The Bush Police State

[Jasonik]

CBP POLICY PROMPTS LAPTOP BILL

by Mickey McCarter
Friday, 08 August 2008

Measure seeks restrictions on laptop searches

In response to growing concerns about the search and seizure of laptops and other electronic devices by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at border checkpoints, a New York congressman has introduced a bill to require the department to establish a "reasonable suspicion" of a crime before examining electronic data, the bill's sponsor said in an editorial Friday.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) announced in The Washington Post that he had introduced the bill (HR 6702) on July 31 " to rein in the Department of Homeland Security's search and confiscation of laptops without reasonable suspicion or probable cause."

The bill, so far cosponsored only by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), was referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.

The legislation also would require government agents to search any electronic devices in private. Once a laptop or any electronic data were seized, DHS would have to protect the data, to keep the data for only a limited time, to restrict the sharing of the data, and to respect a traveler's right to the return of electronic devices or data.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a policy statement on July 16 to spell out its authority to search laptops and other devices.

"In the course of a border search, and absent individualized suspicion, officers can review and analyze the information transported by any individual attempting to enter, reenter, depart, pass through, or reside in the United States, subject to the requirements and limitations provided herein," the statement read.

The statement came on the heels from criticism from House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who wrote CBP Commissioner Ralph Basham on July 9 to voice his concerns over "troubling allegations of CBP practices during these searches."

Thompson questioned the policies for opening laptops, reading documents on them, accessing e-mail in any accounts, examining digital photographs, and other possible intrusions.

"While the government's interest in preventing the entry of dangerous persons and goods into this country is vital, it is not exempt from Constitutional safeguards," Thompson asserted.

Critics like the American Civil Liberties Union have objected to a number of recent limitations on the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, including the use of data under the reauthorization of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (PL 110-261), signed by President Bush on July 10.

In the House, Engel had voted in favor of the FISA Act, while Paul did not vote on it (although he did speak out against the bill). Paul restated his opposition to any encroachment on the Fourth Amendment in an August 4 statement on the laptop seizure bill.

"The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution acknowledges the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is unfortunate that it takes legislation to remind border agents of this Constitutionally protected right, but it is apparent to me that HR 6702 is absolutely necessary," Paul said.

[Jasonik]

Leahy, Specter demand FBI answers on reporter phone records

Nick Juliano
Published: Monday August 11, 2008


The top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee are demanding an explanation from FBI head Robert Mueller about the Bureau's improper efforts to access reporters' phone records.

Mueller called Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and Times Executive Editor Bill Keller on Friday to express regret that agents did not follow proper procedures in 2004 when they obtained the phone records of a Post reporter and a researcher and two Times reporters. All four were working in Indonesia and writing about Islamic terrorism at the time.

Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) told Mueller they appreciated him bringing to light the improper records access and apologizing for it, but the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee said they wanted more answers.

"[T]he new revelations about the improper collection of reporters’ phone records -- combined with the general reports on the misuse of [National Security Letters] and exigent letters -- create a troubling impression of deliberate wrongdoing or serious negligence at the FBI," the senators wrote in a letter to Mueller Monday. "Together, these revelations underscore the importance of vigorous congressional oversight and suggest that additional legislation may be needed."

Mueller and other FBI officials told the newspapers that agents obtained the records under a process that allowed them to bypass a grand jury review in emergency cases. The incident came to light through a review by the Justice Department's inspector general of bureau procedures that enabled the FBI to obtain thousands of records from phone companies after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In the case of the newspaper reporters, agents obtained toll phone records — records of incoming and outgoing calls, but not details of conversations — using what are known as "exigent circumstances" letters.

Last year, the inspector general uncovered 700 cases in which FBI agents obtained telephone records through "exigent letters," which asserted that grand jury subpoenas had been requested for the data when in fact such subpoenas never had been sought. The FBI eliminated use of the letters in 2007.

Specter and Leahy said they were looking forward to a follow-up report from the Inspector General on NSL abuse. In the meantime, they warned Mueller the subject would come up the next time he appeared before the committee and they requested a full briefing before then.

Leahy and Specter's full letter appears below:

_____

August 11, 2008

The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III

Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20535

Dear Director Mueller:

We were disappointed to learn that, in 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misused so-called “exigent letters” to obtain the telephone records of reporters working in the Jakarta, Indonesia, bureaus of The Washington Post and The New York Times. While we commend you for personally apologizing to the newspapers on behalf of the FBI, and for personally bringing this matter to the Committee’s attention, we expect to receive a more complete accounting of this violation of the Justice Department’s guidelines intended to protect privacy and journalists’ First Amendment rights.

The FBI’s misuse of “exigent letters” first came to light in March 2007, as part of a congressionally-mandated Inspector General (IG) audit of National Security Letters (NSLs). In addition to uncovering problems with NSLs, the IG found that the FBI had misused “exigent letters” to obtain records from telephone companies. The letters claimed that the records were being requested due to “exigent circumstances” and that subpoenas or NSLs would follow. According to the IG, however, “the FBI used the exigent letters in non-emergency circumstances, failed to ensure that there were duly authorized investigations to which the requests could be tied, and failed to ensure that NSLs were issued promptly after the fact.”

We recognize that, after the March 2007 report, you ended the FBI’s practice of using “exigent letters.” We also appreciate that, according to an IG audit earlier this year, the “FBI and the Department have made significant progress” in implementing corrective actions. Nevertheless, the new revelations about the improper collection of reporters’ phone records -- combined with the general reports on the misuse of NSLs and exigent letters -- create a troubling impression of deliberate wrongdoing or serious negligence at the FBI. Together, these revelations underscore the importance of vigorous congressional oversight and suggest that additional legislation may be needed.

If nothing else, these new findings suggest a pressing need for the legislation we have cosponsored with a bipartisan group of Senators to create a qualified privilege for reporters, the “Free Flow of Information Act of 2008.” Our bill includes a provision designed to limit the government’s ability to collect the telephone records of reporters. In most cases, this provision would require a court to balance the government’s need for the information against the public’s interest in newsgathering and the free flow of information. Moreover, with rare exceptions, a federal court may compel the disclosure of such records from a phone company only after the reporter is given notice and an opportunity to be heard. This judicial review requirement would preclude a unilateral determination of exigent circumstances or investigative need by the FBI or any executive branch agency.

In future congressional hearings, we plan to ask you about the misuse of exigent letters and the possible need for additional legislation. We also look forward to the IG’s follow-up report on this topic. Before then, however, we request that the FBI fully brief Committee staff on the incidents involving reporters for The New York Times and The Washington Post, so that we can have a more substantive and constructive discussion of the matter in the very near future.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY ARLEN SPECTER

Chairman Ranking Member

[Jasonik]

Woman forced from federal building for wearing lesbian t-shirt

African American woman feels discrimination every day.

by AP News
LOS ANGELES—A woman wearing a T-shirt promoting lesbianism said she was forced the leave a federal building Monday by a security guard who didn't approve of her attire.

Lapriss Gilbert said she was picking up a Social Security card for her son when the guard was offended by her "lesbian.com" shirt and threatened her with arrest.

She was eventually allowed inside after her mother called police, according to a Los Angeles Daily News story.

The guard, whose name was not immediately available, works for Paragon Security, which contracts with the Department of Homeland Security.

Lori Haley, a spokeswoman within the Homeland Security Department, said the guard's actions were inappropriate and unacceptable.

"We have notified his company, Paragon, of our position in the matter," Haley said.

A message left with Paragon Security was not immediately returned Monday night.

Gilbert said the guard cited a document, the Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Federal Property, as proof he had jurisdiction over her clothing. The document does not address what type of clothing is allowed in federal buildings.

Gilbert called the guard's actions "shocking."

"As an African-American and a lesbian, I haven't been through one day without facing some sort of discrimination," Gilbert said.

Her mother called police after Gilbert was kicked out, but another security guard escorted her to the front of the Social Security line before officers arrived, the Daily News reported.

According to a police report, a witness described Gilbert as "peaceful and quiet" before the guard told her to leave.

[Ninjahedge]

Very bad.

But I do not see how it directly connects to teh Bush Police State....

Indirectly, maybe, but it seems like even coworkers of this guy did not approve of what he did. He may have been working for a sub contractor from Homeland, but it seems like this is just a case of one A-hole that does not like the work "Lesbian".


BTW, I know there are ways, but it just seemed a bit strange that a Lesbian was going in to get a SS card for her Son..... Brought a quick "?" to my head while I was reading it. I imagine it confuse the hell out of that homophobic guard!!!!

