John Yoo’s Attempt to Discredit a Critic

Last week’s House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, which featured special guests John Yoo and David Addington, drew a lot of attention for its rhetorical bombshells (Chairman Conyers: Could the president order a suspect buried alive?) and the tense back and forth between the witnesses and Democrats on the bench. But Addington and Yoo are both long-time lawyers–lawyers for politicians, no less–and as such their testimony revealed much, much less about the Bush administration’s torture regime than many hoped it would.

However, there was this peculiar exchange between Yoo and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), on the subject of author Philippe Sands’ new book, Torture Team which contains a number of startling revelations about the administration’s abandonment of the eighth amendment.

Yoo: Sir, I haven’t read the book. I did read Mr. Sands’ testimony before this committee, and I noticed in the testimony he said that he had interviewed me for the book. And I can say that he did not interview me for the book. He asked me for an interview and I declined. So I didn’t quite understand why he would tell the committee that he had actually interviewed me.

King: And with that answer, Professor Yoo then, I’m going to interpret that to mean that at least with regard to that statement that he had interviewed you, you find that to be a false statement, and that would perhaps reflect on the veracity of the balance of the book.

Yoo: I can’t tell what else is in the book, but I don’t understand why he would say that he interviewed me for the book. I can tell the committee that he contacted me once. He wanted to interview me for the book and I said I don’t want to talk to you. I wrote my own book, you can look at my own book. Everything I have to say is in my book. And then he told the committee that he’d interviewed me.

The idea, of course, is that someone who hates America so much that he’s willing to fabricate all sorts of untrue allegations about Yoo (and, perhaps, other administration veterans) is not to be believed. When I heard this interchange, though, I emailed Sands and asked him to clear the air. He was fairly unambiguous: “I never claimed to have interviewed him! As set out in my book: we debated. ” So who’s telling the truth?

Well, Yoo’s right about approximately one thing: Sands did testify before the very same House panel, on May 6 of this year. But that’s about the extent of it. In his prepared remarks, Sands submits that, “[o]ver hundreds of hours I conversed or debated with many of those most deeply involved. They included… the Deputy Assistant Attorney General at DoJ (Mr Yoo).” [Emphasis mine.]

You can read, as Yoo did, for yourself. Or you can watch, starting about 2 min 45 sec into the video.
And, indeed, Yoo and Sands did debate each other in October 2005. You can listen to that debate in full if you follow this link. One hesitates to throw the word perjury around (maybe Yoo… misread… Sands’ testimony). But it is safe to say that the goal here was to discredit a critic who’s brought to light a great deal of damning information about the Bush administration and its allies.

See more tagged with: john yoo, Rep. John Conyers and torture

Torture Subpoenas?

John Yoo, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Vice Presidential Chief of Staff David Addington have now all declined to testify before the House Judiciary committee on the White House’s torture policies. Committee Chairman John Conyers first responded to their objections, and now has threatened to issue subpoenas.

“I will have no choice,” Conyers says, “but to consider the use of compulsory process.” Stay tuned.

See more tagged with: torture

Yoo To Testify?

John Conyers sends John Yoo a gentle invitation to testify before his House Judiciary committee in early May(with a quiet threat at the bottom to “compel”–read: subpoena–his appearance if Yoo refuses).

I’m not quite sure why he’s convinced Yoo will demur. It’s not like former and current Bush administration officials have a tendency to blow off congressional oversight! More seriously, Yoo, who penned the famed (and discredited) DOJ legal justifications for torture (and, apparently, another memo suspending the fourth amendment for domestic military operations) hasn’t been all that averse to discussing his time in Washington and his role in the torture fiasco. Just last week, he spoke to Esquire magazine and The Washington Post about the release of the March 2003 memo (which the ACLU recently acquired after a lengthy battle with the administration). And, as Glenn Greenwald notes, John Yoo will be appearing live and unplugged on April 14 at the Bancroft Hotel (just across the street from his offices at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall school of law) as part of a conversation about “the intersection between privacy and national security law.”

If Yoo declines Conyers’ invitation before that date, Congressional staffers know where to find him.

