Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Illegal, and Pointless
We’ve known for years that the Bush administration ignored and broke the law repeatedly in the name of national security. It is now clear that many of those programs could have been conducted just as easily within the law — perhaps more effectively and certainly with far less damage to the justice system and to Americans’ faith in their government.
That is the inescapable conclusion from a devastating report by the inspectors general of the intelligence and law-enforcement community on President George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. The report shows that the longstanding requirement that the government obtain a warrant was not hindering efforts to gather intelligence on terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. In fact, the argument that the law was an impediment was concocted by White House and Justice Department lawyers after Mr. Bush authorized spying on Americans’ international communications.
We know less, so far, about the Bush administration’s plan to send covert paramilitary teams to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders. But what is overwhelmingly clear is that there was no legal or rational justification for Vice President Dick Cheney’s order to conceal the program from Congress. The plan was never put into effect, apparently because it was unworkable. But it’s hard to imagine Congress balking at killing terrorists.
So why break the law, again and again? Two things seem disturbingly clear. First, President Bush and his top aides panicked after the Sept. 11 attacks. And second, Mr. Cheney and his ideologues, who had long chafed at any legal constraints on executive power, preyed on that panic to advance their agenda.
According to the inspectors general, the legal memo justifying warrantless wiretapping was written by John Yoo, then the deputy head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and author of other memos that twisted the law to justify torture.
In this case, the report said, he misrepresented both the law and the details of the wiretapping operation to make it seem as if the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was outdated and that Mr. Bush could ignore it. And, according to the report, Mr. Yoo bypassed his bosses at the Justice Department and delivered his reports directly to, you guessed it, Mr. Cheney’s office.
For four years, until The Times revealed the warrantless wiretapping, Mr. Bush reauthorized the eavesdropping every 45 days based on memos from the intelligence community and Justice Department. The report said that when the “scary memos,” as they came to be called, were not sufficiently scary, lawyers under the direction of Alberto Gonzales, White House counsel and later attorney general, revised them or ordered up additional “threat information.” Each ended with a White House-written paragraph asserting that communications were intercepted from terrorists who “possessed the capability and intention” to attack this country.
After Mr. Yoo and his boss, Jay Bybee, left the Justice Department, their replacements concluded that the wiretapping program was illegal. The White House did eventually change parts of the program and then demanded that Congress legalize it, but only after the White House tried to force the Justice Department to ignore its own conclusions and after Robert Mueller, the director of the F.B.I., threatened to resign.
Mr. Cheney has tried to head off a reckoning by claiming that the warrantless wiretapping saved thousands of lives. The report said the C.I.A. could point to little direct benefit. The F.B.I. said most of the leads it produced were false. Others never led to an arrest.
This is not an isolated case. Once the Bush team got into the habit of breaking the law, it became their operating procedure that any means are justified: ordering the nation’s intelligence agents to torture prisoners; sending innocents to be tortured in foreign countries; creating secret prisons where detainees were held illegally without charge.
Americans still don’t have the full story. Even now, most of what the inspectors general found remains classified, including other wiretapping that Mr. Bush authorized. Mr. Yoo’s original memo is also classified.
President Obama has refused to open a full investigation of the many laws that were evaded, twisted or broken — pointlessly and destructively — under Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama should change his mind. A full accounting is the only way to ensure these abuses never happen again.- Posted in

27 Comments so far
Show All"Mr. Obama should change his mind."
Why? If his predecessor was able to commit all those crimes without any repercussions of consequence during his tenure, what possible motivation is there for the current incumbent to behave differently?
Face it, America. Your government has learned that it need have no more regard for your domestic opposition than it has for the foreign varieties. In fact, in most cases, there is probably greater concern about the actual strength and effectiveness of the latter. So stop being surprised that they treat you in like manner. Your largely ignoring the horrendous impacts on "lesser" peoples all these many years is coming home to roost and, in the circumstances, its not easy to be sympathetic.
Some of us did not ignore US opression. We have filled the streets many times, faced brutal police reaction, but then ignored and dissppeared by the corporate media. USAns have died on college campuses, and in solidarity with Chile, in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Palestine, as war resisters in Iraq, and Oaxaca, fighting imperialism.
What have you done?
Obviously, not enough. Equally obvious and much more important, however, ineffectual minority dissent doesn't alter the essential "Face it, America" reality.
Well, maybe you can help us emigrate to your country then...
Emigration as a solution? I think you're either missing or misinterpreting the central point that Americans are now being treated by the imperium with the same disdain as it has shown the rest of the world for many years. What would you, or any other concerned American, expect to gain in either effectiveness or benefits by departing the imperial center for an outpost?
"According to the inspectors general, the legal memo justifying warrantless wiretapping was written by John Yoo, then the deputy head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and author of other memos that twisted the law to justify torture.
In this case, the report said, he misrepresented both the law and the details of the wiretapping operation to make it seem as if the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was outdated and that Mr. Bush could ignore it. And, according to the report, Mr. Yoo bypassed his bosses at the Justice Department and delivered his reports directly to, you guessed it, Mr. Cheney’s office."
So the deputy head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has the authority to interpret the law, to decide whether a particular law is 'obsolete'? Foolish me. I thought that job belonged to the courts.
FISA was outdated? So old laws can not only be ignored, but broken with impunity, and not necessarily reviewed and repealed and revised if necessary by the legislature which might wish to have just a bit of input in deciding whether any particular law is outdated before forwarding to the President to sign or veto?
And the vice president takes the word of an attorney, not a judge, not a legislator, not the executive, just a run of the mill attorney for sufficient authority to conduct a wiretap fishing expedition and possibly an "executive assassination ring"? "HEY! Not MY fault! Talk to YOO! HE okayed it!"
WOW! I think those old bank robbery laws are outdated. Where can I get ME one of them there powerful lawyers? I'd like some assurance that I can rob banks with impunity.
Interpretations of the law as amended from time to time are a perfectly normal and usual part of the advice provided by lawyers to their clients, governmental or otherwise. In so doing, they generally follow rules of legal construction to avoid absurdities -- or at least the ones who still adhere to "quaint" notions about professional ethics do. Whether the US Justice Department's lawyers fall into that category is open to some question.
On the other hand, the legal advisers who make the really big bucks are the ones who are best able to invent ways for their clients to skate as close to the edge as possible without actually ending up in jail. That's especiallly true in the fields of corporate and financial law and, as with "freedom and democracy", you have to understand what politians really mean when they talk about "making your government more businesslike."
Pretty neat, eh? They seem to be saying, "Yoo can say anything he wants; he has a right to express his legal opinion. Once his legal opinion corresponds with whatever it is I want to do, whatever it is I want to do becomes legal." Of course, Cheney probably resented having to take the extra step as it was his belief that if the executive branch did it, it would be, by definition, "legal".
So why break the law, again and again? Two things seem disturbingly clear. First, President Bush and his top aides panicked after the Sept. 11 attacks.
But what was that panic really about? The Republicans believed they would hold power into the distant future once the reactionary Supreme Court handed George Wanker Bush victory in the 2000 election. Furthermore, Bush intended to begin the looting of the nation that led us to where we are now. None of this could be accomplished if even one more terror attack too place on our soil. And, being Republicans, their profound contempt for democratic principles and procedures knows no bounds. So the lawlessness and overkill began. While people like Cheesedick Cheney are motivated principally by money madness and Stalinlust, Bush most of all craved Glory. This all fit neatly into the little brown paper bag of Wankerism and Cheesedickism. While their best laid plans for political hegemony in this country went awry, they were replaced by the corrupt coward Obimbo who merely continues their policies with the shit rhetorically washed off and a spitshine applied.
In short, they won.
When the people charged with enforcing the laws, break the laws, there are no laws...Billy Jack (1974)
What Billy would say to Dick Cheney regarding Dick's habitual lawlessness..
"You know what I think I'm gonna do then? Just for the hell of it? ... the savagery of these idiotic moments of yours... I just go BERSERK! ..."
We should ALL be going 'BESERK' over what he's done to our countrys international standing.
"But what is overwhelmingly clear is that there was no legal or rational justification for Vice President Dick Cheney’s order to conceal the program from Congress. The plan was never put into effect, apparently because it was unworkable."
Right.
"Hey, don't tell Congress about that thing we didn't do."
Makes perfect sense. It isn't that they were actually killing people, it's just that Cheney was irrational.
CTRL-Z-
It's not that Cheney was 'irrational', but that he spent unaccountable monies.(who knows how much) Congress holds the purse strings.
It's neither actually. The thought is simply that he may now be more vulnerable with perhaps less exposure of the underlying problems that permeate the entire system. Still risky, but possibly worth it if they can keep a lid on the rising demands for more substantive investigations and changes. Note, for example, how quickly Pelosi seized the perceived possibility for whitewashing her own complicity.
"President Obama has refused to open a full investigation of the many laws that were evaded, twisted or broken — pointlessly and destructively — under Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama should change his mind"
And what? Investigate himself for continueing those programs?
camus13
Is this not the newspaper that held up the wiretapping story until George Bush was reelected in 2004?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
There is a heck of a lot more to the CIA program or Chaney program than we are being told.
