Homeland Security claims another victim...

[Ian]

Take a step back and look at the principle behind the whole thing. Government is banning a plant. A plant! The whole idea is rediculous...yet people are so anaesthetized to it that you sit back a say she had the leaves, so she deserved to die.

As for whether someone's rights were violated by the search, of course they were. If the Feds sent goon to search you every time you got in your car, it would still be a violation of your rights, even though you could always choose not to drive.

 

[rayra]

another silly line of reasoning to justify a dependence on illegal narcotics. ^^^

"a plant" - trying to make it seem innocent by calling it a "plant" or 'hemp' is disingenuous as hell.
And trying to put 'government is banning a plant' on a protest sign doesn't work, either - 'the gubment' bans a huge variety of plants and other biological compounds - what's your point?

Between the Libertarians railing at ANY exercise of Federal Govt, the Left protesting for any reason they can manufacture, and druggies doing their best to justify their character weaknesses - we are becoming a sad contentious country.

 

[WvaBill]

As for whether someone's rights were violated by the search, of course they were. If the Feds sent goon to search you every time you got in your car, it would still be a violation of your rights, even though you could always choose not to drive.

No, it would not. It is called "implied consent." I am sure the same applies to airline travelers, "...by using your airport, i consent to the check of baggage and person..." If you don't want searched, charter a plane from a private terminal.

 

[Ian]

rayra - Heh. I can assure you that I don't indulge myself (though I've had plenty of opportunities to). The first and last time I had any sort of narcotic was years ago in a dentist's chair when I had my wisdom teeth removed. Yeesh, I don't even drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. My objection to US drug policy is based purely on grounds of said policy being expensive (both in dollars and in lives) and based on critically flawed assumptions. If I was smart, I'd demand stricter drug laws and make a pile of money selling the stuff myself.

Wvabill - If the airlines had all decided to do these searches of their own free will, it would be different. ut this policy is handed down by the Feds, and all commercial passenger air services are required to obey it. That is a violation of both the passengers' and the airlines' rights.

 

[WvaBill]

I diddn't think corporations were afforded constituntional rights guaranteed to "the people"

The state gov't handed down rule that all motorists may be required to submit to a BAC test or have license suspended. All motorists must obey it. Was anyone asked if he consented to submitting to BAC searches when applying for DL?

 

[Don Galt]

WvaBill--

Yes, corporations have rights under the law.

By the way, your idea of "implied consent" is silly--- you don't automatically consent to being searched when you drive on the roads.

And what you guys are missing from this story is she didn't run, she didn't have drugs, and she didn't try to swallow drugs.

She was killed by cops and they planted drugs on her to justify it.

But you guys goose stepping around in pleasure that a "druggie" has been killed only proves that they merely have to make such a claim, and you won't say squat.

That's what makes you sheeple.

 

[WvaBill]

By the way, your idea of "implied consent" is silly--- you don't automatically consent to being searched when you drive on the roads.

Refuse to consent to BAC search(BREATAHALYZER)

 

[NukemJim]

I will keep my mouth shut about the cell phone calls from the planes on 9/11 but at least one of the calls was NOT a cell phone but rather AirFone(SP?), a company that equips airliners with phones for inflight use. Todd Beamers call was recieved in the Chicago suburbs where AirFone is based. Many articles in the newspapers at the time about it. For once the newspapers got something right. My brother works at AirFone and was in the room at the time writing questions to the operator to ask Todd. ( He was interviewsd by the FBI and was not able to talk about it for a short while ).

NukemJim

 

[Sergeant Bob]

It makes no difference if she had drugs in her luggage or not, or if they should be illegal or not.
The question is, did the cops cause her death, and were they justified in doing so?

 

[Coronach]

Mr Galt:

Please explain to me how a consentual search, obtained without coercion or duress, is unconstitutional.

-or-

Failing that, explain to me how a search of one's self and belongings at an airport is not consentual, when there are large signs up prior to the security point stating that by passing through the security point one gives the TSA consent to search both person and luggage.

Thank you,
Mike

 

[Moparmike]

He is no longer a member here.


Personally, I think that the .gov saying you must consent to a search to fly on this private property is absurd and unconstitutional. However, I think that the private airlines doing so is perfectly constitutional and reasonable, as it is their property. Its not the .gov's property. Just my $.02.

 

[Coronach]

Ah, I missed Mr. Galt's departure.

Fair enough. My point is that, while it might be wrong for the government to ban plants (this is debatable) or to claim authority over air traffic and air traffic security (also debatable), the usage of the term "unconstitutional" in reference to the search is absurd. "Unconstitutional" is the favorite term of anyone opposed to any given government action, and as such is often used incorrectly.

Mike