See more tagged with: john conyers, john yoo and torture

Probing Mukasey?

Last week, speaking in San Francisco, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that government agents:

“shouldn’t need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that’s the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that’s the call that we didn’t know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went….We’ve got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn’t come home to show for that.”

There are just a couple major problems with this. For one, FISA–as it existed before the terrorist attacks, as it exists now, and as it would exist under the House’s latest amendments bill–doesn’t require a warrant for the sort of phone call Mukasey’s referring to. Relatedly, if the White House knew such calls were taking place it was obligated to listen in. Its failure to do so is an indictment of itself, not of FISA (which Mukasey suggests led to the attacks and the deaths of 3000 Americans).

So either the government screwed up big time, or Mukasey–the nation’s chief law enforcer–just told a whopper (perhaps with the hope that it would be repeated in the press) as part of his ongoing efforts to help the White House get its way in the FISA fight. Either way, somebody’s got some ’splainin to do. And, as such, John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary committee, has begun asking questions.

The Honorable Michael Mukasey

Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

We are writing about two disturbing recent revelations concerning the actions and inactions by the Department of Justice and the federal government to combat terrorism. These include a public statement by you that appears to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal government’s existing surveillance authority to combat terrorism, as well as possible malfeasance by the government prior to 9/11, and the partial disclosure of the contents of a secret Department memorandum concerning Executive Branch authority to combat terrorism, which has been previously requested to be provided to Congress. We ask that you promptly provide that memorandum and that you clarify your public statement in accordance with the questions below.

First, according to press reports, in response to questions at a March 27 speech, you defended Administration wiretapping programs and proposals to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by referring to a pre-9/11 incident. Before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, you stated, “we knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went. You’ve got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn’t come home, to show for that.”1

This statement is very disturbing for several reasons. Initially, despite extensive inquiries after 9/11, I am aware of no previous reference, in the 9/11 Commission report or elsewhere, to a call from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States which, if it had been intercepted, could have helped prevent the 9/11 attacks. In addition, if the Administration had known of such communications from suspected terrorists, they could and should have been intercepted based on existing FISA law. For example, even assuming that a FISA warrant was required to intercept such calls, as of 9/11 FISA specifically authorized such surveillance on an emergency basis without a warrant for a 48 hour period.2 If such calls were known about and not intercepted, serious additional concerns would be raised about the government’s failure to take appropriate action before 9/11.

Accordingly, we ask that you promptly answer the following questions:

1. Were you referring to an actual pre-9/11 incident in the portion of your statement quoted above? If not, what were you referring to?

2. Do you believe that a FISA warrant would have been required to intercept a telephone call from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States in 2001? If so, please explain.

3. Even assuming that such a warrant would have been required, do you agree that even before 9/11, FISA authorized emergency interception without a warrant for a 48-hour period of phone calls from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States?

4. Assuming that you were referring to an actual pre-9/11 incident in your statement, please explain why such phone calls were not intercepted and appropriately utilized by federal government authorities in seeking to prevent terrorist attacks.

See more tagged with: FISA, house judiciary and michael mukasey

What’s Next for FISA?

Where we’ve been, and where we’re going, in the long, sordid saga of keeping Americans safe from the administration’s spying.

By Brian Beutler
The Media Consortium

The first year of the 110th Congress closed with a great deal of spilled blood, and few victories for liberals. In just the last weeks of the past session, Democrats fought a series of gladiator battles over issues like energy, the Iraq war, and government spending—and lost every one of them in the Senate. But on the one issue that Democrats had by-and-large decided to cede to their opponents, they were … still unable to get very far. Read the full report…

See more tagged with: Chris Dodd, FISA and Surveillance

The Year in Oversight

The good, the bad and the ugly of the Democratic Congress’ year of trying to gavel the Bush administration into order.

By Brian Beutler
The Media Consortium

As the year draws to a close, it will be tempting for pundits—liberal and otherwise—to despair at the Democrats’ inability to wield their new congressional leadership to affect real and swift change in the country. After all, the war in Iraq not only continues, but 2007 was its deadliest year. FISA presents a greater danger to American civil liberties today than it did when the Democrats took their gavels in January. And the radiant vision of Karl Rove being escorted down Pennsylvania Avenue to jail never came to pass. Read the full report…

See more tagged with: Blackwater, FISA, Homeland Security, Terrorist Surveillance Program and Whistleblowers

The End of Impunity?

The Senate Judiciary Committee is trying to revive a once-lively effort to hold the White House accountable for obstructing congressional oversight. Also: the explosive failure of a telecom immunity compromise.

By Brian Beutler
The Media Consortium

The Senate Judiciary Committee moved to revive a fading congressional zeal for holding the Bush administration accountable to Congress on Thursday by passing contempt resolutions against two of four White House officials who have refused to fully comply with committee subpoenas. The resolutions passed 12 to 7, with Republicans Charles Grassley of Iowa and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voting with the Democrats.

Specter’s vote came reluctantly, issued only after his attempts to mollify the White House reached an impasse. Specter told the committee that he had accepted the White House’s position that presidential aides should be allowed to testify in private, not under oath, and without a transcript. But he drew the line at a White House demand that inquiries into the U.S. Attorney scandal come to an end. “We cannot abrogate or relinquish our constitutional responsibilities,” the Republican insisted. Read the full report…

See more tagged with: arlen specter, charles grassley, executive privilege, joshua bolten and senate judiciary committee

How Government Snoops Get a Direct Line to Consumer Data

Last week’s revelation that Verizon readily opened phone logs to the feds should come as no surprise. The firm is a standout example of the revolving door between government and telecom.

It seemed like shocking news last week when the telecommunications giant Verizon admitted it has readily allowed warrantless national security investigators to browse customer records on thousands of occasions. But given the revolving door between the telecom industry and federal government, no one should be surprised by their cozy relationship.

According to OpenSecrets.org, a Web site run by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C., the worlds are well connected : There are no shortage of government officials who once worked in the telecommunications industry, and no shortage of telecommunications industry execs who once worked for the government.
Read the full report…

See more tagged with: civil liberties, Randal Milch, Verizon, warrentless wiretapping and William Barr

Wiretapping Returns

House Democrats went limping into August recess, having watched a president with historically low public support nonetheless cram his surveillance agenda past them. At Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s behest, the Judiciary Committee made rejoining the battle its first order of business upon returning this week. It remains unclear, however, whether they’ve come to the fight too late.

As Congress approached the end of session late in July, Democrats faced a major dilemma: pass the president’s surveillance agenda, or leave for recess before reaching any agreement at all and suffer a month of political attacks at the hands of Republicans. By the time Congress began debating the issue in earnest, the rhetoric had already escalated. In a weekly radio address given late in July, President Bush contended that, “every day that Congress puts off these reforms increases the danger to our nation.”
Read the full report…

See more tagged with: FISA, Rep. John Conyers and Rep. Nancy Pelosi

What else does FBI Director Mueller Know?

When FBI director Robert Mueller appeared before Congress late last month, it was with the purpose of answering questions about the government’s national security letters program. A March Inspector General’s report had revealed alarming details about the program’s abuse. Mueller, for the first time in his six years at the head of the bureau, sat before the House Judiciary Committee to report publicly on the FBI’s response.

What happened instead is now famous. Mueller, once a peripheral figure in the many controversies surrounding the U.S. Attorney General, dramatically contradicted Alberto Gonzales’ account of his March 2004 visit to former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room, and so became a central figure in the clash between the Justice Department and Congress.

But what about the national security letters? Or, for that matter, other important FBI controversies? At the July 26 hearing, Mueller acknowledged a handful of bureau failings, some altogether unrelated to the national security letters program. But he both strongly asserted the need to maintain the program and declined at several points to provide answers to questions about its operation, citing his need to look up details. As is typical at oversight hearings, the director promised to follow up with the information.

Read the full report…

See more tagged with: alberto gonzales, attorney general john ashcroft, fbi director, national security agency and robert mueller