[From The Lighthouse, published by the Independent Institute. What's worth noting is that Planned Parenthood's privacy woes came from accepting taxpayer dollars funneled through the apparatus of the federal government. --Declan] PRIVACY RIGHTS UNDER ATTACK Recent trials involving Planned Parenthood, rape, and domestic violence suggest that courts are attacking privacy rights -- a trend that directly challenges the legal presumption of innocence, according to Research Fellow Wendy McElroy, editor of LIBERTY FOR WOMEN: Freedom and Feminism in the Twenty-First Century. "Privacy rests on the assumption that -- in the absence of specific evidence of wrongdoing -- an individual has a right to shut his or her front door and tell other people (including government) to mind their own business," writes McElroy in a new op-ed. "This is a presumption of innocence. Privacy also assumes an important division between the personal and public spheres, a division that is reflected in Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Historically, privacy has stood as a bulwark between individual rights and social control." McElroy identifies three factors that have contributed to recent erosions of privacy rights. First, the legal status of many hot-button issues is increasingly decided by judges rather than by legislatures alone, and "judicial decisions have become a form of de facto law." Second, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, pressures have increased to trade rights for security. Third, society may be nearing a tipping point regarding views on privacy related to abortion, rape, and domestic violence. McElroy cautions those eager to sacrifice privacy for greater transparency: "Those who push to strip away the traditional protections of privacy may be trashing a prerequisite of personal freedom. And, without freedom, there is no security for individuals?either in court or in society." See "Privacy: Throwing Babies Out with Bath Water," by Wendy McElroy (10/8/05) http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1521 SPANISH TRANSLATION: "La Privacidad: No Arrojen a los Bebés Junto con el Agua de la Bañera" http://www.elindependent.org/articulos/article.asp?id=1521 To purchase LIBERTY FOR WOMEN: Freedom and Feminism in the Twenty-First Century, ed. by Wendy McElroy, see http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=43 --- WHITE HOUSE SIGNALS WIDENING OF WAR ON TERRORISM If the recent change in White House rhetoric is any indication, the Bush administration's Global War on Terrorism (GWOT, in policy circles) may soon give way to an even more ambitious military campaign -- what might be called the War against Violent Extremism (WAVE), explains Ivan Eland, senior fellow and director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute. "In Washington, changes in surface rhetoric often signal transformation in underlying policy," writes Eland in his latest op-ed. "Instead of concentrating its efforts to capture or kill the leadership of al Qaeda, the terrorist group that actually attacked the United States, the administration came up with the broader GWOT catchphrase so that an invasion of Iraq could fit under its umbrella. Who knows what additional administration monkey business will be perpetrated under the cover of the even wider WAVE. The target of any U.S. military operation wouldn't even need to kill innocent civilians or have alleged affiliations with those who do, such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq. If you think the GWOT opened a can of worms, just think of the possibilities under the WAVE." Eland warns that the WAVE could unleash a virtual anti-U.S. tsunami "because the WAVE crusades against an even wider definition of international 'misbehavior' than does the Global War on Terrorism. "For example, although the socialist governments of Cuba and Venezuela are not active supporters of international terrorists, could they become U.S. targets because of their affinity for the violent Marxist extremists in Colombia? Any such military strikes would engender even more anti-U.S. hatred than already exists in Latin America." "Past U.S. presidents have resorted to military interventions overseas when their domestic popularity and agendas sagged," Eland continues. "President Bush invaded Iraq even when his poll numbers were higher than they are now. Given current approval ratings in the 40s and sinking and declining support for his domestic policies, the president could get into even more mischief overseas. Using the war against violent extremism and increased funding for public diplomacy to market such meddling may be in the offing. You may be able to catch the WAVE on TV, radio and in your local newspaper soon." See "A Make-Over to Disguise Ugly U.S. Policy," by Ivan Eland (6/13/05) http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1522 SPANISH TRANSLATION: "Una Transformación a Fin de Disimular la Fea Política Estadounidense" http://www.elindependent.org/articulos/article.asp?id=1522 To purchase THE EMPIRE HAS NO CLOTHES: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, by Ivan Eland, see http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=54 To purchase PUTTING "DEFENSE" BACK IN U.S. DEFENSE POLICY, by Ivan Eland, see http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=19 "The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government," by Ivan Eland http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=16 Center on Peace & Liberty http://www.independent.org/research/copal/ _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Jun 13 2005 - 20:34:20 PDT