"[O]ur Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations." (see footnote 10)
The memo Yoo refers to still remains classified. However, it's conclusions are obvious. As Ryan Singel writes at his Wired blog:
Citing cases that prevented companies from suing the U.S. government for losses they sustained overseas during wartime, You writes "These cases and the untenable consequences for the President's conduct of a war that would result from the application of the Due Process Cluse demonstrate its inapplicability during wartime--whether to the conduct of interrogations or the detention of enemy aliens."
Lest it not be clear enough that Yoo is arguing the President is King in wartime, thanks to the Constitution's Article II powers, two footnotes surrounding the former sentence make it clear.
In footnote 10, Yoo writes "our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."
Remember that Bush said the wiretapping program was part of his war on terrorism.
And there it is. In the war on terrorism, the bill of rights does not apply.
Footnote 11 adds to it: "We conclude that the restrictions outlined in the Fifth Amendment simply do not address actions the Executive takes in conducting a military campaign against the Nation's enemies."
No due process clause. No restriction of searches and seizures. No declassification of this memo which nullifies the Constitution's applicability to "Domestic Military Operations," whatever that means.
Wow. No wonder Bush likely said, "Yoo had me at hello," upon meeting the man who's now a tenured law professor at UC Berkeley. He was willing to "fix the law around the policy" and provide the means to justify the end of torture restrictions, or any restrictions, for that matter.
The question is, will anyone besides a few bloggers talk about this?