• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

More Bush-Era Legal Errors

A

Anonymous

Guest
Post-9/11 Memos Show More Bush-Era Legal Errors

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 3, 2009; Page A05

The number of major legal errors committed by Bush administration lawyers during the formulation of its early counterterrorism policies was far greater than previously known,
according to internal Bush administration documents released for the first time by the Justice Department yesterday.

Those policies were based on at least 10 legal opinions conferring broad powers on the president that the Justice Department later deemed flawed and ordered withdrawn, including several approving the military's search, detention or trial of civilians in the United States without congressional input, according to the documents.

While the Bush administration had previously acknowledged rescinding two of those memos -- authorizing the infliction of pain and suffering on detainees and claiming unquestioned authority to interrogate suspects outside the United States -- the government's eventual repudiation or rewrite of the eight other early legal memos was secret until now.

In one of the newly disclosed opinions, Justice Department appointee John Yoo argued that constitutional provisions ensuring free speech and barring warrantless searches could be disregarded by the president in wartime, allowing troops to storm a building if they suspected terrorists might be inside. In another, the department asserted that detainees could be transferred to countries known to commit human rights abuses so long as U.S. officials did not intentionally seek their torture.

The opinions were initially drafted -- and later repudiated at least in part -- by the Justice Department's storied Office of Legal Counsel, which issues interpretations of laws and presidential authorities considered binding on the entire executive branch. The multiple policy shifts during Bush's two presidential terms reflect an unprecedented degree of turmoil in that office, experts say.

In releasing some of the discredited memos, including three that the Bush administration had argued must be kept secret as recently as November, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. declared that "Americans deserve a government that operates with transparency and openness." He also said he hoped to make future legal opinions by his department on such matters "available when possible while still protecting national security information and ensuring robust internal" debate.


The new batch of opinions does not include any repudiated for the first time by the Obama administration or reflect a government shift on the underlying legal issues since Bush's departure. They also do not include the most controversial memos that Democratic lawmakers and human rights experts have been asking to see for several years, including those justifying the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques and the National Security Agency's program to surveil certain Americans without warrants.

But the new administration's swift release of seven of the discredited opinions, as well as an official summary of why they were withdrawn, drew praise yesterday from Capitol Hill and human rights activists. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the collection begins "to provide details of some of the Bush administration's misguided national security policies" that have long been withheld from public scrutiny.

The defects in most of the early opinions were summarized in a document titled "Memorandum for the Files" and signed by Steven G. Bradbury, who served as the acting head of the legal counsel's office for the Bush administration's last three years without being confirmed by the Senate. Bradbury dated the memo five days before Obama's inauguration and said its purpose was to "confirm that certain propositions" asserted previously by the office were no longer supported. He said key national security officials had already been advised of the change of heart but did not say when.

Bradbury explained the defective legal opinions were issued "in the wake of the atrocities of 9/11, when policy makers, fearing that additional catastrophic terrorist attacks were imminent, strived to employ all lawful means to protect the Nation." He said the fact that legal flaws were noticed later was not meant to suggest that the authors did not "satisfy" professional standards.

Yoo's previously secret 37-page memo asserting that the president could authorize a broad use of military force to combat terrorist activities inside the United States was completed six weeks after the terrorist attacks. In it, Yoo said any terrorists in the United States could be treated like an invading army, justifying warrantless searches and the subordination of free speech and press rights if needed to "wage war successfully."

Jameel Jaffer, head of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, yesterday called this "a quite astounding proposition."

Nearly seven years later, on Oct. 6, 2008, Bradbury declared that the memo contained several "propositions that are either incorrect or highly questionable." He said that in fact, the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless search and seizure was "fully applicable to domestic military operations" and called the claims about ignoring free speech and press rights "overbroad" and "not sufficiently grounded."

Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch, said the documents taken together "read like a how-to document on how to evade the rule of law." Daskal said she was particularly troubled by a March 2002 memo arguing there were few restrictions on transferring prisoners to a third country, regardless of whether the country had a record of abuse. The memo emphasized that transfers were okay if no explicit or implicit agreement was made to torture.

"That is [the Office of Legal Counsel] telling people how to get away with sending someone to a nation to be tortured," Daskal said. "The idea that the legal counsel's office would be essentially telling the president how to violate the law is completely contrary to the purpose and the role of what a legal adviser is supposed to do."

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed
 

Mike

Well-known member
Maybe some of that could be why we haven't had any serious "Terror" attacks in the U.S. since 911? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
OT.....do you contribute to the ACLU??

Nope- but Bush's throwing out of the Constitution- and his attorneys opinions that they could pick anyone- citizen or not- off the street- whisk them away to a hidden prison without warrent or judicial review- or transport them around the world to secret torture prisons is the reason folks like Bob Barr and many other Constitutional lawyers have donated a lot of work to the ACLU......
 

Mike

Well-known member
If I had been Bush, I would have done like Zer0's hero:

During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeascorpus three times: first, on April 27, 1861, again on September 24, 1862, a few days after signing the Emancipation Proclamation, and finally on September 15, 1863. Although there is no exact record of the total number arrested during the Civil War, the Commissary General of prisoners listed 13,535 citizens arrested from February 1862 to April 1865. It should come as no surprise then that freedom from arbitrary arrest became the most important constitutional issue in the early part of the Civil War.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Like I said before, read The Dark Side by Jane Mayer. This is the topic of her book and it's gripping. Yoo comes out looking like a villain big time.


You think she had an agenda when writing the book??????????????????? You libs are so gullible when reading what you want to hear!!!!

I like the results...NO TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE USA SINCE 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Mike said:
Maybe some of that could be why we haven't had any serious "Terror" attacks in the U.S. since 911? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

that may be true but remember this,the biggest terrioost attack ever on America soil happened under the bush administration.....I also think there have been many serious terriost attacks against American's.Just not all in America...You may of not been threatened Mike but many Americans died from terriost bombing in Iraq and other countries..Many have died at the hands of terriost since then and it would be nice if people like you Mike stopped trying to protect Bush's legacy so much so,that you are willing to forget about all those soldiers who died and those who came home hurt.These soldiers and their families are forver changed,as they scaraficed more than many of us will ever know,in a commitment to your safty.....Never Forget......
 

MYT Farms

Well-known member
nonothing said:
That may be true, but remember, this is the biggest terrorist attack ever on America soil happened under the bush administration.....so many deaths that I hardly think it's a laughing matter....

No, it's not a laughing matter. Not funny to blame it on Bush who had no control over it, either. As for me, I am tired of all this Bush bashing. You can't control radicals and forces of nature as president. You can only sign or veto bills.
 

Tam

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Mike said:
Maybe some of that could be why we haven't had any serious "Terror" attacks in the U.S. since 911? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

that may be true but remember this,the biggest terrioost attack ever on America soil happened under the bush administration.....I also think there have been many serious terriost attacks against American's.Just not all in America...You may of not been threatened Mike but many Americans died from terriost bombing in Iraq and other countries..Many have died at the hands of terriost since then and it would be nice if people like you Mike stopped trying to protect Bush's legacy so much so,that you are willing to forget about all those soldiers who died and those who came home hurt.These soldiers and their families are forver changed,as they scaraficed more than many of us will ever know,in a commitment to your safty.....Never Forget......

nonothing do some research on the 9/11 attacks before you start blaming anyone. :roll: The plans for those attacks were starting in 1996 and it took several years for them to be carried out which included time for the terrorists to move to the US and be trained to fly the jets in California and Florida. All of which happened under CLINTON'S watch. Maybe if Clinton hadn't paid so much attention to the WH Interns he might have noticed the terrorist threats. :roll:

Blaming Bush for the attacks is really like blaming Bush for the Finanical crisis. As If CLINTON and BARNEY FRANKS had not been encouraging Fanny and Freddy into the SUB Prime Mortgages in 1999 it wouldn't have happened. If the Dems would have listen to Bush and McCain when they warned about the upcoming problems instead of listening to Franks insisting Fanny and Freddy were solid and had no problems, maybe the US could have headed off the crisis. But hey it is eazier to blame Bush for everything that it is to admit the truth isn't it? :roll:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
TexasBred said:
OT.....do you contribute to the ACLU??

Nope- but Bush's throwing out of the Constitution- and his attorneys opinions that they could pick anyone- citizen or not- off the street- whisk them away to a hidden prison without warrent or judicial review- or transport them around the world to secret torture prisons is the reason folks like Bob Barr and many other Constitutional lawyers have donated a lot of work to the ACLU......

And AT's hero Blowbama HASN"T stepped on the constitution? He's not constitutionally qualified to be President, IMO, until he is honest and forthright with the issue of his birth certificate, not putting up a purported copy of something you could have made up for $10.

