Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Right to Privacy Destined for Endangered List
American Conservative Union ^ | October 4, 2006 | Bob Barr

Posted on 10/08/2006 4:02:36 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution protects Americans against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and against warrants being issued without "probable cause" that they have done something wrong. While most Americans who might be familiar with this portion of our Bill of Rights probably consider its protections to apply only to criminals and therefore of little consequence to them, the Fourth Amendment actually provides vital protection to all Americans, not just "criminals."

In fact, its prefatory language makes this clear, explicitly providing that its goal is to assure that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects." In short, the Fourth Amendment stands for the proposition that every American has a zone of privacy—their "persons, houses, papers and effects"—into which the government may not intrude unless it has a good and articulable reason for doing so.

While electronic surveillance or eavesdropping was obviously unknown to our Founding Fathers when they crafted the Fourth Amendment, 20th-century court decisions have made clear that Americans' electronic communications are covered within the sphere of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment's edict.

This principle undergirding the Fourth Amendment has withstood withering challenges by various American presidents over the decades. Especially in the second half of the 20th century, one president after another—Republican and Democrat alike—sought to push the envelope of executive power by using the ever-more-intrusive tools of modern technology to gather information on and about the citizenry, and then use that information to convict, control or intimidate people.

Throughout this long battle to limit the power of the government and protect the privacy of the people, the federal courts have served as official referees. It has not always been a pretty sight, but our courts have generally stepped in when necessary and done the right thing, correctly interpreting the Fourth Amendment as it applies to executive branch action or legislative branch lawmaking to ensure the essential privacy principle embodied therein retains its meaning. In fact, in mid-August a federal court judge declared the administration's five-year-long program of warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency to be unconstitutional.

Now, in large measure as a result of that decision, which infuriated the president, the legal mechanisms that have been available for the courts to hold successive presidents' lust for power in check are about to be dismantled.

The House of Representatives last week passed legislation—and the Senate is poised to do likewise when it returns from its election recess for an always-dangerous lame-duck session —that shatters the foundation of the Fourth Amendment as surely as if a keg of dynamite were lit beneath it and allowed to explode. In the name of "fighting terrorism" the Bush administration appears to have succeeded in convincing Congress that to succeed in the "Global War on Terror," the Fourth Amendment must not only yield, but be destroyed.

The legislation, ostensibly to authorize this president and future presidents to listen in on communications by al-Qaida terrorists and those in communication with them, sweeps far more broadly than its proponents would have the American people believe. Relying on broad and vague definitions and enumerations of powers, the legislation championed by the Bush administration and supported by its many champions in the Congress would, among other things:

• Allow warrantless surveillance of virtually any international phone call and e-mail of American citizens without any evidence of conspiracy with al-Qaida or other terrorist entities.

• Authorize the attorney general without court approval to order Internet service providers and other types of companies to give the NSA access to communications and equipment regarding information on its customers, without any proof that American customers whose communications are acquired are conspiring with terrorists.

• Allow warrantless physical searches of Americans' homes for extended periods without any evidence presented to a court that the homeowner is conspiring with or connected to terrorists.

• Define "agent of a foreign power" and "weapon of mass destruction" far more broadly than under current law, and far more broadly than necessary, so as to potentially justify warrantless surveillance on persons or companies that possess quantities of gunpowder or maintain information on the conduct of our country's "foreign affairs."

Taken as a whole, the powers thus sought by the administration, and which have already been given imprimatur by the House, would do irreparable damage to the underpinnings of the Fourth Amendment.

If signed into law, these measures would destroy the fundamental notion that American citizens enjoy a right to privacy in their homes, persons and businesses to be free from arbitrary government surveillance and searches. That may sound apocalyptic, but believe me, it is not. It is a fact.

