Civil Liberties

When They Knock Kick at Your Front Door

|

Phillip Carter, now blogging over at the Washington Post, discovers an especially rancid paragraph from the John Yoo torture memo released last week claiming that whatever 4th Amendment protections we have left no longer apply when it's the U.S. military doing the searching and seizing:

Indeed, drawing in part on the reasoning of Verdugo-Urquidez, as well as the Supreme Court's treatment of the destruction of property for military necessity, 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). [italics in original]

Carter tries to figure out what it all means:

It could refer to the National Security Agency's now-well-publicized surveillance program—a program grounded in many of the same constitutional theories of presidential power that underlie the torture memoranda. It could also refer to deployment of federal military forces within the United States and action they could take against U.S. citizens, such as hypothetically searching someone's bag for suspected explosives at an airport. (It should be noted that most soldiers deployed for homeland security are state National Guard soldiers, who for complex reasons are subject to different legal rules than federal soldiers.) Or the footnote could refer to clandestine domestic military operations conducted by the Defense Department and its intelligence components—things we can only guess at.

UPDATE: Senior Editor Jacob Sullum was all over this last week. Excerpt:

That position provides a legal rationale not just for the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance of international communications involving people in the U.S. but for monitoring of purely domestic phone calls and email as well. Indeed, it justifies warrantless domestic searches and seizures of any kind, provided they are carried out by a branch of the Defense Department that asserts a connection to terrorism or some other national security threat. 

The Justice Department has repudiated both Yoo's March 2003 memo and his August 2002 memo addressing torture. But it's not clear to what extent it still concurs with Yoo's sweeping view of executive power. During his confirmation hearings, Attorney General Michael Mukasey conceded that the president is bound to obey statutes regulating the treatment of military prisoners. But he dodged the question of whether Congress has the authority to regulate domestic surveillance conducted in the name of national security. No one thought to ask him whether the president is bound to obey the Fourth Amendment, presumably because no one imagined that even this administration would claim otherwise. Now we know better.

Advertisement

NEXT: Stone Cold Killer

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t think they knock…

  2. ……how you gonna go? With your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?

  3. Fixed the lyric. Funny, I always heard “knock.”

  4. Um, if it’s the feds, you’ll never hear a knock…

    Ask Radley if you doubt me.

    no hugs for thugs,
    Shirley Knott

  5. It is comforting to know that the men and women who have sworn to uphold and protect the constitution do not feel overly bound by the provisions of the constitution in doing so.

  6. I could understand not worrying about warrants etc in the case of actual house to house fighting, or some sort of ill-defined “emergency” situation, but I’m pretty sure neither of those are what they were worried about in this memo.

  7. Didn’t we just sign some military assistance agreement with Canada? It could be a bunch of guys drinking Labatt’s and politely asking to search your house, eh.

    The 4th Amendment is dead Dave, dead dead dead.

  8. Speaking of the Clash…would Jammer be a car jammer?

  9. What, we’re suprised they think the 4th no longer applies? Cast your mind back two years to this post. DOJ already thinks the POTUS can order the summary execution of terror suspects. Why would the 4th Amendment matter to these people?

  10. This president, and the people who he’s appointed, believe that you have no rights. All can be overridden with a penstroke on a legal pad.

    How can I conscientiously vote for a Republican for any office when I am convinced the party needs punished for bending over and spreading GW Bush?

  11. Make that “bending over and spreading for GW Bush?”

    Anger and keyboarding are somewhat incompatible.

  12. John Yoo is a traitor.

    And I mean that in the strictest Constitutional sense.

  13. The 4th Amendment is dead Dave, dead dead dead.

    Getting close to time to use the Second.

  14. And yet people still don’t understand that the whacked-out nutjobs in the federal government are far bigger threats to us than some whacked-out nutjobs hiding in caves.

  15. This obviously applies for the gun confiscations and evictions conducted by military personnel in New Orleans and Greensburg Kansas. Yet another reason why the government and it’s soldiers are not your friends or protectors but enemies of your Liberty.

    If there were justice in this nation every military member who was involved in those seizures and evictions would be tried for violations of the Constitution and treason and publicly hung by the neck until dead.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.