Kevin Boyd for the R Street Institute: In a growing trend begun a few years ago without much public disclosure or debate, at least 50 police departments across the country — including the FBI and U.S. Marshals Service — now deploy radar devices that could allow them effectively to “see through walls.”
The technology consists of hand-held devices that send out radio waves which can detect the slightest movement, even breathing, from distances up to 50 feet away. Other advancements currently in development could be mounted on drones and other vehicles and could possibly map out a building’s interior and locate people inside it.
These systems, which first appeared on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, have been the subject of significant investment by the Justice Department. Law enforcement experts believe the devices could be valuable tools to keep officers safe when entering a building to arrest suspects or rescue hostages. Of course, they also have attracted the attention of civil liberties advocates and even some federal courts. Civil libertarians understandably worry that police departments could use the devices without a search warrant, potentially in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure. …
There’s good reason to believe these hand-held sensors could improve safety, both for police officers and for the general public. One of the concerns with so-called “no-knock” raids is the frequency with which innocent people are harmed or even killed, and this technology could alert law enforcement to the presence of innocent civilians or counsel them to pursue less risky means of apprehension.
Nonetheless, with the potential both for harm to civil liberties and increased safety for both police and civilians alike, state legislatures and Congress should examine whether regulations on this sort of technology are appropriate, before these cases do wind up in the courts.
THIS TIME, THE KOCHS MIGHT WIN
Darrell West for the Brookings Institution: The news that Charles and David Koch and their network of conservative activists plan to spend $889 million on the 2016 elections has sent shockwaves throughout the political landscape. Publicized this week at a California gathering hosted by the business group Freedom Partners, this declaration of financial war raises the question of whether billionaires and their allies can buy elections.
As I note in my Brookings Institution Press book Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust, the answer in 2012 clearly was no. …
In looking ahead to 2016, there are ominous signs that big money may distort the election outcome. Wealthy interests were far more likely in 2012 to contribute to Republicans than Democrats. Even if Democrats mobilize liberal billionaires, the GOP nominee is going to have a substantial fundraising advantage.
Money alone, of course, does not dictate elections. Research shows clearly that public opinion, media coverage, campaign strategies, policy positions and the nature of the times matter as well. However, during a time of rising campaign costs and limited public engagement in the political process, big money sets the agenda, affects how the campaign develops, and shapes how particular people and policy problems get defined. …
There are no guarantees that the future Democratic nominee will replicate Obama’s 2012 success. If Republicans nominate someone who relates well to ordinary voters and they tone down policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, the money story in 2016 likely will turn out very different from the last time. Billionaire activism very well could tilt a close election in favor of conservative interests.
SAUDI ARABIA IS NO FRIEND OF OURS
Doug Bandow for the Cato Institute: Saudi Arabia is a medieval system whose horrid human rights practices match its antiquated political system. Official Washington breathed a sigh of relief at the smooth transition after King Abdullah died last week. President Obama is visiting Riyadh to pay his respects.
Secretary of State John Kerry called the departed king a “man of vision and wisdom.” Obama declared that Abdullah “was always candid and had the courage of his convictions.”
U.S. officials long have celebrated their friendship with the Saudi royals, who sit atop vast oil reserves. Even more important, the American military continues to act as the Saudi royals’ bodyguard. …
The regime comes near the bottom of any international human rights ranking.
For instance, the State Department’s latest assessment reported that the most important human rights problems included “citizens lack the right and legal means to change their government; pervasive restrictions on universal rights such as freedom of expression, including on the Internet, and freedom of assembly, association, movement, and religion; and a lack of equal rights for women, children, and noncitizen workers.”
Saudi Arabia is even more restrictive when it comes to religious liberty. There is none. …
Obama lauded Abdullah’s “steadfast and passionate belief in the importance of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.” Of course. It’s cheaper to borrow U.S. troops than hire bodyguards.
Riyadh’s transition offers Washington an opportunity to relax its embrace of medieval theocracy. Saudi Arabia matters internationally for one reason, oil, and that matters less in a dramatically changing marketplace.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks
