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."

Only the 4th ammendment?

[adpsimpson (956630)]

'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?

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[jc42 (318812)]

I thought the whole constitution had no application to the whole government?

After all, isn't it just a scrap of paper?

No, actually Bush was wrong about that, too. The US Constitution was written on parchment [archives.gov], not paper.

The Bush crowd just can't get anything right. ;-)

(To further confuse matters, replicas of the Constitution are commonly printed on "parchment paper", which is a kind of paper treated to superficially resemble parchment. But the original was on true parchment, made from stretched animal skin. A quick google search didn't turn up info on what sort of animal it was made from, though presumably that's known.)

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[seededfury (699094)]

The Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are currently housed in the National Archives. All three are written on parchment, not hemp paper. Parchment is treated animal skin, typically sheepskin. The Declaration was inked with iron gall ink. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory was commissioned to create a system to monitor the physical status of all three. The Charters of Freedom Monitoring System took digital photos of each sheet of parchment in 1987, each document divided into one-inch squares. Over time, the photos are retaken and compared to the original to look for signs of deterioration. Before the charters were recently reencased for display, a small tear in the Declaration was repaired by adding Japanese paper to the gap. This is the only paper in any of the documents. This is not to say that a copy of any of the documents was never written on hemp paper - just not the copies we see in the Archives Rotunda.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html [usconstitution.net]

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[sesshomaru (173381)]

You know, I'll believe almost any horrible thing you'd say about Bush, but if you are going to make such provocative statements you should source them. Here, I'll start:

"Please don't kill me." [cnn.com] said in a mock begging tone by George Bush, Jr. when pretending to be Karla Faye Tucker, a death row inmate in Texas when he was government.

"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." [cbsnews.com] George Bush, Jr. at an $800 a plate dinner.

Real Texans keep their word.

[elrous0 (869638)]

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.

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[3waygeek (58990)]

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.

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[InsertCleverUsername (950130)]

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."

    --George W. Bush
        Austin, TX
        11/22/2000

This Bushism explains a lot, doesn't it?

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[Creepy (93888)]

The irony is Bush has proven time and again that his job is to write law [wikipedia.org] 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 [whitehouse.gov] (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 [wikipedia.org] (Bush's name) which don't have to be publicly disclosed (even to Congress, as I understand it). He also issues Homeland Security directives [wikipedia.org], 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).

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[by Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[ChronosWS (706209)]

Executive Orders by a President are law unless Congress overturns them...

No. From the Constitution:

Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Unlike some parts of the constitution, this one is quite clear. All - not some, but all - legislative powers in the Constitution are granted to the Congress. To wit, some relevant ones:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

The President cannot interpret the law - that's not the function of the Executive branch, it belongs to the judiciary - his job is specifically to enforce it, plus the other powers granted him relating to treaties and bring Commander-in-chief. His job as enforcer of the law extends only to selecting how to enforce it, within the rules laid down by Congress. To wit:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

Again, all judicial power, not some. Only Congress can establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and all courts are inferior to it. The President has no power under the Constitution in these matters.

Of course all of this is moot when no one puts a check on that authority. However, if Congress has written laws which are full of loopholes or are permissive, it is not the fault of Executive overstepping that those loopholes exist since, if written into law, it is perfectly legal (if nor moral) for the Executive to use them. However, when the Executive steps outside of the legal framework which Congress has constructed, it is the function of the Legislative and Judicial branches to restrain him. This is, in some cases, slowly happening. The question is whether it will occur fast enough to halt the downward spiral.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

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.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

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.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[ostrich2 (128240)]

In practice, very few people get executed for treason in the USA. It's mostly a lifetime in prison offense...unless we're at war. Hey wait a minute!

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[kjkeefe (581605)]

And that's why people aren't standing up in arms against the government... One word... Fear.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[JJNess (1238668)]

... 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?

Police State

[pbailey (225135)]

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,,,,

Re:Police State

[falcon5768 (629591)]

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.

Re:Police State

[by Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Police State

[rnturn (11092)]

``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.

Re:Police State

[dctoastman (995251)]

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.

Re:Police State

[hansamurai (907719)]

The American Revolution was not fought with cupcakes and daisies.

Meh, all they had were tea and crumpets.

Re:Police State

[timster (32400)]

Well, we could be a little more balanced than that. After all, there could be legitimate reasons for the military to have something like a tank, but we don't really want private companies to be driving tanks around -- that would hardly protect individual rights. 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.

Re:Police State

[meringuoid (568297)]

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!

Re:Police State

[zehaeva (1136559)]

since you asked; i googled for founding fathers 2nd amendment and got

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; â¦", Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.", Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ⦠it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ⦠" Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.", Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers at 184-8

i am sure all of those quote predate the NRA by a century or so.

Who does it apply to?

[by Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Who does it apply to?

[Jason Levine (196982)]

If I'm following their reasoning correctly, the US government spying on its citizens without a warrant would be wrong and would violate the 4th Amendment. However, because their intention is to catch terrorists, it suddenly makes the spying part of the "War on Terror", a military operation, and therefore not covered by the 4th Amendment. It seems that all the government needs to do to bypass all rules and restrictions is cry terrorism. Of course, the fact that this power of the government's would make the whole 4th Amendment pointless (due to the government saying terrorism to justify the spying even if no terrorism occurred) escapes them. Terrorism is the new communism. Either you're with them or you're against America.

For the record, I'm against America... at least America as they define it. I'm for the America where people didn't have to worry about their government spying on them or having no checks on its power simply because some government official cried out "Terrorism!"

That's outrageous

[Nerdposeur (910128)]

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.

Re:That's outrageous

[CastrTroy (595695)]

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".

Re:That's outrageous

[Eivind (15695)]

The problem is that you're a two-party state. Or atleast thats one of the major problems.

