Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
I thought I’d do a follow-up to my Let Civil Liberties & Freedom Ring! post about the erosion of civil liberties in Britain—which, in my opinion, is akin to what
has been happening here in the United States in the past decade. My inspiration for a second post on the subject was Glenn Greenwald’s most recent piece at Salon—Homeland Security’s laptop seizures: Interview with Rep. Sanchez.
I have been reading about the seizures of cell phones and laptop computers by the DHS. I have found it troubling that our government has no compunction about confiscating the personal property of some of its own citizens without any warrant, probable cause, or suspicion that the citizens may have been involved in a criminal activity.
Our civil liberties and rights are being eroded while most of us sit silent. Where is the outcry? Even a watchdog like Greenwald talks of how he had become “inured” to the abuses of our civil liberties and how “severe incursions start to seem ordinary.” Greenwald wrote:
“Such was the case, at least for me, with Homeland Security’s practice of detaining American citizens upon their re-entry into the country, and as part of that detention, literally seizing their electronic products — laptops, cellphones, Blackberries and the like — copying and storing the data, and keeping that property for months on end, sometimes never returning it. Worse, all of this is done not only without a warrant, probable cause or any oversight, but even without reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in any crime.”
Greenwald goes on to talk of how there is no law which authorizes the DHS with such powers—and how we citizens have no recourse to have our personal property returned to us if it is confiscated. Few members of Congress appear concerned. There is, however, one person who is attempting to address the problem—Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat from the state of California. Greenwald reports that Sanchez has introduced H.R. 216, a bill that would require DHS to issue rules governing searches and seizure, impose some reporting requirements, and give some “modest” rights to people who have had the property seized by DHS.
There is always a huge outcry when someone brings up gun control. Why don’t people get as concerned about the diminution of their Fourth Amendments rights as they do about restrictions being put on their Second Amendment rights?
Amendment IV
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.
**********
I recommend the reading of Greenwald’s entire article. I also recommend listening to his interview with Rep. Sanchez here. (Scroll down to the end of Greenwald’s article for the interview.)
Source: Glenn Greenwald (Salon)
I have read article, some of the associated Greenwald links at Salon, and listened to the audio.
I strongly oppose Rep. Sanchez’s bill—however well intentioned it might appear. The judiciary needs to quash the illegal practices that diminish our civil liberties.
As I, Kay Sieverding, have posted before, (and will continue to publicize even though Laughing Buddha is sick of it as am I) the United States Marshals Service division of DOJ detained me for 5 months. I have a letter from DOJ Criminal Division stating that they have no record of any criminal charges against me nor any search warrants or arrest warrants for me. No government prosecutor appeared, I was not arraigned, and there was no bail hearing. I was accused by lawyers working for foreign insurance companies — Underwriters at Lloyds London and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda, of engaging in civil litigation without a lawyer and without permission from one federal judge to have a case in a different federal district. I was told in court that I did not have a right to a defense lawyer or an evidentiary hearing before being sent to jail. Once I was in jail the federal public defender wrote to me and said that his office could not represent me because I wasn’t accused of a crime.
Good question Elaine. Even if the search is legal, if no “contraband” was found, shouldn’t the property be returned in the same condition it was in when seized?
James M. & Buddha,
What about personal property not being returned to citizens after it has been searched–even if it was seized at a US border?
BIL,
I think the search incident to arrest we had on here a few days ago is a less clear cut case than the border searches, but that I’d come down on your side of that as well. The worst part is that I see it as a trend of incremental decreases in court recognized expectation of privacy, whose end result might well be a point where your phone or laptop won’t be much more secure than the interior of your car.
James,
I won’t disagree about border searches, but this isn’t just happening at the borders.
… I’m on line with some members of my Fantasy league
BIL,
I don’t believe properly constrained border searches require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. I’d appeal to historical practice and feasibility to make that point.
The problem with these border searches is that they are squarely targeted at the modern equivalent of “papers” (i.e. the contents of the laptops, rather than just making sure there isn’t heroin or explosives inside) and don’t appear to have any guidance or constraints, making them per se unreasonable to my mind.
Elaine,
Yep … I was going to give you a crown but SwM might have knocked it off your head … she’s in Texas don’t ya know.
Have to get back to football … money is on the line.
Blouise,
I have found myself in agreement with Bob at times too. No martinis for me–I prefer bourbon.
(I make a bourbon drink with muddled lemons, a little simple syrup, and a touch of soda water. It’s very refreshing.)
Head little ol’ lady for a day–such an honor.
BTW, do you remember that old TV game show called Queen for a Day?
Elaine M.
1, January 15, 2011 at 2:22 pm
FF Leo,
You may think that Buddha and I understood Bob’s sarcasm. I wasn’t sure that Bob thought I was capable of discerning the sarcasm in his comment.
===============================================
Nicely done! You get to be head little ol’ lady for the day!
It doesn’t do to peruse Bob,Esq. … one needs to read his words carefully.
Although I often disagree with his views on politics, I admire his ability to make a solid point with very few words.
He moves the conversation.
(Sometimes I even agree with him which is when I know it is time for a very stiff martini and a silent toast of admiration.)
Bouise,
One person’s hysteria is another person’s righteous indignation.
FF Leo,
You may think that Buddha and I understood Bob’s sarcasm. I wasn’t sure that Bob thought I was capable of discerning the sarcasm in his comment.
FFLEO,
In re: Bob’s sarcasm.
That is a truthful observation.
Elaine,
Thank you for calling attention to this most important article.
(Hysteria has always been a handy and effective tool in the magician’s toolbox and you are very right, it’s nothing new.)
As Civil Liberties Are Eroded, The NYT Worries About Whether We’re Being Fair To Obama
Nov. 24 2010 – 6:19 pm | 456 views | 0 recommendations | 3 comments
By CONOR FRIEDERSDORF
The most disappointing editorial I’ve read lately is this New York Times defense of the new TSA airport security policies. Here’s how the argument begins:
http://blogs.forbes.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/11/24/as-civil-liberties-are-eroded-the-nyt-worries-about-whether-were-being-fair-to-politicians/
One common trait about Bob, Esq. is that he is very good at using sarcasm and/or cryptic comments, which most often elicit abundant discussions.
Given their abilities, I certainly think that Ms. EM and Buddha both understood the sarcasm, although other readers who have not been here for very long would have likely missed Bob’s derisiveness regarding this aspect of Mr. Obama.
Bob,Esq.,
The hysteria has been going on for years. It’s nothing new.
Bob,
How about starting with the DHS are violating the 4th Amendment blatantly and without legal sanction for a reason that doesn’t withstand a C/B analysis let alone legal scrutiny?
No authority to seize property without warrant by legislative measure is no authority under the Constitution. And even if they had that authority legislated, under a non-rigged SCOTUS, such legislative grant would likely be held unconstitutional when challenged.