May 29, 2006
-
Socrates Cafe : Our Fundimental Rights - Privacy and National security
What constitutes an invasion of privacy and where should we draw the line in light of national security? - or- What are our most important and fundamental Rights? What constitutes a violation of our rights and is such a violation ever justified?
One of the topics discussed this week in Socrates Cafe.Our most important and fundimental Rights are those spelled out in the First Ten Amendments to the U.S. constitution, called the “Bill of Rights”. If you have not reviewed them lately, I suggest you do so.
What constitutes an Invasion of Privacy as pertains to National security?
Our right to privacy is protected by not one, but two of the Constitutional Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The first Amendment says Congress shall make no law ....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Under this amendment, anyone can say whatever that want about you but in so saying they are open to civil law suit if they:
1. Intrude on your “right to seclusion and privacy in an unreasonable manner”
2. Appropriate your likeness or identity without permission
3. Give unreasonable publicity to your private life
4. Slander of Libel you
In each case you must prove personal loss or harm and this is Civil Action between two private citizens.
The Other Bill of Rights Amendment protecting your right to privacy is the Fourth Amendment which spells out the “Right of people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..” Except upon a warrant of probable cause “supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”
This amendment protects private citizens from government intrusion and is most likely to be the one questioned “In light of national security”
As America’s Bill of Rights is our best protection against a tyrannical government, it has been jealously guarded for the past 230 years despite many attempts tamper with it.
Many people feel that the current attempts to water down these rights in the name of security is just another try at increasing government power over individual citizens that will prove intolerable to Americans and will be rejected.
There are now, and have been in the past, ample laws protecting our nation’s security from foreign and domestic threats and any new laws or revision of old ones should stand the test of constitutionality. Since the President takes an oath to uphold and defend to constitution, he should be the last one to claim powers which violate some of these Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Comments (17)
Good post and very much to the point. I love that you are so logical yet easy to read. My post, as usual, is more "emotional" but it is the way I see things.
Thanks for providing a lucid view or our rights.
Do you think the constitution should be subject to updates and revisions as society and technology evolve?
I could have asked that better, it is kind of leading. I wont label your honest answer, because this type of question cuts to the heart of the conservative and liberal adjenda's, therefore whomever answers it can easily be labeled. I should have phrased it in a more impersonal mannor. like should the constitution evolve as America evolves? Then again conservatives would say NO, rather loudly, whilst liberals might think it a rather sophamoric question.
Linking you now.
The 1st and 4th amendments are the ones I spoke to also. I am interested in your thoughts regarding the idea that I might be deprived of my rights, so that someone else won't be deprived of theirs? What is the proper middle ground?
Are fundamental rights the same as human rights or civil rights? Are they fundamental because they have been granted in institutionalized form, or are they fundamental because they are ours before anyone recognizes them? Do you think the Bill of Rights got it right?
Da_Vinci's question about the evolution of the Constitution is a good one that has been asked many times during the past two centuries. The obvious answer is that this simple document has been re-interpreted pretty often and amazingly enough, has only been "altered" or "added to" seventeen times since the Bill of Rights was added in 1791, and two of those revisions cancelled each other out..
The Constitution is re-interpreted often and the facts that, First, it is such a broad and general framework of government that it still can be applied to modern laws and problems, and Second, that Chief justice Marshall's assumption of oversight (Marbury vs Madison (1803) - remember that from HS?) gave interpretation of the constitution to a body of judges not subject to the whims of day-to-day democracy; has led to amazing constitutional stability, as well as national cultural/social stability for most of our existence.
Reluctant asks about robbing Peter of his rights so that Paul can have some. This is really a question which goes to the point of value interpretation and perhaps value conflict. Here in America, we value fairness, equality, and liberty and when we feel some citizens are not being given their rights, we address the problem - sometimes very slowly. We feel if some citizens think they must give up their rights to be dominate or superior, that is only proper as all citizens are to be "equal under the law". Most often the group having to relinquish their superiority claims that the other group is really not their equal for reasons other than political - in recent times because of their race or sex.
Notice that I have carefully used the word "Citizens" to indicated that these comments apply only to inequalities within a culture. It is highly unlikely that Americans would ever voluntarily give up any of their rights to any other group. Indeed, we feel so strongly that we have never formally agreed to the U.N. "Universal Declaration of Human rights" and "Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN" signs and bumper stickers were at one time quite common and illustrative of many Americans' concern about giving up some of our political rights to that body.
Do you think that Bush has violated privacy rights in the name of national security?
What happens when someone, the president or anyone else, decides that the obligation to respect the rights of others does not apply to him/her?
From time to time a President has declared himself immune from certain laws or has so acted. In the case of Nixon, the President was driven from office; but at that time his party did not control Congress, though there were enough Republicans to block impeachment and convection if they so desired, Nixon was forced to resign, the only President so far who has done so, because almost all the members of Congress had indicated that they would support impeachment and conviction.
If the legal and political systems fail, as they did in 1861, the nation would be in deep trouble.
Interestingly enough, before the 1932 election, General Douglas MacArthur, then Chief of Staff of the Army, made up contingency plans for the army to seize control of the government if a Communist was elected president (they got over four million votes in that election). He was not FDR's favorite general, just as he was not HST's.
This issue will most probably be a major factor in the upcoming congressional elections. I suspect, to be elected, all candidates will pledge to support our right to privacy. It remains to be seen how well they will honor their campaign promises - I hope better than they usually do.
Based on the people who have been wrongly imprisoned, one Pakistani-American man died in his prison cell after he had been cleared by the FBI and due to be released, suspected and questioned since 9-11, I wonder if allowing the government to be a part of our private lives is safe under any circumstances. Allowing them to listen in to our conversations and read our mail, whenever they want and construe our lives to suit their benefits has proven to be unwise. Some may argue that it is "if it's going to keep the country safe it's worth it" but I am sure they wouldn't be saying that if they were Muslim, or had any Middle Eastern heritage. Many people condone racism out of fear, but if people would remember what it was like to be Italian, Irish, Mexican, or African in the US, maybe they would be a little more understanding about how the social hierarchy uses certain minorities as escape goats at certain points in history. If the US can't figure out who is a threat and why, then I suggest they improve their advisors, update themselves on US foreign policy, think critically, and start listening to the warning they have been getting from their enemies all along. They might also stop arming random countries and alliances, Iran, Iraq, and Bin laden included, that end up becoming enemies one day. Picking on certain poeple who are deemed suspicious hasn't helped national security or caught any terrorists so far, it has made the country paranoid and prejudiced however. Remember the two Saudi kids on the wrong bus? The American dream is fast becoming the American nightmare under these conditions.
Our fundimental rights include Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness -at least all these used to be included.
How, in the last five years, have these rights been abrograted, and for what reasons?
Many, many ways in the name of "the war on terror."
I believe it was Jefferson who said, "He who would surrender essential liberties for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
Yes! I still want to contribute!
So sorry for not beign on-board this past week, as I even had the audacity to vote for a topic! No excuses here, and still very much want to participate in Socrates Cafe - one of the finest, thought provoking sites I've come across. Much has been occurring in my inner circle of life this past month, which has, in essence, I've allowed to rob me of my "pursuit of happiness, liberty and freedom"! In other words, have been caught up in my own web and having a life-challenge, shall I say! Hope to be in next wk's talk. Thanks for dropping me a note.
Lisa.
Thank you for all the time you devoted to writing such a comprehensive analysis of one of the foundations of our nation. This should be made available to highschool students, just to get a glimpse of what their country stands for, and in essence, the backbone they should strive to develop in in order to protect the rights we've been afforded.
Very well thought out, written and informative - and most of all, a great reminder to those of us who become lax in our perception of WHO this country truly is.
Lisa.
Where is a good place start a website for business at a very low price?