Boston MBTA to randomly search bags

[MongoTheGeek]

Fairly clear that there has to be an expectation or need for the search. And a warrant needs to be issued. Using dogs or random searches to find a reason to detain a person for such a warrant goes beyond the "probable cause" that our Founding Fathers had in mind.

Yes. Random arbitrary searches have been difficult to uphold in the courts. Evidence found by police because of searches for other reasons is often thrown out.

How would you feel if the police had a warrant to search the train station and all of its contents for bombs and guns. Yes, other contraband will be swept up but is inadmissible, ie you loose your stash but aren't perse^H^H^H^Hrocecuted.

The grounds for the search would be similar incidents at other locations. Sounds reasonable to me. Specific items, specific places.

 

[QCassidy352]

And the people that would bomb trains or use airplanes as guided missile aren't terrifying?

A) Yes it is. So is someone else blowing your head off.

B) You don't know if it deters the terrorist attack because it doesn't happen. The deterrence comes from the visible attempt to be doing something, which if successful, would catch the terrorists in the act. Fewer would try OR would make a bigger effort to get around the inspection. Making effort to evade inspection, would just cause more attention, leading to higher chance of being caught.

C) Ok, the 4th amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE search and seizures. Seeing as how the terrorist organizations are now using such methods as bombing public conveyances, suicide bombs, etc. a brief inspection of baggage isn't unreasonable to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare" (Preamble to the Constitution)

I agree that my private things are my private things. I can keep them private, by using private transportation. Public transportation is another matter. I don't have anything to hide.

No, terrorist attacks are not terrifying. They might be in theory, but in practice, my odds of dying in such an attack are literally lower than getting hit by lightning. Why can't people see through the propaganda and realize this?

A) WRONG. Someone blowing my head off is neither governmental, nor an invasion of privacy. It's certainly a problem for me, but not on the grounds you suggest.

B) There was a Simpsons gag about this. After one bear attack on springfield, the people demand a "bear patrol" because they say they can't risk another one. Lisa tells Homer that saying the bear patrol is working would be like saying a rock she picks up keeps away tigers - and the proof is that there have been no tiger attacks. Homer, not understanding, offers to buy her rock to protect himself.

The moral of the story is that of course we can't *know* what deters terrorist attacks. Maybe Lisa's rock does deter tiger attacks - but is that reasonable to assume? No, it's not. A few MBTA cops might be more threatening to a terrorist than a rock is to a tiger, but not by much, if at all.

C) If random searches of personal property aren't unreasonable, what would be? "Reasonable" has always meant that there was some reason to think the person being searched is doing something illegal. If it's reasonable to conduct searches without suspicion, then "unreasonable" has no practical meaning. You see my point?

Let's be clear what "public transportation" means. It means, "for the use of the public." Not that you give up your rights when you use it, any more than you give up your rights when you leave your house and walk down the street.

If you have nothing to hide, can the police search your car, your house, or your person at will? Would that be Ok with you?

 

[QCassidy352]

Sorry for the length of this post, but I care very much about this issue.

Those that are complaining would be the first to yell the loudest is a Spain like attack. "Why didn't you do something to stop this?"

Public means public.

So if you are on a public street, you would agree that your person could be searched for no reason? You're only safe from searches in your own home, is that what I'm hearing?

And no, I understand perfectly well that no one can stop every single really determined terrorist, and I don't get mad at all when attacks do happen. Terrorist attacks should be prevented as best as is possible without destroying our constitutional and human rights.

It's called "Prevention", it's not a search, a wiretap nor an investigation. The original article refers to the use of bomb sniffing canines, you wouldn't even have to expose your stuff.

I've never met you, but I do wonder what could be so private that ensuring public safety takes a backseat.

There are only 4 canines for this whole project; there will be a great many actual searches.

If you want to talk prevention, how about with a CIA (or FBI) that can tell its a** from its elbow for once? The fact that these things are "necessary" is an admission that the intelligence network is woefully inadequate. You can't do a thing to stop terrorists by randomly searching 1 in 20 (or whatever) people on a train. That's just stupid and irrational. You stop them by catching them long before they get on the train.

I also find it really worrisome that you think only someone with "something to hide" could object to being searched. How about privacy? How about being left alone on your ride to work? How about not having to deal with cops on a daily basis? And even that is beside the point. The point being that even if I have nothing to hide, I have to stand up for my rights in this case, or else I'll have no basis to do so in any other situation.

Do you hold the same stance for air travel? there should be no metal detectors or bag searches?

...
This is the same thing.

You also have the option of walking.

I don't liek the though of being searched, but I understand why they are doing it.

Let me reverse the question. Do YOU hold the same stance for driving your own car? Or walking? After all, couldn't I put a bomb in my car and leave it on a bridge? Or walk in to a crowded public area and set off an explosive? So do you think it's Ok to search cars and pedestrians?

 

[QCassidy352]

(I'm sorry for the triple post, but I didn't want one huge one, and I really wanted to put this last one by itself.)

Chip NovaMac has it exactly right. Where do you think this is going to stop? How many rights are you willing to give up in the name of safety? Freedom of speech? Of religion? The right to bear arms? The right against cruel and unusual punishment? The right to a lawyer if arrested? Due process?

Tell me when I get to one that you care about. Because believe me, this is what's coming. Since 9/11 we have detentions without arrests, secret tribunals instead of courts, prisoners denied lawyers (including US citizens), police power to tap phone lines without warrants, random searches, teenagers in New York arrested for "terrorism" because they "terrorized" a neighborhood, a crystal meth lab charged under terrorism statutes for making "chemical weapons," and the Justice and Defense departments actually arguing that the US can use TORTURE on suspects if the President feels like it.

For god's sake, look at that list. That's what goes on in *this country,* in the year 2004. It reads like a list of charges against a third world dictatorship! Doesn't that *scare* you?? Doesn't anyone even *care* what this country has become?

It's popular to say you're "proud to be an American" these days. Well, I'm not. Not anymore. What's happened to this country makes me sick to my stomach. 9/11 was a tragedy, but what has happened since is a million times worse. Do you know what the greatest victory al Qaeda has ever won is? Making us in to this. Killing 3000 people was nothing. They've made 260 million people agree to give up their rights, their freedoms, their sense of justice and of what's right, all in the name of safety. Why are people even proud to be Americans? I'm not proud of the fact that we have a lot of money, or the biggest guns. I used to be proud of the fact that we were a free nation, a nation that cared about civil rights, freedom, and human dignity. I'm not surprised that the government doesn't care about those things anymore, because governments never do - regardless of whether they are republican or democratic, liberal or conservative. What does surprise me is that you all, the people, the American people, don't care about these things anymore. You say you do, but you don't. You care about safety, not freedom, security, not human rights, defense, not justice.

I don't mean to offend anyone. But this matters to me - it matters a whole hell of a lot. And now, this trade of liberty for safety is coming to Boston, to my town, to me. And people are defending it. And that makes me incredibly angry, and incredibly sad.

 

[Soc7777777]

my 2 cents...

whether or not you think that the right to search passengers bags is legit or made up by the gov... you cant sit back and hide behind the constitution and claim privacy...

this is just a thought.... but the constitution was written over 200 years ago... its a very bad arguement to say that everything in the constitution is perfect and doesnt need to be changed in anyway because its the 'constitution'... but... if you are gogni to say taht something in teh document is outdated or irrellivent then you should just change it the legal way... like i think the right to bear arms should be removed... then if there werent anything like guns then no one would kill each other... and for those of you who woudl point out taht criminals can get the guns on the black market then i say... if guns were outlawed then you could charge everyone who had one with attempted murder... (because if guns were illegal.. and they got one off teh black market... then what else would they use it for)

 

[Soc7777777]

(I'm sorry for the triple post, but I didn't want one huge one, and I really wanted to put this last one by itself.)

To be honest... i agree with you... the random searches seem pointless, in this case... but playing the devils advocate here... are you ok with searches that they do before getting on an airplane?

My theory is all or none... you can either search everyone if that is feasable/logical... or do not search anyone...

but Qcassidy352, i think it is a GROSS overstatement to say that the willingness of the people to give up some personal freedom is worse then 3000 people dying... i think that the freedom we are giving up is much less then you think... first of all, i havnt had to do ANYTHING different since 9/11 when it comes to privacy... so i dont think there is the degradation of american privacy and values that you claim...

maybe random searches on a train arent a good idea, but it isnt going to kill us...

btw... would you be willing to be searched every day in order for someone you love to live... just an interesting thought...

ok last thing

freedom<----------------------------------------------------->security

there isnt just 2 ways to have things.. you have to decide where you are on such a chart and decide how much freedome you are willing to give up for how much security...

i wouldnt give up all my freedom for a .001% less chance i'd be hurt in a terroist attack... but i WOULD give up 1% of my freedom for a 10 percent decrease in the chance of being attacked by a terrorist... so you cant say taht you can NEVER give up freedom for security

 

[Soc7777777]

i coudlnt help myself...

haha balancing freedom and security is like balancing the number of pipeline stages and frequency of the processor.... ideally we would like few pipline stages at a high frequency... but we just cant have that... just like we want all our freedoms and to be secure.. just not going to happen...


sorry coudlnt help myself with the computer analogy

 

[QCassidy352]

soc7777777,
No one here has said the Constitution is perfect. I think a lot of it is outdated and needs to be changed. But it is the supreme law of the land, and it CANNOT be ignored by either the people or the government simply because they do not like it in one case. I very much agree with you that the proper way to deal with parts of it you don't like is to legally amend it. But that's not what is happening here. People are just ignoring it when they find it convenient to do so. As long as the Constitution is the way it is now, I not only can but *must* "sit back and claim privacy." To do any less would be unfair not only to me now, but to every single person who will ever need the protections of the Constitution.

To be honest with you, I fly a lot less than I might otherwise, because the searches really do bother me. But yes, I agree that they are a necessary evil. Why is it different?
-Because a plane can be a weapon - a trolly car cannot.
-Because flying is much more of a luxury than the T - the city of Boston would shut down without the MBTA; it's a daily necessity. Meaning that people do not have the same ability to opt out of it that they do with flying. I fly maybe once or twice a year, but take the T all the time.
-Because the security at airports doesn't come close to stopping all terrorists, but at least it's enough to have a chance, and not just enough to annoy us.
-And because the airlines are private, but the T is public. Private companies can require you to go through metal detectors because they are not bound by the same laws as the government. The T is owned by the City of Boston. The Constitution protects us from the Government, not private people and corporations.

but Qcassidy352, i think it is a GROSS overstatement to say that the willingness of the people to give up some personal freedom is worse then 3000 people dying... i think that the freedom we are giving up is much less then you think... first of all, i havnt had to do ANYTHING different since 9/11 when it comes to privacy... so i dont think there is the degradation of american privacy and values that you claim...

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more strongly. Did you read my list of what is happening? If it were just these searches, it would bother me, but I'd move on. I'm not talking about one thing though. I'm talking about 260 million people being stripped of their rights, one by one by one. It never seems like so much when it's just a little at a time, does it?

When you start to give up your freedom, the terrorists have already won. It's called "terrorism" for a reason. The primary goal is not to kill - it is to terrorize, to so scare the victim, that they are forced to change the ways they live. That is *exactly* what al Qaeda has accomplished.
Beating them isn't just surviving. It's saying, "You can't change me. You can't scare me. Your cowardly and despicable actions cannot make me live my life any differently, and they cannot make this country live any differently. We are stronger than that."
My favorite movie is Braveheart. I particularly like the part where William Wallace says, "And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!"

You say that your life hasn't changed since 9/11. Well, that's very lucky for you. But let me leave you with one more quote.

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me."
-Pastor Martin Niemöller

Now I'm not saying this country has become Nazi Germnay. But if this is allowed to continue - if we are silent and accept what is happening all around us - this WILL come to my door, and WILL come to yours.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

 

[Soc7777777]

soc7777777,
No one here has said the Constitution is perfect. I think a lot of it is outdated and needs to be changed. But it is the supreme law of the land, and it CANNOT be ignored by either the people or the government simply because they do not like it in one case. I very much agree with you that the proper way to deal with parts of it you don't like is to legally amend it. But that's not what is happening here. People are just ignoring it when they find it convenient to do so. As long as the Constitution is the way it is now, I not only can but *must* "sit back and claim privacy." To do any less would be unfair not only to me now, but to every single person who will ever need the protections of the Constitution.

To be honest with you, I fly a lot less than I might otherwise, because the searches really do bother me. But yes, I agree that they are a necessary evil. Why is it different?
-Because a plane can be a weapon - a trolly car cannot.
-Because flying is much more of a luxury than the T - the city of Boston would shut down without the MBTA; it's a daily necessity. Meaning that people do not have the same ability to opt out of it that they do with flying. I fly maybe once or twice a year, but take the T all the time.
-Because the security at airports doesn't come close to stopping all terrorists, but at least it's enough to have a chance, and not just enough to annoy us.
-And because the airlines are private, but the T is public. Private companies can require you to go through metal detectors because they are not bound by the same laws as the government. The T is owned by the City of Boston. The Constitution protects us from the Government, not private people and corporations.



I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more strongly. Did you read my list of what is happening? If it were just these searches, it would bother me, but I'd move on. I'm not talking about one thing though. I'm talking about 260 million people being stripped of their rights, one by one by one. It never seems like so much when it's just a little at a time, does it?

When you start to give up your freedom, the terrorists have already won. It's called "terrorism" for a reason. The primary goal is not to kill - it is to terrorize, to so scare the victim, that they are forced to change the ways they live. That is *exactly* what al Qaeda has accomplished.
Beating them isn't just surviving. It's saying, "You can't change me. You can't scare me. Your cowardly and despicable actions cannot make me live my life any differently, and they cannot make this country live any differently. We are stronger than that."
My favorite movie is Braveheart. I particularly like the part where William Wallace says, "And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!"

You say that your life hasn't changed since 9/11. Well, that's very lucky for you. But let me leave you with one more quote.

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me."
-Pastor Martin Niemöller

Now I'm not saying this country has become Nazi Germnay. But if this is allowed to continue - if we are silent and accept what is happening all around us - this WILL come to my door, and WILL come to yours.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

Haha i knew i was going to get the nazi quote (rightfully so.. its one of my favs.. and well placed), but... my main point is that just because one freedom is being taken away does NOT mean that all freedoms will be taken away...

we dont want a nazi like state... but does that mean we fight for our right to scream fire in a theatre (haha, like the insertion of the cliched metaphor?) just because we think that that will lead to the surrender of ALL our rights... i like that quote... but i also disagree with its point... we shouldnt scream bloody murder when we think that the takine of right A will lead to the taking of right B which we care about.. those who care about right A should scream when right A is taken away... and those who are fine with giving up right A but care about right B should scream when right B is taken away... (this is assuming that giving up right A is less severe then giving up right B)....

All im saying is you sholdnt complain about them checking bags on a train because you think it will LEAD TO OTHER rights being taken away... but you should (must*) scream and protest if you truly believe that the checking of bags in the train is giving up a right that you do not want to give up...

If they take right A and you care... then protest... if you care about right B then let them take A and put up a screaming fight for B... its your duty...

because lets face it... they is "us" (or we)... and they cannot take away any right if "we" dont want "them" to... majority rules... (the majority of poeple who care enought to fight for it)

 

[KingSleaze]

I think they ought to go a lot farther than this-- Weekly searches of all residential dwellings in the USA, combined with full body-cavity searches of all international travelers (well, wait, just shut down the borders). We could keep a strict inventory of everything inside the USA, what people are doing, what things they have. Eventually, if the US got strong enough, we could start searching other nation's residences, in which case we could resume air travel with them. In a perfect world, eventually the USA could search every home on the planet, to make things Really Safe for us all. But, manpower would be too difficult. No, wait, I got it-- We could all help out, every Sunday afternoon we all go our neighbor's houses and search them, that way the police wouldn't have to. Maybe volunteer committees would be formed to go around communities and randomly break into homes, to make sure nothing illegal is going on. I mean, if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about, and there are so many terrorists (not to mention serial killers and liberals) hiding in American residences, it wouldn't be unreasonable. Really, it would be unreasonable not to search everything and everyone, all of the time... in the name of Public Protection.

bye bye 4th amendment. it was good to know you.

paul

Oh, Sarcasm, I get it.

 

[KingSleaze]

Uh, no. They are required to get consent, which can be in the form of implied-consent... Which could include, getting out of the vehicle if the officer asks you to "please step out of the vehicle". They will never, never never ask you if they can search. They don't need to. You'll cooperate your way into implied consent before you know it.

It's not about who has what illegal thing. It's about who has the authority to strip us of our constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of privacy.

paul

Yes, they are required to ask-it's about privacy.

 

[KingSleaze]

Terms and Conditions for Use.

You may take this flight (but you may not take a weapon on board with you). This doesn't prohibit you from bearing arms. Amendment II

You may say anything you want to (except shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Does this abridge your freedom of speech? Amendment I

Once again, statement of obvious, since the "terrorists" have put bombs on trains and planes-it is not unreasonable for it to be tried again. If a brief inspection MIGHT prevent it, it is not an "unreasonable" search. If it's a random search (instead of everybody), yes, the determined terrorist might get through uninspected-not a chance many would like to take. Regarding the Israelis, they don't have enough police to keep one posted at every bus stop all the time, the suicide bomber goes to where there isn't one. A random bag inpection has a more reasonable chance of deterring a terrorist attack, than a rock has of preventing a tiger attack. Reasonable. Amendment IV

Detainees have been found in areas of terrorist training camps. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia." Militia referring to a body of citizens organized for military service. Terrorist detainees (not specified if US citizen in the dictionary) do fall into this catagory. Amendment V

and on and on.

Yes, the terrorists have won by making us change. Before those attacks, it was "unthinkable". It got thought. Back to the Preamble of the Constitution " establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". We have to change. For if we don't, we have failed, and have no posterity.

 

[caveman_uk]

So if you are on a public street, you would agree that your person could be searched for no reason? You're only safe from searches in your own home, is that what I'm hearing?

Actually in the UK you can be stopped and searched by the police in the street. Legally they can only do it if they have reason to believe you're involved in a crime - either in the past, present or future. It's a bit vague and pretty much gives the police carte blanche to do what they want. Having said that I've never been searched on the street.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

It's popular to say you're "proud to be an American" these days. Well, I'm not. Not anymore. What's happened to this country makes me sick to my stomach. 9/11 was a tragedy, but what has happened since is a million times worse. Do you know what the greatest victory al Qaeda has ever won is? Making us in to this. Killing 3000 people was nothing. They've made 260 million people agree to give up their rights, their freedoms, their sense of justice and of what's right, all in the name of safety. Why are people even proud to be Americans? I'm not proud of the fact that we have a lot of money, or the biggest guns. I used to be proud of the fact that we were a free nation, a nation that cared about civil rights, freedom, and human dignity. I'm not surprised that the government doesn't care about those things anymore, because governments never do - regardless of whether they are republican or democratic, liberal or conservative. What does surprise me is that you all, the people, the American people, don't care about these things anymore. You say you do, but you don't. You care about safety, not freedom, security, not human rights, defense, not justice.

You are right the terrorists have already won.

A point about 9/11 and our response to it. Not to diminish the loss of life that day. Tapes showed surprise by Bin Laden at the collapse of the WTC towers. Even WTC security staff and various office managers ordered employees to stay in their offices. What would have been the nations response if we had lost only 500 to 1000 that day at the WTC? And the WTC still stood today, being reconstructed?

It is funny how history seems to repeat itself. Circumstances are different, yet the people are wanting to hear the right message, not fully understanding what is being given up. People are waving their flags, not fully understanding what meaning is behind that flag. They are singing the National Anthem, not understanding the meaning behind it.

You are right that people are more concerned about safety, security, and defense. For they have forgotten that all of these had been made possible for over the past 200 years by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I'm not surprised that the government doesn't care about those things anymore, because governments never do - regardless of whether they are republican or democratic, liberal or conservative.

Here you and I depart a little. I am more afraid of some members of the Republican Party, than the Democratic Party. It started with Nixon's use of power for his "enemies list". And when Democrats tried to temper the current restriction to rights, they were dismissed.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

soc7777777,

You say that your life hasn't changed since 9/11. Well, that's very lucky for you. But let me leave you with one more quote.

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me."
-Pastor Martin Niemöller

Now I'm not saying this country has become Nazi Germnay. But if this is allowed to continue - if we are silent and accept what is happening all around us - this WILL come to my door, and WILL come to yours.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

Thank you for posting this, you beat me to it. I was really thinking of it when i wrote my response to you this morning. And my reference to repeating history was a reference to Nazi Germany. Like you, I don't think that the US has become like Nazi Germany, yet.

What some forget is that Germany did not become Nazi Germany overnight. It was a relatively slow political process. All it took was to speak to the need for safety, security, and defense; but mostly to their fears.

Today people are responding to the sirens call for tax cuts. Never mind there are not spending cuts to support it. They are responding to the sirens call for their safety from terrorists. Never mind the roots on what this nation were based on are being chipped away. They are responding to the sirens call that there are those that want to destroy the fabric of the nation by wanting the legal rights of a civil marriage, even though they are the same sex. Never mind some are trying to force their religious beliefs on to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You can see that we are closer to past history than we would like to think.

 

[mouchoir]

A large group of terrorists purchase handguns and rifles, they go to all corners of this nation and kill 1,000 to 2,000 people before SWAT teams take them out. Do we then eliminate the right to firearm ownership in the US? Do we require mandatory registration and surprise inspections of your home and property to inspect those weapons? This right is given to us by the Second Amendment.

What is to stop a person from being detained for having printed materials that support the fundamentalist thoughts of Islam? Or a book supporting a state's succession from the Union? Where do we draw the line? Aren't people with such material a potential threat?

The Constitution and the Bills of Rights are not something that you can choose parts to follow or not.

The second amendment... Now nearly all the Native Americans have been wiped out and most of you have no wolves or bears to worry about, the only reason you need arms are to protect you from each other.

I think some of the ammendments are very important but this is one right you could do without. You need a gun in your home to protect yourself from the other guy with a right to own a gun.

Occasionally, it might not be such a bad idea to go against the founding fathers?

I do agree though that your privacy should be protected at all costs and should not be given up, ever.

 

[jsw]

The second amendment... Now nearly all the Native Americans have been wiped out and most of you have no wolves or bears to worry about, the only reason you need arms are to protect you from each other.

I think some of the ammendments are very important but this is one right you could do without. You need a gun in your home to protect yourself from the other guy with a right to own a gun.

Occasionally, it might not be such a bad idea to go against the founding fathers?

I do agree though that your privacy should be protected at all costs and should not be given up, ever.

Agreed.

My brothers and dad are big NRA types. I disagree with them. I don't have any problem with people owning rifles for hunting. I think that, with proper background checks and registration, people should be allowed to own handguns. Maybe. But I don't think the 2nd Amendment was written with anything like today's world in mind. I do think it'd be fine for anyone to keep a 1770's-era musket around the house, though. Sort of cuts down on those crimes of passion when you have to put so much effort into loading them . Also harder to get mugged unexpectedly by a musket-toting punk. "Is that musket in your pocket, or are you just extraordinarily happy to see me?"

My wife works in a hospital and sees too many GSWs. So I don't see the benefit of it.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems like a bit of an effort to imply that this means you should be able to carry semi-automatic handguns. Seems more in line with "people should have rifles in their homes" if anything. Remember, this was written a long time ago in terms of firearm development.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

The second amendment... Now nearly all the Native Americans have been wiped out and most of you have no wolves or bears to worry about, the only reason you need arms are to protect you from each other.

I think some of the ammendments are very important but this is one right you could do without. You need a gun in your home to protect yourself from the other guy with a right to own a gun.

Occasionally, it might not be such a bad idea to go against the founding fathers?

I do agree though that your privacy should be protected at all costs and should not be given up, ever.

Not to take this totally OT; but want to expand a little on the Second Amendment.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What our Forefathers had in mind, not universally accepted today, is gun ownership for a "well regulated militia". Today the function is served by the National Guard. It was not as you portray as protection against the wildlife. It could be argued that Native Americans were perceived as a threat, to be protected against by the "well regulated militia".

We do enjoy a document that is not static. Hence the ability to amend the Constitution. What is surprising to some of us here in the states just what we are willing to keep, verses are willing to give up.

 

[jsw]

We do enjoy a document that is not static. Hence the ability to amend the Constitution. What is surprising to some of us here in the states just what we are willing to keep, verses are willing to give up.

Yeah, it's a bit off-putting that privacy seems to be less important than the right to own lethal weapons.

 

[mouchoir]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That's a good point Chip NoVaMac.

Let's hope terrorists don't take the second then eh...

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

That's a good point Chip NoVaMac.

Let's hope terrorists don't take the second then eh...

You actually hit on a topic of terrorism. And that they have no real country or standing army. As such it is impossible to "fight a war on terrorism". You can take and attack the bases that they have. You can try to take steps to prevent their attacks. But you cannot stop them.

You can't negotiate with them, since they have as many different ideas as they have cells planning attacks. We can look at some of the basic root causes of the global domination on world politics by the US as being one cause. The selective nature of who we support and don't.

If they did take the "second", then we might have a chance of winning this "war".

