Fast forward two and a half years, and it's outrageous that Congress has done exactly the wrong thing: legalizing warrantless spying on an even greater scale, and retroactively legalizing previous lawbreaking.
I'm proud to say, however, that the ACLU is suing to stop it -- and also that, with the exception of Sen. Kennedy, who wasn't present, the entire Massachusetts Congressional delegation voted to oppose this cave-in.
For the record, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
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.It's hard to see how this law isn't unconstitutional -- but stay tuned.
Posts
3 comments:
One of the worst parts to my mind is granting retroactive immunity for things that haven't even been investigated. Do we have any idea of what the telecoms did at the behest of the Bush administration? How is it remotely reasonable to grant immunity without first investigating to see what crimes might have been committed and what rights violated?
And just what are the Democrats so afraid of that they would bow to Bush on this?
Thanks for your post!
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution has been strangled with convoluted legal rationalizations, riddled with bullets in the form of Supreme Court decisions and drawn and quartered by “creative” law enforcement interpretations.
This old and oft referred to amendment, an attempt to protect the privacy and property rights of individuals, is dead. Driving any more nails into its rotted casket is a redundant waste of time, but the US Supreme Court persists.
For motorists, or anyone on a public road or sidewalk, the illusion of personal privacy is but a dim memory. Random searches, based on the flimsiest excuses, roadblocks, “frisking” and “patting down” passengers or pedestrians, because they “might have a weapon” and roadside interrogations are now all quite legal, or are carried out as if they are because no one dare argue to the contrary.
peterson
Addiction Recovery Massachusetts
January 14, 2009
4th is dead now, as of the date above in this post. the SCOTUS has rendered a verdict stating that "evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants."
this decision flies in the face of "right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizure."
i felt the need to add this comment even though it has been 6 months sense the original article was posted. it might not have been dead then.....
Post a Comment