home

Isikoff on the Released DOJ Memo

Via Michael Isikoff in Newsweek:

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...

The October 23, 2001 memo (from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales and William Haynes)also said the 4th Amendment could be disregarded:

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."

Here's the memo (pdf.)

< Jailed Pot Suspect Hangs Himself | Tuesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:38:16 PM EST


    The one I read sounded more like (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 06:02:44 PM EST
    a self-help book for the aspiring commander-in-chief.  Some iteration of: "You are the commander-in-chief and YOU can do anything," repeated over and over and over again as if by chanting that sentiment would somehow make it "true".

    Frankly, I am surprised that there (none / 0) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 08:20:29 PM EST
    were no illustrations showing a guy looking in the mirror saying, "I am THE Decider."

    Parent
    are we at all certain (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:23:04 PM EST
    that john yoo really went to law school, and didn't just spend the night in a comfortable hotel?

    Didn't he stay in a (none / 0) (#7)
    by Amiss on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 02:08:05 AM EST
    Holiday Inn Express?

    Parent
    Very troubling (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:08:35 AM EST
    The most troubling aspect of this is that I'm not hearing outrage or contempt toward these memos from the public. (Or fromm the elected officials around the country that take an oath to uphold the Constitution).

    Our national apathy is as scary as the memos themselves. I wonder just how much the average American is willing to give up in the false illusion of national security.

    No kidding - I feel the same way. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 07:27:26 AM EST
    We've become numb to the import and potential consequence of a staggering number of things, which is what happens when there's a steady flow of unconscionable actions - it becomes the new normal, and by the time the worst happens, it's too late.

    I've noticed that when one tries to talk to people about these things, they begin to look at one as being a little "off;" the challenge is to engage in ways that allow for the sort of offhand comment that makes them think maybe they haven't been paying enough attention, and has them asking for more.

    Always be prepared for that kind of conversation!

    Parent

    Where's are messenger? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 08:05:25 AM EST
    The right has successfully sold too many American's the idea that any actions taken by the government in the guise of national security is not only correct thing to do but also the patriotic thing to do.

    I continually wait for the Democrat's to turn the tables on the Republican's and their flag waving, by pointing out that these actions are the very thing that the founding fathers tried to insure could not happen in this country. That's why these issues were front and center in the Bill Of Rights.

    Opposing these actions is the true sign of patriotism.

    I have to go with Obama/admin does not want to (none / 0) (#13)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 04:54:02 PM EST
    change that misperception by the public. If Obama wanted to return the executive branch to pre-Bushian aberrations and drop the power grabs, he would have done so, with announcements of what and why. He would have worked it for the great PR. He didn't.

    I don't see him doing it, unless forced to do so by revelations from real, indepth, honest investigations.

    I found myself at Chris Floyd's Empire Burlesque today, linked by a commenter at Moon of Alabama. Floyd had linked to a post by Bernhard at MofA about Obama seeming to be following the steps outlined by the NeoCons on how to go to war with Iran. I'm still open to persuasion (expecially by actions) on that, hoping that naming Dennis Ross to a position at State will not lead to stupid policies, that is it's more having him inside the tent, hoping that Obama is playing good cop/bad cop to get something going with the Iranian government.  Yes, hoping.

    In looking at Floyd's other posts, I came across this entry, Choosing Atrocity: Israel, American, and the Strangling of Gaza, in which Floyd closes with these words:

    The attack [on Gaza] certainly could have been stopped -- before it started, or at any time thereafter -- with a word from the Bush Administration. Even a critical word from the incoming president, riding a wave of worldwide popularity -- and making clear that there would be serious consequences when he took office if the atrocity did not halt immediately -- would probably have been equally effective. But of course the Bush Administration did not want the attack to stop; and neither did the president-to-be.

    Here again, I will pay Barack Obama much more respect than many of his followers do. I don't believe that he looked at the attack on Gaza, felt to his very soul that it was an horrific atrocity, but then refused to denounce it out of some sort of cynical political calculation. (Which is the usual explanation offered by his acolytes when he does something unseemly.) I believe that, like most good, decent, honorable, upright, serious members of the American Empire's power elite, he did not think the attack on Gaza was an atrocity at all. It was simply a grim necessity, the kind of thing that essentially good and altruistic nations like the United States and Israel have to do sometimes, even if, unfortunately, it does produce some "collateral damage" here and there. But just like the last great Democratic secretary of state said about the 500,000 children killed by America's Gaza-like blockade of Iraq for years on end, these grimly necessary unfortunate actions are "worth it."

    Just as Bush could have ended the attack with a word, so too could Obama end the deliberate degradation and destruction of the Palestinians in Gaza. He could force the Israelis to lift the blockade tomorrow -- today -- this very hour -- simply by threatening to cut off the massive flow of American aid that Israel is dependent on. The fact that he will not do that -- or anything like that -- is, like the Israeli infliction of Nazi-like collective punishment on Gaza, a very deliberate choice. (My emphasis)

    Good links in Floyd's post.  

    I had hoped Obama would come out against the BushCo assaults on the Constitution. Well, initially, at least, I had hope. When he voted to give telcos immunity over the illegal wiretapping, I held on to hope he would change on that vote. He hasn't, as of yet.

    I'm so sad he's choosing the road of power and support of the powerful.

    What's that aphorism about power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Does that apply to those seeking power?

    Parent

    WSWS: the specter of military dictatorship (none / 0) (#6)
    by Andreas on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:26:20 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    A set of nine secret memos released by the US Justice Department Monday reveal that in the weeks and months after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks the US government began erecting the legal scaffolding for a full-blown military dictatorship. ...

    The [current] administration treats the earlier memos as "mistakes," while Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that the memos exposed "the Bush administration's misguided national security policies."

    Involved here were not "misguided" policies in an otherwise legitimate "war on terror," but rather a deliberate and frontal assault on the Constitution and democratic rights. No one, either in the Obama administration or in the Democratic congressional leadership, suggests that those responsible for these illegal policies should be held accountable, including by means of criminal prosecutions. ...

    Democratic forms are increasingly irreconcilable with the immense gulf dividing the masses of working people from the narrow financial elite that controls both major parties and all the institutions of government. Under conditions of the unfolding meltdown of the capitalist economy, the tendencies toward dictatorial methods of rule will only accelerate, under Obama just as surely as they would have under Bush.

    US Justice Department memos: the specter of military dictatorship
    4 March 2009

    Executive privilege (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mikeb302000 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:00:16 AM EST
    I'm still hoping Obama will abrogate the extraordinary Executive privilege which the Bush Administration finagled for itself. I'm not sure, but I think he hasn't done much along those lines yet, has he?

    Get over it. He won't. (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 07:29:52 AM EST
    If you'd been following the developments in the al-Haramin wiretapping case, or the Jeppsen renditon-to-torture flights case, you'd have seen that not only has Obama not repudiated the Bush/Cheney regime's legal theories, but he and his DoJ have quite explicitly gone further with their arguments, taking them toward their logical conclusion.

    And, in the al-Marri case, presently before the Supreme Court, they want to dismiss that case (challenging indefinite incommunicado military detention on the President's mere say-so) because they have chosen to move the case over to the civilian justice system at the President's whim.

    Just like Bush/Cheney did with Padilla.

    Plus ca change....

    Parent