TERRORIST GHOST ATTACK IS IMMINENT : WE ARE NOT SAFE

SAFETY ADVISORY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

By : David Petraeus, Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Last week, our Nation marked a significant milestone with the 10th Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We can be grateful that we escaped the event without incident. Thanks to the tireless efforts of State and Federal law enforcement, America foiled any attempt to mar the memorial ceremony with violence.

As a Nation, we have come closer this year to defeating terror than at any time since 9/11. We have killed Osama bin Laden. We have al-Qaeda on the run. And we have created a culture of security that keeps Americans safe from terror.

Despite these encouraging developments, we cannot let our guard down. While the Central Intelligence Agency understands that Americans simply want to live without fear, we cannot yet afford to quell the alarm.

In fact, we regret to inform the public that al-Qaeda has unleashed a frightening new weapon: Ghosts.

Generally, we here at the Central Intelligence Agency do not speak directly to the American people. Circumstances, however, mandate that we reveal critical new information that impacts all Americans. Public safety is acutely in danger, and we must advise appropriate measures to cope with the risk.

Today's threat is elusive. It does not involve bombs, guns or gas. It does not involve suicide attackers. It does not even involve living human beings. No, it involves something much more frightening: The vengeful spirits of slain al-Qaeda leaders returned from the grave.

This is not a hoax. Our agents have credible, reliable and confirmed reports that al-Qaeda intends to make supernatural war against New York City, especially the Ground Zero site. According to top agents, it appears that the angry ghosts of al-Qaeda leaders are currently on their way from the spirit world to wreak havoc on Lower Manhattan. Agents also inform us that these spirits have recruited ghouls, goblins, wraiths, specters, poltergeists and even zombies to spread fear in New York.

Understandably, we are taking these threats extremely seriously. Supernatural warfare cannot be taken lightly. We have already received initial reports that al-Qaeda ghosts are both extremely scary and difficult to pinpoint. And most disturbingly, intelligence indicates that conventional weaponry is useless against ghosts. Bullets, bombs and airstrikes simply cannot harm these terrifying spirits. After all, ghosts are already dead: Killing them again is no easy matter.

It is not entirely clear how al-Qaeda ghosts will operate. Some experts believe that terror ghosts can manipulate electronics. This poses a devastating threat to the national economy. Ghosts could ostensibly haunt iPads, iPhones, NASDAQ and the internet. Communication and commerce would break down, imperiling a fragile economic recovery.

Just imagine what would happen if an angry al-Qaeda spirit corrupted the Nation's computers? Web browsing, timekeeping, online bill paying, social networking and E-Harmony would collapse. Chaos would follow. It is a horrifying thought.

Worse, intelligence also indicates that ghosts can change cable channels without warning, take over flight controls, scare away workers and terrify small children. Finally, ghosts represent a very real danger to seniors and persons with cardiac difficulty: Seeing a ghost can easily cause heart failure.

In short, we face a serious crisis.

But it is essential to maintain calm. While we acknowledge that al-Qaeda ghosts are certainly scary, we are already taking action against them. In our battles with al-Qaeda, we have learned how to cope with terror. We know how to foil attacks, and supernatural attacks are no different. Put simply, we can defeat anything al-Qaeda throws at us, including ghosts.

Together with military and law enforcement authorities, the CIA is hard at work securing Lower Manhattan against the expected spectral onslaught. Thanks to improved interrogation methods, we have confirmed that the ghosts of Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Mustafa al-Yazid intend to float into the area around Ground Zero within the next 48 hours. We will be ready for them.

Authorities will lock down Lower Manhattan to quarantine the ghosts as soon as they land. Regrettably, these measures will entail some inconvenience for New Yorkers. All citizens will be subject to search and detainment to verify that they have not been haunted by al-Qaeda. And all citizens may be required to surrender their personal property--including their clothing and underwear--for inspection to determine whether a spirit has not hidden within it. After all, we are talking about ghosts. They can easily hide in backpacks, socks, panties, boxer shorts, water bottles and even cell phones.

While we appreciate citizens' concerns for their liberty, dignity and privacy in these matters, we reiterate that security against terrorist ghosts requires strong action. Comprehensive security is the only way to successfully defeat ghosts.

We recognize that New Yorkers simply want to get back to normal after 10 years of terror. But we cannot afford to give up now. We face perhaps the most frightening battle we have yet faced in the War on Terror. We are all afraid of ghosts; but al-Qaeda ghosts are especially bad. Worse, this is no ghost story. This is a specific, credible and confirmed threat.

Still, Americans do not back down. We can defeat terrorist ghosts just as well as living terrorists. We all must refuse to give in to fear. Go to work. Go on vacation. Go to a movie. Go buy a car. Go buy a home. Go about your business as you would any other day. If a ghoul accosts you, tell him you're an American and you are not afraid. Sure, he might haunt you or even steal your handbag, but that is no reason to bend to terror.

We here at the CIA will do our part to keep the public informed as we obtain new reports. Until that time, we advise full cooperation with law enforcement. If you are detained, remember that your sacrifice is absolutely necessary to prevent al-Qaeda from haunting America. You will be released as soon as competent authorities determine that an al-Qaeda ghost has not hidden somewhere in your clothing or on your body.

In this age of heightened security concerns, we all must be prepared to make the occasional sacrifice. If we do not, the ghosts win.

STOP THE INEFFICIENCY : IT'S TIME TO PRIVATIZE PUBLIC SERVICES

INSTALLMENT # 1 : LAW ENFORCEMENT

By : Mr. A. James Meinecke, M.B.A. (Harvard Business School), President and CEO, Tailor-Targeted Systems Solutions (TTSS), LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Former Director, Blackwater USA, a consulting agency specializing in private security solutions and diplomacy (1997-2004); Former Chief, Atlanta Police Department (1988-1997); Board Member, The Free Market Society (2001-present); Publisher Laissez-Faire, S’il Vous Plait, an informational newsletter serving America’s corporate boards.

Americans want safe streets and safe workplaces. They don’t want to worry about crime and terrorism on their way to work. They want their children to be safe when they use the Internet and email. Americans also want to know that guilty people are being investigated, captured and punished. America trusts its law enforcement personnel to accomplish these tasks. For decades, government-run American law enforcement kept pace with the criminals.

But we can do better. For a long time, America has trusted Federal, State and local government to enforce its laws. Americans elect representatives to pass laws criminalizing certain conduct. They then rely on Executive agencies—such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State police and local police forces—to corral anyone who violates those laws. Although Executive agencies generally do a fine job investigating, interrogating, prosecuting and punishing criminals, they face a key limitation: They are public servants. And public servants never do a job as well as competitive, motivated private contractors.

Here at Tailor-Targeted Systems Solutions LLC, we want to help America. Specifically, we want to make public services more efficient by cutting the “public” out of “public services.” As effective as State law enforcement efforts may be, imagine how much more effective they would be if private enterprise competed for better ways to catch criminals. The simple truth is that government employees do not have an economic incentive to pursue criminals. They receive low pay and generally enjoy few avenues for financial advancement. No matter how hard they work and how many drug dealers they arrest, they get the same $29,578 a year. Additionally, they have a monopoly on their jobs: They do not feel pressure to introduce better solutions to existing problems. After all, there are no rival police departments to keep them on their toes. We believe that America deserves better. When it comes to catching criminals, we think efficiency comes first.

Many people think that certain government functions should not be private, including law enforcement. These people think that government agents should investigate crime because crime is a public concern. They think that police officers should not be loyal to their own economic interests, but rather the “public good.” In essence, this argument boils down to loyalty: To whom should police officers be loyal? Yet this argument misses an essential point. Namely, it forgets that law enforcement aims to efficiently stop crime, not vindicate the popular will. If it came between stopping ten rapes and vaguely fulfilling “the popular will,” I think every American would say that stopping ten rapes is more important. Complacent State officers cannot stop rape as effectively as dedicated private contractors with an economic interest in stopping rape. When law enforcement professionals have no personal economic stake in stopping crime, they have no reason to be efficient. That is why we must privatize law enforcement. We owe it to our children. If we want safe streets, we must change the way we look at loyalty.

Police officers would do a much better job if they knew they would profit from stopping crime. According to popular understanding, police officers pursue crime because they care about the public good. But the public good pays no bills; money does. If our police officers received a special bonus for every crime they prevent—or for every suspected criminal they catch—we would provide a meaningful incentive for our law enforcement personnel to protect us. In this sense, we propose a corporate model for law enforcement. Rather than requiring “loyalty to the State” from our policemen, we should make them loyal to a private law enforcement company. That company, in turn, would contractually pay them a higher salary than the State, plus bonuses for effective criminal management. When people have real economic incentives to get a job done, they do it much more effectively than someone who receives a discouraging flat rate serving “the public good.” In our view, when police officers have an economic motivation to stop crime, they will stop it much more efficiently than they would “serving the public good” for minimal pay. For example, a police officer would much more willingly investigate a dangerous drug ring knowing he might receive an extra $4,000 per arrest than he would if he knew he would receive nothing more than the usual $29,578 a year for zealously investigating the drug ring. He could use that $4,000 to pay medical bills, car notes or credit card debt. He could use the extra money to buy consumer goods or invest in the stock market. At the same time, he would benefit the public by stopping drug crime. Put simply, when people have an economic reason to do something, they take more chances and get jobs done more effectively than they would without the incentive. That is why we must privatize police forces. Public loyalty does not protect our children. Only private loyalty does.

There is no reason why so-called “traditional public services” should not compete in a free market system. The fact that “traditional public services” are so important only supports the argument that private enterprise should provide them. After all, police services are essential to the community. Private enterprise would provide them more efficiently than the State. In that light, Americans should embrace private solutions to traditionally public services. Private police can catch twice as many criminals as public police in the same time. Results are results. When Americans get better results from private enterprise than public services, they will never go back to public services. Additionally, private enterprise must always stay fresh. There will always be a competitor striving to take a company’s place in the market. In that light, competition will make private businesses even more efficient crime stoppers. After all, if a new police company catches more criminals than the old one, the old company will lose its contract. That will force the old company to invent new, more effective crime control measures to keep pace. All the while, the public benefits. When police forces compete for contracts, the criminals lose and the public wins.

Competition among private police forces will not just reduce crime. It will also drive down costs. Unlike inefficient public police forces, private companies will always need to stay ahead of the curve and deliver results. They will have to stop more crime more quickly than their competitors, all for a competitive price. By competing for contracts, private companies will ensure that taxpayers only pay market rates for law enforcement services, not inflated subsidy rates. If a company can’t cut the mustard, it will lose its contract to a company that can arrest more criminals for less money. This is just the way business works. Yet under the public model, if the police force fails to stop crime, it still costs the same amount. This is not just inefficient. It is also expensive and wasteful. This is why we must privatize our police forces. It will not just stop crime and protect children; it will cost less, too.

Private police forces will pursue criminals much more effectively than public ones. Under the public model, police officers always wear uniforms and other “official, State insigniae.” While this adds a special “government aura” to law enforcement, it also gives criminals far too much warning. They can easily run away whenever they see a uniformed policeman approaching, or they can say: “Put the drugs away; here comes a cop car.” Put simply, public police forces stick out like a sore thumb. And when criminals get away, the public suffers.

Not so under the private model. Private police officers are not really “officers” at all. Rather, they are “employees.” As such, they do not wear uniforms. They do not drive marked cars. They look like regular guys on the street. Criminals will never know whether a law enforcement company employee is nearby, ready to arrest them. This is much more efficient than tipping criminals off by wearing ostentatious silver badges and military-style uniforms. When law enforcement goes private, criminals will start looking over both shoulders. And when criminals are scared, they will not rape women, rob banks or murder children.

Private police employees enjoy another key practical advantage over public police officers: Namely, they are not bound to respect any “constitutional rights.” Public police forces are “State actors.” As such, they must follow the United States Constitution and various State constitutions when investigating and prosecuting crime. This drastically impedes their effectiveness, because constitutions interpose “individual rights” that bar highly efficient crime control practices. By contrast, private law enforcement employees face no such limitations. When they set out to arrest a criminal, they do not need to worry about “warrants,” “probable cause,” “reasonable suspicion,” “privacy,” “the Fourth Amendment,” “Miranda warnings,” “Due Process” or other elaborate judicial fantasies. Rather, they can arrest whomever they please, whenever they please. If they need to tap a phone, they tap it. If they need to search a house, they search it. If they need to wring a confession from a suspect, they wring it. In short, criminals have no refuge when facing private law enforcement employees. And all this adds up to safer streets and safer children.

We should not shrink from privatizing our police forces. We owe it to our children. When it comes to any service, the best solutions are private. Private employees with an interest in success do a job much better than poorly-paid bureaucrats who just want to see 5 o’clock and a pension. Just look at the DMV to see public servants at work. Would you trust your wife’s safety to a DMV employee? Of course not. Yet these people are your police officers. Vigorous private enterprise gives Americans their most cherished goods and services, from medicine to fast food. There is no reason why we should not trust private enterprise to give them something as vital as protection from criminals. Additionally, when we privatize police forces, we will open a whole new employment market, boosting job growth and income levels across the country. Enterprising men and women will study to become law enforcement employees. They will learn to make a decent wage catching criminals. The solution is obvious.

We can do it. America deserves more from its law enforcement professionals, not lackluster donut-eating and clockwatching. We must move away from the idea that only government can do certain jobs. As a Director at Blackwater USA, I showed that privately-employed soldiers could do a better job than the U.S. Army in the field. If private enterprise can wage war in Iraq, it can also protect Americans against dangerous criminals at home. And it can do it more efficiently, too. When employees stand to make more money for doing a better job, everybody wins.

We deserve efficiency. We deserve better pay. We deserve solutions that work. That is why we must bring private enterprise to law enforcement.

WE NEED DNA TESTING FOR ALL CRIMES NOW

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Dr. Carl J. See, Ph.D. (Occupational Psychiatry), M.D. (Sports Medicine); Chairman, The Safe Children Society; Deputy Fellow, The Institute for Practical Biological Application, Ltd.

Human genes reveal us. Modern medical science can now pinpoint genetic codes that define our personalities, propensities, proclivities, habits and inclinations. When genetic coding first arose as a scientific discipline, scientists could only identify DNA strands for simple attributes, such as hair color, eye color and shoe size. Now, researchers at several major institutes—including The Institute for Practical Biological Application, Ltd.—have discovered that DNA can predict much more subtle behavioral characteristics. Researchers at the institute recently found, for example, that a convicted murderer in Florida had a special gene. Comparing that gene to other murderers' genes, the researchers discovered that they all shared an identical, unique DNA code. Intrigued, the researchers analyzed gene codes from convicts who committed property crimes. They, too, had a unique DNA combination. Acting on these discoveries, our scientists declared that they had discovered “criminal genes” that define whether a citizen has committed—or will commit—crimes.

These discoveries should both impress and sober us. In brief, we have made a startling breakthrough with immense practical application. With continued research, our team will pinpoint genetic codes for all crimes, from major felonies to the pettiest misdemeanors. When we complete our work, we will have the power to exactly know whether our neighbors are potential killers, bandits, thieves, child neglecters, tax evaders or check forgers. Our research can even pinpoint whether a person will urinate in public, slap a police officer or park in a tow-away zone. Our society has a right to know—and to punish—everyone who violates the criminal law, no matter how trifling the offense. The Institute’s DNA research will make it possible to know precisely who will violate the law, as well as those who have already violated it. Our researchers have even discovered a subtle RNA strand change that occurs when a potential criminal becomes an actual criminal. If an observer sees this RNA strand change, it certifiably determines that the subject actually committed a crime. In short, science will both control potential crime and investigate crime that has already occurred. No longer will authorities worry about “catching the wrong man.” Now, DNA will tell the whole story, trial or no trial.

Despite these great advances, we must make legal and social changes to fully prepare our society for the benefits they will bring. First, we must obtain DNA samples from every living citizen in the United States. This is the only way we can assemble a reliable DNA database from which to make predictions and judgments concerning every citizen’s potential and actual criminality. With children, this will be easy. We can lobby Congress and State legislatures to pass laws that require all newborns to submit DNA samples at birth. With adults, we face a somewhat more difficult road. But we believe that all citizens have a right to know who is a criminal. To that extent, we believe that adults will voluntarily surrender DNA samples to law enforcement scientists. We also believe that most Americans will support legislation forcing unwilling adults to deliver DNA samples to responsible authorities. While we understand that some “privacy advocates” may disagree with this course, we note that DNA sampling is no different from fingerprinting or taking blood samples. The Supreme Court has held in several cases that such “biological screening” does not constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). From a legal standpoint, there is nothing intrusive about taking a DNA sample. True, DNA samples reveal a person’s complete biological roadmap—including his tastes, hobbies, inclinations and future behavior—but that is not relevant as a legal matter.

Second, we must establish new law enforcement departments to analyze every citizen’s DNA code. Once the Institute assembles the final lexicon matching particular DNA strands with particular crimes, these new departments must assign every citizen’s DNA file a list of potential crimes. Following this work, the departments must determine whether there have been telltale RNA strand changes each file’s criminal DNA chains. If so, that means the citizen has actually committed a crime. This will require the department to alert enforcement authorities to track down and arrest the criminal. For all other individuals with criminal DNA chains, the department must refer the file to police authorities for monitoring and oversight. Additionally, the department must make its discoveries public. The public has a right to know who has criminal DNA. To that extent, law enforcement authorities must publish the names, addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers of all individuals with criminal DNA. These publications must also list the crimes that each named subject will potentially commit. These measures will not only help prevent crime. They will also aid employers in screening out dangerous and unwelcome potential employees.

Criminal law enforcement is everyone’s responsibility. Although police forces and courts administer the criminal law, every citizen plays a role. Citizens created the criminal law by electing representatives to permanently enshrine their values. In that sense, every citizen has an interest in tracking down and punishing those who break their rules. That is why criminal cases speak for “The People” rather than individual parties. Moreover, crime affects us all. Crime impacts commerce, lowers wages and makes people afraid to go to work. When commerce suffers, all citizens suffer. Effectively investigating, tracking and punishing crime protects commerce. And when commerce functions properly, everyone can go to work and enjoy their lives without fear. DNA screening will ensure this result. All citizens just want to work and enjoy their lives. They want lawbreakers to suffer if they do not get with the program. To that extent, the Institute’s DNA discoveries will enable everyday citizens to live better lives.

DNA testing is not an entirely new idea. For several years now, authorities have used DNA evidence to link defendants to crimes involving bodily fluids, hair or skin particles. But now we can do so much more than link defendants to crimes. Today, DNA reveals not only who committed a crime, but also who will commit a crime. It also does far more than merely identify defendants. It provides a complete readout concerning a person’s character and personality. We believe that effective crime control depends not only on good identification, but also on properly understanding people’s character. As mentioned, law enforcement is everyone’s responsibility. Criminals do not belong among law-abiding people. To that extent, decent people must know who has bad character before they cause harm. When our reforms come into force, law-abiding citizens will know whether their neighbor ever forged a check, parked improperly, abused a child, committed a lewd act, lied under oath, pickpocketed, beat a dog or stole welfare benefits. They will even allow law-abiding citizens to “watch out” for people with DNA likely to lead to public urination, vandalism, domestic violence, lying on employment applications or resumes, unruly behavior, criminal tardiness, petty theft, trespassing or downloading child pornography. DNA does not lie. Good citizens deserve to know who the bad citizens are. For the first time in history, criminals will not be able to hide. Both good citizens and law enforcement officials will know exactly who and where they are at all times, even before they commit offenses.

In view of these benefits, it is remarkable that “civil liberties advocates” raise objections to the Institute’s work. According to these critics, there is something “sacred” about “privacy.” They say that a person’s personality and spiritual characteristics are internal matters that no one has a right to know. They also say that government has no right to make assumptions about whether a person is a “potential criminal,” and the Institute’s research will eviscerate the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

We strongly disagree with these objections for several reasons. First, the Institute’s DNA research does not make “assumptions” about potential criminality. It establishes scientific fact. When a person has a gene for public urination, he will commit the offense as a genetic matter. There is no “assumption.” An assumption is a belief in facts without personal knowledge. The Institute’s research does not assume; it establishes fact. Through scientific reasoning, observation and logical conclusion, it pinpointed genes that invariably lead to criminal behavior. This may dishearten criminals, but a fact is a fact. Criminals are criminals because their DNA proves it. Unlike the law, there is no disputing science.

Second, we must point out that advances in science necessarily force retreat from outdated social customs. While our Constitution may allow for fair trials and “presume innocence” for all criminal defendants, those guarantees arose at a time when science did not provide the means to precisely know who committed crimes. To that extent, the “presumption of innocence” is a superstition from an earlier, unenlightened age. Now, it would be asinine to presume a person innocent whose DNA conclusively proves to be a criminal. If the subtle, telltale RNA strand shift is present in a suspect, there is no doubt about his guilt. Although this result may infuriate civil libertarians, it is the necessary consequence of scientific advancement. We no longer need “trials.” Either the suspect is a criminal by DNA or he is not. In that regard, the guilty will no longer go free by exploiting foibles in human sense and emotion, and the innocent will not have to fear wrongful conviction. All law enforcement will begin and end at birth—at the moment the authorities obtain a citizen’s DNA sample. After that, it is merely a question of matching the DNA code to the person’s potential crime list.

We are not willing to allow “privacy” to jeopardize our interest in law enforcement. For too long, “privacy” has imposed a cripplingly high cost on society. “Privacy” has freed drug dealers, pimps, hoodlums and mass murderers because the law could not assemble the empirical evidence it needed to convict them. Society does not approve these results. Rather, society wants to see its laws enforced, not flouted. We are glad that science now offers a way to solve the age-old “privacy” dilemma. For the first time in history, we can now live in a completely crimeless society. Through modern genetic science, we will all know who the “bad people” are; and we will all know who “did it” if there is ever a doubt. We believe that great benefit outweighs any burden we shoulder by compromising “privacy.” The public has a right to know what lies in everyone’s DNA. We have a duty to protect our children. DNA testing will tell us who is a potential car thief, income tax faker or prescription drug peddler. This knowledge will keep us all safe from bad people. Science truly can lead to a better society, even if it forces us to abandon comfortable, outmoded customs like privacy. In short, we want security and knowledge, not insecurity and ignorance.

We have a great opportunity to decisively root out crime. Let us ensure that science and knowledge advance, no matter what ancient traditions say about it. Let us begin mandatory DNA screening for all crimes now. Our children depend on it. You want them to grow up in a safe society, don’t you? Of course you do.

