"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." --Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4,1777
Our current Congress is truly gifted at expending great energy and effort to defend why they're not reaching a compromise. The media machines ensure that partisan supporters fight and defend these guys not doing their jobs. Our nation is built on compromise. The first (of two) major objections to NOT signing and producing the Constitution was that it didn't protect individual liberties. It had no Bill of Rights. No portection of civil liberties, no signature, no Constitutional government formed. A gentleman named Ben Franklin suggested that if everyone signed now, a Bill of Rights would be added by a specific date. The first nation created by the rule of law was born. That's why Ben Franklin is on money.
The signing of the Constitution was an act of faith and trust. We currently have little of those qualities in Washington
Following the death of the North Korean dictator, we saw North Korean people weeping in the streets. A CIA analyst pointed out that if they didn't weep in the streets, that would be considered a crime against the State. Who determines who is an enemy of the State? Congress? The Courts? The President? Dick Cheney? The State determines if you are an enemy of the State.
Following the death of the North Korean dictator, we saw North Korean people weeping in the streets. A CIA analyst pointed out that if they didn't weep in the streets, that would be considered a crime against the State. Who determines who is an enemy of the State? Congress? The Courts? The President? Dick Cheney? The State determines if you are an enemy of the State.
We don't think of
Some gentle readers have expressed dismay concerning the Defense Authorization Act (S.1867). If signed into law, any American citizen branded as a suspected "terrorist" could be arrested and detained indefinitely without charge or trial. The hapless political prisoners would not be covered by Constitutional protection or due process, and be placed into the hands of the military to mete out justice. It's a Rumsfeld wet dream. Here's the version of S1867 that passed the Senate (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112VMFIo1::). Note section 1031 & 1032.
Sounds very Orwellian? It is. Why are we moving in this direction? What will we do to stop this assault on our liberty?
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 18 37
Our nation was once an exceptional shining example of privacy rights and the rule of law. That was before torture and secret prisons were deemed necessary for our safety. Over the last few decades, our Constitutional protections have eroded alarmingly. We might exemplify the assault on our liberties in terms of eroding personal privacy. Why do we permit our privacy protection to erode? We are changing as a people. Our expectation of security and privacy are diminishing each generation. We are under increasingly surveillance throughout our day as we spend our time in our cars, at the bank or convenience store, in restaurants, bars, and corporate cubicles. We have come to expect and are even comforted by such surveillance. This change in our society has come quickly. Are we aware of these changes or their implications to our society?
Children going to school are run through metal detectors and monitored in their classrooms and even on the bus. What is the effect of continual surveillance on our children?
Surveillance changes behavior and speech. Surveillance has a tremendous psychological impact. On the school bus, only one camera in the fleet is actually recording, but behavior is changed on all the buses. How would your speech and behavior change if you knew you were being monitored and recorded? What if you knew (or thought) you were being recorded when you went out with your friends, had a fight at home, or made a phone call? Set a recorder down at a table with your buddies and watch them change (you don't even need tape in it).
If you defend surveillance practices, recognize that your standard of privacy and liberty is vastly different from Americans a few decades ago. Recognize that a monitored society was not the intention of our Founding Fathers. When we live in a society where we are complacent with monitoring, what society is produced? When we are reassured and want to be under surveillance, will we be even aware of the erosion of our liberties, much less mourn their passing?
So who is trying to erode our liberties? Obama? Congress (both Parties)? The Courts? All the above. We will examine how this came to be.
Who will safeguard and defend our liberties? Obama? Congress? The Courts? Nope. We shall examine why.
"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power." -- John Adams, 1788
Some readers might immediately remind us that we have Fourth Amendment protection and the Courts protect our liberties. Let's be clear that the Founding Fathers never imagined our current State responses to existential threats such as Communism and "terrorism". Does the Constitution protect personal liberties and privacy? Yes, to a limited extent. Historically, our liberties and privacy have remained intact because the Government didn't have the technological capability to physically monitor us. This has changed.
Over the years, the Supreme Court decoupled two key phrases in the Fourth Amendment which sent us on a forty year cycle of erosion of our liberties. The principle of "warrant" was decoupled from "reasonable", creating a very low standard for issuing warrants and the notion of "reasonable probable cause" which enables surveillance without a warrant. Because of this decoupling, most current surveillance is conducted without a warrant.
How did this decoupling play out in our history? For most of our American experience, most citizens had lower expectation of privacy. Until WWII, one could drive right up to the White House door. Most people didn't experience invasion of privacy and just wanted the Government to stay away from them. The Government needed a warrant to do otherwise. In 1928, Olmstead vs. US led to the Trespass policy, which defined privacy relative to a location. So the Government needed a warrant only if they physically wanted to enter your house. The Court's interpretation of privacy drove technological advances in non-invasive surveillance, such as eavesdropping, wiretapping, laser reflection, and parabolic microphones, Much surveillance abuse frolic ensued.
In 1967, the Supreme Court rendered the Katz verdict, which stated that it was the person, not the property, that was safeguarded by the Constitution. This was well and good, except the courts defined privacy as a person's expectation of privacy. One expects to be private at home and in one's car. However, as surveillance increases, individual expectation of privacy diminishes, which expands the Government ability to monitor, which diminishes expectations of privacy....and so forth. Collective passivity is the byproduct of privacy erosion, making reclaiming our rights that much harder. Expect a collective yawn from this blog.
