OnTheIssuesLogo

Cato Institute on Homeland Security

 

 


Bar the government from indiscriminate bulk surveillance

The privacy community--including Cato scholars--remained divided over the USA Freedom Act, which reauthorized several expiring Patriot Act provisions, but limited bulk data collection.

Some legislators argued that to pass new legislation would only provide the government convenient new legal justification for its spying--which it would interpret broadly. One Cato scholar wrote that it "would effectively represent a repeat of the Protect America Act fiasco of the previous decade--an act of Congress that made legal a previously illegal surveillance program that did exactly nothing to protect the country, while costing billions and subjecting Americans to continued mass surveillance. Real Patriot Act 'reform' should substantively bar the government from indiscriminate bulk surveillance. Anything less risks laying the groundwork for another decade of abuse."

On the opposite side of the argument stood some pro-privacy groups who held that modest reforms were better than no reforms at all

Source: Cato Institute 2015 voting recommendation on USA Freedom Act , Oct 1, 2015

Dragnet definition of terrorism is unconstitutional

Many Americans are unaware that the NDAA allows the government (its military) to whisk a citizen away with no reason other than being suspected of terrorism--and without any appearance before a court.

That it is unconstitutional. Why? Look at the Bill of Rights, The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every US citizen a trial in front of a jury.

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse issued this report in Sept. 2009: "Federal agencies can't seem to agree on who is a terrorist and who is not. The failure has potentially serious implications, weakening efforts to use the criminal law to combat terrorism and at the same time undermining civil liberties."

[We need a] new generation of constitutionalists to focus on this sweepingly dangerous federal government incompetence that undermines national security and personal liberty. A range of civil liberties organizations should now get after this dragnet definition of terrorists.

Source: Nat Hentoff on Cato Institute website, www.cato.org , Dec 5, 2012

  • Click here for definitions & background information on Homeland Security.
  • Click here for a profile of Cato Institute.
  • Click here for VoteMatch responses by Cato Institute.
  • Click here for AmericansElect.org quiz by Cato Institute.
Other pundits on Homeland Security: Cato Institute on other issues:


Opinion Leaders on the Right:
Cato Institute
Milton Friedman (Nobel Economist)
Rush Limbaugh (Radio Talk Show Host)
Ayn Rand (Author and Philosopher)
Heritage Foundation (Think Tank)
Libertarian Party
Republican Party
Ronald Reagan(President,1981-1989)
Joe Scarborough (Former Congressman; Radio Host)

Opinion Leaders on the Left:
American Civil Liberties Union
Democratic Party
Noam Chomsky (Author and Philosopher)
Green Party
Arianna Huffington (Internet Columnist)
Robert Reich (Professor and Columnist)
Howard Schultz (CEO of Starbucks)
John F. Kennedy(President,1961-1963)
Sierra Club
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty
Search for...





Page last updated: Aug 03, 2017