Saturday, June 17, 2006

The War On You

Government has a "war on drugs." It has a "war on terror." I put these "wars" in quotes because they aren't, really. You can't make war on tactics, and you can't make war on inanimate materials. These are contradictions in terms. They're mere foolishness. The government does have a real war going, though. It's a war against you and me.
A split Supreme Court ruled Thursday that drug evidence seized in a home search can be used against a suspect even though police failed to knock on the door and wait a "reasonable" amount of time before entering.

The 5-4 decision continues a string of rulings since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that in general give law enforcement greater discretion to carry out search-and-seizure warrants.

President Bush's nominees to the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, notably sided with the government.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said disallowing evidence from every "knock-and-announce violation" by officers would lead to the "grave adverse consequence" of a flood of appeals by accused criminals seeking dismissal of their cases.
Well! If we're afraid of a "flood" of appeals, then I guess knock-and-announce violations must not be very unusual. I guess they're probably pretty much business-as-usual.
"People have the right to answer the door in a dignified manner," Hudson's lawyer David Moran had told the high court. The justices have ruled in the past that police should announce their presence, then normally wait 15 to 20 seconds before bursting into a home.
Well, Mr. Moran, people have all sorts of "rights," in principle, but as the government grows increasingly lawless, those "rights," along with fifty cents (or several dollars at Starbucks), might get you a cup of coffee, but they're not going to keep the black-clad commandos from howling into your house like a militarized tornado, screaming obscenities as they throw you to your floor and shove their H&K muzzles into your face.

Once again, government is about absolutely nothing except force. If you must have government, you'd better find some way to keep it tiny, weak, starved, and fearful; or you'd better get used to hoping you only end up getting roughed up and zip-tied, instead of being shot down like a rabid dog. WWPHS? (What Would Patrick Henry Say?)


John Good said...

Okay Bartleby, what's that famous quote. . ."Those who sacrifice liberty for security shall have neither" ? That's as close as I can recall it.

Bartleby said...


The quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," is attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin’s “Historical Review,” 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.—Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413.

It is certainly apt to this subject, and practically every other in our post-9/11 SecurityState.

John Good said...

Thank you greatly for the clarification.