Bloomberg: Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing."

[Skip Intro]

23. NYT - same quote. Link.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/security-privacy-and-bloomberg/

This blind spot was in evidence at a press conference yesterday. In response to a question about security post-Boston, he said:

“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some senses, but it’s different than what we are used to. And the people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex world where you’re going to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution I think have to change.”


His comments, first, were a bit condescending. Americans are fully aware that they had to accept heightened security after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But the idea that traditional notions about the rule of law and the Constitution are inadequate in the age of terrorism is not just wrong, it’s dangerous. That canard was used as an excuse after 9/11 for all kinds of excesses.

They were the trademark of the administration of President George W. Bush: warrantless wiretapping of Americans, extraordinary rendition, secret detention camps, Guantánamo Bay, torture. Excessive search and surveillance powers were enshrined in the Patriot Act and the expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.