We Are In A State Of Emergency!

Did anyone know that? I don't recalled being informed.

Bush Administration Memo Says Fourth Amendment Does Not Apply To Military Operations Within U.S.

ACLU Calls For Immediate Release Of Withheld Legal Memo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 2, 2008

CONTACT: James Freedland, (212) 519-7829 or (646) 785-1894; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK - A newly disclosed secret memo authored by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in March 2003 that asserts President Bush has unlimited power to order brutal interrogations of detainees also reveals a radical interpretation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The memo, declassified yesterday as the result of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, cites a still-secret DOJ memo from 2001 that found that the "Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."

The October 2001 memo was almost certainly meant to provide a legal basis for the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, which President Bush launched the same month the memo was issued. As a component of the Department of Defense, the NSA is a military agency.

"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."

The Bush administration has never argued publicly that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to military operations within the nation's borders. The memo released yesterday publicizes this argument for the first time.

The ACLU has been aware of the Justice Department's October 2001 memo since last year, but until now, its contents were unknown. The Justice Department informed the ACLU of the memo's existence as a result of a FOIA lawsuit seeking information concerning the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The Justice Department acknowledged the existence of "a 37-page memorandum, dated October 23, 2001, from a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC, and a Special Counsel, OLC, to the Counsel to the President, prepared in response to a request from the White House for OLC's views concerning the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity." Until now, however, almost nothing was known about the memo's contents - except that it was related to a request for information about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The ACLU has challenged the withholding of the October 2001 memo and the issue is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The memo released to the ACLU yesterday cites the October 2001 memo but takes its argument even further. Relying on the earlier memo, the March 2003 memo argues that the president has authority as Commander-in-Chief to bypass not only the Fourth Amendment but the central due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment as well.

"This memo makes a mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "That it was issued by the Justice Department, whose job it is to uphold the law, makes it even more unconscionable."

The March 2003 memo was declassified in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and other organizations in June 2004 to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. The ACLU has been fighting for the release of the March 2003 Yoo memo since filing the lawsuit. A few weeks ago, after the court ordered additional briefing on whether the Defense Department could continue to withhold the memo, the government reluctantly agreed to conduct a declassification review by March 31. The Defense Department released this memo after conducting the review.

The 2003 Department of Justice memo can be found online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34745res20030314.html

Documents relating to the ACLU's NSA FOIA lawsuit are available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/30022res20060207.html

To date, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit related the abuse of prisoner in U.S. custody abroad. These documents are available online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia"

If I am reading this correctly, it seems to me that this administration has justified its crimes by NOT suspending the state of emergency that went up on September 11, 2001. They are using emergency powers if you look at the whole of the spying, military actions inside the US, etc. I would wager that if asked, this administration will admit that we have been in a state of emergency for their tenure in office. Congress? Was the state of emergency lifted, yes or no?

Oh, just one more question: what are "military operations inside the U.S" actually and how often have these "operations" been carried out? Anyone? Bueller? Congress? Impeachment Table? Anyone?

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

BuCheney may Not Be Out of The Woods Yet?

The Investigations of the Destruction of CIA Torture Tapes

How An ACLU Lawsuit Might Force the Bush Administration To Reveal What Actually Happened

by John W. Dean

By my count, there appear to be no less than ten preliminary investigations underway, following the revelation that the CIA destroyed at least two sets of videotapes (containing hundreds of hours of footage) of “advanced interrogation” techniques being employed in terrorism investigations. In fact, every branch of government is now involved.

Within the Executive Branch, according to news reports, the CIA’s General Counsel and Inspector General are investigating. The Department of Justice is investigating. On Capitol Hill, both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are investigating. In addition, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is inquiring as to whether the Federal Records Act has been violated. And Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, has made preliminary inquiries as well.

The Bush Administration has shown that it is not very good at investigating itself, so no one should hold their breath for the outcome of either the CIA or Justice Department investigation. And Attorney General Mukasey has dismissed an independent special counsel inquiry as very premature. The Democratic-controlled Congress could get to the bottom of all this, but one should bear in mind that our elected representatives have yet to get to the bottom of the political firing of U.S. Attorneys (although, to be fair, they did get former Attorney General Gonzales to resign). Today, Congress suffers from a degenerative spinal malady, and while they can bark, they appear unable to bite.

There are three court orders that may have been violated, but one in particular strikes me as a very serious problem for the CIA. Accordingly, we may well be in the unique situation in which a pending civil lawsuit might flush out some answers, and the federal judiciary might thus embarrass the other branches into actually taking meaningful action. I say “might” because the Bush Administration thinks nothing of stiffing federal court judges who seek information, and they probably figure they can tap-dance for the federal judiciary - along with all the other inquiries — until they are out of Washington on January 20, 2009.

Nevertheless, the situation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests by the American Civil Liberties Union, could well force the Bush Administration’s hand. An order holding the CIA in contempt of court might get the Administration’s attention.

The ACLU’s Lawsuit, and the Order that the CIA Produce Documents

When word of mistreatment of detainees surfaced, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request targeting the CIA and others on October 7, 2003 and May 25, 2004, seeking records concerning the treatment of all detainees apprehended after September 11, 2001 and held in U.S. custody abroad. This, of course, would mean not only in Guantanamo but in the secret prisons in Eastern Europe operated by the CIA.

Not surprisingly, the government stiffed the request, so the ACLU filed a lawsuit in June 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case ended up in the courtroom of Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. On September 15, 2004, Judge Hellerstein ordered the CIA and other government departments to “produce or identify” all responsive documents by October 15, 2004.

The CIA claimed that some of the relevant documents were the subject of an inquiry by the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General, so its attorneys requested a stay of the judge’s order and an extension of time to comply with the request for other documents. In February 2005, Judge Hellerstein denied the CIA’s request for a stay, but he did not enforce the stay immediately when the CIA moved for the judge to reconsider his ruling based on additional evidence from the CIA’s Director - as the CIA entered a full-court press to prevent the ACLU from getting anything.

This stalling action had been playing out, when news of the destruction of the tapes became public. Now, in the action before Judge Hellerstein, he ACLU has moved to hold the CIA in contempt of court, based on the Judge’s September 15, 2004 ruling. It is difficult to see why the CIA is, in fact, not in contempt, given the nature of the FOIA request and the judge’s order.

Motion to Hold the CIA In Contempt

On December 6, The New York Times reported that the CIA had destroyed two videotapes of CIA detainees who were being subjected to “aggressive interrogation techniques” - more commonly called torture. The Washington Post soon reported that the destruction of the tapes had occurred in November 2005. CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly acknowledged that destruction, and soon confirmed this statement under oath in testimony to the House and Senate, saying that the destruction had occurred before he became Director.

Passing over who did what and why to focus on the situation in Judge Hellerstein’s courtroom, on December 12, of this year the ACLU filed a motion to hold the CIA in contempt of court. The ACLU makes a powerful case that the CIA violated Judge Hellerstein’s order of September 15, 2005 - issued before the CIA’s apparent destruction of the tapes.

The Court’s Order required the CIA to “produce or identify all responsive documents.” Those not produced had to be identified. Classified documents were to be “identified in camera [that is, only to the court] on a log produced to the court.” Recall, too, that the FOIA request sought information on the handling of all but a few detainees, who were within the United States.

It is well- and long-established law that a court order of this nature requires that the party preserve all information possessed that is responsive to the request. Thus, the CIA was obligated to preserve the tapes even if they were hell-bent on fighting in court to deny them to the ACLU. And as this litigation proceeded, Judge Hellerstein’s later orders only served to reinforce that obligation, as a string of precedents makes clear.

What Is Next?

In addition to holding the CIA in contempt for destroying tapes that were subject to an FOIA request that surely reached these videos, the ACLU has also requested that the CIA provide some public disclosure of the facts surrounding the destruction of this material. In addition, the ACLU has requested permission to take depositions of those involved, under oath, and has requested that the court issue a further order barring the CIA from destroying, removing, or tampering with other records that are the subject of the ACLU’s FOIA request. Finally, the ACLU is seeking costs for its expenses and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

How this is resolved depends on one factor: Judge Hellerstein. Doubtless, the CIA will respond with papers proclaiming its innocence, and no doubt denying that it was aware of the destruction. However, this is where the Judge himself - if he does not give the ACLU discovery powers - may demand that the CIA tell him what they have been up to, given his clear prior orders.

As I have written before, judges appointed by Republican presidents tend to throw cases that might embarrass Republican presidents out of their court, as quickly as they can figure out how to do so. Federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, fortunately, do not tend to cower when either Republican or Democratic presidents are involved. A judge ends up with a case like this through a random selection procedure; in this case, the CIA happened to draw a Judge it cannot intimidate, which makes it interesting.

More on Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, Who Issued the Videotapes Order

Judge Hellerstein was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1998. An editor of the Columbia Law Review during his law school years, he started his legal career in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps of the Army in 1959-1960. An experienced litigator with a prestigious New York City law firm, he is a highly-respected judge. He works hard, is fair, and is savvy.

He is also a nightmare for the CIA in a case like this, because on June 3, 2005 he ordered the release of four videos from Abu Ghraib, along with dozens of photographs - not withstanding an effort of the government to suppress this material from ever becoming public.

Judge Hellerstein appears to have no tolerance for torture. Unlike his former colleague and now-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who still is not clear that waterboarding is torture, one does not have the sense that Judge Hellerstein suffers from such confusion. While Judge Hellerstein is going to appropriately protect the sources and methods of the CIA, if any judge is going to get to the bottom of this destruction of these records quickly, this is the judge.

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

© 2007 FindLaw.com

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

American Citizens' Bank Records Sought and Obtained By Bush

Go to Original

ACLU: DoD Sought Citizens' Bank Records
The Associated Press

Monday 15 October 2007

New York - The American Civil Liberties Union said Sunday that newly uncovered documents show that the Pentagon secretly sent hundreds of letters seeking the financial records of private citizens without court approval.

The ACLU said an analysis of 455 so-called national security letters issued after Sept. 11, 2001 shows that the Pentagon collaborated with the FBI to circumvent the law and may have overstepped its legal authority to obtain financial and credit records. The ACLU has been reviewing the letters and the accompanying documentation over the past few days.

"Once again, the Bush administration's unchecked authority has led to abuse and civil liberties violations," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero in a statement. "The documents make clear that the Department of Defense may have secretly and illegally conducted surveillance beyond the powers it was granted by Congress."

No spokesman for the Pentagon was available for comment Sunday.

The New York Times first disclosed the military's use of the letters in January, and members of Congress and civil liberties groups said the practice conflicted with traditional Pentagon rules against domestic law-enforcement operations.

Vice President Dick Cheney defended the practice as a "perfectly legitimate activity" used to investigate possible acts of terrorism and espionage.

The documents relating to the letters were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The Times reported Sunday that the documents show that the Pentagon's own review of the program found systemic problems and poor coordination.

According to the Times, the documents suggest that military officials used the FBI to collect records for what started as purely military investigations.

The Times said military officials defended the letters, which they said had been used to gather information about military personnel and contractors.

Maj. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, told the Times that investigators could use the letters, for example, to examine the assets of a military contractor who seemed to have sudden and unexplained wealth.

But the Times said internal memos issued by Defense Department agencies seemed in some cases to encourage the gathering of records on nonmilitary personnel.

Recipients of national security letters, including Internet service providers, financial institutions and credit reporting agencies, are generally forbidden to disclose that they have received the letters.

The ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act requests with both the Defense Department and the CIA in April seeking all documents related to their use of the letters to gain access to personal records of people in the United States. And in June, the ACLU filed a lawsuit to force those agencies to turn over the documents.

"The expanded role of the military in domestic intelligence gathering is troubling," Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, told The Associated Press on Sunday. "These documents reveal that the military is gaining access to records here in the U.S. in secret and without any meaningful oversight. There are real concerns about the use of this intrusive surveillance power."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Surveillance Society Clock - A Must See

Those who say that people who have not committed a crime have nothing to fear from this turn of events are, basically, too dumb to live.

The Surveillance Society brings government and big business together in a way that can only result in the corporate state, especially after years of the corrupt relationship between the Military-Industrial complex and government.


ACLU Sets New "Surveillance Society Clock" At Six Minutes Before Midnight (9/17/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today announced the launch of a new "Surveillance Society Clock" to symbolize the reality that we are fast approaching a genuine surveillance society in the United States. The clock is set at six minutes before the "midnight" of a dark end to privacy. Also being released is a new report summarizing the state of privacy today and the video of a new piece about surveillance by spoken-word artists Steve Connell & Sekou (that misfit).

"We are rapidly moving toward a future where our every move, our every transaction, our every communication is tracked and may be used against us," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. "Too often that big picture is lost amid the stream of daily privacy stories. The Surveillance Clock is part of our efforts to keep people focused on that big picture and dramatize what’s happening to America."

In conjunction with the clock, the ACLU released "Even Bigger, Even Weaker: The Emerging Surveillance Society." A follow-up to the ACLU’s widely cited 2003 report "Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains," the new paper provides an update on how diverse developments in technology, law and government are working together to bring us toward a surveillance society.

The ACLU also released a video of "Monster Among Us," a spoken-word performance piece dramatizing the growing surveillance society, which Connell & Sekou wrote for the ACLU.

"The trend toward greater tracking and surveillance of individuals has intensified rapidly in recent years," said Steinhardt. "National identity systems, mass surveillance and data mining, the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program, DNA data-banking, search engines that store our every query, even satellites – it’s worse than ever."

The ACLU also made available Web buttons that individuals can put on their own Web sites to spread the word about out-of-control surveillance.

The ACLU said it would push the clock forward or back in response to developments that worsen or improve the movement toward mass surveillance. The Surveillance Society Clock was inspired by the "Doomsday Clock" created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to warn about the potential for nuclear war.

"The United States is at a crucial crossroads," said Steinhardt. "As Americans, we must rise to the challenge, confront the implications of new technologies before it’s too late, and protect the privacy that Americans have always valued."

The Surveillance Society Clock, Report and Video are available online at:
www.aclu.org/clock

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Four Alarmer For The White House

In Unprecedented Order, FISA Court Requires Bush Administration to Respond to ACLU's Request That Secret Court Orders Be Released to the Public (8/17/2007)

Government Must Respond by August 31

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

TAKE ACTION > Tell the Democratic Leadership, Congress Must Not Fail Freedom CHALLENGING ILLEGAL NSA SPYING > News: In Unprecedented Order, FISA Court Requires Bush Administration to Respond to ACLU's Request That Secret Court Orders Be Released to the Public > Legal Documents: FISA Court Order > Fact Sheet: The "Police America Act" and FISA > News: Congress Legalizes Warrantless Wiretapping for Americans > Check How Leaders Voted: Senate | House Learn More >> HOLDING PHONE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE > Map: The Fight Against Unchecked Surveillance, State by State Learn More >>

WASHINGTON - In an unprecedented order, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has required the U.S. government to respond to a request it received last week by the American Civil Liberties Union for orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans. According to the FISC's order, the ACLU's request "warrants further briefing," and the government must respond to it by August 31. The court has said that any reply by the ACLU must be filed by September 14.

"Disclosure of these court orders and legal papers is essential to the ongoing debate about government surveillance," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "We desperately need greater transparency and public scrutiny.We're extremely encouraged by today's development because it means that, at long last, the government will be required to defend its contention that the orders should not be released."

The ACLU filed the request with the FISC following Congress' recent passage of the so-called "Protect America Act," a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails. In their aggressive push to justify passing this ill-advised legislation, the administration and members of Congress made repeated and veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year. The legislation is set to expire in six months unless it is renewed.

"These court orders relate to the circumstances in which the government should be permitted to use its profoundly intrusive surveillance powers to intercept the communications of U.S. citizens and residents," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The debate about this issue should not take place in a vacuum.It's imperative that the public have access to basic information about what the administration has proposed and what the intelligence court has authorized."

FISC orders have played a critical role in the evolution of the government's surveillance activities over the past six years. After September 11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to inaugurate a program of warrantless wiretapping inside the United States. In January 2007, however, just days before an appeals court was to hear the government's appeal from a judicial ruling that had found the NSA program to be illegal in a case brought by the ACLU, Attorney General Gonzales announced that the NSA program would be discontinued. Gonzales explained that the change was made possible by FISC orders issued on January 10, 2007, which he characterized as "complex" and "innovative." Those orders are among the documents requested by the ACLU.

Since January 2007, government officials have spoken publicly about the January 10 orders in congressional testimony, to the media and in legal papers - the orders remaining secret all the while. They have also indicated that the FISC issued other orders in the spring that restricted the administration's surveillance activities. House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the FISC had issued a ruling prohibiting intelligence agents from intercepting foreign-to-foreign calls passing through the United States. To a large extent, it was the perception that the FISC had issued an order limiting the administration's surveillance authority that led Congress to pass the new legislation expanding the government's surveillance powers. Yet the order itself, like the January 2007 order, has remained secret.

The ACLU's request to the FISC acknowledges that the FISC's docket includes a significant amount of material that is properly classified. The ACLU argues, however, that the release of court orders and opinions would not raise any security concern to the extent that these records address purely legal issues about the scope of the government's wiretap authority, and points out that the FISC has released such orders and opinions before. The ACLU is seeking release of all information in those judicial orders and legal papers the court determines, after independent review, to be unclassified or improperly classified.

A copy of the FISA court order, the ACLU's motion to the FISC, as well as information about the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA and other related materials are available online at: www.aclu.org/spying

In addition to Jaffer, lawyers on the case are Steven R. Shapiro, Melissa Goodman, and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU and Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Grave Danger For Americans...

...and others, no doubt.

This mess is only going to get worse, by leaps and bounds, in the nest 18 months

ACLU: US Constitution in Grave Danger
United Press International

Wednesday 25 July 2007

Washington - The American Civil Liberties Union Wednesday said it is "do or die time" to save the U.S. Constitution.

The ACLU in a statement urged the U.S. Congress to "vote to hold White House officials in contempt for refusing to cooperate with legitimate congressional subpoenas."

The ACLU statement said the issue had become "a constitutional crisis that threatens to destroy the separation of powers."

"Presidents have tried in the past to overreach in claiming executive privilege," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "However, Congress has long served as a check to such abuses of power, slapping the president's hand when needed and pursuing contempt or enforcement actions that eventually resulted in the release of crucial information. Today's Congress must do the same if it wishes to remain a meaningful and independent branch of government."

The ACLU said it "rejected claims that Congress' responsibility to conduct oversight or investigate executive misconduct was somehow less important than its legislative function and therefore not worthy of compulsory enforcement."

"It's do-or-die time for the separation of powers," Fredrickson said. "Congress is facing a historic moment when it can fight for its rightful place in our Constitution or accept the president's continued and sweeping claims of supremacy."

The ACLU noted that U.S. courts "have long supported Congress' authority not only to pass laws, but also to investigate their application. The courts have asserted that claims of executive privilege are a potentially dangerous proposition that should only be applied, and can only be upheld, under narrow circumstances."

The confrontation between the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress and the Bush administration on warrant-less surveillance has been escalating in recent weeks, with both sides hardening their positions.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.