United Liberty

Though news of this sort cannot be considered unusual any longer, I still find it insufferable and mildly shocking.  The likelihood of a British citizen having their personal home computer hacked by government authorities, secretly and without a warrant, has increased.  Even more infuriating, this intrusion may be at the behest of a foreign nation, thanks to a recent plan adopted by the EU.

Since the hacking may proceed if an officer believes there is sufficient reason to believe it would help prevent or detect a serious crime, the obvious question is, who decides what is considered “sufficient reason” and what is to prevent abuse of these over-reaching powers?  If there is truly sufficient evidence, why wouldn’t a judge simply grant a warrant?  This would at least grant some oversight.

In our own country, powers of this sort already exist, though I hope things haven’t gone so far that evidence gained in this way is being turned over to foreign authorities as well- though I don’t suppose I’d put much past the current administration.

Though these violations of privacy rights are appalling, far more alarming is the blasé acceptance by EU, UK and US citizens alike.  Even worse are those who view it as good and necessary.

Last October, I attended a local university’s student Presidential debate, in which the college Democrat, Republican and Libertarian groups represented the candidate of their party.  Both the Democrat and Republican students bore good testimony of their belief in the Constitution and the need to uphold it, and yet each found reason to ignore certain parts of it in order to achieve ends they believed vital.  After the debate, I spoke at length with the Democrat representative, who was very angry with the Republicans’ belief that the civil liberties delineated in the Bill of Rights could be ignored for reasons of homeland security.  But he had no qualms of going beyond the scope of the Constitution in regards to foreign aid or the federal welfare system.  When I asked why he had the right to ignore the Constitution in order to achieve his goals, and yet the Republicans did not, he had to admit he had a double standard.  But he still believed that his mission was honorable enough to make the exception.

This is the problem when we ignore the rule of law and each does what is “right in their own eyes”, especially when it is the lawmakers  and law-enforcers that are most culpable.  There is no accountability, no one to say “enough”.

I issue the same challenge to those who would runover or ignore our Constitution for their own “good intentioned” objectives that I gave to the Democrat student I spoke to at that debate.  If your goals are so honorable and necessary that they must be accomplished, then work to change the Constitution, not disregard it.

Related Articles-

Are No-Knock Warrants Really Necessary?

Thomas Jefferson Quotes

World Government and the Consent of the Governed

60% of Voters Say Supreme Court Should Base Rulings “Off the Constitution”

Reid - Make a Choice - Politics or the Constitution?