Why Is It Different?

There is a breaking story about a secret program (once again a leak) where several agencies conducted searches of properties for nuclear radiation in an effort to find weapons. The report comes from two people who refused to be named because it is a secret. They came forward because they are worried about the legality. The article contends that Muslims were the sole target yet the sources indicate the targets were nearly all Muslims. This would indicate that the surveillance was based on perceived threats from more than one source.

Radiation can be monitored from outside a building without the need to enter. The monitoring vehicles parked on parking lots and in driveways. The contention is that if a delivery man can access it, so can the law. A legal expert disagrees citing a ruling where the police are not allowed to use infra-red sensors to find lights used to grow marijuana indoors. I think there is a big difference. You can not monitor the light without “looking” in the building. Radiation can be detected outside the building and the air outside does not belong to the property owner. If a police officer drove by and saw marijuana lights through an open shade he would have probable cause. Sound is similar to radiation in that it can escape the house. If all the doors and windows are closed and a police officer hears what sounds like a fight he will have probable cause to investigate and, if necessary, enter.

I am curious as to why we are worried about this yet when a police officer uses a nifty gadget that sniffs the air for alcohol we do not mind. The police use a device that looks like a flashlight that sniffs the air and detects the presence of alcohol. When they stop you they poke it through the window to try and detect if there is any alcohol. The police report that the courts have upheld this practice because they are sniffing ambient air despite the fact the air is in your car and they put their device in your car.

Police also violate the Fourth Amendment when they have sobriety checkpoints yet the courts have upheld them. They stop every car, without any probable cause, to check and see if people have been drinking. I have always held that this is a violation of our rights. It is wrong to be stopped without a reason to see if you have been drinking. They claim it is for public safety but in reality it is to generate revenue.

Why is it the ACLU and the moonbats in Congress as well as all the liberal dingbats out there are so worried about us violating the rights of suspected terrorists yet they do not give a rodent’s derriere about those of us who are law abiding citizens. It is probably because they can not earn money from it and the left can not bash Bush with it.

I guess only Muslims and terrorists are protected in this country, at least as far as the left is concerned.

Story