Friday, January 27, 2006
The Fourth Amendment
"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."
Don't worry, this isn't going to be a political rant in terms of Republican vs. Democrat. But it is going to be a plea for everyone to consider the long-term effects of relinquishing our freedoms one little piece at a time, and then to do something about it.
The only word I can find in the fourth amendement that is open to interpretation is "unreasonable." That can be a subjective thing. I happen to find it terrfying that the government can check my internet searches, and my library records, and wiretap my phone if they feel like it. I am certainly one of those people who could say "I haven't done anything wrong so I'm not worried about it."
But what if someone decides that eating chocolate and fried foods causes bad health, which causes high health care costs, which hurts everyone? Can they start snooping around to see what I'm eating? Or if I'm still smoking?
What if I have a tail light burned out on my car and I'm stopped by the police? Can they search my car on a fishing expedition, even though they don't smell pot or see bundles of cash? (The answer, in case you didn't know, is yes, they can, and it's been upheld as a valuable tool in the War on Drugs.)
Suppose you trust George Bush to do whatever he thinks he needs to to keep us safe. Would you have trusted Bill Clinton with those powers? Will you trust Hillary with them?
In other words, we have to look at this objectively. We can't say, well, he's a good guy and these are extraordinary times, so we'll let the Constitution be violated to keep us safe. How will we get our freedoms back if we relinquish them? Do you really think there will ever be a time when there is not a threat?
I know it's been quoted ad nauseum, but Ben Franklin hit the nail squarely on the head when he said "Those who would give up freedom for safety will have neither." Or, as Donald Rumsfeld said when Baghdad was being looted, "Democracy is untidy." Yes, it is. It's messy and it's imperfect and it's a lot of work, but it's so much better than the alternatives.
So I urge everyone to think about this very carefully. Don't let yourself be so scared that you give in to someone who tells you he will keep you safe and all it will cost you is your right to privacy (or your gun, or your free speech...) No matter how well-meaning and trustworthy the intent, it is the beginning of a very slippery slope.
If you agree with me, write your Congressmen and Senators and the White House. Fight for your rights. If you don't agree with me, that's okay. I'll fight to preserve your rights along with mine. But I sure could use some company in the fight!
Don't worry, this isn't going to be a political rant in terms of Republican vs. Democrat. But it is going to be a plea for everyone to consider the long-term effects of relinquishing our freedoms one little piece at a time, and then to do something about it.
The only word I can find in the fourth amendement that is open to interpretation is "unreasonable." That can be a subjective thing. I happen to find it terrfying that the government can check my internet searches, and my library records, and wiretap my phone if they feel like it. I am certainly one of those people who could say "I haven't done anything wrong so I'm not worried about it."
But what if someone decides that eating chocolate and fried foods causes bad health, which causes high health care costs, which hurts everyone? Can they start snooping around to see what I'm eating? Or if I'm still smoking?
What if I have a tail light burned out on my car and I'm stopped by the police? Can they search my car on a fishing expedition, even though they don't smell pot or see bundles of cash? (The answer, in case you didn't know, is yes, they can, and it's been upheld as a valuable tool in the War on Drugs.)
Suppose you trust George Bush to do whatever he thinks he needs to to keep us safe. Would you have trusted Bill Clinton with those powers? Will you trust Hillary with them?
In other words, we have to look at this objectively. We can't say, well, he's a good guy and these are extraordinary times, so we'll let the Constitution be violated to keep us safe. How will we get our freedoms back if we relinquish them? Do you really think there will ever be a time when there is not a threat?
I know it's been quoted ad nauseum, but Ben Franklin hit the nail squarely on the head when he said "Those who would give up freedom for safety will have neither." Or, as Donald Rumsfeld said when Baghdad was being looted, "Democracy is untidy." Yes, it is. It's messy and it's imperfect and it's a lot of work, but it's so much better than the alternatives.
So I urge everyone to think about this very carefully. Don't let yourself be so scared that you give in to someone who tells you he will keep you safe and all it will cost you is your right to privacy (or your gun, or your free speech...) No matter how well-meaning and trustworthy the intent, it is the beginning of a very slippery slope.
If you agree with me, write your Congressmen and Senators and the White House. Fight for your rights. If you don't agree with me, that's okay. I'll fight to preserve your rights along with mine. But I sure could use some company in the fight!
10 Comments:
I'm still wondering exactly what rights you and so many others seem to think we've lost. Show me a right I used to have that was guaranteed by the Constitution that is now gone.
And BTW- Hillary? Yeah right.
Did you read the amendment? The part about your papers and effects being safe from search unless a warrant has been issued showing probable cause? Wiretapping, without a warrant, the phone of a US citizen who talks to his cousin in Syria is an absolute violation of that amendment. I'd call that a loss of rights. What would you call it?
And I threw in Hillary hoping to make people like you stop and think that laws can't be dependent on whether or not you like the president. Looks like it didn't work with you...
I don't care who the president is. If a memeber of Al Queda (sp?) calls someone in the US... I want the phone tapped.
Dang... I'm on a roll with my spelling today.
BTW-
You can throw Hillary anywhere you want... But I'll bet you she'll NEVER be president ;)
So what you're really saying is that they need to tap the Al Qaeda phone. (I don't know how to spell it, either.) Or, that since somehow they know that A.Q. is calling someone in the US, they have time to get a warrant to tap the phone. I'm down with that. Or do you think that they get a tip, Ali Sahihi is going to call Joe Doofus in Cleveland in five minutes. It doesn't add up. If they have good cause to suspect someone, fine, get a warrant and wiretap away to your heart's content. But if they're getting phone records which indicate middle east calls and going on a huge fishing expedition -- no, that's not a democracy ACCORDING TO OUR CONSTITUTION.
My understanding is- There are know al-dipshit (screw spelling it right) phone numbers- calls are coming in (or out) from these numbers, and they are tapping those calls. If that's really what is going on- then yes... I fully support it.
If something else is going on, somebody needs to prove it before I'll get worked into a frenzy.
Sure, there are plenty of people saying all kinds of things... But if there was proof that our President was doing something against the Constitution... don't you think it'd be more than a sound-byte battle like it is?
Accusations do not make something illegal or wrong. Let's see some proof or all it is is more of the same political BS.
just dropped in to say hi and I am staying out of the political talk...;)
I don't know enough about this subject to comment, but it's something to think about.
BTW, that pic below really made me laugh.
* zipping lips * and staying out of it too ... :) Have a great day though ....
Really thought-provoking post. A gradual erosion of rights seems to be happening in the UK, too, and people seem largely unaware.
Post a Comment
<< Home