“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the
CIA. I will speak until I can no
longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is
sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that
your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be
killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a
crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court, that Americans
could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in
Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Ky., is an abomination. It is
something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country.”
This quote is taken from the ongoing filibuster of Senator Rand Paul that is taking place as I type. I must first applaud Senator Paul for doing a filibuster properly and standing, continually holding the senate floor as long as he can. This is a rarity in our modern government and a symbol iconically portrayed in the film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." The issue at hand is the confirmation of John Brennan as the head of the CIA and, the deeper issue, drone strikes on US soil.
Over the last year we have heard more and more about the US's use of drone strikes. We first heard of drone strikes as an overseas tactic against foreign terrorists. It was then expanded to include the possibility of drone strikes on US citizens overseas. Most recently it has been brought to the public's attention that policies allow for the use of drones on US soil and against US citizens suspected of terrorism.
When Rand Paul asked President Obama "Can you kill an American on American
soil?" The President's answer was not the obvious "no" but Rand Paul quotes him as responding "I haven’t killed anyone yet... And I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might."
I wish to remind our President that, although he may have no intention of using drone strikes against American citizens, he is setting a precedent for all who follow after him. This undermining of American liberties must stop. We must be proactive in our protection of American liberties not just from the current administration but for all future generations.
Read more Rand Paul's Filibuster here:
ABC News
New York Times
Huffington Post
Showing posts with label Bill of Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill of Rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Monday, April 30, 2012
When do Children Obtain their Civil Rights?- Day 4
I've been away a long time and it is time I broke that fast as well as pick up the old series on Children's Rights.
The original story, for those just joining in, involves a middle school girl who is intimidated into revealing her facebook password to school officials who then had her suspended because of the things she had posted.
For today's installment I would like to lay out another scenario. A woman is home alone. Two police officers arrive at the door. They ask to enter the home and the woman says no. They ask if she's hiding something and she again says no. The officers say they can get a warrant and she should just let them in and she tells them to come back when they do have a warrant. Now comes the turning point, the officers barge past the woman and begin searching her home despite her resistance.
An elementary school child could tell you that the above scenario is a violation of the fourth amendment which bars against illegal search and seizure. Now the question is, how does this relate the case of a middle school girl and her facebook page?
The comparison starts with the middle school girl being equated to the woman home alone. The school officials can be equated to the police officers since they both hold a position of authority. The house itself is just like the girl's facebook page in that it is personal property. Both items of personal property are protected from general view, one by a password and the other by locks, designed to keep out anyone besides the owner and those allowed in by the owner. Without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or the owner's permission, authorities can not enter or view the contents.
In the case of the middle school girl, the school officials obviously didn't have a warrant. Exigent circumstances are only granted when it is believed that someone is in imminent risk of physical harm so comments on a facebook page hardly qualify. As for permission, intimidating the person into giving you access is not considered acceptable and a 12-year-old girl is very easily intimidated.
The original story, for those just joining in, involves a middle school girl who is intimidated into revealing her facebook password to school officials who then had her suspended because of the things she had posted.
For today's installment I would like to lay out another scenario. A woman is home alone. Two police officers arrive at the door. They ask to enter the home and the woman says no. They ask if she's hiding something and she again says no. The officers say they can get a warrant and she should just let them in and she tells them to come back when they do have a warrant. Now comes the turning point, the officers barge past the woman and begin searching her home despite her resistance.
An elementary school child could tell you that the above scenario is a violation of the fourth amendment which bars against illegal search and seizure. Now the question is, how does this relate the case of a middle school girl and her facebook page?
The comparison starts with the middle school girl being equated to the woman home alone. The school officials can be equated to the police officers since they both hold a position of authority. The house itself is just like the girl's facebook page in that it is personal property. Both items of personal property are protected from general view, one by a password and the other by locks, designed to keep out anyone besides the owner and those allowed in by the owner. Without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or the owner's permission, authorities can not enter or view the contents.
In the case of the middle school girl, the school officials obviously didn't have a warrant. Exigent circumstances are only granted when it is believed that someone is in imminent risk of physical harm so comments on a facebook page hardly qualify. As for permission, intimidating the person into giving you access is not considered acceptable and a 12-year-old girl is very easily intimidated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)