Bob Barr occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union Foundation.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 4a; 4thamendment; alqaeda; alqaida; bobbarr; bushisapuppet; eavesdropping; emails; foryourowngood; fourthamendment; government; nazialert; phonecalls; privacy; probablecause; reasonablesearch; righttoprivacy; searches; seizures; terrorism; terrorists; warrants; wiretapping
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last
The devil is always in the details...
1 posted on 10/08/2006 4:02:37 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; alisasny; ALlRightAllTheTime; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; ...

PING!


2 posted on 10/08/2006 4:03:23 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hugo Chavez is the Devil! The podium still smells of sulfur...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

So the premise of this is that the President is evil and destroying the Constitution? And I'm being pinged to this...why?


3 posted on 10/08/2006 4:10:10 PM PDT by ilovew (I love being a DoD intern...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

"the Bush administration appears to have succeeded in convincing Congress that to succeed in the "Global War on Terror," the Fourth Amendment must not only yield, but be destroyed."

Is this new? I thought the War on Drugs already took care of things like that. Now that it's happening to conservatives, it's something new, I guess.


4 posted on 10/08/2006 4:12:58 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Another 4th Amendmenet crackpot breaks wind.

The Amendment states:

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It does not state:

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue.

5 posted on 10/08/2006 4:15:58 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

"The devil is always in the details..."

Okay, then let me play the devil here...

I know I'm gonna get flamed here by people who don't see my point, and that's okay... but does anyone else see a schizophrenia when it comes to this whole "privacy rights" thing?

Privacy Rights are a sacred thing when you're talking about the Patriot Act, but are a bogus act of judicial activism when talking about Roe?

I mean, conservatives have to get this straight. On one hand, we talk about minimal government involvement in our lives, but then when something like Shivo comes along we plead for the SCOTUS to send in the Army. We talk about intrusive government when it comes to property rights, but then we raise holy hell when somone opens a nudie bar.

Yes, yes, I agree with conservatives on their points that I raised (above). However, when you invoke "privacy rights" to back OUR side, I can only shudder when I think that the same argument is used in Roe V Wade!!


6 posted on 10/08/2006 4:16:09 PM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

The war on terror can be won very simply, by burying dead Islamic terrorists in pig's blood.


7 posted on 10/08/2006 4:16:46 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
...the fundamental notion that American citizens enjoy a right to privacy in their homes, persons and businesses to be free from arbitrary government surveillance and searches.

How about we just say it's okay to search mosques and people named Muhammed?

8 posted on 10/08/2006 4:17:34 PM PDT by RedRover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The devil is always in the details...

Unfortunately, I doubt very many of the congresscritters voting on this legislation, nor many of the people campaigning for or against it, are actually familiar with all the details in question. Of course, if any details are left up to regulatory agencies, that should be a red flag.

On the other hand, the Cory Maye case suggests the Fourth Amendment is practically a dead letter anyway.

9 posted on 10/08/2006 4:17:51 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Bob Barr is the ACLU's token "conservative." And I don't mean the "American Conservative Union." I'm talking 'bout the OTHER ACLU.


10 posted on 10/08/2006 4:18:11 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer ("Today we march, tomorrow we vote!" The illegal aliens won't be "staying home" on Nov. 7th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
<the Fourth Amendment actually provides vital protection to all Americans, not just "criminals."

I only read this far and stopped because it occurred to me that if our constitution provides vital protection to criminals, then WTF? I think the founding fathers intended vital protection for law abiding citizens but not for criminals.

11 posted on 10/08/2006 4:20:47 PM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford
Privacy Rights are a sacred thing when you're talking about the Patriot Act, but are a bogus act of judicial activism when talking about Roe?

Roe v. Wade has little to do with privacy, and some of the follow-on decisions have nothing to do with any reasonable meaning of the word. Something like Lawrence v. Texas would be a better example; there, the Supreme Court was deliberately put in a tough situation and should have bent a few procedural rules slightly instead of being pressured into a wrong decision.

IMHO, the fundamental question in Lawrence, which should have been up to a jury to decide, was whether the conduct of the defendants was in any meaningful way worse than other conduct by other people of which the police were aware and did nothing. The proper thing for the Supreme Court to have done would have been to remand the case to jury trial with such instructions. I am well aware that it is highly irregular for the Supreme Court to mandate a remedy other than what petitioners request, but such a course of action would have been better than either letting the prosecution of Lawrence stand or acquitting him outright.

IMHO, many "crimes" should be defined in such a way that what is forbidden is performing the act in such a fashion that a reasonable person would expect that others may be bothered or offended by it. If an act is performed in such a way that nobody knows about it, there's no crime; if such an act is discovered (and causes offense) by a chain of events the actor could not have reasonably foreseen, there should also be no crime. The question for the jury would then be whether the actor should have reasonably foreseen the discovery of his action.

12 posted on 10/08/2006 4:31:55 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: layman
I only read this far and stopped because it occurred to me that if our constitution provides vital protection to criminals, then WTF? I think the founding fathers intended vital protection for law abiding citizens but not for criminals.

The Fourth Amendment protections apply to all free persons. Honoring the Fourth Amendment will sometimes increase the difficulty of catching crooks, but it will seldom pose an insurmountable obstacle to enforcement of reasonable laws. Unfortunately, the War on Drugs has been used to shred the Fourth Amendment almost beyond recognition.

13 posted on 10/08/2006 4:39:20 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Constitutional democracy has been dead for some time.


14 posted on 10/08/2006 4:40:10 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I'll give you that if you'll trade me for those "Click It Or Ticket" roadblocks.


15 posted on 10/08/2006 4:49:23 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Civil Libertarian Extremists concur with your version #2.


16 posted on 10/08/2006 4:51:49 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The article is precisely correct in its objective observation of what the House bill permits and is also correct in its analysis of how destructive of the Fourth Amendment is the consequence. This terrible legislation is the quintessential example of why the independence of the judiciary is so critical to our constitutional form of government. It also shows without ambiguity how that independence and the strict adherence to the separation of powers doctrine has often been the last protective barrier preventing an oppressive executive and Congress playing to a transitory majority from imposing an unconstitutional abuse of the police power. There are many less intrusive methods of accomplishing the desired governmental purpose. But consistent with the almost Divine Right of Kings attitude with which this administration believes it is imbued, it has chosen to use a meat cleaver approach when the Constitution demands a scalpel in attempting to interfere with a protected right or immunity from government intrusion.

The legislation is facially too broad and the judiciary will in all likelihood find it so and strike it down as a transgression of the Fourth Amendment. The end result will be that, while the Congress and the White House can thump its respective chest and proclaim how tough each is and that, but for the judiciary's weak-kneed interference, the executive would be rooting out bad guys, the reality will be that their election based overreaching has delayed the accomplishment of that goal. Any evidence or conviction obtained by the use of such a impermissibly overly broad, warrantless intrusion will be set aside and the exact opposite of the desired end will result; all to look tough in an election year.

17 posted on 10/08/2006 4:53:23 PM PDT by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Roadblocks take place on public right of way or publicly owned roads.

Best way to avoid a roadblock is to stay secure in your home looking at your papers, eh!

18 posted on 10/08/2006 4:55:06 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter

They are not terribly "civil", since those little modifications to the 4th Amendment would guarantee the rights of criminals to dispossess the poor and weak.


19 posted on 10/08/2006 4:56:06 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
• Allow warrantless surveillance of virtually any international phone call and e-mail of American citizens without any evidence of conspiracy with al-Qaida or other terrorist entities.

*shakes head*
The composer of this opinion compost obviously has no concept of pin registers or how they work, let alone standing case law on the matter.

Such ignorance is a great threat to our Republic, ... wait, is Bob Barr REALLY that ignorant?

20 posted on 10/08/2006 5:00:14 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
The Fourth Amendment protections apply to all free persons.

Agreed, but what exactly are 'vital protections to criminals'? Is it a game where there are fair and unfair ways to catch mass murderers? 'Vital protections to suspected criminals' makes sense to me, but 'vital protections' to criminals does not. I think I might be splitting hairs here.

