Just as a lot of us suspected….after 9/11 the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ignored in order to fight the “war on terror” domestically.Now we see why most everything this administration did eventually was classified as “top secret”, “national security” or “executive priviledge“, it would hide the fact that a lot of it was unConstitutional. Saying it doesn’t apply to the military! Well excuse me,but the Bill of Rights was written specically to the Federal government, which includes the military since it’s federal. The bad thing is that Obama will continue most of it himself and most likely worse. Obama is talking a good talk, but bet he doesn’t walk the talk. No matter what the problem is, the Constitution still applies to the federal government.

Even tho I’m not that fond of Keith Olbermann…his assessment is right on this time.


AG Office of Legal Counsel AUTHORIZED PENTAGON TO IGNORE BILL OF RIGHTS ON U.S. SOIL

In an October 2001 memo released today, then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel John Yoo advised the Pentagon’s top lawyer that the president may not only deploy the military within the United States, but it may ignore the Bill of Rights in the process of doing so. Yoo and special counsel Robert Delahunty wrote to Defense Department general counsel William Haynes that the president has “ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,” and that the use of military force “need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations.”

Although the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil, Yoo concluded that “[a]lthough the situation is novel … we think that the better view is that the Fourth Amendment would not apply in these circumstances. Thus, for example, we do not think that a military commander carrying out a raid on a terrorist cell would be required to demonstrate probably cause or to obtain a warrant.”

This memo appears to have formed the legal basis for the Bush administration’s domestic warrantless wiretapping program, which at least one federal judge has since concluded was unconstitutional.

Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, reads it as extending beyond the Fourth Amendment, however.

“This takes the position that the Bill of Rights does not constrain the military in its operations inside the United States,” Jaffer told me this afternoon. The president can disregard the constitution during wartime, not just on foreign battlefields, but inside the United States. We had not seen a memo saying that before.”

Of the nine memos released today, at least two — this October one written by Yoo, and another written by Bybee regarding extraordinary rendition — were responsive to earlier ACLU requests for OLC memos in the context of ongoing FOIA cases.

But many more memos the ACLU has requested still have not been released.

“There are still dozens of memos being withheld,” said Jaffer. “We’re hoping that this is a first installment.”

While the memos reveal the legal groundwork that was laid for the Bush administration’s conduct in its “war on terror”, much of which appears to have been illegal (and unConstitutional), they still don’t answer the critical question that many Bush critics want to know.

“The obvious question that’s raised by these memos is, what conduct did the administration authorize on the basis of the legal reasoning in these memos?” Jaffer said.  “That’s a question that has not been adequately answered.”

Washington Independent.com

Advertisements