I was implicitly using the original situation as part of my example. To clarify, if the bus stopped at a federal building (as the original post points out) AND a credible threat exists AND the government has a name associated with that threat should the government be allowed to ask for IDs of folks on THAT bus that has stopped at a federal building.
Bobrek's question is an excellent one and the thrust of his question is totally correct that there are many times when government must intrude on our individual liberties for collective security. At the same time I totally agree with Rhester's statement above. It would be extremely naive of us to think that there isn't an inherent risks in protecting individual liberties by limiting the ability of police forces to conduct searches and seizures whenever they wanted. The issue comes down to though is having a safe society worth having a repressive society? For instance East Germany and the Soviet Union had very little street crime because under a repressive surveillance society it was easy for the police to keep the peace. OTOH though there was a lot of corruption in the police and abuse of power. The problem with the idea that we should put up with granting the authorities more power to surveil and search us is that you're counting on the authorities to always act in an efficiently, cleanly and in the best interest of society. Unfortunately that's far from the case considering how often government acts inefficiently, obtusely and in the interests of a few. As I said before its naive and shortsighted to consider that somehow police and security agencies are any better than any other part of government. There's as much, or more, bureaucracy in FBI as there is in the HUD yet people seem less troubled giving more power to the FBI than HUD when the FBI has a potentially far greater negative affect on most people's lives. So something like random ID checks might seem minor at first but the path from a free society to a police state isn't something that happens overnight. As people get used to accepting a greater level of restrictions on their liberties the temptation among law enforcement becomes greater to increase those restrictions. Especially in a climate of fear politicians will be emboldened to grant and even adovocate those restrictions.
That's pretty much the crux of it. I just think comparing this woman to Rosa Parks is not very cool. Yes there is a slippery slope - and I don't like big government anymore that the next person - but I don't think this ID woman was being particularly repressed - or being singled out because of her skin color. In the end - I think Americans prefer an unsafe, freer society than.
Before you ask this question, another question should be asked first. Does a repressive society grant you a safe society? The answer is obviously no, because we see too many examples of repressive societies that are not safe at all. Then, the question would be, why do we want a repressive society again? What are we giving up the freedom for?
Sara Connor was on my mind due to the Law & Order epsiode I watched last night from 11/23 where a guy was killing witnesses based on their name.
Slippery slope arguments can be over used. If we give judges the power to issue warrants based on probable cause, they may eventually start issuing warrants whenever they are asked, so we should never allow judges to issue warrants, right? Obviously that is unteneble. We are able to decide how far to go, and if something does not seem unreasonable, other than as the basis for a slippery slope argument, then it is probably not too far. I'm sure we can require people to show ID when asked without becoming a police state.
The ideals of this country, those codified (primarily) in the Declaration of Independence and to a lesser, but no less visible, extent in the Constitution, were based on the Radical Whig ideology. The guiding assumption for the Radical Whigs was that government, without checks on its power, will naturally devolve into tyranny. The 'slippery slope' argument is the same one that was used to create this country's system in the first place. The reason the fourth amendment exists, and the Bill of Rights in general, is specifically to halt nonsense like this. But the use of the terminology, 'slippery slope', often becomes a strawman. A warrant issued with probable cause is legal according to the Constitution. A search and seizure with no warrant is not. I don't think anyone's arguing for a repeal of Constitutional law.
Of course but that is why vigilance is needed. Obviously for a functioning society we need law enforcement but that doesn't mean that we should just go ahead and accept increases in government power to surveil us without skepticism. The biggest problem I see with things like this and the Patriot Act is that technically these are being done while the country is at peace. What this means is that even without being in a state of war we are voluntarily surrendering more of our rights to government. That right there is already a slippery slope and its just a matter of what degree of paranoia can be generated to make us voluntarily agree to a police state. This doesn't even have to do with whether we agree with the intentions of the Admin. in power or not. The Admin. could have the most honest pure intentions of protecting the US but at the sametime we are counting on the very falliable and bureacratic machinery government to do that. The more power granted to government to intrude on our rights in the interests of public safety the more likely abuses will occur because our system isn't perfect and can never be.