And no, AT, just because the Electoral College seated him doesn't mean he's qualified under the Constitution...it means more folks got duped concerning him...just like you did! :wink:
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Tam said:
nonothing said:
Mike said:
Maybe some of that could be why we haven't had any serious "Terror" attacks in the U.S. since 911? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

that may be true but remember this,the biggest terrioost attack ever on America soil happened under the bush administration.....I also think there have been many serious terriost attacks against American's.Just not all in America...You may of not been threatened Mike but many Americans died from terriost bombing in Iraq and other countries..Many have died at the hands of terriost since then and it would be nice if people like you Mike stopped trying to protect Bush's legacy so much so,that you are willing to forget about all those soldiers who died and those who came home hurt.These soldiers and their families are forver changed,as they scaraficed more than many of us will ever know,in a commitment to your safty.....Never Forget......

nonothing do some research on the 9/11 attacks before you start blaming anyone. :roll: The plans for those attacks were starting in 1996 and it took several years for them to be carried out which included time for the terrorists to move to the US and be trained to fly the jets in California and Florida. All of which happened under CLINTON'S watch. Maybe if Clinton hadn't paid so much attention to the WH Interns he might have noticed the terrorist threats. :roll:

Blaming Bush for the attacks is really like blaming Bush for the Finanical crisis. As If CLINTON and BARNEY FRANKS had not been encouraging Fanny and Freddy into the SUB Prime Mortgages in 1999 it wouldn't have happened. If the Dems would have listen to Bush and McCain when they warned about the upcoming problems instead of listening to Franks insisting Fanny and Freddy were solid and had no problems, maybe the US could have headed off the crisis. But hey it is eazier to blame Bush for everything that it is to admit the truth isn't it? :roll:


I never blamed bush I just pointed out who was in charged when America was attacked.....You can spin it all you want Tam ,but the fact of the matter is.GW Bush was president during the biggest terriost attack on America Since pearl harbour...You all back bush and I could give a rats ass..I told the truth and you jump on me,Your guy Bush put your soldiers in harms way of the terriosts.not clinton or Bush senior,but your guy GW...he never chased after bin ladin instead he invaded a country where your countries soldiers died from terriost attacks on an almost daily basis........You can call him the best ever but I am sick of people defending Bush on this crap....It was not a war it was an invasion,which in the end left the mastermind of 911 still alive and more americans lifes lost then were lost in the original 911 attack... 4,221,thats the number of fallen soldiers since bush took over...totally unacceptable..14 in the as recent as the month of december 2008...So you and MYtfarms can keep hearing how bush sucked.....That number is just inexcusable...to have more Americans die by terriost in a situation he sent them to is just absoulutly inexcusable......You may find it ok but I think its unfathomable..


Also Tam As for you who likes to play the blame game...Why is it the finicail problem was caused by Clinton after 8 years of Bush?Yet its not bush's fault for 911 because again you place the blame on Clinton,after Bush was in office for nearly a year.....Give your head a shake....
 

nonothing

Well-known member
MYT Farms said:
nonothing said:
That may be true, but remember, this is the biggest terrorist attack ever on America soil happened under the bush administration.....so many deaths that I hardly think it's a laughing matter....

No, it's not a laughing matter. Not funny to blame it on Bush who had no control over it, either. As for me, I am tired of all this Bush bashing. You can't control radicals and forces of nature as president. You can only sign or veto bills.

I never blamed anyone,I just pointed out a fact...deal with it...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Your guy Bush put your soldiers in harms way of the terriosts.not clinton or Bush senior,but your guy GW...he never chased after bin ladin instead he invaded a country where your countries soldiers died from terriost attacks on an almost daily basis....

Let me refresh your memory, Oh Aptly Named one...

Gulf I...Bush 41...soldiers in harm's way

Mogadishu, Somalia...Clinton...20 body bags filled with Delta and Rangers because Clinton denied use of appropriate weapons so as not to offend the Somalis, as the situation was "fragile".

I wonder what my nephew and the rest of the 504 PIR of the 82D were doing in Afghanistan from late 2002 for almost a year on the Paki border? OH, that's right...they were CHASING BIN LADEN!

Any loss of US Military lives is a tragedy, but 4200 since this started seems pretty damn mild compared to a loss of over 7,000 US personnel during a D-Day Training Exercise. Things must be kept in perspective. The 4200 who made the ultimate sacrifice could very well have been responsible for the saving of many times their number of US civilian lives had another attack happened on US soil.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
nonothing said:
Your guy Bush put your soldiers in harms way of the terriosts.not clinton or Bush senior,but your guy GW...he never chased after bin ladin instead he invaded a country where your countries soldiers died from terriost attacks on an almost daily basis....

