# Bush Administration Claimed Immunity To 4th Amendment



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

* Administration Claimed Immunity To 4th Amendment *

*Posted by 	 	kdawson  	on Thursday April 03, @08:32AM*
*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."_ 


 *Read More...Slashdot*


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

Why does this not surprise me.  Please, just let this nightmare end.  Anyone but John McSame.  Anyone.  Hopefully we can recover enough of what we once were.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 3, 2008)

Makes you wonder if they think that Constitution is just a D&D stat.  I mean, federal organizations being exempt from one of the central Bill of Rights amendments?  You don't get anymore non-exempt then that.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 3, 2008)

Assuming that it's correct.

I was under the impression that both CIA and the military were expressely forbidden to perform operations on US soil. 

So either NSA and CIFA are exempt from yhe 4th because they are military, and therefore forbidden to conduct domestic operations, or they are not military and are bound by the 4th.

Can't have it both ways. Not that piddly little things like that seem to bother  the current administration.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

The Bush administration has a 7 year history of ignoring both the law and the Constitution whereever and whenever it suits their need. 

The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust." Beginning shortly after the 9/11 attacks and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Iraq War, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who "behave amiss or betray the public trust."

James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, refused to cooperate with investigations, acted in violation of law and more. "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."



But, as George Carlin said, this country was bought and sold a long time ago. 

So, I doubt that anything will change for the better.


----------



## tellner (Apr 3, 2008)

The original links are very, very frightening. Just to scare the rest of the bright green piss out of all of you...

The Pentagon is using the FBI to increase spying on US citizens, probably illegally

DHS is getting ready to use firefighters as (warrantless) snoops. I particularly liked the idea that "discontent with the government" is a reason for the firefighters to report you to the Authorities. Puts me in mind of an old joke about (Fill in your favorite Soviet or Russian leader):

"President thus-and-such, do you have any hobbies?"
"Yes, I collect jokes about myself."
"Really? How many do you have?"
"Three of four labor camps."​
While the Administration's torture lovers? You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas, according to a long, excellent article in the current _Vanity Fair_.


The Secret Memo that John Yoo wrote to authorize torture was just released thanks to the ACLU's bulldog tenacity



> In many respects, the March 2003 memo released today parrots the advice previously given to the CIA. In other ways, however, the 2003 memo goes even further. For example, it argues  without any qualification  that, during wartime, the president's Commander-in-Chief power overrides the due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.



It seems that Bush has pretty much wiped his behind on what he calls "That damn piece of paper."

May G-d have mercy on us for getting the kind of government we deserve.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

oh look

a little liberal love in

how cute


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 3, 2008)

Right.

Anyone who still blindly insists we are NOT poised for an imminent and inevitable societal collapse can shut up now.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

Andy
A LOT of people would tell you that already happened.

Most say in 1969 or there abouts.

Lemme put it this way.

The UFC changed martial arts forever. Thats a pretty much universally agreed on statement

why?

a new type of contest, with new rules, that the old way of doing things couldnt adapt to.

with me so far?

Well, 9-11 changed the WORLD forever. A new type of threat, with NO rules, and the old way of doing things couldnt adapt to

martial artists learned ground fighting after the UFC

America is learning to not let our security be made of swiss cheese

And just like a lot of people pooh pooh's the importance of ground fighting, a lot of people are pooh pooh'ing the things we HAVE to do in order to defend agaisnt the threats we are under today

We all know that if a democrat was in office since 2000, they would have most likely done the exact same things that Bush has done.

why?

they are the proper responses to a very real threat. Weather Newguy wants to admit it is real or not

it is.

well, ok, maybe a dem wouldnt do the exact same things, there is a pretty good chance a dem would "appease appease appease" and hope the radical islamics would just go plant some flowers and have a love in


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

If a Democrat had been in office since 2000, he would have at least been the one -Elected- to the position.

You can not ignore and circumvent the Constitution in order to protect it.
The President is sworn to protect and defend it.
Bush and his administration has repeatedly crapped on it.

