Posted on 10/23/2001 8:48:28 AM PDT by sendtoscott
Will the War Kill the Bill of Rights?
by David Kopel, Fellow, Cato Institute
October 18, 2001
Late last week, Congress hurriedly passed massive "terrorism" bills that had never received committee hearings. Indeed, the House bill was only introduced on the morning that it passed - providing House members with no realistic opportunity to study the bill's tremendous implications. Both the House and the Senate bills grant vast powers to law enforcement that have nothing to do with counter-terrorism.
Because the House and Senate bills differ, a conference committee will be appointed, which will begin meeting very soon.
The House Judiciary Committee had unanimously passed an anti-terrorism bill, which awaited House floor action. But instead of bringing forward the bill that had received committee scrutiny, the House leadership (buckling to pressure from the administration) had a brand-new bill written and brought to the floor of the full House. The leadership moved so hastily that members were deprived of the opportunity even to read the bill before voting on it.
The House bill does include some sensible provisions to help the government fight terrorism, such as expediting the hiring of language translators for counter-terrorism work.
But there are also provisions that seriously infringe privacy, while offering little in the way of counter-terrorism. For example, the bill allows the government, without a warrant, to monitor every e-mail that a person sends and receives. Content access would, however, require a search warrant - although in practice the government would be on the honor system not to read content. Any state, local, or federal law enforcement officer could use the e-mail surveillance. And there is no requirement that this surveillance be connected to a terrorism investigation.
Currently, if the government wants to monitor a person's postal mail, the feds have to get a search warrant. Why should we lower privacy standards because the mail is sent electronically rather than by hand?
The House bill also allows surveillance of a person's Internet surfing. The government can capture the web address of every page that a person views-without a search warrant. This allows any law officer to find out intimate details about a person's politics, hobbies, and even sexual orientation. There is no requirement that this surveillance be related to counter-terrorism.
Significantly, the bill sunsets some (but not all) of the expanded government surveillance provisions after three years. This is a sensible recognition of the fact that the executive branch is asking for extraordinary wartime powers. If the war hasn't ended in three years, Congress is capable of enacting legislation to extend the powers.
The Senate bill-243 pages-is much worse than the House bill. The former's expansions of government power are permanent. Given that the bill will restrict the freedom of people born 50 years from now, it is inappropriate for the bill to be rushed through Congress only a few days after being written.
The Senate bill allows the government to conduct secret searches. This measure is not limited to terrorism cases. Rather, it would apply to federal government searches involving drugs, pornography, gambling, and everything else in the federal criminal code.
The federal government could covertly enter a person's house, copy the contents of his computer, and then break in the next month, and copy the hard disk again. To perform secret searches, the government would merely have to show that there "might" be an "adverse result" if the person found out about the search.
Of all the checks and balances in the Fourth Amendment, the most important is that the person who is searched knows that he has been searched. More so than any other person, he will have the incentive to complain (and, if necessary, to sue) if the search was in violation of the Constitution. Because judges don't come along when the police serve search warrants, judges have no practical way of knowing whether a search is conducted within the limits of the search warrant. In essence, secret searches put federal agents on the honor system.
While the solid majority of federal law enforcement agents are honorable, some are not. And the records of the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, and the rest of the federal law enforcement bureaucracy over the past decades demonstrate that when power can be used, some agents will abuse it.
Both the House and the Senate contain many laudable, and uncontroversial measures, such as providing assistance to the families of police and firefighters who died on Sept. 11. Congress would do better to quickly pass the measures that do not infringe civil liberty, and then take time to ensure that new restrictions on liberty are no broader than necessary, and that they apply only to terrorism investigations.
LOL LOL LOL
LOL..I have never asked you about your personal life..But I would say it may be true on FR *grin*
I've been telling people that America as a Constitutional Republic finally succumbed on Sept. 11, when it was replaced by what will eventually be known as Imperial America.
Sad thing is, I don't see any way around it. Our Constitution, weakened and ignored from a long train of abuses dealt out by tyrants like Lincoln and FDR, just couldn't support us any longer. We are left in a position of grasping the new order and thereby defeating terrorism, or simply expiring with a whimper.
America, 1776-2001. Requiescat in pace.
Yeah I get the drift, but seems to me it's more like a rip-tide. I've been telling people that America as a Constitutional Republic finally succumbed on Sept. 11, when it was replaced by what will eventually be known as Imperial America.
Sad thing is, I don't see any way around it. Our Constitution, weakened and ignored from a long train of abuses dealt out by tyrants like Lincoln and FDR, just couldn't support us any longer. We are left in a position of grasping the new order and thereby defeating terrorism, or simply expiring with a whimper.
America, 1776-2001. Requiescat in pace.
I hope you are wrong but I fear not..
I'll just jump in here, having seen enough of your posts. Jerry can walk with me any day and I'd trust him with my life. Your understanding of Natural Rights and the Constitution show me you need to get a better education. Oh, just for my info, where did my Right to KABA come from (Keep and Bear Arms)?
Remember, God helps those, who help themselves. Start helping yourself out. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. From reading your blatherings, you've been wasting your mind for far too long.
No doubt! Please start using yours:
For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel: "In returning and rest shall ye be saved, in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength; but ye would not.Seems like God knows better than Reagan Man and seems like our Founding Fathers knew better than Reagan Man.For since the beginning of the world men have not heard nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, besides thee, what He hath prepared for him that waiteth for Him.
>>>>Seems like God knows better than Reagan Man and seems like our Founding Fathers knew better than Reagan Man.
I believe God knows better then all of us combined and the Founding Fathers knew better then most of us.
>>>>Your understanding of Natural Rights and the Constitution show me you need to get a better education.
You know thats just your opinion and nothing more, right? Of course you do.
Look CCWoody, I am not a libertarian, a druggie, a religious extremist, an anarchist, nor do I support such radical positions, or respect them. But I fully understand the idea of natural rights, which come from the nature of man and the world. Because of mankind's barbaric and corrupt nature, individuals have the right to defend themselves and their property. Basic law is derived from this right and not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
As for the Constitution, I respect it for the great historical and governing document that it is. But I don't consider it holy scripture, as many on Free Republic do. The basic principles of its content can be found in the overall simplicity that continues to guide this nation. It truly represents the best form for limited government that mankind has ever created in history.
It would appear you and Jerry_M have many things in common. You're both sanctimonious, condescending, covered with self-righteous indignation and abundant amounts of self-conscious virtue. Birds of a feather flock together. You two deserve each other. Two egocentric creatures bound together by a holier then thou mindset and an eternal love for themselves and their rhetorical opinions.
Thank God, you're kind is in the ultra minority in America today.
Nuff said.
(... coming down to your intellectual level...) No. Make me. Your rhetoric is just pure commie pinko sandbox ranting. Move to China if you can't abide by the supreme law of the land.
It would appear you and Jerry_M have many things in common.
Jerry, I consider this a compliment. Even though you are my elder in the Faith by a few years it is nice to see that even nitwits can recognize this.
Even though "Reagan Man" sees that we have much in common, doesn't it disturb you that telling the truth about a very important issue (the source of rights) would be considered "sanctimonious, condescending, covered with self-righteous indignation and abundant amounts of self-conscious virtue"?
(And doesn't it trouble you even more that one who would seek to honor Ronald Reagon would be so clueless on this topic?)
Tell me, O Reagan Man, what does this mean? I notice that a lot of questions get asked and you answer few of them!
Jerry, I don't worry about the caliber of the gun that the guy with me carries; I worry about the caliber of person strapped to that gun. Besides, I bet yer 6 shooter hits better in yer hands than my 1911 style in mine. (But I'm getting better)
Not only a compliment, but a Commandment from God!
Property rights are an extension of an individual's rights.
A man's right to defend himself precedes the necessity for property right's. The right to defend yourself is fundamental to the right of survival.
---max
Reagan Man is the kind of less-than-thoughtful conservative we don't need.
Some of us see them as God given rights..what man gives man can take away..what God gives is a right not a privilege and only He can take it away..I believe that is why our forefathers said that we have unalienable rights
Some, maybe, on selected political threads. Not much, though.
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.