Let me refresh your memory, Oh Aptly Named one...

Gulf I...Bush 41...soldiers in harm's way

Mogadishu, Somalia...Clinton...20 body bags filled with Delta and Rangers because Clinton denied use of appropriate weapons so as not to offend the Somalis, as the situation was "fragile".

I wonder what my nephew and the rest of the 504 PIR of the 82D were doing in Afghanistan from late 2002 for almost a year on the Paki border? OH, that's right...they were CHASING BIN LADEN!

Any loss of US Military lives is a tragedy, but 4200 since this started seems pretty damn mild compared to a loss of over 7,000 US personnel during a D-Day Training Exercise. Things must be kept in perspective. The 4200 who made the ultimate sacrifice could very well have been responsible for the saving of many times their number of US civilian lives had another attack happened on US soil.
know nothing, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your ass!!!!!!!!
 

TSR

Well-known member
Tam said:
nonothing said:
Mike said:
Maybe some of that could be why we haven't had any serious "Terror" attacks in the U.S. since 911? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

that may be true but remember this,the biggest terrioost attack ever on America soil happened under the bush administration.....I also think there have been many serious terriost attacks against American's.Just not all in America...You may of not been threatened Mike but many Americans died from terriost bombing in Iraq and other countries..Many have died at the hands of terriost since then and it would be nice if people like you Mike stopped trying to protect Bush's legacy so much so,that you are willing to forget about all those soldiers who died and those who came home hurt.These soldiers and their families are forver changed,as they scaraficed more than many of us will ever know,in a commitment to your safty.....Never Forget......

nonothing do some research on the 9/11 attacks before you start blaming anyone. :roll: The plans for those attacks were starting in 1996 and it took several years for them to be carried out which included time for the terrorists to move to the US and be trained to fly the jets in California and Florida. All of which happened under CLINTON'S watch. Maybe if Clinton hadn't paid so much attention to the WH Interns he might have noticed the terrorist threats. :roll:

Blaming Bush for the attacks is really like blaming Bush for the Finanical crisis. As If CLINTON and BARNEY FRANKS had not been encouraging Fanny and Freddy into the SUB Prime Mortgages in 1999 it wouldn't have happened. If the Dems would have listen to Bush and McCain when they warned about the upcoming problems instead of listening to Franks insisting Fanny and Freddy were solid and had no problems, maybe the US could have headed off the crisis. But hey it is eazier to blame Bush for everything that it is to admit the truth isn't it? :roll:

Oh Yeah and let's not forget as I havepointed out several times Bush had 9 months to review his predecessor's mistakes which are pointed out here all the time. Oh well not hardly enough time. :( Personally I don't think anyone could have prevented the attacks but if Clinton is to be blamed, then Bush shares some responsibility also.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
TSR said:
Tam said:
nonothing said:
that may be true but remember this,the biggest terrioost attack ever on America soil happened under the bush administration.....I also think there have been many serious terriost attacks against American's.Just not all in America...You may of not been threatened Mike but many Americans died from terriost bombing in Iraq and other countries..Many have died at the hands of terriost since then and it would be nice if people like you Mike stopped trying to protect Bush's legacy so much so,that you are willing to forget about all those soldiers who died and those who came home hurt.These soldiers and their families are forver changed,as they scaraficed more than many of us will ever know,in a commitment to your safty.....Never Forget......

nonothing do some research on the 9/11 attacks before you start blaming anyone. :roll: The plans for those attacks were starting in 1996 and it took several years for them to be carried out which included time for the terrorists to move to the US and be trained to fly the jets in California and Florida. All of which happened under CLINTON'S watch. Maybe if Clinton hadn't paid so much attention to the WH Interns he might have noticed the terrorist threats. :roll:

Blaming Bush for the attacks is really like blaming Bush for the Finanical crisis. As If CLINTON and BARNEY FRANKS had not been encouraging Fanny and Freddy into the SUB Prime Mortgages in 1999 it wouldn't have happened. If the Dems would have listen to Bush and McCain when they warned about the upcoming problems instead of listening to Franks insisting Fanny and Freddy were solid and had no problems, maybe the US could have headed off the crisis. But hey it is eazier to blame Bush for everything that it is to admit the truth isn't it? :roll:

Oh Yeah and let's not forget as I havepointed out several times Bush had 9 months to review his predecessor's mistakes which are pointed out here all the time. Oh well not hardly enough time. :( Personally I don't think anyone could have prevented the attacks but if Clinton is to be blamed, then Bush shares some responsibility also.
TSR, you forget that under Clinton and the Democrats, the CIA was gutted and their ability to gather human intel was severely curtailed. This gave the terrorist the time and ability to plan and put in place what was needed to carry out the attack...which took far longer than 9 months!!!!!! Obviously, those in government that thought such an attack could be carried out in the USA was an ignored minority.
I'm afraid Obama and the more liberal Congress will go down the same road as Clinton.
 

