It makes sense that if some harm keeps getting committed then someone should do something about it. But if that's not the case, then it does not justify any action from the government. Like in Mexico the drug war, sure go after the major drug kingpins using totalitarian systems. But to put this on petty criminals, small time crooks, etc. that's just horrible.
Petty criminals and small time crooks are often the ones that make life hardest for people, especially the poor who live in the neighborhoods where these guys operate.
When I lived in Wilmington, DE (a pretty run down post-industrial city), our favorite restaurant was run by an elderly Indian couple. But it was in a terrible neighborhood, and one day their house was broken into. These sweet, hard-working people were violated, and by who? Not some kingpin. By some "small time crook." Should he not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?
Would cover your case.
Keep in mind that we have the precedent of innocent unless proven guilty in the US, so the suspected drug kingpin, terrorist, or serial killer is just as innocent as the suspected bubble-gum thief.
Our system, while admittedly imperfect, prioritizes protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty (obviously it's more complicated than that, but that's the core)
1-http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html
But, I would agree that there is lots of leeway with this because of things that seem illegal under an interpretation of the law but the judicial may aid in reversing that thinking. Which would likely end up affecting the related law in some way.
Your last few sentences I totally agree with.
Thank goodness for Snowden or we'd probably have none of these cases going to trial. In many ways you can see agencies stopping the <shady thing> instead of taking it to court. They do that because if they lose then it becomes actually illegal and the power grab gets harder.
But there is precedent for just "surveillance". In your own words, there's precedent for murder - would I be fine if I were the first "mass murderer"?
Q: So what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations…where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
Q: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly, exactly.David Frost[1]: ...Would you say that there are certain situations - and the Huston Plan was one of them - where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal?
Richard Nixon[2]: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.
Frost: By definition.
Nixon: Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
Frost: The point is: the dividing line is the president's judgment?
Nixon: Yes, and, so that one does not get the impression that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress.
[0] - http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinte...
Nothing makes the police sound like fascist paramilitary thugs faster than "covert operations".
http://englishcowpath.blogspot.cl/2011/06/euphemism-treadmil...
This kind of statement has always bothered me - some actions are clearly against a plain reading of a law long before a court has anything to say on the matter.
It's kind of like the torture thing (excuse me, "enhanced interrogation"). It's plainly against the law, but your counsel has a novel legal theory about how black is actually white, up is down, etc. The person who would prosecute you for violating that law is the one you appointed, or possibly Congress if they felt like impeaching you. But... nothing happens. People argue about whether what you did is really right, or if torture is actually torture, and life goes on.
For some reason there's a lot of leeway for the government to push boundaries in this regard. The running outcome is that if something was not expressly illegal then there's no prosecution but a slap on the wrist. The judicial branch should start taking a much harder line against overreach; they should begin operating the other way: if it's a case of citizen rights and privacy then it's not legal unless it's expressly legal.