Computers, Privacy & the Constitution

View   r3  >  r2  ...
LaurenHowarSecondPaper 3 - 23 Jan 2009 - Main.IanSullivan
Line: 1 to 1
Changed:
<
<
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="OldPapers"
  The Sixth Amendment establishes that in “all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; [and] to be confronted with the witnesses against him…” These guarantees, which apply to both state and federal prosecutions(1), have shaped criminal procedure, demanding that defendants have a fair opportunity to defend themselves against false accusation. Despite Crawford’s emphasis on the importance of these protections, in some shadowy corridors of government action the Amendment’s guarantees are simply ignored. Federal Anti-Terrorism efforts have spurred the rise of “quasi-prosecutions;” administrative procedures removed from criminal law and its protections, but retaining the power to inflict substantial harm on its targets. For example, federal terrorist watch lists have increased both in length and in impact since September 11th(2), threatening the personal liberties of thousands of innocent Americans. Yet, these individuals do not have the right to learn why their names appear on such lists, nor may they confront the responsible officials. By employing such lists, the government accuses and punishes its own citizens, while circumventing the protections of criminal procedure. Congress should close this loophole by passing legislation demanding that the use of terrorist watch lists conform to our citizenry’s rights of information and confrontation.

Revision 3r3 - 23 Jan 2009 - 15:58:16 - IanSullivan
Revision 2r2 - 14 Jul 2008 - 12:42:37 - LaurenHoward
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM