We now know who provided the legal cover for President Bush’s warrantless surveillance programs –i.e., the programs that allowed the government to listen to your phone calls and read your emails if some one said the magic word “terrorist.” The Fourth Amendment says you can’t do this without a warrant, and a special federal statute (FISA) provides a procedure for warrantless surveillance when national security is implicated.
Bush decided not to bother with warrants, or the FISA procedure, and authorized two distinct surveillance programs, one of which is still classified. But then it occurred to him he needed a lawyer to write a legal memo saying this was all lawful.
“You rang?” said JohnYoo, the lawyer who never met a constitutional right he liked. “Tell me what you want to do and I’ll say its lawful….Oh, you have already authorized it…No problem.”
The resulting legal opinion said the White House could monitor the phones and email bc yes, terrorists were involved. The Inspector General report issued yesterday points out how the “legal opinion” was essentially dead wrong bc Yoo simply ignored a key controlling Supreme Court case.
Yoo also wrote the legal opinions giving Bush cover for torture by defining torture so narrowly that the Spanish Inquisition is now deemed to have used only "enhanced interrogation techniques."
What a guy. But wait - I have an idea – we all should hire him to provide a legal opinion that prostitution is legal. If President Bush can get away with torture and snooping this way, why can’t we get some cover for that which we know and love?
“You rang?...No problem.”
give his OK for him to do so. I wish he would, but I have my doubts
What about President Obama still snooping this way
According to today's Wall Street Journal, "the Obama administration says it has added safeguards."
And Cheney, who says that the warrantless surveillance program "prevented attacks and saved lives," is mad at Obama for changing the program to where it makes us "less safe."
But who the hell knows. Sadly, Mr. Obama keeps backing off from his grand statements denouncing Bush as a candidate and in January.
The IG report, however, and new calls for an investigation are putting a spotlight on this issue and should discourage any attempts by Mr. Obama to listen to your phone calls Timbow.
''The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews. ''
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?_r=2
I was basing it on this article and Obama now has safeguards
For all practical purposes, high-end prostitution is not seriously prosecuted in this country. You can look in the NYC phone book and find an inch-thick section of openly advertising "escorts" -- and we KNOW what they do. So do the cops. The cops can read TER as well.
Compared to the number of women working as prostitutes -- about 1% of the 20-40 female population at any given time (higher in urban areas) -- the rate of prosecution is minuscule. Only the most flagrant and high profile of high-end prostitutes get busted; and even then it is usually a misdemeanor.
So prostitution is largely tolerated, as long as it can be swept under the rug. Sort of like Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the military.
as reported in today's Washington Post, even though the White House is purportedly not thrilled with the idea.
I'd like to see Congress take the lead here. Wouldn't a televised investigation a la Watergate be fascinating? As just as we had the missing 15 minutes of tape in Watergate, we have the missing videotapes of torture sessions that the CIA destroyed.
If the CIA was just following Yoo's memos saying torture was legal, why exactly did they destroy the only conclusive evidence that either proves or disproves this?
As Obama cannot stop Holder from having an investigation
Unlike during the Bush Administration, the AG office is really independent of the Executive Branch but if Holder decides to appoint an independent counsel, all he can do is fire Holder, which politically may not bode well. Remember the 'Saturday Night Masscre" when Nixon wanted the fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox and every AG and deputy resigned until Robert Bork, the Solicitor General did so. If Holder decided it, then its out of their hands.
-- Modified on 7/12/2009 4:44:58 PM
-- Modified on 7/12/2009 4:55:25 PM
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/12/holder/index.html
-- ''the investigation will only target "rogue" CIA interrogators who exceeded the limits of what John Yoo authorized, and would not include high-level policy makers who authorized the torture tactics and implemented America's torture regime.''
pretty interesting article.
Holder could go ahead like you say but I bet he will do just like Obama tells him.
Did not Obama say he would not go after any CIA agents including rogue?
-- Modified on 7/12/2009 5:01:14 PM
want to be sure to collect once the torture investigation gets started.
You have been adamant since Day One that this will never happen.
Are you finally ready to change your position on this one?
I still think it will not happen by the Obama administration . According the the recent NY Times article high level Bush officals would not be investigated.
The old independent counsel statute under which Cox was appointed is no longer on the books. Now we have a "Special Counsel" who performs this function. I think Pat Fitzgerals was the last one.
But, as Wizard points out, once appointed the President cannot fire the Special Counsel. Only the A.G. can do that and pnly for "good cause"
"The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal."
was that he was essentially a yes man when he was Deputy AG and would not be independent of Obama, like Gonzales with Bush. Odd thing, Bush people hope that Senators who voted against him was correct.
Holder ain't about to have an investigation with all the programs that Obama wants done on the table. Wait and see .