EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Memo On Illegal Searches Comes To Light
Disavowed Justice Dept. Memo Justified Warrantless Domestic Surveillance Long After 9/11
For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil did not apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.
That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.
The October 2001 memo was written at the request of the White House by John Yoo, then the deputy assistant attorney general, and addressed to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time. The administration had asked the department for an opinion on the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.
The 37-page memo has not been released. Its existence was disclosed Tuesday in a footnote of a separate secret memo, dated March 14, 2003, released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.
"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."
Exactly what domestic military action was covered by the October memo is unclear. But federal documents indicate that the memo relates to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP.
That program intercepted phone calls and e-mails on U.S. soil, bypassing the normal legal requirement that such eavesdropping be authorized by a secret federal court. The program began after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and continued until Jan. 17, 2007, when the White House resumed seeking surveillance warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Wednesday that the Fourth Amendment finding in the October memo was not the legal underpinning for the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
"TSP relied on a separate set of legal memoranda," Fratto told The Associated Press. The Justice Department outlined that legal framework in a January 2006 white paper issued by the Justice Department a month after the TSP was revealed by The New York Times.
The October memo was written just days before Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, briefed four House and Senate leaders on the NSA's secret wiretapping program for the first time.
The government itself related the October memo to the TSP program when it included it on a list of documents that were responsive to the ACLU's request for records from the program. It refused to hand them over.
Late Wednesday, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the October 2001 memo was not about the eavesdropping program but he did not explain why it was included on requests for documents linked to the TSP.
He said the memo "simply addressed generally the legal rules that would apply to the possible use of the military, if that had become necessary, to combat al Qaeda in the United States in the event of further large-scale terrorist activities as a follow-on to 9/11."
Earlier, Roehrkasse said the statement in the footnote does not reflect the current view of the department's Office of Legal Counsel.
"We disagree with the proposition that the Fourth Amendment has no application to domestic military operations," he said. "Whether a particular search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires consideration of the particular context and circumstances of the search."
Roehrkasse would not say exactly when that legal opinion was overturned internally. But he pointed to the January 2006 white paper.
"The white paper does not suggest in any way that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military activities, and that is not the position of the Office of Legal Counsel," he said.
Suzanne Spaulding, a national security law expert and former assistant general counsel at the CIA, said she found the Fourth Amendment reference in the footnote troubling, but added: "To know (the Justice Department) no longer thinks this is a legitimate statement is reassuring."
"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.
The ACLU is challenging in court the government's withholding of the October 2001 memo. CBS News Justice Department producer Stephanie Lambidakis reported the department had repeatedly rebuffed demands for the release of the memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects. However, the ACLU prevailed in its FOIA litigation in getting the memo.
© 2008 CBS News
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



9 Comments so far
Show AllACLU keep up the good fight! Check in the mail!!!!
Suspend the 4th Amendment, the 8th Amendment, Geneva Convention Common Article 3 (even for a US citizen: John Walker Lyndh). I won't be surprised when in late October, early November 2008 martial law is declared and the whole damn US Constitution is suspended, and neither should anyone else.
Where are the missing Emails
let's ask the MSM; Missing Sidelined Media
Constitution, Constitution...??? We don't need no stinking Constitution...!!!!
Orwell, anyone....???
KCT
After the Constitution is burned this Summer what do you think about crowning him King George I?
It all fits together quite nicely...
In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a bill that grants the President the right to commandeer federal or state National Guard Troops and use them inside the United States. This bill, entitled the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122.ENR), contains a provision (Section 1076) that allows the President to
"...employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States..., where the President determines that,...domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy..."
Senator Patrick Leahy and others have condemned Section 1076 because it effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. 331-335) and gives the President the legal ability to define under what conditions martial law may be declared.
bye bye USA, hello "Fatherland"
You have to remember that the US is run by men who look at the masses as the enemy, with good reason. IF the people REALLY knew what these criminals were up to and what their plans are, they'd be swinging from the nearest tree... Therefore, we're fed bullshit while they plot the latest scheme to rape the public and keep us under control.
Are there cases in which the law doesn't apply to US citizens either? If times of war, real or concocted, are an escape clause for the Kings -- then what escape clause exists for Joe Sixpacks? I mean, if we don't feel that the law is useful in providing for our families, our homes, pocketbooks, etc. can we likewise evade it when it better suits our interests?
They were somewhat bothered by the sidestepping of Am. 4, but not by the phrase "domestic military operations"? They don't even ask for a clarification of that concept. That and the confusion of the domains of the Defense and Justic Departments gives more credence to canuckchuck's comments.
Also, Suzanne Spaulding: "To know (the Justice Department) no longer thinks this is a legitimate statement is reassuring." With reference to the claim "we do not torture" I would find it difficult to believe the Justice Department in this case. They treat both the 4th and 8th the same.
The only hope is if future administrations can right these wrongs but I haven't read anything about that from the campaign coverage. And nobody is talking about what they think of the so called expanded Executive powers. These lies and cover-ups could be exposed by the next administration ... but probably not.