[The Real Hawkeye]

You can check my backpack as soon as I see your warrant, and the warrant must specify my backpack particularly, and what it is that you are searching for, because the Fourth Amendment provides that I have a right to be secure in my person and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring probable cause that I am carrying something illegal. Additionally, said probable cause must be supported by oath or affirmation in the form of a warrant particularly describing my backpack (i.e., the place to be searched) and the things to be seized should they be found inside.

[mzmtg]

Then I can't let you into the subway station.

[grampster]

Sigh....where do we draw the line in a free society when goblins are afoot?

You can search my backpack for explosives, but everything else I get a free pass? That sounds fair to me.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Then I can't let you into the subway station.Last I checked, subway stations were open to the general public. If you have probable cause to believe that I'm a subway bomber, then arrest me. Bombing subways is a crime, and you can get arrested for it if there is probable cause. Random searching is out, however, under our system of government. Although, I guess you could outlaw the carrying of packages of all types onto the subways, if you feel they sufficiently constitute a public safety hazard.

[Solo]

You can't search my coffee can unless you have a warrent either!

[Ian]

If they can search anyone in a subway station, then they can easily get away with searching anyone on any public road, which means they can basically search anyone, anywhere.

[fedlaw]

Papieren, Bitte

[RevDisk]

If they can search anyone in a subway station, then they can easily get away with searching anyone on any public road, which means they can basically search anyone, anywhere.

"Sobriety checkpoints", "Seat belt checkpoints", etc. for vehicles.

If I'm not mistaken, officers are given fairly generous terms in which they can Terry frisk/search/whatever. If they think you might have a weapon, they can feel ya up. Of course, if other contraband was turned up during the search... Heh. Oh yes, and if an officer has "probable cause" that you acquired something illegally, he can mug you for it and you'd have to sue to get it back, proving your innocence. Will every officer wantonly search and mug citizens on a whim? Of course not.

Basically, too late. They CAN basically search you in public if they really wanted to, and legally mug you under certain circumstances. Inside your house, you have a lot more protection. Sorta. But all and all, it's much worse than you think. :D


Perhaps next week, we will dive into the lovely world of "search and seizure". Here's a teaser. They just need probable cause to steal anything not nailed down, and then you must prove that you aquired it legally by filing a lawsuit with a third party claim. On average, such lawsuits cost circa $10,000 and take around three years. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

The more you learn how things really are, the more depressing it really is.

[Hkmp5sd]

Last I checked, subway stations were open to the general public.
So are airports and commercial airlines. If you want to use one, you get searched.

And yes, I think both cases are violations of the US Constitution.

[The Real Hawkeye]

If I'm not mistaken, officers are given fairly generous terms in which they can Terry frisk/search/whatever. If they think you might have a weapon, they can feel ya up. Being a gentleman of the old school, I'd have to challenge him to a saber duel in that case. :) Off comes the gauntlet, slap!!

[hifi]

The terrorists have won. Allah Akbar!

[The Real Hawkeye]

The terrorists have won.You are exactly right, sir.

[scout26]

Inside your house, you have a lot more protection.

Until they decide they need to give it to a developer to build the next mega-mart.

Sigh...... :(


Off comes the gauntlet, slap!!

Then you get a free "Tune-up".

[El Tejon]

Uppity serf, how dare you claim your ancient privilege of unreasonable search and seizure. :evil:

[Pilgrim]

Has there been enabling legislation for these 'security checks'?

Pilgrim

[Standing Wolf]

The terrorists have won.

Yep. At the cost of a few hundred lives, they've forced us to dismantle our Constitution.

The founding fathers would weep.

[Alex45ACP]

They have. We played right into their plans, just like they wanted us to. It's ridiculous, gun control probably kills more people than terrorism. :banghead:

[taliv]

Yep. At the cost of a few hundred lives, they've forced us to dismantle our Constitution.

few thousand, but yeah

[Fly320s]

Quote:
Last I checked, subway stations were open to the general public.


So are airports and commercial airlines. If you want to use one, you get searched.
Airlines are private businesses doing business as common carriers.

Subways are publicly-owned and financed by local government (ala taxes).

The airlines are absolutely allowed and entitled to search you and deny you boarding for a number of reasons. However, the federal government, in the form of the TSA, should not be responsible for the screening as that is a use of public monies to secure private companies.

[rick_reno]

The authorities got some of what they wanted with searches with the "War on Drugs". Unfortunately, the "War on Drugs" - while a good horse - was not a horse that would get them to the finish line of a totalitarian state. Then, along came "War on Terror" - and this is the horse they can put all their money on. It's a winner, a big winner and they're going to ride it all the way.

