Newsweek: Bush Administration Considered Scrapping First Amendment

[FourScore]

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights in order to combat the terror threat, according to a memo released Monday.

Many of the actions discussed in the Oct. 23, 2001, memo to then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's chief lawyer, William Haynes, were never actually taken.

But the memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel—along with others made public for the first time Monday—illustrates with new details the extraordinary post-9/11 powers asserted by Bush administration lawyers. Those assertions ultimately led to such controversial policies as allowing the waterboarding of terror suspects and permitting warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens—steps that remain the subject of ongoing investigations by Congress and the Justice Department. The memo was co-written by John Yoo, at the time a deputy attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel. Yoo, now a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, has emerged as one of the central figures in those ongoing investigations.

In perhaps the most surprising assertion, the Oct. 23, 2001, memo suggested the president could even suspend press freedoms if he concluded it was necessary to wage the war on terror. "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Yoo wrote in the memo entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States..."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342

I think Yoo needs to be disbarred.

[ck4829]

1. K&R

[robinlynne]

2. I'm with you. HOpe the bar association sees it the same way....

[tridim]

3. They DID supend press freedoms.

There are thousands of examples over 8 years even from the "Liberal media" like the NYT and CNN.

[benld74]

4. 1st Amanment? We dun need no stinkin 1st Amanment!

[BR_Parkway]

5. Not news - anyone remember "first amendment zones" they'd erect

at the conventions and such?

He didn't 'consider it' - he did it. And the cowards in the Congress enabled him.

[FourScore]

6. This is true. n/t

[Alexander]

8. The first amendment zones were started under Clinton...

When right-wing protesters were harassing people outside abortion clinics. The idea was to keep the protesters a reasonable distance away from people entering and exiting the building.

Bush just found a new application for them.

[TankLV]

33. But those were just a FEW FEET away from the MAIN ENTRANCES of the clinics...

not MILES AWAY and OUT OF SIGHT...the poor people going to those clinics - my mom was one of them - STILL had to run a gauntlet of foul mouthed yelling and screaming idiots...hers was one of the clinics outside Buffalo in Amherst, NY that these idiots targeted for MONTHS...!!!

In no way, shape or form did the "Clinton" regulations even remotely resemble what that AWOL War Criminal did...

[Lost in CT]

37. Yeah thats the trouble with slippery slopes...

You never know what will end up sliding down them.

[onlyadream]

63. I used to work in a building that had an abortion clinic

and every Saturday when I went in for OT, they would surround my car and not let me pass (girl of 18, at the time). It was so rude - every freaking Saturday!!

[WilliamPitt]

10. Those were around pre-9/11.

Those Zones became mainstream in 2000 after Hill v. Colorado, a SCOTUS decision allowing Planned Parenthood and other abortion-providing clinics to create those buffer zones between protesters and patients. The Zones we know now are a natural extension of that decision. I was corralled into numerous Zones at protests before 9/11 ever happened.

Just FYI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v._Colorado

[FourScore]

15. Personally, Will, I think you're in a zone all of your own anyway

But then, I guess that's something else entirely.

:evilgrin:

[Qutzupalotl]

17. I've always wondered: What's on the other side of a free speech zone? n/t

[chill_wind]

7. And they certainly had no reservations about eviscerating the Fourth, either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8239751&mesg_id=8240014

[starroute]

9. If the Constitution can't protect us, what can?

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are supposed to be the ultimate bulwark against tyranny. But as long as there are people out there who are willing to tell a president he's more powerful than the Constitution, what defenses do we have?

(I mean, short of implanting an exploding chip inside each lawyer's brain before he can pass the bar exam that will detonate if he even *thinks* about violating the Constitution.)

[valerief]

69. The guy who controls the guys with the guns (or anthrax) makes the rules unfortunately. nt

[denverbill]

11. John Yoo's legal credentials should be yanked.

This fucking moron basically said the US Constitution could be disregarded. What qualifies him to practice law? What is he teaching students at Chapman College anyway?

Any isn't it interesting that it wasn't until October of last year that they weren't disavowed by Shrub's team until they were nearly out of office? Just like the Supreme Court annointed Bush President but at the same time declared its own decision as something that could not be used as a precedent.

I guess the strategy of the right wing is clear. Train lawyers who will give you a legal opinion that anything you want to do is legal. Use that opinion as the basis for any and all actions you feel like taking and blame the lawyer if you get caught. Then disavow the legality of the lawyers opinion when you no longer can use the power.

