AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor safety." That sentiment, which animated our Founding Fathers, is almost never expressed today. Just the opposite in fact. Consider the words of Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, who on his O'Reilly Factor broadcast of August 10 repeatedly cited the apparently successful efforts of British police to foil a massive terror plot as proof that America should chuck the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. "No question, Great Britain gives its police more room to contain terrorism than we do here," O'Reilly noted. "In Britain it is 'reasonable suspicion,' here it's 'probable cause'--huge difference." Then he asked his guest, Larry Walters, an attorney and civil libertarian, "Why shouldn't we have reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause," like the British do?
When Mr. Walters tried to explain the importance of our constitutional protections against warrantless searches without probable cause, the Fox commentator retorted: "You can argue theory and constitutional rights all day long, but as you know, laws can be changed, the Constitution can ...