Nor do I agree with the proposition that the United States is "less free" today than it was before 9/11 because, for example, you have to stand in longer lines or take off your shoes at airports. Is your concept of the essence of "freedom" so shallow that it turns on such trivialities? Shoes on, quick check-in = FREEDOM, yay! Shoes off, stand in line = TYRANNY, booo! And where did you get the idea that safety precautions made prudent because of the barbarity of our enemies can be equated to a deliberate government suppression of liberty for some nefarious purpose (e.g., perpetuating a dictator's reign)?

If I don't understand, does that entitle the police to use force on me?

Of course, because you are clearly a traitor and objectively supporting the enemy.

If I don't understand, does that entitle the police to use force on me?

Police brutality was far more prevalent 20, 50 or 100 years ago than it is now. Just because something bad happens doesn't mean things are getting worse. Is there any historical perspective on anything anymore?

Non-linear thinking isn't your forte is it? Of course it can be getting worse, it may not be as bad as 100 years ago in terms of police brutality, but that doesn't mean we should merely say, "Oh well, it isn't as bad as 100 year ago, sure you can strip search me."

But you don't have a right to fly. If you don't want to go along with TSA rules, drive.

Actually this is precisely James' point. What we were once able to do we are no longer able to do it on the flimsiest of reasons. And if you become unpleasant about it while at the airport because some of the stuff they are asking us to do isn't simply stupid but blindingly stupid then you get to spend some pretty close and personal time with the coercive powers of the state.

Here's a good post expressing shock that so many people think "being a jerk" is now something that entitles police to use force.

But everything changed after 9/11! Don't you understand?

The Prince of Pompadoodle
Lived behind a castle wall,
Behind a moat, behind a guard
Of twenty soldiers tall.

The Prince of Pompadoodle
May hoard each empty hour,
But none can know; no word comes from
The silent stony tower.

For my part, you want to search me you had better be ready to charge me with something. I will ask if I am under arrest. The agent tells me I am not under arrest, I will refuse to allow the search. If I am then charged with resisting arrest I will know what the original charge is, or I will raise bloody hell. I will take what legal steps I can to see that justice is done.

A person can only be charged with resisting arrest when he was under arrest in the first place.

A person can only be searched when the agent has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, is in the act of committing a crime, or when the subject has been arrested for a crime. Refusing to submit to a search is not ipso facto proof of a crime or otherwise justification for a search.

Water, shampoo, and formula do not go BOOOM!

Why it was necessary to taser the guy once he was down was especially mysterious.

Holy hyperbole, Batman!

Someone needs to get a grip.

The United States is by no means the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Still, we're becoming decidedly less free.

What Scarborough is talking about, though, is the docile acceptance of the need to bow down to authority figures. That's not a healthy trend."

In addition, what we're seeing is well-documented police brutality, where it's not just the word of a groups of police officers against the word of the guy with the bruises.

And the reactions of the various commenters on this thread are pretty good support for the idea that things are getting worse.

Holy hyperbole, Batman!

Someone needs to get a grip.

DaveD said:
This is a tough one. Since the public park issue is used as an example I would say public land is for the enjoyment of all.

I'm sorry but the parks in DC is not 'public land' it is specifically owned by the government (either city of DC or federal land, I don't know which).

While the 'government' allows public access to them for leisure. Protesting as it has become is quite disruptive and in many cases destructive (not only graffiti, but to the grass which has to be replaced, and flowers, etc).

Just because the 'government' of the people owns it, doesn't mean "the people" get free access to it. You see gates on many access roads in mountains for fire roads, but they won't let off-roaders go up their by themselves.

The government should have every right to protect itself from vandilism as any other private owner does.

where they are free to do only what their government expressly permits.

I have to agree with the others here who pointed out that this had nothing to do with the idiot who made such an ass out of himself at the Kerry event.

After seeing some of the other videos, and reading some of the other first-hand accounts, I think most people would have agreed with the "they should have smacked him a few more times" point of view.

Your freedom of speech does not extend to the freedom of making everyone else's life more unpleasant just so you can have a few laughs at the local pub afterwards, or make a few points with the pseudo-anarchist chick who sits next to you in your "Crimes of Western Civilization" class.

Since 2001, the United States has undergone a subtle, but tragic, transformation from a nation where citizens were free to do as they wished as long as they broke no laws to one where they are free to do only what their government expressly permits. And unfortunately, one of the things the government most discourages is dissent.

I'm sorry, but these conclusions are coming from left field and are nothing but inflammatory. First, our governments, Federal, state and local have always written laws to restrict our activities. What's left is allowable. What laws have been written since 9/11 that tell me expressly what I can do? Is there a law that tells me I can read a book. I bet I can do that without breaking the law. Of course, the Bill of Rights restricts the government in their ability to restrict certain of my activities and so you could say that this expressly grants me permission to do something. But I don't see how that has changed.

Second, what were the students at the school supposed to do? Does Ms. Scarborough want the students to physically stop the police from continuing. That has always been illegal. Even before 9/11.

Third, The pre 9/11 security and mindset allowed four planes to be hijacked and used as weapons against the American people. How does Ms. Scarborough purpose we prevent this from happening again? Plus, this is an example of express restrictions and not express permissions.

I am not convinced of Ms. Scarborough conclusions. She may be right in her conclusions but the examples do not warrant the conclusions.