Bush Administration Claimed Immunity To 4th Amendment

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

oh look

a little liberal love in

how cute

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Right.

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

 

[Twin Fist]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Super Moderator

 

[newGuy12]

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

Tell that to the border guards.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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’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 “supreme law of the land,” 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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

yeah and in six months, no one acted on it

loons do lots of things for attention