hey buddy read the rest of the thread.. its been stated several times already that the searches and security are now government/federally regulated..
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I don't think your comments are asinine at all, and I agree that it probably makes sense to profile in this instance. All of our intelligence on this subject tends to show that the likely candidates for a hijacking are young to middle-aged Arab men, pretty much in every instance. To me it seems silly to randomly stop aging widowers and children when everything we know points to a particular group.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,352
- 19,527
- 146
Again, not all Supreme Court decisions are correct. You acknowledge this, then dismiss it. Curious.
Again, I see no travel exceptions to the 4th Amendment. My property becomes no less mine, no less private, when I travel.
Were it the airlines doing this, than I'd agree with you. However, it's not. It's the government.
I object to searches without probable cause, and without a warrant. Every right in the the Bill of Rights is an indivudual right, and therefore "selfish." Nice try, but our rights are, by definition "individual" and therefore "selfish." We are a nation founded on "selfish" individual liberties, and not altruistic collectivism.
I don't own a biker wallet.
No, just inalienable rights.
Not without probable cause, conviction of a crime, or presenting a clear danger (back to probable cause again).
Where have I said I'm against any and all government? I am not an anarchist. Please try to get it right here.
Because they have no probable cause, and no warrant. Without limits to government power, we have the polar opposite of the lawlessness you fear, which isn't pretty either.
Tell me, please explain, without resorting to court findings as validation, just where the travel/car/buggy exception is in the 4th Amendment? Please explain how the 4th could possibly apply only to my home (as it seems to today)?
Circlenaut
Platinum Member
- Mar 22, 2001
- 2,175
- 5
- 81
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,352
- 19,527
- 146
Can you tell me how "probable cause" became "simply existing" or "wanting to travel?"
That the simple act of traveling has become probable cause for a search doesn't disturb you at all? Read the entire Amendment. "Reasonable" refers to searching only that which the probable cause requires.
The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
I see NO NONE, NADA allowance for random, arbitrary searches here. Unless, of course, you now believe that the simple act of flying creates probable cause.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
You are obviously being deliberately opaque - the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means when applied to particular cases. Supreme Court cases are what define the parameters of the Constitution, and, in this instance, what is an "unreasonable" search. I am not going to try to persuade you of anything, since your mind is obviously made up, and you have every right to your opinion, because (wait for it!) this is America.
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 34,778
- 1,952
- 126
I disagree with most in this thread. I'd rather die, today, on an airplane, from a terrorist bomber, than live in the world of "1984".
It's not so much the scanners, but the way they are done. Selectively scan. An 80 woman isn't a suicide bomber. Neither is our local mayor. The middle-eastern dude in the "Death to America" T-shirt? Pat *him* down.
Other things like the patriot act, the "spy on your neighbor" PSAs, those are what bug me the most. We're turning into the freaking Soviet Union here.
That's all, just my 2 cents. Flame away.
It's not so much the scanners, but the way they are done. Selectively scan. An 80 woman isn't a suicide bomber. Neither is our local mayor. The middle-eastern dude in the "Death to America" T-shirt? Pat *him* down.
Other things like the patriot act, the "spy on your neighbor" PSAs, those are what bug me the most. We're turning into the freaking Soviet Union here.
That's all, just my 2 cents. Flame away.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,352
- 19,527
- 146
The word you're looking for is obtuse. And I'm not. I'm asking you to validate your support of their position. To do so, you obviously cannot use their decision to validate itself.
Act as if the decision does not exist, and validate your position. Act as if YOU are the Supreme Court hearing this case, and reading the 4th Amendment and any other writings of our Founding Fathers, make a decision and explain it. Is that too much to ask?
If anyone is interested I figured out a method to possibly avoid the personal searches.
I was at a major airport recently on business and observed the following.
1) There was only one screener per gate.
2) He/She only searched one person at a time.
3) While searching one person he/she did not pull anybody else out of line.
Therefore, If you don't want to be searched simply wait until the plane is boarding all passengers and the screener pulls somebody aside. Then immediately get into the, hopefully, short line. By the time the screener finishes with that person you should be through the gate and on your way to your seat. Grant that this was on a domestic flight I don't know about International flights.
This should also answer any questions as to the effectiveness of the security. If I, a native born American with no terrorist motivations, can think up this method then we would have to assume that the terrorists can also. It goes without saying that the gate searches are not effective in eliminating a terrorist threat.
