cannabisnews.com: On Individual Rights Whither Privacy? 










  On Individual Rights Whither Privacy? 

Posted by FoM on December 23, 2001 at 13:20:07 PT
Editorial 
Source: San Francisco Chronicle  

There seems to be a grudging resignation in this country that the debate about modern threats to individual privacy ended on Sept. 11. The question is, when will Americans regain the privacy rights that are being surrendered today under the guise of fighting terrorism? This is not, after all, a war that will end with enemy generals waving white flags as they arrive for a truce-signing ceremony. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (constitutional protection against groundless imprisonment) during the Civil War.
The U.S. Supreme Court restored it once the Confederacy was routed. The war on terrorism will not end as definitively. It may last, to some degree, for the rest of our lifetimes or beyond. At what point will U.S. authorities offer to give up the substantial new powers -- the intrusions on privacy and other civil liberties -- they have acquired in the past three months? And are we, as Americans, really ready to let industries that want to exploit our privacy for commercial purposes use the specter of terrorism to debilitate all debate? If anything, the unorthodox nature of this war makes it more important that Americans recognize the implications of some of these anti-terrorism measures, and to question whether particular losses of privacy are justified. This nation does need to give its law enforcement effective "tools" to pursue modern terrorists. But the Bush administration has not made a convincing case that many of its new police powers could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks, or even that they were crafted to target only terrorists. Some of the federal government's new investigative tools do not necessarily distinguish between terrorism and other crimes. Americans are being asked to take it on faith that this administration -- and those that succeed it -- will not abuse its unleashed search-and-surveillance authority. The history of the FBI, and its view of political dissent as security "threats" during the J. Edgar Hoover era, is not reassuring. Congress has given the FBI free rein to read e-mail and track the Web site visits of U.S. citizens. The government merely needs to persuade a judge that such spying could be "relevant" to a criminal investigation, even if the computer user is not a suspect and even if the case has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Moreover, federal authorities now have greatly expanded powers to conduct "sneak-and-peek searches" of homes and offices, in which the subjects are not told their property is being scoured. These are far more intrusive, and constitutionally dubious, than the traditional "knock-and-announce" searches. By late October, Attorney General John Ashcroft signed an emergency order to allow authorities to eavesdrop on attorney-detainee conversations, encroaching on one of the most sacred of privacy rights. Ashcroft now is talking about easing FBI restrictions on surveillance of religious and political organizations. It is important to note that federal authorities did have the ability to monitor attorney-client conversations or send undercover agents to churches and mosques before Sept. 11, but they had to show probable cause to do so. These checks and balances recognize the great potential for abuse. They should not be ceded lightly, even in time of war. Will Americans wait until video equipment with face-recognition technology arrives at every street corner to start asking how far is too far in the methodical disassembling of hard-fought privacy rights? But even U.S. citizens who have an inherent trust in the federal government's restraint -- or perhaps regard privacy rights as a reasonable sacrifice in times of war -- should be concerned about Corporate America's roving eyes. Some industries, particularly financial services, are now trying to invoke the war against terrorism to block legislation that would protect consumer privacy. Sources in Sacramento say that banking and insurance lobbyists are citing their losses from Sept. 11 as one reason not to resurrect a measure (SB773, by Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough) that would require companies to get customer permission before sharing or selling personal financial information. Speier's bill fell nine votes short of passage in the Assembly in late September, with 22 members declining to vote in the face of intense industry pressure. Gov. Gray Davis, who had publicly expressed support for a strong financial privacy law, undermined Speier's bill behind the scenes. Sacramento's near-passage of a financial-privacy bill has created a sense of urgency for industry lobbyists in Washington. Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has referred to the close vote on SB773 in suggesting he will try to push through less restrictive national standards on financial privacy early next year. Tauzin also has talked about teaming with Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., on a measure to provide basic privacy protections for Internet users. Technology has given companies unprecedented opportunities to collect, store and share information about unwitting individuals. One of Tauzin's major goals, however, appears to be to protect companies from consumer lawsuits or tougher state laws. "We'd prevent the states from getting in a situation where we'd have to override them," Tauzin told technology executives earlier this month. If California lawmakers want to lead on privacy issues, if they want to want to set national standards that truly protect consumers, they are going to have to act soon. Otherwise, Congress will lead, and it won't be to consumers' benefit. Terrorism has given the timid a convenient reason to forget about privacy concerns. This nation deserves better. It needs leaders with the wisdom and courage to separate the "wish lists" of law enforcement and commercial interests from the legitimate tools needed to go after terrorists. Americans need to speak up now, to insist on a real balance between security and civil liberties. This nation is preparing for a long war against adversaries who "hate our freedoms," as President Bush put it. Privacy is one of the most cherished of the freedoms we enjoy. Don't toss it away. Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Published: Sunday, December 23, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Chronicle  Page D - 4 Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles:Counterterrorism: Lessons from The War on Drugshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11539.shtmlWhy Should We Care? It's Only the Constitutionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11532.shtmlAshcroft Has Upper Hand in Hearing On Liberties http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11504.shtml

END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #9 posted by Jose Melendez on December 24, 2001 at 09:43:24 PT:
progenitors of the peace that we wish to attain...
Earlier this year I applied (online, of course) to work at DynCorp. They are the "contractors" that get paid to spray poison in Columbia, God knows where else... I figured maybe I could get paid to be a voice of reason or something.I should have kept the reply. The available jobs were in ASSET FORFEITURE.As I recall, that term was even in all capitol letters, although I deleted the reply since it left such a bad taste in my mouth. Someone gave me a christmas cookie today. Thank you all for your efforts to make this world a better place.
 
Jose
see also: Marijuana.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Robbie on December 24, 2001 at 08:59:19 PT
Good morning, all
I have been away for a couple of days only to return to see all kinds of news. Some is very good (UK and Canada especially) some is quite bad (further suspension of rights, bombing and killing of allies)I wish, if I may, to imbue the sentiment of the current holiday. I do not believe in god, nor do I believe that Christ is the son of that same god. But I do believe in the lessons that the story of Christ is supposed to teach us: brotherhood, love, peace to all.As we celebrate the birth of that holy prophet, may all of us on this earth find the peace that is sought. For one day out of the year, may we all recognize the inherent sameness that is part of all humanity. That desire for peace, for prosperity, for joy. We are all children of that amalgamation of proteins that came together billions of years ago on this planet. Let us celebrate that birth, and remember that we as people of the earth are the progenitors of the peace that we wish to attain.Peace be unto you.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on December 24, 2001 at 08:18:17 PT
Just a Note
Good Morning Everyone,I've looked for news and haven't found any. We are going away for a while and I'll look for news later on when we get back. Have a nice day! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by The GCW on December 24, 2001 at 07:06:57 PT
Rev. Jonathan Adler,
Brother, friend, good neighbor...Fellow Son of Christ God,
Your work is helping move toward a time of alters with cannabis and fire.The way it used to be. Used legally.You are a Green Collar Worker. No stumbling on the 1st page of the Bible here!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by p4me on December 23, 2001 at 23:12:15 PT
we are in deep do-do
I have used the evening reading up on property seizures and jury nullification. Someone said do a search on Laura Kriho and I did. It was very interesting but very disturbing to read about the jury selection used by prosecutors. Several sources site that the practice used by prosecutor's eliminates the independent thinking man and does not give a defendant a jury of his peers as "requested" by the constitution.I was upset about reading in seizure cases the law skirts the 5th amendment by bringing a case against a car or a stack of sugar and cases do not read like US vs Joe MJ Blower. It reads like US vs stack of sugar. It is all very upsetting when you read about the way the government is usurping power from the people and making "legal" ways to violate people's so-called constitutional rights. I am not some sort of radical or extremist. I cannot come to any other conclusion than the government is out of control. The WOD is a war against the American people and the right's of all citizen's even if they use no illegal drugs.I won't rant and will just say the more you read on the net the scarier things get. I enjoy reading what people say here because they have read enough to know that things are not as they should be.If you have a minute this link has a short summary of jury nullification that is informative. http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/JuryNullification.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by PotIsGod on December 23, 2001 at 21:28:44 PT
Lincoln was a tyrant
Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (constitutional protection against groundless imprisonment) during the Civil War. Even though he had no permission to do so.
That permission is only given to Congress.
Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-1.html#sec-9(from http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman50.html)
Not only did Lincoln imprison two US Congressmen, he also wrote out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger Taney, after Taney wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Merryman (1861) rebuking Lincoln’s illegitimate suspension of habeas corpus (see Charles Adams, p 46-53). John Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," also wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law. Additionally, US Army troops refused to release Merryman into the custody of a federal marshal sent by Taney pursuant to the court order that Merryman be freed.Lincoln, then, imprisoned members of the federal legislative branch, and also sought to imprison the chief member of the federal judiciary. What happened to checks and balances? Lincoln, with the backing of the army, simply exercised whatever powers he desired. As noted Lincoln scholar Mark Neely writes in The Last Best Hope of Earth, Lincoln arrested the Marylanders "without much agonizing over their constitutionality" (p 133).---The U.S. Supreme Court restored it once the Confederacy was routed.But the precedent of the presidential suspension was used time and again to claim the president has emergency powers, which he does not.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on December 23, 2001 at 15:24:00 PT

Rev. Jonathan Adler 
Hi Rev. Jonathan Adler,Peace on earth sounds so nice. I can't wait until that day comes and I only hope it will. You must live in one of the best places in the world. Keep up the good work you are doing. You sure are making a difference. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by Rev Jonathan Adler on December 23, 2001 at 15:11:15 PT:

Peace on Earth, Terrorism disrupts Liberty!
Peace on Earth; Aloha from the last bastion of religious freedom on the Big Island of Hawaii. We are working towards peace here in a unique relationship between religious freedom and Law Enforcement concerns. Our Police Dept.has endorsed new rules of operation regarding Marijuana Eradication which specifically address our medical and religious rights to use cannabis for healing and medicine.
Lt. Henry Tavares drafted new rules which state openly that the Police must respect the court's recognition of a person's "claimed religion" relating to cannabis use and cultivation! I have done just that! See www.medijuana.com for the rest of the on-going story of the progress of liberty! Mahalos and Mele Kalikimaka from Paradise!
Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on December 23, 2001 at 13:58:35 PT

C-Span Schedule: 02:01 AM December 24th
C-Span Schedule: 02:01 am 1:51 (est.) - Perspectives on Drugs and Terrorism

Forum: Perspectives on Drugs and Terrorism
Lindesmith Center - Drug Policy Foundation
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 167934 - 12/19/2001 - 1:51 - $60.00 

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/fullschedule.csp

 Nadelmann, Ethan, Director, Drug Policy Foundation (1998-)
 Reuter, Peter, Professor, University of Maryland, Public Affairs (1994-)
 Newberg, Paula, Special Adviser, United Nations Foundation (2001-)
 McColl, William, Director, Lindesmith Center, Drug Policy (2001-)
 Chernick, Marc, Visiting Professor, Georgetown University (2001-)
Drug and foreign policy experts talked about the war on drugs and war on terrorism. Among the issues they addressed were the similarity between the two efforts, developing effective policies to combat both drug trafficking and terrorism, and techniques to help build secure states. Following their remarks they answered questions from the audience. 

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=153592583
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment