Inconvenient Truth 9.2: John Yoo on Domestic Military Operations

In part 2, (Part 1 is here) we examine how, early on after 9/11, the scene was laid out to declare martial law without saying so on the American people.  On Oct 23, 2001 John Yoo of the Office of Legal Counsel was tasked to analyze how the President (George W. Bush) could get around Posse Comitatus (prohibition against using active military troops within the U.S. against us) and the 4th Amendment (right against unreasonable search and seizures) so he could use military troops on American soil in the name of his “War on Terror”.  Throwing the Constitution and the prohibition of using active military troops in domestic operations to the wind, we can even to this day (This is posted 17 Aug 2012) see how this has impacted our rights to freedom and liberty as American Citizens (Don’t believe me?  Read “Inconvenient Truth #38: The Army DOES teach full spectrum operations on U.S. Soil” which I wrote in Aug 2012.   What follows is a document that, released to the President within 1.5 months of 9/11, gave him free reign to violate both as long as he said it was an “emergency”.  Thus, we can see that we have been under Martial Law at least since 9/11…
The excerpts below are from the original document, which you can view HERE.
  • Such uses might include, for example, targeting and destroying a hijacked civil aircraft in circumstances indicating that hijackers intended to crash the aircraft into a populated area; deploying troops and military equipment to monitor and control the flow of traffic into a city; attacking civilian targets, such as apartment buildings, offices, or ships where suspected terrorists were thought to be; and employing electronic surveillance methods more powerful and sophisticated than those available to law enforcement agencies. These military operations, taken as they may be on United States soil, and involving as they might American citizens, raise novel and difficult questions of constitutional law.
  • “…We conclude that the PCA(Posse Commitatis Act) does not apply to, and does not prohibit, a Presidential decision to deploy the Aimed Forces domestically for military purposes.  We believe that domestic deployment of the Armed Forces to prevent and deter terrorism is fundamentally military, rather than law enforcement, in character. Yet, even if the PCA were thought to apply, the statute would still permit domestic deployment due to the PCA’s exceptions for actions specifically authorized by the Constitution or statutewe believe that the courts will defer to the executive branch’s representations that the deployment of the Armed Forces furthers military purposes, if the executive institutes and follows careful controls. We believe that the Department of Defense could take steps to make clear that a deployment of troops is for a military, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.”
  • “…Even if the PCA were generally held to apply to the use of the military domestically in an anti-terrorism role, the statute still would not bar such a deployment. The PCA includes both a constitutional and a statutory exception: it excludes military actions taken “in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” Both of these exceptions apply to the use of the Armed Forces in response to the September 11 attacks….”
  • “…In the circumstances created by the September 11 attacks, the Constitution provides the Government with expanded powers to prosecute the war effort…the Supreme Court has recognized that the Government’s compelling interests in wartime justify restrictions on the scope of individual liberty
  • …we think that the better view is that the Fourth Amendment  (i.e., guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable causedoes not apply to domestic military operations designed to deter and prevent further terrorist attacks….”
  • (concerning military operations in the U.S.) – “…Our forces must be free to “seize” enemy personnel or “search” enemy quarters, papers and messages without having to show “probable cause” before a neutral magistrate, and even without having to demonstrate that their actions were constitutionally “reasonable.”…”
  • “…we believe that the Constitution, properly interpreted, allows the President as Commander in Chief, and the forces under his control to use military force against foreign enemies who operate on American soil, free from the constraints of the Fourth Amendment...”
  • And finally, in it’s awful, 1984 conclusion:
    • “…We conclude that the President has both constitutional and statutory authority to use the armed forces in military operations, against terrorists, within the United States. We believe that these operations generally would not be subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, so long as the armed forces are undertaking a military function. Even if the Fourth Amendment were to apply, however, we believe that most military operations would satisfy the Constitution’s reasonableness requirement and continue to be lawful…”

Neocons:  As the saying goes – “Be careful what you wish for…cause you just might get it”.  Bush set the table, and now Obama can “clean up”…remember also that no power, once given, is taken back voluntarily…we are in a state of Martial Law…

About SleepNoMore

"Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." -1984
This entry was posted in False Flag, New World Order, Police State, Problem Reaction Solution, Terrorism, The Vault, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s