It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush-era memo ok

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Bush-era memo ok


www.reuters.com

The U.S. military would have been able to kick in doors and raid a terrorist cell inside the United States without a search warrant under a Bush-era legal memo the Justice Department made public on Monday.

The memo, from October 23, 2001, also said constitutional protections ensuring free speech and banning unreasonable search and seizure could take a back seat to military needs in fighting a terrorists inside the United States.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Warrentless Wiretaping was just the beginning. Burning of the Reichstag anyone? I have always thought that bush was evil on par with Hitler, Stalin, Franco and Mousilini. Here is more Proof. A rigged election, two b/llsh!t wars, the bottom dropping out of the american economy, spying on americans. This came about at the same time that Ari Fleicher was telling american that they needed to "watch what they say at times like this".

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
It was brilliant the way it all came together, too. If anybody objected to these tactics or to having personal freedoms being taken away, then it was only because we loved terrorists and wanted them to win.

As if.

There was no other way, we were told, to protect ourselves, our children, and our puppies. We didn't want the terrorists to get our puppies, did we? Well then, forget about all the democracy our soldiers were dying for in other countries, that was no longer the American way.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
That sounds like terrorist talk to me.

Thanx for the reply
J



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Alora
 


Yeah, that was a ridiculous head game wasn't it?

I remember when people told me "But if we don't give up those freedoms then we're letting the terrorists hit us!"

To which I usually replied "If you give up those freedoms, they won't have to hit you, they've already won, America is only America because of it's freedoms, take them away, and you've destroyed it."

[edit on 2-3-2009 by johnsky]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
As if everybody was just clutching thier ankles and waiting for the reaming.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
1) Are memos or legal opinions law?

2) If Americans really want our government to protect us 100% from terrorism, there is no doubt that some sacrifices/loss of certain freedoms are to be expected.

3) Do you really believe that Bush or Obama have the intellectual ability to fully understand every option that their advisors are putting in front of them. IMO, the advisors present the best option and the President just goes with it.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
1) Are memos or legal opinions law?

2) If Americans really want our government to protect us 100% from terrorism, there is no doubt that some sacrifices/loss of certain freedoms are to be expected.

3) Do you really believe that Bush or Obama have the intellectual ability to fully understand every option that their advisors are putting in front of them. IMO, the advisors present the best option and the President just goes with it.


Cheney was all for this even if bush could not understand it. The system we had in place was effective. There was the memo that said in Aug of '01 "Binladen determined to attack inside US". We had no problem finding, arresting and killing Tim McVeigh after the murrah building bomb. The sacrifice for protection argument never held water. It was just a power grab.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
2) If Americans really want our government to protect us 100% from terrorism, there is no doubt that some sacrifices/loss of certain freedoms are to be expected.


There have always been terrorists... there always will be terrorists.

Just because terrorists struck yet again, doesn't mean this time we have to cave into them and lock ourselves up.

While America may have forgotten, the rest of us haven't, Liberty or Death.
Life without freedom, isn't life at all.

We fought World Wars side by side with you with this principle in mind.

And now you're all just going to what? Wall up your country, walk politely into secure zones, and dream of the day you were allowed to oppose your government?

[edit on 2-3-2009 by johnsky]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


I agree with you 100%. I am just pointing out the fact that many Americans expect the government to help them and protect them from every little disaster. Terrorists will always find a way in no matter how much we try to protect ourselves.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
1) Are memos or legal opinions law?


I think these memos come from people on the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel).


The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) assists the Attorney General of the United States in his function as legal adviser to the President and all the executive branch agencies. (Hence the appellation "the president's law firm.") ...

The Office also is responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality. The decisions of the Office are binding on all executive agencies.


If they are telling the President that he has authority to do something, I don't think the President is going to doubt them. Well I doubt Bush would even understand what was written in front of him.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Terrorists will always find a way in no matter how much we try to protect ourselves.

So very true. Terror is a tactic, like Nightraids or High Altitude Bombing.
Making war on a tactic is a stupid political goal that can never be accomplished. How is that war on close air support going?
The last election has shown the state of the economy is enough to make joe 12-pack forget the war on terror for a while and worry more about keeping the electricity on.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alora
It was brilliant the way it all came together, too. If anybody objected to these tactics or to having personal freedoms being taken away, then it was only because we loved terrorists and wanted them to win.






The terrorists did win. They shredded the Constitution and then went back to rubber-stamping legislation in Washington D. C..



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnWorfin
 


You speak the truth. As far as Cheney, I agree that he does have the experience to play the game and and more likely than not knew what those memos meant.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Have there been any accusations that these tactics were used by the military inside the United States since October 23, 2001?

I can recall several scenarios dating before October 23, 2001 when US agents used such tactics... The Elian Gonzalez midnight kidnapping, Waco, Ruby Ridge, all were in the same essential vein and all predated this memo considerably.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by burdman30ott6]




top topics



 
3

log in

join