Wall Street Journal:
It was instantly clear after Sept. 11, 2001, that our security agencies knew little about al Qaeda's inner workings, could not detect its operatives' entry into the country, nor predict where it might strike next.
John C. Yoo News - The New York Times
Freep - Report: Bush program extended beyond wiretapping
Yoo Torture Memo Says Fourth Amendment Doesn't Apply in War on ...
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
YOO organ failure you anus!
I think Yoo-cy's got some 'splainin' to do!!!!
So, when it comes to congressional testimony ... these guys won't say a darn thing. But they can spill their guts at will in the press .... when they don't have to actually answer any questions about the nonsense they spew?
This clown should be in jail.
"On Sep11, we didn't know what was happening, so we suspended the Constitution..."
All in favor of a trial, say 'aye'...
Aye
Aye
AYE!
aye
aye, aye, aye.
Aye.
The American people will pay dearly for your legal opinion but we dam sure don't want to hear your personal opinion. You should be disbarred.
at the very least. This man is no hero. Abandon the Constitution at the first opportunity. He is a fascist enabler, that is why he was picked by Cheney and co...
Who got the bleeping contract to mine the Data? ChoicePoint? Come on people, this is not about protecting us from terrorists. This is about setting up massive profiling of Americans so that anyone who pays the private company can get everything about any individual. If you are young enough to be applying for loans, jobs, insurance or running for office in the future, be ready for everything you have ever written, said, or taken pictures of to be considered.
Exactly.
Also, they wanted secrecy so they could spy on their politcal and personal 'enemies'.
I've never objected to the wiretapping, only that it was "warrantless" . As I understand it, they can initiate a wiretap, then secure a warrant, so there is no justification to claim they would have time to obtain a warrant.
He claims there wasn't intelligence to know anything about Al Qaeda so what did he think the memo was stating Bin Laden planning to Attack America. You know the one Rice admitted to at the hearing.
I guess intelligence isn't any good if there isn't anyone intelligent enough to read and use it.
I'm reading Al Franken's book "Truth" and a point Al makes is that it was Clinton intelligence which the Bushies considered no intelligence.
To paraphrase Yoo: And what FISA judge -- of either political party -- wouldn't immediately allow the NSA to intercept all electronic communications leaving and entering Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan headquarters. We'll never know, because they never wanted to include the FISA court. Instead, during a national emergency, they decided to precipitate a constitutional crisis. They were more interested in Alexander Hamilton than getting the job done within the bounds of current law.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but if the judicial branch interprets the document to limit the power of the executive, isn't it kind of bad for the executive to ignore that interpretation?
"kind of bad" ????
I would say it's criminal.
The purpose of the FISA laws (TITLE 50, CHAPTER 36 - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE) was to protect abuses by the US Government against US Persons and their First Amendments rights.
Since it now has been revealed that no terrorist plots were discovered by these intercepts of millions and millions of personal communications and with the later comments by the political czar of the White House about a permanent Republican Majority and his hand in the politicalization of the Justice Department, I believe that the Bush Administration was looking for a backdoor method of domestic political spying to achieve a permanent Republican Majority.
Is there an excuse for knowingly violating constitutional law?
Yoo betcha!
Are we tired yet of the mantra "On Sep-11 we didn't know what the fark was happening, so we suspended the Constitution..."
All in favor of prosecution, say 'aye'...
OK fine, so you did it because you're clueless. Tell us something we don't know.
You can see he's lying...his mouth is moving.
Remember when the WSJ stood for something? Thanks Rupert.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 07-15-09 10:24 PM | Updated: 07-15-09 10:28 PM