Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: On this Independence Day, I'm thankful for Edward Snowden [View all]deurbano
(2,994 posts)39. "How Unreasonable Searches of Private Documents Caused the American Revolution"
http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/unreasonable-documents-revolution.html
by Juan Cole
<<Just FYI, the Restore the Fourth movement in defense of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is holding protests all over the US today.
On the Fourth of July, Americans should be celebrating the freedoms enshrined in the US constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. At one time, Americans minded when the government usurped their rights and made over-reaching claims to be able to invade their privacy. No more. Most Americans have become little more than bleating sheep, perfectly happy to be sheared by faceless bureaucrats. They are willing to surrender to the state their most private information, the contemporary electronic records of everywhere they go, who they talk to and for how long, who they email, and even the contents of their communications. With the rise of datamining software, this information can be extremely revealing, and government and contractors with access to it can engage in all sorts of blackmail, insider trading, and corruption. Since the surveillance apparatus is classified and top secret, there is no effective oversight to ensure against public harm.
The Founding generation of Americans was particularly exercised by the privacy of their papers, the equivalent of todays email and electronic records. They put the Fourth Amendment into the Constitution, which says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Note that papers are distinguished here from effects. That is not an accident, as Donald A. Dripps argued [pdf]:
The Fourth Amendment refers to papers because the Founders understood the seizure of papers to be an outrageous abuse distinct from general warrants. The English courts and resolutions of the House of Commons condemned both abuses distinctly. The controversy was closely followed in America, where colonial Whigs sympathized with, and even idolized, John Wilkes, who successfully sued for damages for the seizure of his papers. America inherited the common law ban on searches for papers, adopted constitutional provisions that mentioned papers distinctly, and refused to modify the common law ban by statute un til the Civil War. The one Founding era attempt to authorize seizing papers by statute was condemned as contrary to common law and natural right and never passed into law. Although Congress authorized seizing papers to enforce the revenue laws during the Civil War, it took until the 1880s for a challenge to reach the Supreme Court. That challenge was Boyd , which remained the law for another ninety years. Boyd rightly held that papers deserve more constitutional protection than effects. Special protection does not, however, ineluctably mean absolute immunity. The seizures that aroused outrage in the 1760s were indiscriminate, expropriating, unregulated , and inquisitorial. A regulated, discriminate, and nonrivalrous process for inspecting documents is different.....>>
by Juan Cole
<<Just FYI, the Restore the Fourth movement in defense of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is holding protests all over the US today.
On the Fourth of July, Americans should be celebrating the freedoms enshrined in the US constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. At one time, Americans minded when the government usurped their rights and made over-reaching claims to be able to invade their privacy. No more. Most Americans have become little more than bleating sheep, perfectly happy to be sheared by faceless bureaucrats. They are willing to surrender to the state their most private information, the contemporary electronic records of everywhere they go, who they talk to and for how long, who they email, and even the contents of their communications. With the rise of datamining software, this information can be extremely revealing, and government and contractors with access to it can engage in all sorts of blackmail, insider trading, and corruption. Since the surveillance apparatus is classified and top secret, there is no effective oversight to ensure against public harm.
The Founding generation of Americans was particularly exercised by the privacy of their papers, the equivalent of todays email and electronic records. They put the Fourth Amendment into the Constitution, which says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Note that papers are distinguished here from effects. That is not an accident, as Donald A. Dripps argued [pdf]:
The Fourth Amendment refers to papers because the Founders understood the seizure of papers to be an outrageous abuse distinct from general warrants. The English courts and resolutions of the House of Commons condemned both abuses distinctly. The controversy was closely followed in America, where colonial Whigs sympathized with, and even idolized, John Wilkes, who successfully sued for damages for the seizure of his papers. America inherited the common law ban on searches for papers, adopted constitutional provisions that mentioned papers distinctly, and refused to modify the common law ban by statute un til the Civil War. The one Founding era attempt to authorize seizing papers by statute was condemned as contrary to common law and natural right and never passed into law. Although Congress authorized seizing papers to enforce the revenue laws during the Civil War, it took until the 1880s for a challenge to reach the Supreme Court. That challenge was Boyd , which remained the law for another ninety years. Boyd rightly held that papers deserve more constitutional protection than effects. Special protection does not, however, ineluctably mean absolute immunity. The seizures that aroused outrage in the 1760s were indiscriminate, expropriating, unregulated , and inquisitorial. A regulated, discriminate, and nonrivalrous process for inspecting documents is different.....>>
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
131 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's an eye catching, kick the hornet's nest headline. Need to read the content to actually get it.
gtar100
Jul 2013
#18
I don't think we know yet whether we have to separate the person from the disclosed info.
merrily
Jul 2013
#21
With a warrant NSA can collect the data and store it in a searchable data base and therefore search
Thinkingabout
Jul 2013
#52
Warrants under the Constitution and FISA laws are for specific data that a judges agrees warrants a
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#71
There are a couple of fallacies in your reasoning. You assume those that are collecting the data
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#79
If we need to depend on faith we are doomed. Faith is for those that have no reasoning capacity.
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#99
Not calling it "surveillance" does not make it right. They are gathering data on us.
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#106
Storing massive data on Americans violates the Constitution and the FISA Law.
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#117
"If the FISA warrants are Constitutional , then I am standing on the side of our constitution."
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#120
What is this? "These types of arguments are taking the same form as the Tea Party uses."??
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#125
So you'd be okay if law enforcement made a copy of every letter you ever sent....
Th1onein
Jul 2013
#113
@Merrily: "I simply suggest that we wait before making up our minds, one way or the other. "
Maedhros
Jul 2013
#55
It is unreasonable and rude of any one person to tell others what to do with their
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#92
Since Bush spoke of this in 2005 what has Snowden exposed except the "cause" he thought he which
Thinkingabout
Jul 2013
#49
Did the NSA obtain a warrant to do the wiretapping or was this during the period of time in which
Thinkingabout
Jul 2013
#57
You may or may not agree with the Fourth Amendment but after all these years I think it is
Thinkingabout
Jul 2013
#64
wiretapping doesnt bother because you have nothing hide. so that makes it ok to spy on Obama?
think
Jul 2013
#66
You beat me to it... Just read the local paper's carrying that piece yesterday...
MrMickeysMom
Jul 2013
#95
I have learned that Obama officials are willing to lie to the face of my US Senator
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#94
LOL, if nothing is new that everyone already knew then why is he in trouble???? n-t
Logical
Jul 2013
#108
If you're only thankful one day per year, you may have an empathy deficit.
DisgustipatedinCA
Jul 2013
#12
+ 1 And under President Obama, not President Paul (as Snowden and his Brazilian Master would
BlueCaliDem
Jul 2013
#32
Here is a quote from you. As context for your emoticons and adjectives...
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#96
Thanks, RainDog. I've been rereading Les Miserables and had Hugo on my mind.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jul 2013
#47
"How Unreasonable Searches of Private Documents Caused the American Revolution"
deurbano
Jul 2013
#39
I too am glad we now know what we know. Whatever his intentions, the results are the same.
liberal_at_heart
Jul 2013
#75
Who do you think is ultimately responsible for these allegedly Treasonous acts? n/t
Ian David
Jul 2013
#114
Me too and all Whistle Blowers who risk everything to warn the people against
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#126
And i know he didn't risk his life for what i'm about to mention, but seeing...
allin99
Jul 2013
#127