Reasonable Suspicion is good enough, unless you’re a foreigner
How can we set higher standards for the treatment of non-U.S. citizens than our own by the U.S. government?
Something that’s come from coverage of the president’s domestic spying program now, is that the administration feels that “reasonable suspicion” is enough to justify using unwarranted wire-taps and other means of surveillance on lawful American citizens.
What’s wrong with that? you may be asking. It sounds legitimate enough, if there is “reasonable suspicion”.
Well, in 2002 Republican Senator DeWine introduced an amendment to the Patriot Act to lower the FISA warrant standards for non-U.S. (and ONLY non-U.S.) citizens from probable cause to “reasonable suspicion.”
The [Bush] administration expressed serious concerns over the constitutionality of DeWine’s amendment, and as a result–in the end it did not pass. The administration and Congress rejecting the use of a “reasonable suspicion” standard for non-U.S. citizens.
So, it would appear that this administration, as displayed by documented actions, has more concern for non-U.S. citizen’s civil liberties than it does for American’s.
In my mind, that sounds a lot like the ultimate non-Patriot Act.
The 2002 DeWine amendment: S.2659
Image source: Yahoo!/AP
!important}</style><![endif]-->
<script type=){kind=link}