While I feel both the Benghazi and IRS stories are getting blown out-of-proportion, I feel the Department of Justice-AP surveillance case isn't. Unfortunately, as reported by Timothy Lee of The Washington Post, it appears as if the DOJ's actions were legal.
In Lee's article, he reported the following:
"But here’s what’s really scary: The Justice Department’s actions are likely perfectly legal.
U.S. law allows the government to engage in this type of surveillance—on media organizations or anyone else—without meaningful judicial oversight.
The key here is a legal principle known as the 'third party doctrine,' which says that users don’t have Fourth Amendment rights protecting information they voluntarily turn over to someone else. Courts have said that when you dial a phone number, you are voluntarily providing information to your phone company, which is then free to share it with the government."
I sincerely hope that in light of this recent report, Attorney General Eric Holder steps down, and both the president and Congress seriously look at making some changes to increase our level of liberty to where it was prior to the 9/11 attacks without placing us at greater risk of an attack.
The level of power the Department of Justice has possessed post-9/11 has been so great, it's gotten out of control. While it's understandable to feel a sense of fear and paranoia following an attack such as the one on 9/11, that's still no reason to give up our liberty for what is likely a false sense of security.
As Benjamin Franklin said, "If you give up your freedom for safety, you don't deserve either one."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/in-ap-surveillance-case-the-real-scandal-is-whats-legal/?utm_source=feedly
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/548494-if-you-give-up-your-freedom-for-safety-you-don-t
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-11-nsa-reax_x.htm?csp=24
In Lee's article, he reported the following:
"But here’s what’s really scary: The Justice Department’s actions are likely perfectly legal.
U.S. law allows the government to engage in this type of surveillance—on media organizations or anyone else—without meaningful judicial oversight.
The key here is a legal principle known as the 'third party doctrine,' which says that users don’t have Fourth Amendment rights protecting information they voluntarily turn over to someone else. Courts have said that when you dial a phone number, you are voluntarily providing information to your phone company, which is then free to share it with the government."
I sincerely hope that in light of this recent report, Attorney General Eric Holder steps down, and both the president and Congress seriously look at making some changes to increase our level of liberty to where it was prior to the 9/11 attacks without placing us at greater risk of an attack.
The level of power the Department of Justice has possessed post-9/11 has been so great, it's gotten out of control. While it's understandable to feel a sense of fear and paranoia following an attack such as the one on 9/11, that's still no reason to give up our liberty for what is likely a false sense of security.
As Benjamin Franklin said, "If you give up your freedom for safety, you don't deserve either one."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/in-ap-surveillance-case-the-real-scandal-is-whats-legal/?utm_source=feedly
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/548494-if-you-give-up-your-freedom-for-safety-you-don-t
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-11-nsa-reax_x.htm?csp=24
Comments
Post a Comment