So why are we doing this? The answer my friends is political. The Federal screeners were implemented so that our government officials could show that they were doing something in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. That's it.
I don't object to being inconvienced if I know that the security measures are effective. In the case of airport security we have the technology to screen passengers and luggage without these pointless searches.
Oh, by the way. I am a Conservative and I'll gladly go on record as saying that we did not favor the legislation that put baggage screening in the hands of the federal government. Expanding government is a Liberal issue. Limited government is a conservative issue.
I was at a major airport recently on business and observed the following.
1) There was only one screener per gate.
2) He/She only searched one person at a time.
3) While searching one person he/she did not pull anybody else out of line.
Therefore, If you don't want to be searched simply wait until the plane is boarding all passengers and the screener pulls somebody aside. Then immediately get into the, hopefully, short line. By the time the screener finishes with that person you should be through the gate and on your way to your seat. Grant that this was on a domestic flight I don't know about International flights.
This should also answer any questions as to the effectiveness of the security. If I, a native born American with no terrorist motivations, can think up this method then we would have to assume that the terrorists can also. It goes without saying that the gate searches are not effective in eliminating a terrorist threat.
So why are we doing this? The answer my friends is political. The Federal screeners were implemented so that our government officials could show that they were doing something in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. That's it.
I don't object to being inconvienced if I know that the security measures are effective. In the case of airport security we have the technology to screen passengers and luggage without these pointless searches.
Oh, by the way. I am a Conservative and I'll gladly go on record as saying that we did not favor the legislation that put baggage screening in the hands of the federal government. Expanding government is a Liberal issue. Limited government is a conservative issue.
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,764
- 5,927
- 146
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
My friend, I'm afraid you're wrong about that. Once freedoms are taken away they're never returned w/o a show of force. That idiot Nixon declared a War on Drugs 30 years ago and we've been loosing freedoms ever since.
We're on a slippery slope toward a police state right now. First people don't have a problem with being searched at airports; now they don't have a problem with police sobriety roadblocks; soon there'll be no problem with house-to-house searches for contraband.
Hey maybe they'll go the extra mile and put everyone in the country under a 24-hour curfew and we'll only be allowed out to go to work/school. That'd sure keep us safe and out of trouble.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
My father's generation fought for our freedoms during WW II, and paid a hefty price. I have heard stories from uncles and my father, but the details are personal not appropriate to this forum.
They did not give their lives and sanity to see our country cower as it does today.
I see all the partisan squabbling in this thread, and it makes me sick, knowing just a little what my father endured on Iwo Jima, Siapan, Tinian, Roi-Namur.
The problem we face is a society of spineless baby boomers (Non Partisan!), who fear everything, and wish to legislate "SAFETY from all possible harm". Something terrible happens, and there is a cry and hue to try to prevent it from happening again.
This attitude drives the government to seek methods to wrap a protective cocoon around our people, without regard to rights and dignity.
Freedom is not free. There was a heck of a price paid for it along the way, and it is an ongoing lease. It will never be paid up.
Until our society gets a backbone, and accepts that things like Sept. 11 are not only possible, but likely, and don't amount to a blip on the scoreboard of suffering by americans throughout our history, we will be running and cowering, all too happy to give up our freedoms.
Once we give up a freedom, for any excuse, it does not return in full. There are always clever "caveats" that are thought to be acceptable "good ideas" , in light of the prior state of affairs.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
No, the word I was looking for was opaque, as in "obtuse of mind; dense."
Honestly I am probably a bit too steeped in Con Law, Crim Law, and Crim Pro to just pretend these decisions do not exist, but I think my line of reasoning would be as follows:
1) Airline travel is a popular means of travel, and conveys hundreds of thousands of travellers per day.
2) Commercial planes are a known means of transporting illegal drugs and other contraband.
3) Commercial planes are subject to hijacking and bombing, and even being flown into the sides of tall building by religious zealots. This leads to enormous loss of life, and huge economic impact.
4) It is, and should be, illegal to use planes to transport contraband, to bomb them, or to hijack them.
5) Airport searches, of finite duration and scope, may assist in preventing the activities enumerated in #4. They may uncover crimes in progress, as well as deterring offenders from committing these crimes.
6) The 4th Amendment bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures. This "wiggle word" (a term of art we lawyers use) gives me as a Justice some leeway to allow reasonable searches.
7) For all of the public policy reasons enumerated in #5, reasonably limited airport searches can and will be permitted.
