It has happened. Barack Obama and I have found common ground.No, it's not the economy, social issues, or foreign policy.
Malia and Sasha Obama enjoyed the day off when their private school in Washington DC was closed due to "inclement" weather.
"Can I make a comment that is unrelated to the economy very quickly?" Obama asked at a business gathering, "And it has to do with Washington. My children's school was canceled today. Because of, what? Some ice?"
This quite possibly is one of the strongest statements Barack Obama has made since he began his campaign for the presidency.
When asked if the president thought the people of DC were wimps, he replied, "I'm saying, when it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don't seem to be able to handle things."
If only Obama could've expressed such committed opinions throughout his campaign, it may have eased the minds of his skeptics.
As a resident of the great, snowy state of Michigan, we've grown accustomed to weathering snowstorms that continually pound the Midwest. I, too, scoff at districts that cancel classes when there is so much as a dusting of snow.
Mr. Obama, you have finally accomplished something. You have taken a position that has the ability to tick people off.
You were sketchy and rather quiet on the economy, gay marriage, abortion and the war....but darn it-you weren't afraid to take an unpopular stance on school closings.
Now, if we could just get you to use that strong rhetoric against terrorists...
12 comments:
Man, you must be short on materials to resort to something like this!
Thanks for the critique. I thought it was light-hearted and amusing, but I'll take your thoughts into consideration.
I wonder if you thought the same of Obama. With everything he needs to say, he brings up his children's school closing. Interesting material on his part as well, but that probably didn't bother you because you're one of the many brainwashed Obama disciples who think he can do/say no wrong.
A fascinating little glimpse into Liz Cheney's view of the executive in her Colorado College senior thesis:
"To assert that the Constitution is a shield of protection 'for all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances,' " she writes, "is to deny the nation the right of self-preservation. There have been and will be times in the experience of the country when constitutional provisions will of necessity be suspended to guarantee the survival of our democracy." The Supreme Court was wrong in declaring [Lincoln's] actions illegal in Ex Parte Merryman because his power "was actually an assertion of the power of the people." How he divined that will of the people, Cheney does not explain.
So, according to the Cheneys, the president has the inherent right to declare war and conduct it entirely as he sees fit; the war may include within its remit the entire territory of the U.S. and everyone within it, citizen and non-citizen alike; all such persons are subject to the president's extra-legal control, backed by military force and indefinite imprisonment without charges. Torture is the icing on this cake - the way in which dictators have always created the evidence they then use to justify their dictatorial power. It is a perfect loop - with only a four-year election getting in the way. But that's Rove's job: to create such a climate of fear and internal division that majorities clamor for a permanent protector.
This is what we were just delivered from: far more frightening than any economic depression.
January 29, 2009 1:56 PM
We will not know just how thoroughly the Bush-Cheney administration gutted the Constitution until we see exactly what they decided and how. Here's a staggeringly long list of memos designed to give the president any power he wanted to hunt down anyone he wanted, and to torture them at will.
Date Authors Title Subject Status
9/25/01 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC President's authority to use military force abroad and in U.S.
This memo affirms the president's authority to use military force, at home and abroad, to combat terrorism and other threats to U.S. security. The president may use military action to retaliate to attacks, as well as to prevent them, and the president alone has the authority to determine threats. The memo is titled The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them.
Source: Made public by the Department of Justice
Recipient: Timothy Flanigan, Deputy Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Executive Power Public
10/04/01 Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Legal standards for intelligence methods
This memo concerns what legal standards might govern the use of certain intelligence methods to monitor communications by potential terrorists. No other information is available.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ,
Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 22)
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
10/23/01 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC; Robert Delahunty, Special Counsel, OLC Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to military operations abroad or in U.S.
This memo, titled Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States, concludes that the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless search and seizure don't apply to military operations, even when the operations take place on U.S. soil.
How we know: Cited in the Interrogation Memo (p. 8)
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales , Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Executive Power Secret
11/02/01 Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Legality of communications intelligence program
This memo is a response to specific requests for opinions on the 'legal parameters of foreign intelligence activities Ö following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.î No other information is available.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 22)
Recipient: John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
11/05/01 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Deputy Attorney General's authority to approve warrantless wiretapping
This memo concludes that the deputy attorney general can also approve warrantless electronic surveillance against people within the U.S. or U.S. citizens abroad when the information is collected for intelligence purposes rather than for law enforcement. An executive order states that the attorney general can approve this type of surveillance, but doesn't mention deputies. The memo is titled Authority of the Deputy Attorney General Under Executive Order 12333.
Source: Made public by the Department of Justice
Recipient: Associate Deputy Attorney General , Associate Deputy Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Public
11/06/01 Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC The president's authority to create war crimes tribunals
This memo argues that the president may establish military commissions to try terrorists without consulting Congress. The commissions, it says, are part of the president's authority to conduct military operations, but the legal argument was subsequently struck down in the Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The memo is titled Legality of the Use of Military Commissions to Try Terrorists.
Source: Made public by the Department of Justice.
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment;Executive Power Public
11/20/01 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC; Robert Delahunty, Special Counsel, OLC Laws and treaties regarding treatment of prisoners
This memo provides legal advice on U.S. and international laws that protect prisoners of war. The laws discussed are the War Crimes Act, the set of U.S. laws that American personnel could be prosecuted under if detainees were abused, and the Hague and Geneva Conventions, both of which require humane treatment of prisoners of war by members of the treaties.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 180)
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
12/21/01 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Criminal charges against American terrorists
One finding of this memo is that people working alongside an armed force would be subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice during wars both declared and undeclared. This reading of the law could prevent American citizens captured in the war on terror from gaining the protections of the federal courts. The memo is titled Re: Possible Criminal Charges Against American Citizen Who Was a Member of the Al Qaeda Terrorist Organization or the Taliban Militia.
How we know: Cited in the Interrogation Memo (p. 23)
Recipient: William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
1/9/02 Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Reauthorization of warrantless wiretapping program
This memo contains a legal review by the Attorney General of the presidentís order authorizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Bush administration's official name for the warrantless wiretapping program. The review was requested before one of the 45-day reauthorizations by the president required by the law.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 9)
Recipient: John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
1/11/02 Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC Administration's power to interpret international law
This letter discusses the authority of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Attorney General, the Department of Justice generally, and the State Department to interpret international law.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 178)
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
1/14/02 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC; Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, OLC The War Crimes Act's application to American interrogators
This letter argues that the U.S. government can't be prosecuted for war crimes arising from its treatment of al Qaeda or Taliban members.
How we know: Subject of request by House Judiciary Committee, cited in the Interrogation Memo (p. 34)
Recipient: William H. Taft, IV , Legal Advisor, Department of State
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
1/22/02 Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC; John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC RE: Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees
This memo, RE: Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees, finds that hardly any laws apply. If the detainees are held at Gitmo and tried by military commissions, the memo explains, POW status and other protections of the Geneva Convention from torture or inhumane treatment won't apply, and the U.S. personnel overseeing their detention couldn't be prosecuted for war crimes in U.S. courts.
Source: Made public
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President; William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel to the Department of Defense
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Public
1/24/02 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC U.S. obligations under international law
This memo discusses the application of international laws to the United States. The specific laws discussed are not known.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 177)
Recipient: Larry D. Thompson, Deputy Attorney General
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
1/24/02 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Options for interpreting the Geneva Conventions
This pre-decisional memo suggests legal options for interpreting the application of the Geneva Conventions and prisoner of war status to the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The Geneva Conventions require humane treatment of detainees and specifically forbid cruel treatment and humiliation of prisoners. The Bush administration argued that prisoner of war status does not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 177)
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
1/26/02 Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC Options for interpreting the Geneva Conventions
This pre-decisional memo suggests legal options for interpreting the application of the Geneva Conventions to the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The Geneva Conventions specifically forbid cruel treatment and humiliation of prisoners.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 145)
Recipient: Larry D. Thompson, Deputy Attorney General
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
2/1/02 James C. Ho, Attorney-Advisor, OLC The Geneva Convention and terrorist groups
This memo finds that the Geneva Convention's standards of conduct - including prohibitions against cruel treatment and torture and outrages upon personal dignity as listed in Article 3 of the 1949 treaty - don't apply to conflicts with terrorist organizations. The memo is titled RE: Possible interpretation of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
How we know: Subject of subpoena by Sen. Leahy, cited in the Interrogation Memo (p. 49)
Recipient: John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
2/7/02 Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC POW status for Taliban fighters
This memo concludes that the president can deny prisoner of war status ñ a section of the Geneva Convention that entitles prisoners to protection from torture, violence, and other kinds of 'cruel treatmentî ñ to captured Taliban fighters. The memo is titled Re: Status of Taliban Forces Under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949
Source: Made public by the Senate Judiciary Committee
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Public
2/7/02 George W. Bush, President Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees
In this memo, the president informs senior officials that he accepts the Department of Justiceís ruling that the Geneva convention doesnít apply to the fighting in Afghanistan, or the detention of prisoners captured there. However, he adds, the U.S. armed forces will, 'as a matter of policyî and because of 'our values as a nation,î continue to treat detainees humanely. The subject line of the memo reads: Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainee. It was not generated by the Office of Legal Counsel.
