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.
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.
No such thing as "public" rights of way or owned roads anymore.
Your response is so obscure I don't know if you are trying to make a point or what.
HAH!! Tell that to the "Family Court" stormtroopers. They'll laugh you all the way into a jail cell.
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.
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.
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 !!!
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.
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)
Amen. I sorely miss peace officers.
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.
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.
Just nuke Mecca... throw in a ham sandwich for flavor...
If you are not proposing a counter-proposal, you are merely providing cover.
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.
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?
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 !!!
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.
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.