Deddaisy,
While this case may not make proof the Bush Administration is trying to turn America into a police state, it can be one more brick in the road leading to that end.
We've seen a steady erosion in civil rights post 9/11. Military tribunals, where verdicts need not be unanimous, and some procedural safeguards given in civilian trials are lacking. Detention of "enemy combatants" for long periods before trial (violates the Fifth or Sixth Amendment protections against long delays before trial as I recall); attorney-client privilege was already weaker for those in prisons (might be helping plan an escape), and now with "terrorists" (I'll return to this in a bit) since they might be helping plan another attack....
Ashcroft has announced revival of COINTELPRO, an outfit active from 1957-71. It spied on a number of religious, civil-rights, and antiwar groups. Sometimes via faked internal messages the group's activities were disrupted. It was denounced in 1975 for its civil liberties abuses. Nat Hentoff, in a column titled "Who's that knocking at my door?" noted they won't have to observe Justice Dept. rules about probable cause when spying on such groups.
In the same column, he noted instances of people receiving visits from FBI agents after being ratted out by people for the sin of criticizing the President, or Administrstion policy, for examples. If not now, incidents like this will more and more create the same attitude toward law enforcement that other people have for the KGB, Gestapo, SAVAK (Iranian secret police), the DGI (Cuba's) etc.
The Bush Administration has also, through the Justice Dept., warred against Oregon's assisted-suicide law. WTF? Wasn't that a legitimate issue for the people of Oregon to decide? Since when does a political philosophy so supportive of "state's rights" go to court to block a state initiative? Oh, but silly me, I forgot the 2000 election, when the "pro-state's rights" Supreme Court nullified the will of Florida voters! And conservatives, those advocates of smaller government, voting in favor of measures to censor the Internet like the Communications Decency Act of 1996 et al.
Ironically, another case the Supreme Court will hear this term considers whether RICO (an antiracketeering statute designed for use against the Mafia) can still be used against antiabortion protestors. Many abortion-rights activists are siding with the pro-lifers, correctly recognizing that if it can be done to you it can be done to me.
And what's a "terrorist?" Anyone the government says is one. For instance, after the Bushies are gone these laws will still be on the books. I can see where Operation Rescue will be treated in the same way as al-Queda cells. Their assets frozen, property seized, and maybe tax audits, harassment, and a campaign of slander against them, groups like them--and their financial supporters. Imagine a 2000's version of Dick Tuck, the Democratic "dirty trickster" who was far better at harassing the Republicans before the `72 election then Donald Segretti ever was against the Democrats (Nixon made a reference to him on the Watergate tapes), turned loose on Operation Rescue. Or a character I've heard of known as "Tommy the Trucker," an FBI agent and agent provocateur, wreaking havoc among the New Left in the `60's, now doing it against the Right--because of their politics.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say there's a group of narrow-minded prigs here that want to make us either a police or a theocratic state. For instance, the Religious Liberty Protection Act. One of its provisions would allow landlords to refuse to rent to people who's lifestyle goes against the landlord's religious convictions, effectively vetoing housing civil rights laws.
In the above case, I'd love to see "Christians" booted out on their butts because their landlord is a Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/pagan/other/agnostic/atheist and his tenant's beliefs honestly violated his religious principles.
The sword cuts both ways.