One of Those "Freedoms" They Hate Us For

Trey Smith

One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why.

In an age of international travel — where large numbers of citizens, especially those involved in sensitive journalism and activism, frequently travel outside the country — this power renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment entirely illusory. By virtue of that amendment, if the government wants to search and seize the papers and effects of someone on U.S. soil, it must (with some exceptions) first convince a court that there is probable cause to believe that the objects to be searched relate to criminal activity and a search warrant must be obtained.

But now, none of those obstacles — ones at the very heart of the design of the Constitution — hinders the U.S. government: now, they can just wait until you leave the country, and then, at will, search, seize and copy all of your electronic files on your return. That includes your emails, the websites you’ve visited, the online conversations you’ve had, the identities of those with whom you’ve communicated, your cell phone contacts, your credit card receipts, film you’ve taken, drafts of documents you’re writing, and anything else that you store electronically: which, these days, when it comes to privacy, means basically everything of worth.
~ from U.S. Filmmaker Repeatedly Detained at Border by Glenn Greenwald ~

Over the last generation or so, US Presidents have made a great deal about the rationale for terrorism against this nation's interests. We're told again and again that those who want to do in America are motivated by the fact that they hate our freedoms. Since they can't enjoy these same freedoms, there only hope to level the playing field is by doing anything they can to get those freedoms dismantled.

What is one of the chief freedoms that the "infidels" so detest? Due process. In America -- or so we are told -- the government simply doesn't try to intimidate, threaten, lock up or kill citizens on a whim. We have this ideal called "the rule of law." Under this rule, the government must convince a court that there is reason to believe a person has committed or, in some cases, is preparing to commit a crime.

This supposedly is far different than how things go in despotic authoritarian regimes. In such systems, the "rule of law" is vested solely in the despot and/or the ruling party. He gets to decide what the law is and how it will be carried out. If you don't like it, tough! There is little, if any, recourse.

As Glenn Greenwald shows in column after column, the preceding description more and more describes how the US actually operates. We may possess a constitution that bestows enumerated rights on the citizenry, but the government, in conjunction with the court system, gradually has stripped away or completely negated those rights.

In the case that Greenwald highlights in the column cited, the government is detaining, questioning, and threatening US citizens as well as confiscating constitutionally-protected personal belongings WITHOUT a shred of evidence or even suspicion of any wrongdoing. About the only thing worse is to kill US citizens without any direct evidence of criminal acts -- we do that too!

If we continue down this path -- there is NO reason to think we won't -- then what exactly differentiates us from an authoritarian regime?