I wouldn't hit the panic button just yet. His broad interpretation of the word force in this is contrary to legal precedent. Force has always been defined to involve actual physical confrontation with various degrees of escalation, eg, non-lethal and lethal force. Physically restraining someone against their will is considered force, as is striking someone with a baton, as is shooting someone with a .50 caliber rifle. Sitting in at a protest, picketing, handing out bibles, etc, are not defined as use of force under existing laws. 200+ years of legal precedent don't go out the window just because a new law is passed. Besides, the Bush administration is done. Jan 2009, Bush, Cheney, and the rest are out. So far no martial law, no cities burning, no Imperial Storm Troopers marching down Central Avenue, despite the Patriot Act being on the books for how many years now?
That's not to say there hasn't been abuses. The FBI's been caught violating the law in regards to eavesdropping. I think this bears watching, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as he's painting it to be. At least, not just yet.
|