[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
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
See "Privacy: Throwing Babies Out with Bath Water," by Wendy McElroy
"La Privacidad: No Arrojen a los Beb=E9s Junto con el Agua de la Ba=F1era"
To purchase LIBERTY FOR WOMEN: Freedom and Feminism in the Twenty-First
Century, ed. by Wendy McElroy, see
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
"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)
"Una Transformaci=F3n a Fin de Disimular la Fea Pol=EDtica Estadounidense"
To purchase THE EMPIRE HAS NO CLOTHES: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, by
Ivan Eland, see
To purchase PUTTING "DEFENSE" BACK IN U.S. DEFENSE POLICY, by Ivan
"The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government," by Ivan Eland
Center on Peace & Liberty
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)