Who wants to sue the ACLU for giving bombers an opportunity?
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
Just think, N8, that the 'unreasonable searches and seizures' to which the Constitution's writers referred were, in the eyes of the British, entirely reasonable. Normal measures to take against terrorism and all.
Not saying that law enforcement officers shouldn't be able to search, necessarily, but it's definitely wrong to use a simple emotional metric to determine what should and shouldn't happen. Just because it makes you feel safer doesn't mean it does in fact. And there are risks which accompany our liberties.
The chance of being killed by a terrorist in the US is, in fact, around the likelihood of being struck by lightning...yet, we're not so worried about lightning. Again, not that we shouldn't fight against those who will attack us (hell, that's the business I'm getting into...), but we shouldn't give into the fear they try and inspire.
Let the ACLU bring a suit and let judicial review do its job...that's the way this works. And it's the reason we should all be so interested in the makeup of our courts.
MD
Not saying that law enforcement officers shouldn't be able to search, necessarily, but it's definitely wrong to use a simple emotional metric to determine what should and shouldn't happen. Just because it makes you feel safer doesn't mean it does in fact. And there are risks which accompany our liberties.
The chance of being killed by a terrorist in the US is, in fact, around the likelihood of being struck by lightning...yet, we're not so worried about lightning. Again, not that we shouldn't fight against those who will attack us (hell, that's the business I'm getting into...), but we shouldn't give into the fear they try and inspire.
Let the ACLU bring a suit and let judicial review do its job...that's the way this works. And it's the reason we should all be so interested in the makeup of our courts.
MD
So file a suit then, retard.
I think it's just easier to blame the dem's.Silver said:
The Constitution is obviously stupid. Stupid stupid Constitution.
Edit: Not a legal argument but I'd rather not get searched, or have anyone get searched, to be able to go about my business freely and deal with a higher risk of terrorism.
Edit: Not a legal argument but I'd rather not get searched, or have anyone get searched, to be able to go about my business freely and deal with a higher risk of terrorism.
Yeah... people though searching folks on airplanes was a violation too... and we all know how that turned out.
Didnt searches happen prior to 9/11 as well? Ya worked out really well.N8 said:
Mtb_Rob_FL said:Didnt searches happen prior to 9/11 as well? Ya worked out really well.
Ah... but searches cut down the number of skyjackings tremendously in the meantime. Searches were enacted after a skyjacker threated to fly a passenger plane into Oak Ridge Nuke Facilty unless a several million dollar ransom was paid.
After that incident, searches were implimented. This was back in the Nixion administation. No major domestic incidents for 30 years or so.
N8 said:
Please you are making your case poorer and poorer. How many "skyjackings" occured prior to searches? How many deaths occured prior? How many skyjackings that lead to how many deaths after? I can think of 3 specifically, all happened on the same day and resulted in a few thousand deaths. Sounds like it was working to me.
Mhmm.. thats what I thought.
Skyjackings were so comon that flight crews in the southern US carried Cuban money with them. Heck Casto even set up a snack bar at the Havana Airport and billed the US gov $30/meal for a sandwitch and drink...Mtb_Rob_FL said:
The potential for death occured on every skyjacking.
To talk practically--
According to the guy in charge of London's Tube service, they transport 1 billion a year. Heathrow transports 1.4 million a year. That's why you can instigate 100% searches in airports, which is a very good idea. That's also why you can't search 100% of the passengers on mass transit with traditional means and technology. Searching less than 100% of the passengers isn't effective. It's a psychological band-aid, and I want no part of it.
We need non-invasive/intrusive ways to detect dangerous devices and substances...residues of gunpowder and explosives...in public areas. No one, not even the ACLU, could argue against that. Cops are allowed to have a presence in public areas and look for dangerous items and behavior. This just gives them 'eyes' which see things they couldn't normally see...it's a passive measure implemented in public, not something that interferes with an individual's right to privacy.
According to the guy in charge of London's Tube service, they transport 1 billion a year. Heathrow transports 1.4 million a year. That's why you can instigate 100% searches in airports, which is a very good idea. That's also why you can't search 100% of the passengers on mass transit with traditional means and technology. Searching less than 100% of the passengers isn't effective. It's a psychological band-aid, and I want no part of it.
We need non-invasive/intrusive ways to detect dangerous devices and substances...residues of gunpowder and explosives...in public areas. No one, not even the ACLU, could argue against that. Cops are allowed to have a presence in public areas and look for dangerous items and behavior. This just gives them 'eyes' which see things they couldn't normally see...it's a passive measure implemented in public, not something that interferes with an individual's right to privacy.
N8 said:
For some reason, I still dont see any facts here N8? Wow, there is a shocker. :eviltongu
That's cool until NRA member is coming home from shooting his gun and gets searched because of gunpowder residue. The outcry will be incredible...(rightfully so.)MikeD said:
E
enkidu
Guest
We should line the tube corridors with sniffer dogs. And clone them fast in a pressure cooker.MikeD said:
Silver said:
No that would be a VALID search, no one is saying that as a result of being searched you'd be strung up. There are legitimate reasons for all kinds of stuff (carrying guns, having gun powder residue etc etc). But if we could some how narrow it down that would be GREAT.
not gonna happen any time soon, but if we are talking hypotheticals, that one is ok.
I got a laugh at the police dogs after the London bombing. I thought I saw a couple of terriers. They just don't inspire fear like a Malinois or a German Shepard.enkidu said:
How would that be a valid search? It is legal to own and shoot guns in this country, right? You know it would turn into another version of "I detected the odor of marijuana in his car, your honor..."Mtb_Rob_FL said:
No... See Mike'sSilver said:
For example a super sniffer machine (this is HYPOTHETICAL). It would then trigger a response from said NRA card carrying member that was just at a firing range or whatever.MikeD said:
It would also trigger a response from OsamaBenNext guy carrying C4 attached to his chest.
Both guys would get searched, only one of them would have a valid excuse.
Get the scenario now?
I'm sorry... I see that this only pertains to folks in NYC... ACLU, carry on!!!!
N8 said:
Lemme translate....
N8-Translated said:
Even if the hypothetical machine existed, I don't think you would be able to use it for gunpowder. The explosives residue you could do. But not the guns. Remember, you're not talking about minorites getting hassled. Rich white guys with guns can hire good lawyers.Mtb_Rob_FL said:
Mind you, the 4th amendment is pretty much dead, so maybe it could come to that.
Damn you and your well thought out, non-knee jerk reaction posts!MikeD said:
My powers are useless against you....
:angry:
Oh well, at least there is no shortage of morons left in here to play with...
Hmmm, those of us in some lines of work can end up with explosives residue on us... Then again, wouldn't bother me at all to show ID and explain myself...I don't think it's undue cause for a search. Explosives residue is indeed a bad thing. This isn't like racial profiling or a random/subjective criteria to subject someone to a search.Silver said:
And I guess few military people are taking the subway home from the explosives range anyhow. But here in DC, some agencies do training like that and agents might take the Metro home.
MD
All good and fair ideas mate but ultimately it's not going to solve the problem, while there's a will there's a way and all that. We still stubbornly refuse to look for long term answers to the problem. The US and its lackeys seem to have given up and appear to have settled for an attritional response, last man standing so to speak. The terrorists will play that game all day. The last thing they want is a long term response from the West. Right now we're dancing to their tune.MikeD said:
Silver said:
You wouldnt be searched unless you triggered said "machine." I dont see how that is unreasonable.
THis is getting way to hypothetical. I am just glad N8 was made to look like a tool again.
valve bouncer said:
Worthy of mention of course, but I wasn't trying to escalate this to an ideological/strategic discussion...just to talk about immediate and reactive law-enforcement measures we can take.
Helping to stop people from being inclined to blow up bombs in the subway is, of course, the best solution.
Not that that's a hard thing. He's the board bitch but after a while you get tired of dressing him in pigtails and lipstick and chaining him to the traffic lights in the main street. This board is crying out for some decent frothers. Stinkle is good but goes missing, Clancy is also OK. Shirley has lost it, same with DT. Come on you frothers, lift your game.Mtb_Rob_FL said:I am just glad N8 was made to look like a tool again.
Awwh... It's just kinda boring in here...
We can always but on Jesus again..?
We can always but on Jesus again..?
Yeah point taken mate. But I can't see how you can seperate the ideoligical/strategic from the tactical. It goes hand in hand. At the moment we are only reacting, any long term plan seems woefully inadequate. As a (ex) military man I know you can see the stupidity in that.MikeD said:
valve bouncer said:
Any real solution will take decades and decades to entrench...
Well, you can separate the two...the guy whose job it is to enforce laws and protect the mass transit in question has got to focus on that; it's his boss's job (the president's, in this case) to look at the bigger picture. And just like he's focused on his task at hand, there are guys solely focused on the strategic piece (State Dept, strategic-level military, etc.)valve bouncer said:
When you're part of a large operation, it's good to know there are other pieces going on and a rhyme and reason to it all...but you complete your assigned task in your assigned zone. Even if you don't feel it's all that important...you do it until ordered to assume a different mission.
What that means here is that we need [yet] another thread to say "How can America deal with the worldwide threads it's facing?"
MD
Did I hear the kettle again?valve bouncer said:
Oh dear, I think someone's had their feelings hurt. I didn't mean it, honest.DRB said:
Yeah, I agree with that. Fair enough.MikeD said:
I guess I should've said "'threats' that America's facing", not "threads..." Threads, although they can be a serious distraction if you have a short attention span, generally don't blow up your embassies.valve bouncer said:
MD