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
Thee is something with this man I can't quite put int words. I felt the same when I saw him during the Bush administration--and, it's NOT positive!
Besides, when I put all the reasons, they would exceed 250 words, and may disappear; ;o) .
Two wordsright now are YUCK and BRRRR!!
GADS!!
"There" not "Thee"!! GEESHH! Long day.
"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....Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies faced a near impossible task locating them."
Obviously, John Yoo didn't watch the "Spy Factory" on PBS.
They had ALL the information they needed to prevent 9/11. They were already listening in on these guys and had their addresses, phone numbers in the U.S. and abroad.
The problem was LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AGENCIES, as recommended by Hart-Rudman and ignored by the Bush Administration in the leadup to 9/11.
According to their own document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses ( .pdf format ) their stated goals would never be realized “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event –like a new Pearl Harbor”. (page 63). http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
The bottom of the page ^ lists the signatories.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf
The PDB memo from the National Security Archive ^
Bush got the warning, he derided the agent briefing him, and patiently ignored the memo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Archive
Republicans are criminals.
I'm glad you pointed this out again.
It should be pointed out over and over, since the Bush administration always pretended that the actions it took were a response to 9-11.
Simplified timeline:
The PNAC formulates plans that they would like to enact... if only an attack would occur.
Attack occurs, and the Bush administration plays dumb: "Who could have seen this coming? Who knew?"
Administration pretends that it was forced to enact these preconceived plans as a response.
Hey Yoo: Save this babble-speak for The Hague!
"The Bush Administration has obtained thousands of FISA warrants since September 11th and has almost never been rejected by the FISA court. FISA even allows wiretaps to be executed immediately in an emergency as long as the government obtains a warrant within 72 hours. "
The truth of the matter is that John Yoo, Dick Cheney, the whole Bush gang, felt that they should be accountable to no person or persons (like Congress) or the laws of the land. Yoo's beliefs are pretty close to Richard Nixon. "If the president does it, it's not breaking the law." The Bush administration could have gotten all of the warrants they needed. The truth of the matter is, that they felt that they were above the law and were answering to a higher calling. "Why do we need to obey this stupid law, were protecting America. These laws are for small fry!"
We blew the chance to impeach.
We can still indict. There is still a clear list of high crimes and misdemeanors to choose from
http://thetruthburns.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/forget-impeachment-its-time-to-probe-investigate-indict-bush/
Why is no mystery, Bushco said it was going to be done, plain and simple. Bushco is sort of like having the cops but in to the wrong house, tear the place up and then refuse o clean up the mess they have created. Pathetic examples of the bully getting their way regardless of the consequences.
John Yoo: Why We Endorsed Warrantless Wiretaps
endorse (merriam-webster):
to approve OPENLY ; especially : to express support or approval of PUBLICLY and definitely
I find it difficult to express how much I detest John Yoo. The string of expletives that spring to mind when I consider his continued existence is astonishing. Suffice it to say that his sole function in this life is as a source of entropy.
SO basically what he was saying is that the Administration didn't believe the laws legally established were adequate to protect Americans. This gave them the right to trample on our rights and ignore those laws they deemed outdated. This is the action of paranoid cowards.
Is it me? The scenario Yoo uses as an example, intercepting communications in and out of Bin Laden's headquarters (presumably not in Topeka, Kansas) appears to be unrelated to the violations he squirms to justify. Capturing communications wholly out of the US isn't a problem. Getting a warrant within 20 seconds or so to listen in on the US portion of those calls from those "headquarters" is also not a real problem. What is a problem is warrantless fishing expeditions on calls originating and received in the US that have nothing to do with Yoo's "headquarters" scenario.
It would have been nice if he spent a little time explaining why we have heard of numerous abuses from this program related to US citizens who have never called or received calls from this "headquarters", but we have never heard one single example resulting from its intended purpose.
I also find it ironic that he appears to claim that the survival of our government of laws and not men is dependent upon a small number of government men deciding to violate the law. Its truly unfortunate that he finds that our current system is so inadequate and cumbersome that it just can't handle Al Queda the way it should and, therefore, should be tossed whenever necessary.
For a guy who essentially argues that the law doesn't matter when someone decides it doesn't, he sure does have a condescending tone towards those who put some thought and time into this.
Very well said.
Just because some lawyers may interpret the law in a particular way does not make their judgment legal.
This explanation is a fine example of how some people will try to twist the law to fit their own agenda.
I recommend that this guy lawyer up and stop writing and trying to justify why the last administration flushed the Constitution down the toilet.
I seriously doubt Yoo can be prosecuted.
Offering a legal opinion is not a crime. Acting on that opinion is the crime & President Obama said he was not going to prosecute anyone for following bad legal advice.
That pretty much closes the door to any prosecutions unless the international criminal court gets involved. Which is highly unlikely.
I am extremely upset that the president is refusing to do his job. That's little different than what Bush did except it is inaction rather than action. The effect is the same: the law is violated with impunity.
Offering a legal opinion that a lawyer should clearly know is a bogus interpretation may not rise to the level of a crime, but it certainly is legal malpractice. At the very least, Yoo should be disbarred and forced to give up practicing law anywhere.
Boalt seems less prestigious now.
Personally, I thought the piece made logical sense.
When you are in a place of power, you really cant rely on 100 idiots(congress) to make a decision quickly and effectively. Yeah, we have had laws and acts pass within a set # of days, but what if we dont have days? Hours maybe...everyone here would be "why didnt you do something?".
I take the devils advocate approach not to stir emotions, but to say I can see what Yoo and previous presidents mean.
I think at the heart of the matter is the fact that George Bush and his cabinet had more than a # of hours to put sufficient law into place. and yes I followed 9/11 very closely I know of them capturing some men and who it all lead to. But the point of the matter I think is that the Patriot Act, and FISA both need heavy restructuring for todays times.
And Bush and his cabinet did indeed rush everything along and decided the Constitution, or the people did not matter. Whether it was intentional or not...probably....but I cant judge. I hope these guys try and find out. Bush and his cabinet messed up and they should be held accountable.
Cowboy mentality.
But I understand the thought process Yoo used in his argument....just to say so again, do I believe it?...uuuuuhhhhhh, not in this case.
John Yoo literally argued that there are no limits on presidential authority.
Richard Nixon made essentially the same claims and is the reason FISA came into being in the first place.
There is no situation that provides the president the authority to ignore or suspend the US Constitution.
There is no legal or logical reason to support anything Yoo claims. It is pure fiction.
Yoophemisms
LOL
What's truly pathetic is that Yoo cites the Federalist papers in this piece of drivel. The Federalist papers repeatedly point out how the Roman Senate gave up its powers and the law to a dictator. It points out how, even in times of War the American President would be constrained by the Legislature . Yes, the Federalists argued, the Executive would be Commander In Chief of the military, but Congress would have the power to REGULATE those forces (i.e. laws that restrain the military and executive...torture, espionage, detention), issue letters of margue, and to declare war. Furthermore, the laws of the land and nations still applied. Only, for example, if there was an actual disruption in the legal system could Habeas corpus be suspended...and that was temporary until the Courts could operate again. They stated that the President was, in no way, "an English monarch".
And anyone that attempted to seize power as one should be impeached, and subject to criminal trial subseuently.
Great post
Agreed. The Anti-Federalists [Jefferson, Paine, Madisona nd more] including the Federalists [Hamilton, Adams, etc] would run this guy through with Napoleon's own sword if they had it on hand.
That's why the Federalist had such a great record as a political party.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 07-15-09 10:24 PM | Updated: 07-15-09 10:28 PM