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?

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[jc42]

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.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[somersault]

A little inflamattory stuff ahead - byt who cares what happens to the originals when the government is making such a mockery of what they are meant to stand for. Where's all that American spirit that I used to see pre 9/11 - everyone used to talk about dying for their freedom and other such stuff that I didn't quite get then, and still don't quite get now, considering what you're letting happen. Was it all just a load of hot air? You guys are just letting your government walk ALL OVER YOU.. I mean I found a

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[sesshomaru]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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: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.

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?

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[Creepy]

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.

[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.

[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: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.

[DeepHurtn!]

and the climate suits me better

As a former Montrealer and a soon-to-be Ottawan, I just have to ask -- what the hell sort of monstrous snow creature spawned you?!? ;)

Seriously, though, good luck down south. I would like to hope that America can revive its progressive spirit (the one we saw in the 30s and 60s), but, well...good luck. The super-elites have been concentrating power in their hands for 30 years or so now (why does Reagan have such a great reputation down there when he planted the seeds for so many of todays problems?), and it will be hell to pry it out of their hands.

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[ChronosWS]

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: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.

Re:Real Texans keep their word.

[meringuoid]

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.

And as a Texan, he's not going to be at all hesitant about executing things, is he?

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.

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:Only the 4th ammendment?

[ostrich2]

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: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:Only the 4th ammendment?

[sponglish]

Precisely, The U.S. Constitution obeys the inverse-square law, so I'll leave it up to the math chaps to work out how much less important the 4th is than the 1st (and as for the 28th, it's so unimportant it doesn't exist!).

Re:

[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 fo

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[kjkeefe]

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

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.

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: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.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[bogjobber]

Not all rebellions have to be a nationwide, overthrow the federal government type. The last successful armed revolution was in 1946 in Athens [constitution.org], Tennessee [americanheritage.com].

So, if that justification for the second amendment is obsoleced, then the only real justifications are hunting, protection, and for sport. Which makes me feel fine tolerating pretty restrictive gun control.

I could see someone supporting an amendment revoking the second amendment. But are you really ok with laws that go against the Constitution of the US? Just because gun laws don't bother you personally, they are still a violation of our explicit legal rights in the same sense that warrantless wiretapping is.

Re:Only the 4th ammendment?

[somersault]

From what I've heard from those doing WoW raids, building up an online militia could prove to be troublesome. Are you sure you're up to the task of leading it? And remember, when you die irl, you don't just respawn (well, I can't say I've tested this out but I'm pretty sure it's the case). If I were a US citizen I'd be pretty up for helping you with your little White House raid though :P Good luck.

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.

perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Sure would be nice if Colbert or Stewart chose to lampoon this little footnote. At least their shows get noticed more than Slashdot.

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.

Re:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[Chris_Stankowitz]

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]

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:

[Chris_Stankowitz]

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.

Somewhat ironically the gerrymander comes from Elbridge Gerry, a combination of Elbridge Gerry + (sala)mander.
He was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He also refused to sign the Constitution until it included a bill of rights.

Clearly at the end of the day he was still a consummate politician and for that he will forever be known for gerrymandering.

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:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[J.R. Random]

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]

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

[tbannist]

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

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: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

[_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:perhaps the slightest bit bitter

[blincoln]

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]

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.

Debt != deficit

[danaris]

Actually, 100% of the current debt is W's. Clinton, for all that the Republicans hated him (and I still can't tell why) did such a great job balancing the budget that he paid off not only Reagan and George I's debts, but built the largest surplus reserve in U.S. history.

Much as I dislike W, that's not quite true. What Clinton erased was the deficit—the amount we have to borrow year-to-year to actually pay for everything—not the debt—the total amount we owe.

One of the proposals for what to do with the surplus (and one of the ones that I would have wholeheartedly supported, had I been of voting age at the time) was to pay down the debt. But Clinton didn't have time to do that before his term was up, even if he had chosen to do so.

Dan Aris

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.

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,,,,

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

Re:Police State

[kalidasa]

Actually, those folks don't make up half the population of the US - it's more like 20% [dot.gov]. But because they reside in states with small populations, and the Senate gives equal weight to all states. In addition, the electoral college has a mixed representation based upon both the Senate and House, which skews things in favor of the states with smaller populations. Finally, two of the smallest states are the first to vote in the presidential primary/caucus system, and because they are small enough for politicians to realistically campaign door-to-door in their states, and because in the later primaries the "momentum" of the candidates helps to skew votes toward those who did well in the earlier primaries, they receive a disproportionate amount of attention from the press and from politicians (especially in campaign platforms, where things like farm policy have a prominence all out of proportion with the actual importance of agriculture in the modern US economy). There's also a deep streak of conservatism in US popular culture, one that leads folks who live in suburban subdivisions to talk about the empty midwest as "the Heartland" and "the real America," when the real America always has been, and always will be, a mercantile empire. So I'm sure that to the rest of the world, those Bobby Joe rednecks look like they are half the population of the US, they're just a small minority. The real America isn't Hope, Arkansas: it's Paterson, New Jersey.

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.

Just a funny thought

[Moraelin]

Just a funny thought: there's a reason why it's called "police state", and not "army state".

The thing is, virtually no dictatorship on Earth used the army as police, or not for more than some quick squashing some rebellion. The rest of the time, they had the police keep the population under control.

E.g., the USSR and the Eastern Europe bloc, were _not_ policed by the army. From checking your drivers' license, to knocking your door down and dragging you to Siberia, they had the _police_ do it. Ok, so ironically they called it the "workers' and peasants' militia", but, really, it was a (very oppressive) police force by any other name and filled exactly the place and role of the tsar's old police force. And if you asked any army officer from that part of the world, they'd be very very quick to point out that they're a very different thing from the police.

