Strip searching school kids -- is World Net Daily a credible source?
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
gunsmith
member
I kinda like WND
The N Y Times is hardly credible these days either.
The N Y Times is hardly credible these days either.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
More police-statism. It is often targeted at schools in the name of the drug war and to combat school violence. This way, you desensitize the youth to the police-state environment so as adults, they aren't bothered by checkpoints, searches, and other forms of harassment.
Call that tinfoil hat, but the writing is on the wall. I was in a Publix grocery store the other day when it really hit me at the massive number of cameras they have. While they are a private company using it for anti-theft, it still reflects on our society. We've seriously changed for the worst.
If we could get into a time-machine, and go back just to 1981, I think we'd all be appauled by how much freer things were back then. That type of camera and search madness didn't exist. Only banks had cameras. We are truly frogs being boiled to death. We can't see it or feel it coming because it is so gradual.
Call that tinfoil hat, but the writing is on the wall. I was in a Publix grocery store the other day when it really hit me at the massive number of cameras they have. While they are a private company using it for anti-theft, it still reflects on our society. We've seriously changed for the worst.
If we could get into a time-machine, and go back just to 1981, I think we'd all be appauled by how much freer things were back then. That type of camera and search madness didn't exist. Only banks had cameras. We are truly frogs being boiled to death. We can't see it or feel it coming because it is so gradual.
solareclipse
Member
i doubt this is true but if it is, now we will know where all the questionable motives employees will work at. just reel em in and call it a day 
Don't Tread On Me
Member
You know what. This isn't such a bad thing afterall. The more and more the tyrants and control freaks press, the more and more the keg will explode.
There is only so much you can push people. The more they mess with kids, the more they chain them down in draconian prison-like surveillance schools, the more they will revolt to the idea of control and centralized power. The more faith they will lose in government. The more distrust they will have.
They should keep at it. They've used the schools to create a massive anti-gun generation, if they keep pushing, they will drive an entire generation right to the RKBA.
Unfortunately, a minority respond in a negative way, which is why some youth is lashing out with all these columbine style attacks and planned attacks. This is the young generation telling us all that we're doing something wrong with them.
We lived in a nation where you could buy a firearm at Sears and ammo from the hardware store, and no one went to school and murdered dozens of people. It wasn't the availability of guns. That's for sure.
There is only so much you can push people. The more they mess with kids, the more they chain them down in draconian prison-like surveillance schools, the more they will revolt to the idea of control and centralized power. The more faith they will lose in government. The more distrust they will have.
They should keep at it. They've used the schools to create a massive anti-gun generation, if they keep pushing, they will drive an entire generation right to the RKBA.
Unfortunately, a minority respond in a negative way, which is why some youth is lashing out with all these columbine style attacks and planned attacks. This is the young generation telling us all that we're doing something wrong with them.
We lived in a nation where you could buy a firearm at Sears and ammo from the hardware store, and no one went to school and murdered dozens of people. It wasn't the availability of guns. That's for sure.
Glockfan.45
member
My God. What next? This is an outrage, if my kid gets strip search/cavity searched that will be the end of somebody. How far are we going to let this go?T.L.O. V. New Jersey
This has actually been in effect since nearly 2 decades, simply not mandated. T.L.O. V. New Jersey is the case which affirmed the right of school employees to conduct searches, but at each new level of intrusiveness requiring more evidence be encountered to legitimate the next level of intrusiveness. The standards for most schools has been to leave strip search, and the ultimate level of intrusiveness (body cavity searches) to certified medical experts and only when Mom or Dad is present.
Should this whole process be mandated? Hell no! It takes the "what a reasonable and prudent parent would do" standard out of the T.L.O. V. New Jersey decision. :banghead:
Not to brag, folks, but I ought to know. I have a Ph.D. in K-12 Educational Administration, with 22 years service to education. I am currently a full-time, graduate professor of education and educational leadership. This is simply the next step of stupidity in the assault on children, and in fact constitutes a lack of leadership legislatively and administratively. Where are these children's rights of substantive and procedural due process? If it happened to my child, there would be hell-to-pay!!!
Doc2005
This has actually been in effect since nearly 2 decades, simply not mandated. T.L.O. V. New Jersey is the case which affirmed the right of school employees to conduct searches, but at each new level of intrusiveness requiring more evidence be encountered to legitimate the next level of intrusiveness. The standards for most schools has been to leave strip search, and the ultimate level of intrusiveness (body cavity searches) to certified medical experts and only when Mom or Dad is present.
