由 Daphne Eviatar  |

在 2001年10月備忘錄 發布 在星期一，然後代理副檢察長在法律顧問約翰Yoo辦公室勸告五角大樓的高級律師總統在美國範圍內也許不僅部署軍事，但它也許在如此做過程中忽略人權法案。 Yoo和特別律師羅伯特Delahunty給防禦部門總顧問威廉海恩斯寫了總統有「寬裕的憲法和法定權部署軍事反對經營在美國範圍內的國際或外國恐怖分子」，并且對軍事力量的用途「不需要仿效治理執法操作的確切的做法」。

雖然美國的第四個校正。 憲法在美國禁止不合情理的查尋和奪取。 土壤， Yoo認為， 「[a] lthough情況新穎…我們認為更好的看法是第四個校正在這些情形中不會申請。 因此，例如，我們不認為會要求執行一次襲擊在恐怖分子組織的一位軍事司令員大概展示起因或得到保證」。

這個備忘錄看上去形成了為布什政府的國內warrantless竊聽節目的法律依據，至少一位聯邦法官從那以後結束了違反憲法。

然而Jameel Jaffer， ACLU國家安全項目的主任，讀它如延伸在第四個校正之外。

「這接受職位人權法案在它的操作不壓抑軍事在美國裡面」， Jaffer今天下午告訴了我。 在戰時期間，不僅在外國戰場，但在美國裡面， 「總統能忽視憲法。  我們未看以前的備忘錄說法」。

九個備忘錄今天被發布的，至少二- Yoo一寫的這Bybee寫的10月和另關於非凡翻譯-對更早的ACLU要求是敏感的OLC備忘錄就持續的FOIA案件狀況。

但ACLU仍然請求未發布的許多備忘錄。

「仍然有被扣壓的許多備忘錄」， Jaffer說。 「我們希望這是第一就職」。

While the memos reveal the legal groundwork that was laid for the Bush administration’s conduct in its “war on terror”, much of which appears to have been illegal, they still don’t answer the critical question that many Bush critics want to know.

“The obvious question that’s raised by these memos is, what conduct did the administration authorize on the basis of the legal reasoning in these memos?” Jaffer said.  “That’s a question that has not been adequately answered.”

Update: After further reading of this memo, I have to update it with some more astounding quotes from John Yoo, who insists that not only the Fourth Amendment, but the First Amendment right to free speech may be overridden by the President in wartime:

“First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” writes Yoo.  Yoo then reaches back to a 1931 Supreme Court case to support this idea, which said that “’When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.’ . . . No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.”

Now, no one today would argue that an American has a right to publish secret details about U.S. troop movements in Iraq, either; but the First Amendment already accounts for those sorts of exigencies.  For John Yoo to take from that that the President may actually override free speech and press rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment goes beyond stretching it — it’s just a blatant, and deliberate, misreading of the law.  After all, John Yoo — Harvard and Yale grad, Berkeley Law prof — is no dummy.