i mean, it's one thing to see if the storage of dangerous chemicals caused a fire...terruahrist or meth labs both had a habit of causing suspicious fires. But anti-american materials? in an arson investigation?

That's just lazy. If you think the only time you'd have to pay attention is if there's propaganda on the floor...

not just materials. attitudes and behavior!

not to mention is it really safe to be making people uptight at all about calling the fire department? or thinking they have to clean up the boathouse blueprints first? (i know i always have those laying around) it's not about what people have to hide, it's about the cumulative effect upon behavior of more and more persecutory and paranoid eyes upon you. (I'M not paranoid, it's just all the eyeballs on me that have a paranoia problem!!!) and again, i don't want my firemen distracted. i want them thinking of one thing! fire!

it's not about what people have to hide, it's about the cumulative effect upon behavior of more and more persecutory and paranoid eyes upon you.

Definitely. Especially in combination with thoughtcrime legislation, an ever-widening definition of what makes a terrorist, and the constant suspension of constitutional rights, things just don't look good.

Even though we've had barely any sign of actual terrorist activity on US soil since 9/11, they keep stepping up the so-called vigilance, and the vigilance is aimed at US citizens. This just can't end well.

Shameful. JMO but firefighters are the only truly noble public servants, what they do shouldn't be contaminated like that. Cops--lotsa psychos in that line of work. But firefighters--heroes. Now I wonder about these campaigns where they announce that if you need a smoke detector, the firefighters will come over and install one for you free of charge....

Ill just add this NYT commentary without comment of my own. I hope it's not too long:

The Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches, but for this protection to have practical meaning, the courts must enforce it. This week, the Supreme Court let stand a disturbing ruling out of California that allows law enforcement to barge into people’s homes without a warrant. The case has not prompted much outrage, perhaps because the people whose privacy is being invaded are welfare recipients, but it is a serious setback for the privacy rights of all Americans.

San Diego County’s district attorney has a program called Project 100% that is intended to reduce welfare fraud. Applicants for welfare benefits are visited by law enforcement agents, who show up unannounced and examine the family’s home, including the insides of cabinets and closets. Applicants who refuse to let the agents in are generally denied benefits.

The program does not meet the standards set out by the Fourth Amendment. For a search to be reasonable, there generally must be some kind of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. These searches are done in the homes of people who have merely applied for welfare and have done nothing to arouse suspicion.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, rejected a challenge brought by welfare recipients. In ruling that the program does not violate the Constitution, the majority made the bizarre assertion that the home visits are not “searches.”

The Supreme Court has long held that when the government intrudes on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, it is a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. It is a fun-house mirrors version of constitutional analysis for a court to say that government agents are not conducting a search when they show up unannounced in a person’s home and rifle through her bedroom dresser.

Judge Harry Pregerson, writing for himself and six other Ninth Circuit judges who voted to reconsider the case, got it right. The majority decision upholding Project 100%, Judge Pregerson wrote, “strikes an unprecedented blow at the core of Fourth Amendment protections.” These dissenters rightly dismissed the majority’s assertion that the home visits were voluntary, noting that welfare applicants were not told they could withhold consent, and that they risked dire consequences if they resisted.

The dissenting judges called the case “an assault on the poor,” which it is. It would be a mistake, however, to take consolation in the fact that only poor people’s privacy rights were at stake. When the government is allowed to show up unannounced without a warrant and search people’s homes, it is bad news for all of us.