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]

'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?

Police State

[pbailey]

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,,,,

Who does it apply to?

[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.

That's outrageous

[Nerdposeur]

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]

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:Politicians

[HairyNevus]

The government claims to be above the constitution, a document made to protect individual rights from a tyrannical government. How is that not news??

Secret Government

[GWLlosa]

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.

Re:That's outrageous

[Yvan256]

I'm sorry but pretty much the rest of the planet already sees the USA as having lost its freedom.

Re:That's outrageous

[adpsimpson]

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

The Law

[whisper_jeff]

"The law applies to you, not us.

Sincerely,
The Administration"

Re:That's outrageous

[Doctor_Jest]

And in an election year, perhaps the flap over this memo will actually reach the great unwashed, so that they can see the government for what it truly is.. a self-perpetuating power-hungry cancerous lump on the freedom of the United States and our Constitutional rights. (This isn't about political parties anymore, we've not had a 2 party system in many years... anyone who thinks there is a legitimate difference between the "big 2" parties need only look at the current crop of Democrats who have done zilch to combat the excesses of the Republicans... and have created some of their very own.)

We have to realize the futility of expecting these assclowns to fix anything. They are all in it for the power and money.

The current administration and the current Congress are both violating their sworn duty to UPHOLD the Constitution and DEFEND it from all enemies, both FOREIGN and DOMESTIC. Attempting to justify illegal activity by claiming the Constitution doesn't apply turns my stomach.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[Smidge204]

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

Only if it's the second amendment, apparently.

=Smidge=

Re:That's outrageous

[Remloc]

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.

No it doesn't. It's not a real war. Only Congress can declare war, and it hasn't.

Re:Who does it apply to?

[Jason Levine]

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!"

News but not surprising

[erroneus]

The Bush administration long ago has made claims that the authorization to go to war on Iraq authorized a great many executive powers that are "assumed" as part of the authorization. This isn't surprising and is fairly consistent. Prior claims are similar to this one. This is but a grain of sand on top of the huge pile of stuff this administration has put past the people and government of the U.S.

Soon he'll be out of office and the in-coming president will grant pre-emptive pardons to the outgoing administration and all of its staff and the whole matter will be closed. The time for prosecution and impeachment is nearly done.

Re:That's outrageous

[qengho]

We have to be careful that we do not lose our identity as a country of freedom via our efforts to protect that freedom.

Too late. Bush-Cheney have remade the image of the USA: we are now a country that tortures, snoops on its citizens at whim and overthrows countries on spec. Sometimes I feel like weeping. It will take generations to undo the damage this administration has wrought.

Playground lessons

[Rob T Firefly]

As a very small child in grade school, I remember playing games of tag outside during recess. The game was simple; someone would be chosen as "it," and whoever was "it" had to tag someone else and make them "it," etc.

There was always a structure - a basketball net, a fence post, a swingset, or something - that was designated "base." If you made it to "base," whoever was "it" and trying to tag you could no longer do so. You were safe at "base."

The game was never quite the same after some kid with a grudge figured out that you could punch someone in the gut just as easily whether they were touching "base" or not.

Re:Police State

[dctoastman]

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:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[thomas.galvin]

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

No, the Republicans and the Democrats are just about even in raising a fuss over how inconvenient the Constitution is to their goals... oh, wait.

Crossing the Rubicon

[RichMan]

So anyone still doubt if the great republic has crossed its Rubicon yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon

Re:Posse Comitatus ain't what it used to be.

[R2.0]

"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]"

From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122 [govtrack.us]

"Sep 30, 2006: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept."

So he thought that part of the bill was awful, but not awful enough for him to do anything about besides make speeches? Real moral bravery there.

Re:That's outrageous

[Atzanteol]

Do you realized that Obama is a politician?

"You can trust *me*, I'm not like the others..."

Real Texans keep their word.

[elrous0]

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:Only the 4th ammendment?

[192939495969798999]

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.

No its the document that allows them to govern

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution is a contract between the federal, state, and individuals. The federal government is not limited but defined only by the constitution. The problem is that Lincoln and others after him have been pissing on it when convenient and with no real backlash. So it is hard to tell anymore if the constitution actually means what it says, after all who has ever been prosecuted for not upholding their oath to it?

Well, this is an issue...

[plazman30]

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.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[tbannist]

Actually, it's more like "Only if and when it will get them votes".

Re:arrrrrrgh

[Dunbal]

No, if every soldier swears to uphold the constitution and their "Commander in Chief" disregards the constitution, it's time to march a couple divisions around the White House and the "Congress" which has LET this happen by failing to do anything, stage a coup, or at least force an election.

But because the "revolutionary" spirit in America was killed by Nintendo and plasma tv's and nice cars, it just ain't going to happen. Just keep shopping and everything will be ok so long as the mall is open.

Re:Secret Government

[elrous0]

At the very least, some kind of public announcement or passage of some clarifying law is called for.

That's exactly what the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to be for. Unfortunately, at this point it's stacked with Bush cronies who would probably be cool with it if he started setting up concentration camps for political enemies.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[tbannist]

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

[JavaLord]

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:Real Texans keep their word.

[3waygeek]

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.

Bush Administration Warmly Praised by China

[samjam]

The USA sounds more and more like China every day.

Bush can't spy on his people so he gets their military to do it for him!

Sam

Re: Pissing and Moaning

[sudden.zero]

This comment is for all of the United States Citizens on this board who are pissing and moaning about this, and then saying someone should do something about it. Guess what. You are someone and maybe you should do something about it. That is the problem in our country today! Everyone thinks that someone (not them) should do something about the problems in this country, but nothing is ever going to get done unless we all unite together and take our country back, period. We have let crooked politicians and the crooked corporations that own the crooked politicians control our country for far too long. I myself am afraid that there is no more fight left in our country. All of the truly great minds have long passed and those that do remain have been corrupted by the system. If you say that I am wrong then quit pissing and moaning and do something about it instead of waiting around for someone else to take action! Here is another question. If we are so intelligent then why didn't we listen to Abraham Lincoln? He predicted that if our country continued down the path it was on that what is going on right now would happen.

Re:Police State

[timster]

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

[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.

The new equation

[sorak]

1. Make the military above the law
2. Make everything a branch of the military
3. ?????
4. Oh crap...

Re:Police State

[chill]

As the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, you don't need tanks to fight tanks. IEDs can be very effective.

You the People...

[geggam]

... are the reason this can happen.
You gave up your rights to bear arms because you wanted to feel safe.
You gave up your rights to privacy because you wanted to feel safe.
You gave up your rights because you are too lazy and apathetic to take care of yourselves and prefer to be tended like sheep.
Enjoy the country you created.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[Nimey]

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

[Chief Crazy Chicken]

Yeah, and it'll stay that way until someone figures out how to fix the lobbying problem. As long as the corporations decide who gets the bribage, they'll pick the people who can make them the most money and avoid the people who have a spine.

Fixed that for you.

and the Fourth Amendment is there because...

[brre]

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.

Re:Who does it apply to?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!"

If you're against the American gov't and the erosion of rights, but you're all for the American people and protected rights (and you yourself are American), then congratulations, you're the definition of a Patriot as our fore fathers intended it to be. Welcome to America, where being proud of your nationality doesn't mean you have to love (or defend) your government. Or at least that's what it was supposed to be.

Re:The Law

[dan_linder]

Who rated this "Funny"? I think "Informative" is closer to the truth...

(and the truth hurts.)

Dan
--
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (Who can watch the watchmen?) -- from the Satires of Juvenal
"I do not fear computers, I fear the lack of them." -- Isaac Asimov (Author)

Re:Who does it apply to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Close, it's to stop the US government from spying on US residents. The constitution applies to non-citizens too.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[_KiTA_]

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:Time to come out of fantasyland

[OnlineAlias]

Your logic frightens me. The system is set up to determine who is a terrorist and who is not through due process and innocent until proven guilty. The problem is, when due process is thrown out *for ANYONE*, like you just did, then the constitution that you swore to uphold becomes meaningless. I mean, you have determined someone is a terrorist or is associated with terrorists. Well, that means that you can trample their constitutional rights, because, of course, they are terrorists. We have to take away their freedom so that we can be safe and free, right?

