Justice Lawyer Refuses to Give Congress Legal Opinions on NSA Surveillance Program

[babylonsister]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/justice_lawyer_.html

Justice Lawyer Refuses to Give Congress Legal Opinions on NSA Surveillance Program
By Luke O'Brien EmailJune 07, 2007 | 3:29:43 PMCategories: Politics, Surveillance


Clearly, the Justice Department has nothing to hide. After an hour of stirring talk from witnesses about the need for checks and balances, executive branch transparency and the miscalculations of inherent power that led to the American Revolution, Justice lawyer Steven Bradbury had precious little to say when Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-New York) asked him to provide the legal opinions the Bush administration relied on when unleashing a secret warrantless NSA surveillance program that ended up spying on American citizens:

"No."

Bradbury said the documents are confidential and suggested that if the committee were to try to get at them, executive privilege might get in the way. Of course, the president, who Bradbury said re-authorized the NSA program every 45 days for almost six years, would have to erect that hurdle himself.

"So you're saying you won't give to Congress the requested documents because they assert an executive privilege that you haven't asserted?" asked an incredulous Nadler.

Yes.

The first House oversight hearing on the NSA's warrantless Terrorist Surveillance Program went pretty much the same way: Legal heads railing about how the White House has circumvented both the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment, and administration mouthpieces obfuscating with disturbing ease.

Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU lawyer who represents a coalition of criminal defense attorneys, journalists, and scholars that had formally challenged the legality of the NSA program (last year, a federal court in Michigan agreed with the ACLU that the program was illegal; the Bush administration has appealed the decision.), urged Congress to issue subpoenas to learn more about the executive branch's legal justifications, the involvement of telecoms and what secret surveillance activities are going on today.

But Nadler's opening remarks may have best captured the spirit of a hearing in which the specter of arsenic-mad King George III was invoked:

"We rejected monarchy in this country more than 200 years ago. That means that no President may become a law unto him or herself. As with every part of government, there must always be checks and balances. This President appears to have forgotten that fact. Not only has he asserted the right to go around the FISA Court and the Wiretap Act, but he has actually done so. Even more disturbing, he does not believe that he is accountable to the Congress, the courts, or anyone else....Many have begun to conclude that the shroud of secrecy thrown over these activities has less to do with protecting us from terrorism and more to do with protecting the Administration from having its lawbreaking exposed."

[Dr.Phool]

1. Impeach Now!

[Va Lefty]

2. Indict! Impeach!! Imprison!!!

[annabanana]

3. !!!!!!! . . . . . n/t

[Vincardog]

5. Indict! Impeach!! Imprison!!!

[msongs]

4. so hot air dems, what are you going to DO about it? hmmm nt

[Solly Mack]

6. and yet Bush is still President

[L. Coyote]

7. Catch 22. We can't tell you legal justifications because they are Bush's legal justifications

"I'm the commander-see, I don't need to explain-I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being President."
George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, Before Impeachment.

Lots of links about the NSA spying here:
Campaign 2004: Were Bush / Cheney / NSA illegal wiretaps spying on Dems?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x925247

[BrotherBuzz]

13. Bush borrowed this circular logic from John Yoo

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.

Jon Carroll
Monday, January 2, 2006

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[AuntPatsy]

8. Impeach, that is all.

[merh]

9. Impeach

find your spines dems and impeach.

[riderinthestorm]

10. One of Monica Goodling's partisan hires, no doubt....

Anyone want to bet?

Outrageous!!! :grr:

[Greyskye]

11. impeach 'commander guy' and the penguin NOW!

:grr:

[cui bono]

12. Um... isn't that contempt of court? nt

[L. Coyote]

14. K&R