Re: Feds: It's legal to demand fingerprints to unlock phones of everyone in a buildin
Why does the government need a warrant for anything? This is the age of the Unitary Executive, thanks to the Neocons and Barack Obama.
The Fourth Amendment is superfluous and void in pursuit of the Global War On Terror.
You make a good point.
The use of fear to take away liberty is one of the oldest tricks in the book. When the Gov't starts doing this
"Red Lights" should be going off. Unfortunately we do not , through 12 years of school, manage to teach basic lessens of history or the basic principles on which this nation was founded.
The historical tendency of Gov'ts (and people in general) to abuse power is well established. Power corrupts and more power corrupts more. This is why the founders tried to set up a society where Gov't power was limited.
The founders knew the trick of using fear to take away liberty. "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither" B. Franklin.
Stalin wrote a chapter in the textbook using fear of a foreign threat as justification to trade liberty for security
"Security for the Motherland"
Hitler did the same
"Fatherland Security."
Bush -
"Homeland Security"
Bush in fact made it our patriotic duty to trade liberty for more security. Patriot Act.
Obama (Mr. Hope and Change Constitutional Lawyer and civil rights advocate) came along and said:
"If we want increases security we have to give a little" ... (give a little liberty = give a whole lot of liberty). He said this in relation to the NSA illegal spying. The head of the NSA lies to congress (perjury much ?) in relation to illegal activities against all US citizens.
Not only does this criminal not get punished - he keeps his Job. It is those who shed light on illegal activities of Gov't that get punished. ( If this is not a canary in the coal mine .. then there is no canary)
Obama then changes the name of the act which makes it our patriotic duty to give up our freedoms and trade liberty for security to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act".
Now comes the my argument:
Giving up our liberties and increasing police-Gov't powers is a far bigger threat to the security of "we the people" than the threat to security of terrorism.
The risk of harm to a US citizen from terrorism is 400 times less than the risk of harm from walking. If one drive a car to work the risk of harm is many thousands of times higher than the risk of harm from terrorism.
So this risk to security is actually quite low. It is not like there is some large army massing at the walls of the city.
The probability that the Gov't, at some point in the future, will abuse extra power given to it is almost 100%. It is a historical certainty.
Even if we feel justified in giving the Gov't extra power (trading some liberty for security) then at minimum there should be safeguards put in place. Civilian over-site of Gov't activities. Transparency and punishment of those who lie to congress and protection for whistleblowers.
Law enforcement should be punished for violations and there should be major protection and financial rewards to someone who has their rights violated illegally.
For example: We agree that drinking and driving is such a threat that we will abridge arbitrary detainment.
Fine - then the only thing the police are allowed to do is to stop you and see if you at drunk. They can not ask you for your license, insurance, check who you are in any way, search your car, nothing zero nada other than see if you are drunk.
We did not allow abridgement of arbitrary detainment to check for insurance or anything else.
