• Home
  • News
  • DOJ Memo Allowed Free Speech Curbs, Military Force Against US Terrorists

Attorney General

DOJ Memo Allowed Free Speech Curbs, Military Force Against US Terrorists

Posted Mar 3, 2009 6:38 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Newly disclosed memos from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel sanctioned the use of military force against U.S. terrorists, curbs on free speech and the transfer of terrorism suspects to countries known to commit human rights abuses.

Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch told the Washington Post that the nine legal memos released yesterday "read like a how-to document on how to evade the rule of law."

One 37-page document says government troops could storm buildings housing terrorists, and protections guaranteeing free speech and warrantless searches could be suspended in wartime, according to the Post and the New York Times. Terrorists in the United States can be treated as an invading army, the memo says.

The authors were John Yoo, a deputy assistant in the Office of Legal Counsel, and Robert Delahunty, a special counsel in the office, according to the Times. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is also the author of a memo authorizing harsh interrogation techniques.

Another memo says detainees could be transferred to countries that commit human rights abuses if U.S. officials didn’t intentionally seek their torture, the Post says. Memos also said Congress could not bar the transfer of detainees to other countries or intervene in treatment of detainees, the Times reports.

The memos were later withdrawn in whole or in part, the Post story says. Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the last three years of the Bush administration, wrote a memo to file dated five days before the inauguration of Barack Obama that summarized flaws in the documents. Bradbury went on to explain the memos were issued "in the wake of the atrocities of 9/11, when policy makers, fearing that additional catastrophic terrorist attacks were imminent, strived to employ all lawful means to protect the nation." Bradbury said the government had not relied on the documents since 2003, according to the Times account.

The memos released yesterday don’t include long-sought controversial documents justifying harsh interrogations and warrantless surveillance, the Post says.

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Mar 3, 2009 7:34 AM CST

Same as the Nazis.  Scare the public with some threat to their security, then start rounding up “suspects” without any particular evidence, or hearings, or any procedural safeguards.  Then treat the Bill of Rights as inapplicable, and spirit the “suspects” (now a/k/a “detainees”) away to be tortured in a foreign dungeon.  Ein volk.  Ein Heimat.  But a whole bunch of bastards.

Flag this comment

2.

Nathaniel J
Mar 3, 2009 8:03 AM CST

Did we go back in time and move to a different continent? Oh my, that weird bald guy with the crazy mustache is back…in spirit.  Oh!

Flag this comment

3.

J.D.
Mar 3, 2009 8:59 AM CST

As for the “how-to document on how to evade the rule of law”—isn’t that what legal work is all about? The AILA spends all day trying to find a way for illegal aliens to evade the rule of law, for example.

The “invading army” is an interesting theory. We may have to fully adapt it if we want to defend ourselves from the Hitlers in headscarves.

Flag this comment

4.

Anon Kiru
Mar 3, 2009 9:37 AM CST

Do Americans know their country is at best a ‘mediocre’ country among others in terms of human rights? Yes, not the worst. Is this what many fought for 230 years ago and the truth of the country where people always say ‘freedom’ and ‘justice’? Yes, some might say it was inevitable, but then admit that US has also become ‘evil’.

Flag this comment

5.

J.D.
Mar 3, 2009 10:19 AM CST

The U.S. offers greater rights than any nation on the planet. Do you realize that there isn’t “freedom of speech” even in France?

The entities which claim the U.S. has a “bad human rights record” are simply radical Left organizations which rank the death penalty as a “human rights violation.”

If things were really so bad here, we wouldn’t have millions attempting to immigrate here every year. No other nation has EVER attracted so many.

Flag this comment

6.

JR
Mar 3, 2009 11:06 AM CST

“The U.S. offers greater rights than any nation on the planet”? 
Maybe we do, but no thanks to these execrable memoranda.  Though we live in 2009, some members of the ABA live in 1984, the Orwellian 1984.
The lawyers who wrote these memos deserve disbarment and prosecution for human rights abuses.  At the least, U. of Cal. should fire John Yoo, not for his views, but for his serial incompetence.
Thank G-d Barack Obama got elected to save us from the Bushian dictatorship.

Flag this comment

7.

J.D.
Mar 3, 2009 11:49 AM CST

Methinks you don’t understand the idea of Orwellian politics. Obama wants a stronger, larger, more powerful central government, but he’s going to save you from a dictatorship? Ha, ha. Wow.

Conservatives want less government in your life—it’s a little difficult to maintain a dictatorship under such a policy.

Democrats only want to reduce government influence when the beneficiaries are terrorists.

Flag this comment

8.

B. McLeod
Mar 3, 2009 12:41 PM CST

And yet, J.D., you seem to be fine with warrantless kidnapping, secret deportation and imprisonment, and extraction of confessions under duress (all without a hearing or supporting evidence).  Objectively, it would actually be easy to maintain a dictatorship under such policies.  If this happens to you, will you view the experience as “less government in your life”?

Flag this comment

9.

J.D.
Mar 3, 2009 1:20 PM CST

Preferably, I’d have secure borders and an immigration policy that doesn’t allow in questionable aliens in the first place. These policies wouldn’t even exist—and the WTC would still be standing—if we had such things 20 years ago.

Don’t get me wrong, McLEOD, I don’t trust the gov’t. But I trust the jihadists even less. It’s a difficult position to be in, but we have to clean up the mess somehow. There sure are a lot of naysayers, but no alternatives are given.

Flag this comment

10.

Bill Dugan
Mar 3, 2009 2:32 PM CST

I love the government.  It has provided good jobs to us, as well as social interactions.  You commies ought to go to Afganistan if you don’t like it here.  You’ll sing a different tune, pronto.

Flag this comment

11.

B. McLeod
Mar 3, 2009 11:37 PM CST

I haven’t heard about the “commies” in a long time.  Are they the ones who think a person should not be seized except pursuant to an arrest warrant, founded on probable cause?  Or that a person should not be deprived of his or her liberty or property without due process of law?  I guess radicals with dangerous ideas like that could cause a lot of trouble here.  They are probably the ones on the CIA’s list.

Flag this comment

12.

jason
Mar 5, 2009 1:02 AM CST

Bush was not the only one ignoring the law. Judges and law enforcement give the law the finger and knowing they can get away with it.
southdakotagov.info.  Attorneys have a license to steal

Flag this comment

13.

jason
Mar 5, 2009 1:03 AM CST

Bush was not the only one ignoring the law. Judges and law enforcement give the law the finger and knowing they can get away with it.
southdakotagov info.  Attorneys have a license to steal

Flag this comment

14.

B. McLeod
Mar 9, 2009 12:34 AM CST

Yoo can say that again.

Flag this comment

15.

paul
Mar 10, 2009 2:08 PM CST

Hard to believe some of the above practice law.  But somehow these folks have passed the bar and prerequisites.  WTC comment?  two questions:  at what temperature does steel melt?  how hot can jet fuel burn in the open air?  The former government was almost (1% of the 1% excluded) nobodys friend.  Yoo & co. law horrible.  Makes state terrorism reality. Unfortunately, truth must be sought.  Ask questions!  Look it up, on internet if needed.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.