While reading the news today, I saw a rather disturbing headline: "President's Warrantless Wiretapping Powers Extended." If you want to read the full text of the article, it is found here, but the summary is that the President signed a bill allowing the government to monitor electronic communications without a warrant, the only requirement was that a high level official "sign off" on it.
The Fourth Amendment to the constitution clearly states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If our persons, houses, papers and effects are protected from search without a warrant, how can the government get away with monitoring electronic communication without a warrant? When did we abandon the rule of law for the rule of convenience and "security"? Illegal, Unconstitutional laws like these cannot be allowed to stand if we wish to hold on to the liberty that we claim to value.
3 comments:
First, this "unwarranted" wiretapping is only available if one of the parties is outside the United States.
Second, if our government must protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures, then wouldn't our government need to ensure that the government of the county you are calling is not monitoring your conversation. Or would it be easier if you just realized that your conversation is going out over strings of metal that are controlled by private companies, and that, with proper authorization, your, or another government can listen in.
Third, if our government was banned from wiretapping, why not just ask Interpol to do the work for us, and just give us the results. Whenever you call, unless you suing scrambling devices, your conversation can be overheard.
Lastly, based on the blogger's arguments, the Constitution is violated anytime a police officer pulls someone over, and smells alcohol. The Constitution provides a means, through which, one is granted the ability to perform a search without getting a warrant first. Basically, the "warrant" is verified for Constitutionality after the search is performed, when the defendant is on trial.
This law actually has one of the most powerful preventative measures available in place. It requires that a high level official sign off on the wiretapping. No government bureaucrat is going to sign off on bad-faith wiretaps, because his name will be on it, and the first reflex of only bureaucrat is that of butt-covering. They would not chance losing their power over something so stupid.
This whole idea that we are giving up our liberties for security is a ridiculous statement that cannot be rationally shown.
1) That doesn't matter, the Constitution still applies
2) The actions of other governments have no effect on what is or is not legal for out government to do. And, a warrant is the proper authorization for the US government to listen in on those "metal wires" (which, incidentally, do not exist, they are satellites and microwaves).
3) Again, the actions of another government does effect what is or is not legal for our government to do.
4) False analogy, if you are pulled over, you have already violated the law. The warrant is what makes a search legal, not the court room afterwards.
The law is illegal because it is a violation of the Constitution, it is that simple. We are giving up liberty for security, you need but open your eyes to see it.
You missed the point of most of my comments.
Point 1. I am pointing out facts that you do not present in your blog.
Point 2. The Constitution, in Amendment 4 states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Does that not mean that our government has the obligation to ensure that our persons, houses, papers, and effects must be secure. If that is true, and, if one of these include our electronic communications, (phone calls, emails...), then should our government not ensure the security of these overseas, so long as the person is still in the United States. Please note, this has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of this law, but simply points out that, in your line of thought, the Constitution has been violated from the first time people called internationally. I am not saying that this should be applied, as I will show later, there is another, Constitutionally-sound, according to the Supreme Court at least, method of looking at this problem.
Point 3. If the Supreme Court holds up your argument, which they won't, there is no reason that we cannot still obtain the same information from other sources. The problem with that would be that it would not be governed by our elected officials, but officials from other countries. This is pointing out the fact that, no matter what, our international phone calls are not private, nor are we protected from our government getting their hands on these communications.
Point 4. An officer can pull someone over, solely on the suspicion that some other violation may have occurred, such as DUI. Also, one can be stopped on suspicion that you or someone in the car is an illegal immigrant. In no way does this violate the Constitution, evinced by the fact that it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. "Warrantless" searches happen all the time and have been upheld by the Supreme Court. I would like to point out that in my previous post, when speaking of the constitutionality of "warrantless searches", I was referring to the method by which probable cause can be applied in absence of a warrant. That probable cause can then be verified to ensure that no Constitutional protection was violated.
Additional Point (added for this comment). The Supreme Court also has a test for the Fourth Amendment which regards expectation of privacy. One must have a reasonable expectation of privacy to have the Fourth Amendment apply. As I have already shown, international calling comes with no reasonable expectation of privacy.
p.s. Those metal wires do exist, they connect your "landline" phone to the Central Office.
Post a Comment