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."

6 of 703 comments (clear)

  1. a misreading by Speare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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*

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  2. Re:Police State by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The thing is, for all the claims of "living in a police state" people who dont live in the US make about the US, for the most part 99% of the population doesnt see it that way, and likely never will. 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). But for Bobby Joe redneck in the middle of the US with NO ONE around for miles, the kind of people who make up half the population of the US? They are as off the grid as they where in the 30-40's.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  3. Summary sucks...again by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  4. Re:Police State by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Instead, I think we need some threshold; say if the military has more than 5,000 of any particular type of weapon, it becomes fair game.

    Now there's a good way to encourage nuclear stockpile reductions!

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  5. Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter by J.R.+Random · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't the Republican party traditionally the one that raises the biggest fuss about the Bill of Rights?

    Nope, just the Ron Paul remnant, about 9% of the Republican party. The remaining 91% is about war, deficits, and pretending to be some sort of alternative to the Democrats.

  6. Re:Real Texans keep their word. by Creepy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The irony is Bush has proven time and again that his job is to write law not interpret it. In fact, it's not that far of a stretch to say in some ways we are no longer a Republic, but a elected representative dictatorship. For someone that pushes "Democracy" as much as Bush, he sure doesn't act like it (incidentally, neither did Clinton and escalation has almost been exponential in recent years).

    Executive Orders by a President are law unless Congress overturns them, and both Clinton and Bush have used them excessively (and that's just Bush's public ones) to dictate policy and bypass Congress. In fact, some such as the wiretapping law were issued as National Security Directives (Bush's name) which don't have to be publicly disclosed (even to Congress, as I understand it). He also issues Homeland Security directives, which are basically NSDs with a different name. This dictatorial power is based on loose interpretation of some provisions of the Constitution (see links above).

        I'm not saying the US is a dictatorship yet, but each President seems to abuse executive privilege more and more and I personally think it's time to rein in that power. Bush has issued at least one blatantly unconstitutional law in the federal warrantless wiretapping. Not only that, but he gave the job to an agency that cannot legally operate in the US (the NSA), even though he has an agency that has legal privilege to operate inside the country at his disposal (the FBI).