Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The President’s Right of Warrantless Surveillance: Two New OLC Opinions by Scott Horton

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:15 PM
Original message
The President’s Right of Warrantless Surveillance: Two New OLC Opinions by Scott Horton
March 21, 2011


Under cover of the quasi-war against Libya and the Japanese nuclear crisis, the Justice Department released two significant and long-outstanding Bush-era legal memoranda on Friday evening. Both deal with an intelligence community program so secret that even its name has to be redacted. Referred to by Bush Administration lawyers as simply “the program,” it apparently granted the Defense Department (and particularly its National Security Agency) authority to sweep through millions of communications—on telephone, by fax, in emails, through Internet visits, at home and abroad, involving U.S. citizens and foreigners. Josh Gerstein provides more context at Politico.

The program seems to have been given an initial greenlight by Berkeley law professor John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general at the Office of Legal Counsel. Yoo’s 21-page memorandum, shards of which can be examined here (PDF), apparently concluded that Congress never intended to restrict the president’s power to engage in “warrantless searches that protect the national security” when it enacted a law that made it a felony for officers of the executive branch to engage in domestic intelligence surveillance without first securing the approval of a special intelligence surveillance court. The second memorandum (PDF), dated May 6, 2004 and issued by Yoo’s successor, Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, survived the redaction process with considerably more flesh on the bone. In his book The Terror Presidency, Goldsmith criticized “Yoo’s unusually expansive and self-confident conception of presidential power.” But Goldsmith’s own memorandum seems remarkably redolent of Yoo’s outré notions of a president outfitted with dictatorial wartime powers.

In this memorandum, Goldsmith fashions two major arguments: first, that Congress, in passing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) implicitly gave the president a pass on the stringent approval requirements for intelligence surveillance; second, that if it did not and were construed, as applied to “the program,” to require approval, that would be an unconstitutional infringement on the commander-in-chief powers. Goldsmith cautions would-be critics against going at him too unkindly without knowing the totality of the memo, and it’s true that it’s hard to take a whack at an object that has been so methodically obscured. Nevertheless, both arguments are exceptionally weak. The idea that Congress intended in passing AUMF to grant an exception to a highly particularized criminal statute designed to restrict specific kinds of domestic surveillance is a non-starter. If the Bush Administration felt it needed such clearance, it should have asked for this. It didn’t. The second prong puts forward the notion that the president can override a criminal statute based on an aggressive construction of his own commander-in-chief powers, a proposition that lacks support in judicial precedent and rests on an eccentric view of presidential war powers–one linked, moreover, to Jack Goldsmith and John Yoo.

In Goldsmith’s rehabilitation campaign, in Newsweek, The New Yorker, and other publications, he is presented as a noble counterpoint to Yoo and Addington. Yoo’s approval of the NSA program was uncovered by Goldsmith soon after he moved in at OLC and quickly judged legally untenable. Goldsmith tells us that he was prepared to resign over the matter. After the dramatic 2004 effort by Alberto Gonzales to secure Attorney General Ashcroft’s approval at a bedside visit at a Washington hospital, Goldsmith says that he thought a crisis would tear the government apart, but instead President Bush relented and agreed to changes in the program that enabled Goldsmith to write the second memo. There is much speculation about those changes, but we still don’t know what they are. Without that information it is very difficult to assess the space between Goldsmith’s and Yoo’s views of the law, which on the basis of these memos doesn’t appear to be much.

remainder: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/03/hbc-90008023
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's broadly understood that "the program" entailed universal warrantless wiretaps and datamining.
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 11:12 PM by leveymg
An obvious clue as to exactly what crimes the NSA committed under orders from the Bush Administration is contained in the following extract of a communication from the Justice Department to Gerstein:

"The department is not addressing further the particular legal questions addressed in the disclosed portions of these memoranda because they involve a presidential authorization that is no longer operative," Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Saturday morning in response to a query from POLITICO.

"As indicated in the 2009 report by the five Inspector Generals, certain activities that had been occurring under the President’s Surveillance Program were subsequently authorized under the statutory authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including pursuant to amendments enacted by Congress in 2008. Accordingly, the Department has not revisited the legal issues addressed in the prior OLC opinions," she said.


That 2008 FISA Amendment (which then Senator Obama voted for) made it legal for the government to issue broad "drift net" warrants that authorize collection of millions of electronic communications inside the US. Under these procedures, NSA diverts all telephone, fax, and e-mails going through telco switching hubs and stores them on its computers. Other government agencies then go through this data, applying a variety of algorithms to detect and connect suspected criminal or terrorist activities and persons.

It is clear to me that the purpose of that, and the result, was to profile everyone with an internet connection and a web presence in the United States, and to create a new internal security list made up of hundreds of thousands or millions of U.S. persons identified -- rightly or wrongly -- as having characteristics and/or associations that could be labeled "terrorist" or "subversive".

In short, we all got profiled and assigned a TQ (Terrorist Quotient), and huge computerized dossiers got compiled on many, many law-abiding Americans because of their politics, statements, and/or on-line communications with foreign persons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebenaube Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. and I think it cost me my employment... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. More than once, here.
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 11:26 PM by leveymg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I found one of the interesting factors in the OP is Goldsmith's role,
both past and present. He has been given kudos for some of his actions which were in response
to his concerns about how far Yoo was going..looks like there may not have been a great deal
of distinction between them after all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. See, this is not LIKE a police state. This is one of the things that constitutes a police state
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 11:22 PM by kenny blankenship
Universal clandestine surveillance of citizens' communications is not LIKE what happens in a Fascist state, it is a KEY CONSTITUENT of a Fascist state, or for that matter any kind of totalitarian regime, be it Communist, Islamist, Whateverist. It's not a symptom of Fascism, it's an intrinsic part of the disease.
Watching what you say around the postman, or another civil servant is a symptom.

Having your communications scanned by intelligence services as a matter of routine is an actual mechanism of the disease. Unlike a symptom it's not subject to interpretation- maybe you have this maybe you have that, maybe you ate too much rich food last night. If citizens' communications are being dragnetted for "badness" and results and potential hits are being logged to a database, well, you got Fascism.

“They blew through in secret based on flimsy legal opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal basis for the operations,” he writes, suggesting that the secrecy assertions were directly connected to the poverty of the legal arguments. Three federal courts have in fact reached the fairly obvious conclusion that the NSA program, as carried out, is criminal.


It's a good deal worse than criminal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peter_x Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. Making up laws as you go
The full intent seems to create laws to shield from existing laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
7. k&r (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
8. K&R'd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedvermoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. Where are the blue links to disprove this?
I know that they are forthcoming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC