[IP] The 'other' OLC memo - the 4th Amendment doesn't apply in the US.

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
From: Gerry Faulhaber [gerry-faulhaber@mchsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:26 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] The 'other' OLC memo - the 4th Amendment doesn't apply in the US.

For IPers interested in OLC memos on torture, Presidential powers, etc., I
strongly suggest "The Terror Presidency" by Jack Goldsmith, who was AAG of
OLC for just under a year in the Bush II first term.  Goldsmith is rather
sympathetic with the aims of the administration but sharply critical of how
it was carried out.  Great illustration of how lawyers think and a good
read.

URL:
http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Presidency-Judgment-Inside-Administration/dp/0393065502/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207261338&sr=8-1

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farber" <dave@farber.net>
To: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:24 PM
Subject: [IP] The 'other' OLC memo - the 4th Amendment doesn't apply in the
US.



________________________________________
From: eackerma@gmail.com [eackerma@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ethan Ackerman
[eackerma@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:06 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: The 'other' OLC memo - the 4th Amendment doesn't apply in the US.

Greetings Dave,
There's been a significant bit of press lately around the 'torture'
memo authored by the Office of Legal Counsel at the DoJ, but some
important FOIA work by Jameel Jaffer and others at the ACLU has
identified at least one other equally troubling bit of legal guidance
from that office.

Apparently, in Oct. 2001, that office drafted an opinion (in effect
for at least 16 months) directing that 4th Amendment constraints on
searches and seizures did not apply to military actions on US soil.
The specifics of the memo are not known, as it is still classified,
but it was acknowledged by the White House and was described in other
opinions that were released. The White House has stressed that the
opinion is no longer in effect.

Coverage -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120719428053885709.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8VQ1U0G0

-------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------