Another Secret Yoo Memo
While much attention has been paid to the newly-released 81-page memo written by John Yoo which defines torturing prisoners in U.S. custody as "self-defense," within the memo is reference to another secret Yoo memo, one with even further-reaching consequences for the Constitution. According to Yoo (and the Bush administration in general), because we're "at war," the United States military is allowed to completely ignore the Fourth Amendment -- on U.S. soil.
Bush and everyone around him have consistently shown such disregard for the Fourth Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) that it shouldn't really come as much of a surprise, but sadly, it does. As far as they're concerned, because we're "at war," some Army guy could bust in and search your house, and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.
There's a word for this. It's known as "tyranny." Or, perhaps, two words: "police state."
Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post has a good wrap-up of the Yoo torture memo recently released (thanks to the tireless efforts of the ACLU, once again), which he calls the "Abu Ghraib Memo." The Associated Press have an article on the referenced (but still secret) Fourth Amendment memo, also by John Yoo.
Here is the relevant reference from the original memo, from the AP article:
"Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations," the footnote states, referring to a document titled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States."
That's pretty clear, and pretty shocking. Thankfully, since Yoo left the Justice Department, they now say they are following the opposite course, and (at least nominally) paying attention to the Bill of Rights once again. No word on why "domestic military operations" are not illegal themselves under U.S. law that stretches back to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, but maybe someone will think to ask them this question as well, eventually.
I should note that John Yoo now works for the law school of the University of California, Berkeley. Any Berkeley alumni who are horrified at this man -- who so obviously does not even understand the basics of law, or of our Constitution -- please feel free to contact the university and let them know how you feel. Why there aren't vocal demonstrations outside his office door on a daily basis mystifies me, personally.
And I have to say, the more these stories break in the media, the more my respect grows for the American Civil Liberties Union, who is usually why the information gets released in the first place. So I will let them have the last word here (again, from the AP article):
"The recent disclosures underscore the Bush administration's extraordinarily sweeping conception of executive power," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The administration's lawyers believe the president should be permitted to violate statutory law, to violate international treaties and even to violate the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S. They believe that the president should be above the law."
"Each time one of these memos comes out you have to come up with a more extreme way to characterize it," Jaffer said.
[Sorry for the short article today, but I'm too disgusted to think straight.]
-- Chris Weigant
I wish someone would write a memo about John Yoo not being allowed to write anymore memos - see how he likes have his constitutional rights taken away from him.
...Stan
OK, I want ya'all to take a deep breath and sit down before you read this comment..
You ready??
You seated??
OK good...
So what's the big deal???
"As far as they're concerned, because we're "at war," some Army guy could bust in and search your house, and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so."
Only if they have probable cause to do so...
And, if they have probable cause to do so, isn't that a GOOD thing???
I mean, wouldn't you WANT the US Military to bust in and break up a terrorist ring?? Or bust in and prevent a hostage from being killed?? Or bust in and nab some terrorists with their dirty bomb??
Ya'all make it sound like the Administration is just itching to kick down doors with tanks and M-16s on every American household in the country.. Is your view so skewed by paranoia that ya'all just cannot CONCEIVE that maybe these sorts of things are necessary???
Let's put it in another contex and pretend..
Let's pretend it's 1944... FDR and everyone around him have consistently shown such disregard for the Fourth Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) that it shouldn't really come as much of a surprise, but sadly, it does. As far as they're concerned, because we're "at war," some Army guy could bust in and take you and your family away, stash you in a concentration camp and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.
Oh wait.. We don't HAVE to pretend... That actually happened...
And guess what?? The country survived.. Not only survived but is stronger...
Here is nearly a SURE-FIRE way NOT to have to worry about the US Military kicking down your door looking for terrorists...
DON'T ASSOCIATE with terrorists.. Granted, it's not an IRON CLAD guarantee, but it's pretty damn close.
I know this is a hot-button topic, but try and look at things objectively. The US Military is not going to go around, kicking down doors just for jollies or kicks.. They are going to go kicking down doors if there is a good reason to do so.. And frankly, I am glad that they will..
Finally, I too would like to add my congratulations to the ACLU.. If not for their tireless efforts, the terrorists who are bent on killing Americans on a grand scale would not know that they cannot hide behind the facade of an alleged American family. Because of the ACLU, the terrorists know that if they are captured, the will be treated like the animals they are. Because of the ACLU, the terrorists know that there is no place in this country that they can hide from identification and extermination.
To the ACLU... I salute you...
Michale.....
Michale -
Our local college had a group of peace activists who were specifically targeted by the Pentagon for investigation under this program. Please explain how this helps us defeat terrorists. They didn't associate with terrorists. Please explain why their constitutional rights were null and void. There is no clause in the Bill of Rights that says "except when the President decides to abridge these rights."
As for the 40's, what would you have told the internees? Don't be Japanese? Every time extra-constitutional powers are used in American history, it is later shown that they were indeed abused. This is why I fight such powers in the first place.
-CW
Our local college had a group of peace activists who were specifically targeted by the Pentagon for investigation under this program. Please explain how this helps us defeat terrorists. They didn't associate with terrorists. Please explain why their constitutional rights were null and void. There is no clause in the Bill of Rights that says "except when the President decides to abridge these rights."
