Since this nation was first conceived, there has been an on-going argument regarding the strength of the national government and whether it is necessary to give up freedom in order to obtain safety.
The Founding Fathers repeatedly grappled with terminology in the Constitution in order to limit the size and scope of the national government because they knew that a big, all-powerful, government meant less freedom on the part of the people.
So, it is no surprise that we are now hearing the arguments again, largely we believe, because we are in the midst of the biggest growth in government that this nation has ever seen.
On June 18, 2010, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano addressed a luncheon at the convention of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. We know little about this organization, although we have included them in some of our recent research. We have to admit that we were a little skeptical when we determined that their speakers for the convention, in addition to Napolitano, included Sen. Al Franken and Rep. Linda Sanchez.
The gist of Napolitano’s remarks is that she wants to impose some very severe regulations on the use of the Internet. Of course her reasoning is that, although the regulation would almost certainly erode some of the First Amendment, it is necessary for the prevention of home grown terrorism. One paragraph of her speech is all telling: “We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.”
We worry when these people use phrases like, “in most cases,” and “trade-offs are inevitable.” We worry when Napolitano stands with Linda Sanchez, who recently stated that the Arizona immigration law was the result of “a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups.” She later said, ironically we think, that she based her comments on a blog.
Based on what we consider a complete incompetence in the Office of Homeland Security, we worry most about just what Internet traffic these people will want to monitor. We are betting Napolitano would be red-flagging as being potentially racist any communication, which mentioned her name, the name of her boss or Linda Sanchez, and therefore subject to monitoring.
We are very aware that would-be terrorists, rapists, murderers and thieves use the Internet. We are also very aware that the First Amendment must be adhered to and that the provisions of the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) are well defined in Constitutional law. If there are people, who are bona fide suspects in illegal activities they should be dealt with, but only under the rule of law. These people are getting all too good at circumventing the Constitution through regulation.
