Jackson Free Press

The Associated Press is reporting:

The Justice Department on Monday released a long-secret legal document from 2001 in which the Bush administration claimed the military could search and seize terror suspects in the United States without warrants. The legal memo was written about a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It says constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure would not apply to terror suspects in the U.S., as long as the president or another high official authorized the action.

Even after the Bush administration rescinded that legal analysis, the Justice Department refused to release its contents, prompting a standoff with congressional Democrats.

The memo was one of nine released Monday by the Obama administration.

Another memo showed that, within two weeks of Sept. 11, the administration was contemplating ways to use wiretaps without getting warrants. [...]

In that memo, Yoo wrote that the president could treat terrorist suspects in the United States like an invading foreign army. For instance, he said, the military would not have to get a warrant to storm a building to prevent terrorists from detonating a bomb.

Yoo also suggested that the government could put new restrictions on the press and speech, without spelling out what those might be.

Previous Comments

ID

144236

Comment

Not to mention, the DOJ has learned and revealed today that the CIA destroyed almost 100 interrogation videos—many more than previously believed: "The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order," ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said in a statement, adding that CIA should be held accountable for holding back the information for so long. The newly-released number was far more than the number that was previously acknowledged by CIA. Until reading all of this today, I was on the fence about whether the Obama administration should pursue (or support international) criminal or other charges against the Bush administration for their possible war crimes. Now, I'm not so sure. How will we ever regain confidence from the rest of the world if we know that not only did the previous administration possibly violate international law on torture, but that they systematically destroyed the evidence?? Very disturbing. We sure came close to losing what this country is about.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-02T17:10:57-06:00

ID

144242

Comment

We sure came close to losing what this country is about. Yeah, especially after reading this part: "Yoo also suggested that the government could put new restrictions on the press and speech, without spelling out what those might be." So, it could've been possible to arrest people for speaking out against, say, the war in Iraq. I really think the government wanted to go that route, but for whatever reason, didn't. I find it funny how Bush said the terrorists attacked us because of our freedoms, but it is his administration that did and wanted to do more to take away our freedoms than the terrorists ever could do.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2009-03-02T18:46:37-06:00

ID

144243

Comment

If Yoo is not ultimately disbarred, I'll spit nails. His legal counsel in every circumstance was to break the law.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-03-02T18:56:04-06:00

ID

144244

Comment

If the Bush administration would've carried through with restricting First Amendment rights, there would've been mass protests, if not riots, at levels this country never experienced before, even more than the Vietnam protests. That would've done more destruction that what the terrorists did on 9/11, minus the loss of life. The bad part about it, though, is that some vocal conservatives--at least those in the Bush camp--would've supported it, while cloaking themselves in the shallow patriotism that followed the attacks.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2009-03-02T20:47:04-06:00