He should be impeached.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

oh you're one of THOSE

there are not many of ya left.

for a couple  years there was plenty of you guys the "selected not elected" types

then cold hard FACTS slapped the ever loving crap out of most of ya and the numbers dwindled.

Sorry buddy. the Facts dont back ya up

every way they counted the votes, GORE LOST

get over it already, it makes ya look silly

lemme guess, you a "9-11 was an inside job" type too?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If a Democrat had been in office since 2000, he would have at least been the one -Elected- to the position.
> 
> You can not ignore and circumvent the Constitution in order to protect it.
> The President is sworn to protect and defend it.
> ...




hmm, lots o lawyers would LOVE to get that done, yet it hasnt happened. maybe because the posistion has no merit legally?

who knows...................


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

There are a number of comments farther back in this thread.

Refute them.
With verifiable facts.


As to what I am, I'm a strict Jeffersonian, a supporter of States Rights, and smart enough to know that has nothing to do with slavery. Don't like it? Tough Patooties.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 3, 2008)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Super Moderator


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> America is learning to not let our security be made of swiss cheese



Tell that to the border guards.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

Here are some notes:
Bush Administration vs the US Constitution Scorecard
http://www.scribd.com/doc/185259/Bush-Administration-vs-the-US-Constitution-Scorecard

"The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens whom he has determined to be this country&#8217;s enemies without obtaining a warrant, letting them hear the charges against them, or following other safeguards against wrongful punishment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Under his administration, the government has engaged in inhumane treatment of prisoners that amounts to torture, and when Congress passed legislation to ban such treatment, he declared he would simply interpret the law his own way. Although the Constitution says treaties are the &#8220;supreme law of the land,&#8221; the president has abrogated them on his own. And, we now know, he ordered a secret program of electronic surveillance of Americans without court warrants."
Bush v. Constitution
President Bush's conception of his own powers is even more dangerous than his specific abuses.
By Paul Starr
The American Prospect, February 2006 
http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles06/Starr-BushConstitution-3-06.htm

And there is this
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html

and Representative Dennis Kucinich recently introduced Articles for Cheney.
http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm



I welcome any Bush supporter to contradict, dispute, refute, etc.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> oh you're one of THOSE
> 
> there are not many of ya left.
> 
> ...


Gov. George W. Bush
Popular vote 	50,460,110
Percentage 	47.9%

VP Albert A. Gore
Popular vote 	51,003,926
Percentage 	48.4%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
Final decision was by court order. He won the court case, not the election.  Want to argue that, we did, in depth, over the last 7 years. Dead issue.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

and if it wernt for a little thing called the electoral college, that might mean something

as it is, it doesnt

and OOOH LOOK, a WEBSITE saying he should be impeached!!!

I have seen websites with proof Elvis is alive, I guess i should take them seriously too...................


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

And that system (EC) was circumvented by a violation of the Constitution as well.

As to the impeachments, Follow the links.

Also, refute the alegations of abuse.


Oh, an update:
"House Resolution 333 (also abbreviated as H Res 333) is a resolution submitted to the House of Representatives on April 24, 2007 by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) during the 110th United States Congress that, if passed, would impeach Vice President Dick Cheney on three charges. If the House approves an article of impeachment, it then moves to the Senate, which has constitutional authority to try, and with a two-thirds vote, remove a person from office.

After six months without a debate or vote on H Res 333 (either in a committee or on the floor of the House), Kucinich re-introduced its identical content as a new resolution, H Res 799, on November 6, 2007. Like H Res 333, the new resolution was also referred to the Judiciary Committee."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_House_Resolution_333

That is a motion before the House.
Not just "a web site"


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

yeah and in six months, no one acted on it

loons do lots of things for attention


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

You are the person supporting Bush and Cheney here.
So, refute the allegations.

Or is your only intent here to insult, and troll?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

*sigh*
Bob,
When I start to insult you, trust me, you'll know. I am a simple man, and I use simple words. Direct, and to the point. I havnt insulted you yet.

As to the resolution?


has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, as well as

Ok, first off, then President Clinton used the EXACT SAME intelligence that PRESIDENT Bush used. Got that? the EXACT SAME INTEL and came to the EXACT SAME conclusions. And that was before Bush or Cheney were in office so they couldnt have manipulated it when they were not even there. 
for example:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp


 So that ones horsecrap


 2 fabricating a threat about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, in order to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq in a manner damaging to U.S. national security interests; and

It has been PROVEN that Saddam paid money to suicide bombers
It has been proven that AQ had training camps in Iraq
It has been proven that Saddam delt with Abu Nidal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

"Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa'eda fighters based in Iraq,"
so thats horse crap too

3 in violation of his constitutional oath and duty, has openly threatened aggression against Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the proven U.S. capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining U.S. national security. [1][2]

Under the cease fire agreement, the united states was entitled to resume the original gulf war if iraq stopped living up to the terms of the cease fire.

they did

so thats horse crap too.

That was easy


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

There's quite a bit there.
Please, continue.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

naw, i dont need to. I made my point. And I have a CRAZY suspicion you didnt even bother to read my post anyway.

people suffering from Bush Derangment Syndrome make me chuckle

so many accusations, so little proof

not saying that YOU are suffering from it, but those that are? they make me laugh


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

I read it. I don't give it much credence though.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

I posted FACTS

not opinions, FACTS

but you dont care. Hmmm. Maybe I was wrong about you

maybe you DO have BDS


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

Disputing 3 points out of hundreds does not win you an argument. 

As to the rest....


----------



## tellner (Apr 4, 2008)

TF, Chimpy could sodomize little children to death on the White House lawn and you'd still support everything he has ever done.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 4, 2008)

actually no. I am not a huge fan of the President.

i HATE his stance on illegal immigration

I support gay marriage, so i disagree with him there

I am pro choice, so i disagree with him there

I thought we should have stayed in Afganistan longer, so i disagreed with him there

in 2000, in the texas primary, i voted for McCain because i thought Bush was too in-experienced

i agree with him about the war in the larger terms

i RESPECT his recovery from addiction

I really dont care for him that much as a president, but what i REALLY dont like is un-fair critisism. Of Anyone. I didnt like it when Clinton was un-fairly reemed 9which wasnt often he deserved most of what he got) and I dont like it when Mr Bush gets reemed when he doesnt deserve it

need i go on or have your figured out yet that you are without a clue on what I believe?

BTW tellner, referring to the President as "Chimpy" tells everyone an awful lot about YOU

none of it good

Seriously, dont be THAT guy


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 4, 2008)

> I really dont care for him that much as a president, but what i REALLY dont like is un-fair critisism. Of Anyone. I didnt like it when Clinton was un-fairly reemed 9which wasnt often he deserved most of what he got) and *I dont like it when Mr Bush gets reemed when he doesnt deserve it*



That's about the first thing you've said that I'll agree with. You're new, so I'll forgive you for not being up on my numerous past defenses of Mr. Bush when that's happened.  He gets blamed for everything and that isn't fair.  He didn't start the Iraq war. He didn't start the forgotten Afghanistan war. He didn't single handedly hammer away at the Constitution like Taliban on stone Budhas. He had help, and that help was a Congress than bent over and spread cheek of the American People.  I fully blame and hold Congress accountable for their part as well.   At best, they should be tried as accessories, and also impeached.    Bush, as CiC is the fall guy, and he's no innocent. But, you're right, he does get unfairly blamed for things that others are just as guilty of.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 4, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. 

Please review our sniping policy. 

Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). 
Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Supermoderator


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 4, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Gov. George W. Bush
> Popular vote     50,460,110
> Percentage     47.9%
> 
> ...


 
Sorry to continue this off thread argument, but Bush was not selected, as you say.  He won the election.  As you will see in your own proof, Bush won the electoral college vote, which is what is required, not the popular vote.  You may disagree with it, but even Jefferson agreed with the concept of the electoral college.


----------



## Ray (Apr 4, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Gov. George W. Bush
> Popular vote     50,460,110
> Percentage     47.9%
> 
> ...


Lucky for us too.  That frees Albert up to fight the real enemy (global warming and carbon credits).  Bush won the election, the courts upheld it (although some would like to say the courts awarded Bush the election) and our system of government works the way it was designed.  I know the dems weren't happy about it, and I wouldn't have been either...and I understand that I can't always have my own way.  Gore demonstrated more than once that rules mean nothing to him, unfortunately (for him) this is still a nation of laws.

Wikipeida just doesn't carry the same weight of scholarly research and reporting in my mind.  When anyone can get on and post, then you're going to get a bunch of mish...not to say it's wrong absolutely or not worthwhile to use as a reference.  Some of it is opinion and slanted.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> BTW tellner, referring to the President as "Chimpy" tells everyone an awful lot about YOU
> 
> none of it good



So does referring to everything you don't like as "liberal twaddle" or "typical liberal [whatever]".


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 4, 2008)

Whoo. What a nice ride this is. On one side, you have piles of alegations, references to resolutions before the House, and a stack of complaints.  On the other side, you have someone whining "stop picking on the president! wah. You all meanie heads".  I don't know, that other argument is starting to sway me. I mean, lets look at things objectively here.

Mr. Bush, or "Chimpy" (Man, I so like that, but really, wouldn't "Chimpy" have better suited Reagan? I mean, he did do that monkey movie.) is enjoying what level of public approval again?  90%? 85%?  Oh wait, it's under 25%.  

Well, maybe that's just us poor public losers. What about the historians? Surely History will vindicate him?
"61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst" Ouch! Well, screw those egg heads anyway.

Lets check his Civil Rights record.
"There ought to be limits to freedom of speech." - George W. Bush


Hmm, maybe we shouldn't go down this route.

So, since the "I've got my tongue lodged up the CiC's anal sphinkter" people take offense to people pointing out, with great ease I might add, the huge record of abuses and mismanagement of Dumya, lets see them counter.  Really.  Ol' Double HamHocks there should be able to tell us how much safer we are, how much cleaner our water, how much better balanced our economy is, and how easily countered all these claims are.

I doubt he will though. He's all bluster, empty pomp and incapable of doing more than placing fingers in ears and going "lalalalalala" as if that makes things different.  Keep clicking your feet together Dorothy. 

So, trollboy, maybe you should cite, note, refute, and back things up. You might be taken more seriously here. Me, I take you as a joke, a troll, and as someone in serious need of a clue. You're most likely a career Republican, swallowed the Party Line, and blame Bill Clinton for all that is wrong today. (Bills real crime was, he got off on ugly fat chicks, a serious sign of poor judgement. Kennedy at least stuck his dick into movie stars, not interns). It's the whole system, they all are wrong, they all sold us out, and they all need to go. All of them. All of them. All of them!!! Need to go! The sooner you wake up to that fact, the sooner you might get your country back. But no. Go back to sleep. Hit snooze. sleep. sleep. sleep. sleep. sleep. Be a Real American. sleep. sleep.sleep. sleep. You get what you deserve.

high gas prices, food shortages, high crime, and less and less personal freedoms. All for the illusion of safety. All for the illusion of safety.  You feel safe? I don't. But, I have this problem. I insist on thinking for myself, and not letting someone else do it for me. Try it sometime.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 4, 2008)

actually, i have refuted, with facts.

Not one thing I have posted in this thread have been proven wrong yet. 

And your long, vicious personal attack is the most crude, foul thing I have ever read on this board. Also, it has been reported. Not because i cant take the heat, but because those are the rules around here. As i found out last night.

Welcome to my ignore list, and CONGRATS, you are the first one on it.


----------



## MJS (Apr 4, 2008)

*FINAL WARNING!*

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*_

*Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.*

*Mike Slosek*
*MT Asst. Admin*


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> actually, i have refuted, with facts.
> 
> Not one thing I have posted in this thread have been proven wrong yet.
> 
> ...


I knew he loved me. I made "The List".

Seriously, you missed my points.


----------

