Slashdot Mirror
Administration Claimed Immunity To 4th Amendment
mrogers writes "The EFF has uncovered a troubling footnote in a newly declassified Bush Administration memo, which asserts that 'our Office recently [in 2001] concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.' This could mean that the Administration believes the NSA's warrantless wiretapping and data mining programs are not governed by the Constitution, which would cast Administration claims that the programs did not violate the Fourth Amendment in a whole new light — after all, you can't violate a law that doesn't apply. The claimed immunity would also cover other DoD agencies, such as CIFA, which carry out offline surveillance of political groups within the United States."
I thought the whole constitution had no application to the whole government?
After all, isn't it just a scrap of paper?
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Isn't the Republican party traditionally the one that raises the biggest fuss about the Bill of Rights?
Sure would be nice if Colbert or Stewart chose to lampoon this little footnote. At least their shows get noticed more than Slashdot.
This is not news.
Aren't you guys tired of living in a Police State and a constant state of war - when are Americans going to stand up and demand their rights back - I keep waiting,,,,
Wait, then who does it apply to? Foreign governments spying on US citizens? US government spying on foreign citizens? Foreign governments spying on foreign citizens?
I thought the whole idea behind the 4th amendment was to say that the US government spying on US citizens was off limits. I'd like to hear why they think one of the other three situations is the real reason that pesky little amendment is in there.
I'm one of those religious, conservative nutjobs that gets mocked on this site, and I find this outrageous. Here is the Fourth Amendment:
That's been suspended?? Doesn't apply to military operations?? If the citizens have no rights over against the military, why do we have the Third Amendment?Now I see that there is a difference in the Third Amendment between "in time of peace" and "in time of war," but realistically, this "time of war" against terrorists can NEVER be officially and completely over. There are no official enemies, so there can be no official truce.
The government is overstepping its Constitutional bounds, and it needs to stop. We have to be careful that we do not lose our identity as a country of freedom via our efforts to protect that freedom.
See, the whole thing is just a misunderstanding of the phrase, "No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause." It doesn't mean they can't search, it means they don't need a warrant. How silly is that?
I intended this as a joke, but upon reflection... *sigh*
[
Usually civil wars begin when a group of people not in power attack the established government, rather than the established government deciding to attack civilians in "domestic military operations", but I suppose there's a first time for everything.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Fuck this shit
It just keeps coming. I'm mad as hell. Impeach all these fuckers.
Even if the fourth amendment doesn't apply, I thought passe comitatus prevented the use of military personnel in law enforcement activites except under emergency circumstances. If they're rounding thes epeople up and trying them in our court system, they can't use military agencies to gather the evidence.
The part of all this that really gets to me is that the administration feels that they have the right to do all of this in such an underhanded fashion. This is a democracy, they work for the people. If the government really felt that the fourth amendment didn't apply or was somehow holding back effective terror efforts, and that most people would not object to them taking on this extra dimension of authority, there are ways to change that. Amendments can be themselves amended, for example. At the very least, some kind of public announcement or passage of some clarifying law is called for. This kind of thing, where they decide the law doesn't matter, and then they don't tell anyone about it, is indicative of a government that feels itself to be above the people, or, at best, the feel that they 'know what`s good for us'. It may be a '$f-bomb piece of paper'... but the theory of open, participatory government ruled by the people, with oversight, checks-and-balances, and restraint is what this nation was founded on. Given the inability to directly preserve these ideas in a concrete form, we substitute symbols in their place. Its just a piece of paper. Its just a bolt of cloth (flag). Its just an amalgamation of stone and concrete (the White House). But these things represent something greater, some over-arching idea to which we have all subscribed. Nobody, not me, not you, not Mr. Bush, can just go and decide its meaningless because its inconvenient. And the fact that we have to find out about this kind of thing from watchdog-style organizations and not from our government directly is evidence of the idea that there are people in government who have forgotten what its all about.
"The law applies to you, not us.
Sincerely,
The Administration"
given the breathless nature of the summary, I actually read the RTFA. Some points.
1) It's a speculative footnote - the memo authors were speculating that the 4th amendment may not apply during military operations in the US proper. The summary takes that and runs with it to its own speculation.
2) The basis of the footnote was the fact that Congress authorized military operations in the US, and typically the 4th amendment doesn't apply to military operations - if a soldier is going to search a house, his warrant is permanent and engraved into the sole of the bot he uses to kick down the door. Why in the HELL Congress decided to chuck posse comitatus overboard I'll never understand, except ibn light of tehm being a bunch of cowardly pussies who were so afraid of a jetliner crashing into the Capitiol and killing them all that they would do ANYTHING to protect their pampered asses.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Posse Comitatus was altered by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007. It's not really what it used to be anymore.
Here are some articles:
http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5150
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/martial_law_made_easy.html
And here are Senator Leahy's remarks on the Senate floor about this Act, which has since been passed and signed into law. The first paragraph is all you really need to read:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html
And the wiki, for good measure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Shock site redirect.
Well, at least the offensive, racist troll has gone his way - this current plague is only offensive if you click the link.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
The Bush administration long ago has made claims that the authorization to go to war on Iraq authorized a great many executive powers that are "assumed" as part of the authorization. This isn't surprising and is fairly consistent. Prior claims are similar to this one. This is but a grain of sand on top of the huge pile of stuff this administration has put past the people and government of the U.S.
Soon he'll be out of office and the in-coming president will grant pre-emptive pardons to the outgoing administration and all of its staff and the whole matter will be closed. The time for prosecution and impeachment is nearly done.
A list of which amendments the government doesn't disregard. First is gone, second is long gone, fourth is gone, fifth & sixth have been thoroughly trashed at Gitmo, eighth excludes waterboarding, ninth and tenth are themselves eliminated by the provisions of the fourteenth amendment, the protections of which the Federal government refuses to honor. Of the original Bill of Rights, the only ones still unspoilt are the provisions prohibiting the quartering of soldiers in private residences, guaranteeing trial by jury for civil suits over $20, and prohibiting double jeopardy (it's just a matter of time, though).
Historically, the 4th Am got inserted because one of the favorite pre-revolutionary English harassement techniques was to tear apart homes (often using soldiers) of disfavored people under the guise of "searching for evidence" of some wrongdoing. A search can be extremely distruptive and disgusting. So they were made subject to checks and balances.
It is this revulsion that eventually matured into the fruit-of-the-poisoned vine doctrine, but that is merely one consequence. The principal to make people safe remains, and I fully expect some M$ lawsuits.
Since warrents can be very quickly and easily obtained (even by phone) with good evidence, I seriously wonder why various administrations and police see any need to bypass the system. It might have more to do with avoiding meta-analysis and criticism "They did 4,000 searches and only charged 1,000 people". But this oversight is an essential check-and-balance in a democracy. The electorate _must_ be informed, most specifically on govt actions, and even more specifically on govt actions that might be considered improper.
As a very small child in grade school, I remember playing games of tag outside during recess. The game was simple; someone would be chosen as "it," and whoever was "it" had to tag someone else and make them "it," etc.
There was always a structure - a basketball net, a fence post, a swingset, or something - that was designated "base." If you made it to "base," whoever was "it" and trying to tag you could no longer do so. You were safe at "base."
The game was never quite the same after some kid with a grudge figured out that you could punch someone in the gut just as easily whether they were touching "base" or not.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
So anyone still doubt if the great republic has crossed its Rubicon yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1 - every soldier swears to uphold the Constitution, which flies in the face of this
2 - By that measure, I suppose it means the military can also muzzle our speech, shut down our newspapers, and deny our assemblies; seize our arms; quarter troops in our homes; try us indefinitely until found guilty; forgo meddlesome juries in the aforementioned; sue us without jury; flay us alive; deny all rights to the people; and likewise the States.
I find it particularly galling in the light that these amendments were created to protect us from the civil operations of the military (who, in 1789, would be doing the searching and seizing in the first place? The militia, that's who).
I'll assent if the Administration will also grant that the 8th amendment doesn't apply to lawyers.
The constitution is a contract between the federal, state, and individuals. The federal government is not limited but defined only by the constitution. The problem is that Lincoln and others after him have been pissing on it when convenient and with no real backlash. So it is hard to tell anymore if the constitution actually means what it says, after all who has ever been prosecuted for not upholding their oath to it?
The Constitution is not a law. It's the framework of how the country operates. It applies to everyone in this country regardless of political position, military rank or accumulated wealth. Unlike laws, which can be written to exclude certain groups, the Constitution applies to everyone in all 50 states, all citizens abroad, and all people in US facilities abroad. To think any differently is treason.
Marijuana is still Schedule I, listed as having no medical benefit, in your country.
Non violent marijuana users are jailed so they can have their anuses filled with disease ridden semen from gang members.
Stop drinking your fluoride poisoned water and wake up! Every day there's a new law and another freedom lost!
Your television is filling up with channel after channel of masturbatory pro-prison channels.
Where is the outrage? Where is the action?
neat trick.
for the record; I declare that copyright laws don't apply to me.
Not news. Since when has Any of the constitution applied to Mr Bush?
Back around the end of Bush's first term and the start of his second, I had (silent) concerns that the president was setting himself up to dissolve congress and the house to declare martial law. I knew that they were highly unlikely, but I wasn't going to dismiss it just because, "Oh, this is the USA. Stuff like that doesn't happen here." If it weren't for the fact that the next election is coming up fast, I'd be having concerns about this again. There is one thing I can certainly say with fact, though: The president certainly likes to do whatever the hell he wants to do and make rules or decisions that make it okay after the fact.
I freely admit that this is the slightly paranoid Art Bell side of me coming out, but Bush has a knack for making feel ... disconcerted.
The USA sounds more and more like China every day.
Bush can't spy on his people so he gets their military to do it for him!
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
This comment is for all of the United States Citizens on this board who are pissing and moaning about this, and then saying someone should do something about it. Guess what. You are someone and maybe you should do something about it. That is the problem in our country today! Everyone thinks that someone (not them) should do something about the problems in this country, but nothing is ever going to get done unless we all unite together and take our country back, period. We have let crooked politicians and the crooked corporations that own the crooked politicians control our country for far too long. I myself am afraid that there is no more fight left in our country. All of the truly great minds have long passed and those that do remain have been corrupted by the system. If you say that I am wrong then quit pissing and moaning and do something about it instead of waiting around for someone else to take action! Here is another question. If we are so intelligent then why didn't we listen to Abraham Lincoln? He predicted that if our country continued down the path it was on that what is going on right now would happen.
Basically Bush is saying that they can behave as if we are in martial law without any of that politically embarrassing declaration as such. It is the same crap they applied during the election that maybe somehow they may 'delay' the elections due to terrorism fears. As far as we know since they interpreted the constitution this way, Bush did elect himself last time. If we are actually permitted to vote 'and' it counts toward the election this time, we should consider ourselves lucky.
Not only did you have nothing to say but a tired literary cliche, you were so impressed with yourself that you felt the need to define "Rubicon," as though you're the first person on slashdot ever to pick up a book, and you felt it necessary to give us poor illiterate simps a hint.
Fuck you. I mean it.
1. Make the military above the law
2. Make everything a branch of the military
3. ?????
4. Oh crap...
There are lots of ways the constitution doesnt apply to the military. Soldiers do not have a 1st amendment right, for instance. They cant exercise free speech to insult a superior officer. They cant exercise a right to assembly if told to go somewhere else. Etc. The constitution is a civilian document, the military cant be bound by it.
As I said, this isnt what I believe, merely the argument currently being passed around by the government and its people.
It can be go tiem now plees?
... are the reason this can happen.
You gave up your rights to bear arms because you wanted to feel safe.
You gave up your rights to privacy because you wanted to feel safe.
You gave up your rights because you are too lazy and apathetic to take care of yourselves and prefer to be tended like sheep.
Enjoy the country you created.
The logical conclusion of this is that the Constitution/Bill of Rights as a whole doesn't protect the citizens at all for any 'domestic military' operation and isnt worth the parchment its written on.
The 4th, 5th, even the 1st ( and most importantly ) the 2nd amendments have been reduced to 'we will honour your rights if it is convenient to us at the time'.
This is total BS. Protecting us from the government is exactly why the why the bill of rights was written.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Can we please get a good summary on some articles?
1) The basis for the OP was a footnote found by the ACLU, not as mentioned in summary, in a seperate document. The document that the headline makes reference of is at this time being requested.
2) The name of the document containing the response is entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.", this the name given in the footnote.
3) The document was written at the request of the White House, shortly after 9/11, when they had asked the Justice departmant what could legally be done in response to another terrorist attack on US territory.
4) The response was with respect to the military only and with terrorist on US territory. Exactly what type of military operation was being performed is currently not known.
5) It was not used as the legal under pinning for wiretapes and data mining. As has already been known for a long time the allowance for this refered to other laws. 6) The paper was over turned internally, time when done internally is unknown but the easliest known record of statements refutting this paper are from 2003. Additional ones exist from 2006.
So where in your oath to protect your country from enemies, does it say you can't do that while protecting their rights? I'd probably be leniant with whatever you want to do with terrorists once you give them a trial and prove them to be guilty, but until then I want the laws followed in case they have been accidentally (or maliciously) falsly accused.
as an answer to researchers hired out for this bs.
http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/datamining.pdf
I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!!!
Define "enemy". Preferably something a little bit more concrete than "whoever's on the other end of my gun".
So the Fourth Amendment is in the Constitution precisely to limit domestic military operations.
If you violate the rights of innocents, then sorry, but your just as much an enemy of the nation as the terrorists are. The current administration has declared itself to be above the law, and as such has free reign to do whatever they please. This flies in the face of everything this nation stands for, and presents a far greater danger to our way of life than any terrorist. Why are you not doing anything to stop this enemy? Isn't that why we have an army?
Doesn't moderation mean more than silly numbers? Someone should delete this thread... Wow even Fark is better than this.
Your logic frightens me. The system is set up to determine who is a terrorist and who is not through due process and innocent until proven guilty. The problem is, when due process is thrown out *for ANYONE*, like you just did, then the constitution that you swore to uphold becomes meaningless. I mean, you have determined someone is a terrorist or is associated with terrorists. Well, that means that you can trample their constitutional rights, because, of course, they are terrorists. We have to take away their freedom so that we can be safe and free, right?
The fact is, defending the constitution is *hard*. It makes it difficult to take rights away. It makes it difficult to swallow that in order to maintain freedom we may need to allow terrorists to go free. We may need to provide habeas to people that aren't US citizens. We may need to get warrants to listen in on conversations, which could hamper our abilities to catch terrorists.
Yes, defending the constitution is *hard*.
You, this administration, and apparently the American public, are just lazy. Lazy of mind, lazy of acts.
The right of the _people_ to bear arms, not the right of the state to bear arms (Since when, historically, has a state required any excuse, reason, or evidence of authority to keep weapons?), not the right of the militia to bear arms (Seriously. A militia without arms is just a crowd, maybe a mob. No, not the Mob in Chicago, they don't need anyone telling them they can have weapons, either.), but the right of the _people_.
Yeah, I really think someone is trying to twist the words of the Constitution. But not the parent, the parent is just a troll.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Was one of their chants during the Brooks Brothers Riot http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html that halted the Miami vote recount in the 2000 election. Very telling picture at that link.
Whatever happened to the rule of law, Republicans? Did the power distract you from that niggling little issue?
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
If you say that I am wrong then quit pissing and moaning and do something about it instead of waiting around for someone else to take action!
So what are you doing about it that makes a lick of difference? Posting on slashdot? Writing your congressman?
If we are so intelligent then why didn't we listen to Abraham Lincoln?
Wasn't that the guy who flaunted the Constitution almost as much as the current administration is doing?
Cheney to Constitution: Go F* Yourself
- Republicans claim to be all about the law, but they have had the most corrupt admins (nixon, reagan, and W). None of it was prosecuted.
- They claim to be patriotic, but pushed the patriot act, as well as sold how to make nuclear bombs to Turkey and Pakistan.
- They claim to be about the balanced budget, but nearly 100% of the current debt is reagan's and W's.
- They claim to be pushing a better economy, but the last 6 years have seen a mediocre economy at best.
- They claim to smaller gov, but reagan and W both increased gov. under their watches, just the money flow changed in a massive fashion.
- The claim to want a better future while pushing against obvious science results and trying to teach things have not a shred a proof.
I have no problems with conservatives. But The ONLY thing that the republican party is, is a party of lies. I have little doubt that if Lincoln or Teddy were here, they would rather shoot the top republican leaderships for being the cowards and liars that they are.Does that mean you still doubt it, or that it's so obvious that no one should still doubt it?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Should the private citizens assume that the 4rth amendment does not apply to our military?
In which case our Domestic Judiciary should be allowed full and complete access to all Military records and be allowed to utilize Domestic law enforcement officers to search and seize any and all evidence of inappropriate and/or illegal activities by the Military... INCLUDING the COMMANDER in CHIEF...
Seems like a valid counterpoint to me. Assuming that the President is no longer covered by the 4rth Amendment... nor the DOD, NSA, etc.etc.
Someone in a high Domestic position within the gov should be testing this alternate supposition. I suspect a reversal on interpretation would happen very quickly and the administration would be caught out in it's logic.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
You determine if someone is a terrorist or not by surveilling them, which is what this document is talking about. You do understand the difference between surveillance and a firing squad, right?
huh?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Bush f*ck you!
True, but for this administration, there is no difference between surveilence and a torture chamber. Whats wrong with requiring a warrent? Are they afaird they couldn't get one?
The phrase "domestic military operations" shows their true nature. The U.S. government is no longer trying to deny the fact that they have declared war on the people of the United States, so anyone who participates in this program is guilty of treason under Article III section III of the constitution.
Where'd you get that idea?
The militia is separate from both the army and the police. Look it up.
The militia is the last line of defense from external enemies and the first line from internal. It is the people, armed.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
See that bold part? Supreme Law? What part don't they get? The law is intended to apply to ALL citizens, and make no mistake, the President and his Administration ARE citizens. They are not above the law, in fact they are empowered specifically BY THE PEOPLE to uphold it and to insure that it is executed according to the Constitution and the will of the People.
And what about that pesky Oath of Office the President undertook? "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Does he get to pick and choose which parts he will "protect and defend"? No, he does not. It is an all inclusive, all or nothing, contract: he has to uphold it ALL or he is unable to execute the office for which he is elected.
As such, I do hereby decalre the current Administration, the President currently in office (George W. Bush), and his cabinet, advisors, and the Vice President, all to be in violation of their oath of office; they operate in clear violation of the Constitution and in violtion of the laws of this nation. Therefore, they are illigitmate as officeholders and are to be removed with extreme prejudice. They find themselves in contempt of the office and the government and are a short breath away from outright treason. I call for Impeachment prceedings to be held against these individuals; and demand a trial in the full Congress, assembled, to determine if removal from office is warranted.
More and more I hear about stuff like this, the more I truly believe that we need to amend the constitution and abolish the office of the presidency. It is too much power in the hands of one individual and all the corruption and abuses that power can create. And power is being more and more centralized.
See also signing statements which are blatantly unconstitutional. Signing statements are nothing more than brining in a line item veto through the back door, which exists no where in the constitution. Besides, being an elected official and stating "I will only enforce the laws I agree with" is a felony and *should* trigger impeachment. But congress doesn't have the balls to do so, unfortunately.
The presidency has outlived its usefulness.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
"I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free..."
Do they want a civil war? Its coming. Its happened before. Civilian big guns aren't a requirement. Look at what the Iraqis are doing.
In all fairness, the Democrats aren't exactly doing anything significant in that regard either. Unless you count taking impeachment "off the table", or making a token gesture of disagreement before caving in on essentially everything the Emperor has decided. Lets eschew the false dichotomy of Kang and Kodos, and use a real one: Texas VS Vermont.
Vermont wants to arrest him, Texas celebrates him.
You can't take the sky from me...
It's amazing what people will believe and what facts they'll throw out to support their fear and hate.
The original law was written in response to investigations of Nixon "spying" on US citizens. It was written because there was a need to balance the rights of citizens and national security. It was written by people who had the best interests of the American people in mind. It seems only liberal democrats are allowed to use the law though, which was in existance well before Bush even took office.
Terrorists are also required to claim torture in every situation possible. They're trained to lie. When you know an enemy is trained to lie, then believing him is to support and protect him. If you also think what happened (I mean actually happened, not what terrorists claimed happened) then you don't understand what torture actually is.
Want to bring up waterboarding? Nancy Pelosi originally asked if it was harsh enough. Some soldiers go through it as part of training. You don't put soldiers through torture as training. You don't put them thumbs in thumbscrews. You don't yank their teeth out. You don't boil them in oil. You don't kneecap them, or brand them, or break their fingers. That's torture. Torture doesn't work anyway and the people responsible for getting information and saving lives know this. They're not amateurs.
Guess how many people have been waterboarded as part of interrogation techniques by the USA? Three people for a total of less than 5 minutes. TOTAL. Wow, that sure deserves the response it's gotten doesn't it? Oh but wait, terrorists should be believed over anyone else.
You really need to separate lies told to you by socialists trying to bring down our system of government from what's really going on, and you need to remember who it is that's actually trying to hurt you. Here's a hint, it's the same people that flew planes into buildings on 9/11.
Actually, it does. Especially if you are a citizen. You know, stuff like due process and all. Since this is /., a Star Trek quote seems appropriate.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we're all damaged.- Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Much as I dislike W, that's not quite true. What Clinton erased was the deficit—the amount we have to borrow year-to-year to actually pay for everything—not the debt—the total amount we owe.
One of the proposals for what to do with the surplus (and one of the ones that I would have wholeheartedly supported, had I been of voting age at the time) was to pay down the debt. But Clinton didn't have time to do that before his term was up, even if he had chosen to do so.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I see all these posts about how bush has such a low approval rating and what have you. But you know, it takes more than 1 person to do stuff like this. He's not some evil genius sitting in the white house plotting up shit. It takes hundreds if not thousands of different people in the administration to make shit like this happen. So your problem in corruption and rejection of the constitution isn't "bush", it's everyone else too.
Check this out:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdfs/OLCMemo1-19.pdf
Excerpt:
1. The War with al Qaeda
The situation in which these issues arise is unprecedented in recent American history. Four coordinated terrorist attacks, using hijacked commercial airliners as guided missiles, took place in rapid suc~ession on the morning of September 11, 2001. These attacks were aimed at critical government buildings in the Nation's capital and landmark buildings in its financial center, and achieved an unprecedented level of destruction. They caused thousands of deaths. Air traffic and communications within the United States were disrupted; national stock exchanges were shut for several days; and damage from the attack has been estimated to run into the tens of billions of dollars. Government leaders were dispersed to ensure continuity of governinent operations. These attacks are part of a violent campaign by the al Qaeda terrorist organization against the United States that is believed to include an unsuccessful attempt to destroy an airliner in December 2001; a suicide bombing attack in Yemen on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000; the bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and in Tanzania in 1998; a truck bomb attack on a U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996; an unsuccessful attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993; and the ambush of U.S. servicemen in Somalia in 1993.
Say it with me now, kids: "We are at war with al Qaeda. We have ALWAYS been at war with al Qaeda."
-Thok
Haven't you noticed that the President *is* one of the domestic enemies mentioned in the oath? His policies have wasted more American lives and American dollars than either Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. He has failed in his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is your duty to do what you can to stop him.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Why aren't we having impeachment hearings?
I'm sorry, so I get a troll because I oppose the blatant and approved display of what is damn-near a browser hijack link? There goes what little interest I had in the popularity contest that is these Scores... I could understand an "Off-Topic" score...
The warrantless wiretaps law has been in place for a long time. Haven't you wondered why all of a sudden now it's an issue when coincidentally there is a Republican in office who is trying to protect us from people who have been killing Americans and other innocent people around the world for over 3 decades? Isn't 3 decades of death enough for you?
"It's amazing what people will believe and what facts they'll throw out to support their fear and hate."
and
"You really need to separate lies told to you by socialists trying to bring down our system of government from what's really going on, and you need to remember who it is that's actually trying to hurt you."
Your own words about fear and hate do sum up the situation nicely.
However much we wish or strongly think that that should happen, does anyone realistically think that anything alike would ever happen to him?
Cheers,
Why don't the Democrats have the balls to impeach Bush? If pissing on the 4th Amendment of the Constitution isn't a high crime or misdemeanor than what the hell is? I realize that Senate Republicans have enough votes to prevent him from being removed from office and I realize that we will be rid of him in January of 2009 regardless, but it's the point of matter.
Stopping 3 decades of death caused by terrorists isn't a waste in my book. You've got to be pretty sick in the head to think that Americans dying to stop terrorism is a waste while Americans dying from terrorists is acceptable.
...doing whatever they feel like doing, however ridiculous it may be.
It starts to seem that the law really does not apply to them.
As a matter of fact (as opposed to a matter of law), the law isn't the same for everyone.
Cheers,
doesn't apply to the military either.
I lost family in 9/11. I have friends that lost family in 9/11. I know people who have been injured by terrorists before Bush and 9/11.
I do actually know who the enemy is. Maybe if you get your way and some of your family or friends get blown up by terrorists in a plane you'll understand. Until then it's obvious you've allowed yourself to believe enemy propaganda.
You want we should be cowards? Yeah, you heard me, cowards. Risking the chance of death in a terrorist attack in order to remain free and true to our ideals is something you want we should be so terrified of we hike our skirts and run around shrieking for the government to rampage through the Constitution to save our craven selves?
Is it only noble if people in the military die so the country can remain free and true to its ideals? You want the rest of us to be sniveling, timid, terrorized cowards?
Do you want to defend a nation of cowards?
If that's what we've become, there's nothing left to defend.
Why, a two party system is probably almost *twice* as good as a one party system!
No, you took an oath to defend the Constitution.
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God.)
I believe that means that when the Constitution is violated by the government, you are sworn to uphold the Constitution.
I have observed that a frequent claim made by "internet tough guys" is that they are ex-military. I have no way to know if this is true in your case, but I certainly question either your military status or your understanding of the oath of enlistment.
When It Counts.
When's the death going to stop then? We've been waiting 5 years, longer than WWII, longer than the Civil War. If anything this war has just caused more death, and will continue to.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"[Clinton] paid off not only Reagan and George I's debts, but built the largest surplus reserve in U.S. history"
LOL.
A few things
1. I don't think you understand debt vs. deficit
2. The Clinton surplus is an absolute MYTH
3. Even if you believe in the imaginary surplus, the Republicans were in control of Congress (you know, the people who hold the purse strings?) and when it allegedly happened, their party leaders claimed credit for the miracle too
The budget DEFICIT got smaller when Clinton was in office, but the DEBT continued to accumulate. The reason they were able to get away with this LIE about a "surplus" was that there were a couple of years where government as a whole took in more than it paid out. However, if you omit the fact that Clinton et. al. borrowed/stole $650 BILLION from Social Security (recall, that's supposed to be entirely separate from the budget), you'll see that there was still a DEFICIT throughout the Clinton years. In other words "Surplus my ass".
I refer you to the Statistical Abstract of The United States 2004(I have it in PDF) Section 9 pages 461-491. Look at non-SS revenue vs, expenditure. Never does the former exceed the latter. Any more recent SAB will show the same.
If you have real evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly examine it.
If you are always thinking about the worst-case scenario, you will most likely come to the conclusion that we need to watch (or listen to) everyone, all the time, because who knows who may be coming up with a plot? And if it stops the terrorists from setting off a nuke in NYC, isn't that worth it??
This is the logic of fear, and it will always lead you to destroy all civil liberties, all freedoms, and all privacy, and far too often the people will agree with it, because when it is put to them that way, of course it's worth a little inconvenience to prevent someone from blowing up New York.
But the problem is that the odds that someone is plotting to blow up NYC who isn't already on their list of people that they can get at least a FISA warrant for are very, very slim. In fact, I'd say vanishingly so. Frankly, I'd be more worried about the earth getting hit by a stray asteroid that our astronomer friends haven't seen yet than that.
The government already has the power they need to keep an eye on 99.9999% of the people who are in any way likely to cause any degree of trouble in this vein. This is strongly suggestive that what they really want is something else, whether it be to spy on political opponents or just to not have to admit that they need anyone's permission to do something, cowboy-style.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I was in the Air Force so I don't think "tough guy" applies. :)
You should also check and see if the Constitution was actually violated. The initial Patriot Act did have some problems, but they have since been fixed. You're believing a little too much socialist propaganda there.
Remember, warrantless wiretaps doesn't mean they never need a warrant, it means they can get one later because time is critical. Sometimes you can't wait. No matter what you do it still has to be justified and legal.
But I thought it was just me. To see someone else voice these exact same fears is, um, unsettling.
Never in my life have I wished so hard to be shown to be an ass. The day after effective elections I'll put up a huge celebratory banner on my homepage declaring "I was wrong!" I can hardly wait....
Wasn't that the guy who flaunted the Constitution almost as much as the current administration is doing?
And he was a Republican, too!
Wasn't there some rule that let the president suspend the constitution and our rights in time of war anyway? Or did he have to declare martial law first?
Either way, this is still bad. Declare war with an enemy you can never win against to provide a perpetual war..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Way to ignore history.
There are countries we have gone into and killed people in and stayed until the job was done, then stayed even longer and in some cases are still there. Countries like Germany and Japan. Are they not world powers now? Are they not civilized nations where people can prosper? How was that possible with the US military there if the military is the source of all the problems and does no good but cause death?
There are also countries where we have gone in and killed people then left before the job was done. What condition are they in? How many people have died because there was no stabilizing force?
So you're basically saying "We should not stay until the job is finished like we did in Germany and Japan because if anything it just causes more death."
ITYM "flouted"
This is not about FISA, it is about the president circumventing FISA. Under FISA warrantless wiretaps are allowed, but you have to come back and justify them after the fact. There are equipment rooms in telco offices that copy every single transmission made, millions of calls a day. Is the president going to come back and justify every single one of those taps? Is anyone going to claim under oath that they had good faith that there was probable cause that every single one of those calls was linked to terrorist activity?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Your sig reveals a very stupid mind.
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Yes, any tap they look at they have to justify and get a warrant for, even if it's after the fact.
There is nothing that says communications can't be stored to be looked at later, only that looking at them requires due process.
So when is UC Berleley going to fire Yoo? He is clearly seeking to undermine the consitutional system in the US, and his other legal opinions are nothing but shallow and mendacious rationales for torture.
There has to be accountability for these criminal acts. Impeachment is only a half-measure. If it doesn't end in imprisonment for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their co-conspirators, the system is not working right.
Of course, the fact that they got into office in the first place is itself evidence of a profound systemic defect.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
The anthrax attacks by the mercenary "just following orders" spooks and getting wellstoned took care of much of any effective opposition potential out there in CONgress, or journalistic integrity for that matter.
Successful coup plotters stay in power by instigating terror against the populations, the formula is rather old and cut and dried and effective. Look at any despotic nation, one of the first things they do is institute massive surveillence and command and control centers, then issue edicts that you "with them" or "with the terrorists" or whatever buzzwords they use. And any pesky "laws" only relate to anyone but *them*. And all their little minion employees go along with it because at a minimum if they had any integrity left they would at least quit and refuse to be a part of the coup terror machine, and machine it is, it takes all the little pieces to function- but most don't, that regular check off the tax payers back (especially as they blow the economy out and employment starts to look iffy anyplace) leading to that regular pension is too good, they like to play make believe that they aren't part of the coup machine.
google HR1955 for one of the ways this is going with the "with us or with the terrorists" meme they are pushing. I mean...just the closing in on the million person "secret" "do not fly list" and all the people who still willingly go along with that and queue up to go fly for some stupid reason is enough to show 99% of the people out there are just..well..total chickenshits. If the "we the people" folks had even just done that, just refused to fly anymore after their ridiculous flying restrictions started, knowing full well those lists are completely illegal and morally "wrong" political enemy lists, maybe there would be some hope, but, not seeing it, everyone who flies has some "reason" for them to go along with it, meaning they are cool with secret political enemies lists, right out of some third world dictatorship. "Well, it's just the jews/niggers/commies/injuns/ whomever", it doesn't effect Me, so...." bullshit, if they fly, they are going along with it. No protest needed other than NOT going through with that crap. That is just one method of passive resistance, the easiest by far to do, yet...what are the percentages, maybe less than 1% refuse to fly, they are the "exception", their "reasons" trump resisting a coup and dictatorship? How many have quit working for the Feds over this gross abomination? Few if any.
Anyway, that's your answer, there won't be any impeachment, the fix is in, from here on out it is a dictatorship, so called "Democratic party" opposition is a JOKE, it does not exist, even their darling candidate is a joke. You don't get to those levels without being controlled and compromised.
If by "half" you mean 20%, then, well, still no:
"[urban is] core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and...surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile"
500 people per square mile is almost twice the population density of France.
There simply aren't many people in the US that fit your "no one around for miles" description, much less your patronizing "Bobby Joe Redneck" stereotype. Contrary to what you might think, there simply isn't this huge pool of yokels you can feel comfortably superior to, no matter how popular that delusion is in NYC.
***
That being said, your observation - that the US is by no means a police state, and that people who say it is are being foolish - is totally correct. There are certainly shameful flaws (gitmo, rendition, most of the patriot act), but calling the US a "police state" cheapens the suffering of the people locked in actual police states. It's like calling some punk a terrorist for keying your car.
Doesn't Posse Comitatus have something to say about "domestic military operations"?
I think you meant 'rein him in' but it makes a better pun your way!
This is much what I was getting at when up above I said that it's not that our leaders are power-mad dictators, but rather that they're behaving like paranoids, and the only way a paranoid can control his fear is by controlling everything (and everyone) around him.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I don't fear terrorists.
I've known people killed in car accidents. I don't fear cars.
I've known people killed by diseases. I don't fear disease.
I am, however, vigilant. I watch the road for possible hazards. I pay attention to my health.
What do I fear? Not being able to defend myself or others so that some can *feel* "safer".
Mere box cutters killed your family. Obliging the terrorists killed your family. Not taking personal responsibility for one's safety killed your family. Believing that the government is the one responsible for your safety killed your family.
I'd rather have the threat of terrorists attacks AND have the right and capability to rightfully defend myself than have the government tell me it's all better now and that I don't need to defend myself. Guess what, the threat? It's still there and now there's less YOU can do about it.
If you think that the government must strip away rights to protect you from the terrorists, you're the one who has allowed yourself to believe enemy propaganda. If you think the government should engage in activities that contradict the ideals this nation was founded upon, you've allowed yourself to believe the enemy propaganda.
The terrorists cannot destroy us. They can, however, influence us to destroy ourselves.
The US Gov don't give a shit about the Constitution? How is this news?
You've been happily torturing people for about 4 years now, you've smashed the Geneva convention into tiny little peices, by using your broken legal system to massage the people into doing what you want
"They're not prisoners of war! They're terrorists!", The lawyers cry!
Tell that to the hundreds of innocent civilians tortured (many to death) and held without trial by the Bush administration for YEARS.
Only when they start to encroach on YOUR precious liberties do you lot give a shit.
You reap what you sow America, and you planted some real problems when you decided to give up on thinking and let your government turn your country into a police state.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
I thought that's what the whole thing was about. Wasn't it included because the colonist got tired of having soldiers stop them on roads to check their papers? SOLDIERS, not cops. Are these your papers? Where are the papers to prove these are your papers?
Cry me a river.
All of us have lost someone dear to us. That does not make you special.
I believe the technical term is "Sand nigger".
4) The response was with respect to the military only and with terrorist on US territory. Exactly what type of military operation was being performed is currently not known.
Your first sentence here is entirely unfounded, but here's one way to think about the second: if the AUMF can be interpreted as placing the US in a state of war (which Yoo appears to assert), and the NSA is acting in support of the military, what recourse to citizens have against broad-spectrum domestic surveillance? None.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
"Way to ignore history."
If you can't see some major glaring differences between "post war" Iraq and post war Germany and Japan, you've been ignoring a lot of history.
In fact, if you can't see some major glaring differences between "pre-war" Iraq and pre-war Germany and Japan, you're just ignorant of history.
> The Second Amendment is our absolute last line of defense against our government.
So you are saying that this is why they're not trampling our rights with impunity right now?
No, we are our government. Every scrap of power that it has, comes from us, not the constitution. The scrap of paper is our declaration of how we intend our government to behave. If we don't uphold the constitution (perhaps because we no longer believe in the principles under which it was written, or no longer think them relevant or expedient), then the scrap of paper is just a historical document, explaining how some people felt about things in the 1780s. The paper holds no power unless we enforce it; our will is The Law.
For all the bitching people have done about Bush, there has been virtually no action to oppose him. In 2002, 2004, and 2008, we elected a Congress that would mostly go along with whatever he wanted (yes, even in 2006). In 2004, we re-elected Bush himself, with someone else with largely identical policies coming in second-place.
If you don't like what the government is doing, then vote against it. We have not done that; instead, we consented (perhaps unconsciously/lazily by default, but nevertheless, we did it), and in every election, we give over 95% of our votes to people who say they will expand the role of government in ways that are not described in the constitution. To say the constitution is the law, is a joke. The constitution does not have our support.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That was a typo, honest.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
'The minute soldiers are marching in the street acting like cops HERE, things will change"
Hey that is the plan folks. Look what Henry Kissinger said. He is a BIG time "globalist" the "New World Order"/"One World Government" isn't a conspiracy theory...
From Henry Kissinger 1992 adress to the Bildeburger group
"Today, Americans would be outraged if U.N. forces entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario individual rights will be willingly relinquished. For the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
References:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Henry+Kissinger+1992+address+to+the+Bilderberg+group&spell=1
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn08-3
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/final_warning/EU_and_Bilderberg_Group.html
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Hmm, it appears you're right
Usage Note: Flaunt as a transitive verb means "to exhibit ostentatiously": She flaunted her wealth. To flout is "to show contempt for": She flouted the proprieties. For some time now flaunt has been used in the sense "to show contempt for," even by educated users of English. This usage is still widely seen as erroneous and is best avoided.
that we should execute all Apple users and employees?
"by Nerdposeur
I'm one of those religious, conservative nutjobs that gets mocked on this site, and I find this outrageous. Here is the Fourth Amendment:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That's been suspended?? Doesn't apply to military operations?? If the citizens have no rights over against the military, why do we have the Third Amendment?
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Now I see that there is a difference in the Third Amendment between "in time of peace" and "in time of war," but realistically, this "time of war" against terrorists can NEVER be officially and completely over. There are no official enemies, so there can be no official truce.
The government is overstepping its Constitutional bounds, and it needs to stop. We have to be careful that we do not lose our identity as a country of freedom via our efforts to protect that freedom.
----
Hey, this is Slashdot - we don't mind, just as long as you hate MS and don't post Goatse, everything's cool Bro.
Short answer? NO SLEEPOVERS.
Your question is best answered by a professional:
Keith shall set you free:
Special Comment
The Death Of Habeas Corpus:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/
Also, when you protest - PLEASE stay inside the "Freedom Zone", you'll just piss off the Storm Troopers, it IS for your protection.
~hylas
You're welcome :D
Just a funny thought: there's a reason why it's called "police state", and not "army state".
The thing is, virtually no dictatorship on Earth used the army as police, or not for more than some quick squashing some rebellion. The rest of the time, they had the police keep the population under control.
E.g., the USSR and the Eastern Europe bloc, were _not_ policed by the army. From checking your drivers' license, to knocking your door down and dragging you to Siberia, they had the _police_ do it. Ok, so ironically they called it the "workers' and peasants' militia", but, really, it was a (very oppressive) police force by any other name and filled exactly the place and role of the tsar's old police force. And if you asked any army officer from that part of the world, they'd be very very quick to point out that they're a very different thing from the police.
Even during the madness of Stalin's mass deportations and executions, it wasn't the _army_ doing that. It was the NKVD, which was an entirely different organization and department. The only relationship they had to the army most of the time was that the MKVD commissars terrorized the army too, not only the civillians. Initially they also handled military counter-intelligence, but mostly because Stalin didn't trust the army enough to let them handle it, and in 1941 the army finally got its counter-intelligence back.
E.g., at the risk of Goodwinning it, in Nazi Germany, it wasn't the army acting as a police either. Yes, I know, in Hollywood movies you see the stereotype of Wehrmacht soldiers asking for your papers at every crossroad, and think that that's the definition of a police state. Well, no, that kind of roadblocks and soldiers asking for papers mostly happened when you tried to get into military installations or get too close to the front line.
Most citizens of the Third Reich didn't see the army acting as police either. They had the regular police and the secret state police (Gestapo) doing most of the internal policing. If someone kicked your door in for being a dissident, it _never_ was the Wehrmacht (equivalent of the US Army) doing it. It would be the police, the Gestapo, or in some cases one of the paramilitary organizations that the Nazis created. The SS, much as it tried hard to be and look like the elite branch of the Army, were really a parallel paramilitary organization.
Etc.
So basically if you're going to wait until you see something as unlikely as soldiers acting as police, to start asking your rights back... heh... you could just as well ask for Jesus to come back and have a sex change operation.
Now I'll refrain from commenting on whether you're turning into a police state or not yet. But I _am_ saying, that _if_ that ever happens, heh, you've chosen the awfully wrong symptoms to recognize it by.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I'm one of those atheistic, left-wing nutjobs who also get mocked on this site. Just out of fellow feeling for another (presumably) US citizen with strong opinions, I would like not to mock you further. But all I can say is: WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN? This is the administration that religious folks like you wanted and voted for in overwhelming numbers back in 1999 -- and this is nothing like the most outrageous or transparently corrupt attack on the Constitution to come out of this regime in the last 8 years. Where were you when the horrendous "Patriot Act" was passed? Were you in the streets demonstrating when they were arresting and detaining US citizens, on US soil, without charge or counsel, for years? Have we heard from you yet on John Yoo's ridiculous, cowardly, criminal, Mafia-consigliere-style arguments excusing torture? How about the 1,000+ Bush signing statements, which have de facto constituted him as a shadow legislature and judiciary?
Sorry if this seems trollish, but brother, you owe me a lot more outrage than this.
O.K., seriously guys, time to stop complaining about it on here and actually go out and do something, burn something or break something. You need to get peoples attention, your freedoms are on their way out and you need to stop them, if America goes bad, then the rest of the world will feel huge reprocusions, so for not just your sake but for the sake of everybody get some balls and get out of the basement and do something.
We'd love to help, but American Idol's on.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
The Constitution exists to provide the people with protection from two things: the government, and the domestic military. And now the Constitution doesn't apply to those two? Doesn't anyone see what's going on here?
Bush didn't start the "warrantless wiretaps". They go back for decades. Clinton used the exact same procedures in tracking drug smugglers. It is accepted law that communications between a U.S. citizen and a foreign country are fair game for law enforcement without a warrant. Sorry, you don't like it? It has stood up in court many times. Franklin D. Roosevelt, hero of liberals around the world, actually started this back in World War II: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11465
Where have I seen a domestic military operation before?
Why can't I go atleast one week without making a reference to the Nine Inch Nail's Year Zero album?
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Green Greenwald did a nice piece debunking that particular wishful talking point. "Conservatives" are distancing themselves from the Republican Party because the GOP is incredibly unpopular and it has failed.
That's a crock, as "conservatives" backed the GOP and Bush to the hilt in both his elections and when he had 60%+ approval ratings. The problem: just as the GOP has failed, conservatism has failed wholesale on every level on every issue.
Digby:
Slightly off-topic, but... Most of your statements are valid, but you need to seriously re-evaluate your position on the value of farming in a modern economy. Farming is the foundation of the world's economy. Don't believe me: try not eating.
Okay, I understand the legal theory--that the fourth amendment does not apply to military actions, only to civil law enforcement actions. And it strikes me as quite reasonable: when in the battlefield, a soldier does not have time to hold a hearing and arbitrate the validity of executing someone who is shooting at him.
War is a different animal than Law Enforcement, and the current administration (like previous administrations) is asserting that as the Commander in Chief, certain military actions are protected. I understand that--and I approve of the idea that the rules of war must run separate and parallel to the rules of civil law enforcement.
However, and this is where I get very very irritated, while it may be true that the Fourth amendment does not apply to military operations--and thus, by extension, does not apply to domestic military operations, the whole idea becomes moot because Posse Comitatus makes domestic military operations illegal, unless you're dealing with an invading force.
In other words, this administration has just classified a number of activities exempt from constitutional oversight by declaring these activities as something that happens to also be illegal.
While (unlike many others here) I personally have no problems with executive privilege and the powers of the Executive Branch of our government, and while I have no problems with international wiretapping operations carried out by the NSA--and I point this out so y'all know where I'm coming from, not because I wish to debate these points--what I really want to know is where did the White House Lawyers go to get the crack they're smoking?
Because you don't declare something constitutionally exempt by declaring it as an act which happens to also be patently illegal...
You said:
The FA said:
How do you get "speculative" out of "refers to a previously unknown, classified memo generated by the same office in the Justice Department"?
(I am posting this in response to all +5 moderated incorrect information about Posse Comitatus, because it is a very important issue. I would appreciate a direct response from each poster, but doubt I will get one.)
:
-----
First of all, the changes made in the 2007 Defense Appropriations act have been repealed in their entirety by H.R. 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
Full text of the relevant section:
SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law
`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:
`CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION'.
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS-
(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:
`333. Interference with State and Federal law.'.
(B) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
331'.
(b) Repeal of Section Relating to Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2567 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 152 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2567.
(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended by striking `Except to perform' and all that follows through `this section' and inserting `No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or, except as provided in subsection (b),'.
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
-----
For the sake of completeness:
It is a common misunderstanding that the 2007 Defense Appropriations act modified what is commonly known as the "Insurrection Act", codified in 10 USC 331-335, to allow the President to arbitrarily declare an "emergency", and impose martial law at will. However, the changes were actually much more benign and restrictive, at least compared to the existing 200-year-old law. The relevant portion of the current code is:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including
(I am posting this in response to all +5 moderated incorrect information about Posse Comitatus, because it is a very important issue. I would appreciate a direct response from each poster, but doubt I will get one.)
:
-----
First of all, the changes made in the 2007 Defense Appropriations act have been repealed in their entirety by H.R. 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
Full text of the relevant section:
SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law
`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:
`CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION'.
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS-
(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:
`333. Interference with State and Federal law.'.
(B) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
331'.
(b) Repeal of Section Relating to Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2567 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 152 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2567.
(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended by striking `Except to perform' and all that follows through `this section' and inserting `No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or, except as provided in subsection (b),'.
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
-----
For the sake of completeness:
It is a common misunderstanding that the 2007 Defense Appropriations act modified what is commonly known as the "Insurrection Act", codified in 10 USC 331-335, to allow the President to arbitrarily declare an "emergency", and impose martial law at will. However, the changes were actually much more benign and restrictive, at least compared to the existing 200-year-old law. The relevant portion of the current code is:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including
In the larger context, it has achieved one of the highest murder rates and the highest saturation of arms in any Western nation...
Gun related violence in the US is actually extremely rare outside of (mostly) poor urban neighborhoods. I have never met anyone who has even met anyone who has even witnessed any sort of gun related violence. I live in a major metropolitan area and know plenty of people who own guns, also. Don't let Hollywood fool you, there aren't high speed car chases with guns ablazing all the time in the US.If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
(I am posting this in response to all +5 moderated incorrect information about Posse Comitatus, because it is a very important issue.)
:
-----
The changes made in the 2007 Defense Appropriations act have been repealed in their entirety by H.R. 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
Full text of the relevant section:
SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law
`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:
`CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION'.
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS-
(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:
`333. Interference with State and Federal law.'.
(B) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
331'.
(b) Repeal of Section Relating to Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2567 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 152 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2567.
(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended by striking `Except to perform' and all that follows through `this section' and inserting `No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or, except as provided in subsection (b),'.
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
-----
For the sake of completeness:
It is a common misunderstanding that the 2007 Defense Appropriations act modified what is commonly known as the "Insurrection Act", codified in 10 USC 331-335, to allow the President to arbitrarily declare an "emergency", and impose martial law at will. However, the changes were actually much more benign and restrictive, at least compared to the existing 200-year-old law. The relevant portion of the current code is:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the
One group trying to change that is Scientists and Engineers for America.
The American legal system seems to have long ago abandoned the idea of 'intent' for 'what it stated, as interpreted by the more pedantic lawyer on the case.'
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
More and more, I find myself appalled by the shameless political tactics employed by the likes of the EFF. Will someone please explain to me what in Sam Hill qualifies the EFF to criticize U.S. foreign policy? I find it no coincidence that their political views happen to coincide with the ACLU.
From the Washington Post article:Notice the hearsay. Of course the Bush Administration has since disavowed the statements from the October 2001 memo. In any case, I think the lack of perspective from the EFF article is instructive. It's important to remember that this memo was smack on the heels of 9-11, but apparently not for the sake of argument.
From the Drudge Report:And we're to conclude all this from a (not exactly bipartisan organization) gut-feeling about a memo? After all, last I checked evidence requires more than just opinions stated under times of duress.
Mr. Jaffer, I believe it's more than a stretch to draw such "sweeping" conclusions from a memo written at a time of evolving semantics and footing policy. Obviously IANAL, so no doubt you have a more plausible strategy in the works.
Still I must find some humor in all this shameless politicization over a not-so-subtly over-hyped White House memo: Maybe if the ACLU uses enough adjectives they will succeed in exposing this supposedly "extraordinary radical neocon war-mongering abusive imperial and outlaw" administration. :)
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.
Personally, I've been trying to inform people with well reasoned arguments, credible sources for anything I present, etc. about the danger of the Bush/traitor/PNAC terrorists since 1999. Most refuse to listen, even when presented with many independent and verifiable sources, and to this day absolutely do not care about these extremely criminal actions.
The problem is not with those of us that know things are wrong, but with everyone else that refuses to open their eyes to the fact that these past seven years have done more to eliminate our open society than most anything in years past.
At this stage, we are so far gone that nothing that WE do, as an informed minority, will ever count towards fixing the issue. Citizens of a repressive regime at such a late stage of advancement must absolutely and wholly want to take back their freedom by force, or it will not happen. They must want it more than they want their comforts, more than they want their jobs or vacations or clothes or TVs, and more than they want their lives.
Most Americans do not even realize what has happened to our country, much less want to do anything about it.
I'll tell you what the only real option for those of us that have watched and wailed with righteous anger these long years can do: accelerate the pace of the deterioration of our Republic into a fascist regime by as much as possible, so those that do not, cannot, or refuse to see what is before their eyes will be FORCED to wake up to this new reality of oppression.
You lost family on 9/11, yet you buy into the blatantly anti-America traitorous garbage that the Bush admin. has been spewing forth since then? Forgive me for being entirely unsympathetic to your loss, then.
You are pathetic.
Wow, you must be almost as delusional as Bush and his cronies to believe that they've done anything to make this country safer from supposed "terrorists" when they've been practicing terrorism themselves for seven years straight (terrorist is the use of fear for political gain, i.e., the exact strategy of the Bush WH). You are a sad person, and you support terrorists(Bush & co.), the very people you hate.
Not to mention that the Bush admin. have been engaged in domestic terrorism since 9/11 (terrorism being defined as the use of fear for political gain). Anyone that supports them, supports the terrorists.
Pretty sure he's just ignorant, period.
On a related note, even This American Life is getting political. The most recent episode is about the Bush administration's strategy of pushing for absolute power on even the smallest issues. It is actually really disturbing, particularly for a show that generally focuses on quaint tales from grandmas and do-gooders. http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1236
The military has command structures for theatres of operations... for the [inevitable] military action against people in the United States, something called Northern Command was established in 2001. Btw, the first thing people do when they get power is to make sure they stay there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Northern_Command
Senator Obama is a graduate of the Harvard Law school; during his time there he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.
He was also a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law school, a non-full time, non-tenure track position that exists to allow busy people to have "full professor" status while not being a full time tenure track professor. The school has received so many inquiries about the senator's status that they have released a statement about it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
is the big issue here. While we're waiting for judicial review, too many of our younger generation and their families are dying, getting maimed, or getting their minds blown so badly that they will be be recovering for years, if not decades.
...for B*sh to declare himself dictator. And when he does God help us. You know, of course, all the laws are in place for him to do so. We're at that point in history akin to Hitler in 1939. B*sh already created his Reichstagg fire with 911 and has his secret police in homeland security. He has congress acting like a bunch of retards who vote without considering the ramifications. He is now trashing our beloved constitution saying it doesn't apply to him and his administration. What is left? Declaring marshall law for some new threat on American soil? You betcha full on police state! You think that's far-fetched? His grandfather supported Hitler and even made money for him. Think about it. B*sh is a Nazi. And you better not act up or he'll throw you in the slammer and throw away the key like say in Guantanimo. Isn't this just a pleasant country to live in? I'm so depressed now...
seriously. What makes us 'free' again?..
First, NSA spying on Americans is not a "military action". Second the military at time these actions occurred more so than today, is extremely limited in what domestic activities it can be engaged in. Lastly the 4th Amendment exists to spell out one set of limitations on what the government can do to the people. For the government to claim that part of the Constitution expressly designed no limit its activities does not apply to it is patently absurd.
Run this travesty of a President out on a rail.
This came about because the British would garrison troops in private homes because they couldn't make their own. Under Bush's rules, could citizens be forced to let soldiers stay in their houses? Well, Bush would say we're at war with "terror" and with his history, I wouldn't doubt that he could make a "signing statement" or executive order that would be enough for him to say it was legal.
What bothers me more, that this article brings to mind, is that he could let the soldiers stay in the homes of FBI agents and force us to let FBI agents in. After all, FBI agents aren't "soldiers" and the 3rd Amendment only says soliders, right?
1) Correct, the 2001 advice is not yet available which is why the EFF quoted the newly released 2003 advice that cites it.
2,3) Thanks for the information.
4) That's the whole point - the reference implies that all domestic DoD activity is immune.
5) Please cite your source - as far as I know the Administration has not offered any legal defence of the wiretapping or data mining programs, and has even refused (in court) to confirm or deny the existence of the wiretapping program.
6) Again, please cite your source - the 2003 advice was overturned, but what about the 2001 advice?
Censorship, even the suggestion of it, is a taboo subject in regards to this forum. Modding you Troll is probably a bit strong of a reaction, but reading through trolls is a small price to pay for the ability to post an anonymous message to a widely read site.
You are mistaken. John Yoo wrote this opinion while he was in the White House Office of Legal Counsel. It is not a Justice Department interpretation, but a White House justification (rationalization) of actions it could take. Most likely this was done to provide cover for the administration and/or military brass should they be charged with criminal actions in the future.
It is unclear if you are referring to the main paper or the paper referenced in the footnote. In any event, neither have been public before this. I suspect the legal document you believe to hve been "overturned internally" is the infamous "torture memo" by J. Yoo that the White House has said does not reflect current administration policy (they have never said that it was wrong or refutted its conclusions). The footnoted paper mentioned in the article is a different J. Yoo opinion that is STILL not public. So how you can tell either have been "overturned internally" is beyond me. There has never been a statement by the White House refuting the footnoted paper or stating that its conclusion, that the 4th Ammendment does not protect citizens from military searches and seizures, is not the view of the White House.
Here's the context, if you're as skeptical as me... Indeed, drawing in part on the reasoning of Verdugo-Urquidez, as well as the Supreme Court's treatment of the destruction of property for the purposes of military necessity, our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, n, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Te17'0rist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct 23, 200 I). So basically, total bullshit. John Yoo was featured in an excellent Frontline episode about these topics. He's a tool, in every sense of the word.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Scott Ritter came to the local State College here 4 days ago and said exactly the same thing. His message kinda turned folks off a bit. Like many weren't ready to hear that it actually took personal involvement,
But the one thing I found revealing in his talk was that focus was
exclusively related to ending the war.
The only reason mass-protest worked in the 60's is that it became violent
enough to catch the attention of the MSM. These days, even tho millions around
the world may gather in solidarity it never got any attention.
So where i used to be of the mind that protest meant being ready to get arrested to swamp the system, i now doubt its utility.
Additionally, I doubt that ending the war is the banner from which to
rally people; Because war is a manifestation of larger social issues, I much prefer "Peace-n-Justice", which continues on after the shooting stops and troops come home.
After all the brusises and pains of doing 60's thing, I've come to believe
that one cannot change the system from the outside. Sally just changes her
name and her game lives on. Where B.Obama is not my 1st choice, he
may represent the best chance (w/out betraying the ppl who put him
into power - ala LBJ) for effecting change from the inside.
Dissent is a personal endeavor, conducted among neighbors and communitites, often out of the limelight and gets reflected at the voting box.
Now, when the voting booth gets taken away, that's another story entirely.
resist propaganda
Regardless of the mans actions he was right about what is happening. Kind of like my parents used to say. Do as I say not as I do. Regardless of whether I wanted to see it or not they were always right. These principles apply most of the time because intelligent people get that way by learning from their mistakes! Most of what this country is lacking right now is the ability to learn from its mistakes.