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 privacytheir "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 anotherRepublican and Democrat alikesought 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 legislationand 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.
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 !!!
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)
Shoot! counteruntuitive = counterintuitive
Huh? Has it now become a commentator's responsibility to write proposed legislation? If so, I decline.
Supercat, you are indeed an astute commentator.
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 ???
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)
One thing- often info is sent overseas, supposedly, foreigners now view XRays, cheaper & because of timezones, good for ERs. Also, I saw a news report years ago that some airlines outsourced reservations to prisons... I'm not kidding. I understand the need for the Patriot Act, I'm also disturbed by the ever-circling levels of snooping.
You must have something to hide
What a fool.
- John
One alternative solution is to actually go after people you suspect may have something to do with terrorism. As far as 9-11 goes, the simple solution would be to allow everyone to carry guns and other weapons on board planes. It was the ban on such weapons pre-911, in part, that allowed those subhumans to take the planes armed merely with boxcutters.
Please point me to the part of the column that said the president is evil.
and destroying the Constitution?
Not so much destroying it as ignoring it, with the complicity of Congress--witness Campaign Finance Reform, for example, which violated the First Amendment, but was signed into law anyhow.
And I'm being pinged to this...why?
I ping FReepers that I met in person, but I'll go ahead and remove you from my ping list.
I generally agree with you that law-and-order "conservatives" are a little hypocritical on this issue, but I think you have Roe wrong. Despite the fact that liberals have framed it in a privacy context, that's a smoke screen. The real problem is that someone gets killed. Privacy cannot be stretched to cover murder.
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.