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

Skip to comments.

Will the War Kill the Bill of Rights?
Cato Institute ^ | October 18, 2001 | David Kopel

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: Reagan Man
May I suggest that you get another screen name? Your comments on this thread would be roundly thrashed by the greatest president of the 20th Century. You are not worthy to wear his moniker.

May I suggest "Stalin Man", "Mao Man", or "Hitler Man" instead?

41 posted on 10/23/2001 11:59:59 AM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
" ...rights granted by this portion of the US Constitution."

As an example of why you are "mis-named", Ronald Reagan knows that the US Constitution does not grant any rights. It merely enumerates those unalienable rights that are granted by the Creator. You are not free to own a firearm because some document grants you this right. You are free to "keep and bear arms" because you possess the right to self-defense.

Please, change your screen name!

42 posted on 10/23/2001 12:04:57 PM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: Reagan Man
You and I probably agree more then we disagree. At least I hope so

Hard to tell, at least you've kept it polite which is more than a lot do here.

you seem to indicate a significant level of fear and indignation. If I'm reading you wrong, please correct meI am deeply concerned that the federal governmnet will turn even more tyrannical than it is. I remember growing up in '50s without 95% of the federal government that we have today. We didn't have to lock our doors, you could buy firearms at the hardware store, and the overall tax burden was considerable less. Since then the government has extorted a significant fraction of my total life's work, burdened me with hundreds of thousands of pages of federal regulations that I can go to jail for, and worked very hard to make sure I'm defenseless.

My life is not any better not that it was then because of anything the government did. Any improvements came from private industry. The car I drive now has 40 hp less than the one I had in '65, and cost almost 8 times as much thanks primarily to federal regulations. I pay about half of my income to government at all levels, a figure which creeps up every year. And what do I get for it. I government that can't keep a bunch of arabs from destroying innocent civilians. Now the selfsame government that has grown fat on the backs of working Americans is whining that it needs more powers. Well no one killed 5000 American civilians in the '60s (although I did get to learn about M-16s, L shaped ambushes, grenades and all that crap at government expense during that decade) Frankly I think we'd be better off if they got rid of some of the huge bureaucracy that they have to micro-mismanage our lives and devoted some of those resources to:

  1. cutting off the tidal wave of third world immigrants who bring all sorts of liabilities with them
  2. go back to spying on foreign nations
  3. and most important let the resources (taxes) that have been wasted by government in its Stalinesque wealth redistribution schemes stay in the free market to innovate and serve the citizens with what the citizens want rather than some Hegelian bureaucrat's dream of "social justice".

I don't believe America is on the road to becoming a totalitarian state

I disagree here. Gun control, Internal passports, government carte blanche to pry into every fact about you, secret trials, asset seizure without trial, etc. is totalitarianism.

And lastly, (Ben F.)I believe his outlook on things would be much different

I disagree on this too. Human nature is exactly the same as it was in 1776. The nature of government is the same too, except King George would never dream of looting a much as government in the US loots today. If they were able to see us today, I think the founding fathers would turn from us in disgust at how we squandered the freedom that they bought with their lives their fortunes and their sacred honor.

44 posted on 10/23/2001 12:23:29 PM PDT by from occupied ga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: angry beaver norbert
I'm shopping for ammunition,myself

So am I, but I can't find any 81mm :-(

45 posted on 10/23/2001 12:26:28 PM PDT by from occupied ga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: Reagan Man
Are you suggesting that I "advocate giving up our liberties"?

You have taken issue with Franklin's warning against trading liberty for security. It seems you are willing to give up at least some liberties.

That does not mean you approve of tyranny or oppose the Constitution. In your response to zeugma, you wrote,

Having said that, it's still very important that we the people, also protect and defend our Constitutional rights. It's a serious balancing act. Surrendering our individual rights isn't acceptable. But the giving of some additional time and a little privacy in order to help fight terrorism is a very patriotic thing to do. IMHO, of course!

The problem is that the "serious balancing act" you propose is difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to pull off. Once the federal government is allowed to exceed the bounds set for it by the Constitution, it resists being pushed back. Governments are never satisfied with the citizen's sacrifice of a little time and a little privacy (which are themselves important rights); their tendency is always to demand more.

47 posted on 10/23/2001 12:38:12 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wm Bach
With the attacks of 9-11, an act of war was committed against the US. We don't need Congress to declare anything. We are at war with international terrorism. Period! Your rhetoric means nothing.

And we have a real leader, his name is President George W.Bush. If you don't like it, too bad! Work to get someone else elected POTUS in 2004. Until then, shut up.