[corncob]

The more you learn how things really are, the more depressing it really is.

Indeed.

[grampster]

To have to temporarily enable some additional scrutiny, imho, is only acceptable if we are willing to play by the adversary's rules anywhere and everywhere in the world; by bringing a higher level of terror to them than they bring to us and sustain it!

It's called the will to get the job done; to win the war. In case any Lefty is listening, that's the lesson of Vietnam!! Someone once said that to give up freedom to gain safety, deserves neither. I concur. We don't need to give up freedom to gain safety. We need leaders who are willing to loose the dogs. By that I do not mean indiscriminate warfare. I mean concentrated devastation to those who wage war against our way of life. We know who they are! They are the Wahabbist sect of Islamic Fascists. We know who they are and where they are, but lack the will to root them out. Who is going to stop us. Heavens, the rest of the world is frightened to death of them. If we have to frighten some Old World Socialists (and worse) to prove we have no particular designs on empire (again) then so be it! We need to come to understand that the rules we live by as civilized Westerners are being used against us by these creatures. We need to come to understand that the rules that we use to play with each other do not extend to them, period.

My God, the left is vilifying the British police because they have killed an innocent man who ran from them. But what about all the other multiple hundreds (and thousands) of injured and dead innocents butchered by the the goblins?
Somehow they have been forgotten because the goodguys may have made a mistake? Once? Somehow I have a problem grasping the 2nd is somehow worse than the first and deserves the outcry. In war, innocents die. Sad but true. That is not to condone or desire that to happen, but it will. The difference between us and the goblins is we do not seek to do that and they frankly do not give a rat's behind, they believe to kill innocents is the proper way.

Our enemies, the religious fanatical feudal tribalists, need to have impressed upon them that we will root them out where ever they are, and that we are armed and ready to take them on and then do so. An armed citizenry, every adult, would be the first step. The second step is to close every Wahabbist Mosque, burn it down and arrest and detain everyone affiliated with that horrible sect of villains. I suggest we turn them over to Castro and repay the debt we owe him from Marrielle.

I, for one, am getting a little sick of the pussyfooting that is going on. We are either in, or out. Take your choice. If we're out, then we might as well kneel down in allegiance to their bootheel. The closest I've heard anyone call a spade a spade, is from the leader of Australia and he's a gun grabber for land sake.
I'm sick of bitching, and probably highjacking the thread. (sorry) rant over. :banghead:

[thorn726]

man how glad am i i read this site.

i was all set to accept the "i cant let you in"

but true, this is a Public system, comparable to being on a public street.

ARGH! yep, solution, no packages. then on to no heavy coats.

Someone once said that to give up freedom to gain safety, deserves neither. I concur. We don't need to give up freedom to gain safety.

yes!

i cant agree with everything you say, but most of it , and particularly that^^

The authorities got some of what they wanted with searches with the "War on Drugs". Unfortunately, the "War on Drugs" - while a good horse - was not a horse that would get them to the finish line of a totalitarian state. Then, along came "War on Terror" - and this is the horse they can put all their money on. It's a winner, a big winner and they're going to ride it all the way.

exactly. and in the end, this war on terror is aiming to blame drugs as well, and who's the war on terror going to net more of?

it's all very frustrating.

[GEM]

So what is your counter suggestion? Do you think searches are useless?

That may be but if they are useful - should we not do them and just let bombers have access to soft targets.

Schools are paid for by taxes but you just can't take a stroll through the middle school when you feel like it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The terrorists have won. Allah Akbar!Amen to that!!

All the public debate centers on whether profiling is appropriate and on why we haven't started these searches sooner. Almost nobody is interested in the morality of random, causeless searches.

Fewer still are the people who realize that the terrorists have now maneuvered us into a place where we are clamoring to throw away the Bill of Rights. It does my heart good to see that some others have realized this as well.

The Founders stood up for their rights in the face of the world's largest superpower. Yet now we're being intimidated by the mere thought that terrorists might want to bomb a subway. What sorry, spineless cowards we are. :(

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That may be but if they are useful - should we not do them and just let bombers have access to soft targets. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

These searches ARE NOT USEFUL!!!! They're a kneejerk, feelgood response to something that happened thousands of miles away. We have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that 1) terrorists intend to bomb our subways, and 2) that these terrorists, if they exist, will be thwarted by the searches.

These searches are nothing more than politicians pandering to scared idiots.

[Alex45ACP]

I agree with HTG, these searches are a huge waste of time.

Cop: I need to search your bag.
Terrorist: I don't want to be searched.
Cop: Then I can't let you on the train.

Terrorist leaves and comes back 5 minutes later, or just walks a few blocks down the street to a different station.

