Browse By

With 7 Minutes of Dissent Left, Here’s the New Physical Search Law

Only 15 minutes total have been provided for any dissenters against H.R. 6304 in the Congress to identify problems with the bill. Only 7 minutes of those are left for dissent to occur.

With so few minutes left for dissent, here is part of your new law, the part that authorizes physical searches without warrants, limited only by the same Attorney General who decides to search you, your house, or your property:

(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of a physical search if the Attorney General—
(A) reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of a physical search to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such physical search can with due diligence be obtained;
(B) reasonably determines that the factual basis for issuance of an order under this title to approve such physical search exists;
(C) informs, either personally or through a designee, a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ an emergency physical search; and
(D) makes an application in accordance with this title to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such physical search.

(2) If the Attorney General authorizes the emergency employment of a physical search under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall require that the minimization procedures required by this title for the issuance of a judicial order be followed.

(3) In the absence of a judicial order approving such physical search, the physical search shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 7 days from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

(4) A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 103.

(5) In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the physical search is terminated and no order is issued approving the physical search, no information obtained or evidence derived from such physical search shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such physical search shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

(6) The Attorney General shall assess compliance with the requirements of paragraph (5).

Did you follow that? Let me translate it for you:

If the President’s Attorney General determines there is an emergency, then the President’s agents can engage in a physical search of anyone without a warrant, and continue that search for up to seven days. If after the fact a FISA court judge determines that the physical search without a warrant was inappropriate, the Attorney General can use any information obtained in the search anyway, so long as the Attorney General says it is necessary to protect someone somewhere from death or harm. It’s up to the Attorney General to determine whether the Attorney General’s judgment in this matter is sound.

That’s a recipe for the unlimited power for the President (through the Attorney General) to search anyone, anywhere without warrants and without limitation except such limitations as the Attorney General chooses to apply to him- or her-self.

That’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That’s a recipe for tyranny.

10 thoughts on “With 7 Minutes of Dissent Left, Here’s the New Physical Search Law”

  1. sam says:

    “That’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

    Only if we are at Peace. We are not…..regardless of what you think these current actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are….we are in conflict with an adversary that have attacked us on our shores and have publically manifested they want our lives and culture destroyed. That being the case….our inherent freedoms dictate that some actions are needed to assertain if we have enemy combatants on our shore working to subverse our nation from within. You can not have absoulte freedom and absolute security in a time of war. That’s a fantasy.

  2. Jim says:

    Cite to me the specific clause of the Constitution that states the Fourth Amendment is only in effect in a time of peace.

    Do it. Now.

  3. Mark says:

    I’ve written my Congressman (Henry Brown, SC-1) to ask him to vote against this bill. However, I’m sure he will fall in lock step with Bush in rolling over our rights and voting in favor of this bill. He always seems to. He’s got a fight on his hands for re-election this fall. His support for offshore oil drilling is bound to come back to haunt him.

  4. Sam says:

    Hey Jim…you like Tom need Prozack…you know as well as I it doesn’t “say” that…it was interpreted by the Supreme Court back in the 40’s during the Second World War when sabotuers were descovered on our shores. It doesn’t “say” that just like the 1st amendment says you have a right to free speech…but not a right to be heard….

  5. Jim says:

    So now you admit the Constitution says no such thing, and retreat to the Supreme Court.

    Fine. So cite to me the specific Supreme Court ruling that specifically states the Fourth Amendment is only in effect in a time of peace.

    Do it, or retract your claim.

  6. john says:

    You mean the Qurin case, Sam? The one that was pushed through the supreme court, and the one which most of the justices voting in the affermative later said they regretted? That case, that was cited as precedent for the actions at Guantanamo, only to be rebuked by the current supreme court?

    Cause if the Qurin case is your only argument, it’s dead in the water. It’s not even valid precedent anymore. Hamdan overturned it.

  7. sam says:

    I stand by my claim and will retract as much as you do when you know your wrong…just don’t bother to follow thru…guess that’s the right of the site owner….but during the second world war there were points when it came to subversion and the Nazi party that were permitted to stand and retracted later after the war….we should have that in place today till the Islamic Jihadists are defeated….

  8. Jim says:

    So you ARE full of shit, then, aren’t you Sam? You don’t know what you’re talking about, and when I call you on it, you dissemble.

    The Fourth Amendment IS in force, and it DOES matter.

  9. Fruktaka says:

    WHAT Islamic jihadists, Sam?!?

    Where are the Islamic jihadists in the United States? Which American city have they invaded? Which border did they cross?

    There isn’t any active invasion by Islamic jihadists in the United States, Sam. It’s all halfway around the world, you kook.

  10. Jim says:

    By the way, the Quirin wasn’t even a case regarding the Fourth Amendment. It was a case regarding detention and military commissions, not warrantless search and seizure. At any rate, John is correct that Quirin was invalidated by the Hamdan case. It was also invalidated when the U.S. ratified the Geneva Conventions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!