« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
WH Counsel Gonzo To DOJ: When We Said We Cared About Your Legal Opinions On Surveillance, We Didn't Really Mean It
Another great nugget from that just-released inspector generals' report on surveillance...
Check out the amazing 2004 letter from Alberto Gonzales, at the time the White House counsel, to then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who had raised "serious issues" about the legal basis of the surveillance program, and particularly the lack of congressional notification.
Wrote Gonzo to Comey:
Your misunderstanding appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of the President's expectations regarding the conduct of the Department of Justice. While the President was, and remains, interested in any thoughts the Department of Justice may have on alternative ways to achieve effectively the goals of the activities authorized by the Presidential Authorization of March 11. 2004, the President has addressed definitively for the Excutive Branch in the Presidential Authorization the interpretation of the law.
In other words, Gonzo, on behalf of the White House, is telling Comey and DOJ: You don't understand. When we said we were interested in DOJ's opinion about what's legal and what's not, we were only kidding. We've already decided for ourselves.
It's easy to see why, the following year, President Bush decided to simplify the process by just installing Gonzales to run the Justice Department.
Josh
Zachary
Paraphrasing here. "It would be so much easier if it were a dictatorship. As long as I get to be the dictator"...George W. Bush...Bush was never interested in anyone's opinion; he was the decider. Don't have a date on this gem, but it sums him up: "I am the commander, see. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being President. Maybe somebody need to explain to me why they need to say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation". Thank God he is no longer in charge!
July 10, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, in still other words, go p!$$ up a rope – The Decider will let you know what the law means.
July 10, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Thank God he is no longer in charge!"
Much as I despised Bush and his attitude, actions speak louder than words. And, based on Obama's actions on whether he, the NSA, and CIA have to obey the law, it doesn't appear to make one damned bit of difference that Bush is no longer in charge. On all of these issues, Obama has pursued Bush policies and precedents as aggressively or more so than Bush.
His speeches say the right things, and then he instructs his DOJ attorneys to do the exact opposite. A charming despot is arguably more dangerous than an obnoxious one.
July 10, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boyfoot: Take the time to actually read the report and the law and you will see that the FISA law has been changed. What is in question (in the report) is that the legal opinion, written by trickster John Yoo was inadequate to support not just wiretapping, but OTHER Acts (which are classified) and have been stopped (I think). You may find it interesting that no one in the DOJ was even allowed to read Yoo's opinion, no peer review, nothing...just a guy in the corner writing BS for GWB...hell, even his direct boss didn't have the access to read Yoo's legal reasoning.
Take the time to do the research and you will see that GWB didn't give a hoot about legality or follow the rule of law and did not disclose complete information to Congress about what he was authorizing...but just did the DECIDER thing, which was against the LAW.
President Obama has not made me 100% happy either, but before you go calling him a charming despot...be sure you can back up your words!
July 11, 2009 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps boyfoot is referring to the statements Obama made about the rule of law and transparency and... and
and then decided we will not prosecute folks who torture other human beings just because someone tells them to...
seems to me the description was reasonable..
July 11, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
i take it you've never heard of the milgram experiment? a firm 2 out of 3 would "torture other human beings just because someone [in authority] tells them to..." that's why it makes more sense to focus on prosecuting those who abuse their authority to sanction torture rather than those who commit the act.
July 12, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So? When will Obama authorize "his" Justice Department to identify and prosecute those people who authorized and who ordered torture?
.
July 12, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the president, not the attorney general.
That means that if you want him to behave like Bush, then you'd have him direct the attorney general to prosecute.
If you would have him behave like a true American president faithful to the law, then you should have the justice department worry about prosecutions.
Bush massively politicized the justice department. If Obama directs Holder on what to do and who to prosecute, then he'd be doing precisely what Bush did.
Let Holder do his job, and leave Obama out of it - he should have nothing to do with prosecuting anybody.
July 13, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument would hold water if Obama wasn't already involved by saying we should look forward and not prosecute any Bush era officials.
More and more it seems that Obama is leading from behind. He is waiting for public opinion to force him to act. That is not a true leader. A true leader gets out in front and determines the direction to be taken, not waiting until that direction is already taken and then "leading" in the direction everyone else is already going.
July 13, 2009 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you cinesimon.
July 15, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the difference is that Obama may break promises, but Bush simply broke the law.
Whenever he wanted to.
July 14, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
afisher=wrong. Who in the Justice Department is not viewed as a seemingly, to some extent a charming despot aside from the blatently corrupt, dishonest, inept ecetra ones and never held Accountable by our US Senatorial or Congressional Legislatures and their Judicary Committees. As you may recall the Washington DC Bar Association, Public Relations Magazine has on approximately 10/2007!! voted US AG Gonzales 'Attorney of the Year 2007' and 'US AG Mulkasey 'Attorney of the Year 2008' and with runner up's of Rove or 'Scooter' Libby and other disgraced White House Attorneys.
'Manical, Deranged, Despotic, Corrupt and Dishonest appears to be overwhelmingly correct for at least the recent decade or decades.
Justice delayed is justice denied = proof.
The deadliest retaliation towards 'Whistleblowers' is to ignore a 'Whistleblower' or 'truthteller'.
Want more proof and/or allegations thereof? Go to website YOUR-RIGHTS.COM and link yo documentary video entitled 'Bush Linked to Kennedy Assassination'.
Want more proof?
July 11, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
By golly, I'm with you on everything you stated, but less not sugarcoat it so much next time...OK
July 11, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan,
Thanks for the kind thoughts and words.
1) As I assume we agree and as these appear to be ongoing concerns, my thoughts are that TPM and the many highly formidable blog comment replies from people that reply on this website are that we try to find a proper, forthright and acceptable way to unite in communication to achieve the resolves. In my view our Country and People are too great to continue to be defeated by this ongoing hipocracy.
2) As you or many may know, I am a well known, established and intentionally hidden 'Whistleblower' for over a decade whom has also seemingly been ignored and now to the extent of preceiveable retaliation from our US Legislatures, Senatorial and Congressional, Executive Branch and Judicial Branches of our US Government. Also, recently I have been substaintially ignored and/or retaliated against by GAP, NWC and POGO. (My impression is that CVille Dem is JR of GAP.)
Again, thank you for your kind thoughts and words.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Axel
Axel V. Sabersky
July 11, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I didn't know that. Your posting history here, with the combination of singlemindedness and incoherence, is more suggestive of paranoia and delusions of self-importance. But I'm not a psychologist, so don't take my impressions as a diagnosis.
July 11, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully your blog comment reply is nothing more than ridiculous and mean-spirited.
July 12, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually he was being rather polite.
Such obvious narcissism is very hard not to poke fun at.
July 13, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cinesimon,
You are wrong and as I presume you well know. I presume you are well civily intelligent and have the expected civil manners to well enough comprehend that comments where and are rude and inappropriate and hopefully no more than ridiculous and mean-spirited. Also on a previous TPM Blog, Johann direct reply comments to me where even more dispicable and I am suprised that he/she is not completely ashamed of his/her direct comments to my prior blog comment reply of a month ago or so.
Even though I have an admiration, to some extent, for the years blog comment replies from Johann, I am so disappointed, saddened and disgusted from her abusive, illogical, disgusting, dispicable, innapropriate, ridiculous attack upon me and my blog comment reply that I was not going to post the following comment to Johann recent blog comment reply to this TPM Article.
Please note a 7/3/2009 Article on Globalresearch.ca authored by David Swansan, entitled, Obama: The Emperors Seven Signing Statements.
I have attached a partial exerpt paraphrase;
------------------------------------------------
'The sections of this latest law tossed out by Obama were ploys to win the bill's passage, including requirements that he work to strengthen labor and environmental standards at, and report to congress on the activities of, the IMF and the World Bank. Unlike an emperor, an executive would be required by the U.S. Constitution to "take Care that the Laws by faithfully executed," stated by candidate Barack Obama thus:
"I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."
Obama's first signing statement made part of the law his right to use the hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated in that bill in "new" and "far-reaching" ways that he would "initiate," as well as the understanding that an "oversight board" created by the executive branch -- rather than congress -- would oversee the activities of the executive branch, or as Obama calls it "the Federal Government."
Obama's second signing statement declared his intention to violate dozens of sections of the law he was signing, including sections providing for the spending of funds, sections related to the creation of international treaties, and sections restricting retaliation against whistleblowers.
--------------------------------------------------
My impression is that many at TPM and the Individuals that Blog Comment reply on TPM are very formidable, intelligent and good folks. My hopes continue and as we have this relatively new Blog Comment Reply Media and that some effort be made for a annex to TPM and/or new website to achieve the resolves that are mandated by our US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declarations for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.
Thank you and all for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Axel
July 13, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
When are you going to understand: all the info was to prevent anyone who knows/knew the truth from coming forward.
Duh!
Sorry, but what do the imaginged "red alert" insanity drills have to do with reality?
Haven't we come to grips yet?
Hey everyone!!!!! It's over here! Not what you see!
How many years did you hear this??
