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."
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.
The government claims to be above the constitution, a document made to protect individual rights from a tyrannical government. How is that not news??
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
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"
=Smidge=
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.
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
Thomas Galvin
So anyone still doubt if the great republic has crossed its Rubicon yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon
"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"
From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122
"Sep 30, 2006: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept."
So he thought that part of the bill was awful, but not awful enough for him to do anything about besides make speeches? Real moral bravery there.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
Actually, it's more like "Only if and when it will get them votes".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
No, if every soldier swears to uphold the constitution and their "Commander in Chief" disregards the constitution, it's time to march a couple divisions around the White House and the "Congress" which has LET this happen by failing to do anything, stage a coup, or at least force an election.
But because the "revolutionary" spirit in America was killed by Nintendo and plasma tv's and nice cars, it just ain't going to happen. Just keep shopping and everything will be ok so long as the mall is open.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Yeah, and it'll stay that way until someone figures out how to fix the gerrymandering problem. As long as the parties decide who gets the safe seats, they'll pick the people who can raise the most money and avoid the people who have a spine.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Only if it's the second amendment, apparently.
The Bush administration doesn't speak for every Republican or Conservative in America. You might have noticed his dismal approval rating...to get that low he ticked off a lot of Republicans too.
As far as the original point of the story. The fourth amendment doesn't apply to 'domestic military operations' because the whole idea was to NOT have domestic military operations against regular citizens.
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.
1. Make the military above the law
2. Make everything a branch of the military
3. ?????
4. Oh crap...
... 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.
Why yes, I recall a law called "posse comitatus", which specifically forbids using the military for law enforcement. But the traitorous Republican congress slipped in an amendment in 2006 that effectively nullified it.
But again, the Decider is above the law.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Yeah, and it'll stay that way until someone figures out how to fix the lobbying problem. As long as the corporations decide who gets the bribage, they'll pick the people who can make them the most money and avoid the people who have a spine.
Fixed that for you.
So the Fourth Amendment is in the Constitution precisely to limit domestic military operations.
In short -- Dear Sir, I fear thou doth protest not enough.
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.
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!
You're missing a very important 20th century development in the history of both parties: the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. The reason this was critical is that prior to that period, the Democrats were the party of southern white racists (e.g. George Wallace), and undermining that base by creating the Civil Rights Act led directly to the Republican dominance of the southeastern US that continues to this day.
I am officially gone from
Seriously, as long as both Democratic and Republican party leaders are members of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank as well as followers of its "suggested" policies, everything you Americans see happening on your Congress, Senate, Executive, Courts etc. that seems like divergence is actually hardly more than make believe.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
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.
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!
Actually, 100% of the current debt is W's.
Utter nonsense. The national debt was over $5 trillion when Clinton left office. That can't be blamed on W. There was a year or two during the Clinton administration when there were budget surpluses, thanks largely to capital gains taxes on the Nasdaq bubble, but they only reduced the debt, they didn't come close to eliminating it. Also, the unfunded liabilities of social security, medicare, government pensions, etc. are at least $40 trillion, and if the annual increases in these liabilities were included in the budget calculations there would never have been a surplus.
It is true that the national debt now is about $9 trillion, a big increase during the disastrous administration of W. But keep in mind that less than a quarter of the $4 trillion increase is due to the war that liberals (and paleocons) hate, the rest is due to domestic spending and the sort of world policing (NATO, bases in Japan and Korea, etc.) that the liberals tend to support. W backed the prescription drug medicare benefit, right along with Kennedy and Clinton. That added hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities all by itself. As the baby boomers retire more and more of those unfunded liabilities will come due and be transformed into actual debt. For this reason you will see the national debt continue to balloon regardless of who becomes President next.
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.
No, that's conservatives. The Republican party no longer represents conservative values.
"There's a reason we separate military and the police: oÂne fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."
Yeah, and it'll stay that way until someone figures out how to fix the lobbying problem. As long as the corporations decide who gets the bribage, they'll pick the people who can make them the most money and avoid the people who have a spine.
Fixed that for you. Sorry, but that's not actually true. Corporations don't spend money lobbying the party leaders to select a candidate they like - instead they just throw money and whatever candidate is likely to win in an effort to have their opinions heard (and the opportunity to write legislation).
Do you even know how your local party selects candidates? Have you been to the committee meetings where potential candidates are discussed? Have you joined the party or signed up to be a delegate, and attend the conventions where the party decides who they will support for an election?
If not, they *you* are not doing anything to fix the problem.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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.
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.
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
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: