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 RELEASEApril 2, 2008CONTACT: James Freedland, (212) 519-7829 or (646) 785-1894; media@aclu.orgNEW 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?
Follow Larisa Alexandrovna on Twitter: www.twitter.com/larisa_a
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.
Beyond a mere "state of emergency," when exactly was "MARTIAL LAW" declared?
*
Impeachment now. Pelosi, not Bush.
*
Personally, I think he laid his hand on a copy of "Moby Dick" when he took the oath of office.
That is the real 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?
...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.
a lot easier.
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.
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???
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.
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.
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.
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.
Regardless of the answer, it is now time for LATTER to COMMENCE FULL BORE.
The Congress knew, at least those Congresspersons who wanted to know.
Congress?
The "Impeachment is off the table" policy is nothing less than a blanket agreement that the President is above the law. The statement itself is a violation of Pelosi's oath of office. The statement was a promise to not uphold and defend the constitution.
Impeach Pelosi.
"Some may argue that permitting the assertion of justification defenses under domestic law, such as necessity or self-defense, would place the United States in violation of its international obligations. Such an argument would point to article 2(2) of CAT [Convention Against Torture], which provides that '[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.' We do not believe, however, that a treaty may eliminate the United States' right, under international law, to use necessary measures for its self-defense."
This eating-our-own-tail argument fully gags on itself on the next page:
"Although these [torture] actions might violate CAT, they would still be in service of the more fundamental principle of self-defense that cannot be extinguished by CAT or any other treaty. Further, if the President ordered that conduct, such an order would amount to a suspension or termination of the Convention. In so doing, the President's order and the resulting conduct would not be a violation of international law because the United States would no longer be bound by the treaty."
In other words, it's impossible to violate a treaty.
President Nixon claimed that if the president does it, it's not illegal. The Bush Administration goes one step further: if the US does something illegal, it's not illegal anymore.