The system is such that it is effectively impossible for a third party to play a major role, and the rules are unlikely to change since that would require atleast one of the big two to vote in favor of changing the rules to their own detriment.

Fat chance !

Democracies with a multi-party system has MUCH more variation among political parties, and you are much more able to vote your true opinion rather than as in the USA where you may in many situations merely choose the lesser of the two evils.

Re:That's outrageous

[theodicey (662941)]

Wrong. According to the University of Chicago, where Obama taught, he was a professor. [uchicago.edu]

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Re:That's outrageous

[adpsimpson (956630)]

Have you seen "V for Vendetta?" One of the most telling lines, read over the top of news footage of current and past US campaigns and riots, is "As America's wars expanded, the rest of the world got drawn in deeper and deeper"*

Not to call a Godwin on George Orwell, but it's a theme that's been around in literature since the second world war, and is now starting to be seen in the real world. In a time of war, unusual powers are granted to government.

To get those unusual powers in a time of peace, a war must be created. But since conventional wars may be won, you declare it on a concept, series of countries ("Axis of evil") or race/religion.

After convincing the voting public that this really is as dangerous a threat as a "real" war (after all, the "war on terror" has so far included at least two real wars in the Middle East), the extra-ordinary wartime powers may be granted.

The constitution is specifically designed to prevent this abuse, but has been so thoroughly swept away by successive governments since it was created that attacks like this are not met with the lynchings they are actually supposed to be met with - the "right" to bear arms (which I personally think is one of the biggest things wrong in the US) is specifically provided to allow protection of citizens from the military.

*Or words to that affect

a misreading

[Speare (84249)]

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*

Secret Government

[GWLlosa (800011)]

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

[whisper_jeff (680366)]

"The law applies to you, not us.

Sincerely,
The Administration"

Summary sucks...again

[R2.0 (532027)]

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.

Well, this is an issue...

[plazman30 (531348)]

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.

Get some people who can TFA before do the summary

[will_die (586523)]

Can we please get a good summary on some articles?
1) The basis for the OP was a footnote found by the ACLU, not as mentioned in summary, in a seperate document. The document that the headline makes reference of is at this time being requested.
2) The name of the document containing the response is entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.", this the name given in the footnote.
3) The document was written at the request of the White House, shortly after 9/11, when they had asked the Justice departmant what could legally be done in response to another terrorist attack on US territory.
4) The response was with respect to the military only and with terrorist on US territory. Exactly what type of military operation was being performed is currently not known.
5) It was not used as the legal under pinning for wiretapes and data mining. As has already been known for a long time the allowance for this refered to other laws. 6) The paper was over turned internally, time when done internally is unknown but the easliest known record of statements refutting this paper are from 2003. Additional ones exist from 2006.

and the Fourth Amendment is there because...

[brre (596949)]

King George gave British soldiers broad powers to search homes. The founding fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment to make it clear that in the new nation, that wouldn't fly.

So the Fourth Amendment is in the Constitution precisely to limit domestic military operations.

Posse Comitatus ain't what it used to be.

[GungaDan (195739)]

Posse Comitatus was altered by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007. It's not really what it used to be anymore.

Here are some articles:

http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/ [towardfreedom.com]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5150 [globalresearch.ca]

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/martial_law_made_easy.html [americanfreepress.net]

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 [senate.gov]

And the wiki, for good measure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act [wikipedia.org]

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[Chris_Stankowitz (612232)]

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

Not really. That depends on what you consider traditional.

The Republican Party, aka the GOP (Grand Old Party) was founded by anti- slavery supporters. They sold out their base supporters in 1876 in exchange for electoral votes, rejecting Reconstruction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction [wikipedia.org] ).

They [Republicans] have been seen as the party of the "rich" ever since, with the Democratic party touting itself as the party of the people.

This really only proves that politicians (on both sides of the aisle)don't make a fuss over anything unless it is self serving. Ok, that isn't fair to the "good" politicians out there, but IMO they lack the numbers and conviction to make a difference on a grander scale.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[tbannist (230135)]

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.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[dkleinsc (563838)]

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.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[J.R. Random (801334)]

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.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[vandon (233276)]

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

No, that's conservatives. The Republican party no longer represents conservative values.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[JavaLord (680960)]

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.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[Nimey (114278)]

Why yes, I recall a law called "posse comitatus" [wikipedia.org], which specifically forbids using the military for law enforcement. But the traitorous Republican congress slipped in an amendment [wikipedia.org] in 2006 that effectively nullified it.

But again, the Decider is above the law.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[_KiTA_ (241027)]

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.

Not enough, cause they still haven't impeached him, or you know, made ANY EFFORT TO REIGN HIM IN. In fact, they're the ones fighting tooth and nail to STOP the Democrats from preventing him from giving the telecoms retroactive immunity and whatnot.

In short -- Dear Sir, I fear thou doth protest not enough.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[blincoln (592401)]

Not enough, cause they still haven't impeached him, or you know, made ANY EFFORT TO REIGN HIM IN.

In all fairness, the Democrats aren't exactly doing anything significant in that regard either. Unless you count taking impeachment "off the table", or making a token gesture of disagreement before caving in on essentially everything the Emperor has decided.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[alexgieg (948359)]

Not enough, cause they still haven't impeached him, or you know, made ANY EFFORT TO REIGN HIM IN. In fact, they're the ones fighting tooth and nail to STOP the Democrats from preventing him from giving the telecoms retroactive immunity and whatnot.

Do you really think the democrats themselves don't want this power? Considering they're posed to be in the oval office coming next year?

Seriously, as long as both Democratic and Republican party leaders are members of the Council on Foreign Relations [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:They have a lot to lampoon

[J.R. Random (801334)]

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.