There are times when government officials provide brief but telling glimpses at how the state views the rights and protections guaranteed the people in the Constitution.
Take the example of the ongoing congressional debate over whether to renew the federal government's sweeping authority to gather intelligence information in order to detect and prevent terrorist acts (otherwise known as “spying”).
The national security apparatus, along with a bipartisan gaggle of pols, is all for renewing Section 702 of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. But there's a strong debate over a reform bill that proposes to put at least some curbs on the feds' ability to gather information without warrants.
The idea of requiring law enforcement and other assorted government security types to get warrants has upset some of those who also assert they are strong defenders of the Constitution, limited government, and so on. Consider:
Members of the [House] intelligence panel contend that adding warrant requirements would hurt the fundamental purpose of FISA.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers seeking to tack on a warrant requirement to the bill would be the end of the government's surveillance powers.
“Their version of the warrant requirement would put an end to FISA,” said Mr. Crenshaw, Texas Republican. “They don't understand FISA fundamentally.”
The problem is, they do, And FISA manages to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment.
But such willful ignorance of the nation's fundamental law is not reserved to one side of the aisle. Democrats, who are eager to portray themselves as paladins of civil rights, appear to have no problem with trammeled spying, either:
Q: If Congress passes a law requiring the US government obtain a warrant to conduct FISA surveillance, would the President veto that bill?
WHITE HOUSE [National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan]: “We do not believe that that serves the national security interests of the United States.”
“A warrant requirement from our perspective would go too far in undermining the very purpose of FISA, and, frankly, it would put victims at risk.”
Warrants do not exist to make the lives of state officials easier, cleaner, or less stressful. They exist as a minimal check on state power to inspect, surveil, investigate, those suspected of criminal behavior.
That the Biden White House seems to have a problem with the Fourth Amendment is hardly surprising. State actors rarely, if ever, are willing to tolerate any restrictions on their power to maintain order.
And they are willing to do whatever it takes to keep things that way. As the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability noted:
“Think about it – the intelligence community and deep state are so determined to maintain the ability to spy on Americans that they are willing to put at risk the very authority they claim they need to protect us against foreign threats.”
Fear has worked wonders for a host of government operations in the past. The security apparatus thinks it will work here, too. And chances are, they will get their way.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Foreign Influence May Be To Blame For Ivy League Silence On Antisemitism
