One of the things that we, hopefully, as Americans hold close is the right we have to live our lives free from government intervention.  This is not a conservative idea or a liberal one, it is a Constitutional one under the Fourth Amendment.  However, it is also common for the American people, tacitly at least, to give up freedom when we feel that our lives are in danger.  Sometimes this is a good thing, but most of the time it's a bad thing.  The Patriot Act, having nothing to do with patriotism, was passed in the aftermath of 9/11.

So it is with the domestic "war" currently being waged on drugs.  At first glance, it sounds like a good idea; I want criminals off of the street as much as anyone else does.  The problem is that this balancing act of freedoms and security is no longer on track.  Two things come to mind.

The Washington Post released an article awhile ago about a man, the mayor of his town, who had his home invaded by a SWAT team.  He was someone completely innocent of any wrongdoing and had been caught up in a recent trend in drug smuggling: have drug packages delivered to someone's house while the person is at work and have someone pick them up before the person got home.  In this case, law enforcement knew that this was happening, had detected the package at a mail sorting facility, and had staked-out the house of this particular mayor.  None of this was wrong and all of this would have been enough to prevent the crime, but people went a step further.  This mayor's home was invaded, without a warrant even nearby, when it was not necessary.  How excessive was the force here?  This was the story that made headlines when two dogs were even shot, one of which was trying to run away.  Yes, there are times when a heavy response is necessary, but there is no way police could not have known that the people inside posed no threat; they were there all day.

So why not send an officer to the front door?  Why ransack someone's house? Why go so far as to even kill there dogs?  The balance is off in American law enforcement.  But the worst part?  No one took note of this use of excessive force until it happened to a white, middle class mayor.  We don't know how many times this had happened before now.  And, I don't know about you, but I think that if law enforcement sends a SWAT team every time something like this happens, we are well on our way to becoming a police state.  Look, I hate to be the one who defends the right of a possible criminal, but police enforcement are there to protect the people, not come in guns blazing.

But this isn't the first time this has happened.  As it stands, 2008 was a horrible year for the use of force.  Recall the RNC convention.  Here, people who were doing nothing but exercising their Constitutional right, to peaceably assemble, were arrested wholesale.  Think 800 people.

1
in 20
were
journalists

Maybe what worries me the most, though, was that certain groups in particular seemed to be targeted.  Fringe media, like I-Witness Video Collective got special treatment.  In this case, 2 police raids in 5 days; no one messed with the main stream media because millions watch their broadcasts, not thousands or hundreds of thousands.  The harm in this?  It has a chilling affect on freedom of speech at one end of the political spectrum.  Regardless of whether or not I agree with a media outlet, I would never call for them to be arrested for talking.  Would I argue if I don't agree?  Yes.  But targeted police violence?  That's not right.

The balance in American law enforcement is off.

Oh yeah, and the funny thing about I-Witness Video Collective?  Their footage of the 2004 Republican National Convention, another time for wholesale arrests, proved around 400 people innocent of any wrongdoing, despite law enforcement testimony.