Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States of America: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This provision was included in the Constitution because the Founders were particularly apprehensive that Government, with all its powers to investigate, arrest, imprison, and even kill, become not the master, but remain the servant of the people. Now "signing statements" issued by the Pretender-in-Chief are being used as tools in disassembling the Constitution and the rights of the people guaranteed by it.

This latest is a shameful assault on the principles that have defined our democracy and helped contribute to our material wealth and security. Once every aspect of American life is open to scrutiny by agents of the government beholden to the "Decider", a chilling effect on cultural and political criticism is inevitable. Those who disagree with current policies will always be wondering about what might be included in their government dossiers. With criticism thus muted, the American people lose the benefits of free speech, the national brainstorming seeking better alternative policies and actions to meet changing circumstances. Power becomes more concentrated in the ruling elite without anyone, or just a few, being arrested.

More shameful than Mr. Bush's creeping cancer of totalitarianism on the American body politic is the acquiesence of it by the American people and by their representatives in Congress and in the Courts. We are losing a most precious gift of liberty, won by sacrifice, struggle, and bloodshed, quietly, bit-by-bit, through the insidious actions of a powerful elite and the sheep-like dull acceptance of the American people.

I'm glad somebody's looking at it, because, frankly, these bills are piling up. Is there some form I can fill out so that they will let me know when something other than credit card applications and Sierra Club solicitations arrives (I don't need any more mailing labels, dammit!)?

Obviously it is fascism, and 'warrants' resistance, no pun intended. But I'm more worried about email snooping than snail mail snooping. That is where the real communication happens these days. Still, maybe I'd better put a stop order on those mushroom spoors I ordered from the ad in the back of "High Times"...

Identity theft: organized crime syndicates and petty thieves alike impersonate you, clean out your bank account, and ruin your credit. Corporate data-mining: insurance companies and banks sift through your personal medical and financial records to deny coverage or credit, and to target marketing messages. Domestic surveillance: cellular traffic, phone records, and email are fair game for interception by federal intelligence and enforcement agencies. The administration argues that its domestic espionage program is entirely legal, and it may be correct, because you have no constitutional right to privacy.

The European Union guarantees the personal privacy of its citizens through Articles 7 & 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, stating unambiguously that “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications” and that “Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her”. Americans, who taught the world about liberty, should be very proud to see the student surpass the teacher. What have the Europeans learned that we have not?

Democracy succeeds only when citizens enjoy freedom of conscience. No freedom of conscience can exist if a citizen’s personal business is subject to scrutiny and exploitation by criminals, corporations, or congress (these categories overlap). The Fourth Amendment has taken a severe beating from the Bush administration, but it was already weakened by violence at the hands of the Clinton administration. Neither party holds any moral high ground on the issue of privacy rights.

In 1973 the U. S. Supreme Court found that some personal rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" are so "fundamental" that an undefined penumbra may provide them with an independent source of constitutional protection. I say let’s bring it out of the shadows, and settle the issue explicitly.

As the depredations of cynical infocrats become increasingly odious, let the people demand that congress pass, and states ratify, a constitutional amendment protecting personal privacy. Let us encode in our civic DNA that the right of the people to be secure from intrusions into matters of purely personal sovereignty shall not be infringed, neither by state agencies, commercial interests, nor criminal elements.

It will not be an easy fight. Powerful interests on both ends of the political spectrum are threatened by a right to privacy. But let’s at least make the rascals argue against it, so we know who our enemies are.

It may not even be necessary to successfully enact and ratify such an amendment. The Equal Rights Amendment failed to become a part of the Constitution, but the campaign for it ultimately disgraced and discredited gender-based discrimination. We don't need to win to win.

Technology is evolving far faster than our safeguards. Before it is too late, we must demand durable protection for personal privacy. As the inheritors of a grand libertarian tradition, we deserve nothing less. To learn more about privacy as a fundamental human right, please visit Privacy.Org, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation at www.eff.org/privacy/

In 1976 I sued the government (CIA) for violation of privacy: it had opened a letter I sent to a colleague at Lomonsov University in Moscow. It eventuated that the CIA and FBI had a large mail opening program for communications with the USSR, including one that opened and read all letters from US Fulbright scholars and students in the USSR to their families. (My letter was opened not because I was on a watch list but because it was sent to an official address.) In due course (my counsel were the late Leonard Boudin and his colleague Herbert Jordan) and after an Appelate Court had upheld the District Court, I was awarded a letter of apology by the CIA and one thousand dollars. The letter concerned the activities of an international group of scholars studying religion and society, and its recipient, Dmitri Ugrinovich, had a chair of Scientific Atheism at the university. As I understood it, my very intelligent and humane Soviet colleague had chosen this career path under Stalin so that he could obtain access to religious books.

When I told him of what had happened, he agreed that there was a certain amount of system convergence in the world. One is glad to know, at my age (80+) that certain things do not change: I gather that the present US government is critical of Putin's Russia because of its dubious record on civil liberties. Norman Birnbaum