LET'S RETHINK THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

By : Special Agent Frank L. Fahnding, Search & Seizure Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C.

In the workplace, we constantly encounter annoyances that make life difficult. During our professional lives, we contend with bothersome supervisors, challenging accounts, deadlines and broken vending machines. We deal with demoralizing performance reviews, late nights and lost weekends. These things come with our jobs because circumstances change. That’s life. And we must strive to adapt.

But all these workplace challenges pale in comparison to the institutional difficulties I face as a law enforcement professional. I have a responsibility to root out child molesters, murderers, car thieves and stock market fraud artists. We all want to catch these scumbags. Yet I can’t do it. Why? Simple: The United States Constitution. To be more precise, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Never before has a single sentence both permitted so much crime and made my job so difficult. I would rather deal with a fire-breathing bitch who castrates me daily at the office than to live one more day with this hateful piece of constitutional text.

To catch criminals, you must find evidence. Evidence proves people guilty. That’s just how our system works. In most cases, you know if a guy is guilty if he dresses a certain way, acts a certain way, talks a certain way or if he has something to hide—or gain. But for certain reasons unknown to me, our Nation created a justice system that requires the government to find evidence to prove people guilty. It is not enough to look at a gang member and say: “Oh yeah, it was him; just look at the prison tattoos, the bandana and the torn jeans.” No, you need to call up some witnesses who swear under oath that they saw the guy pull out a knife, smack an old woman in the face and take her lunch money. If you can’t do that, you need to find the knife, find the lunch money and ask the old woman if “this is the man who did this to you.” As you can see, this is a tough business, because it is rarely easy to scrape up evidence.

Our Fourth Amendment makes the job even tougher. It provides: “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 of Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now, I don’t speak 18th Century early American English, but this basically means that you can’t search people or places without “probable cause” or a “warrant.” It also means you can’t arrest people without “probable cause” or a “warrant.” You have no idea how difficult this is. Do you know how inconvenient it is to get a warrant? I receive tips about drug dealers all damn day, yet I can’t tell you how many times they have escaped while I try to get a goddamned warrant. Other times, my agents haul crooks into the station for robbery, then some ACLU lesbian barges in claiming we had “no probable cause” and I have to turn them loose. Or a kid says his scoutmaster has nudie pictures on his computer, so I send over some agents to take the computer. Before you know it, some bright-eyed Harvard Law grad shows up at the field office waving the Constitution in my fucking face telling me we “live in a police State.”

What a royal pain in the ass. I’m just trying to do my job and clean up the streets. Nobody likes killers, robbers, child molesters, terrorists, fraud artists, hustlers, pimps, vagabonds, ne’er-do-wells, drunks, hobos, bail-jumpers, parole violators, hit-and-run drivers, anarchists, thugs, deadbeats or gangsters. Yet I can’t effectively jail these assholes because the Fourth Amendment makes me assemble “probable cause” before I can arrest them. Do you know how much crime I could stop if I could just search people at random? Do you know how many drunk drivers I could catch if I could just arrest everyone at a bar with a parking lot? Do you know how many children I could protect if I could watch everyone’s computers at all times, then arrest anyone who logs onto a porn site? Do you know how many drugs I could get off the street if I could just walk into anyone’s home without waiting for some egghead magistrate to give me a warrant? Look, I know who the bad guys are. Let me do my job and arrest them. I can’t be bothered with all this legal mumbo-jumbo.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what you’re going to say: “The Fourth Amendment protects fundamental liberties by requiring governmental officials to assemble evidence before invading citizens’ liberty.” Well guess what? I don’t care about criminals’ liberty. I know a child molester when I see one, and if that means knocking down some doors and performing a couple groundless strip-searches every now and then, by God I’m going to do it. Protecting children means we sometimes need to yield our precious “privacy.” That’s what the critics do not understand. The Fourth Amendment does not guarantee “privacy.” It just forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Frankly, I don’t care about your privacy. If you want to have sex or masturbate, there’s nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you a private place to do it. Go ahead and roll the dice. I’m looking for the bad guys. There is nothing “unreasonable” about that, is there? If you ask me, no search or seizure is “unreasonable” if it is intended to find bad guys. Screw your privacy. I have children to protect.

If we really want to stop crime, we must rethink the Fourth Amendment. Back in 1787, our Founding Fathers had a clear vision in mind when they wrote the Amendment. They wanted to stop British troops from rifling through colonists’ homes and frisking them on the street. Well, we don’t live under British occupation anymore. And the Framers would be horrified to see how modern-day rapists, thugs and drug pushers use the Fourth Amendment to bail themselves out of trouble. The Fourth Amendment was intended to stop the British army, not the American police. Yet this is precisely what has happened. Today, every American police force must sit around waiting for warrants while criminals run rampant across the countryside, terrorizing old ladies, children and handicapped invalids. Our Framers would never have approved this result. I say it’s time to put the law first. It is time to stop defending criminals. And it is time to make my job easier.

During the 1930s, Germany greatly reduced crime by abolishing constitutional liberty guarantees. The German government achieved an unparalleled degree of social tranquility by permitting police forces to do their jobs without interference from courts, lawyers and civil liberties groups. In Germany, private citizens could make private complaints to the police, and the police could make arrests based upon those complaints. They could also freely search suspects’ homes without warrants, then question the suspects based upon the search. In almost every case, they won convictions. Crime plummeted. The German government understood that if someone acts suspiciously, he is probably a criminal. It made no sense to wait for a court to issue a warrant; a swift arrest did the job without the red tape. This is exactly what we should do in America. If we want to really stop drug dealers and smut peddlers, we must abolish constitutional guarantees that shield criminals. Crime in Germany was low in the 1930s because the German government did what had to be done to stop criminals. We can learn from their example.

Privacy fosters crime. True, everyone relishes the idea no can watch them at particular times or in particular places. But criminals exploit privacy to conspire, plot, terrorize, swindle and bag narcotics. The Fourth Amendment perpetuates privacy and protects it. In so doing, it aids the wicked and punishes the good. As a society, we should be less solicitous about criminals and more attuned to the people. The People want less crime, not more. Because the Fourth Amendment leads to more crime, I believe we should abolish it. After all, we live in a democracy. Shouldn’t we give the people what they want once in a while? By abolishing inane warrant requirements, probable cause burdens and expensive lawsuits that penalize police for investigating criminals, we will stop crime before it happens. By eliminating privacy, we can sniff out crime before it becomes crime. Good citizens have a right to know what suspicious citizens are up to. That is why we must completely rethink the Fourth Amendment.

I have a dream that we will one day live in a country that punishes criminals rather than protects them. I have a dream that the police will one day have the power to collect information about all citizens without fearing lawsuits or legal sanction. I have dream that law enforcement officials will have the power to listen in on any suspicious phone conversations without waiting for a magistrate to find “probable cause.” I have a dream that our Nation will protect our children, not allow molesters to withhold evidence from prosecutors and courts. I believe that we can reduce crime in America. We must merely have the courage to abolish outmoded constitutional text. We can do it. We can protect the children. I know that every good citizen would be perfectly willing to cede his privacy in order to stop crime and to protect the children.

There are some things in life more important than privacy. We all want to live in a safe society. We revile murderers, robbers, thieves, pickpockets and stock market pirates. Don’t we have a right to effectively pursue these pernicious evildoers? I believe we do. And by abolishing the Fourth Amendment, we will allow law enforcement professionals to effectively protect us all from them.

On that happy day, my job will be easier. When I can do my job without difficulty, you will sleep better at night—unless you hear a knock at your door at 3 AM. But never fear: Even if you are under investigation, remember that you are doing your part to protect the children. You want to protect the children, don’t you?