Obama unseals Bush-era wiretap memos
The Bush administration secretly concluded after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that it had the authority to wiretap the Internet and telephone calls with virtually no limitations, restrict free speech, and use the U.S. military domestically against suspected terrorists.
Those legal opinions came in a series of memorandums written by U.S. Department of Justice lawyers, including deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo, which were disclosed by the Obama administration on Monday.
Although the broad outlines of the Bush administration's claims to sweeping executive powers were previously known, the newly released memorandums provide a glimpse at both the legal arguments used and the scope of the claims.
An October 2001 memorandum (PDF) by Yoo and special counsel Robert Delahunty, for instance, says that "the president has the legal and constitutional authority to use military force within the United States to respond to and combat future acts of terrorism, and that the Posse Comitatus Act does not bar deployment."
It also envisions the possibility of censorship restrictions that could be slapped on newspapers and the Internet, saying "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."
A September 2001 memorandum (PDF) previews what would become an extensive debate over the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program, saying "the president must be able to use whatever means necessary to prevent attacks on the United States; this power, by implication, includes the authority to collect information necessary for its effective exercise."
Yoo is now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald has suggested that Yoo could be prosecuted for war crimes; he has been sued by Jose Padilla, the American citizen who detained by the U.S. military for more than three years as an enemy combatant and was subsequently convicted by the criminal justice system.
Some of the Bush administration's sweeping claims to unchecked executive branch powers were struck down by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court--a fact that lawyers from the outgoing administration noted at the last minute in a set of memorandums that explicitly backed away from the earlier claims.
On January 15, just days before Barack Obama took office, Steven Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general, informed federal agencies that the 2001-era memos were no longer valid.
Bradbury's memo (PDF) revised the Office of Legal Counsel's opinions on topics including treaties, torture, and wiretapping, saying those "do not reflect the current views of this office."
One 2002 memorandum (PDF) hinted at how a suspect could be tortured: "So long as the United States does not intend for a detainee to be tortured post-transfer, however, no criminal liability will attach to a transfer, even if the foreign country receiving the detainee does torture him."
"Americans deserve a government that operates with transparency and openness," said Attorney General Eric Holder in a statement on Monday. "It is my goal to make OLC opinions available when possible while still protecting national security information and ensuring robust internal executive branch debate and decision-making."
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
It's about time they stood to face their crimes against America, Iraq and the world.
This isn't China, The USSR, or any of those other backwards countries.
Retardicans are so amazingly stupid.
Thanks for not even using K-Y.
Can't be worse than what we've had.
I couldn't agree with you more. And no I'm not a socialist and neither is Obama. It's funny watching the immature, uneducated right spew the lies, the hate, and wrap it up in God and the American flag and sell that to the American people. The sad part is that a lot of American's buy it because for some dumb reason we tune into the hate. Hence the popularity for "conservative" talk shows. "Liberal" talk shows never make it because they tend to use their brain to try and work out problems and don't whip up the hate.
Oh well... flame on...
God man learn your PoliSci 101 before you make any comments about political systems. Nazi/Mussolini type governance is rightwing/fascist. It is Bush who actually brought us closer to that, especially in light of these newly revealed (and terrifying) legal memos. The direction Obama is headed is in fact away from fascism and in the direction of Scandinavian style governance. Though I assure you we will never get that far.
@tundraboy you may want to look into your political history a little deeper. Where new and destructive regimes have been established, they commonly use a socialist stance and policies to gain the trust and support of the people, whether they be fascist or communist. The only time that doesn't happen is when they don't have to - ie. they have military power to force their will, or they replace and existing government of the same nature.
If you truly are concerned about the future of your country you may want to start taking notice of statements such as those from @ssmiroldo and do the research. If he's wrong, then you've learned some political history, if he's right then you are forewarned and have time to do something about it. Never before has the US has been whipped into a frenzy of political excitement as with Obama, and on the back of such little policy, and with a great slogan which ironically means the opposite to what you think you're getting. If you can't see the comparisons with other disastrous political takeovers then it is only because you don't want to.
He's run on the black vote, while specifically saying that he's not running on the black vote, he's run on family while being supported and aided by anti-family organisations and movements. He's run on Christian values while being tied to Moslem factions, and he's run on an anti-war stance while having directly supported and assisted (money and time) in the promotion of a war mongering genocidal regime overseas. He's run on openness of government while sealing his personal past from scrutiny [I'm still boggling at the brazenness of that one], openly lying at times, and using obfuscation at others to ensure that his birth, his past, his links and ties are all kept secret, except of course those that he's happy to use to support his campaign.
Well, someone wise once said that politically we get what we deserve.
Eventually the time will run out when you can blame Bush's policies, and I finid it funny when you tell me to do research when you yourself appear to be clueless.. not entirely unexpected, as that seems to be the status-quo with Obama supporters.
Obama cannot be held to account for the state of the markets and economy and where they are yet headed. Nor can Bush. It's a much deeper problem than that and as such this Depression will be the largest in recorded history. It is the market's way of removing the BS from the market, it is correcting for a diseased financial foundation - and as such is going to flush out, to cleanse to the deepest level. And it's just started - we're all going to start feeling the pain of it in 2009 - no-one's going to be exempt, however specific people will benefit hugely - it is the ongoing and systematic transferal of wealth and power to a small group of people which has been happening for hundred of year.
Yes, politicians played their part, but many many years ago and every subsequent administration played the same part and the same game - not their tune, but another tune - they were duped just like everyone else. It's easy to manipulate people - fear and greed. Works all the time.
So you're wrong in that, but you're right in the fact that he is doing exactly the wrong thing - but you know we can always count on politicians to do this when they don't know what they should do. But as I've said elsewhere in these comments, I don't think he cares as it's not his end game, and I think he knows that whatever he does isn't going to matter too much anyway as it's a foregone conclusion - I think he's used the event for his own political purposes.
Why is it the wrong thing? Well you have to look at the underlying problem - a fiat currency. All Obama's done is speed its demise for the US and compound it for the rest of the world. So maybe the Greater Depression will be a little harsher than it was going to be but who can tell?
Obama likes comparing himself to Lincoln. I guess people forget thier history in that Lincoln was a republican that violated the Constitution at a whim because he thought it was better to force unification through the US military than let the states decide for themselves. It's not like he suspended habeus corpus or anything, or sent the US military to burn down whole towns and destroy lives, or only freed the slaves because it was a tactical judgment to help against the aggression toward the south.
Obama has already violated the Constitution in multiple ways and he hasn't even been President for half a year! His birth certificate has not been provided, (certification of birth is not the same thing); he appointed, and the liberals in Congress approved, Hilary Clinton to be Secretary of State when it violates the Constitutions Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. He and the liberals in Congress are trying to give D.C. a seat in the Congress, when we are the UNITED STATES. D.C. is not a state, and it violates Article I, Section 2, Clauses 1, 2 and 3. But no one cares what the Constitution says anymore.
Universal health care and any other socialist idea is forced slavery to take the labors of one person and give it to another. America has appointed a monster that is the antithesis of what our country is supposed to be and what the Constitution mandates, yet people believe he's the greatest president ever.
Capitalism is NOT forced slavery. No one makes you work and no one forces you to give the rewards of your labors to others. If anything, capitalism can be said to be greedy because you serve yourself over others in the truest sense of it.
Yeah, I did go off on a rant about Obama because the reason he released these memos is to keep people angry at the previous administration. Bush's administration reversed their decision about it (reluctantly, I might add), so the only reason to release the earlier memos is to keep people angry. It's a political move that has nothing to do with security.
As far as your idea of capitalism it's all open to your opinion. I could say most people are slaves to the banks. How many people are debt free? If so do you rent? If so then your a slave to your landlord. Even if your debt free your a slave to taxes, property taxes, etc. No one is truely free in any society depending on your point of view. That's basic politics. You can twist and change anything to look good or bad based on your side. Fun stuff!
No one forces you to live in a rental, so you are not a slave to the landlord. The landlord did not force you to move into his property. You chose to do that.
As to debt, without debt our current economic system would collapse. Since the introduction of the Fed and getting away from the gold standard, our entire monetary system relies on debt. If the United States paid off the national debt, there would be no money for anyone. Also, you're only a slave to a bank if you choose to use a bank. That is a choice that is not forced on anyone, even though it is hard to live in a society that uses banks all the time, but it still doesn't change the fact that using a bank is not forced.
You're right about being a slave to the government when it comes to taxes, but again, that's not capitalism that is forcing it; it's the government.
How is universal health care "forced slavery?" I don't recall being forced to work in the health care industry. Your own reply to darfjono contradicts your slavery rant: "No one makes you work"
Look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You NEED shelter so you are FORCED to buy a place, rent a place, or live with someone else. Either way unless it's your parents your then FORCED to pay money either for a mortgage, property taxes, rent, lease, etc. so by that you are FORCED to work to make money. In order to get paid money to provide shelter your FORCED to use a bank to cash the check or get it directly deposited then FORCED to pay for your mortage, rent, etc. via a bank. I'd love this not to be true but the facts can't be denied. That's the definition of slavery so by proxy we're all slaves to something.
Universal health care is forced servitude because the government points a gun to your head and says, "You will give us XXX amount of money to pay for the health care of someone else because they refuse to provide it for themselves." No one where in the Constitution does it give the government that power, and in fact is explicitly denied by the 10th amendment. The imperial federal government will force the working class to provide health care for the non-working class. It is taking the rewards of one person's work and giving it to another. You're correct in that working is not forced on anyone, but those that choose to work are forced by the government to give parts of their labor to others who choose not to work. It's one thing to pay taxes to have roads and schools built, it's another to force that money to provide health care for someone.
As you now have a president that has used secrecy, lies and fraud to enter government, I think you should expect more of the same - and you have no-one but yourselves to blame because you were all willing participants in this great deception.
Ummm did you use the word 'honest' in the same topic as a politician? (LOL) There's as many honest politician's as there are innocent convicts in jail. Sure there's some but trying to prove they are honest it nearly impossible.
I never said I hated Bush. I think he was a moron. Openly documenting illegal acts is moronic. Anyone knows that. They have their hands up your puppet a** just like they have their hands up all of us. We are ALL willing participants in this great deception.
@ xcal78
I completely agree with you. All politicians of all time use secrecy, lies, and fraud to gain and keep control of any office.
@Dalkorian - a person who cannot discuss points but has to resort immediately to personal attacks has little of worth to say. If you want to grow in knowledge and understanding you may want to drop the dictionary and start using your intellect and sense of reason and put together reasoned arguments, not sprout vitriol.
Bush's balls cost the US people over $5 trillion dollars. Anyone who supports that can afford to support Obama for 4 years as there's no way he can touch that kind of deficit in 4 years.
I wish I could say that it doesn't affect me, being an Aussie, but I get the feeling that history will show Obama's takeover (for that is what it was) was the beginning of something that will affect all Western nations, and possibly the whole world, disastrously. What's that saying "There's something rotten in the State of Kansas" ? well there's something very rotten in Capitol Hill.
No offense to this but your a hypocite. You support an administration costing us $5+ trillion dollars which was a huge cause to the global economic down turn but when someone tried to step in and fix the problem you complain. The original stimulus bill was Bush's then Obama did another to try and fix Bush's final mistake. Bush will be remembered as the president who cost the country the most financially in history! Stand behind that if you want but leave me FAR away from that. I'll give Obama time to see what he can do instead of staking the man who's been in office 2 months. I'll stake the man who was in office 8 years and only gave us a HUGE NEGATIVE deficit with a nice economic slap in the face. Strike them after 9-11 for a few months to a year then get out is OK but now it will be a 10-15 year campaign. I'd be surprised if it only costs us $5 trillion as they've projected. 8 years of service is a provent track record while 2 months isn't long enought to make any conclusions. Obama needs atleast 1-2 years before we can start to see anything but feel free to stake him now since it's an easy jab and deflects away from good ole Bush's huge glowing mistakes.
Oh great sooth-sayer of the GOP- what do you say about this? I'm losing faith, oh Great Rector of Republicanism. Please reassure me that it is for my own good that I lost those liberties the Constitution guaranteed me. Remind me again of our ~Moral~ ~Superiority~ that sets us apart from the terrorists who torture and lie.
See a pattern here?
@Dalkorian
Obama wants to control the economy of the United States. He wants to control your health care. He wants to control what kind of light bulbs you put in your house. He wants to control what kind of car you drive. He wants to control the type of energy you use. He wants to control free speech. He wants to control your wealth. How is that any different than what fascism is?
Liberals want more of a Nazi dream state than any other popular movement. They want to control more of your life than conservatives & libertarians do, so why are you saying that "retardicans" want to build a nazi dream state?
Have you actually read a large portion of the 'Patriot Act'? Absolutly NOTHING Obama can do that comes close to the scale of what Bush did there. There will always been good and bad with any president but that 'Patriot Act' goes well beyond conventional rules and laws which is illegal as you like to point out yet there it is. Enacted and functioning by Bush's hand. It's slowly getting fixed but we'll be dealing with Bush's messes for another decade!
I agree that the Patriot Act did more harm than good. There are some very good portions of it in there to protect America, but there are an awful lot that infringe upon civil liberties. But to say that Obama can do nothing close to that is illogical. He's proposed increasing the yearly deficit to FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT what Bush ever got Congress to do, and Bush doubled the size of the federal government. Obama is wanting to put us into so much debt that if we spent 2 MILLION dollars a DAY for 2009 years we still won't pay off what he has just proposed. That is how much Obama wants to spend of our and our kids future. That is as damaging to our country as wiretapping citizens, but for some reason no one cares and thinks it's just OK.
I'd say 'Prove it'. The last articles I read were about his idea to HALF the deficit over the next 5-8 years. Something no president has yet to try or succeed in doing. I've yet to see anything showing an increase on that scale from rep's or dem's and I have some SUPER active republican's who sit next to me at work. People who use to have a picture of Bush and the first lady hanging in their cubes. I'll go one step further to provide you ONE of the articles about reducing the deficit. If you want or need more articles just type in 'obama reduce deficit' and start reading.
Obama proposes new wireless-spectrum fee
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10173072-94.html
"...the additional fees could help the government halve the deficit by 2013 as well as help it fund several new spending initiatives..."
"It takes money to make money"
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846_pf.html
"By the end of the Bush administration, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cumulative interest on the increased borrowing used to fund them, will have added about $1 trillion to the national debt."
Your own article you site states Obama's deficit is projected to be $1.7 TRILLION dollars. The largest deficit Bush had was FY09 that was listed as $482 billion according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/2009.deficit/index.html) and that includes the stimulus package amount before Oct 1st 2008. I'm sorry, Obama's budget isn't 400 hundred percent, it is 353 percent MORE than Bush's highest.
The article you site says that the wireless spectrum's tax increase is projected to only provide $4.8 billion over the next decade. That is 0.0028% of the proposed budget for just a single year (2010).
Obama is saying one thing and doing another in regards to fiscal policy. His projections of reducing the deficit to $350 billion by 2013 is impossible if he implements his universal health care. He just proposed $650+ billion as a "down payment" for universal health care. That is something his projections are ignoring.
Check out the GAO's own pamphlet regarding the financial stability of the federal government. Keep in mind this is before Obama's proposed budget was introduced, but it includes the TARP monies released before Oct 1st, 2008. http://www.gao.gov/financial/citizensguide2008.pdf
His projected $1,700,000,000,000 deficit is equal to 15% of the ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT. That is for the current "official" national debt of $10.89 TRILLION dollars. The ENTIRE US GDP is $14.2 trillion (http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm) and he wants to take $3.6 trillion of it (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_taxes) to spend. That is 25.35% of GDP. That is HUGE. Never before has there been requested an increase this large in the history of the world.
Obama might be saying he'll halve the deficit by 2013, but by then the national debt will have increased so much that many economists are wondering how it can ever be paid. And it'll have to be paid sometime by someone.
Calling the Iraq War Bush's war is not accurate. The President cannot wage war without the consent of Congress, which he had every year of the war. And that includes 2 years of approval with a democrat led congress. But by your reasoning, wars should be fought because of the debt it creates, so WWII should not have been fought either.
"Oh, I forgot to add that his $1.7 TRILLION deficit does not include the interest on that debt."
Do you even read? Bush passed on a $1.7 trillion dollar deficit plus the off-the books $5 trillion deficit on top of that. I'd debate more with you but you can't stick to facts or compare apples to apples. We can agree to disagree because your beyond the point to be able to see objectively. You're just out to twist and distore everything your way which is fine long as you live in your own little world. When you learn to read and comprehend stuff then actually provide some facts to back up your case feel free to get back to me.
"Calling the Iraq War Bush's war is not accurate. The President cannot wage war without the consent of Congress, which he had every year of the war. And that includes 2 years of approval with a democrat led congress. But by your reasoning, wars should be fought because of the debt it creates, so WWII should not have been fought either."
War hasn't been declared since before you were born I'd bet. WWII was the last declared war in case you don't know. Desert Storm, Desert Shield, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. were all campaign's which the president can authorize himself. To continue that kind of campaign he needs to lobby congress to get more money to keep it going but he decides when it start and stops. Bush directly cost the US people over $5 trillion dollars. That's a fact it's not up for debate. Fact's cannot be debated but feel free to try again. Add that money to an account off-the-books that doesn't count against the deficit if you want but it still helped sink the global economy. Sure he printed that $5 trillion bucks so we don't have to repay it hence it's not a deficit but it killed the US dollar as a global currency which in turn killed the economy.
I'll await a very well thought out post with lots of supporting facts with links. Shouldn't be hard to get maybe a quick 30 second search would do it since your point is right and there's tons of articles to support you. I just like to argue a lossing point which all the facts are against me.
- by Dylan_Wisor March 3, 2009 2:51 PM PST
- My God, shut up you wannabe, pseudo-intellectual, anarcho-independents. Go cry about how we're all subservient to the military industrial complex's Illuminati overseers on your Ron Paul forum.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(68 Comments)I called it though. I said months ago that as soon as Bush was out of office, a whole lot of bad stuff was going to get aired out. I should have Olbermann's job.