I would have to know more about this group.. What is their name? What are their activities? Are there terrorists attempting to blend in with them?
Things like that.
We have one side of their story.. I would like to hear the other side...
As for the 40's, what would you have told the internees? Don't be Japanese? Every time extra-constitutional powers are used in American history, it is later shown that they were indeed abused. This is why I fight such powers in the first place.
I am not for the internment of the Japanese during WWII... But I also do not have enough information to state unequivocally that it was the wrong thing to do.
I merely mention it to show that, in times of war, bad things must be done by good people for the greater good.. Look at FDR's rep these days.. In 100 years, I honestly believe that Bush will be viewed then as we view FDR and Lincoln today...
I wish I could find and bookmark the quote, because it is always so applicable to debates such as this..
"No country has ever been saved by 'good' men. Because a good man will not go the the lengths or depths necessary"
Spock said it better...
The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one...
Michale.....
Chris,
Let me explain that little "footnote" to you...
Do you see troops on the streets of America? No? Do you hear of American SOLDIERS breaking down doors in America in raids? No?
So, what "military operations" would be held on AMERICAN SOIL that deal with "terrorists"?
Answer: The military BRIGS that are currently holding "terrorists" with total disregard to the constitution. Try South Carolina's Naval Brig in Charleston, SC, to start...
Michale,
That's what I got from analysis of the peanut gallery from various blogs. That the footnote was really referring to military action as in troops fighting groups of terrorists in actual military maneuvers. I can see the need for such things, BUT I would prefer it to be under a formal declaration of war or at least with full investigation after the fact with punishment for obvious transgressions when they happen both at the troop and command level.
My other fear about this sort of thing is that the "war on terror" is much like the "war on drugs". Boldly stated and voted for but without that final step of formal declaration that not only dictates the seriousness of the situation but also defines how that state can and will end. I would hate for the afore mentioned college peace activists aka any group normally protected by the constitution with the right to exist, the freedom of speech and to petition the government but disliked by those currently in power to suffer harassment at will and into perpetuity because the state of "war" never really ends.
“No great country was ever saved by good men, because good men will not go to the lengths that may be necessary.â€
—Horace Walpole
Though I prefer:
"This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel,"
—Horace Walpole
Michale -
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517983/
You also might want to google the term "COINTELPRO" to see how powers like this have been abused in the past. For instance, the government sending a letter to Martin Luther King, Jr. in an attempt to get him to commit suicide. This was done in America's name, remember.
Anti-war does not equal "anti-American" or even "terrorist." Demostrating against a war is protected by the first amendment. Do you honestly think the Quakers (see the link) have been infiltrated by terrorists?
See also my Schenck v. US article from a while back for even more history on the subject. "Clear and present danger" my ass....
Just because the federal government has abridged rights in the past doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean we shouldn't be very wary of it doing so in the future. If the president had a shred of trust left with the American people, this wouldn't be as big an issue as it is, but he just has no credibility left when he says, in essence, "trust us."
Michael Gass -
The legal justification was created (out of whole cloth) to justify the NSA's illegal wiretapping. But the underlying legal reasoning (the fourth amendment doesn't apply to US military on US soil) is such a hideous thing that it could indeed be used to justify ANY search or seizure by ANY military ANYWHERE in America. This memo is still secret, so we really won't know what the details are until it comes out, but I wouldn't put it past John Yoo to declare the entire Constitution null and void while we're "at war" (we're not, incidentally -- we haven't been "at war" since World War II).
-CW
BashiBazouk -
Thanks for making the point about not being at war -- looks like we were both typing at the same time!
Nice quotes, too.
-CW
Chris,
You are assuming, as is everyone else, that AFTER the illegal wiretapping became public, that the memo was written to justify THAT single operation. As you note, the ACTUAL memo is classified.
The illegal wiretapping being done by the NSA, with the help of the telecom's, may be but one arm of that hydra... true. Yes, MSNBC reported in 2005 that military reserve units were doing surveillance of anti-war protesters.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
But, notice that we have no indication that the military was illegally wiretapping anyone. Collecting data? Yes. Keeping a database? Yes.
But, we also know that any "terrorist" who was American or dual American citizenship was handed over to the military and held in military brigs, ON U.S. SOIL... a CLEAR seizure of that person. They were then held, at times for YEARS, without counsel, without charge, without any constitutional rights. In effect, those individuals... American citizens... were disappeared by our own government and military.
Michael Gass -
You are right, of course. I had been focusing on the "search" aspects of the legal argument, but you are correct that the "seizure" aspects have been used as well.
Remember the halcyon days of yore when "disappearing" people was scorned by the American public as something only brutal third-world dictatorships did?
Sigh.
-CW
WOW, so much to address...
@Michael Gass
Answer: The military BRIGS that are currently holding "terrorists" with total disregard to the constitution. Try South Carolina's Naval Brig in Charleston, SC, to start…
I agree. We really shouldn't house terrorists in military brigs.
They should be summarily shot and buried in an unmarked grave on Jewish holy ground with a pig's carcass....