The fact is, defending the constitution is *hard*. It makes it difficult to take rights away. It makes it difficult to swallow that in order to maintain freedom we may need to allow terrorists to go free. We may need to provide habeas to people that aren't US citizens. We may need to get warrants to listen in on conversations, which could hamper our abilities to catch terrorists.

Yes, defending the constitution is *hard*.

You, this administration, and apparently the American public, are just lazy. Lazy of mind, lazy of acts.

Re:Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

Because unlike youths in the 60s and early 70s, a significant portion of the United States' present-day youth are overly apathetic towards everything (ignoring things takes less effort than actively doing something), and overly pompous (expecting higher salaries while demanding a more lax work environment). I mean, you can't even get them to tie their shoes or pull up their pants...

Besides, with our current educational system the way it is, I'd be surprised if said youths knew what *any* of the Amendments -- or the original articles! -- stood for.

This country honestly needs a good, old-fashioned revolution -- but no one's interested in doing such a thing, at least not in a mature and organised manner. Although, we could start by nuking Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia. You'd be surprised how different this country would be if said states were gone.

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[InsertCleverUsername]

"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?

"Rule of Law! Rule of Law!"

[GungaDan]

Was one of their chants during the Brooks Brothers Riot http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html [washingtonpost.com] that halted the Miami vote recount in the 2000 election. Very telling picture at that link.

Whatever happened to the rule of law, Republicans? Did the power distract you from that niggling little issue?

Re:That's outrageous

[LF11]

Ummm, how can you think the 2nd amendment is one of the biggest things wrong with the US when your post pretty much concludes that the 2nd amendment is the last line of defense against these sorts of governmental depredations? Based on your arguments, citizens ought to be able to own and operate (completely privately!) such weapons as might be necessary to hold back an errant military. Weapons to disable and destroy tanks, and aircraft, and personal body armor...

So what exactly did you mean by saying the 2nd amendment (in your opinion) is one of the biggest things wrong with the US?

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[dkleinsc]

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:Only the 4th ammendment?

[morgan_greywolf]

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:Police State

[atriusofbricia]

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,,,,

Regrettably, Second Amendment aside for a moment, you'll be waiting a lot longer. It takes a lot of punishment before people are willing to throw off the comfort of the known for the terror of the unknown and war. How many years, decades, did it take for the first Revolution to actually come to overt blows? If one wants to argue that we're truly in a Police State post 9/11, we're not as we're having this discussion in the open, then that means we've only had these most serious usurpations for no more than the last seven years. And even then the worse has only been for the last four years. At that rate we'd not be due for serious action for at least another ten or fifteen years. And that's only likely to happen when a significant number, by percentage, of the people are directly effected by the overbearing nature of the government to be overthrown.

There is something to be said for the power of the bread and circuses.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[kjkeefe]

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

Re:Police State

[rnturn]

``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:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[alexgieg]

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:Only the 4th ammendment?

[xSauronx]

more like ignorance: most people dont pay any attention to this sort of thing.

im all for a right to bear arms, albeit with some gun control, but try to imagine the type of political character it would take to incite enough gun owners to rally together in a semi-organized mass in order to cause a specific revolution. it wont happen, and if it did, the outcome would suck horribly. anyway, youd need a huge portion of the military to go with the revolutionary side, or it would last about 20 minutes.

im all for someone inciting enough people to educate themselves in order to provide and vote for decent candidates, but i think a review of political history will show that this is not likely to happen either. people dont care, as long as theyre mostly happy.

It takes more than one

[iONiUM]

I see all these posts about how bush has such a low approval rating and what have you. But you know, it takes more than 1 person to do stuff like this. He's not some evil genius sitting in the white house plotting up shit. It takes hundreds if not thousands of different people in the administration to make shit like this happen. So your problem in corruption and rejection of the constitution isn't "bush", it's everyone else too.

Re:Time to come out of fantasyland

[Hatta]

Haven't you noticed that the President *is* one of the domestic enemies mentioned in the oath? His policies have wasted more American lives and American dollars than either Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. He has failed in his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is your duty to do what you can to stop him.

Re:They have a lot to lampoon

[J.R. Random]

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.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[ultranova]

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

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

That is correct. The US Constitution, as well as any other declaration, only matters if someone is both willing and capable of enforcing it. I very much doubt that anyone can enforce anything against the US Government; therefore, the US Constitution is just a piece of paper, as far as US Government is concerned.

