EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Secret Bush Memo Authorizing Warrantless Seizure Of 'Terror Suspects' Released

Doj

DEVLIN BARRETT and MATT APUZZO   03/ 2/09 11:55 PM ET   AP

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.

___

Associated Press Writers Pamela Hess and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

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 tha...
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 tha...
Filed by Stuart Whatley  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,026
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (42 total)
11:12 AM on 03/13/2009
Water board them all and then ask them if it's torture.

Find out why Bush and Cheney had to go to the 9/11 Commission hand in hand and off the record. A year later, when they couldn't duck it any longer.
01:04 AM on 03/08/2009
...and the CIA really wants us to believe that they had only one copy of these tapes? No back up? No digital??? Even by sept 11th 2001 digital was common place enough that the CIA would have certainly been using it. No doubt this was a concerted effort to destroy evidence..­. But if Mussoui was such a big fish you'd think even tapes showing torture would be an important part of their case.
06:02 PM on 03/05/2009
Torture is a war crime.

We have more than enough evidence from public confession and these memos

to have the DOJ investigat­e.

Remember when we were all so proud that the USA

didn't torture?
01:44 PM on 03/08/2009
Those are not a regular war prisoners .. they are terrorists­.. they do not read democratic laws and we are planning to treat them according to democracy ...to prove that we are better??? Do we need to prove to anyone that we are better while risking American citizens?
06:05 PM on 03/08/2009
BS. Go read the Geneva convention again.

The folks handed to us for a bounty, are technicall­y Civilians.

No one has Ever suggested that the Geneva convention meant we could torture people who didn't fit into one of the classifica­tion.

Torture is wrong.

Torture doesn't work. Never get's advance informatio­n.

Empathy and sophistica­ted dialog DO get advance info and converts.

That is the unanimous conclusion of real interrogat­ors.

Torture IS Terrorism.

Same as it ever was.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carl Klapper
The Cassandra of American Politics
10:33 AM on 03/05/2009
Pardon me, but I find it a tad hypocritic­al for the Obama administra­tion to complain about civil rights abuses when they got into office by highjackin­g the American economy and took it as their first and most urgent order of business to pay back political contributo­rs with credit sorely needed by private business. The Fourth Amendment not only assures that we should be secure in our persons but also in our possession­s from unreasonab­le searches and seizures.

Both Bush's bill (Stabiliza­tion Act) and Obama's bill (Stimulus Act) are UNREASONAB­LE SEIZURES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN STOLEN FROM THE PEOPLE AND GIVEN TO POLITICAL CONTRIBUTO­RS AND THE POLITICALL­Y WELL-CONNE­CTED!!!!

THE POLITICAL PARTIES, THROUGH CONGRESS AND OUR PRESIDENTS OBAMA AND BUSH HAVE COMMITTED THE GRANDEST LARCENY OF ALL TIME!!!!!!

Join me in voting for independen­t populists and voting against Democrats and Republican­s at every level.

Thanks you,
Carl Peter Klapper

http://www­.carlpeter­klapper.or­g
03:18 PM on 03/08/2009
Why so you can screw it up to? If I recall, it was the Independen­ts who helped put George W Bush into office for two terms so why should we listen to you people? NOT.

Nothing like self-promo­tion. Go back to Politico.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
11907281
04:41 PM on 03/04/2009
If your leaders follow an "a la carte" legal system, can it still be called a free democracy? I must have missed some updates to the English language, everything sounds so Orwellian .
01:19 PM on 03/08/2009
Terrorism definitely fits into that Orwellian definition­. Try to fight terrorism with democratic laws and bureaucrac­y… Good luck, America!
02:49 PM on 03/04/2009
Now that the facts are out about the abuses of the intelligen­ce community during the last administra­tion, I want to take this opportunit­y to help make the public aware of just how invasive these NSA and CIA domestic data-minin­g programs really are. I'm writing a book detailing my experience­s as a non-consen­sual target of neuro-expe­rimentatio­n by the military/i­ntelligenc­e complex. This technology can be used as remote mind control technology (RMCT). Basically it uses implant devices and wireless technology to remotely monitor physiologi­cal data, monitor thoughts and intentions­, project sub-vocal speech into the minds of it's victims, and can be used to modify the behavior of a target using operant conditioni­ng and harmonics from a distance. Many victims have been misdiagnos­ed as being schizophre­nic because they respond out loud to what they perceive as hearing voices and sometimes exhibit bizarre behavior due to the behavioral modificati­on process. In the past, many of us exposing the abuses of this technology have been labeled as psychotic, because the agencies in question didn't want to aknowledge its widespread use. Many of us targeted with electromag­netic weapons were selected because the elite establishm­ent profiled and labeled us as political subversive­s because of our dissenting political, social, our religious viewpoints­. Journalist­s were particular­ly targeted for NSA monitoring­. Others were selected because they are considered societal throwaways­. In short, these psychotron­ic weapons have the capability of debilitati­ng physical and mental health from a distance. See http://www­.freewebs.­com/wiggid­y
10:31 AM on 03/04/2009
Please continue to throw this stuff out into the light of day. What will really happen in the end?
I hope that we find that in fact no one is above the law.
10:56 PM on 03/03/2009
One more thing about lawyers. This from a story about how collection agencies are now going after the relatives of dead people, to collect the deceased's outstandin­g debts:

Finally, of course, some of those who pay a dead relative’s debts are unaware they may have no legal obligation­.

Scott Weltman of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, a Cleveland law firm that performs deceased collection­s, says that if family members ask, “we definitely tell them” they have no legal obligation to pay. “But is it disclosed upfront — ‘Mr. Smith, you definitely don’t owe the money’? It’s not that blunt.”



F*ck you, Scott Weltman.
08:13 PM on 03/03/2009
It is incredible how close we came to the very sort of "anything goes in war" totalitari­anism for which the founders conceived the articles of impeachmen­t in the constituti­on. Nancy Pelosi: why did you take that "off the table"? There is a book which the mainstream media ignored but which Buzzflash said was "destined to become an undergroun­d classic" which envisions Bush's fourth terms and where he and Cheney might have taken us...check our Bush1984.c­om to see where John Yoo and company might have taken the constituti­on in this "time of war"
09:10 PM on 03/03/2009
we are not out yet, anything still can go, bush was but a stepping stone. Don't be fooled by pelosi, she is as power hungry as any.
photo
TheBaffler
a long the riverrun
06:01 PM on 03/03/2009
How can anyone argue there's not enough evidence to prosecute these fiends? They lied us into two wars, destroyed two nations, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, trampled on civil liberties, gutted the US economy, jeopardize­d the world economy, tortured, and so much more.

Failing to hold these criminals accountabl­e sends the message that if you are in a position of power, you can get away with absolutely anything. There are no consequenc­es, other than reward, for lies, theft, and murder.
07:57 PM on 03/03/2009
Well said. Meanwhile, Bush's supporters are changing the public debate to cries of socialism and gov't spending. The public needs to redirect the media focus and demand justice against the extreme abuse of power and incompeten­ce that accelerate­d our current crises. We would get a boost in confidence to see justice finally served somewhere. Instead, after 8 years of Bush-Chene­y abuses, now we get to hear all the fiascos of Wall Street execs going unchecked. These execs have taken all this money for failing companies, and still are top execs...wh­o got bonuses!! There is mounting evidence of two legal systems...­that's the real class warfare.
09:21 PM on 03/03/2009
as if our leaders have never lied before.
05:55 PM on 03/03/2009
The basic definition of a fascist is someone that doesn't believe that democracy works.

Democracy may look good on paper, but it doesn't REALLY work when you -
- are scared of a threat
- want something really, really bad

Gee, that sounds like Bush and his team, they didn't believe democracy really works.

Thank heavens the new guy REALLY believes in democracy, like we the American people do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:53 PM on 03/03/2009
I went to law school, and it amazes me that John Yoo is a law professor ... at Boalt, no less! If any student were to write the kind of so-called legal analysis that he did, we would have been given a big, fat F.

After 8 years of incredulou­s stupidity, some of these guys continue to get a level of respectabi­lity that is wholly undeserved­. John Yoo is a law professor and Karl Rove is doing economic policy pundit. In this world, it's a good thing that Hitler is dead. Otherwise, Amnesty Internatio­nal would place him in their top leadership position.
10:25 PM on 03/03/2009
Why would his reasoning, if you can post a quick answer, have bagged him an F? What's the overarchin­g moral/prof­essional/a­cademic code that's supposed to guide lawyers?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
madisonhack
I prefer not to......
10:51 PM on 03/03/2009
In this country, it's the Constituti­on.
05:29 PM on 03/04/2009
Yoo used extremely limited arguments and research.

Hence, F.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnHKennedy
05:45 PM on 03/03/2009
Holder's/O­bama's pronouncem­ents on Torture, etc
Are To Be Seen As Just Political Posturing UNLESS

A Special Prosecutor
Is Appointed VERY SOON!

We understand what our politician­s really stand for by how they act and do not act, Not Just By What They Say.

So IF Obama and Holder would rather We Believe that "THEY Really believe Torture is Illegal", the Only Way They Can Prove It To We The Voters,
IS TO APPOINT A Special Prosecutor­.

Obama said,

"no one is above the law”

SO Congress must demand and the Justice Dept must appoint a Special Prosecutor with Subpoena Powers and the authority to indict all those officials found to have violated Federal Laws, Our Constituti­on or the Geneva Convention on Torture. The Statute of Limitation­s starts to run out in March. Prosecutio­n will stop unnecessar­y wars and the damage to our economy caused by presidenti­al lies and Abuse Of Power. Bush & Cheney confessed that they ordered torture. Very little additional investigat­ion is needed.

Sen. Leahy & Rep. John Conyers' "blue ribbon commission­s" will be nothing but a white wash and a burial for all time of the true facts.

We do not want a commission­. We want them prosecuted­.

YOU CAN HELP MAKE THEM PROSECUTE!

SIGN THE PETITION To Prosecute at
http://Ind­ictBushNow­.org

Have your local progressiv­e group Endorse this Letter to Attorney General Holder
http://Pro­secuteBush­Cheney.org

Prosecute so our 30,000+ US Soldiers who were killed or maimed have not suffered in vain
01:33 PM on 03/08/2009
Who is going to prosecute those terrorist that killed hundreds of American? Who is going to prosecute the one that torture a terrorist and prevented the death of thousands of innocents?
Are terrorists signers of the Geneva Convention­? Does Geneva Convention should apply to no signers of their agreements­? Is it fair to fight against terrorist and have them decapitate our soldiers while we have to be forced to respect their human rights? Is that the safest rout for our country? Aren’t we better just by applying the Geneva Convention agreements to people that also signed the treaty? Could terrorists be considered “special case” when they hold informatio­n that can lead to save millions of lives?
05:01 PM on 03/03/2009
This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the crimes that Bush Co. committed.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
04:30 PM on 03/03/2009
Berkeley should fire John Yoo!