This is a specious appeal to an abstract concept, that in this case justifies autocratic power. The entire run-amok surveillance industrial complex exists precisely due to such selective enforcement. If the FBI were actually interested in achieving justice, they would be going after the highly organized traitors systematically undermining our freedoms rather than small isolated cases of individuals committing a crime while trying to expose those larger crimes. Instead we see this exact "different enforcement", but with the opposite prioritization.
And yes, the people deciding en masse to elect different representatives would be one way to fix the problem. But there are many such ways, and general normative condemnation is the way to maintain and build support for any/all of them rather than getting focused on a specific approach which may or may not work.
Using "State Secrets" laws to cover up constitutional violations is also somewhat dubious so then one has to ask what law is more important, a Federal Statute of Secrecy or the Constitution, clearly you think Federal Statute over rides the Constitution, I dont.
>>You don't think that police should have the power to seize evidence or arrest people at all?
Seize Evidence... Sure
Pre-trial confinement should be exclusively reserved for cases where there is clear and convincing evidence of a danger the individual poses to the wider public, i.e a rapist or murder...
Innocent until proven guilty right? Or do you reject that fundamental provision of the law as well, I am not sure because you seem to have a very cozy relationship with structures of authority.
We're not talking about a jury trial here! It's an arrest (attempt). The ability to detain people suspected of crimes and search their papers and persons is a core part of law enforcement. So much so, in fact, that the fourth amendment specifically calls it out and places limits on the ability. And to say it again: it is abundantly clear that those limits were not crossed in this case.
Uh... yes? If a law was violated, that's probable cause. It's sort of a definitional thing. What legal regime do you desire that manages to pre-decide on which laws are OK to violate before the collection of evidence occurs?
This sounds like an argument against the whole idea of law enforcement, I guess? You don't think that police should have the power to seize evidence or arrest people at all? (Because before they do that, we need to decide whether the laws they're trying to enforce are acceptable to the target of the investigation, right?) I mean, that's a position. Libertarians and anarchists occasionally say stuff like that. But it's absolutely not the legal framework we live under, and I doubt you'll find much support for it among the broader electorate.
If you don't like the laws we have, then the remedy available to you is to elect a government to change the laws. You don't get to demand that we enforce them differently for the laws you don't like.