(October 30, 2004)  In a letter that I received on October 13th from United States Senator Lindsey Graham, the Senator from South Carolina wrote something that I believe is the absolute leading cause for the demise of liberty and freedom in America. I had asked the Senator not to support the Multi-State Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX) pilot project because this program would create a national database comprised of basically every imaginable piece of personal information that the federal government could compile on each and every American citizen. According to Graham, this pilot project is designed to leverage advanced computer and information management capabilities to more quickly access, share, and analyze public records to help law enforcement generate leads, expedite investigations, and possibly prevent terrorist attacks.

The MATRIX is just one of many proposals floating around Washington D.C. that calls for some kind of national database for the federal government and law enforcement to access. There is so much to hate about any elected official who would ever consider such an abomination to personal privacy - no matter what the circumstances.

For the record, Senator Graham has not committed one way or another on MATRIX and appears open-minded regarding both the potential benefits - if there are any at all - and consequences of such a federal level database. The program is in its mere infancy. Yet the fact that Graham has not unequivocally committed to never allow such a federal level database to operate is disheartening. So why did Graham leave the door open to support MATRIX? Here's what he said.

"I will continue to work with my colleagues to find a balance between protecting our nation and ensuring personal freedoms and privacy."

This one sentence; a simple sentence echoed in town hall meetings, county meetings, state congresses, and Washington D.C. is the ultimate philosophy that has slowly yet steadfastly ravaged the personal liberties and freedoms that were once fundamental to being an American. Let me be absolutely clear here. There is no provision in the Constitution of the United States that even remotely suggests that the personal freedoms and privacy of the people should be balanced against any entity, threat, or governmental interest. Period.

So how was the unconstitutional practice of balancing civil liberties against government interests originated, by whom, and why? I am certain that politicians who saw protecting, providing, and caring for their constituents as a means to get re-elected have continued the perpetuation of the balance test, but I don't believe that it was they who originated the concept per se. It was judges and lawyers in courtrooms across the United States that originated the balancing of government's interest against individual freedom. This can be found in court rulings across the country, particularly in cases where the court had to rule on issues relating to searches and seizures. Only in the last 30 years did the courts consistently begin to rule in favor of previously considered intrusive policing methods and tactics. Clearly this trend demonstrates that the safety line between the officers of the court, and officers of the state - the line that is to keep the common man safe from an overzealous or corrupt law enforcement type or government official, are now virtually non-existent.

There are constitutional concerns to consider as well, primarily the purpose and safeguard implied by the three separate, but equal branches of the federal government being the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. When lawyers become lawmakers, the line between the judicial and legislative branches of government becomes blurred. With over fifty percent of all lawmakers nationwide being lawyers, is it any wonder that an authentic constitutional government is not recognizable in any state capitol or Washington D.C.? The court system, lawmakers, police, lawyers, insurance executives, big business - collectively these are the symbols of repression and tyranny that have destroyed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the common man. In the name of the common good - an evil philosophy in and of itself - America has already lost what it now claims its protecting. Foreign methodologies now rule with a cold, hard fist, putting more of our fellow citizens in prison for victimless crimes than it does for crimes committed in which there is a victim, and / or a need for restitution. The balancing test makes consensual laws (victimless crime laws) possible. Think about it. We have good people locked in jail for crimes in which there is nobody to make an apology - nobody to payback, nobody to ask forgiveness, nobody to ask God to heal. No, in millions upon millions of police reports each year, the citations and warrants will indicate that the state is the victim of a crime and the accused as the alleged perpetrator and defendant.

How than, on God's green earth can the state official - the judge and / or district attorney, be fair and objective when it presents itself as the victim and the judge at the exact same time? If you were accused of murder and the victim's family believed you to be the murderer, but you were in fact innocent - would you want the victim's mother to be the judge who presides over your criminal proceedings? How could you? The probability of the mother being an objective judge during your trial seems impractical if not impossible. You would not get a fair trial. You would be found guilty and sentenced to life without parole, or death.

So how does the state get away with being the victim, the prosecution, judge, and in many instances, the only witness against the defendant? Oh yeah, I forgot. It's in the states interest.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating $1 or more to the MUCKRAKER REPORT.
Your donations keep the Muckraker Report subscription free!

Comments