Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Administration Claimed Immunity To 4th Amendment

Posted by kdawson on from the unreasonable-searches-and-seizures dept.

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."

19 of 703 comments (clear)

  1. Only the 4th ammendment? by adpsimpson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'our Office recently [in 2001] concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.

    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."
    1. Re:Only the 4th ammendment? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the exact opposite... that scrap of paper IS our government. For them to say that a particular law doesn't apply to a particular government action is completely ridiculous. If anyone should be held to the laws there, it's the government itself, which is supposed to be defined by that document.

      --
      stuff |
    2. Re:Only the 4th ammendment? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. The government derives all of it's powers from the U.S. Constitution, which delineates, specifically, what those powers are.

      Additionally, all of our elected public servants, upon inauguration, take an oath in which they swear to protect, obey and uphold the Constitution.

      Therefore, if Bush thinks that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to him, These United States should therefore execute him for treason.

      --
      My blog
    3. Re:Only the 4th ammendment? by JJNess · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ... and that's what gets to me. Ignorance of the unwashed masses. I'm 24. I only voted for a president once (and you can be damn sure it wasn't Bush), but it hasn't been until the past 3-5 months that I've become enlightened, and what I've been shown, the things I've been a sheep to before then, these things enrage me now.

      As someone below stated, an actual raid would be hard (LF39M White House! Need healz, tanks, DoT!) but it should start with a major revolution in our education. I'm not talking about k-12 here, I mean everyone. I feel like such a fool for even being a constituent of this administration, and now that I've become a bit more learned in such things, I am ashamed of my previous self.

      Once the vast majority of US residents understand the true vision of the Constitution, we need to hold our elected officials to their sworn duties to uphold and defend it. Right now there's too much money involved with politics. Politicians are more likely to vote to fill their wallets than to hear what their constituents desire. As a challege, I'd like someone to show me one politician that actively and repeatedly listens to their constituents, via email, telephone calls, or town meetings throughout their entire represented districts.

      Once we get a majority of trustworthy and honest politicians in the government, then we can have the vision of the Constitution. I don't see that happening anytime soon. I wonder what it will take for people who were apathetic or trusting as I previously was, or those actively calling for war against any and all "terrests" in the middle east (I've even heard people who say "All those -stans out there are all terrorists!" in regards to the countries with "stan" in the name) to open their eyes and become a little bit more independent in their thinking?

  2. Police State by pbailey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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,,,,

    1. Re:Police State by dctoastman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should be able to own any sort of weaponry the military can use in case it becomes necessary to overthrow an oppressive regime. The Second Amendment is our absolute last line of defense against our government.

      The American Revolution was not fought with cupcakes and daisies.

      --
      My twitter
    2. Re:Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The minute soldiers are marching in the street acting like cops HERE, things will change


      Uhm.. no, they won't. As long as people can go to McD's, Walmart, and watch the latest mindless action flick they won't care. If the non-basement dwelling iteration of Slashdot poster were the norm (which I know, it excludes 90% of us) in our population, we wouldn't have been in this situation in the first place. Remember, the current population here voted Bush in a second time. FAIL.

      The nation is being run like your average silicon valley startup: if we don't have profit within one to two quarters, then to hell with it. We just have those little credit and debt problems on the side, however.

      In addition, our priorities are screwed up. National version: oh noes! Social security will be bust by 2025, but we can fix it if we pass a two percent tax hike now! OMG! No new taxes! But.. we do need multiple squadrons of F-22 that were designed to fight the cold war, since the F-35 and Superhornet obviously aren't enough. We need a missile defense that serves to do nothing except piss off Russia. And, we need a war built on LIES in Iraq that's a constant money sink.

      Don't even get me started on health care, since we're the only first world nation without some sort of formalized universal coverage. Even South Africa is jumping on the bandwagon! The morons who bleat that it's too expensive seem to conveniently forget about that bigass middle layer of PROFIT MAKING organization in the middle: the insurance companies. They aid efficiency? Give me a break. Hell, a good friend of mine in Chile said they've even started a universal health care program down there. Oh hell, I just admitted that I have friends outside of the US. I guess it's time to turn in my redneck card.

      Ah.. the times in which we live. The Democrats have already effectively blown off their own foot with respect to the upcoming general election, and the Republicans aren't even proper Republicans. What happened to the fiscal conservative iteration of the Republicans? All I see now are war mongering evangelical morons. And yes McCain, don't think I didn't see you "get religion" at the last second when it suited you.
    3. Re:Police State by rnturn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ``The minute soldiers are marching in the street acting like cops HERE, things will change (and dont say they do now, I live right next to NYC and even AFTER 9/11 it wasnt that bad).''

      I won't say they -- meaning soldiers -- are marching in the street. I don't have to. It's more like the cops are marching down the street acting like soldiers. Watch the evening news almost every night and you'll see cops outfitted like the military. Every time someone scribbles something on the bathroom wall at a college campus nowadays, the cops in their SWAT-team costumes are out in force brandishing weaponry formerly only available to the military. Police departments all over the country are spending more and more money on high-tech and military-grade equipment. Companies like Blackwater are rumored to be setting up shop all over the country. The military won't have to march down the streets. There'll be plenty of civil and private paramilitary groups doing the marching for them.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  3. Who does it apply to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. That's outrageous by Nerdposeur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:That's outrageous by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is the whole reason for calling it the "War on Terrorism" or the "War on Drugs". It basically gives them the power to do whatever they want, as they can claim that they are in a state of war. The US needs some serious political change. I hope that they elect in somebody competent in November. Although I'm not sure who's running who would actually qualify. Hopefully whoever gets voted in, will be willing the stop the insanity that is, "The War on Terrorism".

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  5. Secret Government by GWLlosa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. The Law by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The law applies to you, not us.

    Sincerely,
    The Administration"

  7. Real Texans keep their word. by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Real Texans keep their word. by 3waygeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, Bush is somewhat dyslexic. He interpreted the oath to mean that he would preserve, protect, and defend the office of President, and execute the Constitution. This may explain why he considers himself to be a great leader -- he has brilliantly lived up to the oath of office as he understood it.

    2. Re:Real Texans keep their word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you won't say it, I will. George W. Bush has systematically dismantled the Constitution. His "executive orders" have been used to override any hope of privacy in this country. He has turned this country so far from a democracy it isn't funny. It really isn't.

      The only reason Bush talks about democracy is to use it as a smoke screen. Far too many people are too stupid to actually look at what he has done and only hear him chant his democracy mantra that they think he is a better presidenter than Ronald Reagan. The only irony there is that those same people think Reagan was a great presidenter too.

      What Bush really means when he talks about democracy in Iraq is an ongoing military presence to protect oil reserves. Instead of doing anything to reduce this country's dependence on foreign oil - or even just oil in general - he is spending us into the poor house and wasting the lives of our servicemen to ensure continued profits and oil supply for all of his buddies in the oil industry - like Dick Cheney and his own father.

      Apparently it is going to only be with hindsight that Americans finally wake up and realize what kind of idiots they have been played for. We walk willingly to the cliff and laugh and party all the way.

      No external enemy could ever have done to this country what the last few presidents and all of their special interests and business buddies have managed.

      The USA is over. It's sad but true. We are extremely deep in debt, we have squandered our military, we have let our infrastructure waste away, we have transferred skilled jobs overseas, and our schools now cater to the lowest common denominator. We worship the worthless who are simply willing to be photographed pantiless and drunk, and far too many in this country would steal you blind if they thought they could get away with it - maybe even kill you just for fun. Don't believe me? Try walking down most any run-down urban street late at night and alone.

      This country has no morals and no intelligence. And we allowed it to happen to ourselves. Like I said, the USA is over. The people looking for scientific investment and educations are going overseas. If that doesn't tell you what's going on, you just keep right on walking to that cliff, laughing and partying, and making fun of the people who mourn this country's death -- because without you, this couldn't have happened.

  8. Well, this is an issue... by plazman30 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter by JavaLord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:A little history for y'all by QCompson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 And Congress created the FISA court in 1978 so there would be judicial oversight over these types of intelligence activities. Wiretapping a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without a court order (either before or within 3 days after the execution of the warrant) most certainly has not "stood up in court many times."

    I understand you're trying to make this into some sort of Red vs. Blue thing, but I have to say that it's really disheartening to read posts like yours, and see people nonchalantly dismiss Constitutional protections.