@BashiBazouk
That's what I got from analysis of the peanut gallery from various blogs. That the footnote was really referring to military action as in troops fighting groups of terrorists in actual military maneuvers. I can see the need for such things, BUT I would prefer it to be under a formal declaration of war or at least with full investigation after the fact with punishment for obvious transgressions when they happen both at the troop and command level.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been a formal declaration of war against terrorists. Unanimously supported by ALL of Congress..
I also have no problems with a FULL investigation after the fact with one caveat. That it be a completely impartial and bipartisan investigation whose SOLE PURPOSE is to collect the facts and punish those found in the wrong.. It CANNOT be a witch hunt to score political points. As the 9/11 Commission was.
My other fear about this sort of thing is that the "war on terror" is much like the "war on drugs". Boldly stated and voted for but without that final step of formal declaration that not only dictates the seriousness of the situation but also defines how that state can and will end. I would hate for the afore mentioned college peace activists aka any group normally protected by the constitution with the right to exist, the freedom of speech and to petition the government but disliked by those currently in power to suffer harassment at will and into perpetuity because the state of "war" never really ends.
I agree that the war on terror is much like the war on drugs. The problems with prosecuting both are the same as well.. Constitutional absolutionists who feel that the Constitution is set in stone and must followed to the letter without regard for common sense..
Leaders like Lincoln, FDR, Bush and Ryan saw the Constitution for what it is. A guideline that must be allowed to be flexible to address the changing times.. As I have often said, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact. It's not meant to be followed into an illogical, irrational and unnecessary death...
Have you been watching the MiniSeries, JOHN ADAMS?? It's really fascinating... Imagine if the likes of Adams, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson etc etc had first hand knowledge of the very real threat of a nuclear armed terrorist group bent on destroying the United States Of America.
I am sure you would agree that the US Constitution might look a little bit different today if our forefathers had such knowledge, eh?
Thanx for the quote reference. I found it once before, but it took me like a half hour. I was lazy last night (actually really swamped. I have 4 XBOX 360s just waiting for repairs) and didn't want to spend the time to look for it..
But it goes to the very heart of these discussions..
Would everyone agree that sometimes bad things must be done to serve the greater good. That is one of the most firmest foundations of our legal system. Whether it be the cop who has to exceed the speedlimit to prevent a crime all the way up thru having to put the hurts on some scumbag terrorist to force him to give up the location of a bomb about to detonate...
I think we can ALL agree that sometimes, the greater good IS served by men doing what would normally be considered wrong, 'evil', bad or illegal things..
Given that, the only point of contention appears to be the DEGREE of wrong, 'evil', bad or illegal things..
For me, personally.. Anything done to terrorists, short of terrorism itself, is perfectly OK with me. Hell, I would be happy to help out...
"This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel,"
I like that one.. :D It's like "If you are not a Democrat at 20 yrs old, you have no heart. If you are not a Republican at 40, you have no brain" :D
@CW
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517983/
That was simply an "observe and report". No doors were kicked in..
And, considering the attacks that Recruiting Stations have been under the last couple years, I think it shows an amazing amount of foresite on the part of the Pentagon...
I think we would both agree that bombing a Recruiting Station is not a legitimate form of protest or self expression. The funny thing is, it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell the group that would NOT bomb a station from the group that WOULD bomb a station. From the outside, all the groups look and act the same..
So, the only way to find out is to infiltrate, observe and report...
I would think that the legit groups would be ECSTATIC over such scrutiny.
Their motto could be, "PENTAGON APPROVED AS A PEACEFUL PROTEST GROUP"....
If there are crimes being committed, I would think all innocent people would want their names cleared as soon as possible...
Anti-war does not equal "anti-American" or even "terrorist." Demostrating against a war is protected by the first amendment. Do you honestly think the Quakers (see the link) have been infiltrated by terrorists?
I dunno... I would have to infiltrate them to find out.. :D Again, I would think the group would welcome such scrutiny, if only so they can clear their names.
Think how much easier it would be if the Pentagon could just call up these groups and say, "Look.. We have had these bombings. We know of your hatred of anything military. So, we would like to talk to your group to make sure you had nothing to do with it."
How do you think that would fly???
Seriously, do you think that the Pentagon put the Quaker House on the list for jollies???
Pentagon Weenie:"Ya know.. The Quakers wear funny hats and I HATE oatmeal.. So I am going to put them on this TALON list."
Com'on... Don't you think that the Pentagon put that group on the TALON list for a good reason??
We have to trust that the men in power are trained and know what they are doing. Can you imagine the anarchy if EVERY decision in this country in the realm of self-defense or national security had to be second-guessed and discussed in committee before it was implemented...
Ya'all simply don't trust the decisions (and the decision makers) you don't agree with.. And that simply proves the fallacy of the argument. If you trust someone to do the right thing when they make a decision you agree with, then by default, you should trust them to do the right thing when they make a decision you DON'T agree with.. Isn't that logical??
The legal justification was created (out of whole cloth) to justify the NSA's illegal wiretapping. But the underlying legal reasoning (the fourth amendment doesn't apply to US military on US soil) is such a hideous thing that it could indeed be used to justify ANY search or seizure by ANY military ANYWHERE in America.
As you have stated, US Military operating on US Soil would violate Posse Comitatus..
Isn't it possible that the portion of memo you quote was made with the pre-supposition that Posse Comitatus has been suspended, which would indicate a general state of war and invasion already exists??
In other words, if we are in a state of war and a large scale invasion has taken place enough so that Posse Comitatus is suspended, isn't the fact that the 4th Amendment does not apply to internal military operations a logical and rational result of the current circumstances??
As far as disappearing people.. We're not talking "people".. We're talking terrorists...
Who cares what happens to them?
I surely don't..
Does anyone???
As far as American citizens, yes initially, there were some screw-ups. Even if you are a terrorist, (and this really chokes me to say it) if you are an American, the courts have decreed that you are offered full rights.. I don't like it, I don't HAVE to like it, but that is the law. The law is NOW, clear on that...
But terrorists who are not American citizens should not be given American rights. Hell, as far as I am concerned they shouldn't even be given HUMAN rights..
So, yes.. Mistakes were made in the past.. We have learned from them and we should move on.. As I said over on HuffPo, "Bush Bashing is so 2006"....
Michale.....
Ok ... just to be sure, here is that quote again:
"Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations"
And here is the fourth amendment:
"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."
I think the 4th Amendment is straight-foward here, no wiggle room. It doesn't say that pending "domestic military activities" it can be suspended. Probable cause is already built in to the 4th Amendment ... so what Yoo is stating that no probable cause is needed.
Thats unconstitutional and unconscionable.
If you agree with Yoo - then I think it's time we create a state-church. From this day forward, our official church is now United Methodist (W's denomination). In this war - we need to be coalesced under one denomination to show our unity.
If you agree with Yoo - then it's time to bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
If you agree with Yoo - then I think it's time to take everyone's guns away for the purpose of "domestic military operations".
If you agree with Yoo - we should now suspend habeas corpus in all of our court system since we "are at war".
Hmmm, I think CW is breaking the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 by "publishing malicious and/or slanderous" articles about the government and that is weakening the view of our government to our enemies in this war ... Let's bust down his door and "gather up evidence" ... Let's hold him in jail, indefinitely ... while we are at it let's take his home for barracks use. God help him, if he has a shotgun or rifle that he uses for hunting - because we're going to take that away from him, as well.
The bottom line is - what Yoo wrote supports a belief that runs completely opposed to the constitution. I served in the military and this was my oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I'd like to re-post that oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Note the order of importance:
1) support and defend Constitution
2) true faith and allegiance to the Constutution
** And then according to regulations and the UCMJ:
3) obey the orders of the President
4) obey the orders of officers over me
Above all activities by our military - the most important is to support and defend the Constitution. Whether we are at war or at peace. Whether we are overseas or on our land. Everything the military is to do besides that is 3rd and 4th in line of priority.
President's oath:
"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."
Senator's/Representative's oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."
Note the above oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President.
@Thatcher
Good argument.
Except there are two things wrong with it..
1. We don't know the full extent of the memo.. It is unfair to judge the entire scope of the memo without seeing it in it's entirety...
B. The 4th Amendment has already been suspended in time of war and that suspension has been upheld by the SCOTUS every time..
As I have said many MANY times, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact. It must be tempered with common sense.
And common sense dictates that you cannot give an invading force a hiding place or a place that is "off limits" to the military forces that are hunting them..
Why is it that so many on the Left are willing to give all the rights to people that would just as soon cut your throat as look at you??
Why are there so many on the Left seemingly intent on making the Terrorist's job easier and our own forces job harder??
Because that is what it all boils down to.
Michale.....
Michale -
While I'm aware you're trying to make a larger point, I'd like to focus on one part of it that I think you missed, or are not addressing.
If infiltration or surveillance of a group was necessary, then why isn't that the responsibility of the FBI? They have a legal mandate to do so.
The Pentagon does not. For them to do such things inside the United States is so far beyond their mission statement it's over the horizon into the next county.
One of the bedrock strengths of America is that our military is not political in any way. Look at Iran or Pakistan to see a different setup, where the military is an enormous political force. Ours isn't supposed to do that. And yet they seem to be focused on political (anti-war) groups in this country. Doesn't this make you the tiniest bit apprehensive? If the groups need watching, why isn't the FBI doing the job, as they are supposed to do?
And "the military" in the memos is written to include the CIA and the NSA, I believe. These quasi-military groups are not under the control of the Pentagon, but they are considered part of the federal military legally (I think, I may be wrong about this). The still-secret memo was written to provide a legal justification for the warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. But Yoo likes to make sweeping assertations (which are wrong, usually) about executive authority, which is the truly scary part. Because if his legal reasoning is accepted by the courts (it won't be) then it doesn't just give the power to the NSA, it gives it to ALL of the military. Truly scary.
Thatcher -
It should come as no surprise to you that I agree with every word you wrote. Thanks for posting the relevant texts, too! And you're definitely right, if Schenck could go to jail for his harmless pamphlet, then I could too under the same law.
As I said before, "clear and present danger" my ass....
-CW
Michale -
Because barbarism is never an effective way to counter barbarism. It's not that I am willing to "give" all the rights to people that would just as soon cut my throat as look at me. It's that we are a country founded on the ideals that we exist upon today.