Should this whole process be mandated? Hell no! It takes the "what a reasonable and prudent parent would do" standard out of the T.L.O. V. New Jersey decision. :banghead:
Not to brag, folks, but I ought to know. I have a Ph.D. in K-12 Educational Administration, with 22 years service to education. I am currently a full-time, graduate professor of education and educational leadership. This is simply the next step of stupidity in the assault on children, and in fact constitutes a lack of leadership legislatively and administratively. Where are these children's rights of substantive and procedural due process? If it happened to my child, there would be hell-to-pay!!!
Doc2005
--quote--
If I remember right, WND has been discredited many, many times.
----------
As opposed to, say, the New York Times and Washington Post, which, as every gun owner knows, are always entirely accurate and unbiased
Most of what I've seen on WND seems to be at least based on fact, but they do seem to have a penchant for posting stories, and spinning the stories they post, so as to rile up their audience. This editorial slant results in somewhat less factual distortion than the Times and the Post, for example.
If I remember right, WND has been discredited many, many times.
----------
As opposed to, say, the New York Times and Washington Post, which, as every gun owner knows, are always entirely accurate and unbiased
Most of what I've seen on WND seems to be at least based on fact, but they do seem to have a penchant for posting stories, and spinning the stories they post, so as to rile up their audience. This editorial slant results in somewhat less factual distortion than the Times and the Post, for example.
should this idea be enacted (if it isn't already) anyone care to guess how long before such power is abused in the form of sexual assaults/rapes/etc?
days or weeks?
all it does is give a few people lots of power and likely they are in no way trained to use such pwoer responsibility and probably have little monitoring of their use of said power.... which is generally a recipie for disaster.
days or weeks?
all it does is give a few people lots of power and likely they are in no way trained to use such pwoer responsibility and probably have little monitoring of their use of said power.... which is generally a recipie for disaster.
loki.fish
Member
So, basically, they're just gonna make it legal for teachers to molest/rape students?
AirForceShooter
Member
frisk my Granddaughter and you'll meet my fist.
Strip search her and you might meet a 230 grain projectile.
This is unconstitutional at best.
AFS
Strip search her and you might meet a 230 grain projectile.
This is unconstitutional at best.
AFS
mrtgbnkr
Member
It simply mandates that as parents we teach our kids (you know, we can still do that ourselves sometimes...I know, preaching to the choir) that if the school wants to search you, you simply refuse. No screaming, no fighting, just sit down, cross your arms and legs and repeat "I WANT MY PARENTS HERE NOW." over and over until you finally get a call. While the school can claim that they have the right to search (and they can already search lockers, desks, bookbags, and cars on school property at will) they can't assault the child by FORCING them to remove their clothes for a strip search.
Do you know why private schools are so expensive? Because they're worth it!
Do you know why private schools are so expensive? Because they're worth it!
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Oleg: Keep in mind that this, like all reporting, has at lest some bias, maybe a lot. Get the whole story before you assume that one account of it is correct and not hyperbole.
Yesterday I read an article about how a federal appeals court had ruled that patents were not subject to the 5th Amendment takings clause and that the .gov was free to use your intellectual property at will without compensation. Sounded interesting, so I looked up the actual case. If you read only the dissent cited in the "article," you would believe that a travesty of justice on a Constitutional level had occured. When your read the whole thing, a different picture appeared. They ruled that the 5thA didn't need to be addressed because there was a statutory means to sue the .gov for patent infringement. The patent owner had used the system and it was found that the patent was not infinged.
All I am saying is that a report that leaves out the whole picture can be true, but not accurate. Dig deeper (perhaps even call Geoff Davis' office) before you assume that Geoff Davis (R-KY) is an advocate for tyrrany.
Yesterday I read an article about how a federal appeals court had ruled that patents were not subject to the 5th Amendment takings clause and that the .gov was free to use your intellectual property at will without compensation. Sounded interesting, so I looked up the actual case. If you read only the dissent cited in the "article," you would believe that a travesty of justice on a Constitutional level had occured. When your read the whole thing, a different picture appeared. They ruled that the 5thA didn't need to be addressed because there was a statutory means to sue the .gov for patent infringement. The patent owner had used the system and it was found that the patent was not infinged.
