"Two problems with that." etc
I have been in the same position as you and share your concerns.
A few comments.
Firstly, agreed on due process. Due process is not having some officer of the investigating body authorising warrants, nor a minister or ministerial aide of whatever. Due process is a warrant issued by a court of law. Although the nature of a warrant hearing is such that the subject of the warrant doesn't normally get to hear of it when it's applied for and granted, only when its served, once it is served the subject should have a right to a hearing to challenge it if they think there are grounds for a challenge.
Secondly, but related to the first, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental part of law in a free society. An approach that seizes everyone's data first and decides what to do with it afterwards defies that presumption; it should not have been passed.
Thirdly, the jurisdiction of a country's law should stop at its borders. There are treaties which allow for the US or other country to go through proper channels to ask for access in the country where data is held and to get access which is in accordance with the host country's law on presentation of a proper case. The fact that they're not doing that suggests to me either ignorance of the channels available to them, arrogance that they think they can trample over other countries' legal systems, indolence in not being prepared to put in the work to prepare a case or, and I suspect that this is the real reason, they simply don't have a basis for preparing such a case.
Finally, the need for encryption is a necessity for transacting business over the internet. If a government doesn't want to allow it then it should say plainly that it also doesn't allow business to be transacted over the internet and see where that gets it. Otherwise those who advocate banning encryption should be prepared to put all their online banking and other e-commerce credentials etc in the public domain for a year before taking the matter further. It makes no sense to deny the public such facilities when the only effect it has on law breakers is to provide them with another law to break.