Feinstein and Rogers Refuse to Discuss Constitutionality of Mass Surveillance

By Staff Pick – YouTube

3

Feinstein and Rogers Walk Away from Questioning on Fourth Amendment After Roger's False Statement Corrected ... This morning I questioned Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers — the chairs of the Senate and House intelligence committees — as they walked out of ABC studios: "Many Americans are concerned about the revelations of this week and how they square with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Let's start there. What does the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution say?" – YouTube/Washington Stakeout
Dominant Social Theme: There's nothing wrong with massive surveillance so long as it's done lovingly.
Free-Market Analysis: The main problem with the ongoing surveillance, from what we can tell, is brought out by this little video brought to us by Sam Husseini of the Washington Stakeout.
Like other "video ambush" documentaries, this is a blossoming form of video journalism that uses modern technology to illustrate the problems of certain power-policies. Here's more from an article at the Stakeout accompanying the video.
Feinstein said it was "protection against search and seizure," which is true but very limited. I tried to interject, "the measure is probable cause" — but she went on at some length about the alleged legality of the programs that became public this week, while avoiding the question of their Constitutionality. [transcript below]
The Fourth Amendment states:
"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."
That would seem to totally contradict the programs exposed this week. It's as though the government photocopies all of your papers.
The attitude of defending unconstitutional programs that in effect have been made legal gives new meaning to the old Kissinger quote: "Illegal we do immediately; unconstitutional takes a little longer." See: Bush-Era Spying 'Made Legal' Under Obama.
In the course of my trying to get them to address the Fourth Amendment, I attempted to read it, which didn't seem as though it was to their liking and they walked away.
But first, Rep. Rogers claimed that the programs reported on this week are "not targeted on Americans. It has to be a non-U.S. person that is believed to be on foreign soil. That is a huge difference from what is being portrayed in the media." I noted that this was clearly false, certainly for the phone metadata story. This seemed to upset him.
I then read most of the Fourth Amendment, Rogers appeared extremely uncomfortable, said he didn't want a "debate" — I said it wasn't a debate, I wanted them to square the programs with the Fourth Amendment. Feinstein said they would do this "another time."
One of the arguments in favor of mass surveillance as presented in this video is that it is "legal." But the kinds of legalities being enshrined into law in this modern era are nothing like the natural law that was supposed to be the foundation of Western jurisprudence. Natural law insists that nation-states not depart from what is "natural" and just within a normal framework of human culture.
The idea that a community would easily or logically adopt an ordinance that mandated that all inhabitants share every single communication with an overriding authority responsible for their "safety" is a doubtful argument to make, in our view. Thus, it is not "natural" – and bound to cause more problems than it solves in the end.
Conclusion: The video brings up just this point, making it clear that mass confiscation of documents from US citizens not under accusation of any criminal act would seem most clearly to contradict the US Constitution, however vague that document can sometimes be.
(Video from XRepublicTV's YouTube user channel.)