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."
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!
I thought the whole constitution had no application to the whole government?
;-)
After all, isn't it just a scrap of paper?
No, actually Bush was wrong about that, too. The US Constitution was written on parchment, not paper.
The Bush crowd just can't get anything right.
(To further confuse matters, replicas of the Constitution are commonly printed on "parchment paper", which is a kind of paper treated to superficially resemble parchment. But the original was on true parchment, made from stretched animal skin. A quick google search didn't turn up info on what sort of animal it was made from, though presumably that's known.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The problem is that you're a two-party state. Or atleast thats one of the major problems.
The system is such that it is effectively impossible for a third party to play a major role, and the rules are unlikely to change since that would require atleast one of the big two to vote in favor of changing the rules to their own detriment.
Fat chance !
Democracies with a multi-party system has MUCH more variation among political parties, and you are much more able to vote your true opinion rather than as in the USA where you may in many situations merely choose the lesser of the two evils.
Not really. That depends on what you consider traditional.
The Republican Party, aka the GOP (Grand Old Party) was founded by anti- slavery supporters. They sold out their base supporters in 1876 in exchange for electoral votes, rejecting Reconstruction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction ).
They [Republicans] have been seen as the party of the "rich" ever since, with the Democratic party touting itself as the party of the people.
This really only proves that politicians (on both sides of the aisle)don't make a fuss over anything unless it is self serving. Ok, that isn't fair to the "good" politicians out there, but IMO they lack the numbers and conviction to make a difference on a grander scale.
Actually, those folks don't make up half the population of the US - it's more like 20%. But because they reside in states with small populations, and the Senate gives equal weight to all states. In addition, the electoral college has a mixed representation based upon both the Senate and House, which skews things in favor of the states with smaller populations. Finally, two of the smallest states are the first to vote in the presidential primary/caucus system, and because they are small enough for politicians to realistically campaign door-to-door in their states, and because in the later primaries the "momentum" of the candidates helps to skew votes toward those who did well in the earlier primaries, they receive a disproportionate amount of attention from the press and from politicians (especially in campaign platforms, where things like farm policy have a prominence all out of proportion with the actual importance of agriculture in the modern US economy). There's also a deep streak of conservatism in US popular culture, one that leads folks who live in suburban subdivisions to talk about the empty midwest as "the Heartland" and "the real America," when the real America always has been, and always will be, a mercantile empire. So I'm sure that to the rest of the world, those Bobby Joe rednecks look like they are half the population of the US, they're just a small minority. The real America isn't Hope, Arkansas: it's Paterson, New Jersey.
The Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are currently housed in the National Archives. All three are written on parchment, not hemp paper. Parchment is treated animal skin, typically sheepskin. The Declaration was inked with iron gall ink. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory was commissioned to create a system to monitor the physical status of all three. The Charters of Freedom Monitoring System took digital photos of each sheet of parchment in 1987, each document divided into one-inch squares. Over time, the photos are retaken and compared to the original to look for signs of deterioration. Before the charters were recently reencased for display, a small tear in the Declaration was repaired by adding Japanese paper to the gap. This is the only paper in any of the documents. This is not to say that a copy of any of the documents was never written on hemp paper - just not the copies we see in the Archives Rotunda.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html
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.
since you asked; i googled for founding fathers 2nd amendment and got
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; â¦", Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.", Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ⦠it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ⦠" Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.", Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers at 184-8
i am sure all of those quote predate the NRA by a century or so.
Actually, he was the president of the Harvard Law Review - and review editors are students, not faculty. He was a lecturer in Constitutional law at University of Chicago, not a professor. In other words, yeah, he knows the Constitution, and has the creds, but let's not exaggerate them unnecessarily.
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.
The summary is very poor write up of what happened.
The name of the document containing the response is entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States." and was written in September or October 2001, publishing date is end of october 2001.
It was written in response to the question of what the military could legally do if the US was invaded, however the exact instance being described with reference to the 4th admendment is not known; the paper has not been released.
However it makes sence to say the 4th Admendment does not apply to the military if they are deployed on US territory and in the middle of gunfight with known terrorists.
Not enough, cause they still haven't impeached him, or you know, made ANY EFFORT TO REIGN HIM IN.
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.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
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.
Yeah, I think you are correct. What Bush reportedly actually said was: "it's just a goddamn piece of paper". He was mocking it a little more than the "scrap of paper" quote would imply.
That statistic is calling any area with over 2500 people "urban." It says that's the definition that is used by the Bureau of the Census, but any rational person will agree that definition is quite a stretch, to say the least. (Just ask any true urbanite about that definition. They'll set you straight.)
1) remove armies from around the world; restrict your armies for your defense only.
5) stop interfering with countries of the former Soviet Block.
10) stop interfering with South America countries.
11) minimize weapon production.
12) start a military campaign against drugs; burn all the drug-producing fields around the world (the ones that your satellites know about).
(cue Sesame Street music)
"One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?"
"Please don't kill me." said in a mock begging tone by George Bush, Jr. when pretending to be Karla Faye Tucker, a death row inmate in Texas when he was government.
"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." George Bush, Jr. at an $800 a plate dinner.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
No. From the Constitution:
Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.Unlike some parts of the constitution, this one is quite clear. All - not some, but all - legislative powers in the Constitution are granted to the Congress. To wit, some relevant ones:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereofThe President cannot interpret the law - that's not the function of the Executive branch, it belongs to the judiciary - his job is specifically to enforce it, plus the other powers granted him relating to treaties and bring Commander-in-chief. His job as enforcer of the law extends only to selecting how to enforce it, within the rules laid down by Congress. To wit:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;Again, all judicial power, not some. Only Congress can establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and all courts are inferior to it. The President has no power under the Constitution in these matters.
Of course all of this is moot when no one puts a check on that authority. However, if Congress has written laws which are full of loopholes or are permissive, it is not the fault of Executive overstepping that those loopholes exist since, if written into law, it is perfectly legal (if nor moral) for the Executive to use them. However, when the Executive steps outside of the legal framework which Congress has constructed, it is the function of the Legislative and Judicial branches to restrain him. This is, in some cases, slowly happening. The question is whether it will occur fast enough to halt the downward spiral.
I believe this has been covered before...
Drafts and copies were done on hemp, the actual version, was not.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
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 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
One group trying to change that is Scientists and Engineers for America.