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.
I agree with the spirit of your post, but I don't think the privacy argument should even enter into the abortion debate. By that logic, it would be OK for you to murder your wife as long as you do it in private. Conservatives made a mistake that may prove fatal in swallowing the hook on that one. Whether there is or isn't a "right to privacy", people want there to be one. Allowing the other side to use it as a strw-man in the abortion debate was extremely ill-advised.
It sounds logical to me however the same people who've got a problem with the Patriot Act more often then not have got a REAL problem with people packing heat !!!
If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.
Either we all are free or none of us are. When we tolerated Nixon's violation of the Bill of Rights to declare a War On Drugs libertarians warned that this was a slippery slope that would lead to the loss of our rights. It has done just that and none of us are free now. I don't know why this surprises anyone.
.
I didn't mean you needed to remove me. Unless this is the kind of thing you normally post. My name IS I Love W, after all. There's a reason.
I post a variety of stuff. Some of it happens to be critical of your beloved, some otherwise. :-)
Lol ok, well keep me on the list and I'll just ignore the stuff I don't like :)
Sounds good to me.
*claps* Thanks :)
"The word "privacy" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution..."
Doesn't have to be. Remember the nearly late, lamented Fourth amendment? About being secure in our persons, property and papers? Or the Ninth and Tenth? But then you are one who has no heartburn at all about trampling on the rights of others. I'm sure you'd be a grand enforcer of these laws.
Though, to be sure, our right to privacy does NOT extend to committing murder on the pre-born.
I have nothing particular to hide, but I do NOT intend my life ro be an open book to any idiot with a badge who comes along. This is VERY bad law. The Senate needs to hear about it and why. If YOU want to mail all the particulars of your life, including a set of house keys, your banking info, ALL rhe contents of your hard drive, including things you might know ZILCH about, be my guest. However, you presume to lay MY life open at your great peril.
I have SERIOUS problems with USAPATRIOT I and II. I ALSO have serious problems with ANYONE, W included, who would in any way, shape or form try to infringe on my RIGHT to carry the weapon of my choice where and when I will.
Ok here's what you and the rest of the hand wringers here do about the Patriot Act and any other government intelligence measures that bother you.Instead of telling me,call your Congressman and Senators and ask them to vote against the Patriot Act the next time it comes up for renewal.Another possible solution is if the Democraps win big in November they will probably put an end to a number of the current intelligence measures being used,so go vote Democrap.However as I've stated 500 times before I believe the war on terror requires intelligence measures that in other times in history wouldn't be necessary.We've got an open society who no longer even bothers to try and control who's comming into the country or what they're doing.How you going to deal with that fact if you don't use intelligence? Please don't try and tell me the government's going to round them up and get em out of here either because there's not a chance in hell that's going to happen.For the time being I'm ok with these measures because I believe they're keeping me and my family a little safer,but if any abuse comes to the surface I'll be the first one to yell loud and clear !!!
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -attributed to Benjamin Franklin
By the time the abuses surface and slap you in the face, well... it's WAY too late.
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.