Friday, January 05, 2007

Postscript To Neither Rain...

First, if you haven't read the previous post, read it before you read this.

After finishing the "exigent" post, I realized I had missed a point about Bush's anti-privacy bent: it's stupid and unnecessary.

Search warrants, especially those sought by federal law enforcement in connection with suspected terrorist activity, are ridiculously easy to get. In a case where it is suspected that a piece of mail contains evidence relevant to a criminal or national security investigation, and it isn't thought that there is a bomb, anthrax, etc. in the piece of mail, the officer can hold the piece and go to a judge, set out facts that indicate that the officer has "probable cause" to believe that the evidence is relevant, and the judge will give the officer a search warrant for the piece of mail. Under this system, the government has full ability to investigate and prosecute crime and terrorism; but, individual citizens are afforded some degree of protection from unwarranted invasion of their privacy.

Where the suspected activity is related suspected terrorism, the government has even more leeway. Some years ago the Foreign Intelligence and Security Act (FISA) was enacted. Under FISA, a special court (FISC) was set up that operates in secret and hears warrant applications. Officers can even get a warrant after the fact in many cases. The warrant is almost never made public, even to a defendant charged based on evidence obtained under the warrant. In 2005 the government applied for 2072 warrants to the FISC court. A total of NONE were denied.

With such a rubber stamp process available, why in the world does President Bush need even more leeway?

4 comments:

fermicat said...

You've hit the nail on the head. Given that these warrants are so easy to obtain, I don't see a need to have warrantless searches. I don't have the exact figure, but only about 5 out of more than 10,000 warrant requests have been refused. Why are we fixing a problem that doesn't exist, and opening up a potential avenue to abuse with no oversight provision? No one has ever explained to my satisfaction why we need this.

fermicat said...

I should have said that the 5 out of 10,000 applies only to FISA requests, not your basic run-of-the-mill search warrants that ordinary law enforcement uses.

Life Hiker said...

This administration is very,very scary. The people who constantly use the word "freedom" seem to be the ones bent on taking it from us. There will be a backlash when the democrats take full control in 2008, unless there's a neocon coup before then.

I can't believe I said that, but then I can't believe what this administration is doing to the constitution, either.

Anonymous said...

How much privacy will you have when Hilary's national health care takes over during the backlash you speak of? She will be personally reviewing every treatment just like Bush is personnally reading your mail.