Source: Made public by the White House
Recipient: The Vice President; The Secretary of State; The Secretary of Defense; The Attorney General; Chief of Staff to the President; Director of CIA; Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Public
3/5/02 Joan L Larsen, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC; Gregory F. Jacob Habeas corpus relief for detainees
This memo informed attorneys of the Justice Department's civil division of the Office of Legal Counsel's view on whether habeas corpus relief should be available to detainees. The Bush administration took the position that terrorism detainees at Guant•namo cannot challenge their detentions in U.S. court, despite multiple Supreme Court rulings to the contrary.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 174)
Recipient: Department of Justice
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
3/13/02 Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC RE: The President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations
This memo, called RE: The President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations, asserts the president's constitutional authority to capture and detain enemies captured in armed conflicts. It also asserts his authority to transfer prisoners to other nations at his discretion.
How we know: Subject of subpoena by Sen. Leahy, cited in the Interrogation Memo (p. 6)
Recipient: William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
4/8/02 Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Military commissions not covered by Swift Justice law
This memo, titled RE: Swift Justice Act, finds that the law is invalid in war because it contradicts the president's absolute authority to conduct military operations. The memo finds that Congress cannot exercise its authority ... to regulate military commissions.
How we know: Subject of request by House Judiciary Committee, cited in the Interrogation Memo (p. 13)
Recipient: Daniel J. Bryant , Assistant Attorney, OLC
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
6/27/02 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC President's authority to detain U.S. citizens
This memo argues that the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations extends to the detention of U.S. citizens. It appears to dismiss the Non-Detention Act during war-time, which states, No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress. The memo is titled, RE: Applicability of 18 U.S.C. ß 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizens.
How we know: Subject of subpoena by Sen. Leahy, cited in the Interrogation Memo (p. 6)
Recipient: Daniel J. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, OLC
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment;Executive Power Secret
7/22/02 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Convention Against Torture has limited application in the U.S.
This letter suggests that the Convention Against Torture doesn't apply to domestic situations. Furthermore, international law in general 'lacks domestic legal effect, and in any event can be overridden by the President,î the memo states.
How we know: Subject of request by House Judiciary Committee
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
8/1/02 Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC Determines whether a specific interrogation was torture
This memo contains the OLC's views on whether the tactics used in a specific interrogation constitute torture, based on details provided by the agency requesting the opinion. The memo concludes that the personnel carrying out the interrogation didn't have specific intent to cause severe pain to the detainee, and therefore, didn't torture that person. A heavily redacted version of this memo has been released, but its substance remains secret.
How we know: A heavily redacted version of the memo was made public by the ACLU, but it's substance remains secret
Recipient: Unknown
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
8/1/02 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Torture can be prosecuted only if there was 'specific intent' to harm
In this letter, Yoo takes the view that to convict a person - such as a U.S. soldier - of torture, the prosecution would have to prove specific intent to do severe harm to the victim. Yoo dismisses the standing of the International Criminal Court to prosecute such crimes, but concludes with a warning about the possibility of a rogue prosecutor who may differ with the president's interpretation of international law.
Source: Made public
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Public
8/1/02 Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC Redefines torture
This memo determines that interrogation techniques should be considered torture only when they inflict pain as severe as that accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. The memo is titled RE: Standards of Conduct For Interrogation Under 18 U.S.C. ßß 2340-2340A.
