Memo linked to warrantless surveillance備忘錄聯繫在一起的無證監察
Associated Press 相關新聞
WASHINGTON - For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on US soil didn’t apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.華盛頓-在至少1 6個月後， 9月1 1日恐怖襲擊事件在2 001年，布什政府認為，憲法的保護，反對不合理的搜查和扣押在美國本土並不適用於它的努力，以保護打擊恐怖主義。
That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001.這一觀點表示，在司法部法律備忘錄日期為2001年10月23日。 The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.政府當局就週三強調，現在disavows這一觀點。
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. 2001年10月的備忘錄是在書面的要求，白宮由約翰柳，那麼副助理總檢察長，並給部長岡薩雷斯，白宮律師的時間。 The administration had asked the department for an opinion on the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.政府當局已要求該部為一的意見的合法性潛在的回應恐怖活動。
The 37-page memo has not been released. 37頁的備忘錄中並沒有被釋放。 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.它的存在是透露，週二在一個腳註，一個單獨的秘密備忘錄，日期2003年3月14日，五角大樓隨後還公佈在回應資訊自由法的訴訟由美國公民自由聯盟。
“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.” “我們的辦公室最近得出結論認為，第四條修正案並沒有應用到國內的軍事行動， ”腳註國，指的一份文件，題為“權力使用武力打擊恐怖主義活動，美國” 。
Exactly what domestic military action was covered by the October memo is unclear.究竟國內的軍事行動所涵蓋的10月的備忘錄是含糊不清。 But federal documents indicate that the memo relates to the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP.但聯邦的文件表明，該備忘錄涉及到國家安全局的監視恐怖分子的計劃，或移交被判刑人士。
That program intercepted phone calls and e-mails on US soil, bypassing the normal legal requirement that such eavesdropping be authorized by a secret federal court.該程序截獲的電話和電子郵件在美國本土，繞開正常的法律規定，這種竊聽授權，一個秘密的聯邦法院。 The program began after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and continued until Jan. 17, 2007, when the White House resumed seeking surveillance warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.該計劃開始後，九月十一日的恐怖襲擊，並一直持續到2007年1月17日，當白宮恢復尋求監察認股權證從外國情報監視法院。
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Wednesday that the Fourth Amendment finding in the October memo was not the legal underpinning for the Terrorist Surveillance Program.白宮發言人托尼弗拉托說，週三認為，第四修正案，尋找在10月的備忘錄沒有法律依據，為恐怖監察計劃。
“TSP relied on a separate set of legal memoranda,” Fratto told The Associated Press. “移交被判刑人士依賴於一個單獨的一套法律備忘錄， ”弗拉托告訴美聯社記者。 The Justice Department outlined that legal framework in a January 2006 white paper issued by the Justice Department a month after the TSP was revealed by The New York Times.司法部概述了這一法律框架，在2006年1月發表白皮書司法部一個月後，移交被判刑人士透露了新的紐約時報。
The October memo was written just days before Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, briefed four House and Senate leaders on the NSA’s secret wiretapping program for the first time. 10月備忘錄的書面前幾天，布什政府官員，包括副總統切尼，並向客人介紹了四眾議院和參議院的領導人就國家安全局的秘密竊聽計劃的第一時間。
The government itself related the October memo to the TSP program when it included it on a list of documents that were responsive to the ACLU’s request for records from the program.政府本身有關的10月的備忘錄移交被判刑人士計劃時，把它列入一份名單的文件，分別為回應美國民權聯盟的要求，記錄從該計劃中。 It refused to hand them over.它拒絕交出他們。
Late Wednesday, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said department officials believe the October 2001 memo was not about the eavesdropping program, but he did not explain why it was included on requests for documents linked to the TSP.週三月底，司法部發言人布賴恩此前表示，署官員認為， 2001年10月的備忘錄是不是對竊聽計劃，但他沒有解釋為什麼它被列入提供文件的要求聯繫在一起的移交被判刑人士。
Earlier, Roehrkasse said the statement in the footnote does not reflect the current view of the department’s Office of Legal Counsel.此前，此前的聲明說，在腳註並不反映當前視圖該部的法律顧問辦公室。
