Fourth Amendment Does Not Apply To Military Operations Within U.S.?

Posted April 2, 2008 | 07:16 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Welcome to the Monkey House. I will be your tour guide for the duration of this particular shocker. The ACLU issued the following presser this evening (a stiff drink will be needed before you delve into this):

Bush Administration Memo Says Fourth Amendment Does Not Apply To Military Operations Within U.S. 

ACLU Calls For Immediate Release Of Withheld Legal Memo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 2, 2008

CONTACT: James Freedland, (212) 519-7829 or (646) 785-1894; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK - A newly disclosed secret memo authored by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in March 2003 that asserts President Bush has unlimited power to order brutal interrogations of detainees also reveals a radical interpretation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The memo, declassified yesterday as the result of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, cites a still-secret DOJ memo from 2001 that found that the "Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."

The October 2001 memo was almost certainly meant to provide a legal basis for the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, which President Bush launched the same month the memo was issued. As a component of the Department of Defense, the NSA is a military agency.

"The recent disclosures underscore the Bush administration's extraordinarily sweeping conception of executive power," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The administration's lawyers believe the president should be permitted to violate statutory law, to violate international treaties, and even to violate the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S. They believe that the president should be above the law."

The Bush administration has never argued publicly that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to military operations within the nation's borders. The memo released yesterday publicizes this argument for the first time.

The ACLU has been aware of the Justice Department's October 2001 memo since last year, but until now, its contents were unknown. The Justice Department informed the ACLU of the memo's existence as a result of a FOIA lawsuit seeking information concerning the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The Justice Department acknowledged the existence of "a 37-page memorandum, dated October 23, 2001, from a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC, and a Special Counsel, OLC, to the Counsel to the President, prepared in response to a request from the White House for OLC's views concerning the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity." Until now, however, almost nothing was known about the memo's contents - except that it was related to a request for information about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The ACLU has challenged the withholding of the October 2001 memo and the issue is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The memo released to the ACLU yesterday cites the October 2001 memo but takes its argument even further. Relying on the earlier memo, the March 2003 memo argues that the president has authority as Commander-in-Chief to bypass not only the Fourth Amendment but the central due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment as well.

"This memo makes a mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "That it was issued by the Justice Department, whose job it is to uphold the law, makes it even more unconscionable."

The March 2003 memo was declassified in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and other organizations in June 2004 to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. The ACLU has been fighting for the release of the March 2003 Yoo memo since filing the lawsuit. A few weeks ago, after the court ordered additional briefing on whether the Defense Department could continue to withhold the memo, the government reluctantly agreed to conduct a declassification review by March 31. The Defense Department released this memo after conducting the review.

The 2003 Department of Justice memo can be found online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34745res20030314.html

Documents relating to the ACLU's NSA FOIA lawsuit are available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/30022res20060207.html

To date, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit related the abuse of prisoner in U.S. custody abroad. These documents are available online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia"

If I am reading this correctly, it seems to me that this administration has justified its crimes by NOT suspending the state of emergency that went up on September 11, 2001. They are using emergency powers if you look at the whole of the spying, military actions inside the US, etc. I would wager that if asked, this administration will admit that we have been in a state of emergency for their tenure in office. Congress? Was the state of emergency lifted, yes or no?

Oh, just one more question: what are "military operations inside the U.S" actually and how often have these "operations" been carried out? Anyone? Bueller? Congress? Impeachment Table? Anyone?


Comments
50
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:

The Yoo Memo argues that torture is justified or excused if it is in "self-defense." The agent in the field becomes the "Decider," in effect. I'm sure that the President is not contacted each time someone's head gets busted. I am surprised that Yoo teaches law at Boalt Hall at UC Berkeley California. I would flunk any Constitutional Law student or state bar applicant for such an ad hoc analysis. In actual practice, the decisions are delegated to field agents, foreign agents, or even private agents. The hypothetical of the ticking time bomb is rarely, if ever, encountered in real situations. Even if it were, what if a police officer tortured a suspect in a kidnapping or a murder plot? By making the war on terror a military issue rather than a criminal issue, martial was, in effect, declared. A "good faith" legal opinion does not immunize the criminal from liability for perpetrating a crime. If it did, all one would have to do is to go to the right lawyer and then justify or excuse the crime. But the implications of Bush, Cheney, Addington, Yoo, and similar legal "geniuses"has been to overthrow the constitutional government of the United States.

The Fourth Amendment has been superseded by the judgment of an out-of-control executive branch and a complicit Congress with an enabling Court. Nancy Pelosi took "impeachment off the table," which is the only deterrent the People have against an abusive executive. Bush's crimes far Nixon's crimes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 PM on 04/03/2008

Within the context of the creation of the Bill of Rights, the Administration stance is beyond absurd.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 04/03/2008

*

Beyond a mere "state of emergency," when exactly was "MARTIAL LAW" declared?