48 posted on 10/23/2001 12:50:22 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
You're either with us, or against us. There's no in between.

Well considering that if I am with you, I am for losing some of my consititutionally guaranteed rights for security that I probably don't need, and if I am against you then I am for keeping those rights and looking out for my own security. Well, sorry dude, no contest, guess I am against you.

Sorry pal, the President can do what he wants on foriegn soil for this war on terrorism, but if that is going to include coming after my rights, as guaranteed under the constitution, well, he can just kiss off. I am a citizen, born and raised, I am a veteran, I swore an oath to that document. If you think that I am just going to say DUH, OK!! Well you got another thing coming. Declare war as it states in the constitution and maybe we'll talk, but even that is pushing it for some of the stuff our kongresskritters in Washington are trying to pass.

If you are for infringing or taking away my constitutional rights, then I am MOST definitely against you!!
49 posted on 10/23/2001 12:52:31 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rdavis84
Any body getting the Drift out there?

Yep. The death of America is speeding up.

50 posted on 10/23/2001 12:55:16 PM PDT by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
What are you babbling about?

The real question is what are you babbling about?

To compare the revolutionary world of 1776 to the terrorist world of 2001, shows either sheer ignorance, or pure folly on your part. The "Tories" have little in common to 21st century terrorists. If you can't see the differences, thats your problem.

51 posted on 10/23/2001 12:55:34 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
May I suggest "Stalin Man", "Mao Man", or "Hitler Man" instead?

No, I'll stick with Reagan Man. Thanks anyway a-hole!

52 posted on 10/23/2001 12:57:33 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
This is no time to over react and allow fear to control our lives.

Sport, you flamed me on a thread the other day, and I ignored you, because it's my habit to ignore ignorant people.

The fact is, that if you truly believe what you spout, you're either a) on the wrong side or b) a clueless sheep. I'm supposing it's only b). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I've been actively involved in the fight to keep What's Left of America free for many many years. The Bill of Rights is essentially dead, and is ignored almost totally by our "rulers." You don't think so? Then you haven't been watching. This once-great nation has become EXACTLY what the men who founded it feared and tried so hard to prevent by the Constitution they wrote and its attendant Bill of Rights. And it's only getting worse.

Sadly, most Americans, just like most Germans several decades ago, will only wake up when it's far too late.

As for it being "war time," so we "need to give up some liberties" - never forget that Evil rides in on the back of a white horse.

53 posted on 10/23/2001 1:02:44 PM PDT by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
...knows that the US Constitution does not grant any rights.

Ronald Reagan and Reagan Man both know that it's not called the Bill of Rights for nothing bucko.

Please, change your screen name already a-hole!

54 posted on 10/23/2001 1:02:44 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: KentuckyWoman
I suppose, when that time comes, that people will still be saying "but if you've registered your guns, you don't have anything to worry about" - right up until the point that the BATF knocks on the door demanding that we hand them over.

Unfortunately, you are correct. Sad, isn't it?

55 posted on 10/23/2001 1:04:41 PM PDT by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
With the attacks of 9-11, an act of war was committed against the US.

And Japanese pilots committed an act of war at Pearl Harbor. In response, it is Congress's constitutional duty (if you 'conservatives' can remember what that is) to declare war.

We don't need Congress to declare anything

Why does the Constitution require Congress to do so? Does the Constitution mean anything to 'conservatives' anymore?

We are at war with international terrorism. Period! Your rhetoric means nothing.

Maybe this should mean something:

Article. I., Section. 8., Clause 11: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"

56 posted on 10/23/2001 1:04:57 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I agree that there is a war on. But that does not make everything the govt does automatically right. I think it sensible and entirely fair to ask of each proposed measure: does this really help? I don't think expanded police powers for the federal govt will help. I think only the innocent will be caught in their dragnet.
57 posted on 10/23/2001 1:05:21 PM PDT by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man; Jerry_M
I have found that those who make quick comparisons to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, et al actually know very little about Hitler, Mao, Stalin, et al.
58 posted on 10/23/2001 1:06:31 PM PDT by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Let's leave Ben franklin out of it

As you said, z., no can do here either.

The people who built this country were FAR wiser than we are today. They were educated, well-spoken, and they understood world history and human nature. Franklin and Jefferson and Sam Adams and many more were RIGHT. It's a pity that today they are thought of so lowly by ignorant people who can't hold a fraction of a candle to their intellect, understanding and reason. It'd actually be laughable, if the stakes weren't so deadly serious.

59 posted on 10/23/2001 1:10:47 PM PDT by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 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