Letters to the Editor

• "The Fourth Amendment Had No Application To Domestic Military Operations"

  [Read the article: John Yoo's war crimes]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Here's another sinister, chilling glimpse of what lurks behind the classified blackout curtain in D.C., from a carefully-crafted new Associated Press article:

  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 is classified and 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.

  http://www.dailymail.com/News/200804020722

  Yes, disgustedinwa, we should worry, about this and more. The United Nations, at the behest of our government, has indeed been rigging the legal cover for our occupation of Iraq (benevolently deeming it not an "occupation" under international law, and thus vitiating all attendant responsibilities of a formal "occupying" power, thanks solely to that U.N. legal fig leaf) from the get-go. Robert Dreyfuss detailed the most recent egregiously-undemocratic U.S./al-Maliki/U.N. machinations here:

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-dreyfuss/maliki-bush-trample-iraq_b_77903.html

  General Barry McCaffrey, of all people, put his finger on a major cause of the problem such abuse of power represents, in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday. While responding to Senator Voinovich's plaintive request for suggestions about what the Senate could do to take action to change course in Iraq, McCaffrey pointed out that under Article I of the Constitution, the Legislative Branch is the central, first branch of the government, and has multiple options open to it, far beyond the mere 'power of the purse,' to reverse or redirect our policy in Iraq. Congress has been missing in action, the General said, and not for the first time. Of course, he's simultaneously trying to kick Iraq down the road to a new president, and otherwise carrying administration water (though he clearly disrespected Rumsfeld quite intensely). But the Senate should heed his Constitutional advice. It's both sound and vital.

  John Kerry went so far as to state at the hearing that really, we've fought "five wars" in Iraq. Without blinking an eye about the fact that the Congress is the only branch of government empowered to declare war and commence hostilities (absent emergency responses to threats before Congress can act).

  That Congress, last I knew, had authorized (via legislation, not declaration) one 'use of force' which was "mission accomplished" years ago, and which has never yet been "undeclared" despite the absence of peace treaty, truce, or even the identification of a legitimate "enemy" of our nation against whom $12 billion dollars a month of our future taxes are spent to avoid facing the need for a simple majority vote in Congress to declare an END to our share of the violence in Iraq.

  What's wrong, John Kerry, with a unilateral declaration (no presidential signature required, until the Supreme Court says otherwise) from the Legislative Branch calling for the cessation of armed intervention in Iraq, and diplomatic efforts in the region in its place? Think outside the military-industrial-complex box, a little, Senators. Time's awasting - what couldn't we use an extra $50-$100 billion for here at home? You want to end the insanity? Then end it. General Odom spelled it out for you: You get out of Iraq by getting on planes, getting on ships, and leaving. What are you waiting for?

  Jim Webb, as he implied, may be sensitive to (well-earned) criticism about the lack of Congressional fortitude, now that he's an incumbent, but the fact remains: CONGRESS. MUST. ACT. It must push the envelope in every way it can to resist these unbelievable, yet thus far virtually uncontested, abuses of power by the Executive Branch.

  Http://wa4richardson.blogspot.com/2007/06/rationale-for-deauthorization.html

  "This means - and the Supreme Court has held - that this SOLE power to declare war also vests Congress with the SOLE power to circumscribe the war that can be fought. And, while a minority of scholars may dispute it, most agree that this also means that Congress has the SOLE power to declare a war over."

  Http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07cuomo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

  http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_11.html

  Where's the conscience? Where's the moral courage? Do the principles underlying our Constitution mean nothing to those who represent us anymore? Are they too rigidly self-certain to learn an important lesson that they've neglected to respect for decades? Have we really completely inverted the Constitution's war powers without a backward glance - allowing one man to do as he pleases with our Armed Forces, its volunteers, and our national debt, simply because our Senate can't find the will to creatively act and resolutely resist on our behalf?

  Permalink Wednesday, April 2, 2008 10:45 PM