[byeya]

28. If Yoo can't be removed because of tenure then the president

of UC Berkeley must be made to pay with his job. This bozo could find a way to rid UC of Yoo but he has not and needs to go.

[LiberalFighter]

67. Chapman College? Huh?

[chill_wind]

12. Meanwhile, Jay Bybee is now a judge--

on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/the-honorable-jay-bybee-n_b_167845.html

[myrna minx]

13. K&R n/t

[Odin2005]

14. Holy FUCK. If that ain't treason against the republic I don't know what is.

When Rome was a republic you know what they did to people that tried to make themselves king? They shoved the fuckers off a cliff while saying "Sic semper tyrannis", "Thus always to tyrants".

[Deny and Shred]

21. Then again, the Emperors simply avoided the title Rex...

...and were able to be tyrants, and the people went along with it.
Tossing them off the Tarpeian Rock occurred when the Republic was vibrant, when the plebs would take to the streets if the nobles became overzealous.

Killing the politically overambitious - that is what Machiavelli's true prescription is for a good society. Might makes right is a warning, not a prescription. Very misunderstood.

[Odin2005]

25. The Republic died because people were forced to choose between a populist dictator with...

...a private army and reactionary aristocratic hypocrites that assassinated would-be reformers while paying lip-service to liberty and constitutional government.

[infidel dog]

70. Odin, that is probably the most concise summary of the sad finale of the Roman Republic

I've ever read. I hope our republic can avoid a similar fate, Sts. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus help us all, but looking at the historical track record of non-monarchical states, well, lets just say I'm not overly optimistic.

[Odin2005]

77. The similarities between Rome in the time of the Gracchi and America today are astonishing.

Both are hegemonic states that became the dominant power in their civilization following a series of devastating wars started by older, established powers, who them became de facto satellites of the hegemon. Both prospered following the conflicts but soon the elites started destroying the livelihoods of the common people (driving free farmers off their land to make way for plantations, outsourcing manufacturing jobs to where there is cheap slave labor overseas) in order to enrich themselves. In Rome the elites brutally disposed of reformers that tried to stop the madness. The result was a series of civil wars that destroyed the republic.

The West since 1789 and Graeco-Roman Civilization following the Peloponnesian War in 431BC are examples of civilizations in a state of social disintegration resulting from militarism, nationalism, and class conflict caused by entrenched elites that emerged from an older period of innovation that refuse to step aside for new would-be innovators. The end result of this is a "universal state" encompassing the entire dying civilization, a jury-rigged edifice created by the elites that hides the decay for a few centuries (usually around 400 years), then collapses catastrophically. The Roman Empire, the first Persian Empire founded by Cyrus the Great, Russia, Han China, post 1600 Japan, The Abbasid Caliphate, The Mughal Empire (and it's British-ruled successor), the Ottoman Empire, and the Inca Empire are all example of such "universal states".

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Death to tyrants

I know, the other use

[PatrynXX]

24. disbarred my ass

should fly him over iran naked, give in a parachute and drop on in and see what happens...

[neverforget]

16. My co-worker just figured out that he went to elementary school with Yoohole.

He took it really hard.....

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Yoo should be deported to North Korea, so he can experience that firsthand. nt

[JohnWxy]

19. recommended!

[ThoughtCriminal]

20. Yoo Again!

Has disbarment started yet? Seriously, why does he still have a license to practice law, much less teach it?

[Zhade]

22. ARREST THEM.

NOW.

[santamargarita]

26. I'm convinced this asshole wanted a Pinochet style government!

It was half those retreads in his crime family that were involved in Salvador Allende assassination!

[HughBeaumont]

31. Hell, we were well on our way with the economic system we have in place.

Which, like Chile and Argentina, had Uncle Milty and his various corporo-governmental goon worshippers involved in installing. All that needed to happen was El Dictator Busho and BAM! United States of Chile.

[infidel dog]

73. Absolutely. The "Republican" party is dangerously, frighteningly fascist.

There is an authoritarian streak a mile wide(excuse the cliche)in the GOP that runs the spectrum from the corporate fascism of the criminals in high places to the idiotic theocratic state envisioned by the fundamentalist dupes of Republican Jesus. Make no mistake, the 21st century Right is a deadly enemy of our democratic system of government in particular and the values of the Enlightenment in general.

[CubicleGuy]

27. If the Constitution can be torn up for any reason whatsoever...

... then it is a worthless document. The Constitution is meant to be held inviolate. It doesn't matter what the reason is, it doesn't matter what the state of a given emergency might be, it doesn't matter what DOJ lawyers have to say about anything.

Either there are lines we will never cross, for any reason, or we should just do away with the Constitution and be done with it.

[Zhade]

29. I think Yoo needs to be HUNG FOR TREASON.

Lucky for him I don't support the DP...

[Baikonour]

43. I don't support the death penalty either, however..

These men, like Yoo, need to be made an example of.

[tblue37]

46. I would make an exception for CheneyBushCo criminals. nt

[connecticut yankee]

58. I'd prefer

Life Imprisonment in solitary.

Like they did with Rudolf Hess.

[madmom]

30. And the repugs say the dems and Obama want to take away rights.

[defendandprotect]

32. IMO, they've already suspended the first amendment . . .

how many homes have they broken into under guise of the "Drug War"?

And what we have now is certainly not a free press --- largely controlled

by CIA and corporations! But evidentlty, no matter how tight the right-wing

blackout of information, they are still paranoid that something will get thru

to the public --- coffins, for one!!!

The military has controlled war news going back to Gulf War I -- a farce!!

The problem is that having an "Amendment" doesn't guarantee that it is still

viable. Our courts are not supporting civil rights --- they are eroding them!

[libodem]

34. Yoo, absolutely needs to be disbarred

[Supersedeas]

36. if only the Corp Establishment types in the ABA and in the state and local bars cared - $$$$$$$

[libodem]

40. It's astonishing he is allowed to teach law

when he so clearly felt entitled to subvert the rule of law. OMG!

[pitchforksandtorches]

35. Disbar, tar & feather, roasted at the end of a pitchfork

would be too good for them.

[Jeep789]

38. We tried to tell them then

What took them so long to figure it out?

[Lorien]

39. And what would all of that have done against a few guys with boxcutters?

It had nothing at all to do with "the terror threat" and they know it.

[nightrain]

41. Bush and his cronies are a bunch of immature scaredy rats

who can't handle their own feelings and so foist them out onto others (us).

[Baikonour]

42. Yoo needs more than disbarrment.

We all know the penalty for high treason.

[mwb970]

55. Yoo is clearly a traitor.

He should be dealt with appropriately as such.

[upi402]

44. KO focused on this. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!! n/t

[Lerkfish]

45. AND PEOPLE CALLED US CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

but we knew we weren't. we knew we were right.

[sutz12]

47. "the overriding need to wage war"

That is probably the most telling phrase for me.

Not the need to protect Americans or our country or our constitution or our way of life.

The need to wage war. That's a really, really scary way to justify eviscerating the Bill of Rights.

[pasto76]

48. The made it a felony to protest within 3 miles of someone receiving Secret Service protection

read it here, or on Salon.com

[Divine Discontent]

54. that in of itself sounds so anti-Constitution & laughable that it makes one realize our laws mean

NOTHING if the courts won't back them up when they're presented with a case that needs to be hastily decided upon.

They are not doing their job - and we have to hear the bullshit "activist judges" line every time we flip through a discussion about something involving rights and the courts.



President Obama Inaugural Items & Obama presidential portrait - www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[chollybocker]

49. Criminal trials please, Mr. Lehey.

There is no longer need for any formalities.

[Redlands Democrat]

50. GOP--a pseudonym for authoritarianism

The ugliness that underlies these extraordinary memos is alive and well among the Freeptards.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2198589/posts?q=1&;page=1#1

[renate]

51. welcome to DU!

:hi:

[BobTheSubgenius]

52. "I think Yoo needs to be disbarred".

I think he needs to be jailed!

So, so many of 'them' need to do serious time.

[FourScore]

53. Absolutely!!! You're right! n/t

[Soylent Brice]

56. to any freepers lurking here...

to all the repuke fucks i've argued with until i was blue in the face SINCE 2001...

to all the naysayers and chucklers....

to all my repuke relatives that said i was paranoid, and that i was losing it...

to all the lockstepping sheeple of america...

to the people who thought this could never happen here...

I

FUCKING

TOLD

YOU

SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pipi_k]

60. I argued till I was blue in the face too

and my fingers were sore from typing....


You know what?

We can say "I told you so" till the cows come home and they're still not going to believe it. Not even if they saw those papers with their own eyes. They would swear up and down that it was all a plot.

It's a sickness. They believe shit they can't see. They disbelieve shit they can see.

And they'll never in a million years admit that they were wrong.


frustrating, to say the least


:banghead:

[FiveGoodMen]

78. That will go on, generation after generation, till we shut down the weekly indoctrination centers

People learn to believe in stupid, unverifiable things over many years.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

57. Hmm. One thing this goes to debunking is that they probably

weren't behind 9-11, doesn't it? If they were, and engineered the whole thing (which I wouldn't have put passed
them) - then why would they take these extraordinary, unconstitutional, and illegal steps?