Source: Made public by the Washington Post
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Public
10/11/02 Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Legality of communications intelligence activities
This is one of several memos dealing with the legal parameters of foreign intelligence activities in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. This memo addresses the legality of certain communications intelligence activities.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 22)
Recipient: John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
2/7/03 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Response to American Bar Association's criticism of detention policy
This letter responds to the American Bar Association's Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants report, including a summary of prior OLC legal advice. The report, also released in February 2003, argued that detainees should be allowed access to legal counsel and to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 146)
Recipient: William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
2/25/03 Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Legal uses of intelligence collected
This memo addresses the potential use of certain information collected in the course of classified foreign intelligence activities. No further information is available.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 21)
Recipient: John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
3/14/03 John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Constitution doesn't apply at Gitmo and other offshore prisons
This memo concludes that prisoners held at Gitmo and other offshore locations do not have constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment and have no guarantee of due process. Yoo also finds that federal laws ñ such as those prohibiting torturing prisoners ñ do not apply to interrogators in such settings, suggests defenses for interrogators if charges are brought and suggests that the president can waive international laws. The memo is titled Re: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States.
Source: Made public by the ACLU
Recipient: William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Public
6/1/03 The White House Approval of CIA interrogation techniques
A brief memo that approves the techniques already in use by the CIA was delivered to Tenet days after he requested an explicit nod from the White House, according to a Washington Post report.
How we know: Reported in the Washington Post
Recipient: George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
11/18/03 Jack L. Goldsmith, III, Assistant Attorney General, OLC; Robert Delahunty, Special Counsel Interpretation of the Geneva Convention
This memo discussed the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the detention and treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 169)
Recipient: Department of Defense
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
3/11/04 Jack L. Goldsmith, III, Assistant Attorney General, OLC Letter on classified intelligence activities
This letter clarifies previous memos on the legality of classified intelligence activities. No further information is available.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 7)
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
3/12/04 Jack L. Goldsmith, III, Assistant Attorney General, OLC Memo on classified intelligence activities
This memo contains legal advice about intelligence activities. No further information is available.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 7)
Recipient: James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
3/15/04 Jack L. Goldsmith, III, Assistant Attorney General, OLC Draft memo on classified intelligence activities
This memo outlines the OLC's view on certain classified foreign intelligence activities, but explicitly states that it is not a final opinion. The memo explains that OLC has not yet reached final conclusions.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 6)
Recipient: James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
3/16/04 James B. Comey, Acting Attorney General Legal guidance on classified intelligence activities
This memo contains legal recommendations on intelligence activities. No further information is available.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 6)
Recipient: Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
3/18/04 Jack L. Goldsmith, III, Assistant Attorney General, OLC Exceptions to Geneva Convention for detainees in Iraq
This memo asserts that while detainees captured in the Iraqi battlefield are covered by the Geneva Conventions, there are exceptions to the conventions' protections against abuse, torture and humiliation for prisoners of war. They include U.S. nationals, citizens of countries that arenít members of the Geneva Conventions, citizens of other states hostile to the U.S., and members of al Qaeda who arenít Iraqi. This memo is called 'Protected Personî Status Under the Fourth GenevaConvention.
Source: Made public by the Department of Justice
Recipient: Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Public
3/19/04 Jack L. Goldsmith, III, Assistant Attorney General, OLC Legal rendition of Protected Persons in Iraq
This memo concludes that the U.S. can apprehend people without official immigration status in Iraq and forcibly move them to other countries, even if they have 'protected personî status under the Geneva Convention. The memo also finds that legal aliens can be taken to other countries for 'brief, but not indefiniteî periods of interrogation. This memo is titled RE: Permissibility of Relocating Certain 'Protected Personsî from Occupied Iraq.
Source: Made public by the Washington Post
Recipient: William H. Taft, IV, General Counsel to the Department of State; William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel to the Department of Defense; John Bellinger, Legal Adviser for National Security; Scott Muller, General Counsel to the Central Intelligence Agency
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Public
3/30/04 James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General Briefing to Ashcroft on the warrantless wiretapping program
This memo outlines a briefing prepared for Attorney General Gonzales on 'preliminary OLC conclusionsî about the Terrorism Surveillance Program, the Bush administration's official name for the warrantless wiretapping program. It lists issues where decisions are needed, issues where further consideration is necessary and other OLC opinions on the relevant intelligence activities.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 30)
Recipient: John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
5/18/04 Rene L. Lerner, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC; Adrien Silas Legal advice on McCain anti-torture legislation
This pre-decisional memo advised on legal approaches to National Defense Reauthorization Act of 2005, which included the so-called McCain Amendment to ban torture. Bush accepted the law, but in a signing statement, noted that the administration would not implement the amendment because it impinges on the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 185)
Recipient: William E. Moschella, Office of Legislative Affairs
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
7/?/2004 White House Approval of CIA interrogation techniques
This memo reaffirms the White House's support for the CIA's interrogation program, according to a Washington Post report. The actual date of this memo is not known.
How we know: Made public by the Washington Post
Recipient: George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
7/16/04 Assistant Attorney General, OLC Memo evaluating a Supreme Court decision
This memo evaluates the implications of a recent Supreme Court decision for certain foreign intelligence activities.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 22)
Recipient: John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
8/9/04 Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC Draft memo on classified intelligence activities
This memo details the OLCís views on a decision to be made by the Deputy Attorney General on a classified intelligence collection activity.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. DOJ, Oct. 18, 2007 (p. 5)
Recipient: James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
12/06/04 Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC Legal counsel for review of prisoners' status
This memo provides legal advice on communications between defense attorneys and detainees in combatant status review tribunals. The tribunals determined whether detainees may be held as enemy combatants when they arrived at Guant•namo Bay.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 183)
Recipient: James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
12/30/04 Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC Rolls back narrow definition of torture
This memo backpedals on the definition of torture presented in Jay Bybee's Aug. 1, 2002, memo, which described torture as interrogation techniques causing pain such as that accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. The new definition states that pain or suffering need not be excruciating and agonizing to constitute torture.
Source: Made public by the Department of Justice
Recipient: James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Public
5/10/05 Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Approval of CIA interrogation techniques
This memo discusses the treatment of detainees in CIA custody. In a court filing, the Justice Department admitted that three memos covered topics reported by the New York Times. The Times had reported the existence of only two memos.
How we know: Memorandum of U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia in ACLU, et al. v. DOJ, 11/05/2007
Recipient: Unknown
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
5/10/05 Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Approval of CIA interrogation techniques
This memo concludes that CIA interrogation methods are legal, and based on information about actual CIA interrogations, according to legal filings and a New York Times report. The memo provides explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, the Times reported.
How we know: Memorandum of U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia in ACLU, et al. v. DOJ, 11/05/2007
Recipient: Unknown
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
5/30/05 Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Determination that all CIA interrogations were legal
This memo contains legal analysis in the context of facts provided by the CIA. According to a New York Times report, this memo finds that none of the CIA's techniques amount to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
How we know: Memorandum of U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia in ACLU, et al. v. DOJ, 11/05/2007
Recipient: Unknown
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
6/13/02 Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC The authority to board foreign ships at sea
This memo asserts the president's the constitutional authority to determine not only the broad strategy of U.S. military actions, but also to make specific operational and tactical decisions. The memo also opines that when foreign affairs are at issue, the laws of Congress don't bind the president, unless the statute explicitly limits White House power. The memo is titled Re: Legal Constraints to Boarding and Searching Foreign Vessels on the High Seas.
How we know: Subject of subpoena by Sen. Leahy, cited in the Interrogation Memo (p. 5)
Recipient: William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense
Link to this entry Executive Power Secret
9/25/01 Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Expanding the scope of electronic surveillance
This memo determines whether it would be unconstitutional to change the purpose of intelligence gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, exploring the groundwork for the expanded electronic surveillance program that would eventually include warrantless wiretapping, and be dubbed the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The memo is titled Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Change the 'Purpose' Standard for Searches.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in New York Times v. DOJ, June 5, 2007 (p. 13)
Recipient: Associate Deputy Attorney General , Associate Deputy Attorney General
Link to this entry Surveillance Secret
9/8/03 Sheldon Bradshaw, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC Legal advice on draft legislation
This memo advised the Office of Management and Budget on a certain piece of draft legislation. No more is known about the memo, but government officials determined that it was responsive to a Freedom of Information Act Request for documents concerning the treatment of detainees.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 170)
Recipient: Roz Rettman, Office of Management and Budget
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
2/4/05 Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC Advice on a previous opinion concerning interrogation
This letter responded to a DOD request for legal advice on an earlier OLC memo concerning the legal guidelines for interrogations. In December, 2004, Levin had repudiated an 2002 memo that concluded many harsh interrogation techniques were legal. Levin's memo concluded that some of those methods were unacceptable.
How we know: Declaration of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury in ACLU, et. al v. Dept. of Defense, June 7, 2007 (p. 191)
Recipient: William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense
Link to this entry Detainee Treatment Secret
January 29, 2009 2:05 PM
And it's kept your butt safe for 8 years. Quit complaining.
I have no proof that Bushchen kept me safe. Show me the evidence that it wasn't just happenstance.
It was light hearted and amusing but still critical.
Why shouldn't he bring up school closings? He didn't invite the media to make a big deal out of it. That was done by bored journalists.
Link to the database that shows how Bish spent more time trying to eliminate our civil liberties and thus moving us even closer to a facists dictatorship:
http://www.propublica.org/special/missing-memos
Why the hell shouldn't I bring it up, then. I have more right than he does. I'm a college student with a low-paying assistant job. If I want to, I can. He's the one with the weight of the world on his shoulders. You want to critique someone on their material...you critique him. I thought it was humorous and...I felt like writing about it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
I can't prove to you that George Bush kept us safe anymore than you can prove he didn't (although, I do have the outcome on my side...we were indeed kept safe). You know that as well as I do.
It's like this...if I don't die of lung cancer, it may or may not be because I quit smoking at 24 years old. It will never be something I can prove, but my actions certainly increased the possibility of a positive outcome.
George kept you safe. You're combative and argumentative and you just want to hate him.
Don't join a debate team, especially one that uses logic. The key word you use incorrectly is kept. You can factually say we were not attacked; that GW had anything to do with it is erronious. But, if you insist, Bill kept us safe from teh Trade Twoers bombing until Bush allowed us to be attacked ficantly more dramatic way than Bill ever did. Guess Bill "kept" us safer?
A medical examener can develop scientific reasons to explain why you didn't get lung cancer through analysis and research on behavior and environmental influencers.
Your arguement that GW kept us safe is republican rhetoric and marketing spin you have been sold and purchased. Probably on credit!
Allow me to refer you to-Blame George Bush, Everyone Else Does"
"Within nine months of his inauguration, he was forced to deal with September 11th, an attack that was years, not months, in the making."
No doubt Clinton had his trousers around his ankles when he should've been all over this threat.
Bush had eight years to keep us safe after that and he did it.
This isn't about being a Republican or Democrat. The proof is there for all to see.
Years is dramatically different from decades. Moreover, those were your words, not mine.
Bush had nine months to figure out what was going on but he didn't listen to the intelligence experts.
But really, the bottom line is that you want to say GW kept us safe which is a position you cannot defend any more than I can defend a position that Bill kept us safe.
And if nothing happens during Obama's reign you'll have to say he kept us safe. No, you'll have to say he improved relations with the people that hate us which kept us safe. The way GW and his prince of darkness were going it was only a matter of time before enough others were recruited to once again attack us.
Former Justice Department attorney John Yoo claims in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that his much-maligned memos intending to provide legal cover to the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation techniques – some, many define as torture -- for military detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq were produced in good faith. Andrew Sullivan says the “key issue is whether the cockamamie legal opinions Yoo delivered to his superiors were a sincere and genuine attempt to say what the law was – or obvious attempt to provide pseudo-legal cover for the war crimes the president and vice-president believed were necessary to save America.”
Sullivan notes a piece by Harper’s Scott Horton examining Yoo’s ongoing defense of his legal analysis, widely condemned by lawyers and academics as seriously flawed, underpinning his torture memos. Horton, a Harper’s contributing editor, writes that he believes Yoo is struggling to shield himself from potential criminal liability for his legal work, grasping at the most attractive appearing defense:
It’s very difficult to penetrate Yoo’s claims as to his subjective understandings – one fact that makes the good-faith defense so attractive. But we see in his current column and other recent statements tale-tell signs that suggest this defense is dishonest. The bottom line is this: how could someone who earned a law degree from Yale and became a tenured member of the law faculty at Berkeley, one of the nation’s most prestigious law schools, appear to be so incredibly ignorant?
Immediately after reading Yoo’s memos it struck me that they were the product of reverse-engineering. The way they drifted through issues, the bizarre choice of precedent, the curious misreading of the Constitution in which the clause granting to Congress the authority to address questions surrounding detainees simply disappears – and the equally tendentious and absurd readings of international conventions and precedents – could be explained if you imagined that Yoo had been approached and told to craft a memorandum that legalized practices already in place.
Post a Comment