And just because there is precedence, doesn't make it right. SCOTUS has, in the past, upholded many wrong laws ... do you really want me to go through the litany? I am sure CW would love to read a 20 page list of laws wrongly upheld until wisdom finally won out.
"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." - Thomas Jefferson
"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson
"A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." -- John Adams
"The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many." -- John Adams
"I would rather die by my ideals, than to live by my compromise." -- Thatcher
@CW
Ok, in that you do raise a good point..
So, if I understand your position correctly, your beef is not that the groups were infiltrated. Your beef is WHO was doing the infiltrating...
OK, I can understand your point better now. I don't agree with it. I don't really care WHO does the infiltration. It doesn't matter to me if the FBI is operating on US Soil or the Pentagon or the Girl Scouts... As long as these groups are monitored (if warranted) I don't care who does it.
However, I can see how it could be a point of concern.
In short. I understand your concern. I just don't share it.
@Thatcher
I see.. So, you say we are a "nation of laws".. Unless, of course, you disagree with the law, then it is the LAW that is wrong.
You cannot have it both ways.. If you want to follow the rule of the law, then you must also follow the rule of the laws that you disagree with.
"Those who ignore the deadly tyrants that would enslave and butcher are nothing but slaves themselves"...
I tend to think that there are some things worth fighting for.
Michale.....
@CW
As I said before, "clear and present danger" my ass….
I am sure the same sentiment was expressed on 10 Sep 2001 as well...
What does it take to convince ya'all that there is a REAL threat from terrorism..
Do you need to see a mushroom cloud over New York or Los Angeles before you understand the magnitude of the threat??
I realize it's much easier to pretend that there is no threat. But when it personally touches your life, it's too late...
I truly hope you never have to experience something like that. But, if ya'all have your way with giving every benefit of every doubt to the very people who would murder you and your family and not bat an eye, then soon many more people in this country will have terrorism affect their lives...
Michale.....
Michale -
I didn't say I wouldn't disobey a wrong law.
However, I believe I did imply that I wouldn't disobey the Constitution of the United States.
Michale -
Fear is no way to run a country. Well, let me rephrase that ... Fear is the wrong way to run a country (and one's life). One must be realistic - but one must not give into one's fears.
The old "If you give in to fear, the terrorists win" argument has already been thoroughly refuted. But I don't mind going thru it again. :D
What you call fear is really nothing more than prudence when faced with reality..
Example:
You are walking down the street and up ahead you see a many with a machete, swinging it wildly and shouting obscenities.. It's Decision Time.
Using your argument, you would blindly push forward, thinking to yourself, "I am not going to let fear rule my actions." As you walk by the man, he sees you and promptly cuts off your head. You are now decapitated, happily secure in the knowledge that you stuck by your principles and didn't let fear rule your life. Such as it is.. The curtain falls to the lovely melody of Weird Al Yankovich singing,
"Why'd I have to go and get myself decapitated?
This really is a major inconvenience, oh man I really hate it.
It's such a drag now.
I can't eat, I can't breathe, I can't snore, I can't belch or
yodel anymore,
Can't spit or blow my nose or even read Sports Illustrated.
Oh no!
Now, let's back it up to "Decision Time"...
Using my argument, the situation is calmly and rationally assessed and it is determined to be a potentially dangerous situation. Once coming to this wholly rational and logical decision, you take steps to insure your own safety and cross the street. Or Option B, you take steps to not only insure your own safety, but also the safety of others and whip out your cell phone and dial 911... A corollary of Option B, Option B1, is to whip out your 9mm and take the SOB down..
Now, let's examine the two decisions.
One decision was ruled by ignorance and/or idealism. Ignorance of the true danger presented and/or an idealistic belief that no one could be so rude as to decapitate a total stranger.
The other decision was ruled by logic and rational thinking. A realistic assessment of the true danger, unfettered by any emotion.
You will note that NEITHER decision had ANY element of "fear" in it whatsoever..
The Left always tries to use the "We can't be ruled by fear" argument, but it is a completely bogus argument because it has no foundation in logic. Using the "We can't be ruled by fear" argument, ANY preventive action becomes nothing more than a fear reflex...
Are all the Drunk Driving laws in the country simply a FEAR response to getting killed by a drunk driver?? Of course not. They are preventive laws designed to save lives. The laws are not borne of fear, they are borne of a calm, logical and rational assessment of the danger drunk drivers present to the safety and security of society as a whole..
So it is with the anti-terror laws and "memos".. They are not a knee-jerk reaction borne of fear. They are laws based on a calm, rational and logical assessment of the danger we face.
In fact, it is the Left who is being ruled by fear and who uses Fear-Mongering to try and influence others.
The Left is ruled by the FEAR of the US becoming a Police State when there is absolutely ZERO logical or rational evidence to support such a fear. It is the Left who uses this fear to try and influence others. The facts are that the US Government has taken actions MUCH WORSE than what has been done by the Bush Administration. Did the US become a Nazi Police State after Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for Americans?? Of course not.. Was our US Constitution torn and shredded and never looked upon again when FDR rounded up and put into camps Americans who's ONLY crime was their ancestry?? Of course not. The US emerged from those dark times a stronger and more secure nation.
Don't let your life be ruled by fear. There will be no Police State here in the US. There will be no mass "midnight door kickings" or any other such fear that the Left puts forth.