[scumonkey]

[Jasonik]

For reference:

Appendix to Part 102-74—Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Federal Property
Federal Management Regulations
Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 102-74, Subpart C

Were you aware that you have no Fourth Amendment rights on Federal property? Is this 'reasonable?' Does merely posting the regulation satisfy Katz's privacy test? Does the very fact that Oklahoma City and 9/11 happened cause there to be an a priori satisfaction of Katz?

Inspection (41 CFR 102-74.370). Federal agencies may, at their discretion, inspect packages, briefcases and other containers in the immediate possession of visitors, employees or other persons arriving on, working at, visiting, or departing from Federal property. Federal agencies may conduct a full search of a person and the vehicle the person is driving or occupying upon his or her arrest.

Does a private security contractor meet the definition of "private actor" thereby exempting illegally obtained evidence from the exclusionary rule?

[Ninjahedge]

@Scum.

Duh!

[Jasonik]

FBI blames phone flap on miscommunication

Ben Conery (Contact)
Tuesday, August 26, 2008

The FBI's top lawyer said miscommunication - not malevolence - led the bureau in 2004 to improperly obtain the telephone records of newspaper reporters writing about Islamic terrorism in Indonesia.



Valerie E. Caproni, the FBI's general counsel, told The Washington Times in an interview that her explanation was based on a preliminary review of e-mails sent among agents at the time.

It was the first time an FBI official described any circumstances surrounding the situation, though the explanation seems unlikely to sway critics.

A more definitive account of the situation is expected to be included in a forthcoming report from the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) into the use of so-called "exigent letters."

The FBI used such letters to request telephone toll-billing records and subscriber information, but not the content of the calls. The letters sent to the phone companies simply stated the information was being requested because of an emergency.

"Exigent letters" are similar to the controversial National Security Letters (NSLs), which allow agents to gather certain information without normal judicial oversight.

In the case regarding the New York Times and The Washington Post, the FBI violated a long-standing Justice Department policy that requires high-level approval before seeking that type of information from journalists.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III apologized to The Times and The Post earlier this month, and the case likely will be brought up Sept. 17, when he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ms. Caproni said the case agent e-mailed an agent in the terrorism-investigating Communications Analysis Unit (CAU) to suggest seeking Justice Department permission and a grand jury subpoena to obtain the reporters' phone records.

Ms. Caproni said the case agent did not say it was an emergency, but the agent in CAU sent an "exigent letter" anyway.

While it is not known why the agent in CAU sent the letter, Ms. Caproni suggested the agent in CAU may have been trying to be helpful. She also noted CAU is on the front lines of the fight against terrorism and that the unit was busy at the time.

Mike German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office, said he didn't buy Ms. Caproni's argument. "It's clear the FBI wants to minimize this as a mistake and not abuse," he said. "The facts are, there was a ridiculous amount of misuse and abuse."

Ms. Caproni said she does not want to minimize the bureau's mistakes, but stressed changes made in recent years should prevent a similar situation in the future.

She said the bureau has banned the use of "exigent letters" and has a new process in place to obtain such information in an emergency.

An agent seeking emergency toll-billing information from a phone company now must write a memo explaining the emergency that makes such a request necessary. Ms. Caproni said a supervisor must approve the request.

In the past, phone companies could refuse the requests made in an "exigent letter." But they were in a difficult position to do so because they didn't know the circumstances of the apparent emergency.

Now, Ms. Caproni said, the letters sent to phone companies must provide more facts to help the company determine whether the emergency is serious enough to turn over the records without first receiving a subpoena.

"This, at least, creates a factual record," Ms. Caproni said. "Assuming it passes the 'straight-face test,' we don't anticipate any problems with the phone companies."

According to a report from the Justice Department's inspector general, more than 700 "exigent letters" were sent from 2003 to 2006.

"The numbers of true emergencies is far smaller than that," Ms. Caproni said. "It's a small number of true emergencies, though there are some. There are times when we have true emergencies, and we need things quickly."

She said she is not sure how many letters have been sent under the new standards.

The upcoming IG report will be its third about the bureau's expanded investigative power under the Patriot Act, which originally was passed in response to the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The first two reports focused mostly on NSLs, which allow the bureau to act unilaterally in demanding financial, phone and other records. Unlike typical subpoenas or search warrants, NSLs do not need judicial approval.
The reports found widespread abuses.

"National Security Letters can be a valuable tool for the FBI to use in detecting and preventing acts of terrorism. But abuses should not be tolerated; there's too much at stake for the FBI to get it wrong," Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and member of the Judiciary Committee, said Monday. "The FBI needs better transparency and accountability, and those who broke the rules should be held accountable."

Ms. Caproni said the biggest problems with NSLs were similar to those regarding "exigent letters" in the Times and the Post case. She described them not as malicious, but as "procedural" or "failure of care."

In 2007, the bureau increased training about NSLs and created a work-flow system that ensures supervisory review. Every NSL also must be reviewed by a bureau lawyer, she said.

Despite the changes, Ms. Caproni doesn't suspect any fewer NSLs are being sent.

Mr. German thinks the bureau's internal changes are not enough. "This requires outside oversight," he said. "Getting the courts involved is the most important check against abuses of executive power."

*****

Why are journalists treated differently by the Justice Department? By what privilege were they to have been more shielded from "procedural" mistakes and bureaucratic "failure of care" otherwise perpetrated against US citizens?

[Jasonik]

Bush quietly seeks to make war powers permanent, by declaring indefinite state of war

John Byrne
Published: Saturday August 30, 2008

As the nation focuses on Sen. John McCain's choice of running mate, President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.

Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention -- and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."

Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The New York Times' page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans' civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.

It was under the guise of war that President Bush claimed a legal mandate for his warrantless wiretapping program, giving the National Security Agency power to intercept calls Americans made abroad. More of this program has emerged in recent years, and it includes the surveillance of Americans' information and exchanges online.

"War powers" have also given President Bush cover to hold Americans without habeas corpus -- detainment without explanation or charge. Jose Padilla, a Chicago resident arrested in 2002, was held without trial for five years before being convicted of conspiring to kill individuals abroad and provide support for terrorism.

But his arrest was made with proclamations that Padilla had plans to build a "dirty bomb." He was never convicted of this charge. Padilla's legal team also claimed that during his time in military custody -- the four years he was held without charge -- he was tortured with sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, forced stress positions and injected with drugs.

Times reporter Eric Lichtblau notes that the measure is the latest step that the Administration has taken to "make permanent" key aspects of its "long war" against terrorism. Congress recently passed a much-maligned bill giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their participation in what constitutional experts see as an illegal or borderline-illegal surveillance program, and is considering efforts to give the FBI more power in their investigative techniques.

"It is uncertain whether Congress will take the administration up on its request," Lichtblau writes. "Some Republicans have already embraced the idea, with Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, introducing a measure almost identical to the administration’s proposal. 'Since 9/11,' Mr. Smith said, 'we have been at war with an unconventional enemy whose primary goal is to kill innocent Americans.'"

If enough Republicans come aboard, Democrats may struggle to defeat the provision. Despite holding majorities in the House and Senate, they have failed to beat back some of President Bush's purported "security" measures, such as the telecom immunity bill.

Bush's open-ended permanent war language worries his critics. They say it could provide indefinite, if hazy, legal justification for any number of activities -- including detention of terrorists suspects at bases like Guantanamo Bay (where for years the Administration would not even release the names of those being held), and the NSA's warantless wiretapping program.

Lichtblau co-wrote the Times article revealing the Administration's eavesdropping program along with fellow reporter James Risen.

He notes that Bush's language "recalls a resolution, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001... [which] authorized the president to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks to prevent future strikes. That authorization, still in effect, was initially viewed by many members of Congress who voted for it as the go-ahead for the administration to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, which had given sanctuary to Mr. bin Laden."

"But the military authorization became the secret legal basis for some of the administration’s most controversial legal tactics, including the wiretapping program, and that still gnaws at some members of Congress," he adds.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Whistleblower: NSA even collected
credit card records

01/22/2009 @ 9:25 pm

Filed by David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster

Ex-analyst believes program actually the remnants of 'Total Information Awareness,' shut down by Congress in 2003

On Wednesday night, when former NSA analyst Russell Tice told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann that the Bush administration's National Security Agency spied on everyone in the United States, specifically targeting journalists, the Countdown host was so flabbergasted that Tice was invited back for a second interview.

On Thursday, he returned to the airwaves with expanded allegations against the NSA, claiming the agency collected Americans' credit card records, and adding that he believes the massive, warrantless data vacuum to be the remnants of the Total Information Awareness program, shut down by Congress in 2003.

Asked for comment by Olbermann's staff, the agency responded, "NSA considers the constitutional rights of US citizens to be sacrosanct. The intelligence community faces immense challenges in protecting our nation. No matter the challenges, NSA remains dedicated to performing its mission under the rule of law."

Olbermann ran the quote under a banner which read, "Non-denial denial."

"As far as the wiretap information that made it though NSA, there was also data-mining that was involved," Tice told Olbermann during the pair's second interview. "At some point, information from credit card records and financial transactions was married in with that information."

At this point on the audio track, Olbermann can be heard taking a deep breath.

"So, lucky American citizens, tens of thousands of whom are now on digital databases at NSA, who have no idea of this, also have that information included in those digital files that have been warehoused," said Tice.

"... Do you have any idea what all this stuff was used for?" asked the stunned host.

"The obvious explanation would be, if you did have a potential terrorist, you'd want to know where they're spending money, whether they purchased an airline ticket, that sort of thing," said Tice. "But, once again, we're talking about tens of thousands of innocent US citizens that have been caught up into this trap. They have no clue.

"This thing could sit there for 10 years, then all the sudden it marries up with something else 10 years from now, and 10 years from now they get put on a no-fly list and they of course won't have a clue why."

Tice added that "in most cases," spied-upon Americans didn't have to do anything suspicious in order to trigger the surveillance.

"This is garnered from algorithms that have been put together to try to just dream up scenarios that might be information that is associated with how a terrorist could operate," he said.

Ultimately, the technical explanation boils down to this: "If someone just talked about the daily news and mentioned something about the Middle East, they could easily be brought to the forefront of having that little flag put by their name that says potential terrorist," said Tice.

"Do you know, or do you have an educated guess, as to who authorized this? Who developed this?" asked Olbermann.

"I have a guess, where it was developed," he replied. "I think it was probably developed out of the Department of Defense, and this is probably the remnants of Total Information Awareness, that came out of DARPA. That's my guess, I don't know that for sure."

Olbermann then asked if Tice knows who had access to the data.

"I started looking into this, and that's when ultimately they came after me to fire me," said Tice. "They must have realized that I'd stumbled onto something, and after that point I of course had no ability to find anything else out."

Tice concluded that he does not know if the program, as he understands it, continues to this day, and he refused to specifically state which media organizations the Bush administration's NSA had targeted for surveillance.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Secret anti-terror Bush memos made
public by Obama

By DEVLIN BARRETT – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Monday released a long-secret legal document from 2001 in which the Bush administration claimed the military could search and seize terror suspects in the United States without warrants.

The legal memo was written about a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It says constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure would not apply to terror suspects in the U.S., as long as the president or another high official authorized the action.

Even after the Bush administration rescinded that legal analysis, the Justice Department refused to release its contents, prompting a standoff with congressional Democrats.

The memo was one of nine released Monday by the Obama administration.

Another memo showed that, within two weeks of Sept. 11, the administration was contemplating ways to use wiretaps without getting warrants.

The author of the search and seizure memo, John Yoo, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

In that memo, Yoo wrote that the president could treat terrorist suspects in the United States like an invading foreign army. For instance, he said, the military would not have to get a warrant to storm a building to prevent terrorists from detonating a bomb.

Yoo also suggested that the government could put new restrictions on the press and speech, without spelling out what those might be.

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

While they were once important legal pillars of the U.S. fight against al-Qaida, some of the memos were withdrawn in the final days of the Bush administration.

In one of his first official acts as president, Barack Obama also signed an order negating the memos' claims until his administration could conduct a thorough review.

In a speech Monday, Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder said that too often in the past decade the fight against terrorism has been put in opposition to "our tradition of civil liberties."

That "has done us more harm than good," he declared. "I've often said that the test of a great nation is whether it will adhere to its core values not only when it is easy but when it is hard."


Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[lofter1]

In Legal Memos, Clearer View of Power Bush Sought

NY TIMES
By NEIL A. LEWIS
March 3, 2009

WASHINGTON — The secret legal opinions issued by Bush administration lawyers after the Sept. 11 attacks included assertions that the president could use the nation’s military within the United States to combat terrorism suspects and to conduct raids without obtaining search warrants.

That opinion was among nine that were disclosed publicly for the first time Monday by the Justice Department, in what the Obama administration portrayed as a step toward greater transparency.

The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.

Some of the positions had previously become known from statements of Bush administration officials in response to court challenges and Congressional inquiries. But taken together, the opinions disclosed Monday were the clearest illustration to date of the broad definition of presidential power approved by government lawyers in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In a memorandum dated this Jan. 15, five days before President George W. Bush left office, a top Justice Department official wrote that those opinions had not been relied on since 2003. But the official, Steven G. Bradbury, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel, said it was important to acknowledge in writing “the doubtful nature of these propositions,” and he used the memo to repudiate them formally.

Mr. Bradbury said in his memo that the earlier ones had been a product of lawyers’ confronting “novel and complex questions in a time of great danger and under extraordinary time pressure.”

The opinion authorizing the military to operate domestically was dated Oct. 23, 2001, and written by John C. Yoo, at the time a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, and Robert J. Delahunty, a special counsel in the office. It was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, who had asked whether Mr. Bush could use the military to combat terrorist activities inside the United States.

The use of the military envisioned in the Yoo-Delahunty reply appears to transcend by far the stationing of troops to keep watch at streets and airports, a familiar sight in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The memorandum discussed the use of military forces to carry out “raids on terrorist cells” and even seize property.

“The law has recognized that force (including deadly force) may be legitimately used in self-defense,” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty wrote to Mr. Gonzales. Therefore any objections based on the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches are swept away, they said, since any possible privacy offense resulting from such a search is a lesser matter than any injury from deadly force.

The Oct. 23 memorandum also said that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”

Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty said that in addition, the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from domestic law enforcement operations, would pose no obstacle to the use of troops in a domestic fight against terrorism suspects. They reasoned that the troops would be acting in a national security function, not as law enforcers.

In another of the opinions, Mr. Yoo argued in a memorandum dated Sept. 25, 2001, that judicial precedents approving deadly force in self-defense could be extended to allow for eavesdropping without warrants.

Still another memo, issued in March 2002, suggested that Congress lacked any power to limit a president’s authority to transfer detainees to other countries, a practice known as rendition that was widely used by Mr. Bush.

Other memorandums said Congress had no right to intervene in the president’s determination of the treatment of detainees, a proposition that has since been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

The Jan. 15 memo by Mr. Bradbury repudiating these views said that it was “not sustainable” to argue that the president’s power as commander in chief “precludes Congress from enacting any legislation concerning the detention, interrogation, prosecution and transfer of enemy combatants.”

Mr. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is widely known as the principal author of a 2002 memorandum, separate from those made public Monday, that critics have characterized as authorizing torture. That memorandum, signed by Jay S. Bybee, a predecessor of Mr. Bradbury as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, was repudiated in 2004.

The memorandum issued by Mr. Bradbury this January appears to have been the Bush lawyers’ last effort to reconcile their views with the wide rejection by legal scholars and some Supreme Court opinions of the sweeping assertions of presidential authority made earlier by the Justice Department.

Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration and is now a law professor at Duke University, said in an interview that Mr. Bradbury’s memo “disclaiming the opinions of earlier Bush lawyers sets out in blunt detail how irresponsible those earlier opinions were.”

Mr. Dellinger said it was important that it was now widely recognized that the earlier assertions “that Congress had absolutely no role in these national security issues was contrary to constitutional text, historical practice and judicial precedent.”

In a speech a few hours before the documents were disclosed Monday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said: “Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties. Not only is that thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good.”

Mr. Holder said that the memorandums were being released in light of a substantial public interest in the issue.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

[Jasonik]

Disturbing and alarming story:
Patriot Act Being Used Against a 16 Year Old Boy [video 4:04]

*edit*

Not so fast...

Teenage Bomb Threat Suspect Was Internet Prank-Call Star

...the boy allegedly moved beyond pranks this year and began accepting donations from students eager to miss a day of school. In exchange for a little money, Tyrone would phone in a bomb threat that would shutter the donor’s school for a day.

“People would pay about five dollars, and they get to submit a number,” says Jason Bennett, a 19-year-old college student in Syndey, Australia. “It was getting way out of hand.”
...
Responding to the internet outrage on Thursday, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Northern District of Indiana issued a press release (.pdf) emphasizing the the teenager is not being held on terrorism charges. The case “alleges a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e), which prohibits sending false information about an attempt to kill, injure or intimidate any individual or to unlawfully to damage any building through an instrument of interstate commerce,” the prosecutors wrote.