All I am saying is that a report that leaves out the whole picture can be true, but not accurate. Dig deeper (perhaps even call Geoff Davis' office) before you assume that Geoff Davis (R-KY) is an advocate for tyrrany.
Last edited:
El Tejon
Member
I've had the media (local, Indy, and Chicago) report cases I am involved in and when I read the article I think they showed up in a different courtroom.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Hear Hear! +100!
The slickest way to lie is to tell the truth, and then stop at a convenient point.
I am constantly, constantly, constantly fending off left leaning acquaintances who pull out some article or another as authoritative that does not dig to the depths needed for coherent understanding of a situation, and I am constantly berating them for not doing their homework.
Same here.
I don't have time to read the bill, but if it's central precept, that schools must develop a policy re: searches, then that's not necessarily BAD. What could be BAD would be the CONTENT of the policy, not the fact that they have one. Without a consistent policy on searches, searches become arbitrary and subjective.
Naturally, the only acceptable and correct policy on strip searches is, "NOT WITHOUT A WARRANT AND PARENT".
If a school were to develop a policy inconsistent with the constitution, well, then, that's a different kettle of fish.
And yes, to mrtgbnkr's point, we ALL need to teach our kids what their rights are from an early age, and the correct/most effective way to assert them, which is equivalent to "call the Mom & Dad Cavalry".
As parents, we need to stand ready to get there in a hurry to back our kids up, and face down whoever needs facing down.
30 years ago, I would generally grant most schools a good faith coin in disciplinary matters, but this is not something I'd risk anymore.
If it were my kid, I'd probably not even engage the school authorities in discussion, other than to collect the facts. Then I'd extract the kid and all belongings from the school for the day, without further search or discussion on the matter. Subsequent issues will be settled at home, pending our own fact finding.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Maybe I'm stupid (been proved a few times, in fact) but I can't see this bill as an all-bad thing. If nothing else, it gets the Federal Government out of the business of trying to regulate how my local school manages these sorts of things and forces each school district to create a written policy. How can that be all bad?
Maybe I'm just beng naive, but any time the decision-making moves further from Washington DC and closer to my home, the happier I am that I can help fix it when it gets broken....
A. Patriot
Member
I think World Net Daily it is very credible. It does have a conservative slant on the news, which I enjoy. You will read many things here that you would not be exposed to in the mainstream media.
If your are in doubt of its credibility, go to: www.wnd.com for a few days and decide for yourself. Much of its content is from sources outside WND.
If your are in doubt of its credibility, go to: www.wnd.com for a few days and decide for yourself. Much of its content is from sources outside WND.
JJpdxpinkpistols
Member
Here is the text of the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109Zgazst::
Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)
HR 5295 RFS
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5295
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 20, 2006
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
AN ACT
To protect students and teachers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics reported in the 2005 Indicators of School Crime and Safety that in 2003 seventeen percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they carried a weapon. Six percent reported having carried a weapon on school grounds.
(2) The same survey reported that 29 percent of all students in grades 9-12 reported that someone offered, sold, or gave them an illegal drug on school property within the last 12 months.
(3) The United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantees `the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'.
(4) That while the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Amendment's application to students in public schools in New Jersey vs. TLO (1985), the Court held that searches of students by school officials do not require warrants issued by judges showing probable cause. The Court will ordinarily hold that such a search is permissible if--
(A) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will reveal evidence that the student violated the law or school rules; and
(B) the measures used to conduct the search are reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and nature of the offense.
(5) The Supreme Court held in Board of Education of Independent Sch. Dist. 92 of Pottawatomie County vs. Earls (2002) that random drug testing of students who were participating in extracurricular activities was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that such search policies effectively serve the School Districts interest in protecting its students' health and safety.
SEC. 3. SEARCHES BASED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.
(a) In General- Each local educational agency shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the agency policies that ensure that a search described in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible.
(b) Searches Covered- A search referred to in subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property and students remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics. The measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and the nature of the offense.
SEC. 4. ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND TEACHERS.
(a) In General- A local educational agency that fails to comply with section 3 shall not, during the period of noncompliance, receive any Safe and Drug Free School funds after fiscal year 2008.
(b) Definition- In this section, the term `Safe and Drug Free School funds' includes any funds under Part A of Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 2006.
Attest:
KAREN L. HAAS,
Clerk.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109Zgazst::
Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)
HR 5295 RFS
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5295
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 20, 2006
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
AN ACT
To protect students and teachers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics reported in the 2005 Indicators of School Crime and Safety that in 2003 seventeen percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they carried a weapon. Six percent reported having carried a weapon on school grounds.
(2) The same survey reported that 29 percent of all students in grades 9-12 reported that someone offered, sold, or gave them an illegal drug on school property within the last 12 months.
(3) The United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantees `the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'.
(4) That while the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Amendment's application to students in public schools in New Jersey vs. TLO (1985), the Court held that searches of students by school officials do not require warrants issued by judges showing probable cause. The Court will ordinarily hold that such a search is permissible if--
(A) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will reveal evidence that the student violated the law or school rules; and
(B) the measures used to conduct the search are reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and nature of the offense.
(5) The Supreme Court held in Board of Education of Independent Sch. Dist. 92 of Pottawatomie County vs. Earls (2002) that random drug testing of students who were participating in extracurricular activities was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that such search policies effectively serve the School Districts interest in protecting its students' health and safety.
SEC. 3. SEARCHES BASED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.
(a) In General- Each local educational agency shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the agency policies that ensure that a search described in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible.
(b) Searches Covered- A search referred to in subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property and students remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics. The measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and the nature of the offense.
SEC. 4. ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND TEACHERS.
(a) In General- A local educational agency that fails to comply with section 3 shall not, during the period of noncompliance, receive any Safe and Drug Free School funds after fiscal year 2008.
(b) Definition- In this section, the term `Safe and Drug Free School funds' includes any funds under Part A of Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 2006.
Attest:
KAREN L. HAAS,
Clerk.
JJpdxpinkpistols
Member
No, WND is not credible
WND is an operation out of that bustling hub we call Grants Pass, Oregon. They do not have reporters on payroll, and they do most of their data collection and "reporting" by culling info from the web.
I am tied into many, many news folks here in town and throughout the entire state, and not ONCE have I ever heard the term "World Net Daily" come up in conversation. This is among TV/Print/Online journalists from all sides of the spectrum. I brought them up once, and universally got a puzzled response of "who?".
I hesitate to discredit someone just because they are small, or online exclusively, but the just don't seem to cut it, journalism wise. Their articles clearly demonstrate a consistent bias (one that I enjoy, tho), their writing is not up to Strunk and White standards, and they don't have any *other* presence. I think we might be caught up in the "if it walks like a duck, but sounds a lot anemic, is it still a duck" definition of journalism.
I will gladly point out that they did get the title of the bill right, tho. No where does it mention strip searching, but they did get the title right.
WND is an operation out of that bustling hub we call Grants Pass, Oregon. They do not have reporters on payroll, and they do most of their data collection and "reporting" by culling info from the web.
I am tied into many, many news folks here in town and throughout the entire state, and not ONCE have I ever heard the term "World Net Daily" come up in conversation. This is among TV/Print/Online journalists from all sides of the spectrum. I brought them up once, and universally got a puzzled response of "who?".
I hesitate to discredit someone just because they are small, or online exclusively, but the just don't seem to cut it, journalism wise. Their articles clearly demonstrate a consistent bias (one that I enjoy, tho), their writing is not up to Strunk and White standards, and they don't have any *other* presence. I think we might be caught up in the "if it walks like a duck, but sounds a lot anemic, is it still a duck" definition of journalism.
I will gladly point out that they did get the title of the bill right, tho. No where does it mention strip searching, but they did get the title right.
progunner1957
member
Children should never be strip searched, let alone body cavity searched - period. Children are human beings and AMERICAN CITIZENS with rights, not faceless property of "The Government."
I know, I know - I'm guilty of sedition.
I know, I know - I'm guilty of sedition.
Desertdog
Member
Is your inquiry about the strip searching or about WND being a credible source?
From the replies I have seen it seems that the story about the right to strip search is credible.
So, for the second part of your inquiry, seems like if the first part is true, then in this case the second part is also true.
In this case the World Net Daily was a credible source.
Are they always credible. Maybe, maybe not, but I am sure that you will find stories there that Liberal papers wouldn't print no matter how true they are.
By the way, did anybody read anything about this bill in any Liberal papers?
- Status