Both Congress and Obama are expending on decades of policies eroding civil liberties and privacy. This is converged with an increasing technological capability to carry out society wide surveillance and erode society wide privacy expectations. For instance, the Obama Justice Department contended before the Supreme Court that American citizens have no expectations of privacy when they are traveling or in public. The Court upheld their argument. So GPS trackers can be placed on vehicles without a warrant. See how easy it is to lose your liberties?
Future Trends
Look for the rise of anonymity. As genuine privacy vanishes under fish tank scrutiny, people's illusory comfort will lie in becoming a different fish.
Look for the continued accumulation of power by the Executive Branch and an assault on an independent judiciary. This week I observe Presidential candidates who wish to abolish courts and send Federal marshals after judges because they don't like how they ruled. I refer these people to Madison Franklin Franklin
As we run out of foreign wars to fight, we will soon bring the technology to the home front and have a war on privacy. Expect drones, micro-RFID tags and other spy tech stuff to become an everyday part of life. The Chicago District Attorney is fighting the State for the right of private citizens to film police officers actions, while Chicago US
Just as we did with the military, national surveillance will be contracted to private companies. People who are comforted that the Government is watching over them (why?) may well not realize that a contractor is tracking their daily activities. The private surveillance industry has grown exponentially over the last decade, working under the auspices of Government. This is dangerous, because while the Government needs a warrant to invade your privacy, private industry does not. Another issue is what is done with the accumulated information . Government certainly has access to this surrogate information and marketers probably will as well. All of this will take a toll on us as a nation. Psychologically, we will become a more repressed, inhibited, diminished people.
"Those who have been once intoxicated with power and have derived any kind of emolument from it can never willingly abandon it." -- Edmund Burke
Will Government change the laws to restore our freedoms? If we believe our friend Burke, no. Congress (both Parties) are historically a threat to civil liberties rather than their defenders. Congress just passed a law enabling military imprisonment of any American suspected (not convicted or who actually did a terrorist act) of being a terrorist. A terrorist is anyone the Government says is a terrorist. The Blue/Red divide framing our political system is a sham when it comes to civil liberties. Leaders of both Parties knew about our torture policy and secret prisons and lied that they did not. The Congressional track record of both Parties has created a right-eroding trend. Having a competitive and adversarial framework is just good for business as people "get behind" their side. Incumbents may have the approval rating of the flu but they know they will be elected again. We're chumps if we think the Parties are different. Third Party anyone?
Our current President is a pawn to the trend of militarization of our national security and the un-accountable Homeland Security machine. This bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies, will continue to perpetuate and empower itself. All future Presidents are likely to be pawns of such trends. That said, there is no excuse for Obama as there is no excuse for Congress. When Obama signs a law, whatever it's attached to or however it's framed, which allows American citizens to be arrested without due process, that is an incredibly bad decision. Obama is particularly culpable in destroying civil liberties. He has expended the trend of the security state he inherited from Bush. He promised to veto bills that would erode civil liberties but did not. People assume he is a protector of civil liberties because he is a liberal, a black man, and a Constitutional scholar. The cult of personality associated with the Presidency has split and diluted civil liberty action in this nation. The far Right has long accused Obama of taking away their liberties. God knows why. What the Right never understood was that when the trend coupling technology, "national security" and privacy erosion began after 9/11, the destruction of our civil liberties was an inevitability, regardless of who was (or will be) in the Oval Office.
The Supreme Court has the power to reverse the trends, but appointments are based on being liberal or conservative, not libertarian. So the Court sides with the Government against individual liberties. Can this downward spiral of freedom and privacy erosion be reversed?
"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jeffferson, 1799
Yes. The power to reverse the downward spiral is held by the Supreme Court and by the lawmakers, aka Congress (there's a comforting thought). But these guys aren't likely to change themselves. Ultimately, the ability to reverse this trend is in the hands of the People, in your hands, and in my hands.
There are a few immutable laws concerning civil liberties. Freedoms are easy to lose and those who took them are not inclined to give them back. Secondly, most people are not aware they have lost their liberties or how valuable those liberties were until after they are gone. Thirdly, a solution is found based on an immutable law of politics. Politicians want to keep their jobs. If millions of people adopt one issue, say oh, privacy, and make this a line Congress cannot violate, the message will be sent loud and clear. The Government will only change when they believe they have to and I fully expect them in the alternative to try to enrich themselves and steal Power from the People.
When we feel helpless or apathetic, as we withdraw from civil life a power vacuum is created. This vacuum will be filled by the opportunistic and self-serving. They increase as we decrease. This isn't how it is supposed to be. Our Government is built on faith. If you don't have faith in the Government, have faith in one another. Stop listening to politicians. Stop listening to 24-hour "news". Get mad as hell. Demand repeal of laws like the Defense Authorization Act. Find out who voted for it and campaign against them. Find out what is being voted on. Get off your ass and take action. Pick up the phone or write a letter to your legislator. Know your State laws as well. Use your social media. Make some noise. Get your neighbor involved. Have a revolution. Tell the Government how it should work. Pretend you're Egypt
Bottom line: Our civil liberties are being stolen. This has occurred very recently due to a convergence of technology and a security state. People can stop it. People have to be awake, aware, and determined to stop it. People will stop it by forcing law makers to change how the game is played. If the People don't change the game, they will lose the ability to do so.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
No comments:
Post a Comment