Obama Releases Bush Anti-Terror Memo's

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Obama Releases Bush Anti-Terror Memo's

Posted by Chryz707 on Mar-03-2009 06:48:

Obama Releases Bush Anti-Terror Memo's

As the Skeletons out on bush, we all knew they were there though... Its shameful really...

WASHINGTON � The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.

The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.

The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions, but the documents themselves had been closely held. By releasing them, President Barack Obama continued a house-cleaning of the previous administration's most contentious policies.

"Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech a few hours before the documents were released. "Not only is that school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good."

The Obama administration also acknowledged in court documents Monday that the CIA destroyed 92 videos involving terror suspects, including interrogations � far more than had been known. Congressional Democrats and other critics have charged that some of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture, a contention President George W. Bush and other Bush officials rejected.

The new administration pledged on Monday to begin turning over documents related to the videos to a federal judge and to make as much information public as possible.

The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence gathering. In that memo, he said the government's interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.

That memo did not specifically attempt to justify the government's warrantless wiretapping program, but it provided part of the foundation.

Yoo, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, did not return messages seeking comment.

The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges.

Obama has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year. He halted the CIA's intensive interrogation program. And last week, prosecutors moved the terrorism case against U.S. resident Ali Al-Marri, a suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent held in a military brig, to a civilian courthouse.

A criminal prosecutor is wrapping up an investigation of the destruction of the tapes of interrogations.

Monday's acknowledgment of videotape destruction, however, involved a civil lawsuit filed in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed," said the letter submitted in that case by Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin. "Ninety-two videotapes were destroyed."

It is not clear what exactly was on the recordings. The government's letter cites interrogation videos, but the lawsuit against the Defense Department also seeks records related to treatment of detainees, any deaths of detainees and the CIA's sending of suspects overseas, known as "extraordinary rendition."

At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters he hadn't spoken to the president about the report, but he called the news about the videotapes "sad" and said Obama was committed to ending torture while also protecting American values.

ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said the CIA should be held in contempt of court for holding back the information for so long.

"The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order," Singh said.

CIA spokesman George Little said the agency "has certainly cooperated with the Department of Justice investigation. If anyone thinks it's agency policy to impede the enforcement of American law, they simply don't know the facts."

The details of interrogations of terror suspects, and the existence of tapes documenting those sessions, have become the subject of long fights in a number of different court cases. In the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then acknowledged after the trial was over that two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.

The Dassin letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, says the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents and the identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.

But the lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such as the names of CIA personnel who viewed the tapes.

The separate criminal investigation includes interrogations of al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah and another top al-Qaida leader. Tapes of those interrogations were destroyed, in part, the Bush administration said, to protect the identities of the government questioners at a time the Justice Department was debating whether or not the tactics used during the interrogations were legal.

Former CIA director Michael Hayden acknowledged that waterboarding � simulated drowning � was used on three suspects, including the two whose interrogations were recorded.

John Durham, a senior career prosecutor in Connecticut, is leading the criminal investigation, out of Virginia, and had asked that he be given until the end of February to wrap up his work before requests for information in the civil lawsuit were dealt with.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303...pe/terror_memos

Posted by Krypton on Mar-03-2009 06:55:

My thing is...if he didn't do anything wrong, what was there to hide? The man is a war criminal...

Posted by Chryz707 on Mar-03-2009 06:56:

He belongs in the Hague along with Charles Taylor...

Posted by Rasidel Slika on Mar-04-2009 03:36:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
My thing is...if he didn't do anything wrong, what was there to hide? The man is a war criminal...

there are things which are classified, period, regardless of content. I think this fell under that category..

Posted by Krypton on Mar-04-2009 04:06:

quote:
Originally posted by delobbo
there are things which are classified, period, regardless of content. I think this fell under that category..

Of course their search and seizure and torture powers were "classified". They knew it was wrong and against the constitution. No worries though, our Supreme Court took care of that.

Posted by Q5echo on Mar-04-2009 07:40:

Posted by Q5echo on Mar-04-2009 07:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
No worries though, our Supreme Court took care of that.

how do you mean exactly?

Posted by Krypton on Mar-04-2009 18:28:

Posted by Q5echo on Mar-05-2009 06:18:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
I don't think anything decided by John Yoo is even worth credibility.

no one's asking you for your opinion (namely b/c it routinely sucks and lacks depth).

these memoranda, the one's this thread has in question, are just submitted for review. one shouldn't just take DEVLIN BARRETT and MATT APUZZO at face value.

quote:
For one... Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) ... you can not try someone based on testimony gathered from torture. We must follow the Geneva Conventions. etc. etc.

no. Hamdan was the SCOTUS telling Bush that he needs to have Congress establish the rules to which you try illegal enemy combatants by military commission at GITMO...which is exactly what Bush subsequently pursued and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was born, passed by the Senate 65-34.

quote:
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___ (2008) guarantees the right of Habeas Corpus which of course was denied by your favorite war criminal.

guarantees habeas rights to whom exactly, and do those rights apply to those currently held by the new "war criminal" Obama?

Posted by Krypton on Mar-05-2009 07:33:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
no one's asking you for your opinion (namely b/c it routinely sucks and lacks depth).

No one's asking for yours either.

quote:
these memoranda, the one's this thread has in question, are just submitted for review. one shouldn't just take DEVLIN BARRETT and MATT APUZZO at face value.

What exactly was the point in posting Yoo's memoranda? That Bush's actions were constitutional...That sir, would be laughable.

quote:
no. Hamdan was the SCOTUS telling Bush that he needs to have Congress establish the rules to which you try illegal enemy combatants by military commission at GITMO...which is exactly what Bush subsequently pursued and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was born, passed by the Senate 65-34.

Wrong. This is what the case said. The Guantanamo military commissions lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."

And this "Military Commissions Act of 2006"...Yea...that was struck down too by Al Odah v. United States and ruled unconstitutional. So you'r referring to a law that isn't even constitutional. But I don't expect the constitution to matter much to authoritarians.

Continue reading below...

quote:
guarantees habeas rights to whom exactly, and do those rights apply to those currently held by the new "war criminal" Obama?

On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

And what war crime has Obama committed?? ...

Posted by Clovis on Mar-05-2009 22:02:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton

And what war crime has Obama committed?? ...

Well, to Q5's point, he really hasn't done shit regarding Guantanamo other than say he's going to close it and "review" current practices.

We need a plan and procedure to apply to these detainees NOW.

Posted by Krypton on Mar-06-2009 00:18:

quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
Well, to Q5's point, he really hasn't done shit regarding Guantanamo other than say he's going to close it and "review" current practices.

We need a plan and procedure to apply to these detainees NOW.

It appears to me they will be tried in civilian courts. US Marshalls are now on flights to Guantanamo Bay. US Marshalls only escort civilian detainees...

Posted by Q5echo on Mar-06-2009 06:39:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
What exactly was the point in posting Yoo's memoranda?

i told you already.

quote:
That Bush's actions were constitutional...That sir, would be laughable.

do you not make distinctions of intent between what is Constitutional, unconstitutional and a war crime?

quote:
Wrong. This is what the case said. The Guantanamo military commissions lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."

And this "Military Commissions Act of 2006"...Yea...that was struck down too by Al Odah v. United States and ruled unconstitutional. So you'r referring to a law that isn't even constitutional. But I don't expect the constitution to matter much to authoritarians.

Continue reading below...

carefully re-read wikipedia and tell me what section in the MCA specifically the Boumendenine decision struck down.

Summary of Sect. 7, Military Commissions Act : Amends federal criminal justice provisions to deny any court or judge jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of, or to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of, an alien detained outside the United States who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. Makes the provisions of this section effective upon enactment, and applicable to all cases, without exception, pending on or after enactment which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

quote:
And what war crime has Obama committed?? ...

he's continued, enforced and escalated everything you think Bush should be behind bars for. words from Obama, despite the ease you give them, are to be distinguished intently from his actions much more than any man who's held that office in recent history.

Posted by Clovis on Mar-06-2009 08:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
words from Obama, despite the ease you give them, are to be distinguished intently from his actions much more than any man who's held that office in recent history.

Funny how a few months changes everything.

Posted by Q5echo on Mar-06-2009 08:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
Funny how a few months changes everything.

you're absolutely right. politics is funny

Posted by Clovis on Mar-06-2009 09:00:

That much can be universally agreed upon.

Posted by Krypton on Mar-06-2009 16:20:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i told you already.

Which was wrong. "The Supreme Court took care of that." Remember?

quote:
do you not make distinctions of intent between what is Constitutional, unconstitutional and a war crime?

Awww, so Bush had good intentions by having torture allowed on hundreds of prisoners...That's utterly ridiculous.

quote:
carefully re-read wikipedia and tell me what section in the MCA specifically the Boumendenine decision struck down.

Summary of Sect. 7, Military Commissions Act : Amends federal criminal justice provisions to deny any court or judge jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of, or to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of, an alien detained outside the United States who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. Makes the provisions of this section effective upon enactment, and applicable to all cases, without exception, pending on or after enactment which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

Quoting again from a law which was ruled unconstitutional? LOL. Does the constitution even matter to you? Do you want a king? Or a president?

quote:
he's continued, enforced and escalated everything you think Bush should be behind bars for. words from Obama, despite the ease you give them, are to be distinguished intently from his actions much more than any man who's held that office in recent history.

What exactly has he continued, enforced, and escalated which I think Bush should be behind bars for? Torture? Illegal wire taps? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? I'M DYING TO KNOW...

Posted by Q5echo on Mar-08-2009 11:41:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Which was wrong. "The Supreme Court took care of that." Remember?

no, the SCOTUS has only made it's decision on habeus rights. irresposibly i might add.

those memo's, legal opinions, cover much more than that.

quote:
Quoting again from a law which was ruled unconstitutional?

i'm quoting it b/c you said the SCOTUS' Hamdan decision was based on interogation techniques. it wasn't.

quote:
LOL. Does the constitution even matter to you? Do you want a king? Or a president?

my God you are dense. sect. 7 of the MCA (the entire MCA as a matter of fact) was written by Congress you fucking dipshit at the behest of the SCOTUS. Bush didn't write it. the Hamdan decision forced Congress to write it.

quote:
What exactly has he continued?

>LINK<

quote:
What exactly has he enforced?

>LINK<

quote:
What exactly has he escalated?

>LINK<

Posted by Krypton on Mar-08-2009 18:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
no, the SCOTUS has only made it's decision on habeus rights. irresposibly i might add.

those memo's, legal opinions, cover much more than that.

Irresponsibly? LOL. As if the SCOTUS is supposed to be lock step with the president's interpretation of the constitution. NO, sorry, authoritarian presidents don't get to dictate to the SCOTUS. There is no way around it. The SCOTUS has struck down one memo after the other from your favorite legal counsel, Yoo.

quote:
i'm quoting it b/c you said the SCOTUS' Hamdan decision was based on interogation techniques. it wasn't.

Firstly, your quoting an unconstitutional bill. Doesn't help your case. Secondly, the Hamdan decision most certainly involves the torture because it states the court must be in line with the Military Code of Justice AND the Geneva Conventions. Sorry, but the SCOTUS is not on the side of torture.

quote:
my God you are dense. sect. 7 of the MCA (the entire MCA as a matter of fact) was written by Congress you fucking dipshit at the behest of the SCOTUS. Bush didn't write it. the Hamdan decision forced Congress to write it.

I'm dense? You'r the one quoting unconstitutional laws as if they are still relevant. Who gives a shit who wrote the MCA? It's fucking unconstitutional.

quote:
>LINK<

The article requested is no longer available.

quote:
>LINK<

WTF do you want me to read from this?

quote:
>LINK<

Yea, I know...I'v already made known I'm 100% against this. Did you forget who sent them there in the first place? Obama will learn, soon enough, that it is impossible to pacify Afghanistan. Should'v let the Russians tell him...

But in your false dichotemy world, I should join the Rushbaugh ranks just because of one or two things Obama is doing which I disagree with. I'm not going to agree 100% with the president...At least I don't disagree 100% with him...

Posted by Q5echo on Mar-09-2009 01:24:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Irresponsibly? LOL.

yes, irresposibly. there is a reason why Obama can't just release GITMO prisoners. you can read wikipedia, you can easily find out why.

the SCOTUS invented those habeus rights to give to unlawful enemy combatants. show me when in the history of the Republic we gave civilian due process to alien captures on the battlefield.

Bush complied with the Hamdan decision. Congress complied with Hamdan and in the end the SCOTUS still hasn't come up with a homogenous solution to the problem in the wake of Boumedendine

quote:
As if the SCOTUS is supposed to be lock step with the president's interpretation of the constitution. NO, sorry, authoritarian presidents don't get to dictate to the SCOTUS. There is no way around it. The SCOTUS has struck down one memo after the other from your favorite legal counsel, Yoo.

no one is saying the SCOTUS should be in lockstep. ultimately SCOTUS should point the way and the other two branches have bent over backwards to comply.

quote:
Firstly, your quoting an unconstitutional bill. Doesn't help your case. Secondly, the Hamdan decision most certainly involves the torture because it states the court must be in line with the Military Code of Justice AND the Geneva Conventions. Sorry, but the SCOTUS is not on the side of torture.

again, i really don't know how to explain this to you in simpler terms but but the SCOTUS' Hamdan decision referenced Geneva and the UCMJ for their clauses referencing military tribunals and apprpriate juridiction. those found in sect 7 of the 2006 MCA (which again, Congress wrote) were judged inadequate.

i'm only refering to the unconstitutional clause in the 2006 MCA to tell you you are wrong in thinking Hamdan decision had something to do with interrogation.

quote:
The article requested is no longer available.

dude?

oh well this one is even better.

quote:
During the interview, Mr. Obama also left open the option for American operatives to capture terrorism suspects abroad even without the cooperation of a country where they were found. �There could be situations � and I emphasize �could be� because we haven�t made a determination yet � where, let�s say that we have a well-known Al Qaeda operative that doesn�t surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don�t have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person,� he said.

�I think we still have to think about how do we deal with that kind of scenario,� he added. The president went on to say that �we don�t torture� and that �we ultimately provide anybody that we�re detaining an opportunity through habeas corpus to answer to charges.�

Aides later said Mr. Obama did not mean to suggest that everybody held by American forces would be granted habeas corpus or the right to challenge their detention. In a court filing last month, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration position that 600 prisoners in a cavernous prison on the American air base at Bagram in Afghanistan have no right to seek their release in court.

Instead, aides said Mr. Obama�s comment referred only to a Supreme Court decision last year finding that prisoners held at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, have the right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.

>LINK<

if the NYT is is right about this, what do you think Obama is thinking? you tell me, i have no idea.

quote:
WTF do you want me to read from this?

he's protecting, according to you, a war criminal. why do you think that is?

quote:
I'm not going to agree 100% with the president...At least I don't disagree 100% with him...

given the info i just gave you i obviously don't disagree with him 100%

Posted by Krypton on Mar-09-2009 02:34:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
yes, irresposibly. there is a reason why Obama can't just release GITMO prisoners. you can read wikipedia, you can easily find out why.

If they are innocent, then they should be released. How do we find out if they'r innocent...Something called...due process...

quote:
the SCOTUS invented those habeus rights to give to unlawful enemy combatants. show me when in the history of the Republic we gave civilian due process to alien captures on the battlefield.

Alien captures on the battlefield? LOL. Most of the gitmo detainees were shepherds and peasants captured at some checkpoint and handed over to the Americans for money.

quote:
Bush complied with the Hamdan decision. Congress complied with Hamdan and in the end the SCOTUS still hasn't come up with a homogenous solution to the problem in the wake of Boumedendine

Of course he complied, AFTER, it was given. It's a sad state we live in when the President bends the constitution to increase his own powers.

quote:
no one is saying the SCOTUS should be in lockstep. ultimately SCOTUS should point the way and the other two branches have bent over backwards to comply.

It's sad that the SCOTUS has to rule time and again against the ridiculous memos by the Bush Justice Department. No wonder they capitulated in mass resignation. It was a corrupt, politicized, piece of shit, a "yes" department to the president.

quote:
again, i really don't know how to explain this to you in simpler terms but but the SCOTUS' Hamdan decision referenced Geneva and the UCMJ for their clauses referencing military tribunals and apprpriate juridiction. those found in sect 7 of the 2006 MCA (which again, Congress wrote) were judged inadequate.

i'm only refering to the unconstitutional clause in the 2006 MCA to tell you you are wrong in thinking Hamdan decision had something to do with interrogation.

Not directly, but without due process within international law, you can only imagine what goes on in its absence.

quote:
dude?

oh well this one is even better.

Again, it's my belief that any American military presence in Afghanistan is utterly and ridiculously imperialistic. As if military power is going to subdue the Afghan people? LOL. Ask the Russians. It's not even about whether we can win or not. The real question is, should we even be there, and that answer is a resounding no.

quote:
if the NYT is is right about this, what do you think Obama is thinking? you tell me, i have no idea.

I dunno what he's thinking. But I disagree with his decision.

quote:
he's protecting, according to you, a war criminal. why do you think that is?

Can you quote the specific excerpt?

quote:
given the info i just gave you i obviously don't disagree with him 100%

You disagree with him to the degree you agreed with Bush.