 

[MongoTheGeek]

Yeah, it's a bit off-putting that privacy seems to be less important than the right to own lethal weapons.

Your privacy in public?

 

[QCassidy352]

we shouldnt scream bloody murder when we think that the takine of right A will lead to the taking of right B which we care about.. those who care about right A should scream when right A is taken away... and those who are fine with giving up right A but care about right B should scream when right B is taken away... (this is assuming that giving up right A is less severe then giving up right B)....

Well, I have to disagree there. The law works is often based on precedents. If you say, "I didn't care about that right, but I like this one - so you can't take it," your protest is based on nothing but your own preferences. My protest, on the other hand, is based on a precedent of natural rights that has moral and historical power going back from today to the post civil-war amendments, to the bill of rights, to the Declaration of Independence, to John Locke, and even to the Magna Carta. I would submit that mine is the much stronger protest.

Further, if we do it your way, the only rights that will be defended are those favored by the majority. The entire point of the Bill of Rights was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If I want the rights that I care about protected, I better stand up for the rights that you care about, and vice-versa - because neither of us is strong enough to guarantee our rights by ourselves. It's only when we all say that no one's rights can be taken that any rights will be safe.

Once again, statement of obvious, since the "terrorists" have put bombs on trains and planes-it is not unreasonable for it to be tried again. If a brief inspection MIGHT prevent it, it is not an "unreasonable" search. If it's a random search (instead of everybody), yes, the determined terrorist might get through uninspected-not a chance many would like to take. Regarding the Israelis, they don't have enough police to keep one posted at every bus stop all the time, the suicide bomber goes to where there isn't one. A random bag inpection has a more reasonable chance of deterring a terrorist attack, than a rock has of preventing a tiger attack. Reasonable. Amendment IV

First, these searches may have more chance of stopping a terrorist than a rock has of stopping a tiger, but not by much - if at all. If I were a terrorist, these stops could only stop me in one way - if they made me fall over laughing.
Second, random searches of homes MIGHT prevent domestic violence. So I'll ask again - is it Ok if the police come in to your home at any time?
Third, "reasonable" has a legal meaning with regard to searches, as defined by the Supreme Court. A search is "reasonable" when it is conducted based on the suspicion that a person is doing something illegal - and that suspicion must in turn be based on suspicious behavior by the suspect. It is a mistake to assume an everyday meaning of "reasonable" in this case because the Supreme Court has already defined it otherwise.

Detainees have been found in areas of terrorist training camps. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia." Militia referring to a body of citizens organized for military service. Terrorist detainees (not specified if US citizen in the dictionary) do fall into this catagory. Amendment V

Well, they are either protected under the 14th Amendment ("nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - the court has extended this to the federal government as well, so "state" isn't a loophole. And this portion of the amendment makes no reference to "citizens," only to "persons") or by the Geneva Convention.
http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm
So the detainments are either a violation of the Constitution or International Law, depending on what term you want to use to define the detainees. Take your pick.

Yes, the terrorists have won by making us change. Before those attacks, it was "unthinkable". It got thought.

Um, what? This same terrorist group tried to blow up the same building 8 years earlier. The only reason they failed was that they placed the bomb wrong. They don't hate the US more, and they don't have bolder plans; they just implemented their plan more effectively. So no, it was not "unthinkable."

Here you and I depart a little. I am more afraid of some members of the Republican Party, than the Democratic Party. It started with Nixon's use of power for his "enemies list". And when Democrats tried to temper the current restriction to rights, they were dismissed.

actually, I agree with you. I was just trying to keep this from being a political debate, split along party lines.

What some forget is that Germany did not become Nazi Germany overnight. It was a relatively slow political process. All it took was to speak to the need for safety, security, and defense; but mostly to their fears.

I quite agree with you here. That is why current events are so scary. Thanks for pointing that out.

Occasionally, it might not be such a bad idea to go against the founding fathers?

Absolutely! But there's a way to do that - it's called amending the Constitution - not ignoring it.

Your privacy in public?

So if you were strip searched in public, that would be Ok? Because you are only entitled to privacy in your own home? Is that what you're implying?

 

[jsw]

Your privacy in public?

Yes.

"Public" is geting more and more pervasive.

 

[BOSOX78250]

If searching my bag helps keep me, my children, and my fellow man safe....

SEARCH ON BABY!!!

I don't have anything in my bag that I am bashful about. What's the big deal????????