“We disagree with the proposition that the Fourth Amendment has no application to domestic military operations,” he said. “我們不同意命題，即第四修正案並沒有應用到國內的軍事行動， ”他說。 “Whether a particular search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires consideration of the particular context and circumstances of the search.” “是否有特定的搜索或扣押是合理的根據第四修正案，需要考慮的特定背景和情況，搜索” 。
Roehrkasse would not say exactly when that legal opinion was overturned internally.此前不會說，正是當法律意見被推翻國內。 But he pointed to the January 2006 white paper.但他指出，到2006年1月白皮書。
“The white paper does not suggest in any way that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military activities, and that is not the position of the Office of Legal Counsel,” he said. “白皮書並沒有建議在任何方式的第四次修訂，並不適用於國內的軍事活動，這是沒有的立場，法律顧問辦公室， ”他說。
Suzanne Spaulding, a national security law expert and former assistant general counsel at the CIA, said she found the Fourth Amendment reference in the footnote troubling, but added: “To know (the Justice Department) no longer thinks this is a legitimate statement is reassuring.”蘇珊斯波爾丁，國家安全法專家和前助理總法律顧問在美國中央情報局說，她發現第四條修正案的參考腳註困擾，但他說： “知道（司法部）不再認為這是一個合法的聲明欣慰的是， “ 。
“The recent disclosures underscore the Bush administration’s extraordinarily sweeping conception of executive power,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “最近披露，強調布什政府的非常籠統的概念，行政權力，說： ”賈米爾賈弗主任，美國民權聯盟的國家安全項目。 “The administration’s lawyers believe the president should be permitted to violate statutory law, to violate international treaties and even to violate the Fourth Amendment inside the US They believe that the president should be above the law.” “政府的律師認為，總統應被允許違反法定的規定，違反國際條約和，甚至違反第四修正案，美國境內，他們認為總統應凌駕於法律之上” 。
“Each time one of these memos comes out you have to come up with a more extreme way to characterize it,” Jaffer said. “每一次之一，這些備忘錄出來，你必須想出了一個更極端的方式的特點， ”賈弗表示。
The ACLU is challenging in court the government’s withholding of the October 2001 memo.美國民權聯盟是具有挑戰性的在法庭上，政府的隱瞞2001年10月的備忘錄。
See More: 看到更多的： Big Brother 大哥哥 USA News 美國新聞Have Your Say: Memo linked to warrantless surveillance 你說：備忘錄聯繫在一起的無證監察
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的我們的新論壇
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm and is filed under 此項目被張貼在週四， 2008年4月3日在下午4時28分，並提交下 Surveillance, Civil Liberties & Human Rights News 監視，公民自由及人權新聞 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the 您可以按照任何的反應，此項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. 餵養。 You can 您可以 leave a response 留下的回應 , or ，或 trackback Trackback跟踪 from your own site. 從你自己的網站。
Free Newsletter 免費通訊 
Related News 相關新聞
- CIA Waterboarding Probe Revealed By Feds美國中央情報局waterboarding探針透露，由聯邦調查局
- Bush aide has denial down pat布什的助手已否認下跌八
- ‘Torture memo’ author, former attorney general, to testify '酷刑備忘錄'的作者，前總檢察長，作證
- Miscik’s secret CIA memo miscik的中情局秘密備忘錄
- Permissible Assaults Cited in Graphic Detail允許攻擊中提到的詳細圖解
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- Peak Food: Blaming the Victims高峰期的食物：指責受害者
- The Challenge Of Modern Slavery挑戰現代奴役
- Ex-MI5 chief warns over detention前軍情五處行政警告以上的拘留
- Abuse Claims Mount Against Pentagon, Contractors虐待索賠山對五角大樓，承建商
- Britain throws away £10bn of food every year英國拋棄100億英鎊的食品，每年
- Does Organic Really Mean Organic?是否有機真正的意思有機？
- The New Whopper: Burger with a Side of Spies新whopper ：漢堡與方間諜
- US/IRAQ: Pressure to Cut Costs, Troops Strains “Surge”我們/伊拉克：壓力，以降低成本，部隊株“風”
- Under US Law Torture is Always Illegal根據美國法律，酷刑，始終是非法的
- Suicide bomber was in Guantánamo, says US自殺炸彈是在關塔納摩說，美國
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