If it was stopped long before it began why did Paneta run to Congress to tell them this month?
As ever, the NYT is gentle even in its criticism. It's fascinating that they can open by arguing that we all know that various Bushies broke the law repeatedly, then pass off actions that happened with extensive planning over 8 years as "panic."
They "panicked" after 9/11. So panicked that they had the Patriot Act on legislators desks within days.
Cheney, apparently, had "no legal or rational justification" rather then a thoroughly thought out, extensively illegal plan to centralize power and extend violence.
It's good the Times has wandered over towards the truth here, but let's follow through.
"And second, Mr. Cheney and his ideologues, who had long chafed at any legal constraints on executive power, preyed on that panic to advance their agenda."
Gee, and no one - especially the 'paper of record' - could have ever predicted anything like that happening...
Cheney via PNAC, 2000: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."
In other words, pre-911, he explained in the clearest of language that in order to accrue and use illegal power, the people had to be scared shitless.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
Thank you, thank you, thank you !!!!!!
For too long, the Mainstream Media has concealed the evidence of a Preplanned Attack on the Constitution of the United States......The PNAC and Patriot Acts were just waiting for the attacks of 9/11........We all know that World Trade Center #7 went down with explosives.....an impossibility without explosives.......There were eyewitnesses and reports of the explosions by mainstream reporters........Yet, there was no independent investigation of the murder of almost 3,000 people.
There was immediate removal of evidence including videotapes. Yet, there was no independent investigation......
And, you have a President who does not want to create trouble for "The Power Elite"
Yes, yes to both of you! It took this long for the NY Times to wake up from its dogmatic slumber.
I suppose the people at the NY Times still have not read "Rebuilding America's Defenses. Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (A Report of The Project for the New American Century, published in September 2000), the Bible of the neo-conservatives and the updated manual of U.S. imperialism.
I was reading about three US soldiers killed in Iraq today. Let me see if I have this straight.
It was bad when dim witted George W. Bush sent young Americans to kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis for oil. But its ok now that a charismatic Barack Obama does it. Is that the story you fucking liberal Democrats, progressives, and social democrats who think you believe in socialism?
It was bad when the semi-literate George W. Bush sent young American fathers, mothers, sons and daughters off to die for rich people in foreign lands. But its ok now that the great orator with the teleprompter Barack Obama does it. Is that the story you fucking useless dilettantes at the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, MoveOn.Org, and on web sites like Common Dreams?
It was bad when the bankers guy in the White House, George W. Bush was ordering Predator drones to fire missiles into wedding parties and funeral processions in Pakistan and Afghanistan and counting the dead children and their mothers as "militants" killed. But its ok now that the new bankers guy in the White House, and hasn't Barack Obama been good to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BOA and Citigroup, does it. Is that the story you fucking pretend anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-racist and labor organizations in this God-forsaken country.
There's not a dimes worth of difference between either of these war criminals. Fuck them both! And fuck any of us who continue to remain silent because Barack Obama is the president.
malcolm martin, you're obviously new to this site.
please don't mistake us for the obamabots on huffpo or the other sites you try to conflate us with.
malcolm martin July 17th, 2009 6:37 pm:
You obviously did not read my posts during the presidential campaign, nor since our Savior Obama was elected. Nor did you read the posts of many other Common Dreamers.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have been able to write such generalizations as are in that post of yours.
It's understandable that you are angry, but you are angry at the wrong folks.
"in the name of national security" is the same as crying "WOLF" these days.
Trust has been shattered. And all the king's horses and all the king's men ,,,
Okay, NY Times, that's a first step. But you need to take a few more steps towards the full disclosure of the truth about 9/11 and about the policies and actions that the Bush and Cheney junta justified by invoking 9/11 and by instrumentalizing the fear it sent into the citizenry.
If that is a motion, I second it. How many ayes do we have?
I stopped read the NYT when John Conyers had to hold his hearings on the Downing Street Memos in the basement and the NYT responded accordingly by reporting those meetings on page ten at the bottom of the page, in other words, in the basement of news, of little or no importance. No investigative reporting to be sure, just a reprint of some White House press release. No questions asked, no curiosity aroused, no interest in pursuing the truth, no interest in irritaing the establishment. Some serious reporting back then might even have saved a few lives had the war in Iraq been exposed for what it really was. The NYT should stick to what it does best, covering the New York social scene by writing for people who like to read about themselves.