*

Impeachment now. Pelosi, not Bush.

*

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 PM on 04/03/2008

The Civil War. Lincoln declared Martial Law in MD, because it was "dangerous" (and probably was) to the capital since there were lots of Confederate sympathizers in the state.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 PM on 04/03/2008

I meant in conjunction with current affairs.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 PM on 04/03/2008

Your point?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:33 PM on 04/03/2008

My point is that Martial Law has, in fact, been declared in the US during something other than a simple "state of emergency". Since the only time that the US is ALLOWED to conduct military operations INSIDE the US is during Martial Law, this means that bushco(tm) MUST declare Martial Law to make it stick, and when he does, the Bill of Rights is decreased.

However, it hasn't happened in recent memory, because we haven't had a national emergency in recent memory!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:40 AM on 04/04/2008

As little as I want to, I must concede one point of the argument. True military actions in the US are not subject to the Bill of Rights, or even the whole Constitution. However, in order to make this true, WE MUST BE UNDER MARTIAL LAW!!!! Unless, and until, bushco(tm) declares Martial Law, he must still obey the ENTIRE Constitution!!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:48 AM on 04/03/2008


Yeah, good luck with getting BOOOsh to obey "the ENTIRE constitution", LeftRight.

Personally, I think he laid his hand on a copy of "Moby Dick" when he took the oath of office.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 AM on 04/04/2008

I didn't say that he WAS. I said that the rules state that he MUST. This means that Pelosi needs to get off her A$$ and impeach the son of a b!tch!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:40 AM on 04/04/2008

Why are liberals always linked with paranoia?

That is the real question.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 AM on 04/03/2008

That's hardly a real question, let alone "the" question.

1) "We have to fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here."

2) Pre-emptive war.

NOW who's paranoid?

Got fascism?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:24 PM on 04/03/2008

No, the real question is why are conservatives always linked with destroying the Constitution?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:37 AM on 04/03/2008

Conservatives want fascism.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 04/03/2008

.

...why worry now that the "Fourth Amendment Does Not Apply To Military Operations Within U.S." (??)

Been to a U.S. airport lately (?) -- the 4th Amendment does not now exist at airports.
Federal agents conduct general warrantless searches of millions of innocent travelers everyday... in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

The 4th expressly prohibits such general searches of the populace; that is its primary purpose & right guarantee. Searches of persons/property can ONLY be legally conducted with reasonable suspicion that a specific individual is involved in criminal behavior, and that suspicion must normally be approved by the judicial branch of governnment. The TSA ignores all that.

The American media has no clue about the meaning of the 4th Amendment, and thus is oblivious to its trashing everyday by civilian federal agencies. But throw some vague allegation about the "military" being able to trash the 4th at some future time --- then the media faintly notice something may be wrong with folks on the Potomac.

And (...Geeez), the 4th Amendment can NOT be legally suspended by any "state of emergency". Inalienable rights in the Bill-of-Rights can't be taken away by Potomac Politicians.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 PM on 04/02/2008

It makes the prospect of initiating Martial Law
a lot easier.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 PM on 04/02/2008

No, because for this memo to be valid, we must ALREADY be under Martial Law.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:49 AM on 04/03/2008

First off, Larisa, I want to thank you for your continuing committment to JOURNALISM. While so much of this site is devoted to the banal, your columns remain topical and highly informative.

IMHO, this kind of unlimited executive power can have but one purpose.

In the past month, both Bush and Cheney made trips throughout the MidEast, Admiral Fallon resigned (?), and an additional carrier group was dispatched to the Persian Gulf. Today Bush was in Bucharest "requesting" that fellow NATO nations send additional troops to Afghanistan.

I believe Bush and Cheney have plans in place to attack Iran sometime this summer, and faced with insufficient numbers of American military personnel needed to subdue and occupy three countries simultaneously, they intend to re-institute the draft using any and all means at their disposal.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:19 PM on 04/02/2008

No broadcast evening news, save NewsHour covered this story tonight! This is one huge story now. This puts the Constitution front and center in this debate now.

Pg. 8 of the memo, in the footnotes, and that memo it refers to is still classified (10/23/01), I think.
"... OUR OFFICE RECENTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS NOT APPLICATION TO DOMESTIC MILITARY OPERATIONS."

Great story, Larisa! Why aren't you on the front page in huge font???

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 PM on 04/02/2008

"what are "military operations inside the U.S" actually and how often have these "operations" been carried out?"

This is a very good question that needs to be answered--DOMESTIC military operations?? Sounds very ominous.

I've read many of the documents at the Project for a New American Century--and I ran across one document that stated the democracy was a "weak form of government." I really do believe that the neocons have embraced the "rule by men" rather than "rule by law" dictates--in other words they want a dictatorship. The "rule by men" allows those in power to be above the law as opposed to the "rule by law" where everyone is equal under the law.

Didn't Rumsfeld say something to the effect that 9/11 opened the door to many new and exciting opportunities? Yeah, like destroying our constitutional form of government. Destablization of the Middle East, and the economic meltdown of our economy and on and on and on. It sounds to me like their new world order agenda has been progressing quite well for them and maybe this is why Bush can laugh and dance and seems almost giddy with delight.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 PM on 04/02/2008

eyesopenwide,
Bush mentioned once that he would embrace a Dictatorship,
as long as he was the Dictator. Today several stories on the
internet suggested that Israel is getting ready, planning on
giving out gas masks, Syria is mobilizing reserves, and Saudi
Arabia is reportedly preparing for "radioactive hazzards" from
a US strike on Iran's nuclear plants. It will be sooner than
summer. Things have been moving into place for a couple
of years.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 PM on 04/02/2008

Some reports of a planned attack on Iranian nuclear reactors to begin a 4AM April 6th. Don't know how credible this alleged leak of information from the russian government is, but, knowing Bush, I've decided to post the link anyway for brains better tuned than mine to examine: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/apocalypse.php

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 AM on 04/03/2008

Neither the proposed US plan of attack or the state of the Iranian defenses appears credible after reading this post. I'm as paranoid as anyone about the subject, however this strikes me as more fantasy than reality based speculation.

One of the articles this links to is from 2007 and talks about launching an attack on Good Friday, April 6, 2007.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 04/03/2008

deminmo,

I agree. I've been reading the same stories and there's definitely something in the works. How can there be a preemptive attack on another country that has no nuclear weapons and has done absolutely nothing to us? And what about Congress' role in all of this--have they authorized the president to take this type of action? And will a preemptive attack on Iran constitute a "national emergency" in order to declare martial law?

Very scary times and so many Americans are completely oblivious to it all.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 AM on 04/03/2008

A dictator given the power to suspend the fourth amendment could conceivably use that power to "draft" Americans into military service. IMO, various circumstances, when taken all together, tells me a nuclear strike on Iran is in the works. The last straw will be Bush getting the OK to install his "Missle Shield" (shield, yeah, right), and it will undoubtedly be pointed at Tehran. He's made that abundantly clear. In public.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 PM on 04/02/2008

He can't actually draft us, because we won't go! There are 300,000,000 people in this country, and only about 500,000 in the army. When you add up the navy, air force, and marines, that number becomes larger, but it's still less than 2,000,000

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:42 AM on 04/04/2008

"what are "military operations inside the U.S" actually and how often have these "operations" been carried out?"

This is a very good question that needs to be answered--DOMESTIC military operations?? Sounds very ominous.

I've read many of the documents at the Project for a New American Century--and I ran across one document that stated the democracy was a "weak form of government." I really do believe that the neocons have embraced the "rule by men" rather than "rule by law" dictates--in other words they want a dictatorship. The "rule by men" allows those in power to be above the law as opposed to the "rule by law" where everyone is equal under the law.

Didn't Rumsfeld say something to the effect that 9/11 opened the door to many new and exciting opportunities? Yeah, like destroying our constitutional form of government. Destablization of the Middle East, and the economic meltdown of our economy and on and on and on. It sounds to me like their new world order agenda has been progressing quite well for them and maybe this is why Bush can laugh and dance and seems almost giddy with delight.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 PM on 04/02/2008

Sorry about the double post!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 PM on 04/02/2008

IZ OK. I just wish more people were here instead of bashing one another (ever more) senseless over on the Bill/Hillary/Obama thread. Bummer.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 PM on 04/02/2008

Bingo.

Larisa is our canary in the coal mine.

Perhaps the rest of the HuffPo crowd is afraid of the enveloping darkness.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 PM on 04/03/2008

Forgive me if this is a naive question, but why is this coming out via an ACLU lawsuit, as opposed to a Congressional Judiciary investigation?

Regardless of the answer, it is now time for LATTER to COMMENCE FULL BORE.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:45 PM on 04/02/2008

I have written my Congressman with this information. I doubt it will prompt a reply. Congress appears to me to be more intent on collusion than justice. Suffice to say, I have never had less faith in my elected representatives in my life.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:56 PM on 04/03/2008
Moderator's Pick

HuffPost's Pick

Who knew that ultra secret legal memos outranked the U.S. Constitution? I don't remember covering that in my civics classes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 PM on 04/02/2008

Bingo.

Congress?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 PM on 04/03/2008

"who knew?"


The Congress knew, at least those Congresspersons who wanted to know.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 PM on 04/02/2008

I'll bet one of those Congresspersons was ("but I was sworn to secrecy") Jane Harman, my rep. in California and Chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security, a self-described Blue Dog Democrat. I will be emailing her about that shortly.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 AM on 04/03/2008