Don't bother answering.
Don't stay distracted.
Media = mic x's 50+ years
July 11, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG Holder-
My estimation of you in the AG office grows weak per these facts, sorry to say.
July 11, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
After reading the article in which Holder says that those who tortured because an attorney told them they could will not be prosecuted begs me to ask the question "If I hire some idiot who has passed the bar and he tells me that he considers murder legal, and so I follow through, will Holder support my actions and not prosecute?
I sincerely doubt it.
So what is REALLY happening here is that our past, present, and most likely Attorney Generals are in agreement that those folks in charge are not bound to the Constitution, laws, or anything representing a democracy any longer.
Now that the info is coming out about Cheney telling the CIA to withhold information from Congress, he will no doubt be protected from this also, even though he misappropriated funds (also called theft) from activities which Congress approved, and spent it (had to have been tens of millions of dollars) on an illegal venture.
Although I have always expected this of Cheney, Bush, Rummy, etc., I always hoped that there were enough patriots in Washington left to actually hold them accountable....
Looks like I (and millions more) were wrong. Our nation and its values has been betrayed by the entire Washington mob, not just the Republican side. We and our brave ancestors have ALL been dishonored and our flag and what it represents is being trampled on... by the SAME people whom we gave the privilege of protecting and defending it.
These are sad days for America and what it stands for... IMHO
July 12, 2009 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with every point and statement you made, but I'm sure you by now have come to the conclusion and if not, here are the facts: There is not a honest man, nor woman working for our government in Washington that is truly honest!
And that's either party affiliation...it's just not happening.
July 12, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
All of this is the main reason Gonzo is still unemployed. Fredo, just team up with Dubya and he'll take care of you...until your no further use to him.
July 12, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unemployed no more. He'll be teaching a junior-level seminar course in political science at Texas Tech in the fall. {Gag!}
July 13, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cinesimon,
You are wrong and as I presume you well know. I presume you are well civily intelligent and have the expected civil manners to well enough comprehend that comments where and are rude and inappropriate and hopefully no more than ridiculous and mean-spirited. Also on a previous TPM Blog, Johann direct reply comments to me where even more dispicable and I am suprised that he/she is not completely ashamed of his/her direct comments to my prior blog comment reply of a month ago or so.
Even though I have an admiration, to some extent, for the years blog comment replies from Johann, I am so disappointed, saddened and disgusted from her abusive, illogical, disgusting, dispicable, innapropriate, ridiculous attack upon me and my blog comment reply that I was not going to post the following comment to Johann recent blog comment reply to this TPM Article.
Please note a 7/3/2009 Article on Globalresearch.ca authored by David Swansan, entitled, Obama: The Emperors Seven Signing Statements.
I have attached a partial exerpt paraphrase;
------------------------------------------------
'The sections of this latest law tossed out by Obama were ploys to win the bill's passage, including requirements that he work to strengthen labor and environmental standards at, and report to congress on the activities of, the IMF and the World Bank. Unlike an emperor, an executive would be required by the U.S. Constitution to "take Care that the Laws by faithfully executed," stated by candidate Barack Obama thus:
"I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."
Obama's first signing statement made part of the law his right to use the hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated in that bill in "new" and "far-reaching" ways that he would "initiate," as well as the understanding that an "oversight board" created by the executive branch -- rather than congress -- would oversee the activities of the executive branch, or as Obama calls it "the Federal Government."
Obama's second signing statement declared his intention to violate dozens of sections of the law he was signing, including sections providing for the spending of funds, sections related to the creation of international treaties, and sections restricting retaliation against whistleblowers.
--------------------------------------------------
My impression is that many at TPM and the Individuals that Blog Comment reply on TPM are very formidable, intelligent and good folks. My hopes continue and as we have this relatively new Blog Comment Reply Media and that some effort be made for a annex to TPM and/or new website to achieve the resolves that are mandated by our US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declarations for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.
Thank you and all for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Axel
July 13, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good golly, do we have to look at that ragamuffin face again? Next time we see him, it should be when he's indicted for war crimes.
July 13, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"installing Gonzales to run the Justice Department" into the ground.
July 14, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
another reason bush and his merry 5 ought to be in jail,,,, what they did to this country was far worse than what madoff ever done,,,,,,,I just cant believe the double standard and obama for covering it all up by not doing anything,,, doesnt that make him just as bad as those who did it? The law is the law and its time its for everyone not just the working man.
July 14, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whats Worse? When Gonzo says "we" he refers to "himself as part of the White House". Who would have thunk that?
July 14, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's a very good observation.
October 19, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink