bill of rights

We Have Come Not To Bury the Fourth Amendment But To Praise It

"The folks at 'Freedom to Travel USA' have filed an amicus brief in the case Refern, et al. v. Napolitano. This lawsuit challenges the TSA’s groping and carcinogenic porno-scanners on the grounds that the Fourth Amendment prohibits such unreasonable searches. This cause was not only lost but buried under a Progressive avalanche about a century ago. Here’s why: 'the TSA claims ‘administrative search authority ... the administrative search does not require probable cause, but must further an important government need, such as preventing would-be terrorists from bringing an explosive device onto a crowded commuter train.'" Continue reading →

Continue ReadingWe Have Come Not To Bury the Fourth Amendment But To Praise It

Can police collect DNA when someone is arrested? Supreme Court to decide.

"The US Supreme Court heard argument Tuesday in a case testing whether government officials can routinely collect a person’s DNA at the time he or she is arrested and then use that DNA sample to try to link the individual to unsolved crimes. At issue in the case is whether taking a DNA sample from an arrestee without first obtaining a court-authorized warrant is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. DNA material contains a plethora of highly personal information bound within a person’s genetic code. DNA might someday reveal information about an individual’s susceptibility to future diseases and perhaps even personality traits." Continue reading →

Continue ReadingCan police collect DNA when someone is arrested? Supreme Court to decide.

Supreme Court: Rights groups cannot prove harm from warrantless wiretapping

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that human rights groups do not have standing to sue the government over its warrantless wiretapping program because they have no proof that the wiretapping has harmed them. The vote was split 5-4 along partisan lines, with the conservative majority supporting the Obama administration’s argument that the FISA Amendments Act was above reproach in this case because the harms were 'speculative,' and not 'actual.' Roving, warrantless wiretaps were authorized by President George W. Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, turning the National Security Agency into the nation’s spy machine." Continue reading →

Continue ReadingSupreme Court: Rights groups cannot prove harm from warrantless wiretapping

Supreme Court: Rights groups cannot prove harm from warrantless wiretapping

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that human rights groups do not have standing to sue the government over its warrantless wiretapping program because they have no proof that the wiretapping has harmed them. The vote was split 5-4 along partisan lines, with the conservative majority supporting the Obama administration’s argument that the FISA Amendments Act was above reproach in this case because the harms were 'speculative,' and not 'actual.' Roving, warrantless wiretaps were authorized by President George W. Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, turning the National Security Agency into the nation’s spy machine." Continue reading →

Continue ReadingSupreme Court: Rights groups cannot prove harm from warrantless wiretapping

Google Says the FBI Is Secretly Spying on Some of Its Customers

"It is unlawful for any record-keeper to disclose it has received a so-called National Security Letter. But under a deal brokered with the President Barack Obama administration, Google on Tuesday published a 'range' of times it received National Security Letters demanding it divulge account information to the authorities without warrants. It was the first time a company has ever released data chronicling the volume of National Security Letter requests. National Security Letters allow the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs." Continue reading →

Continue ReadingGoogle Says the FBI Is Secretly Spying on Some of Its Customers

Who Could Possibly Be Safe when Police Are Around?

"According to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, police were entitled to arrest, taze, and beat a teenager for the supposed crime of walking with his mother on a street in front of their own home. A police officer accosted the young man when he saw him approaching a woman who was walking a dog. It was quickly established that the woman was his mother. The trial court in the case also acknowledged that the victim was 'a fine young man, an excellent student, and active in sports, clubs and church activities.' The trial court ordered the victim of the unwarranted police attack to serve one day in detention." Continue reading →

Continue ReadingWho Could Possibly Be Safe when Police Are Around?

Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

"Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. 'It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,' Holder replied to Paul’s question about whether Obama 'has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.'" Continue reading →

Continue ReadingEric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

Some Troops Asked If They Would Kill U.S. Citizens If Ordered

"It's a hell of a question, and it goes to show how badly our constitutional rights have been eroded in the name of the War on Terror. On to the question itself: I have a good friend in-the-know with the military who told me that some troops are indeed being asked this question. If the troops reply that they would not kill U.S. citizens if ordered, says my friend, they are immediately honorably discharged on other grounds. This supports Internet rumors about the existence of such of question. I trust my friend, and now I, too, believe that the question is being posed within our military." Continue reading →

Continue ReadingSome Troops Asked If They Would Kill U.S. Citizens If Ordered

The Criminology of Firearms

"In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents. Why don’t gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Actual research results—as opposed to unsupported opinions—pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes?" Continue reading →

Continue ReadingThe Criminology of Firearms

Americans – Like Nazi Germans – Don’t Notice that All of Our Rights Are Slipping Away

"More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon 'secret evidence' that they don’t show to the defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case. The government uses 'secret evidence' to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorism charges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even assassinate people. And see this and this. Secret witnesses are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are not even allowed to read their own briefs. Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret. And it’s about to get a lot worse." Continue reading →

Continue ReadingAmericans – Like Nazi Germans – Don’t Notice that All of Our Rights Are Slipping Away