Everything Was Perfectly Legal
George W. Bush, January 26, 2006 (in response to a question regarding the legality of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program"):
The terrorist surveillance program is necessary to protect America from attack.Jack L. Goldsmith, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel in Bush's own Justice Department, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today:
I asked the very questions you asked when we first got going. Let me tell you exactly how this happened.
Right after September the 11th, I said to the people, "What can we do? Can we do more?" -- the people being the operators, a guy like Mike Hayden -- "Can we do more to protect the people? . . . . And so he came forward with this program. It wasn't designed in the White House. It was designed where you expect it to be designed, in the NSA.
Secondly, I said, "Before we do anything, I want to make sure it's legal."
And so we had our lawyers look at it. And as part of the debate, the discussion with the American people as to the legality of the program, there's no doubt in my mind it is legal.
I could not find a legal basis for some aspects of the [terrorist surveillance] program. . . . It was the biggest legal mess I had ever encountered.
posted by A.L. at 11:38 PM
5 Comments:
And this surprises anyone? From the gang that stole the 2000 election, enabled 9/11, used it to undermine the US constitution, then took this nation to war based on lies...
...all while looting BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars from the Federal Treasury.
Given the totality of the criminality, treason, and crimes against humanity - why should this bother them?
And it was all brought to you by the mainstream media - so thank the "mighty wurlitzer".
there's no doubt in my mind it is legal
Surely this is a true statement. Even without the last three words.
Watched the hearing last night on Cspan replay. What a remarkable difference between Goldsmith and Gonzales.
I find Goldsmith far too dismissive of civil liberties, and over-concerned with enabling executive power. In spite of that, it was actually a pleasure to see reasonably intelligent questions and comments responded to with reasonably intelligent, straightforward, answers and observations.
I believe Goldsmith's testimony will be truly helpful to congress.
One thing that has been lost in the shuffle from the get-go is the fact that our intelligence agencies--especially the FBI--had all the information they needed to thwart the 9/11 attacks. But for whatever reason--incompetence, conspiracy (please, no brickbats!), whatever--the intel was not coordinated and acted upon. To say nothing of the complete and utter breakdown of the air traffic control system on that terrible day.
The short answer is that the attacks could have been averted with the laws and agency structures that were on the books at the time; it was a failure of the bureaucracy to act on what was right in front of it that led to the disaster. There was no need for more law, and certainly for lawbreaking such as Bush and Cheney did from day one. Nor for the implementation of the Homeland Security state, which will be another albatross around the American neck for decades to come.
It's ironic that the same people who crow so long and loud that "we don't need more laws, we need to enforce the laws we have" in relation to gun control and the Second Amendment have sung quite a different tune when it comes to dealing with terrorism.
I have previously stated in this space that precisely what is described below was going to occur. All of you here would be well advised to heed what I tell you, even though I appear only rarely, leave my brilliant insight for you to chew upon, and then knife into the darkness.
"WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after vowing to roll back broad new wiretapping powers won by the Bush administration, Congressional Democrats appear ready to make concessions that could extend some of the key powers granted to the National Security Agency.
"Bush administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened wiretapping authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess, and some Democratic officials admit that they may not come up with the votes to rein in the administration.
"As the debate over the N.S.A.’s wiretapping powers begins anew this week, the emerging legislation reflects the political reality confronting the Democrats. While they are willing to oppose the White House on the conduct of the war in Iraq, they remain nervous that they will be labeled as soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on intelligence gathering.
"A Democratic bill to be proposed Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A. wiretapping that the administration secured in August for just six months. But in an acknowledgment of civil liberties concerns, the measure would also require a more active role by the special foreign intelligence court that oversees the N.S.A.’s interception of foreign-based communications."
When those of you who frequent this site--all eleven of you--gain some maturity, you will be able to foretell these things as I myself can do. But it won't happen overnight.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home