Search Box

 

Latest Entries per Tag

My Top Tags

                                       

Calendar

««May 2008»»
SMTWTFS
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Mailing List

My RSS Feeds








Our Dangerous FBI and the Loss of Constitutional Rights

posted Saturday, 27 November 2004

Remember the case of Brandon Mayfield, the Oregon attorney who was seized by the FBI and held in a federal prison for two weeks due to major incompetence by the FBI? This is the case that was so egregious, so wrought with blunders and wrongdoing, that the FBI did something extremely rare: they apologized. I'm sure that being an attorney helped Mr. Mayfield to some degree. As Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold correctly noted that Mayfield was actually pretty lucky. According to a news story earlier this year in The Oregonian (you'll need to fill in a couple fields to access the story, but it's not a registration):

"But for the fact that he had access to counsel and judicial review, Mr. Mayfield might still be in jail today," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told Ashcroft in Tuesday's hearing. "Held as an enemy combatant, Mr. Mayfield would be in a military jail without the right to an attorney. And his truthful statements of innocence would be taken simply as failure of his interrogators."

Even though he was lucky, Mayfield was put in prison unjustly, and confidential papers were seized, including those that should have been protected under attorney-client privilege. When the FBI and the Federal Government claims a power so clearly forbidden by the Constitution, the power to seize citizens and their belongings without due process, we are all in jeopardy. They have also claimed the power to spy on us and search our private records without court approval (warrantless surveillance). Who knows what else they think they can do when now that they have chosen to ignore Constitutional restraints?

Now, more than ever, citizens need to demand the same God-given liberties that our Founding Fathers sacrificed so much to protect. We are losing these freedoms in the name of providing security. The history of the world repeatedly shows that the biggest threat to human security is not crazed terrorists, but governments crazy for power. And that's what the Federal Government is becoming. They are cracking down on law-abiding Americans in the name of protecting us. A citizen traveling from Utah to Wisconsin has to face more Federal scrutiny and invasion of privacy than a Saudi Arabian terrorist entering our country from Mexico. Our borders remain completely porous, while Americans are increasingly oppressed and restricted.

A 20-year-old female I met recently told me her story of how she has been repeatedly subjected to prolonged searches, including strip-searches, when she travels by air. Almost every flight results in her being pulled to the side and interrogated for an hour, apparently on the basis of her appearance (tall, attractive, and young - I guess that's your typical suicide bomber, eh?). Sometimes it happens two or three times: at check-in, as she attempts to board, and even as she gets off the plane. Another witness I trust verified her story. Wouldn't it be great if our ENEMIES got this kind of treatment as they tried to enter the country?

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit




1. a reader left...
Sunday, 28 November 2004 3:21 pm

I've noticed in several of your posts a distinct almost 'racist' attitude towards Mexicans when you discuss the topic of borders and immigration. You are quick to defend the Hmong from a truly unjust generalizing racism due to the actions of one man. Yet, because *some* mexicans are criminals does not justify generalizing that to all Mexicans. And, how dare I use the word 'racist' in regards to your border comments? Because you always talk about the 'Mexican border', as if all the trouble would come from there (yet, can you name a single terrorist who entered the U.S. illegally via Mexico?), whereas the Canadian border is actually the more likely border to be used for sneaking in. But then, the Canadians are so hard to distinguish from good 'ol White Americans whereas 'those Mexicans' have such an obvious visual marker (and auditory as well, with their different language). Perhaps that's why we don't mind Canadian immigration, but wish to stop Mexican immigration. I appeal to you to reevaluate your position on Mexican immigration to see if it is in line with the principles of the gospel of loving all. Perhaps replace the word 'Mexican' with 'Hmong' and see if your feelings remains the same. As for the New American's xenophic scare tactics regarding immigration (I am a New American subscriber and agree with most, but definitely not all they put out), I disagree completely. I am surprise how on the one hand they will quote Bastiat (as quickly as ETB does in Proper Role), and then on the other hand advocate policies on immigration and protectionism that Bastiat would have spoken against. Anyway, I'm happy to have an email conversation with you on immigration and any other topic if you would like. Have you derived your stance on Mexican immigration on solid Book of Mormon principles? Or is it a blind nationalism that is so detrimental to principles of freedom? I'm merely suggesting perhaps some re-evaluation is in order. Also: even closing the 'porous borders' would only solve half the problem. Half the illegal immigrants in the U.S. actually entered legally and overstayed, thus their status changed from legal to illegal. Completely impermeable borders, then, would only solve half the problem. The other half could only be solved by closing the borders entirely to any and ALL immigration, including visits across the Canadian border.

ChssAddct [joe@fullmerfamily.org]