[pipi_k]

59. I know many of us didn't have to read this to know

that the REAL danger from "terrists" came from within our own country, by our own government.

THEY were the terrorists they warned us about.

[sofa king]

61. I suspect I know why they didn't do it.

And some of you aren't going to like my guess: The First Amendment is protected by more than just Congress, the courts and (theoretically) the executive who swears to uphold the Constitution.

It's also protected by the Second Amendment.

The Bush Administration wanted it all, but in a few short years they fucked America up so bad many of them didn't want it anymore, and they didn't have the on-the-ground support needed to pull it off in the face of an unsympathetic and heavily armed populace.

I don't have probative evidence for this yet, but I recommend you researchers out there keep your ears pricked for internal memoranda penned in the fall of 2005. That, I think, is when the Bush Administration was actively seeking the conditions necessary to end the Constitutional government of the United States. And I think they were stupid enough to communicate with one another about it, and stupid enough not to destroy all evidence of that writing. Time will tell--perhaps when some foreign nation starts selling off all those missing RNC emails.

[DeschutesRiver]

75. That was the purpose of the second amendment

The people who founded our country did so with a backdrop of revolution, discontent, genocide. They were pretty much doing it all and seeing it all here - bucking distant rulers, while trying to genocide the natives whose land they sought to steal out from under them. Exactly what the 2nd amendment was defining is still being argued about, but for certain, it was aimed at an over reaching federal government:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.

Yeah, I know there is a lot of wiggle room in that. On another note, I also understand that presidential powers can necessarily expand during wartime - a government isn't required to sit back and commit suicide during a war. But what Bush was about to do was just over reaching under the pretence of a life and death struggle. Had Bush gone further, he would have eventually met a wall of resistance at the state level.

It isn't just about hunting, and I am enough of an adult and have read enough about it to understand why I support second amendment rights no matter the current popular interpretations. There may come a time, and our founders provided the basic right within a document that I still wholly support.

[sofa king]

76. There may be another shoe to drop in all this, too.

Some of us well recall that the press excused itself from accurate reporting in the run-up to the Iraq war because the White House threatened to deny rebellious reporters "access."

Well, what if they did more than that? What if they waved around this memo and told editors, "you tell on us and we'll shut you down"?

How many life sentences would that be worth to a Democrat who tried to do such a thing?

[DeschutesRiver]

79. I think you may be right on that

after all, this was the same administration that allegedly went to the Congress before initiating the initial bailout, and tried to intimidate them into passing something they hadn't time to fully review by claiming that they'd be forced to shut the whole country down by declaring martial law because there would be an instant systemic collapse that would cause immediate civil unrest.

I don't know if that story was true, but I have subsequently read a version of it many times, supposedly told by a senator. So if they'd threaten Congress this way to get an out of control bailout/TARP passed with no meaningful oversight, I am now wondering just how many behind the scenes threats they did to our weak willed Congress. I admit that I am viewing both Congress and our supposedly free press in a much different light right now.

I didn't like the stuff I knew about the Bush admin, more so as the years passed, but it seems that the stuff I didn't know is disturbing on a whole different level. The real deal, the chilling level of "this kind of thing produces unrest and revolt" periodically in history sort of thing. A reminder that history is a living, breathing, evolving thing and that whatever we think is permanent is not guaranteed to be so. A pretty current, scary and sobering reminder.

[goforit]

62. SUSPEND PRESS FREEDOMS???...He most certainly did 24/7.

[norepubsin08]

64. Yoo sounds like a candidate for waterboarding to me!

[femrap]

65. I can't believe that Yoo hasn't

been run out of Berkeley's city limits!

[paparush]

66. So, this was in Newsweek. I don't have tv. Does this story have any traction on TV? CNN?

Fox? (stop laughing)
MSNBC?
Any of the news shows?

[inna]

72. very good question.

absolutely not a mention, as far as i can tell.
one would think Rachel and/or Keith would be all over it, but... apparently not, unless i missed something.

[ananda]

68. Excuse me, but considered? They did scarp it!

nt

[Outlier]

71. 1st amendment

As long as we have a 2nd Amendment, we will have a 1st Amendment.

[Arugula Latte]

74. Sadly, this sounds like a headline out of The Onion.

During Bushco's Reign of Terra, satire sounded more reasonable than real life.