We Fight for Liberty by Having More Liberty and Not Less!
December 18th, 2006 by PerryI find it noteworthy that even to this day President Bush has continued his surveillance of the internet communications of American Citizens without a court warrant to do so.
And then we hear Newt Gingrich’s call several weeks ago that we must seek for a new interpretation of the First Amendment in order to accommodate his perceived need for that new weapon in this so-called War on Terror. This speech was made in NH before an audience gathered to honor the First Amendment, believe it or not.
This initiative to operate above the law by certain elements of our GOP leadership accounts for the loss of confidence by the American people for the Cheney/Bush leadership we continue to suffer in the Executive Branch.
This loss of confidence is reinforced when we hear Bush, in his farewell address to Rumsfeld on his departure, that Rumsfeld is “the greatest Secretary of Defense†this nation has ever had! On which planet does the President now reside???
For one other sharp critique of this Cheney/Bush/Newtonian mindset, focused this time on reworking the meaning of the First Amendment, I recommend this piece by Keith Olbermann for all to hear. Sure, he uses hyperbole to make some of his arguments; no matter, I believe the American people need to listen first, then contemplate about these attacks on our basic freedoms from our current leaders.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Is this a First Amendment issue or a Fourth Amendment issue? From the First Amendment standpoint, it seems appropriate to search for an appropriate application given the changing technology of communication as it pertains to the internet. In the first place, anything that orginates from outside the US would seem to be exempt from First Amendment protections. Secondly, any speech that is designed to threaten, incite hate, violelence or fear is subject to censorship. The Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable search is another area that is affected by the technolgy change. VOIP phones, emails, instant messages are examples of new methods of “private” commncations whchc enjoy some Fourth Amendment protection. This is bigger issue than Free Speech…in my opinion
December 20th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Excellent point about bringing up the Fourth Amendment, twilliams.
Regarding the First Amendment, Newt wants to use unbridled surveillance on all communication means both to the US and from the US, which is exactly what Bush is already doing without even a warrant from the FISA Court. So it this is not being restricted in practice to only communications from outside to the US.
Why must the FISA Court be bypassed? I’ve never understood this, I disagree with this policy, and I think Newt’s reaffirmation of it is highly questionable. Moreover, both Bush and Gingrich use fear to justify this attack on the First Amendment, putting our freedoms and liberty in jeopardy.
Regarding the Fourth Amendment, again shouldn’t the FISA Court make the decision about probable cause for “search”?
Has bin Laden succeeded in diminishing our freedom at the behest of whatever Cheney/Bush decide to do to protect us? I have the feeling that if we had leaders of demonstrable trustworthiness, we would not be quite as worried. We don’t!
December 20th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
But surveillance on communication is not a First Amendment issue. For example. If I post a comment to this blog about terrorist activities in rural Sussex County, I have no expectation of privacy. I can post the same comment in an email to an friend, but this time I have some expectation of privacy. In both cases, I have exercised my rights to free speech without interference from the government. The Fourth Amendment however does have some application. The post to the blog is public domain and enjoys no Fourth Amendment protection. The email however, is not pubic domain and is more protected. Regarding the FISA, I have to admit I don’t know all of the details, but I don’t believe a warrant from the FISA court is required in every circumstance. While obtaining a warrant may be the preferred method, it is not an absolute. Information on terrorism and the successful defense against it is sensitive, important and unfortunately politcal in nature. That being said, the most efficient and effective use of the FISA may not be to seek warrants, do nothing,or attempt to obtain a warrant. This decision is made by the executive branch and the Justice Dept. based upon the information they have and the goals of the investigation. The general public is not privy to most of that information which often causes controversy when investigations are publicized. Which is why there is outcry over the current activities of the Justice dept/ Bush Administration.