21 posted on 10/08/2006 5:00:21 PM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Roadblocks take place on public right of way or publicly owned roads.

No such thing as "public" rights of way or owned roads anymore.

22 posted on 10/08/2006 5:06:23 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
They're all "privte"?

Your response is so obscure I don't know if you are trying to make a point or what.

23 posted on 10/08/2006 5:08:33 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution protects Americans against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and against warrants being issued without "probable cause" that they have done something wrong.

HAH!! Tell that to the "Family Court" stormtroopers. They'll laugh you all the way into a jail cell.

24 posted on 10/08/2006 5:15:44 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
They're all "privte"?

No, they're all government.

A public road is one which can be peaceably traveled upon without interference.

The comment was relevant in the context it was made, and I don't wish to hijack this thread with this discussion, but I would still trade.

25 posted on 10/08/2006 5:18:10 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: layman
'Vital protections to suspected criminals' makes sense to me, but 'vital protections' to criminals does not.

Any protections given to suspected criminals who are not yet convicted will also be given to real criminals who haven't yet been convicted.

Further, I would suggest that if the police are allowed to bend the rules against those who are 'probably' guilty, that will open the door for them to bend the rules against those against whom the case is 'probably' as strong as those who were 'probably' guilty, etc. until the police feel free to bend the rules against practically anyone.

BTW, one law I'd like to see states pass to re-add some teeth to the Fourteenth Amendment would be one creating a presumption that someone who shot a cop who was carrying out a no-knock raid did so in self-defense. Such a person could still be prosecuted if the state could prove either that the defendant's actions showed beyond doubt that he knew the attackers were police, or that there is no way a reasonable person could have believed the attackers were anything other than police. To prove the latter, the state would have to prove among other things that the defendant could not have believed the attackers to be some crooks with phony uniforms.

While no-knock raids are occasionally necessary (e.g. for hostage rescue) most of them serve only to impose terror on the citizenry while endangering everybody. If cops act like criminals, they should expect to be shot like criminals. If cops don't want to get shot, they should act like peace officers rather than thugs.

26 posted on 10/08/2006 5:20:57 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
20th-century court decisions have made clear that Americans' electronic communications are covered within the sphere of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment's edict.

The problem being that 21st century courts refuse to uphold the precedents. Perhaps in a few years, we'll return to a sounder notion about the privacy of citizens. Until then, the statists will have their day in the sun.

If Her Thighness is elected in '08, I suspect a lot of Republicans will suddenly grasp the dangers of some of these laws.
27 posted on 10/08/2006 5:24:53 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I don't know any conservatives,myself included that is willing to give "Big Brother" any unnecessary power to violate our Constitutional rights.That being said I disagree with Bob Barr and others that the Patriot Act,warrentless wiretaps,profiling etc. are greater dangers to American citizens then what they're being used to stop.It hasn't slipped my notice that people who are so willing to put an end to these programs offer NO alternative solutions on how to deal with terrorism.On Sept 11,2001 the USA had possibly the strongest Army,Navy and Air Force in the world but 20 guy's with box cutters managed to destroy the twin towers,damage the Pentagon and kill thousands of Americans.The key to this war is intelligence and to deprive ourselves of it's benefits is foolish and dangerous !!!


28 posted on 10/08/2006 5:30:04 PM PDT by Obie Wan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
• Define "agent of a foreign power" and "weapon of mass destruction" far more broadly than under current law, and far more broadly than necessary, so as to potentially justify warrantless surveillance on persons or companies that possess quantities of gunpowder or maintain information on the conduct of our country's "foreign affairs."

When the next lib president gets in, he/she will have fun with this. You will see the end of the Second Amendment with this legislation. What is meant by "quantities", a few rounds, a keg for reloading. Don't to be too quick to demonize the story above ... if you do, you do it at your own (and my) peril.

29 posted on 10/08/2006 5:33:47 PM PDT by MaDeuce (Do it to them, before they do it to you! (MaDuce = M2HB .50 BMG))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford
Privacy Rights are a sacred thing when you're talking about the Patriot Act, but are a bogus act of judicial activism when talking about Roe?

