleaning Service, so anything is possible...

 

For the record and have said many times; Once a person takes the office of President, VP, House or Senate Leader, it's my belief, they should be free to operate in their positions as required. In the event of actually breaking their oath, or committing some major felony (not having sex) they can be removed from office, then subject prosecution under the civil courts, not criminal for actions while in office. What we don't need are people in these positions afraid of breaking some minor law, making decisions in fear or worried about public opinion. This includes Obama, who in my opinion is rewriting the Constitution itself. Every President, that has lived through his term, has been subject to such nonsense and this has been known to every person running for that or those offices.

[bascule]

Can you pick one of my questions and actually respond to it? Thanks.

 

To respond to one of yours:

 

ARE YOU SAYING, no attacks on the mainland since 9/11 or the thwarted attempts here and around the world, would have been prevented regardless of executive action???

 

No, but I'm saying I see no evidence that unconstitutional action was needed to prevent these "attacks", which seem to be of dubious legitimacy to begin with.

[Sisyphus]

How many terrorist attacks happened on American soil between 1993 and 2001?

[waitforufo]

Well, keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears and keep telling yourself it's all a big conspiracy made up by Keith Olbermann... I'll continue to follow the reality of the situation, thanks.

 

For the record, I never said Mr. Olbermann was the creator of the conspiracy merely its most vocal and public champion.

 

I mean just look at him. He makes a perfect leader for your cause.

 

[iNow]

Is there anyone for the "pro torture" side who can make a quality argument, or do you all rely on kindergarten tactics, unrelated non-sequitur irrelevancies, and lack of articulation as your standard operating procedure?

[Pangloss]

How many terrorist attacks happened on American soil between 1993 and 2001?

 

I guess Oklahoma City and the first WTC attack come to mind. It's not a real long list, I'm thinking.

 

 

Regarding these memos, they seem to mostly be about the 2001-2003 period when everyone was panicking and running around tearing their hair out. It says the really bad stuff was all corrected internally by the administration, and there was a summary at the end going over what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again. Sounds like a positive amidst the negatives, and at the very least I hope the Obama administration read that part of the file.

 

I don't know that this says a whole lot about the administrations view on torture from 2003-2009. The precedent set by this beginning could very much be relevant, though.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Pangloss

[Sisyphus]

I guess Oklahoma City and the first WTC attack come to mind. It's not a real long list, I'm thinking.

 

The first WTC attack was what I meant by 1993, in response to Jackson's claim that "law enforcement after the first WTC attack..." etc. Oklahoma City counts as terrorism, I suppose, but I always thought of it as a distinctly different beast from our conflict with Al Qaeda. So basically my point was that the eight years before 9/11 had the same number of successful attacks on American soil as the eight years after: zero. Which is why the "suspending civil liberties saved our asses" talk doesn't get much traction with me. It's not like 9/11 was a declaration of war. They were trying to kill us before, and they are trying still. They're just not terribly good at it.

[Pangloss]

Oh I see. Yes, domestic terrorism does have a different ideological source and is fought in a different manner.