Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
DOJ Memos Reveal Legal Thinking Behind Controversial Bush Terrorism Policy
Legal Guidance Gave U.S. Military Broad Domestic Authority
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department today released nine national security legal opinions written by the Bush administration, and revealed that in the weeks before President George W. Bush left office, an administration attorney had disavowed all of them.
Hours after Attorney General Eric Holder repudiated anti-terror methods enacted under former president George W. Bush, the Justice Department released nine internal memos and opinions it said gave legal grounding to the controversial policies. (AFP photo) The newly released memos deal with warrantless wire tapping, executive power and the seizure of terrorism suspects, all of which were issues on which the Bush administration received criticism from civil liberties advocates.
On Jan. 15, 2009, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury wrote a "memorandum for the Files" stating that the opinions were no longer being relied upon and that they were "not consistent with the current views" of the Office of Legal Counsel.
The release of the memos today appears to be a tacit admission that many of the legal findings made by the Justice Department in weeks and months after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, giving Bush extradordinary executive power, were flawed.
Some of the most broad sweeping memos concern what authority the military has on U.S. soil, which notes that the Fourth Amendment would not apply for domestic military operations and the assertion that the First Amendment, particularly as it applies to freedom of speech and of the press, may have to be "subordinated."
An Oct. 23, 2001, memo titled, "Memorandum Regarding Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States" states that military operations on U.S. soil would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act, since the military would be conducting military operations and would not be operating in a law enforcement capacity.
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibited the use of the military as law enforcement within the United States, "except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress."
The memo also casts aside parts of the Fourth Amendment in its legal analysis.
"The Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations designed to deter and prevent further terrorist attacks," the memo said.
The memo also notes: "The Fourth Amendment was aimed primarily at curbing law enforcement abuses. ... In our view, however well suited the warrant and probable cause requirements may be as applied to criminal investigation or to other law enforcement activities, they are unsuited to the demands of wartime and the military necessity to successfully prosecute a war against an enemy.
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," the memo says. "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broadened exercises of federal power domestically. Terrorists operate within the continental United States itself and escape detection by concealing themselves within the domestic society and economy."
The memos were, in part, revoked on the legal analysis by Bradbury, who wrote in his Jan. 15, 2009, memo in the final days of the Bush administration: "The purpose of the memorandum is to confirm that certain propositions stated in several opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel in 2001-2003, respecting the allocation of authorities between the president and Congress in matters of war and national security, do not reflect the current views of this office."
In the 11-page memo, Bradbury explained that many of the opinions had been written "in the wake of the atrocities of 9/11," but that they departed from the usual practice of the office by addressing "broad contours of legal issues" instead of targeting specific and concrete policy proposals.
Jameel Jaffeer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, praised the release of the memos, but said he was troubled by what they revealed.
"The story is that the OLC argued that neither the Bill of Rights nor congressionally enacted statutes bind the president during war time, not on foreign battlefields and not on U.S. soil," Jaffeer said.
47 Comments so far
Show AllThe Obama administration and the Democratic Party-controlled Congress aren't distinguishing themselves from the illegal Bush policies.
Support for the USA PATRIOT Act essentially nullified the inalienable Constitutional rights of citizens. Obama shredded the Fourth Amendment by voting for the FISA Act.
We haven't seen a change of direction. Bad news for all.
-TIA
Extraordinary executive powers came out of BUILDING SEVEN.
Building one gave us incentive.
Building two bestowed consent.
Building three silenced dissent.
Building four secured states powers.
Building five authorized the signing statements.
BUILDING SEVEN is the hall of mirrors. When will the executive say "BUILDING SEVEN"
I advise all punk bands to call themselves BUILDING SEVEN, and all rappers to use the words BUILDING SEVEN in their songs. Name your daughters Barack Buildingseven. and name the new hybrid SUV the Building Seven. maybe our class war will be called building seven.
The real america was born squashed.
the mighty xzorloc grants you broad domestic authority based on a CIA backed demolition job!
Let the games begin!
Please, don't insult us.
There is no credible evidence for this claim and there are simple arguments from physics that refute it.
This serves only to distract us from the real problems. I have posted articles and commentary from engineers, architects and even posted a link to the original blueprints of the buildings showing plainly that such talk flies in the face of solid evidence, all to no avail.
Conspiracies are unassailable using fact and logic as the theorists use neither.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Are you referring to the govermnent theory laid out by the 911 Commission Report?
