“If we were actually screening potential terrorists, the rule would make pretty good sense.”
Then by that logic we should just shoot anyone trying to flee the scene. Better yet, we should shoot anyone that refuses to go to the airport and “volunteer” for screening. In fact, that means we would screen everyone every day to ensure they are not avoiding the airport and shoot anyone that has not been screened in the past 24 hours.
Incrementalism is the tool of tyrants.
“Then by that logic we should just shoot anyone trying to flee the scene. Better yet, we should shoot anyone that refuses to go to the airport and “volunteer” for screening. In fact, that means we would screen everyone every day to ensure they are not avoiding the airport and shoot anyone that has not been screened in the past 24 hours.”
You’re dead on about incrementalism. We already don’t have the right to travel without being searched. It’s not in the Constitution, so it can’t be a real right, evidently, 10th Amendment be damned. Screening your car or person when you leave your property is technically legal, by the way the judges have already decided things, at least viewed pragmatically. The only question is how long before we have house-to-house searches “to keep us safe,” and get the transition from republic to globoligarchy over with. Maybe the clowns running the show will be lucky enough to have another MOVE-type event take place, in order to make things seem dangerous enough for them to overtly step beyond the front stoops of folks’ homes.