Border guards have been given extraordinary powers to search and seize, acting on mere suspicion. They were given these extra powers because thwarting a terrorist attack was considered even more important than citizens' rights. The urgency to snuff out the imminent or immediate threat of great harm, right there, right now, is enough to justify the extra powers.
The thing we should be recognizing as being very bad is that these extra powers they were given to help them combat terrorism in airports are being used in the quest to clear up ordinary crimes, i.e crimes having no connection to terrorism.
The threat of terrorism violence is the only reason for, and justification of, giving the authorities the right and the power to search where they like and seize what they like, and refuse what and whom they like.
Now you, elise, as I understand it, are saying: hey -- now they have been given these extraordinary combat-terrorism powers, it's ok for the authorities to use these powers to combat child porn and drugs.
I too don't have a problem with LE getting those responsible for child pornography, drugs, (murder, rape and kidnapping too). What I have a problem with is with the authorities using their powers of warrantless go-anywhere search and seizure, to combat these crimes.
Citizens have a right not to be subjected to warrantless searches. There is no justification for abusing those rights, just because the accused person happens to be in an airport, or near a border. The abuse of rights is only justified if there is, or might be, an imminent threat of massive deadly violence, like blowing up an aeroplane.
Ordinary crime does not carry that imminent threat. For that reason, ordinary crime does not justify the use of the special measures.
You would surely be hugely outraged if the police were to suggest that they should be allowed to extend their combat-terrorism-in-airport powers, to stop and search your car, driving along the 401, on the grounds simply that they want to see if you have any child porn. Your outrage would not be reduced just because they happen to find some ch.po. in a couple of cases.
So why are you not equally outraged when they use their terrorism airport powers to search for purveyors of child porn in airports? If the authorities have good reasons for suspecting ch.po., by all means let them obtain a warrant and search the suspect in accordance with the warrant, and if they then get the evidence to justify it, arrest the person and get ready for the trial.
It's a question of basic respect for human rights. We should not be content to set aside our basic human rights, on the grounds simply that it would make it easier to catch ch.po. purveyors, or drug dealers, or murderers.
I shudder when I come across people who have so little regard for their (and my) basic human rights that they are happy with the idea that it's ok to abuse my right to be free of unwarranted search, in their quest to catch ordinary criminals. IMO, the major role of government is to prevent such abuse of individual rights, and I would prefer to see us all pushing them in that direction.
