Justice Department Won’t Release Full Memos On George W. Bush’s Warrantless Surveillance

[Purveyor]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

By Associated Press,

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is refusing to release legal memos the George W. Bush administration used to justify his warrantless surveillance program, one of the most contentious civil liberties issues during the Republican president’s time in office.

In responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the department is withholding two legal analyses by then-government lawyer John Yoo, and is revealing just eight sentences from a third Yoo memo dated Nov. 2, 2001. That memo is at least 21 pages long.

Each of the three memos was summarized in a public report more than two years ago by five inspectors general. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel says Yoo memos from Feb. 8, 2002, and Oct. 11, 2002, were classified and protected from public disclosure by the deliberative process privilege. The Nov. 2 memo was withheld almost in its entirety for an additional reason, that it was covered by non-disclosure provisions in federal laws.

Yoo’s work at the Justice Department during the Bush administration long has been intensely controversial, especially his authorship of memos defending the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorist suspects.

MORE...

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-wont-release-full-memos-on-george-w-bushs-warrantless-surveillance/2011/08/29/gIQA3mLznJ_story.html

[Purveyor]

1. Now THAT is what I voted for and just can't wait to go out and work my ass

off so we can do it all over again.

:sarcasm:

[chill_wind]

22. +1

Words can't begin to convey my ongoing level of disgust with the Holder DOJ.

[SpiralHawk]

26. + 1

Disgustipating - worthy of the old USSR

[femrap]

35. I think we are

the old USSR.

[Octafish]

34. + 1

Just-Us.

[lark]

36. Funny, I got an email asking me if I was going to volunteer again

Yeah right! I'm going to spend all my almost non-existent free time helping an administration that refuses to go after Repug wrong doing but will prosecute any Dem found doing the exact same thing the Repugs did (see John Edwards vs. Ensign). I'm ignoring the emails and all the texts because there's no way they get my hard earned money or time this go-round.

Fool me once, etc.

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

"harsh interrogation tactics"

Snort.

Only cowards refuse to use the word - torture.

[frylock]

3. you can't Win The Future by dredging up the past

[ixion]

9. BS. The future is crap UNTIL we try the war criminals

period.

[Volaris]

32. Agreed. Until we deal with the fact

that were standing in the Shadow, we can NEVER move into the (sun)Light.

[mindwalker_i]

13. You can destroy the future by not preventing the past

from happening again.

What have people learned?

1: Torture is ok, so they'll do it again when it sounds like fun
2: Financial fraud is ok and sure helps fill the coffers for the next bonus
3: Wiretapping a great and Nixon happened a long time ago

The future will likely have more of this stuff. Hell, banks are still doing the same illegal foreclosure stuff they were doing before.

[No Elephants]

23. Axelrod, is that you?

[leveymg]

28. You can't build decent, lasting institutions without exposing the crimes that resulted in ruin.

Just ask the Germans about that.

[bemildred]

29. Bullshit will not win the future any more than it won the past.

Lies and bullshit fuck things up, only the truth sets you free.

[lark]

37. You can't change the present without addressing past wrongs

Otherwise the wrongs just profilerate and Obama's justice dept. is complicit in that process.

Trojan horse president indeed.

[newspeak]

52. really? if we would have actually prosecuted those involved in

the Iran-Contra, BCCI scandal, we might not be where we are today. Guns for dope, dope which they put on the streets. BCCI, a pakistani based bank, I believe those brave journalists were attempting to find the connection to financing terrorism. And, some of those participants in the whole corrupt transaction, a transaction that was against the will of the people, congress, wound up in Little Boot's administration. They basically thumbed their noses at us and did their own murdering deal.

If you don't deal with the corruption and the harm it causes, you have the same characters coming back to do more harm.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

53. I think everyone missed

your sarcasm. :thumbsup:

[mike_c]

4. more change we can believe in....

Oh wait, Obama's DOJ is covering for John Yoo! I seem to remember someone else did that, too. Who was that...?

[Atman]

5. They STILL say "harsh interrogation techniques" instead of TORTURE.

The media will carry Bush's & Cheney's water to their graves. Then hopefully historians will spill it.

[SoapBox]

6. Ah yes! America! Transparent as can be!!

OH...wait...NOT!

I'll ditto that "Change we can believe in" post.

Sounds like more of the same.

[Demeter]

7. Is there no end to the corruption of the government? No party for law and justice?

Is the dream turned nightmare of endless duration?

[ejbr]

8. ...

:wow:

:sarcasm:

[Melinda]

10. Time for real Democrats to take a page from the tea-baggers.

OMG, I actually typed that out. But I did. I own those words. What this country needs is a left-wing uprising.

This country needs a left-wing uprising!

[hulka38]

11. That's what I expect from a Republican AG/administration.

[frylock]

12. which is why this news really isn't all that surprising

[hulka38]

21. How is this action explainable if the Democratic Party

is truly the opposition party and in an ideological struggle with the conservatives?

[No Elephants]

51. If may just be the biggest two-letter word in the English language.

[valerief]

14. Because the Justice Dept is corrupt. Duh. nt

[Steerpike]

15. The Justice Department

is just doing their job of maintaining order and the status quo.

[Botany]

16. how about Kerry in 2004 in Ohio?

they had that campaign "wired for sound and fun" ..... no need to look at that just put on a happy
face and smile smile smile

[bighughdiehl]

17. But...but...

I they have "nothing to hide". Hypocritical pieces of shit as usual!

[Divine Discontent]

18. so embarrassing...

[Javaman]

19. Sometimes it's like shoveling shit against the tide.

It amazes sometimes as to how nothing has changed.

[boppers]

20. I'm guessing some of it's really not meant for public discussion.

Especially frank discussions about what was already being tapped/recorded, by whom, and how, *before* Bush.

[No Elephants]

24. So what? Nothing on the Nixon tapes was "intended for public discussion," from his prayers with

Kissinger (Timmeh's mentor) on their kneeas, to his meetings with White House counsel.

Since when is "intended for public discussion" any standard for what information the American voter and/or taxpayer is entitled to from his or her government?

We are paying for every damn bit of that government, we need information in order to vote, and there are laws against excessive secrecy.

Further, when it comes to the WOT, we've sacrificed our children's lives, limbs or sanity, as well as our economy; and torture may cause adcitional sacrifices of those kinds on our part.

We have a right to know, not only how Yoo and Bybee justified torture to our most recent Republican administration, but also what was put in and left out of the summaries prepared by our current Democratic administration, and why.

And, as I had another occasion to post recently, Eisenhower should have been flayed for his cowardly and selfish expansion of Executive Privilege.

[24601]

38. Whether a record is intended for public release or not isn't the

dispositive issue. It's whether the record is subject to FOIA and if so, whether is falls under one of the exemptions.

Just try to get a congressional document - the laughing will go on for quite a while.

But this is a DOJ record, and they can be subject to FOIA. Classified information, however, is exempted from public release. And there isn't any right to access classified information. The criteria is twofold - having the correct security clearance and having a valid need to know.

Some people confuse "want" to know with "need" to know - but if you don't need it to perform an authorized government function, then need to know has not been satisfied.

And that's just one of the FOIA exemptions. BTW, don't blame Eisenhower, FOIA was passed long after he was gone.

I'm paying for Congress too, and I'd want all committee records made public. Especially any that document strategy on delaying or advancing judge confirmations in order to get favorable appeals. I want all caucus meeting on C-Span. But I have no right to them and can want until the end of time to no avail.

[hulka38]

43. Someone still has to classify it that way.

The Bush administration surely classified info as secret only because it would be damaging to them, not necessarily to the interests of the country. I don't think they made a distinction between the two. It seems like the Obama administration is mimicking the prior one in this way as well.

[24601]

44. I don't believe for a minute that Obama would maintain any

classification because it might embarrass Bush. The far more likely reason is that it discloses intelligence sources & methods that when disclosed, even when properly ordered by a court, would allow real adversaries to circumvent them. The judges aren't stupid.

[No Elephants]

46. What you don't believe is your opinion,. So is what you deem more likely.

And, actually, some judges are stupid. So are some lawyers, some of whom then go on to become stupid judges. I've had the misfortune of meeting stupid lawyers and stupid judges. Posting with some, too. One who is long gone from here didn't seem to know shit from Shinola (as a former boss used to say).

However, even very smart judges defer greatly when government argues disclosure would compromise national security.

[24601]

47. No logical explanation exists why a president that blames

Bush for everything wouldn't push little old ladies under buses just for a chance to blame him for something else.

But there I go again, applying the logic or common sense standard. What did Occam know about razors anyway?

You're probably right - everybody in government with a clearance is in on the "Obama covers up Bush misclassification" conspiracy. It's obviously part of his grand plan to destroy the democratic party and install himself as emperor.

[hulka38]

48. Obama has hardly deviated from the fight em over there foreign policy

and the domestic surveillance program of Bush. Bush classified loads of information to cover up his illegal/overreaching activities of foreign policy and civil rights. Why has none of this been declassified by Obama?

[24601]

54. There are several possible explanations. One is that Obama is

a Bush mole, sent undercover years ago by Rove to undermine & destroy the Democratic party. Or, two, that just perhaps, Obama could be a duly-elected President doing his best to do what he thinks is Constitutional, legal and in the best interests of the United States.

Admittedly, I haven't had the opportunity to review the evidence; however, I'll go with door number two and presume he's reasonably honorable, at least as far as politicians go. He's not always right just as Bush and Cheney were not always wrong, but the DU attacks on him are often on par with Limbaugh's. Amusing but not worthy of Democrats.

[No Elephants]

45. Tell boppers, not me. He was the one who raised intent. I said it wasn't dispositive.

"It's whether the record is subject to FOIA and if so, whether is falls under one of the exemptions."

FOIA is not the be all and end all of what can be subpoenaed or discovered.


"BTW, don't blame Eisenhower, FOIA was passed long after he was gone."

Who the hell blamed Eisenhower for anything to do with FOIA? I said he greatly expanded Executive Privilege, which he did.

"Some people confuse "want" to know with "need" to know - "

Thank heavens I am not one of those people.

"but if you don't need it to perform an authorized government function, then need to know has not been satisfied."

Sorry, that is simply untrue.


"And there isn't any right to access classified information"

Who said there was? I said there were laws against excessive classification.

Finally, Obama CAN release whatever he wants. And I'm not the one who promised the most open administration ever, meetings on C-Span, etc. He did.

[bemildred]

30. Everything for and about the government is meant for public discussion.,

The notion that some things are not is the source of most of our problems in this country.

[boppers]

39. Assume you work for the government.

Should your medical records be fair game?

Assume you slept with somebody at a summer camp 23 years ago.
Should that be fair game?

Assume you had, or paid for, an abortion.
Should that be fair game?

Assume it's legal to tap every phone call, and internet transaction, where you talked to someone outside the US, or viewed a web page while outside of the US, or is hosted outside, or is otherwise available outside of the US.
Should that be fair game?

The last one is the kicker. Once you leave the US, our internal laws about privacy.... pretty much end.

[bemildred]

41. The point is they are fair game. Everything is fair game, and always has been.

Pretending otherwise just confuses people.

[24601]

56. Intelligence collection rules regarding US persons don't automatically

stop at the border. If you read FISA and the subsequent PAA/FAA legislation, you'll see that the FISA court has to approve collection on USA persons overseas as well as those in the US.

The other thing that's noteworthy is that the rules apply to US persons, not just US citizens. All US citizens are US persons worldwide but not all US persons are US citizens. For example a non-diplomatically-immune German in the US is a US person; however, a German in Iraq is not. So while the rules are similar, locations matter for non-citizens.

[No Elephants]

25. WWCOS? (What would candidate Obama say?)

"During a presidential campaign, there's no such thing as over-sharing. Barack Obama promised to run the most transparent White House in history—disclosing donations, shunning lobbyists, and broadcasting important meetings on C-SPAN. Transition captain John Podesta reiterated the point Tuesday when he said Obama's would be "the most open and transparent transition in history."


From a November 12, 2008 Slate article entitled (giggle) "The TMI Presidency How much transparency do we really want from Obama?"

[Supersedeas]

27. Eric Holder looked right into the camera

and called US a Nation of Cowards.

Rich isn't it.

[No Elephants]

33. WTF? What is it with this administration and the name calling?

[boppers]

40. What's the context?

Got a URL?

[Supersedeas]

42. Here ya go.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html


The irony of this speech is that he was put in a position to make decisions that make a different...that is more than just 'talking about it.'

[boppers]

49. Here's the context:

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation’s history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more- and we in this room bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must - and will - lead the nation to the "new birth of freedom" so long ago promised by our greatest President. This is our duty and our solemn obligation."

"and called US a Nation of Cowards." (Your words) was qualified by "in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially...." (His words).

[Supersedeas]

55. I get it: we are a Nation of Cowards because we don't talk enough

And his lack of actions as AG are excused because he gives good speeches.

School me on how the context diminishes the impact of how those words can be turned on someone in a position of authority to make a difference, but instead of acting, we get speaches about how cowardly we, ALL OF US, are COWARDS because we don't talk enough about the things he found important on that day.

Shield him with the context if you like, I ain't buying it.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.

[LetTimmySmoke]

50. The rule of law in this country has totally collapsed.

The only hope now to find out what happened rests on groups like Anonymous and Wikileaks.