Keith Olbermann and Attorney John Turley on Countdown - courtesy of Crooks and Liars
It never stops with this administration. Turley is up in arms over this one, calling it horrific-saying it removes the 4th amendment from the Constitution. He also rips Congress for laying down like dogs and not even holding serious hearing on the NSA warrantless searches.
Turley: ...the fact that it was so quick as a suggestion shows the inclinations unfortunately of this administration-it treats the constitution like some legal technicality, and instead of the thing we're trying to fight to protect.
mcjoan has a transcript up...
Olbermann: (reading from a U.S. News & World Report press release) "Soon after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, lawyers in the White House and the Justice Department argued that the same legal authority that the same legal authority that allowed warrentless electronic surveillance inside the US, could also be used to justify physical searches of terror suspects homes & businesses without court approval. Doesn't that send chills down your spine?
Turley: Well it does. It's horrific, because what that would constitute is to effectively remove the 4th Amendment from the U.S. Constitution and the fact that it was so quick as a suggestion shows the inclinations, unfortunately, of this administration. It treats the Constitution as some legal technicality instead of the thing were trying to fight to protect. Notably, the U.S. News & World Report story says the FBI officals, or some of them apparently, objected... [W]e're seeing a lot of people in the administration with the courage to say "Hold it, this is not what we're supposed to be about. If we're fighting a war, it's a war of self definition and if we start to take whole amendments out of the Constitution in the name of the war on terror-we have to wonder what's left at the end, except victory."...read on
FROM ATRIOS:
Warrantless Physical Searches
According to Countdown, US News and World Report will tell us tomorrow that Bush administration lawyers (Torture Yoo and Abu Gonzales presumably) after 9/11 made the case that Bush had the power to engage in warrantless physical searches of terrorism suspects on domestic soil.
Cue wingers screeching Clinton/Aldrich Ames. I actually don't agree with what Clinton did with Aldrich Ames, but it nonetheless isn't the same thing as at the time the FISA law had no provision for dealing with physical searches. After the FISA law as amended the Clinton administration didn't argue they could violate the law.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_03_12_atrios_archive.ht...
AND FROM DAILY KOS:
US News announces
Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 06:42:35 PM PDT
Just saw on Olberman that US News will publish a story that the Justice Department has authorized domestic search and seizure of homes and offices without warrant.
According to Keith, this is the same legal finding that they used for the NSA warrantless wiretaping.
Let's see how many Senators sigh up for Censure now. Maybe they will bypass censure and go right to impeachment.
I am sick to my stomach.
The U.S. News article will be published on their site tomorrow (Saturday) evening and will be the lead story in the magazine published Monday.
Y'know, I hate to say "I told you so", but Jesus H. Cross-eyed Christ - I can't say that I'm a bit surprised after Glenn Greenwald's excellent work pointing out that Abu Gonzales was clearly been hiding something when he spoke (but not under oath) to the Senate last month.
Update: chapel hill guy pulls up this revealing exchange from AG Gonzales's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
SCHUMER: ... We talked before about the legal theory that you have, under AUMF [authority to use military force]. And I had asked you that under your legal theory, can the government, without ever going to a judge or getting a warrant, search an American's home or office. ...GONZALES: I'm not suggesting that it is different, quite frankly. I would like the opportunity, simply, to think...
SCHUMER: I'm sorry. If you could pull the mike up. Sorry.
GONZALES: I'm sorry. I'm not saying that it would be different. I would simply like the opportunity to contemplate over it and give you an answer.[...]
Now, here's the next question I have: Has the government done this? Has the government searched someone's home, an American citizen, or office, without a warrant since 9/11, let's say?
GONZALES: To my knowledge, that has not happened under the terrorist surveillance program, and I'm not going to go beyond that.
SCHUMER: I don't know what that -- what does that mean, under the terrorist surveillance program? The terrorist surveillance program is about wiretaps. This is about searching someone's home. It's different.
So it wouldn't be done under the surveillance program. I'm asking you if it has been done, period.
GONZALES: But now you're asking me questions about operations or possible operations, and I'm not going to get into that, Senator.
We've already seen that the targets of these investigations are not terrorist, they are activist who oppose Bush administration policies and the war, while we have government lawyers completely screwing up the case against the one lone 9-11 terrorist we actually have in custody.
Instead of actually fighting terrorism the Pentagon is staging elaborate Photo-Ops to show that the Iraqi Forces and Americans are soooo bad-ass. Time.com on "Operation:Swarmer"
[Link] But contrary to what many many television networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact, there were no airstrikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What's more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.And now we learn, yet again, that they aren't just "listening in when al Qaeda calls" they're performing illegal physical searches too? We have met the enemy and the enemy is us?
Maybe it's time that Feingold added some amendments to that Censure Resolution of his. And this time don't forget about the torture and war crimes.
[Update: - It didn't even take 30 mins to get the answer to my rhetorical "What's Next?" question -- now we have Special Task Force Torture. Color me not surprised.]
Vyan
No comments:
Post a Comment