Where Now The Moral Outrage, Obama and Holder?

Over the past couple years, we have heard Obama and Eric Holder cite the importance of staying true to our values when dealing with terrorists. Obama was quite clear on this subject when he banned waterboarding as being torture, and Holder in citing the rule of law as a rationale for trying the nasty sheik in Manhattan.

Where now are Obama, Holder, and all their sanctimonious sycophants on the subject of American Values? They have suddenly gone quiet in the maelstrom of controversy surrounding the intrusive policies of Homeland Security’s TSA. Perhaps hoping the whole thing will blow away before they have to make any further brilliant remarks such as Janet Napolitano’s inane comment, “Well, if you don’t like it, you don’t have to fly.”

When Obama and Holder were talking about “American moral values” they were describing a  country defined by basic principles of integrity, rule of law, and a sense of fairness that permeates our unique experiment in governance. It thus seems strange that when confronted by a very specific example of the exact opposite, they choose to remain silent. I am referring, of course, to the enunciated moral values found in the United States Constitution. Specifically, the first ten amendments to the Constitution know collectively as the Bill of Rights. And, even more specifically, Amendment IV, which bears directly on the current controversy.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I assume there are lawsuits either under way or on tap that claim the searches by TSA are not Constitutional because they are unreasonable. I also assume the Department of Homeland Security, along with the Attorney General of the United States, will argue that the searches are reasonable since they are made to ensure security of the flying public. However argued, the government is on some pretty shaky grounds here, since the morality of carrying the searches to the point of sexual intrusion crosses a line that everyone knows instinctively is wrong. I would assume the nine wise men and women on the Supreme Court will feel the same, should the matter reach that far.

It is with this belief that I feel moral values will eventually trump the need for security. And since moral values have been cited by Obama and Holder as the very basis of the way we approach security from terrorists, I would also assume they will join with the American people in halting the invasive searches.

But I am not holding my breath.

JP