Even during the madness of Stalin's mass deportations and executions, it wasn't the _army_ doing that. It was the NKVD, which was an entirely different organization and department. The only relationship they had to the army most of the time was that the MKVD commissars terrorized the army too, not only the civillians. Initially they also handled military counter-intelligence, but mostly because Stalin didn't trust the army enough to let them handle it, and in 1941 the army finally got its counter-intelligence back.

E.g., at the risk of Goodwinning it, in Nazi Germany, it wasn't the army acting as a police either. Yes, I know, in Hollywood movies you see the stereotype of Wehrmacht soldiers asking for your papers at every crossroad, and think that that's the definition of a police state. Well, no, that kind of roadblocks and soldiers asking for papers mostly happened when you tried to get into military installations or get too close to the front line.

Most citizens of the Third Reich didn't see the army acting as police either. They had the regular police and the secret state police (Gestapo) doing most of the internal policing. If someone kicked your door in for being a dissident, it _never_ was the Wehrmacht (equivalent of the US Army) doing it. It would be the police, the Gestapo, or in some cases one of the paramilitary organizations that the Nazis created. The SS, much as it tried hard to be and look like the elite branch of the Army, were really a parallel paramilitary organization.

Etc.

So basically if you're going to wait until you see something as unlikely as soldiers acting as police, to start asking your rights back... heh... you could just as well ask for Jesus to come back and have a sex change operation.

Now I'll refrain from commenting on whether you're turning into a police state or not yet. But I _am_ saying, that _if_ that ever happens, heh, you've chosen the awfully wrong symptoms to recognize it by.

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:Police State

[hansamurai]

The American Revolution was not fought with cupcakes and daisies.

Meh, all they had were tea and crumpets.

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

[chill]

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

Re:Police State

[meringuoid]

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

[benwiggy]

I can't help laughing at this notion that the reason Americans need guns is because it's the only thing that stops their fragile democracy from becoming a tyranny. After you organise a militia to take Capitol Hill by force, let me know how you get on.

Re:Police State

[zehaeva]

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.

Re:Police State

[geminidomino]

It also doesn't help that we have really, REALLY short attention spa* Ooo!! Something shiny!

Ok, so when fomenting revolution, we'll skip the Apple customers...

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.

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!"

Re:

[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 t

Re:

[will_die]

You are reading it correctly, unfortunatly the summary is just wrong.
From what is known of the document it was written right after 9/11 to answer the question what could the military legally could do if we the US territory was invaded by terrorists. While unknown the exact circumsatances the paper discusses, it is currently not released, it would make sense that the 4th admendment does not apply if terrorists are sitting in a house and firing on the US military.
As for what you are discussing with the wir

Re:

[NeutronCowboy]

But that's the point though, isn't it? When do you know that it is a terrorist sitting in a house, firing on the US military? Not just a lunatic who forgot his meds? Even your extreme case can be easily constructed in such a way that no terrorism is involved.

Here's the problem with the war on terrorists (I won't even talk about the war on Terror): by definition, terrorists look like someone from the general population. Terrorists just have the goal of instilling terror, as opposed to just living their liv

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:That's outrageous

[Eivind]

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:

[Atzanteol]

Do you realized that Obama is a politician?

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

Re:That's outrageous

[theodicey]

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:

[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

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: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.

Re:That's outrageous

[roystgnr]

1) remove armies from around the world; restrict your armies for your defense only.
5) stop interfering with countries of the former Soviet Block.
10) stop interfering with South America countries.
11) minimize weapon production.
12) start a military campaign against drugs; burn all the drug-producing fields around the world (the ones that your satellites know about).

(cue Sesame Street music)

"One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?"

Re:

[will_die]

The summary is very poor write up of what happened.
The name of the document containing the response is entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States." and was written in September or October 2001, publishing date is end of october 2001.
It was written in response to the question of what the military could legally do if the US was invaded, however the exact instance being described with reference to the 4th admendment is not known; the paper has not be

a misreading

[Speare]

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*

Re:a misreading

[adpsimpson]

"No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause."

Alternatively, it means that the "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation" must be watered down while "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" must be broadened.

Eg "I have reason to believe (probable cause) that all communists/terrorists/Europeans (persons to be searched), wherever they may be hiding (place to be searched) hate our freedom.

So... I guess this is Civil War?

[Qzukk]

Usually civil wars begin when a group of people not in power attack the established government, rather than the established government deciding to attack civilians in "domestic military operations", but I suppose there's a first time for everything.

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:

[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.

The Law

[whisper_jeff]

"The law applies to you, not us.

Sincerely,
The Administration"

Summary sucks...again

[R2.0]

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.

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.

Crossing the Rubicon

[RichMan]

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

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

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.

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

The new equation

[sorak]

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

Get some people who can TFA before do the summary

[will_die]

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]

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.

At risk of sounding like a whacko

[plopez]

More and more I hear about stuff like this, the more I truly believe that we need to amend the constitution and abolish the office of the presidency. It is too much power in the hands of one individual and all the corruption and abuses that power can create. And power is being more and more centralized.

See also signing statements which are blatantly unconstitutional. Signing statements are nothing more than brining in a line item veto through the back door, which exists no where in the constitution. Besides, being an elected official and stating "I will only enforce the laws I agree with" is a felony and *should* trigger impeachment. But congress doesn't have the balls to do so, unfortunately.

  The presidency has outlived its usefulness.

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.

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:

[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??

Posse Comitatus ain't what it used to be.

[GungaDan]

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:

[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:

[omarius]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-TJ

Re:

[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

Re:

[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.