NetBoots - Websites for Conservative Campaigns Starting at $50/Month

Fourth Amendment

Georgia: Chambliss v. Martin

Over the past 48 hours, I’ve been wrestling with myself over which way to go in the runoff for the Georgia Senate race. In case you don’t know. The Libertarian Party candidate, Allen Buckley, was the difference in the race. He may make an endorsement in the race, but it’s unclear which way he’ll go.

Essentially, this is a runoff between two big government candidates. One has consistently lied about his record while claiming to be a small government conservative. The other is a progressive who has a decent stance on civil liberties issues.

PATRIOT Act: Heritage v. Cato

Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute and Jena Baker McNeill of the Heritage Foundation recently contributed a point/counterpoint on the USA PATRIOT Act for the Los Angeles Times.

McNeill writes:

The Patriot Act has helped law enforcement officials apprehend hundreds of suspects, and it isn’t just one provision of the act that has proved useful. For instance, the surveillance provision was used successfully in the Portland Seven investigation, which may well have prevented an attack on synagogues and Jewish schools. And while new information is still coming to light about the three recent alleged plots, it is very likely that Patriot Act provisions played major roles stopping at least one of the plans.

Perhaps to the shock of some, the Obama administration has been cool to the idea of repealing the Patriot Act. It may even support keeping key provisions intact. The likely cause of this support: The law works. It’s tough to argue with results, especially when American lives are at stake.

There are many misconceptions about what the act actually does. Simply put, it modernizes existing law enforcement tools and practices that existed before the act was passed in 2001. It makes it more difficult for terrorists to stay a step ahead of the law by switching cellphone or e-mail accounts. Its provisions free investigators to stop plots in their earliest stages, decreasing the likelihood that a plan would mature and become unstoppable. It also outlines methods for handling intelligence and investigations in areas the law did not adequately provide for, such as in cyberspace and cellphone communications.

Sanchez responds:

Obama Administration backing PATRIOT Act extention

The Obama Administration is backing an extention of expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act:

The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.

Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law’s authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called “lone wolf” terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.

The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens’ library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans’ private lives.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law, based on his past expertise in constitutional law. Back in May, President Obama said legal institutions must be updated to deal with the threat of terrorism, but in a way that preserves the rule of law and accountability.

As the folks at Anti-War.com* note that none of the provisions that the administration wants extended require a warrant or even probable cause, which clearly violates the Fourth Amendment.

Twitter

United Liberty Podcast


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.