John Yoo: Subordinate the First Amendment to War

Eliminate the First Amendment?  John Yoo suggested just that, in previously secret documents Justice has released about the
Bush White House and their legal teams plan after 9/11.

It outlines a chilling rationale by a group that was willing to step much further then we have been lead to believe.
The 4th and the 1st amendments were clearly in John Yoo's Line of Sight:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_o n_go_ca_st_pe/terror_memos

The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.
Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later:
"The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

It has also been revealed they destroyed many more interrogation tapes then originally thought.

I also believe they shredded many more documents, as chilling  as these documents are, I speculate there were plans for Internment of Muslims, for disinformation campaigns against anti-war groups, the kind of things not see since Nixon's hay-day. After all, Cheney always believed Nixon was justified in those actions.

How much further did their speculation go?  We already know Yoo had a legal defense for suspending  Posse Comitatus, one would have to believe Cheney et all were considering nothing less then a state of Martial Law.

Yes, the party that has called itself the Defenders of the Constitution have now been shown even more to be the party that believes individual leaders are more important then the rule of law and the concepts enshrined by the Founding Fathers.

Had there been another attack on the US, I believe they would have declared Martial Law and suspended in it's entirety the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Tags: Bush and Cheneys planned police state (all tags)

Comments

5 Comments

Holy...

Government abandoning the First Amendment is the stuff of conspiracy fetishists, something to be laughed off in sane company.

To see it contemplated so clearly in black and white is...jarring. Man, did we dodge a bullet.

by Neef 2009-03-02 04:33PM | 0 recs
The question for the Dean, Univ of California

Berkeley Law School is why John Yoo still on the faculty and not fired yet..?

http://www.firejohnyoo.org

by louisprandtl 2009-03-02 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: John Yoo

A scary, scary man...the cold rationale with which he'd dismiss our most basic freedoms is beyond disturbing.  

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Yoo advocated Bush staying in office, to ensure there would be no period of vulnerability during a Presidential transition during a time of war.  I'm sure that could be justified under the Commander-in-Chief power, right John?

by freedom78 2009-03-02 06:10PM | 0 recs
John Yoo- Legal Scholar

louisprandtl expressed what I have been thinking for quite a while- even before these latest revelations.  Why does John Yoo have a job as a law professor anywhere, much less Berkeley?  Here was a Justice Department filled with Monica Goodling and other dim bulbs from Regent Law School. Yet, high ranking Justice Department lawyers (some of whom were apparently OK with Monica and the boys) repudiated Yoo's work as so lacking in legal reasoning, serious legal research or even a rudimentary understanding of the nation's constitutional principles as to be unworthy of a first year law student.  So what happens to such a third rate lawyer after he leaves the Justice Department?  He gets rewarded with a professorship at Berkeley so that he can teach future lawyers what he doesn't know.  It really is true.  It isn't what you know but who you know.  I guess that is Berkeley's excuse.

by New Dealer 2009-03-03 06:55AM | 0 recs
I wonder if he is sponsored..

Some of these professorships at these schools are paid for by Conservative think-tanks and such?

Maybe Berkley is getting paid to have Yoo on staff?

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-03 12:26PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads