Warrantless Search and Seizure

If only the government didn't need warrants to search people's houses, we'd all be safer. I, for one, would welcome our new jack-booted overlords. If the police didn't need probable cause, or a judge to sign off on a search, they could go into anyone's home and search for anything questionable. How many murders could we stop this way? School shootings? Indecent acts carried on behind closed doors? How dare people! Government agencies and police cannot be slowed down by always needing a judge to authorize their actions and having to present hard evidence. It would dampen their effectiveness too much. Won't someone please think of the children?

If the above paragraph made sense to you, what the hell is wrong with you? If it didn't make sense, how is the above "logic" any different than the "logic" of this piece about Mukasey and warrantless wiretapping? This paragraph is particularly absent of logic:

As reported by the New York Sun, he also offered a perspective, partly personal as a former Manhattanite, on the necessity of warrantless antiterror surveillance. Before 9/11, Mr. Mukasey said, "We knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went. We've got" – here the Attorney General paused with emotion – "we've got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn't come home, to show for that."

non sequitur much? He's jumped from arguing that we need better surveillance (which is probably true, as long as it's legal), to "we need unlimited authority to conduct any antiterror operation we deem necessary". And the author continues and says this is not "fear-mongering". Riiiight.