"Simple arguments from physics" geared to the simple-minded. You insult yourself. NIST and Popular Mechanics are not credible debunkers.
Agree with you -- 9/11 MIHOP -- and it's always interesting to note
that whether it's torture or conspiracy, there are always an aggressive
few who will defend against that reality!
Well, we did torture prisoners and send them off to be tortured and
I'm sure we don't know anywhere near the full extent of it yet.
Rape of children? Rape of men and women in those prisons? And the filming
of those acts in order to frighten other prisoners into cooperating?
And, unfortunately, this is not conspiracy-free America!
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
If Popular mechanics is not credible lets see you debunk this: http://www.debunking911.com/
Besides your belief, that everyone already has heard supported by half truths, conflicting theories, What can you prove?
Study building 7 also.
I would say "debunking911.com" is in the same league as Rupert Murdoch's "Popular Mechanics". I have tried to wade through the miasma of this "debunking" site before and find it to be very confusing, misleading, at times fanciful in its attempt to present alternate theories. At times I have found it to be downright dishonest in its presentation and consider it to be a disinfo site. Have you compared it with articles on ae911truth.com (Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth)?? If you have, and still cling to "debunking911" as your source, there is no point in trying to debate this with you. Others have been much more thorough in doing that on this site. I really don't understand how people can be so vociferous in citing NIST, Popular Mechanics, debunking911. They have been all over the map in trying to serve up explanations in support of the Official Story, and it is they who are regularly debunked. What is it really that causes people to scream,"Tin-foil-hat-wearer", whenever they encounter someone who is seriously concerned about a real investigation?? Is the idea that 911 might have been an inside job so threatening to your perception of "normal" reality? I'm amazed at some people who seem aware of diabolical elements in our government on certain levels, but at the same time cannot fathom that said government would be capable of carrying out an incident such as 911. I think the tin-foil hats are being given out to the wrong people.
"Is the idea that 911 might have been an inside job so threatening to your perception of "normal" reality?"
Of course not but does a "might have been inside job" mean only a prewired Demolition?
There is a deeper documented fact that Bush was warned by many Intel agencies but took the FBI off tracking of The Saudi's getting flying lessons in Florida. The airports needed security clearances ..so yes there could have been an inside job... a deep cover inside job.
But the 9/11 Truth groups just want everyone to believe the false story... which is good for Bush.
So Take off your tin foil hat for a minute please.
You can talk all you want about what others say and believe, but If you have an issue with "debunking911.com", debunk it now. If there was a prewired demolition, where is the proof? My perception of reality needs proof.
Can you deliver?
What exactly is the "false story" that 911 truth wants everyone to believe that is good for Bush? I really don't get your point. Are you talking about controlled demolition? Tell me why you believe debunking911 offers "proof" that explosives were not used. It undoubtedly would not serve as proof for your reality, but how could you not look at the videos of the way the buildings fell, especially Bldg. 7, and not be a little unsettled--and then start from there? Again, have you done a comparison of your source with ae911truth?? Have you looked into Steven Jones investigation of the use of thermite and thermate?? Have you looked into the many testimonies of witnesses to explosions going off?? You seem to be a little pre-wired yourself into this "debunking911", but where are your "facts"--where is YOUR "proof"?? The person who runs that site, chooses to remain anonymous, to my understanding. "Deep throat"(doubt it), or government operative?? At least Scholars for 911 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, Pilots for 911 Truth, and so on, are personally on record. I am not an engineer, an architect, nor a physicist, so I have to rely on the work and reports of others who are. I find your demand to "debunk it now", more than a little disingenuous. I would ask you, "What have you delivered?". Has debunking911 demolished 911truth?? Far from it. And I think I'll keep my tin foil hat on, thanks, and still encourage those who are curious to compare articles on 911 truth sites with the so-called debunkers.
the mighty xzorloc, Before you embarrass your children for life, you might want to study the facts of building Seven first.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
...talk about embarrassing.
Yes Embarrassing... You could name your kids "Building number 7", but they would hate you forever and with good reason.
This is silly. You are addressing something rhetorical with the response of a crank.
I really loved the way the rats flee when it is obvious just what the future holds. How they are now rushing breathlessly to claim that they all never really believed any of these findings in the first place.
Got a few chuckles.
Now I'd like to get very serious and bring these guys to court.
If we fail to fully investigate and, should the evidence be forthcoming, prosecute those who violated both the Constitution and the trust of the American people we will leave the door open to future abuses.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
The release of the memos today appears to be a tacit admission that many of the legal findings made by the Justice Department in weeks and months after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, giving Bush extradordinary executive power, were flawed.
=====
Flawed?
How about dictatorial, unconstitutional, and illegal?
I had the same reaction to the term 'flawed'. WTF?
This is WAY BEYOND 'flawed'.
It's definitely fascism/totalitarianism.
Call it what it is. And recognize these people as enemies of democracy.
Those charged with protecting the Constitution are the ones who attacked it and did their level best to tear it down.
Prosecute these traitors.
So, how are you going to stop all the warrantless surveillance torture being conducted by community watch groups who are lead by Firefighters, First Responders and local law enforcement groups that have received DHS grant money to build these lawless nation wide spy networks?
Thank you Bush family and your thousands points of warrant less surveillance spotlights.
Now throw in the no bid contracts for corporations to build lawless warrantless surveillance spy networks across the nation, billions of dollars.
We have millions of people employed in warrantless surveillance across the country, that is the next secret that will be exposed, but they sure are taking their time with that one.
Why, because in a country that can only produce jobs in a lawless spy sector or join the military ,you now have a fascist dictatorships plans exposed. REPUBLICAN GEORGE BUSH AND A COMPLICIT DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAVE ALL BUT MADE AMERICA A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY WITH INFORMENTS ON EVERY CORNER.
I know first hand what these lawless thugs that call themselves patriots are doing, 24/7 gang stalking torture with the intent to kill their victims slowly. MURDER.
If you have an endless war on terror, the spy works continue to grow, if you have a really bad economy, the military ranks grow and use of a swelled military is inevitable.
War on terror = fear mongering warrantless surveillance control + military industrial complex industry destroy and rebuild industry.
The extreme right wing Republican party since Nixon are anything but conservative.
They have spent our countrys wealth on the military industrial complex and deregulation of the banks and wall street to line thier pockets.
So now they have the nerve to call President Obama a tax and spend liberal.
Republicans are liers and thieves. All of them.
Now its time to spend the money on:
education, republicans hate that, the smarter we become the longer they stay out power,
health care, thats good jobs foor Americans while we provide universal health care for all, imagine that, America taking care of Americans,
energy solutions in wind , solar and renewible energy, more good jobs for Americans while securing our nation by not sending our money to the middle east.
BornFreeMen.
I am an American, not a Spymerican or a torture fascist.
So, in other words the bush White house pissed all over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Charge the bastards! Throw em' in jail! It's where they belong! Clinton was impeached over the Monica lewinsky scandal! Where does pissing all over the Consitution and the Bill of Rights come into the picture? Get real!
You need to remember that it was the Republicans who impeached Clinton because he was careless where he put his cigars.
Do you believe that same party will impeach their own stars because they were careless about things like international law, human rights and were careless where they left their cluster bombs?
I don't.
Speaking of "flaws":
In early 2006, George Bush gave his "intelligence czar", in the name of national security (of course),the authority to "excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations".
According to the Business Week article dated May 23, 2006 by Dawn Kopecki, part of the memo Bush signed said: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 23(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."
One might ask how many of these "publicly traded" companies were granted waivers which would essentially exempt them from keeping accurate books and therefore full disclosure of profits - profits which should have been distributed to shareholders but may not have been? These waivers would give free reign to corporate CEOs to "cook the books" and potentially disribute those profits to whomever they wish.
Does this sound like investors are being protected against fraud?
The memo is said to have been recorded in the Federal Register (May,2006) and titled: "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intellignece."
wow. fascinating. the implications of this.....do you have a link to this article?
Ditto.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf20060523_2210.htm
the article says this is only relevant for co's doing super-duper top secret national security stuff, but this quote from the article seems to be why the article was written in the 1st place:
"Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision.
The timing of Bush's move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies."
This is how the Bush crime family grew.
All of the males were involved with secret CIA financial domestic contacts and front companies whose records are still secret or destroyed.
This has now come to light in some records Bush forgot to shred.
In a War Crime trial, the fact that Bush knew he was criminally liable for his acts, are proven by the tech change of using a counter opinion legal memo a week before he was out of office.
Now he can plead, "I was not perfect in how I protected the Public".
This move was what allowed Bush to not want pardons for his agents.
War crimes are so well covered by little legalism memos here and there.
People of the Planet, It is time to look under the covers.
So why do you believe their "explanations" of 9-11??
Brian,
I don't believe in the demolition theory... It is based on disinformation and halve truths.
And I don't believe that no planes hit the towers because some theorists put out DVD's about it.
But as far as their "explanations" of 9/11:
Intel agencies knew it was coming but Bush took the FBI off the Saudi connections before 9/11.
But the false "demolition theory" takes all the space in getting to the truth because it is sensational but false.
This "Demolition" theory helps Bush get away with everything because it is so false it creates sympathy for him and makes the peace movement look like we have been taken over by folks who can't prove what they are saying. It is based on deception.
If you have proof of a demolition, you should be able to debunk this http://www.debunking911.com/
"And I don't believe that no planes hit the towers because some theorists put out DVD's about it." I don't buy into that angle, either. Nevertheless, why do you insist upon dismissing the demolition theory as "disinformation and half truths? And how does it take up "all the space in getting to the truth because it is sensational but false." What is more sensational than the 911 event itself and the sensational LIE from Condoleeza Rice that "we could never have imagined that terrorists would fly hijacked planes into the WTC towers" (not the exact wording), when on Sept. 1, 2001 NORAD was carrying out a "drill" of that exact same scenerio--with Dick Cheney in charge(something, which to my understanding, was unprecedented). There's ample evidence, both circumstantial and tested, pointing to an inside job. For whatever reasons, it has been elements of the peace movement who really dropped the ball. I don't know whether it is a matter of conditioning or just not having the imagination to wrap their heads around the concept of an inside job, controlled demolition or not. I just know that early on, the "peace" movement distanced itself from 911 truth issues. If one of the reasonings was that the general public could not handle any more "sensationalism" and that the "peace" movement would lose traction, I think that is rather pathetic reasoning. Perhaps, if the peace movement had not been so quick to separate from 911 truth, the movement would not have been so impotent the last eight years.
Controlled demolition is the only explanation that can point to historic precedent (buildings have previously been intentionally brought down). On that basis alone, it must be considered the most likely suspect among the usual suspects.
Whenever there is some solid information about a plot or crime committed by Bush Administration, someone brings up building 7. Whatever the intent, that serves as a distraction from following through on the documented issue that has just come to light.
Joe
I think the intent for most who keep bringing up the WTC, especially Bldg. 7 is the refusal to be silenced about the main event which cleared the way for all the other hideous events which followed. 911 was the distraction. It worked quite well and we're still stuck with the LIE which is the 911 Commission Report and it's aftereffects, which the new regime appears little inclined to remedy. But let's look forward, not back, as we cling to the comforts of conventional wisdom and the globalist New World Order brings the world to its knees. Let the murder and pillage proceed.
I wonder how many in the Obama Administration are cooking up similar directives now. The new law of the land stands.
If the president does it, then it's not illegal.
www.davedubya.com
By formally rescinding and disavowing various 2001-2003 legal opinions which "do not reflect the current views of this office" in January, 2009 (scarcely a week before Bush/Cheney left the White House), Steven Bradbury's "memo for the files" of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel serves several other functions that the slant of today's mainstream news analysis is generally skipping past.
First, formal rejection on the eve of Bush's departure from the Oval Office underscores that these secret legal opinions were, in fact, treated as the applicable binding legal authority within the executive branch when the unitary chief executive GWOT policies were being clandestinely implemented.
This is potentially very important for all those former Bush regime functionaries worried about possible future criminal indictment for violating various federal statutes or the Constitution for misdeeds conducted back when they held public office. In the criminal law context, it is commonly referred to as the defense of reliance upon advice of legal counsel. Thank you, Mr. Bradbury, for implicitly enshrining that escape valve with a bit more clarity for those with the deepest personal stake in the matter.
Second, by noting that the now-rejected legal opinions no longer reflect the Justice Department OLC's "current" legal views, we leave open the potential for some future administration to quietly revisit and reinstate them. Now you see it, now you don't, now you see it once again. The Bill of Rights and the reach of the federal Criminal Code remains fee to expand or contract based upon mere shift of the partisan winds.
Third, from the standpoint of the practical nuts and bolts of actual litigation, recission of the old "flawed" OLC opinions may arguably moot formal adjudication of their legal invalidity within the court system. Judges do not usually reach out to decide theoretical points of law that no longer have any practical impact in the real world. How this plays out in terms of pending cases already in the federal court docket pipeline, or any future contemplated legal challenges to the Bush regime's trashing of the Constitution's checks and balances, is now an even more open question.