TSR

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
TSR said:
Tam said:
nonothing do some research on the 9/11 attacks before you start blaming anyone. :roll: The plans for those attacks were starting in 1996 and it took several years for them to be carried out which included time for the terrorists to move to the US and be trained to fly the jets in California and Florida. All of which happened under CLINTON'S watch. Maybe if Clinton hadn't paid so much attention to the WH Interns he might have noticed the terrorist threats. :roll:

Blaming Bush for the attacks is really like blaming Bush for the Finanical crisis. As If CLINTON and BARNEY FRANKS had not been encouraging Fanny and Freddy into the SUB Prime Mortgages in 1999 it wouldn't have happened. If the Dems would have listen to Bush and McCain when they warned about the upcoming problems instead of listening to Franks insisting Fanny and Freddy were solid and had no problems, maybe the US could have headed off the crisis. But hey it is eazier to blame Bush for everything that it is to admit the truth isn't it? :roll:

Oh Yeah and let's not forget as I havepointed out several times Bush had 9 months to review his predecessor's mistakes which are pointed out here all the time. Oh well not hardly enough time. :( Personally I don't think anyone could have prevented the attacks but if Clinton is to be blamed, then Bush shares some responsibility also.
TSR, you forget that under Clinton and the Democrats, the CIA was gutted and their ability to gather human intel was severely curtailed. This gave the terrorist the time and ability to plan and put in place what was needed to carry out the attack...which took far longer than 9 months!!!!!! Obviously, those in government that thought such an attack could be carried out in the USA was an ignored minority.
I'm afraid Obama and the more liberal Congress will go down the same road as Clinton.

But Robert that's what I'm saying, 9 months was ample time for the president to evaluate/change the intelligence gathering aspects of our military,etc. I still say one carries as much blame as the other, if indeed someone wants to lay blame. What will you say if we don't have another attack(GOD forbid) in the next 4 yrs?.
 

Mike

Well-known member
But Robert that's what I'm saying, 9 months was ample time for the president to evaluate/change the intelligence gathering aspects of our military,etc.

The U.S Budget goes from Oct 1 to Sept 30.

There was not enough money appropriated for cash payments to underground intel agents in the Clinton Budget.

This was re-instated after 911.

The Balancing the Budget game Clinton played cost us bigtime in the long run.....
 

nonothing

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
nonothing said:
Your guy Bush put your soldiers in harms way of the terriosts.not clinton or Bush senior,but your guy GW...he never chased after bin ladin instead he invaded a country where your countries soldiers died from terriost attacks on an almost daily basis....

Let me refresh your memory, Oh Aptly Named one...

Gulf I...Bush 41...soldiers in harm's way

Mogadishu, Somalia...Clinton...20 body bags filled with Delta and Rangers because Clinton denied use of appropriate weapons so as not to offend the Somalis, as the situation was "fragile".

I wonder what my nephew and the rest of the 504 PIR of the 82D were doing in Afghanistan from late 2002 for almost a year on the Paki border? OH, that's right...they were CHASING BIN LADEN!

Any loss of US Military lives is a tragedy, but 4200 since this started seems pretty damn mild compared to a loss of over 7,000 US personnel during a D-Day Training Exercise. Things must be kept in perspective. The 4200 who made the ultimate sacrifice could very well have been responsible for the saving of many times their number of US civilian lives had another attack happened on US soil.



I have said my piece as have you loomi..To argue what ifs and drag this out is not fair to those who did lose personally in this invasion or the original 911 attacks...I dissagree with alot of what you said,but by continuing to argue openly here,all we are doing is restarting painful memories for some people that have lost personally from all this fighting..So if you feel you need to continue with this disscussion Loomi,then I ask that we do it in pm's....

On behalf of myself and my family,I would like to say thank-you to your nephew and the rest of his division of brave men and women,fighting to make the world a safer even better place....I hope all of those men and women are home and safe now.
 
Top