If I already have the capacity to recognizes faces, there's nothing really all that bad about me getting a thousand times better at it.
Okay you already have the ability to recognise faces and remember seeing people at certain place, but that not a valid comparison to having devices in every nook and cranny of a city that can do it with perfection. As a similar example, our society is having a similar debate around requiring or not requiring a warrant to place a GPS tracker on a car. Those saying a warrant isn't required assert "It's no different from assigning a tail to a subject so no warrant should required." The biggest difference between the two is cost and scalability. The cost of assigning officers to tail someone around the clock is high and serves as a deterrent to doing so without a good reason. When that can be done at a low or zero cost that deterrent is no longer there and it becomes time to have a discussion about what is or is not reasonable. The same is true of facial recognition technology. Fifty years ago people would unlikely argue there was something wrong with Sears hiring clerks to maintain detail records of every person who every walked into their store. The ease and low cost with which that can be done today means it's time to have a discussion about what is and is not reasonable.
Tort reform. Serious, hardcore tort reform at the state level which takes an axe to all of the areas where frivolous lawsuits can be brought would eliminate the argument for any policy that is grounded in the fear of what some idiot might sue over.
While I agree that there is a strong need for this, I don't think this really solves the problem. We see schools catering to unreasonable parents and assume or the school asserts is an issue of avoiding potential liability. The problem seems to be more than just fear of litigation in that we have a cultural value of catering to the least reasonable denominator out of a general fear of conflict.
Think about your family or the group of friends you hang out with. Somewhere in that group, there's someone that everyone talks about behind their back. They've some character flaw that's just tremendously exaggerated that they do their best to pretend doesn't exist and everyone else just goes along with it. In my group, there a woman who's a completely unreliable flake, we used to take bets on how late she'd be or how many excuses she'd have as to why it wasn't her fault she was late or couldn't do what was promised. But when something would come up in the group, say we were headed some we needed to be punctual to, most people in the group would rather just suffer the tardiness than say to her "You're always late, so we're going without you." They preferred to suffer her shortcomings rather than deal with the conflict of addressing them, a theme that seems very pervasive in our culture.
None of that is speculation, none of the is fear mongering. Those are are facts.
Why exactly does those facts mean that it is not fear mongering? Being technically correct and engaging in fear mongering aren't mutually exclusive things. I could post all sorts of gruesome facts about the horrible things disease X does to the human body, the fact that those things may be true doesn't mean I'm not trying to incite fear.
violating the oaths and vows that he took upon joining the military
Having taken that same oath, I completely disagree. The oath goes something to the effect of "I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic
The order in that oath is deliberate and very important. I see Bradley Manning's leak of information as an execution of his oath, not a violation of it.
"We live, in a very kooky time." -- Herb Blashtfalt