E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Eric Lichtblau, in an excerpt from his forthcoming book, confirms that the NSA wiretapping program was operated beneath an unprecedented and remarkable veil of secrecy. He confirms Jack Goldsmith's earlier testimony that the Deputy Attorneys General (Larry Thompson and then Jim Comey) were not permitted to be read into the program and, more astonishingly still, that the lawyers at the NSA itself were not permitted to see the John Yoo-penned legal opinions that provided the basis for the program the NSA was operating! (I can't even imagine what those meetings looked like: "No, really -- you guys do have the legal authority to secretly violate FISA; but we can't show you the legal theory why that's the case. Just trust us." And the NSA responded: "Oh, in that case, ok, we'll get right on it." Huh?)
The story also appears to confirm that the original Yoo legal theory was in effect that the President could disregard any laws he wished in deciding how to surveille al Qaeda. How often have we heard this?: "[Yoo's Opinion] was revised in 2004 by a new cast of senior lawyers at the Justice Department, who found the earlier opinion incomplete and somewhat shoddy, leaving out important case law on presidential powers."
I don't think there's much more to be said about this that many of us have not already said multiple times over -- except that it remains scandalous that the Congress would even consider the Administration's requests for new legislation until the Administration has made public the entire set of OLC opinions on this issue and interrogation techniques, etc. (redacted, of course, to protect secret NSA technological capabilities). Congress has quite a bit of leverage here; they simply seem unwilling to use it. Posted
9:17 AM
by Marty Lederman [link]
Comments:
One wonders when Presidents started reading any lawyers into top secret foreign intelligence gathering programs and why?
It seems rather obvious that if you're going to have people violate the law on the basis of patently dubious legal advice, you probably want to keep them from seeing the substance of the advice. On the one hand, once they see it's dubious they might balk, on the other, if they go ahead and do it anyway, they can't claim they weren't aware of how dubious it was.
"Congress has quite a bit of leverage here; they simply seem unwilling to use it."
Words Sandy should have engraved on his bathroom mirror, just so he'll be reminded of that every morning.
One of the most interesting references was the implicit acknowledgement that Larry Thompson was aware of the FISA chief judge's orders and refused to sign off on FISA applications rather than risk contempt/perjury/etc. in connection with the failure to confirm sourcing from the illegal program.
A couple of years ago I asked a former clerk the a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: "What's your opinion of President Bush's and his administraion's attitude to the Constitution?"