BTW. What's wrong with Slashdot ? The layout seems to have taken a step for the worse again.

Why Don't Democrats Impeach Bush?

[Luscious868]

Why don't the Democrats have the balls to impeach Bush? If pissing on the 4th Amendment of the Constitution isn't a high crime or misdemeanor than what the hell is? I realize that Senate Republicans have enough votes to prevent him from being removed from office and I realize that we will be rid of him in January of 2009 regardless, but it's the point of matter.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[vandon]

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:Only the 4th ammendment?

[s4ck]

People need to read Tocqueville.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[JJNess]

... 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?

Re:That's outrageous

[adpsimpson]

Within the US constitution, the right to bear arms is intended to defend against the government.

In the larger context, it has achieved one of the highest murder rates and the highest saturation of arms in any Western nation without providing any protection against the world's best equipped military. The American love of killing machines is now so far removed from protection against erosion of civil liberties as to be unrecognisable.

This is somewhere between ironic and sad - the original aim is not achieved (or any longer achievable), while the negative affect on society is enormous.

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[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:Who does it apply to?

[Jason Levine]

I'm not against the American government per se. Just against the overreaching, unbalanced version that the Bush Administration and the neocons seem to want. When did the Republican party become the party of Big Government? I thought the Democrats were supposed to be for overreaching Big Government and the Republicans were Rule of Law, Small Government, Stick to the Constitution-types. (I know there are still plenty of "Classic Republicans" out there. Here's hoping they take their party back from the Neocons.)

Re:That's outrageous

[Beezlebub33]

Most of the list makes some sense, though some are debatable. But the one that seems out of place is :

> 2) dismantle NATO.

Why? The process of getting into NATO (like trying to get into the EU) is a force for positive change. Once in NATO, the internal politics (like the EU) seem to help keep the member countries in line. In particular, NATO criticism and holding back have been a deterrent to the Bush administration, not an enabler.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[C0rinthian]

"There's a reason we separate military and the police: oÂne fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[Curunir_wolf]

Yeah, and it'll stay that way until someone figures out how to fix the lobbying problem. As long as the corporations decide who gets the bribage, they'll pick the people who can make them the most money and avoid the people who have a spine.

Fixed that for you.

Sorry, but that's not actually true. Corporations don't spend money lobbying the party leaders to select a candidate they like - instead they just throw money and whatever candidate is likely to win in an effort to have their opinions heard (and the opportunity to write legislation).

Do you even know how your local party selects candidates? Have you been to the committee meetings where potential candidates are discussed? Have you joined the party or signed up to be a delegate, and attend the conventions where the party decides who they will support for an election?

If not, they *you* are not doing anything to fix the problem.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[192939495969798999]

Execution for treason creates a person a special albeit infamous place in history (i.e. John Brown). Personally, I'd rather Bush be a forgotten and shamed chapter of American history versus some kind of martyr for his causes.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[electrosoccertux]

I think it makes for a funny metaphor that our constitution's writing is fading as we as a country stray from its principles.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[Creepy]

As far as debt goes, yes, the majority of the US population and the government are foolish - attempting to avoid a recession by BORROWING money is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, but the US as a whole has a debt problem and there are plenty of people out there that think they will win the lottery and it will pull them out of the toilet (I am not one of these, and am still debating whether I should do the right thing and spend the economic stimulus or do the wrong thing and put an extra payment against my mortgage... I'm leaning towards the wrong thing).

I'm pretty sure the US gets most of its oil from Canada and Venezuela, so your argument makes little sense. There are plenty of other OPEC nations and the largest other exporter is an ally (Saudi Arabia). I seriously doubt oil really drove the attack (and why the hell would we have invaded Afghanistan? nothing but opium there - maybe Bush did it for his dealer buddy from his coke snorting days)

As far as morals go, I don't think we're any worse than we were. Personally, I don't find the naked body or sex offensive in general (e.g. natural sex vs, say bestiality), so in that respect I'm more European. You can argue objectification, and I agree, in a way it is objectification if it's real or on TV, but why, then, rate a game M if it has ANY nudity (I'm not talking sex - nudity gets an automatic M by the ESRB, which means 17+, but a PG movie can show some nudity)? You're talking about a natural human body shape and no real actors! Some war games get T (Teen) ratings - really, I'm a firm believer that .01s of virtual boobie is going to harm a minor more than a murder trainer FPS (yes, that was tongue firmly planted in cheek).

    Drug and gang culture is a problem, but you're probably talking about a tiny percentage of the population. I briefly lived in just such a neighborhood as you described (lets say I'd prefer not to ever see the business end of a gun again), but we're talking about a small part of the United States and a small percentage of its people. My parents and neighbors go to church every Sunday too - are they watching porn and doing drugs? I highly doubt it (my dad has never even had a drink in his life). I also know plenty of people that smoked weed (most no longer or rarely do) and have never touched a handgun.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[Akaihiryuu]

Ah, a fellow WOW player...though I am more of a casual player and almost never have time for raids. I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's far too late. The entrenched people in the government right now don't *want* a trustworthy/honest government, and they have taken steps to ensure that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to vote in any third parties (which would be necessary to accomplish this) without the support of a vast majority of the country. And sadly, the "vast majority" of the country is a bunch of brainwashed sheep that will vote for whatever the media tells them to vote for, and the entrenched parties control the media.

WE empower the government

[Sloppy]

that scrap of paper IS our government.

No, we are our government. Every scrap of power that it has, comes from us, not the constitution. The scrap of paper is our declaration of how we intend our government to behave. If we don't uphold the constitution (perhaps because we no longer believe [wikipedia.org] in the principles under which it was written, or no longer think them relevant or expedient), then the scrap of paper is just a historical document, explaining how some people felt about things in the 1780s. The paper holds no power unless we enforce it; our will is The Law.

For all the bitching people have done about Bush, there has been virtually no action to oppose him. In 2002, 2004, and 2008, we elected a Congress that would mostly go along with whatever he wanted (yes, even in 2006). In 2004, we re-elected Bush himself, with someone else with largely identical policies coming in second-place.

If you don't like what the government is doing, then vote against it. We have not done that; instead, we consented (perhaps unconsciously/lazily by default, but nevertheless, we did it), and in every election, we give over 95% of our votes to people who say they will expand the role of government in ways that are not described in the constitution. To say the constitution is the law, is a joke. The constitution does not have our support.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[Sloppy]

Bullshit. There's hardly any fear out there at all. It's apathy.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

i can't believe anybody truly think that having a gun in there house is actually a protection against government abuse in 2008. this isn't the 19th century! Firearms ain't gonna do no good against cruise missiles and an army with a trillion dollar budget.

It's not a video game, kiddo. Things are more complex than "da biggest gun winz!". Your sentiment is exclusive to those who are completely ignorant of history, current events, and military tactics.

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[raddan]

Yes, the US is in a sorry state. I think we all know that now.

But, I have also learned over the years that the U.S. is the birthplace of many good things, and those things always came through the tireless efforts of people who refused to believe that they were beaten. I've thought about leaving the U.S. many times-- our northern neighbor is still a liberal society, and the climate suits me better-- but the thing that keeps me here is the thought that if people like me leave (that is, people who care), then this country will be filled with people who don't care. Anger at our government, and at our people, our rotten culture, may serve to provide us with some perspective, but it is not a motivator in the long term.

We need to return to running our country for the long term, a return to intelligent leadership and real compassion, but the only way to get there is to work for it. Support people with brains, get to know your neighbors, and do good work yourself, and you've taken steps toward making the U.S. a better place. The only reason I can think of for giving up is that it is the easy thing to do, and that's precisely what you chide everyone else for doing, so don't give up.

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Afghanistan was about grabbing the assholes directly responsible for 9/11. Of course, for some reason "the most powerful military in the world" took half a year to get there, shouting about our intentions the whole, it gave the main targets of the fight plenty of time to run off to another location.

As for Iraq, Bush can claim WMDs, links to terrorism, spreading democracy, all he wants. The fact is, Dick Chaney was given a very large sum of money from Haliberton before he became Bush's running mate. Lo' and be hold, after Hussein was ousted, who got a no-bid contract on the oil fields in Iraq? Halliburton.

No, the oil isn't meant to come to the United States, it's not economical to ship it here, because we get cheaper oil domestically, and from Venezuela and Canada. However, Iraq is really close to China, and China needs all the oil they can get their hands on, and they'll pay handsomely for it.

Even more outrageous

[ROU Nuisance Value]

I'm one of those atheistic, left-wing nutjobs who also get mocked on this site. Just out of fellow feeling for another (presumably) US citizen with strong opinions, I would like not to mock you further. But all I can say is: WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN? This is the administration that religious folks like you wanted and voted for in overwhelming numbers back in 1999 -- and this is nothing like the most outrageous or transparently corrupt attack on the Constitution to come out of this regime in the last 8 years. Where were you when the horrendous "Patriot Act" was passed? Were you in the streets demonstrating when they were arresting and detaining US citizens, on US soil, without charge or counsel, for years? Have we heard from you yet on John Yoo's ridiculous, cowardly, criminal, Mafia-consigliere-style arguments excusing torture? How about the 1,000+ Bush signing statements, which have de facto constituted him as a shadow legislature and judiciary?

Sorry if this seems trollish, but brother, you owe me a lot more outrage than this.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[mog007]

Firstly, if it came out to an all out rebellion, the government's trillion dollar budget would disappear. People who are rebelling don't pay taxes.

Secondly, when rioters get out of control, do police use cruise missiles?

Thirdly, the military is composed of citizens just like the ones who are rebelling, I'm sure there would be a lot of internal support, and it might benefit the rebels immensely by having spied who are disrupting communications and coordination within the military to make our "phallic obsession" devices as useful as they were designed to be.

Also, "in God we Trust" was added to currency due to the Red Scare in the 50's. It's not "anachronistic" because it's not even MENTIONED in the Bill of Rights, but the right to "bear arm" is.

A little history for y'all

[love2hateMS]

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 [proteinwisdom.com]

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[Darinbob]

We should include phrases from the US constitution on the back of all beer cans. This way future presidents will have some familiarity with it.

that dog don't hunt

[Scudsucker]

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

Green Greenwald did a nice piece [salon.com] debunking that particular wishful talking point. "Conservatives" are distancing themselves from the Republican Party because the GOP is incredibly unpopular and it has failed.

That's a crock, as "conservatives" backed the GOP and Bush to the hilt in both his elections and when he had 60%+ approval ratings. The problem: just as the GOP has failed, conservatism has failed wholesale on every level on every issue.

Digby:

There is no such thing as a bad conservative. "Conservative" is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals. Get used to the hearing about how the Republicans failed because they weren't true conservatives. Conservatism can never fail. It can only be failed by weak-minded souls who refuse to properly follow its tenets. It's a lot like communism that way.

Re:A little history for y'all

[QCompson]

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 [proteinwisdom.com]

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.

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[geekoid]

"avoid a recession by BORROWING money is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, "

which must be causing real conservatives an ulcer.

Of course, a real conservative (fiscally speaking) wouldn't care about party, only who is offering the best fiscal policy. Sadly it turns out the most fiscal conservatives are spineless and refuse to say anything when 'their' party is behaving like idiots.

"Drug and gang culture is a problem,"
no it's a problem. Legalize, tax, and regulate drugs and it will pretty much go away.
Since the majority of people live where there is drug activity, it is not a small portion.

"My parents and neighbors go to church every Sunday too - are they watching porn and doing drugs? "
I can't say specifically to your neighbors, but many people enjoy porn, and most of them go to church every sunday. People not watching porn is i n the minority by far.

Re:Secret Government

[SpeedRacer]

Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms as your post seems to imply. The United States of America falls under a number of categories of governmental structure: constitutional republic, representative democracy, and federation are all applicable.

The power of the U.S. federal government devolves from the people, but as you observe, the men (and women) in charge are wont to forget that point. The previous post elaborates on the mechanisms in place that would allow us to do precisely what you suggest - regain control of our federal government.

The emphasis in both posts is on "participatory." Force is not necessary if we participate using the means provided for in the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Federal Code, and our state laws. If we don't participate, we get what our elected and appointed officials give us. Given our population's horrid record of participating, it is no wonder the system is the way it is.

As John F. Kennedy said so eloquently, "Ask not what your country can do for you; Ask what you can do for your country."