Or:

Cop: I need to search your bag.
Terrorist: Allah Akbar! (blows himself up in the line of people standing around waiting to be searched). :rolleyes:

And if they beef up security on subways and buses too much, the terrorists will simply start attacking schools or Mcdonalds or gas stations instead.

[Byron Quick]

Personally, I would prefer a military approach to terroism rather than a law enforcement approach. The rub is adequate intelligence and preventing abuse.

If I were a subway policeman who was ordered to search knapsacks and such for bombs carried by suicide bombers...I'd change career paths. Like Police Commisioner, Sir, here's the badge, YOU look for the bombs.

After a few policemen get killed doing this...the police unions will become much more supportive of reasonable searchs. Sad world.

The statists still need a larger weapon. I don't do airplanes, trains, buses, or subways. They could lock all of these down and never have a moment's power over what percentage of the population? I'm not sure but it is a larger percentage of the total.

[Khaotic]

I think anyone who supports the idea of chucking the 4th amendment for security and depending on the Gov for THAT protection...

Should chuck all their guns in the barrel here to be melted down and go home and let the Gov can protect them, yes ?

If you're going to chuck one, might as well chuck them all.

It makes utterly no sense to stand here and defend to the last breath ONE protected right of the BoR and then spit on another, it's yet another of the many unbecoming hypocrisies we've seen here recently.

-K

[rick_reno]

It's been mentioned here the subway searches are useless and a huge waste of time. Nothing could be further from the truth. These searches are part of a conditioning campaign - and they are VERY effective. The people are getting acclimated to being searched, and this is an important step down the path toward totalitarianism.

[Vang]

Rick, I'm a fairly paranoid fellow as these things go, but I do not believe this is a conspiracy. There are weak people in this world who will take solace in these searches. Isn't it a simpler explaination that the proponents are such weak people and not conspirators in a complicated plot to foster totalitarianism?

[nyresq]

The airlines are absolutely allowed and entitled to search you and deny you boarding for a number of reasons. However, the federal government, in the form of the TSA, should not be responsible for the screening as that is a use of public monies to secure private companies.

The TSA and the security checkpoints enforce regulations set down by the FAA. A Federal agency set the regulations and a Federal agency enforces them.
No where does it say on an airplane ticket the airline policies forbids the hijacking of their aircraft.
The "special security fee" attached to airline tickets now is there to help offset the cost of security.

TSA= Thousands Standing Around.... Taking Scissors Away...... Totally Stupid Agency

[Big Bad Wolf]

So what is your counter suggestion? Do you think searches are useless?

You bet they are. Why? We are searching the wrong people!

Sorry but right now profiling is a necessary evil but we can't do that, nope not in the slightest. I flew out of Austin, DFW, and PDX a lot after 9/11 and what I saw was nothing short of disgusting!

I would stand in line at the checkpoints for 30 minutes waiting for my time to go through and get felt up by some punk but middle eastern men sure as hell were not getting felt up like the others. If they did not set off the metal detector they were waived right through and they never got pulled aside for the random gate checks either. When I went through and did not set off the metal detector I had to remove my shoes, had my carry on searched and tested for explosive traces, stand their spread eagle as every inch of my body was being felt up by some guy with curious hands all while my belt is undone and my pants were falling down from my ass. I never once saw a single middle eastern man have to remove his shoes before it became mandatory.

.... and don't even get me started on the harassment I watched the TSA put a poor women who was like 80 and in a wheel chair! I damn near beat the crap out of the snotty punk who treated her like a piece of garbage and his humiliating orders to her at the checkpoint were the ultimate slap in the face to being an American. I swear to God he was either on a power trip or trying to get her to perform for his own personal sick amusement.

[Mr.BadExample]

The next terrorist takes a cab. Or drives one...

[ctdonath]

So what is your counter suggestion? Do you think searches are useless? Yes, the searches are useless. Anything short of searching EVERYONE and EVERYTHING leaves gaps that can be exploited - and considering how often airport security misses serious items (shotguns, etc.), even comprehensive search is ineffective. The whole premise is deeply, fundamentally, obviously flawed.

The counter suggestion is exactly what the Founding Fathers implemented: the 2nd Amendment. Let everyone who wants to carry arms do so. Sure it won't stop all terrorism - it's ludicrous to think one can with any approach - but it will give pause to evildoers knowing that the "sheep", and not only the self-appointed oppressing sheepdogs, are heavily armed.

There's something fundamentally wrong when there is a threat to life among us, and the government's reaction is to DISARM THE PEOPLE.

[RevDisk]

So what is your counter suggestion? Do you think searches are useless?

Bomb dogs, maybe? Not full proof, but probably better than the searches. Non-invasive, and just as effective. Maybe moreso.

[ctdonath]

Just to accentuate my point:

I'm not talking "one person might slip thru". I'm talking wholesale ineffectiveness of searching.

Do you realize HOW MANY people ride the NY subways every day? The numbers and rate are staggering. The searches going on now are a pathetically tiny number compared to those unsearched. We're not talking airline searches where everyone gets it - we're talking a 1:1000 or worse search rate. Staggeringly bad.

And considering that anyone targeted for searching can just walk away, what good is this?

Consider the London attacks. Four simultanious bombers. Given a 1:1000 or worse chance that any of them, in NY, would be searched, they're getting on that train unchecked. If, by staggering coincidence, one DID get picked for searching, all he need do is walk away - and pick an alternate, comparably crowded, detonation point a few feet & minutes away.

Those advocating NY subway "security checks" need to explain how they expect this will amount to anything. It's such a staggeringly bad, stupid, & inept attempt at "security" against an intelligent & rare threat that the pro-4th-Amendment crowd should NOT be the ones doing the explaining.

If the pointlessness of these searches isn't self-evident I don't know what is.

[buzz_knox]

If I were a subway policeman who was ordered to search knapsacks and such for bombs carried by suicide bombers...I'd change career paths. Like Police Commisioner, Sir, here's the badge, YOU look for the bombs.

+1. The only thing the searches will do is make the terrorists wait for rush hour and the inevitable bottle neck. As soon as they are likely to get searched, boom.

The searches are worse than useless. They are now triggering events.

[The Real Hawkeye]

There's something fundamentally wrong when there is a threat to life among us, and the government's reaction is to DISARM THE PEOPLE.This was my reaction after 9/11 too. I had been carrying a knife with me at all times for almost all of my adult life. Not only are they every day valuable tools (I don't understand anyone who doesn't carry a blade), but if you know how to use one (studied martial arts for many years since a teenager), they are damned effective weapons at close range. ALWAYS carried my knife with me on airplanes until 9/11, and would have used it if need be to deal with blade wielding hijackers. All I did was put it in the little basket when I went through the metal detector, and they gave it back to me on the other side. Only one time did a security guard state that I couldn't have the knife, to which I just quoted her the regulation allowing blades less than three inches long. She took out a ruler, and saw that it was a tenth of an inch under that, and gave it back to me. Then comes 9/11, and now I can't bring a knife on an airplane. Are we the public safer because I am unarmed? Ridiculous! We are much more helpless now that I, and everyone else, am unarmed. Bad guys will find ways around metal detectors, but habitual law abiders, like myself, will just leave our knives at home. Will someone please tell me how this helps?

[CAS700850]

Ever been in NYC during the morning or evening rush? Thousands of people go through the subways, the majority of whom are carrying some sort of bag, backpack, briefcase, laptop computer case, etc. Now, imagine you're a NYPD Transit Officer, told to look in the bags for bombs. Ignore the immediate desire to resign for a moment, or the idiocy of having the average street cop lok for a bomb. Who do you stop and search of the thousand people passing into the station around you? Answer: as few as possible, because you don't want to delay these people any more than you must, else a riot break out.

So, what does the cop start to do? Well, he either gets real complacent, letting pretty much everyone pass, or just glancing in an open bag. (Ever been through one of these "security checks" with a pack? I went through one at a water park this summer. Open the main compartment. Guy looks inside briefly, you go on. Forget that that towel is covering anything, or there are another 12 compartments. Move along. People are waiting.) Or, he stops everyone, gets complaints, and gets reassigned.

This is just likesobriety check-points, in that it is a feel good, P.R. based move that is unlikely to be effective against the real problem, but is something to hold up and say "we're doing something!"

So, where are the tech people with the latest anti-explosive device?

[The Real Hawkeye]

The Founders stood up for their rights in the face of the world's largest superpower. Yet now we're being intimidated by the mere thought that terrorists might want to bomb a subway. What sorry, spineless cowards we are.Yeah, this is amazing. Even people I thought were staunch conservatives, when I express my anger about this, say, "Well, you know it's a different world now after 9/11." They don't seem to see the bigger picture. What are we fighting for if not our liberties under the Constitution? This is nothing less than the very soul of our nation, for Pete's sake. "What does it profit a man [or nation] if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" We are exchanging our nation's soul (the liberties men fought and died for from 1776 onward) for a temporary sense of false security. I would much rather take the slight chance of being a victim of terrorism than lose even one of my precious liberties under our Constitution. How far we have strayed from the words of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death."

[Master Blaster]

unreasonable

SEARCHES and Seizures that is what it says you will be free from.

So if we are afraid of terrorists with bombs, and they have been carring them in bags, looking in bags is a REASONABLE search. SEE its fits in perfectly with the constitution.

Do I like it??? no way, will I be submitting, NFW, I also won't be riding public transit either. The searches are utterly and completely worthless. especially with all the PC crapolla.

If you wear your traditional middleeastern dress, a chaddor, or a burka, you WILL NOT BE SEARCHED, that would be racial profiling.
Israel which requires paper be shown, searches every bag, searches every person with no PC rules about profiling, and has years of experience with this is still not able to stop the bombers. Do you think we will be more effective???????? :banghead: :scrutiny:

BAAAAAAAAAA, BAAAAAAAAA, BAAAAAAA thats the sound of bleeting sheep, this crap-olla makes them feel better. It makes it seem that Big MAMMY government is keeping them all Safey wafey all snuggly wuggly in the bussom of her love feeding them milkey from her nipple and using her big hanky to wipe the poop from their little Tush, thats why this is being done.

My local news was interviewing folks at the SEPTA station asking if they felt this was a violation of their rights. Everyone they interviewed said "BAAAAAAAA, BAAAAAAAAAAA" like the good sheep they are. The interviewer said he was surprised that no one Objected!!!!!!!!!!

[The Real Hawkeye]

Unreasonable SEARCHES and Seizures that is what it says you will be free from."Unreasonable," in the context of the Fourth Amendment, means that you do not have probable cause that the individual whose effects you are searching is a criminal. A reasonable search means that, based on the evidence available to you, the individual would be deemed by a reasonable person to be more than fifty percent likely to be carrying a bomb. Has nothing to do with any general concerns. If carrying packages is a general concern, then you are at liberty to lobby your representative to have the carrying of any sort of package outlawed. Good luck.

[san408]

Hey, what the hell, let's just not do anything then. Make you happy? :neener:

What else should be done. The folks in charge are under ALOT of pressure to live up to their "responsibility to keep Americans safe". And we all know they cave to any pressure.

I don't much care for the searches either, and I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the poor souls that has to do that job, but in all seriousness... What do we do? Do we just sit and wait to get hit again? Does anyone else think that being proactive is better than being reactive?

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hey, what the hell, let's just not do anything then. Make you happy?

What else should be done. The folks in charge are under ALOT of pressure to live up to their "responsibility to keep Americans safe". And we all know they cave to any pressure.

I don't much care for the searches either, and I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the poor souls that has to do that job, but in all seriousness... What do we do? Do we just sit and wait to get hit again? Does anyone else think that being proactive is better than being reactive?Baaaah Baaaaaaaaah Baaaah. Line up for your sheering, little lamb.

Where are our Patrick Henries today?

[ctdonath]

but in all seriousness... What do we do?2nd Amendment. 'nuff said.

:banghead:

[BeLikeTrey]

I would say that if more people would take responsibility for their safety this would be less likely and these searches wouldn't be necessary.

The problem has been a long time in the making. First "civilized ideals", then a general creation of the idea that the government is here to protect you. then that since the government is there to protect you, then you don't need to protect yourself, which in turn fostered an oblivious group of people who have no idea of safety or their surroundings. These people are breeding... If people would just realize that government cannot protect you and that it is up to every individual to both protect themselves and their own, there would be alot less of this stuff happeneing. I am not advocating vigilantism... but I am advocating each and EVERYONE perform their responsibility to take an active role in national security as duly designated "militia persons" (and I mean militia in the context dictated in the BoR, not the "bad word", militia :rolleyes: ) as designated in the BoR.

As long as people keep whining about protection instead of doing what is in my opinion their civic duty, this encroachment on rights will occur. YOU GIVE UP RIGHTS EVERY TIME YOU DECIDE SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SAFETY. :banghead: This should be one of those "things that make you go DUH!" statements.

[Ryder]

The founding fathers would weep.

That was not their preferred response to oppression and I don't believe it would be descriptive of the action they'd take were they alive today. In fact these extremely brave men would probably take high offense to your implication. :)

[Marshall]

The problem is that when "X" amount of innocent men, women and children are murdered in this way, people see how it could easily have be their own. And, Americans in general are a compassionate and empathetic people when it comes to anyone loosing their children or family members, especially to an act of murderous terror.

Because of these two things, people expect and demand some sort of protection. The day when we do get attacked again I fully expect to hear, we have not done enough. There will be charges from everywhere, throwing blame. The first thing out of the bag would be, "why didn't they just check the bags of the people that got on the bus? Our children would be alive today if they would have done that one simple thing."

At that point, it becomes very difficult to say those families and other Americans that are hurting for them and worried for their own, "sorry, we can't".

It's much easier to type on the Internet about a few hundred people getting killed and saying what's the big deal? Until it happens to your family or, when you're holding your wife, little boy or little girls bloody dead body in your arms. It becomes very easy for people to justify bag checks after seeing or experiencing such acts of murder through terror.

I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, but rather pointing out a couple of reason these searches happen and why there is not an uproar about them as a whole.

[tetchaje1]

Hey, what the hell, let's just not do anything then. Make you happy?

What else should be done. The folks in charge are under ALOT of pressure to live up to their "responsibility to keep Americans safe". And we all know they cave to any pressure.

I don't much care for the searches either, and I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the poor souls that has to do that job, but in all seriousness... What do we do? Do we just sit and wait to get hit again? Does anyone else think that being proactive is better than being reactive?

We take the fight so hard and so fast to their doorstep that they beg for us to stop. Make the peacable Muslims of the world do the work for us. If they don't want their holy sites wiped out because extremists are committing murder in the name of their religion, then they had better start taking the capture and execution of such vermin seriously.

A huge part of the problem is that the rest of the Muslim world, while not actively bombing us, sure as heck isn't doing much about preventing the kind of hateful indoctrination and financing that breeds and funds terrorism. Complacency might as well be a tacid endorsement. I say practice what you supposedly preach and prevent this kind of murder and intolerance by seeking out those who murder in the name of Allah.

[erik the bold]

Papieren, Bitte

Shouldn't that be: "die Ausweispapiere mich aufweisen!! Mach snell !! :eek:

(dunno, my german is pretty rusty.......) :D

[The Real Hawkeye]

What in the world is there left for us if we become a police state because Islam declared war on us? Isn't political liberty why you love being an American? We have a declared enemy. Fight them, not us. For every act of mass murder committed against us by Islam, nuke an Islamic "holy site" or city. Just a small nuke, or maybe even a nutron bomb. Start with those in nations that support terror the most. We bombed Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII. How is that different? Those civilians weren't personally fighting us either. They have to be made to "feel our pain."

P.S. Just venting.

[Sindawe]

What in the world is there left for us if we become a police state because Islam declared war on us? Isn't political liberty why you love being an American? We have a declared enemy. Fight them, not us. For every act of mass murder committed against us by Islam, nuke an Islamic "holy site" or city. Just a small nuke, or maybe even a nutron bomb. Start with those in nations that support terror the most. We bombed Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII. How is that different? Those civilians weren't personally fighting us either. They have to be made to "feel our pain." +1

[Elmer]

You bet they are. Why? We are searching the wrong people!

Sorry but right now profiling is a necessary evil but we can't do that, nope not in the slightest. I flew out of Austin, DFW, and PDX a lot after 9/11 and what I saw was nothing short of disgusting!

I would stand in line at the checkpoints for 30 minutes waiting for my time to go through and get felt up by some punk but middle eastern men sure as hell were not getting felt up like the others. If they did not set off the metal detector they were waived right through and they never got pulled aside for the random gate checks either. When I went through and did not set off the metal detector I had to remove my shoes, had my carry on searched and tested for explosive traces, stand their spread eagle as every inch of my body was being felt up by some guy with curious hands all while my belt is undone and my pants were falling down from my ass. I never once saw a single middle eastern man have to remove his shoes before it became mandatory.

.... and don't even get me started on the harassment I watched the TSA put a poor women who was like 80 and in a wheel chair! I damn near beat the crap out of the snotty punk who treated her like a piece of garbage and his humiliating orders to her at the checkpoint were the ultimate slap in the face to being an American. I swear to God he was either on a power trip or trying to get her to perform for his own personal sick amusement.



I couldn't agree more. Until we start profiling, concentrating most of our efforts on the most likely targets, with an occasional random search, these efforts will be a waste of time.

But it will take many more thousands of Americans dying to implement that, and meanwhile the general populace's rights will continue to be eroded.

[Big Bad Wolf]

Yeah, this is amazing. Even people I thought were staunch conservatives, when I express my anger about this, say, "Well, you know it's a different world now after 9/11." They don't seem to see the bigger picture. What are we fighting for if not our liberties under the Constitution? This is nothing less than the very soul of our nation, for Pete's sake. "What does it profit a man [or nation] if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" We are exchanging our nation's soul (the liberties men fought and died for from 1776 onward) for a temporary sense of false security. I would much rather take the slight chance of being a victim of terrorism than lose even one of my precious liberties under our Constitution. How far we have strayed from the words of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death."

Don't confuse these neo-conservatives or neo-cons for short with real conservatives.

They call themselves real conservatives but love the police state and traditional liberal ideals. They support the Real ID Act (National ID coming in 2008), the Patriot Act which is a slap in the face to the Constitution, mandatory searches, big brother government, and becoming a watched society.

They are quick to call anybody and everybody else liberals who disagree with the current state affairs but totally ignore that their ideals are exactly out of the playbook the socialist liberals of the 90's tried to run with.

Here is a great article by Ron Paul defining and describing what a neocon is.

Neo-Conned!!! (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm)

[Pilot]

Ahhh, guys, where is the ACLU on this issue??? Oh yeah, they only show up to remove our freedoms. Guess they agree with illegal search and seizure.

[Marshall]

From Ron Paul
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge?

Must be the Freemasons, Illuminatis, Skull & Crossbone graduates and Bildeberg members.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Here is a great article by Ron Paul defining and describing what a neocon is.Excellent article! President Ron Paul in 08!

[The Real Hawkeye]

Must be the Freemasons, Illuminatis, Skull & Crossbone graduates and Bildeberg members.What nonsense! If that's what you got from Representative Ron Paul's article, you must be on drugs. :rolleyes:

[Khaotic]

The next terrorist takes a cab. Or drives one...

Hey hey now, I drive a cab - the closest thing in my office to a terrorist is a female driver whom I refer to as "radio nazi" cause she gives me flak for poor radio procedure.

Where are our Patrick Henries today?

Given that he was considered a terrorist and enemy of the state for much of his lifetime, according to Mr. B-E, he's drivin a cab...

Umm...

A huge part of the problem is that the rest of the Muslim world, while not actively bombing us, sure as heck isn't doing much about preventing the kind of hateful indoctrination and financing that breeds and funds terrorism. Complacency might as well be a tacid endorsement. I say practice what you supposedly preach and prevent this kind of murder and intolerance by seeking out those who murder in the name of Allah.

Yeah, well, for that to happen you'd have to convince them that America as a whole, and it's people, do not want to commit genocide and expunge their people and beliefs from the planet.

Take a good long look around you, not just this forum, but our society in particular - and you tell me what the chances of convincing any of them at this point in time are, eh ?

Good LUCK.

If they're convinced we want to exterminate them, why on EARTH would they want to stop people from violent acts against us ?
Until we can believably offer them something other than hate and violence, they have no reason whatsoever to help us.

Think on that, think long and hard... and consider how much deeper we dig ourselves into that hole every day.

-K

[Vang]

Pilot, I must disagree with your view about the ACLU and transit searches.

Massachusetts, post-DNC:
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16172&c=287

Conneticut Metro-North:
http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_207073255.html

My best article about the NY searches only indicates a dislike of the searches by the ACLU, but not action.

I compiled these links in about three minutes, I'm sure with time I could get you something better.

[spacemanspiff]

its probably already been mentioned, so i apologize if i am rehashing.

question:
the 'probable cause' law enforcement references for searching a vehicle; is it any different than allowing searches of your bags?

granted, the LEO has already pulled you over for some other reason, and your unwillingness to let him search your vehicle may become the 'PC'. so i guess it isnt apples to apples, huh?

[Vang]

Refusal to consent is not probable cause.

[RevDisk]

Refusal to consent is not probable cause.

Heh. Lot of folks think differently. If you REALLY had nothing to hide, you'd just consent to the search.

Sigh.

[Marshall]

From Ron Paul

Quote:
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge?


Quote:
Must be the Freemasons, Illuminatis, Skull & Crossbone graduates and Bildeberg members.

What nonsense! If that's what you got from Representative Ron Paul's article, you must be on drugs.

Cut back on the coffee dude. I was being facetious. It just happens to be the same question asked when "they" talk about the the goal, purpose and make up of those "secret societies."

[mercedesrules]

It's been mentioned here the subway searches are useless and a huge waste of time. Nothing could be further from the truth. These searches are part of a conditioning campaign - and they are VERY effective. The people are getting acclimated to being searched, and this is an important step down the path toward totalitarianism.

This tells me who the terrorists are.

[san408]

Well <The Real Hawkeye> it's real easy to call people names... calling someone "sheep" on this board can definately be considered name callin I believe, but I notice you didn't have anything to answer my question. ;)


You seem to know it all about what you don't like, but like most folks can't come up with an alternative. Simply not doing anything isn't an option. Surely you can see that. Reread my first post. I'm not argueing with you, just saying that I'm ready to agree that something has to be done.

I'm serious, what do you guys think needs to be done. If you're not doing anything wrong, why worry.

I'm fine with not seeing eye-to-eye, but at least reply intelligently. :)

[shield20]

What the heck are you saying KHaotic? We are one of the most tolerant nations on Earth - have been alot of our history. Should we be more tolerant of those that want to kill us?...who declare war on us all? who hate us because we ARE so tolerant? They hate OUR lifestyle - our tolerance of religions, of sexual orientation, of free will & choice, our openess, our equality in regards to race and sex and religion, etc. THEY are the fanatics - maybe THEY should change! THEY state they want to kill us all. Well - such people deserve to die - they in fact demand it by commiting murder, by blowing up civilians, by flying planes into buildings and blowing up subways and busses.

Patrick Henry was NOT a terrorist - he did NOT go around blowing or shooting up women children or civilians - nor did ANY of the patriots sanction such actions.

[Rockstar]

Real Hawkeye: Would you mind sharing with us laymen your class rank standing when you graduated law school? What law school?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You seem to know it all about what you don't like, but like most folks can't come up with an alternative. Simply not doing anything isn't an option. Surely you can see that. Reread my first post. I'm not argueing with you, just saying that I'm ready to agree that something has to be done.I'm not "The Real Hawkeye" but I'd like to respond to this anyway.

First:
"Not doing anything" may not be an ideal option, but it is worlds better than this half-witted and ineffective security. It's bad enough that we're selling away our liberties for securty, but in this case we're not even getting any real security in return. How stupid is that? As far as options go, "not doing anything" is much better than what we've got now.

Second:
How many died at Valley Forge? How many died on Iwo Jima? How many men have risked their lives in the face of genuine, bona fide deadly threats so that you and I can enjoy true freedom? How many Americans are burried at Arlington Cemetary and Normady? Count all of the casualties over all of the centuries. I dare you. How many people have died so that you can live in freedom?

Now tell me again how the remote possibility of a few deaths in NY is more important than that freedom which hundreds of thousands of our ancestors died for. Now it's our turn to safeguard these liberties. Do you think it's wise to let the mere hint of some psychopath with a bomb scare us into giving them up?

Third:
So what if The Real Hawkeye didn't offer a perfect solution! That doesn't make the current "solution" any less idiotic.








"What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

[The Real Hawkeye]

Rockstar, rather than asking personal questions that bear no relevance to the issues we are discussing, why don't you tell me where I am mistaken and why.

That said, I received an A in Con Law I, and a B in Con Law II. By the second semester of Con Law, the professor knew that I was a strict constructionist/originalist, and very much opposed the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Since this is the rationale for the New Deal decisions and other leftist decisions to follow, the professor was less happy, the second semester, with my answers on the essay portions of his exams.

The school shall remain anonymous, as I would like to, if that's OK with you. I suppose unless I graduated from Harvard, that would mean, a priori, that I didn't know what I was saying, though, right.

[The Real Hawkeye]

San408 Said: Hey, what the hell, let's just not do anything then. Make you happy?You are implying that those who prefer that America should remain the home of liberty are "happy" when innocent people are killed. I don't think that's fair, and you deserved a bit of a shove for doing it.What else should be done? The folks in charge are under ALOT of pressure to live up to their "responsibility to keep Americans safe". And we all know they cave to any pressure.I guess the quotation marks mean you think that's a silly idea, and in this I agree.I don't much care for the searches either, and I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the poor souls that has to do that job, but in all seriousness... What do we do? Do we just sit and wait to get hit again? Does anyone else think that being proactive is better than being reactive?Well, you do all sorts of things, like tightening the boarders, taking another look at our immigration policy, traditional criminal investigation, and then there's diplomacy and military action. What you don't do is change our nation into a police state.

You shouldn't much worry about the terrorists, anyway. You are more likely to be struck by lightening. Their aim is to put terror into your heart, so you can beat them by not being afraid. Keep a stiff upper lip and go on about your usual routine. You can be struck by lightning, a car could go out of control and kill you. You can die in all sorts of ways. Take precautions, but don't go around worried about it. I'm a hell of a lot more worried about losing my liberties than about terrorism. You should be too. Lots of folks fought and died so you could live under liberty. Value that above safety, which can never really be achieved anyway. Value it, even above life. That's your duty as an American. Live up to it.

[san408]

That's much better. Like I said in my second post, I don't disagree with you so much as I just think doing "some" things designed to hinder and attacks could help... as stated, I'm not saying these things that are being implimented fall into this category.

I already do all of the things you mentioned, as I'm sure most of us do.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Cut back on the coffee dude. I was being facetious. It just happens to be the same question asked when "they" talk about the the goal, purpose and make up of those "secret societies."If you are one of the good guys, then I apologize. I'd have to be a psychic, though, to know you were being facetious, since you gave no clues to that fact in your post.

[LawDog]

All right, I've had enough.

LawDog