Hooray for Eric Holder's decision to make public that which previously was hidden from public scrutiny shrouded in a fog of classified, secret legalism. Thank you for taking an important first step in restoring transparency and the rule of law.
But in the big picture of things, Bradbury's formal renunciation of the work product of John Yoo, David Addington, and others just before the doorknob was going to hit Bush in the ass on his way out of Washington is a mixed blessing in disguise.
Bill from Saginaw
Nobody can convince me hat Yoo, Addleman and the other brains behind all these memos + the torture documents were not working on these from day 1 of the Bush coup - long before 9/11.
All anyone who disagrees with the 9/11 doubters has to do is think about who benefited from the attack. 'nuff said.
The "Patriot Act" seems very obviously to have been written long before
9/11 --- !!!
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
What rats flee?
I thought we were talking about humans.
Rats are much better behaved.
Wild rats will even test the food for the rest of the community to ensure its good for the rest of them.
Humans can learn a lot from the higher animals.
Just further proof of what I said several years ago. The government needs nefarious wars and reasons like 911, to abrogate the Constitutional rights of its citizens and to keep the MIC, monster well fed. There has to be a war on something, whether it be terrorism, drugs, communism, ect. The U.S. foreign policy has been fascist for a long time and it has to to keep keep feeding the Pentagon and all those contractors like Halliburton, XE, Lockhead Martin, Boeing, Raytheon ect. It will just be a matter of time until the government attempts to do the same in our domestic policy and the DOJ memos are all the proof you need.
See
http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342
Extraordinary Measures
A new memo shows just how far the Bush administration considered going in fighting the war on terror.
By Michael Isikoff | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 2, 2009
This has a link to the memo in PDF format.
Who cares what Bush was thinking? We know his thoughts are on the level of a marmut anyway.
This is all just so much theatre designed to stall until you tire and forget.
We should follow the Constitution and get on with prosecutions. Sooner we start, the sooner we are free of this festering boil of an ex-president. The evil that man did will live long after he is gone.
. . . in the weeks before President George W. Bush left office, an administration attorney had disavowed all of them.
Oh, only "weeks before". Uh huh. Gotta keep an eye out for that "Legacy", so historians, both present and future, don't say George Wanker Bush was actually intent on overthrowing the rule of law in the United States. Now I read he contemplated voiding the First Amendment. Wow, what a guy George Wanker Bush was . . . is. What a paragon of virtue, a champion of democracy, human freedom and civil liberties, a stand-up guy, a Mensch. Rot in Hell, you vile, totally worthless piece of trash!
I have to think that the reasons for these last minute changes were to attempt to make sure that they were not used on him and dick, and don, and condi, and colin, and fredo, and scooter, and turdblossom, and addington, hadley, yoo who, Ari the Fly, beam me up scotty,, comb-licker, Card shark, the dark prince, and don't forget Willie Crystal Pistol, Ka-Ren Hughes, ....
....very dull people when you consider the real masters of the genre like Earl Butz:
"I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight p---y;
second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to s--t."
They just don't make Republicans like they used to.
michael jordan
http://sites.google.com/site/apolloguide/
Okay, in this climate of "bi-partisanship" this is what passes for a good first step.
A good second step would be to identify and immunize from criminal prosecution every lawyer who contributed to these memos for purposes of deetermining what pressures were placed on them and by whom to produce such judicial momnstrosities that reached such concluosions.
A good third step would be the permanent disbarment of those attornies on grounds of incompetence.
Poet
DOJ Memos Reveal xxxxx Criminal Thinking Behind Controversial Bush Terrorism Policy
Our government is either against this treasonous tyrany or they are in it up to their noose
Those memos do not show legal thinking. They are legal fiction -- the Peabody's Fractured Fairy Tales of Legal Analysis. Although Yoo and Company deserve to be disbarred and prosecuted for creating those memos to justify torture, etc., that does not go far enough. In government work, there is always someone who reviews those things. Those people need to be found, disbarred and incarcerated also, after due process. And the same goes for Gonzales.
This was a particularly sinister effort to rewrite law to reflect an obviously illegal legal interpretation. All who participated in putting it forward deserve, after due process, disbarrment and jail as do all who acted on the legalo conclusions (the torturers themselves and those who ordered the torture).