Pff, who needs the 4th Amendment anyhow?

[Minrott]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/administration-asserts-no-fourth-amendment-domestic-military-operations

... our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct 23, 2001).

[Arlos]

Haven't I been arguing about this presidency seeking imperial powers for YEARS now? This sickens me, but does not surprise me.

-Arlos

[ClakarEQ]

I would never have guessed that the GOV has re-understood the REAL meaning of the 4th. I mean how long as the 4th been around, isn't it like the 4th, you know, down from 1 2 and 3? Gosh could it be that they can spin anything they want into whatever they want? /sarcasm off

Leu, Harri, care to comment? I'm curious to hear your SPIN , I know harri is going to say something about hippies because he always does, but I'd like to know what hippies made this "re-understanding". Leu I expect some great quotes, an insult or two, and then a bunch of his opinions how the 4th isn't the 2nd and there is no problem changing the 4th but it is impossible to "re-understand" the 2nd.

This really kind of proves my point regarding "Another right may bite the dust" thread now doesn't it?

The 4th:"no warrant 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."
Someone tell me how the GOV can circumvent this right and do it legally?
Then someone try to explain how they can NOT do it to the 2nd?

I'll try not to get on a soapbox about this one, but this is seriously fucked up.

[Harrison]

Just because I fucking despise hippies doesn't mean I support the actions of the opposite end of the spectrum.

These assholes just want power. End of story. This is what politicians want.

If you can't understand this, and I know you can't because your drug-addled brain is a worthless gap of meat, you're fucking retarded.

[ClakarEQ]

Just because I fucking despise hippies doesn't mean I support the actions of the opposite end of the spectrum.

These assholes just want power. End of story. This is what politicians want.

If you can't understand this, and I know you can't because your drug-addled brain is a worthless gap of meat, you're fucking retarded.

I don't get it, wat?

[Minrott]

Haven't I been arguing about this presidency seeking imperial powers for YEARS now? This sickens me, but does not surprise me.

-Arlos

So Barack Obama will give up any powers this administration has taken liberty to? I find that doubtful.

[Arlos]

Honestly, I think he will. I seriously doubt he'll allow the torture methods Bush has, and I expect he will not try and end-run around congress for warantless wiretapping.

Remember, the Democrats are pretty pissed about a lot of Bush's shenanigans and end-runs around congressional will and laws, so you get a reformist president in power, combined with a pissed-off congress, and I think you'll see congress re-establishing itself as a co-equal power, and limiting the president's unilateral abilities.

I certainly could be wrong, but I honestly don't think Obama has any intention of doing shit like this, ignoring the 4th amendment, or stuff like calling the Geneva Conventions "quaint".

Now, if you asked me if I thought Hillary would give them up, I think I might give you an entirely different answer.

-Arlos

[Eziekial]

It never ceases to amaze me how people know the heart and soul of someone they've only seen on TV maybe a couple dozen times. I try to base my assertions on previous actions and history and therefore must agree with Min that whomever gets elected from the 3 main front runners will do little or nothing to give back the authority this administration has taken.

[ClakarEQ]

It never ceases to amaze me how people know the heart and soul of someone they've only seen on TV maybe a couple dozen times. I try to base my assertions on previous actions and history and therefore must agree with Min that whomever gets elected from the 3 main front runners will do little or nothing to give back the authority this administration has taken.

I agree with you and Min as well and that is the worst part about it. The erosion is already on a downward spiral and the only fix is the people to stand up, yet by the time they realize what is going on, we're already fucked.

[Tikker]

I think it's pretty rare throughout history to have anyone obtain power, then give it back

if you look at communism, the big fault with that system is that the elected officials kept all the power, rather than give it back to the people

ended up with an elected dictatorship

[Naethyn]

It was the administration before Hitler that enabled the power he abused.

Granting elected officials power under the trust they will not abuse it does not ensure that the elected officials of tomorrow will also serve that same trust.

[Gaazy]

Yeah, I hate to break this to you guys, but Obama is a politician. Crooked with the rest of em (just not as much as some heh).


Theyre like women, cant trust them any further than ya can throw em, and that aint too far.

[Harrison]

Amen.

[Lueyen]

Leu, Harri, care to comment? I'm curious to hear your SPIN , I know harri is going to say something about hippies because he always does, but I'd like to know what hippies made this "re-understanding". Leu I expect some great quotes, an insult or two, and then a bunch of his opinions how the 4th isn't the 2nd and there is no problem changing the 4th but it is impossible to "re-understand" the 2nd.

This really kind of proves my point regarding "Another right may bite the dust" thread now doesn't it?

The 4th:"no warrant 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."
Someone tell me how the GOV can circumvent this right and do it legally?
Then someone try to explain how they can NOT do it to the 2nd?

I'll try not to get on a soapbox about this one, but this is seriously fucked up.

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.

(There is your quote).

No where does it say in all cases a warrant must be obtained, although in the vast majority of instances a search or seizures validation as reasonable necessitates a warrant. One area that does not require a warrant is in the case of exigent circumstance. It is this concept that is being applied to warrant less wiretapping. The basics of it are that probable cause exists due to reasonable suspicion that the foreign party is linked to a terrorist group, and that exigent circumstance exists because the evidence (the conversation) will no longer exist at a later time, and that such evidence represents a key factor in dealing with an imminent threat. If an American citizen is in contact with a terrorist operative, and there is cause to believe that something in the conversation will be useful in preventing a terrorist attack or reveal information concerning the plans of an enemy on or off our soil then then I would submit to you that it is not an unreasonable search. I would however add that any information gained from surveillance of this nature, can not be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution because by doing so would indicate surveillance for a purpose that does not fall under exigent circumstance.

It is for this reason that I believe the 72 hour "grace" period for obtaining a warrant from the FISA court is a double edged sword. Absent exigent circumstance, a warrant should be obtained before hand, and not after. If exigent circumstance is present then it should not necessitate a warrant being obtained at a later time. That being said I would prefer to see this in place in lieu of no over sight.

The big reason behind the later part that you quoted was the British practice of writs of assistance, which were basically broad based general warrants, and it is completely obvious that the 4th prevents this. When it comes to things like Eschelon being used on the American Public directly or even indirectly via the use of foreign agents reviewing material and turning over pertinent information to American agents (which is essentially a silly end run) this is clearly expressly forbidden, and there is no justification or subjectivity that would make such actions even remotely constitutional.

One last thing I wanted to add was that in reference to the original article the whole discussion has it's start in speculation concerning what the statement applied to, it would be very interesting indeed to read should the source memo be declassified.

Oh, I almost forgot your insult ClakarEQ: I didn't really have one as your post didn't contain anything particularly ignorant or stupid this time, it was refreshing. (how about a back handed compliment, will that work?)

Arlos, your reference to Gonzales's use of the word "quaint" as pertaining to the whole of the Geneva Conventions is miss leading. I don't believe this is intentional on your part, as often times when it has been quoted certain parts are left out. The actual statement he made applies "quaint" to only certain aspects of the Conventions. Here is the full quote:

In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments.

The part I highlighted I think is more cause for concern and frankly much more of an issue then the reference to "quaint"... I'm not quite sure why critics of the administration ignore this part in favor of being misleading regarding the scope for which the word quaint was used, frankly I look on that with the same view as I do Obama critics harping on the "race" issue of his pastors sermons and ignoring the "god damn Amercia" part. Actually I take that back, I do see why in both cases attention is focused on a lessor issue, it's because more political mileage can be gained... and sadly the more important things that really matter get pushed to the way side.