jpete wrote:No. Because people are ALWAYS willing to give up their rights when they are scared.
Look at the BS after 9/11. And we'll live with that forever.
The guys doing the searching all to oaths to PROTECT our rights not violate them, even if we think it's a good idea at the time.
Hell, I haven even mentioned Posse Comitatus. Of course, I guess now that I think about it, GWB repealed that.
The philosophy of "never let a crisis go to waste" was around long before Rahm Emmanuel had the balls to say it publicly.
People in government have a long view. It's incrementalism. It happens so slowly, most people never notice. The "boiling frog" theory if you will.
This incident set a precedent on how all "terrorist attacks" will be handled from now on.
How about the next mall or movie theater shooting? Lock down the area, declare a no fly zone and search random houses until they find the guy?
God help us the next time a cop is shot. That'll be a treat.
First of all, I agree with you that much of what happened after 9/11 was too hasty and ill-conceived when it came to privacy, etc. issues. I understand some of that has been rolled back, but probably not enough of it.
On the rights we're talking about, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but as far as I know there are circumstances where even no-knock searches are lawful and have not been found to be unreasonable and/or unconstitutional. 250 years ago the colonists were subjected to the types of searches the 4th amendment precludes as "unreasonable". I don't think anyone is really happy about the idea that you can't always stand at your door and decide whether to allow a search, but the 4th amendment plainly references a standard of "reasonableness", not an absolute standard, and nothing I know of in this episode has changed that.
You seem to be assuming without foundation that the search process was "random". AFAIK it focused on (a) buildings understood to potentially house relatives or friends of the bombers; (b) buildings where tips (e.g., from neighbors) indicated the possible presence of the bomber; and, (c) buildings not in compliance with the lockdown protocol (e.g., open or unlocked doors) that would provide access for the bomber. Even at these locations, I'm not aware of any no-knock, forced-entry searches, or anything about the searches conducted that would plainly be unreasonable taken in context.
I'm curious about your reference to lockdowns. In response to the repeated problem of mass murders in schools, many schools have implemented a protocol of having the teachers lock all of the classroom doors when such a danger is perceived to be present. It makes it harder for perps to get from room to room, potentially making it harder for them to get at potential victims. Are those lockdowns reasonable, or does any individual student always have the "right" to walk out, even if it realistically could result in the death of everyone in the room?