Your safe. Don't worry.. Be happy.. :D
Michale.....
Ah, the exaggerated straw man make another appearance...
Man swinging a machete shouting obscenities is more an analogy for W.W.II. Clear danger that needs to be dealt with. Pre pearl Harbor it wasn't the right that was pushing to get in to that fight.
Now terrorism needs a bit of modification to make the analogy more accurate IMHO:
A couple years ago a guy flipped out with a machete and killed someone. He is still at large. The guy at the top of the street looks vaguely like him. But you can't see if he is holding a machete and he is just standing there looking somewhat normal.
Now apply all the "Decision Time"'s you mentioned to this modified version. The left suddenly seems the rational one now and the others definitely ruled by fear.
It's not the actions of Lincoln or FDR people are worried about these days. It's McCarthy. We made it past McCarthyism but it wasn't by sitting around praising the government when they did something wrong and waiting for it to get better on it's own. McCarthyism was fought, mainly in the courts somewhat in the media. McCarthyism did not stop communism then and it won't stop terrorism now.
The truly funny thing about your analogy is it actually happened in the town I grew up in. Which happens to be one of the most liberal in the country. In the main shopping area some transient flipped out with a machete and cut someone's ear off and put a big slice in to a woman's arm. What did those lefty liberals do? Tackled, disarmed then held him until the police arrived and carted him off.
I think analogies like this don't work because in the real world when something like this happens we pretty much all react the same whether we are left right or other...
Thank you BashiBazouk - exactly.
And here again, we are into the context of personal experience that colors how we look at things.
You are, apparently, in a vocation and/or location that doesn't see the results of terrorism up close and personal... Therefore, you have the luxury of viewing terrorism as a vague possibility that something bad might could possibly happen..
Now, let's say that you were a Israeli living in the West Bank or a husband or father of a person killed in the Twin Towers on 9/11 or a person who has worked CT for most of their adult life.. Someone like that doesn't have the luxury of "poo-poo"ing away terrorism as a vague and unlikely threat.
For me and people like me, terrorism isn't the guy looking vaguely like the one that had a machete a week ago. For me and people like me, terrorism IS that screaming and yelling guy with the machete coming at you...
It's not the actions of Lincoln or FDR people are worried about these days.
Really?? You could have fooled me by some of the hysterics that I see and read...
McCarthyism did not stop communism
You're right. Reagan-ism did. :D
mainly in the courts
And yet, we have people in this very forum saying that just because the SCOTUS ruled for an action, doesn't make the action legal.. So now we're back to picking and choosing which laws you want to obey..
My whole simple point is that this country has survived worse actions than have been taken by the Bush Administration. So why don't people just take a deep breath and worry about the REAL threats that face us...
Because liberty and freedom won't mean diddley squat to you if you aren't able to keep your head attached. Literally and figuratively...
Michale.....
Michale -
I lived in Alexandria, VA in 2001. Just a few miles south of the Pentagon. The night of September 10th, I had stayed at a friend's house in DC and I was driving to the campaign office in Mount Vernon that morning, September 11th, down Highway 1 (which goes right by the Pentagon). I arrived to the office prior to the attack. I was the campaign manager of a State House race and an acquaintance of the person I was working had died in the Pentagon attack.
I had friends over in New Jersey shooting photos for another campaign that morning. They didn't see the first attack on the WTC, just reacted once it occurred. They did see the second attack from their vantage point.
So, the 9/11 terrorist attacks have affected me - to me and to friends around me. And I am still not going to sacrifice the liberties and freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
And I forgot to mention, one of my best friends is a retired USMC Colonel who was a Middle East adviser to a US Senator. Another friend is a retired USMC Lt. Colonel who still consults to Quantico on other issues - both of whom side with me on this matter. And my service in the USN, that I mentioned in a previous post, was during the Gulf War in 1991.
Thatcher,
Let me ask you something..
It's the same question I have asked dozens of times to people who believe as you do and, to a one, not ONE of them have been able to answer..
What rights and liberties have you lost?
Other than the "right" to carry hair gel on an airplane, what right can you point to and say that you had it before 9/11 and you don't have it now.
I don't want to hear about "theories" or "what if"s or "it's possible"s...
I want you to list the rights that YOU, personally, have lost.
You can't name a one because the fact is, you haven't lost ANY rights. The same rights and liberties we, as Americans, enjoyed BEFORE 9/11, we enjoy today..
All you have is a bunch of possibilities... A bunch of "What if"s....
Now, I can tell you, back in Lincoln's time, Americans DID lose some of their rights and liberties.. They were jailed simply for speaking out and also lost the right of Haebus Corpus...
Guess what?? This country survived...
Back in 1944, American citizens were rounded up WITHOUT A TRIAL and incarcerated in detention camps for an indeterminate amount of time without the benefit of counsel...
Guess what?? This country didn't become a Nazi Police state. We survived and grew stronger as a nation...
And you have the unmitigated audacity to complain about POSSIBILITIES and MAYBES???
Tell ya what.. When you get a midnight knock at your door and are hustled off to jail in the dead of night because you said, "Bush is a Maroon" I'll join right up with you and say, "Yes, we have a problem. This cannot stand..."
However, until that point, you are doing this country more harm than good by this irrational fear-based stance that a Nazi Police State is just around the corner...
It's actually ironic, in a sad sort of way. The Left ***AND*** Al Qaeda have the same exact opinion of America and the Bush Administration..
I would think that THAT alone would give you pause...
I know, I know.. You're going to say, "If we wait til there are midnight knocks at the door, it will be too late!!"
That's easy to address, but the wife wants me to run to the store. So, I'll get to that in a moment...
Michale......
"I want you to list the rights that YOU, personally, have lost."
Due to terrorism, none. Airplane travel has seriously gone down the tubes since 911 but that's about it. Though I bet my opinion would be different if I were of Arab or Persian decent. On the other hand my family suffered from McCarthyism. My mother has a Slovak last name and is a 3rd generation American. When she was in second grade, men in suits from the government came in to her classroom and pulled aside all the children with Russian sounding last names. Then proceeded to grill them about the what their parents were up to. It affected her the rest of her life and freaked out my grand parents for some time. I would prefer that to never happen to any american citizen without serious and very legal cause. Period.
"It's actually ironic, in a sad sort of way. The Left ***AND*** Al Qaeda have the same exact opinion of America and the Bush Administration.."
Al Qaeda deeply loves America but thinks flag waving right wing nut jobs are going out of their way to screw it up? Wow. I learn something new every day...
What rights and liberties have you lost?
I don't know if my phone has been or is being tapped. (because of the Patriot Act - they were able to tap my phone for no reason for an indefinite amount of time - under FISA, they could only do it for a certain period of time without a warrant).
And the fact the the "Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military applications" shows that a right and liberty has been lost, personally. Just because it hasn't been used again a person, doesn't mean it doesn't affect them - it just doesn't affect them, yet. The door is left open for the future. Again - I am not afraid - just a realist.
For example: If the "right to peaceably assemble" were suspended - I wouldn't be personally affected, yet. But it would be a right taken away from me. So, if some time in the future I felt the need to do so, I could not.
Again - I will state that Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus was wrong.
Again - Rounding up Japanese Americans during WWII and placing them into internment camps was wrong. And that is why the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, "Restitution for World War II internment of Japanese-Americans and Aleuts," was passed with an official apology and $20,000 in restitution to those survivors of those camps - Signed into law by Reagan.
Past wrongs do not make a current wrong "right".
More examples:
Slavery was legal at one time ... it was wrong ... if a law passed to allow it again - would that make it right?
Arresting a person without their Miranda rights being given to them is wrong - would rescinding the Miranda law make that right to do so again?
At one time, it was legal to discriminate in housing purchases, hiring practices, etc - would rescinding that law make it right to do so again?
At one time, it was ok to build a public building without the consideration of Americans with Disabilities, would rescinding the ADA make it right to do so again?
At one time, it was ok to charge a poll-tax for people to vote - if that was made legal again, would that make it right?
It would make all of these things legal - but by doing so they would infringe upon the establishment of Justice in the United States - which would be wrong.
What it all boils down to is this..
If we are in an all out war, having been completely and unequivocally invaded by a foreign power, does ANYONE see ANY logic in imposing 4th Amendment restrictions on our own Military???
Seriously...
Michale.....
Michale -
We haven't been invaded by a foreign power. 19 radical individuals hijacked 4 planes in 2001 and crashed them into 3 buildings. That's not an invasion.
And there are more American citizen radicals in America that have caused damage (and planning to cause damage) than radicals from all other countries combined.
Here's a short list of notable domestic terrorism activity in the past 30 years:
Unabomber Attacks
Oklahoma City Bombing
Centennial Olympic Park Bombing
2001 Anthrax Attacks
And - "... Americans were responsible for about three-quarters of the 335 incidents between 1980 and 2000 that the FBI has classified as suspected or confirmed terrorism." (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9236/)
Better a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail.
We haven't been invaded by a foreign power. 19 radical individuals hijacked 4 planes in 2001 and crashed them into 3 buildings. That's not an invasion.
And the US Army is not kicking down any ol doors they want to in the dead of night..
So, everyone is happy, right??
And there are more American citizen radicals in America that have caused damage (and planning to cause damage) than radicals from all other countries combined.
So, are you making the case that we have been "invaded" from within???
Better a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail.
That's a quaint idealistic notion that simply does not hold true anymore.
Why?? Because that "guilty man" going free might just be on his way to push a button that will put a mushroom cloud of LA...
Pop quiz....
You have 1000 men. You KNOW for a fact that 999 of the men are innocent, but one is a terrorist that will, if set free, detonate a nuclear bomb. You can prevent this from happening by incarcerating ALL of the men for 72 hours.
Do you jail all 1000 men, knowing that 999 of them are completely innocent??
Or do you stick to your "principles" and release them all, thereby guaranteeing a nuclear devastated Los Angeles??
What do you do?? What DO you do??
Michale.....
By the bi, I am still waiting for that list of the rights, liberties and freedoms that you have lost..
Remember, the list is to contain actual rights you have lost. Not "potential" loss, not "woulda shoulda coulda" loss, but actual rights you have lost.
Since, by the prevalent attitude, it's apparent that you have lost TONS of rights, use an extra sheet of paper to list them all.. :D
Michale.....
Sorry, I missed this above:
For example: If the "right to peaceably assemble" were suspended - I wouldn't be personally affected, yet. But it would be a right taken away from me. So, if some time in the future I felt the need to do so, I could not.
Yes you are personally affected because you cannot walk out your door and exercise your right to assembly..
So, I'll ask again.. What rights have you lost???
But, you do bring up an interesting point. The right to peacefully assemble CAN be suspended in times of war or national emergency. The US Constitution ALLOWS for this.
It's like I said before.. Within the framework of the US Constitution is the ability, nay the RESPONSIBILITY to suspend provisions of the US Constitution, in times of National Emergency.
So, by suspending the application of provisions of the US Constitution, the Administration is actually serving the US Constitution..
That's what makes the US Constitution such a wonderful document. It is a living and developing entity that applies as much today as it did 200+ years ago..
I think we can ALL agree that there have been and will be circumstances where provisions of the US Constitution will need to be suspended..
The only point of contention, therefore, is at what point.
Is it not logical to let those who have the most information regarding the situation make that determination??
Michale.....
Michale -
We've provided arguments on both sides. Neither one of us is going to be swayed to by the other.
Let me just state this:
The Bush administration has proven they cannot be trusted with these kinds of decisions, whether those decisions are right or wrong.
False information led us into the war in Iraq (including using photoshop "clipart-style" graphics of biological weapon trailers that never existed).
Glossing over the Aug 2001 report "Bin Laden determined to attack US"
Abu Grahib abuses
etc ...
We should not be sheep - we should always question our government of their motives and solutions.
I fully believe that there is no situation that exists today where the US Constitution or any part of it should be suspended. The tactics being used by the Bush Administration are not unlike those of Communistic Soviet Union in the 20th Century.
To all -
Wow, and I thought I wrote long stuff! I'm sorry I don't have time to answer a lot of this stuff, but as always, I promise to read every comment posted.
A footnote to this story (and most likely, a future story) was reported yesterday in the Washington Post's "White House Watch" blog by Dan Froomkin (there's a link somewhere on the left of this page that takes you right to his most recent column, this would be Wednesday's column). John Conyers is calling a hearing to investigate torture and the legal rationale espoused for it, and specifically has subpoenaed John Yoo. Maybe we'll get some answers, but I ain't holding my breath, after having watched other Bush loyalists testify in the past. Anyway, just wanted to pass this footnote along. Hearing is set for May 6.
-CW
Michale (you got me, I just couldn't resist) -
While the Yoo memo is still secret, even from the footnote it is obvious that the rights that you, I, and everybody have lost are explained right there within my article. If there is a legal reasoning -- meaning the Justice Department has informed the White House that it is legal -- which states that the military is not bound by the Fourth Amendment for domestic operations, then you have lost all the rights guaranteed you within the Fourth Amendment. It doesn't matter whether anyone's door is kicked in or not, because the right (as far as the President and the AG are concerned) has already been taken from you. The only way we'll be assured this right has been returned to us is if someone sues and makes it to the Supreme Court for them to rule on it. Given all the court cases shut down for "national security" reasons, this is almost impossible to do. So how does this not qualify as a right which has been taken from everyone?
-CW
@CW
But there again, we do not know the CONTEXT of that memo, what brought it about and other factors that are necessary to make an INFORMED determination.
Example:
The Story... You can be locked away from the rest of your life!!!
The Context... If you have been found guilty of murder by a jury of your peers...
Do you see how "context" is important??
As I said, the context of the YOO memo could be we are in a full blown war and have been invaded. Surely under those circumstances you are not advocating limiting out military's actions??
Until we know the context of the Yoo memo, then all this is just mental masturbation. Enjoyable, to be sure, but ultimately fruitless...
I will say this, however.. If it is discovered that the Yoo memo is stating that such actions are warranted in the here and now, then I will agree with you unequivocally that the guy is totally nuts...
@Thatcher
The Bush administration has proven they cannot be trusted with these kinds of decisions, whether those decisions are right or wrong.
Proven to who?? You?? Considering your obvious bias against Bush and the Administration, I would wager that your threshold of "proof" is pretty low..
There is no doubt that mistakes were made..
You don't trust the Administration. The Democrats have already proven they are incapable of doing the right thing..
So, tell me.. Who would you have running this country??
Michale.....
Bill Richardson
Hmmmmmm
Not a bad selection..
He appears to be an honorable guy.
Although his idea of a complete and utter withdrawal from Iraq is not a good idea.
I don't think that ANYONE who has even the slightest inkling of what is really going on would support a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Michale.....
But getting back to the subject of this commentary, I don't really see a problem. What I see is one man's opinion on things.
I would no more get upset about Yoo claiming that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to US Armed Forces operating domestically (That's a big giveaway, by the bi, that indicates to me Yoo is talking about a domestic war situation) than I got upset when Obama claimed he would invade Pakistan over the protest of the Pakistani government.
Both appear to me, to be "what if" situations that may or may not come to pass..
Hell, if we ARE in a domestic war situation, I would HOPE that our armed forces would not be hog-tied.. Just as I hope that, if President Obama sees the need, that he WOULD invade Pakistan...
Michale.....