Roe depended on the '65 Griswold decision about a right to contraceptives and information (barring states from outlawing them). Both were loosely based, largely on imagination of the justices, around a fictitious application of either the Ninth or the Fourteenth amendments (the legal scholars are still arguing over where the right to privacy is actually found). In this article, Barr is discussing the Fourth Amendment's application. So legally, Barr is discussing a more fundamental and far better established right than we see with Griswold/Roe.

I mean, conservatives have to get this straight.

We do have it straight. Keep reading and you'll get it straight too.
30 posted on 10/08/2006 5:35:12 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The word "privacy" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution...

“And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths
Win us with honest trifles, to betray's
In deepest consequence.”

(Banquo, act 1, scene 3, William Shakespeare's Macbeth)


31 posted on 10/08/2006 5:39:23 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
If cops don't want to get shot, they should act like peace officers rather than thugs.

Amen. I sorely miss peace officers.

32 posted on 10/08/2006 5:40:03 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

All that privacy rights amount to is protection from voyeurism and the oppression of personal data.

Or as I like to put it, "Nobody wants to know anything about you for *your* benefit."

Voyeurism, as I see it, is nothing more than greed for collecting personal information about others. And greed, among sins, is unique, because it has no natural limitation. A greedy person can want all the wealth in the world, and a voyeur can want to know and record every tiny detail of another person's life.

A true voyeur, as defined by a psychologist, is as unstoppable in their greed for information as a pedophile is attracted to children. They are addicted and cannot stop themselves. Even putting them in prison will not deter their abberation. When released, they will immediately return to their pursuit. Voyeurism or pedophilia.

And many voyeurs are employed by government and business, who incorrectly think that there is some value in collecting and collating all of this information. They work for virtually every government agency and most large businesses.

This in turn leads to "the oppression of personal data". Both government and corporations using their voyeurs to collect and share volumes of data, correct and incorrect, not for the voyeurs' sake of doing so; but because they feel that in some way it gives them *power* over others.

Of course they can and do endlessly justify vast databases on millions of people with the flimsiest rationales. If for no other reason, so that they never have to deal with a person who is unknown to them. All must have a dossier.

Much of their reasoning is circular. All people should have a national identity card *because* then we will know that the data we have collected about them is for them, that they are who they say they are; *because* identifying them means that we can collect an accurate file on them; *because* if we have an accurate file we can be sure that we have issued them their correct identity card.

But usually in their minds, they obsessively collect information, "To help us serve you better".

When departing the Army, I was amazed at how many government agencies and departments wanted personal information about me for their files. Along with the reasonable ones, like the Department of Veterans' Affairs, there was the Departments of Transporation and Agriculture, HHS, HUD, Interior, etc.

As the outprocessing NCO showed me this great stack of paper, I kept insisting that he present me with only the absolutely mandatory forms. Despite his protests, the final tally amounted to five forms, about 10 pages. Not the two reams of paper before me.

So as I said before, there is no limit to voyeurism, to greed. And this is really the only major reason that the US needs privacy laws. To *put* limits on voyeurism and the "oppression of personal data."

Does anyone believe that having traffic cameras everywhere does anything more than increase revenues through fines?

Would it truly harm your grocery store chain if they were prohibited from keeping a customer marketing database with personal information?

When you get a dog license for your pet, does your county really need to know all sorts of personal information about you? You might be surprised how much many of them ask for, and how totally unrelated much of it is to having a pet animal.

This is because they sell it. Do they really need to make a profit from providing dog tags?

Same with State drivers licenses. They sell it to companies for big money. Should they be allowed to do this?

Does having a dossier on you do *anything* to help the Department of Transportation do a better job? Do they really need your school and medical records, along with your credit rating?

We have to have some limits.


33 posted on 10/08/2006 5:40:45 PM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The devil is in the details. However, Bob Barr, who is now working for the communist-founded ACLU is less than honest.

The legislation, ostensibly to authorize this president and future presidents to listen in on communications by al-Qaida terrorists and those in communication with them, sweeps far more broadly than its proponents would have the American people believe. Relying on broad and vague definitions and enumerations of powers, the legislation championed by the Bush administration and supported by its many champions in the Congress would, among other things:

• Allow warrantless surveillance of virtually any international phone call and e-mail of American citizens without any evidence of conspiracy with al-Qaida or other terrorist entities.

Any? No, not any or all, but specific ones between suspected foreign terrorists and Americans.

• Authorize the attorney general without court approval to order Internet service providers and other types of companies to give the NSA access to communications and equipment regarding information on its customers, without any proof that American customers whose communications are acquired are conspiring with terrorists.
How can you prove a conspiracy if you can't listen to or read the conversations?
By its very nature, the internet is not secure and only the technologically uninformed are delusional enough to believe that there is privacy.
If you communicate with a terrorist, that is prima facea evidence or collusion unless you prove otherwise. Not all emails are being read fully, only those communicating with the foreigners of interest.

• Allow warrantless physical searches of Americans' homes for extended periods without any evidence presented to a court that the homeowner is conspiring with or connected to terrorists.
Not a fan of this, but this is not new. It is commonwith drug cases.

• Define "agent of a foreign power" and "weapon of mass destruction" far more broadly than under current law, and far more broadly than necessary, so as to potentially justify warrantless surveillance on persons or companies that possess quantities of gunpowder or maintain information on the conduct of our country's "foreign affairs."
Claimed hysterically in the past, but no evidence has ever been submitted.

Taken as a whole, the powers thus sought by the administration, and which have already been given imprimatur by the House, would do irreparable damage to the underpinnings of the Fourth Amendment.
Hey, Bobby, what would you do to defend us?
Didn't think so.

34 posted on 10/08/2006 5:43:07 PM PDT by rmlew (DeathKlok Rules!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
The war on terror can be won very simply, by burying dead Islamic terrorists in pig's blood.

Just nuke Mecca... throw in a ham sandwich for flavor...

35 posted on 10/08/2006 5:44:46 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: middie

If you are not proposing a counter-proposal, you are merely providing cover.


36 posted on 10/08/2006 5:45:27 PM PDT by rmlew (DeathKlok Rules!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Obie Wan
The key to this war is intelligence and to deprive ourselves...

Who's asking anyone to deprive themselves? Tell me how stopping me to check me for signs of drinking when I don't drink, or reading my e-mails when I don't terrorize is helping anything.

To which Newbie Kanubie might respond: Well how will we know this is all true if we don't check?

Imagine the vast potential intelligence trove from warrantless home searches, Newbus! Hope to see you there with your battering ram. But I'll be ready for you, mo fo.

37 posted on 10/08/2006 5:46:45 PM PDT by at bay ("We actually did an evil....." Eric Schmidt, CEO Google)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Would it be too much to ask the author of this piece to provide the name, bill number or other identifying information so that the reader might be able to verify the conclusions of the article?


38 posted on 10/08/2006 5:48:16 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: at bay

Yeah well here's a question "MO FO". These programs have been used for a few years now,any violations to citizens that you've heard about,because I haven't heard of any? And you know what else "MO FO" if I hear of any I'll be the first one to sound off about em. But until then I don't have a problem with them. If you do call the ACLU,they'll be glad to listen !!!


39 posted on 10/08/2006 5:58:59 PM PDT by Obie Wan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Obie Wan

Yeah, they'll let me know each time they intercept my e-mails or surreptitiously break into my house. No complaints? Everything must be peachy, Newbie.


40 posted on 10/08/2006 6:14:43 PM PDT by at bay ("We actually did an evil....." Eric Schmidt, CEO Google)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: at bay

You must have something to hide "MO FO",I don't and I'm not worried about losing any of my rights,but if the Democraps win back Congress you'll probably be a happy little boy cause I'm sure they'll do away with all of them !!!


41 posted on 10/08/2006 6:21:17 PM PDT by Obie Wan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
Would it be too much to ask the author of this piece to provide the name, bill number or other identifying information so that the reader might be able to verify the conclusions of the article?
You've got to be kidding. Expressly stating such things is counteruntuitive for today's press. Informing Americans is the last thing on their minds. Thus the premise that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You're expected to know it with or without any help from the press.
I'm so glad Owl Bore invented the Internet...a few keywords and you get...

Wiretap bill sets up election-year issue
The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.
"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

Snip...The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.
Then you go to Thomas...and look up bills sponsored by Rep. Wilson's (Browse Bills by Sponsor) and after scrolling down a bit to 22 and you get...this page which leads to this...
H.R.5825 Title: To update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
9/28/2006 10:18pm: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 232 - 191 (Roll No. 502). (text: CR H7853-7857)

42 posted on 10/08/2006 6:25:48 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Shoot! counteruntuitive = counterintuitive


43 posted on 10/08/2006 6:26:42 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

Huh? Has it now become a commentator's responsibility to write proposed legislation? If so, I decline.


44 posted on 10/08/2006 6:34:27 PM PDT by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Supercat, you are indeed an astute commentator.


45 posted on 10/08/2006 6:38:25 PM PDT by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Obie Wan
One of the Patriot Act provisions is that your phone provider and your ISP will go to prison if they let you know that you're under surveillance. That's one reason you haven't heard about it. The end of banking privacy is much the same: your bank's employees must surrender all info without letting you know. And it is not clear who the information is given to or the uses to which they will put it.

It paves the way for a total surveillance society, historically the goal of ruling classes that have bad intentions toward liberty.
46 posted on 10/08/2006 8:02:46 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

Well George you and at bay can wring your hands about the situation if you want.As I said I'm not worried about it and I'm glad these programs have helped to zero in on terrorism here and abroad,however if I'm wrong you and your buddy can give me a big I told you so ok ???


47 posted on 10/08/2006 8:23:16 PM PDT by Obie Wan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Obie Wan
As I said I'm not worried about it and I'm glad these programs have helped to zero in on terrorism here and abroad,...

Actually, you have no idea whether they have actually helped zero in on domestic terrorism at all. That's the nature of the programs. As far as terrorism abroad, that is a separate subject from this thread which is about American liberty.

...however if I'm wrong you and your buddy can give me a big I told you so ok ???

So the rights American's have fought and died for, the great issues of our legislatures and courts, the best safeguards our Founders could devise for liberty, all come down to a contest of I-told-you-so's?

No thanks. But then, the Founders already told me what to expect. They were always cynical about the prospects of liberty's survival.
48 posted on 10/08/2006 9:28:05 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

One reason why we need so-called "warrentless wiretaps" is we often don't know who or what we are looking for. In order to connect the dots especially. Dems are either stupid or purposefully obtuse (my new favorite word). If we were able to wiretap the 9/11 hijackers, seemingly harmless things done and said by one or two people would have been obviously provocative when 19 were involved... Then there's the date- 9/11 - they talked about a cake with a stick. They also mentioned weddings. ALL things that would only have appeared odd & possibly important if we had listened/watched them beforehand. Part of the reason for the wiretaps is to IDENTIFY and FIND terrorists. We often don't know who they are until they do something, or they are caught.

Awfully hard to get a warrant when you don't know who you need it for. (Not sure if I made sense, but that's how I figure this)


49 posted on 10/08/2006 10:01:53 PM PDT by PghBaldy (Depose Nancy! What did she know and when did she know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford
Good points. I too am somewhat concerned about warrentless wiretaps if a diabolical President (like a Clinton or a Dem) were in office. I have seen no evidence that Bush uses these supposed egregious powers to punish or harm innocents for malevolent purposes.
50 posted on 10/08/2006 10:05:23 PM PDT by PghBaldy (Depose Nancy! What did she know and when did she know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson