I watched the movie "The Nuremberg Trials" the other day on PBS, and I was struck with the parallel between what happen in Germany with the loss of civil rights for a certain segment of people and the Patriot Act taking away civil rights from people who we consider enemy combatants or other people who we consider enemies of the state. It seems to me that once the government starts down this road of denying civil rights to who ever in the name of national security, where does it stop, and who stops it. I am not willing to exchange my civil rights, and my right to freedom granted by the constitution, for security, because once you have lost your freedom to whatever government, you will not get it back, you will be living in a police state. I know that here in America we have the Separation of Powers that is to save guard our rights as Americans, but with the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that if a local city government can make money by redeveloping your property, thus making tax revenue go up, then it is all right. To me this ruling is in direct conflict with the 4th Amendment which states:

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.

To my simple understanding of the 4th amendment, monetary gain for some city government is unreasonable, and should not be seized, but the great legal minds of the Supreme Court decided money for government and business was more important then my house and my happiness of where I decide to live. My point is that sometimes it seems like this separation of powers does not always protect my right as a citizen granted by the constitution.

So if our rights as citizens can be eroded in one area, where does it stop. We are a nation of laws, and our laws apply to whoever is in our sphere of influence even the enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay is the starting point by the federal government of eroding civil rights to who they deem as enemies foreign and domestic in the name of national security. Take for instance the case that was in Sacamento, California. In the end the government had no case and no evidence, so my question why were they arrested, and why were they convicted? why did the judge let this trial proceed? I believe this is just an example of the government overstepping and infringing on people's civil rights when there was no proof just, an assumption on the government’s part that they might do something even though the government does not know how to define that something. This is a slippery slope, our freedom and the Bill of Rights is suppose to protect us from our government , and like I said before I am not willing to trade my freedom and civil rights for security because if we do, then become our worst enemy.