A rebuttal

Here, yesterday, Ouroboros pulled out the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to be afraid of" argument. A brief response for him, perhaps to give him something to chew on before Don Quixote consumes his life. I'm calling you on this one, sir.

My first reaction was "That's a stupid argument, and why hello Mr. Orwell, yes, your dystopic vision of the future is in fact coming true."

That's not very academic nor a very sound argument, though. So my question is: Have you the Constitution? Do you understand that it is The Document our nation is based on? The government is not built on the Constitution and...some other stuff. Yes, judicial precedent is often factored in, but judicial preceden can't in any way compete with the Constitution itself.

The Constitution quite clearly says that we as Americans are safe from "unreasonable search and seizure". If someone wants to search me or my possesions - be it within my house or standing out on a public sidewalk - they must have a warrant from a judge saying "NinjaGeek's bag and contents may be searched." The only way that warrant can be issued is if someone in law enforcement approaches a judge and says "Here is some convincing, compelling evidence we have that NinjaGeek is Up To No Good. We think that searching her belongings will help prove this and benefit the public."

In the situation in New York, this has not happened. There's no warrant, there's no probable cause, there's just "OMG terrorists!".

Sure, if I were cruising around NYC, I'd probably let them search my bags, because I'd have someplace to get to. And no, I don't have anything to hide. But I do have a right, as an American in America, to not need to surrender to searches without a warrant and probable cause. Therefore, I'd be mighty pissed off about being searched.