One of the debating tactics that amuses me with great regularity is the what if scenario. What is a purple spotted green eyed fungiform was choking your Mother, would you just stand there and love it? (To be answered later 
)
So here's my what if:
What if we got word that somebody was going to carry onto a plane in his or her luggage an anti matter device that when detonated somewhere over the central US would destroy the entire us population and much of Mexico's and Canada?s to boot. Now all you freedom lovers who are so cavalier with your own lives, what relevance does freedom have if the place where you can be free is destroyed by the freedom.
What to do?
)So here's my what if:
What if we got word that somebody was going to carry onto a plane in his or her luggage an anti matter device that when detonated somewhere over the central US would destroy the entire us population and much of Mexico's and Canada?s to boot. Now all you freedom lovers who are so cavalier with your own lives, what relevance does freedom have if the place where you can be free is destroyed by the freedom.
What to do?
God I hope you aren't serious.
1) Homes are a popular place to dwell in.
2) People are known to do drugs in homes.
3) Homes are common place for terrorists to build bombs in.
4) It is illegal to do drugs or build bombs of mass destruction in your home
5) Searching home may reveal crimes in #4
6) Since I can wiggle the word it give justice some leeway to allow home searches
7) Your home will be searched in 30 minutes.
Don Vito, your argument is weak. That is all that can be said about it.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,352
- 19,527
- 146
Yes, it is.
Does this create probable cause for every person who chooses to fly?
Yes, but does this create probable cause for every person who chooses to fly?
I agree. But again, does this create probable cause to search everyone?
Yet the probable cause clause is being violated.
"unreasonable" applies to those searches done with probable cause. Can you please point out the probable cause for searching 90 year old ladies who wish to fly?
So, in other words, the 4th Amendment probable cause clause is disregarded to protect the public.
No matter how you stack it, arbitrary and random searches violate the probable cause rule. The greater good cannot come before individual rights, Don. Because then ANYTHING can be justified as being "for the greater good." The 4th amendment was written EXPRESSLY for preventing your validation in #5. Random searches are searches without probable cause, and therefore violate our 4th amendment rights.
I think old Ben said it best:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
You think safety validates running roughshod over our 4th amendment rights. I do not. You have your opinion, and I respect that. What I cannot respect is your claim that the practice is not a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
i say screw random searches, why doesn't the gov't just stick 3 U.S. marshalls carrying a firearm on every domestic flight.
but i am just naive, so please ignore me.
but i am just naive, so please ignore me.
What's the difference at that point? We can destroy the country ourselves out of fear, or allow the country to be destroyed.
Either way the country is destroyed.
I'd rather have at least died trying than died knowing I just gave up and cowered in fear.
Don't be silly, amused, you'd rather be dead than oppressed. Really. While I agree with your general sentiments and the principles, I don't share your, what I would describe as fanatical adherence to them. As an absolutist tempered by the recognition that absolutes are anchored in our natures and don't come from the sky, I think that all ultimate truth must ultimately stand a human test. Does this truth work in reality or does this truth lead to extinction. I take it as an axiom that truth is more constructive and than that it lead to a recognizable self destruction. In other words there must be a certain pragmatism that goes into the application of principle on principle. Situational ethics of a kind, but ethics or ultimate truth based on what we really are, our true human hature which is our ground or absolute. So I would say that absolute absolutism is a form of tyrany that you are practicing on yourself so you are, in fact, already oppressed.
And what do you mean by oppression. Can a mind that is inwardly free be oppressed. I don't think so. Oppression and the feeling that one is oppressed is a state of mind. When the state changes, if the state changes the oppression disappears. Millions of people have had to live under oppression. They chose it over death. In a thousand years do you think people will look at our present stage of development and say, gee those were some enlightened people. I don't think so. I hope not. I hope the level of freedom, psychological freedom, that exists a thousand years from now will reveal us to be the Barbarians I believe we are.
I think part of the problem is that the founding fathers didn't live in a age where millions and even billions of people could die from a thimble full of spores created in a germ warfare lab. Our technological achievments have ourstripped our emotional development and our legal system. I think our survival will depend on the application of great judiciousness, careful thought, and freedom from forms templates and the absolutes of the past. It should not be impossible to search aircraft for concealed weapons designed to kill those in the plane just on some ivory tower ideal of probable cause.
We know that bombs are intentionally concealed in luggage. It isn't probable it's a fact. If you search luggage planes won't blow up for that reason. The people doing the searching can be just as good Americans as any body else. They cah love freedom just as much. They don't have to be the Nazis, they might just be people who love their country, its freedoms etc. The purpose of searching luggage can be to keep planes in the air, not to subvert and subjugate the human spirit. Our founding fathers would have searched people too if they were smuggling bombs into Congress and the White House, or anywhere else, for that matter.
In short, at the moment it's prudent to search luggage and take a look at who's flying. It's part on the human attempt to apply judgement to a situation and find resonable balance.
Until we get our chips that will track and analyze every move we make, it's the best we can do.
And what do you mean by oppression. Can a mind that is inwardly free be oppressed. I don't think so. Oppression and the feeling that one is oppressed is a state of mind. When the state changes, if the state changes the oppression disappears. Millions of people have had to live under oppression. They chose it over death. In a thousand years do you think people will look at our present stage of development and say, gee those were some enlightened people. I don't think so. I hope not. I hope the level of freedom, psychological freedom, that exists a thousand years from now will reveal us to be the Barbarians I believe we are.
I think part of the problem is that the founding fathers didn't live in a age where millions and even billions of people could die from a thimble full of spores created in a germ warfare lab. Our technological achievments have ourstripped our emotional development and our legal system. I think our survival will depend on the application of great judiciousness, careful thought, and freedom from forms templates and the absolutes of the past. It should not be impossible to search aircraft for concealed weapons designed to kill those in the plane just on some ivory tower ideal of probable cause.
We know that bombs are intentionally concealed in luggage. It isn't probable it's a fact. If you search luggage planes won't blow up for that reason. The people doing the searching can be just as good Americans as any body else. They cah love freedom just as much. They don't have to be the Nazis, they might just be people who love their country, its freedoms etc. The purpose of searching luggage can be to keep planes in the air, not to subvert and subjugate the human spirit. Our founding fathers would have searched people too if they were smuggling bombs into Congress and the White House, or anywhere else, for that matter.
In short, at the moment it's prudent to search luggage and take a look at who's flying. It's part on the human attempt to apply judgement to a situation and find resonable balance.
Until we get our chips that will track and analyze every move we make, it's the best we can do.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,352
- 19,527
- 146
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Don't be silly, amused, you'd rather be dead than oppressed. Really. While I agree with your general sentiments and the principles, I don't share your, what I would describe as fanatical adherence to them. As an absolutist tempered by the recognition that absolutes are anchored in our natures and don't come from the sky, I think that all ultimate truth must ultimately stand a human test. Does this truth work in reality or does this truth lead to extinction. I take it as an axiom that truth is more constructive and than that it lead to a recognizable self destruction. In other words there must be a certain pragmatism that goes into the application of principle on principle. Situational ethics of a kind, but ethics or ultimate truth based on what we really are, our true human hature which is our ground or absolute. So I would say that absolute absolutism is a form of tyrany that you are practicing on yourself so you are, in fact, already oppressed.
Do you always have to pad the hell out of what you are attempting to say, Moonie?
Yes, I would risk my life to secure or obtain freedom. I would rather die fighting for my freedom, than live cowering under oppression.
Millions have died fighting for their, and your freedom, Moonie. It's nice that you ignore them.
Yes, a free mind can be oppressed. They are all the time.
Moonie, the "technology has changed, therefore the central ideas of individual freedom are void" argument is an old and tired one.
A search, ANY SEARCH, must require probable cause. Without this we open ourselves up to wide scale government abuse. That the danger may be greater does not change a thing.
Again, without probable cause to make them suspect I have a bomb, they have no right to search me or my belongings. If you'd like to change the 4th amendment, by all means try and have it amended. However, to disregard it to give you this arbitrary system and laughable false sense of security sets another dangerous precident. It means that all the amendments aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Hardly. We know who, and what the danger is. Arbitraily searching 90 year old ladies is not protecting a damn thing. Nor is living in fear and offering up our rights in vain attempts to be safe.
Until we get our chips that will track and analyze every move we make, it's the best we can do.
This is exactly where we're headed.
Do I always have to pad what I'm saying. Well I invite you to say what I said in your own words.
I think I said you are already oppressed and go on living, so pardon me if I suspect your claim. I see no reason, either, why you would be any different than the millions who have LIVED under oppression. People die for freedom only when they have an opportunity to do so. One meaning of oppression is that such a means is not available. In our slow tortured march to the chip that you've predicted is our fate, what do you plan to do, commit suicide, or shoot somebody? Where is the war, the battle you plan to fight in. We die not by assault but by inches.
If my argument of changed circumstance, which I flushed out with some detail, is an old and tired one, be so good as to show why. Old and tired doesn't cut it. Calling something old and tired is an old and tired technique. It doesn't cut it. Sorry. And besides if changed circumstance is not a valid reason to change horses midstream, then the old tired arguments are the good ones, the right ones, the ones that have always been right and must not change with circumstance.
You go right back to your probable cause argument ignoring the fact that the cause, not the probable cause of many exploding aircraft is bombs in the luggage, etc. If you tried to board with a bag that said, Lawrence Livermore Suitcase Munitions Lab, would there be probable cause. How about if a fuse is hanging out. How about if you said 'its unconstitutional to search my bags so none of you know if you're going to die'. How about an ordinary suitcase but you got a go funny eye. So few plains are sabotaged of the number that fly that the probability is almost nil that any carries a bomb. A thorough search of all luggage, etc would eliminate altogether, any probability that anybody would try to smuggle one on board. So does a thorough search automatically become unconstitutional because it eliminates probability all together. I think you are just too ridged and I think it's because, as you said we know the enemy. But do we?
You fear the government, government power, government evil. You are a Libertarian. You maybe didn't test 100% one like I did, but somewhere up there. Well the problem with that is that it isn't the government that's the problem, it's people in the government. But people in or out of government are the same. Corporations go bad, churches go bad, governments go bad, families go bad, anything with people in it can go bad. The real subject isn't dangers of the government, but the dangers associated with being human. There is no safety anywhere. Not in big government or small government. It's people that are dangerous and there are a lot of them. None of your formulas will work because the only war is the one to make people better. That can only happen through self understanding.
By the way, when I get by little brain implant nanobots finished and am ready to take over the world I will be flying all over on Libertarian Airlines. Wouldn't want my luggage searched and my little plan to implant everybody with the tattle tale nanny state chip to be aborted in a luggage check.
Well I invite you to say what I said in your own words. I think I said you are already oppressed and go on living, so pardon me if I suspect your claim. I see no reason, either, why you would be any different than the millions who have LIVED under oppression. People die for freedom only when they have an opportunity to do so. One meaning of oppression is that such a means is not available. In our slow tortured march to the chip that you've predicted is our fate, what do you plan to do, commit suicide, or shoot somebody? Where is the war, the battle you plan to fight in. We die not by assault but by inches.
If my argument of changed circumstance, which I flushed out with some detail, is an old and tired one, be so good as to show why. Old and tired doesn't cut it. Calling something old and tired is an old and tired technique. It doesn't cut it. Sorry. And besides if changed circumstance is not a valid reason to change horses midstream, then the old tired arguments are the good ones, the right ones, the ones that have always been right and must not change with circumstance.
You go right back to your probable cause argument ignoring the fact that the cause, not the probable cause of many exploding aircraft is bombs in the luggage, etc. If you tried to board with a bag that said, Lawrence Livermore Suitcase Munitions Lab, would there be probable cause. How about if a fuse is hanging out. How about if you said 'its unconstitutional to search my bags so none of you know if you're going to die'. How about an ordinary suitcase but you got a go funny eye. So few plains are sabotaged of the number that fly that the probability is almost nil that any carries a bomb. A thorough search of all luggage, etc would eliminate altogether, any probability that anybody would try to smuggle one on board. So does a thorough search automatically become unconstitutional because it eliminates probability all together. I think you are just too ridged and I think it's because, as you said we know the enemy. But do we?
You fear the government, government power, government evil. You are a Libertarian. You maybe didn't test 100% one like I did, but somewhere up there.
Well the problem with that is that it isn't the government that's the problem, it's people in the government. But people in or out of government are the same. Corporations go bad, churches go bad, governments go bad, families go bad, anything with people in it can go bad. The real subject isn't dangers of the government, but the dangers associated with being human. There is no safety anywhere. Not in big government or small government. It's people that are dangerous and there are a lot of them. None of your formulas will work because the only war is the one to make people better. That can only happen through self understanding.By the way, when I get by little brain implant nanobots finished and am ready to take over the world I will be flying all over on Libertarian Airlines. Wouldn't want my luggage searched and my little plan to implant everybody with the tattle tale nanny state chip to be aborted in a luggage check.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,352
- 19,527
- 146
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Do I always have to pad what I'm saying.
I think I said you are already oppressed and go on living, so pardon me if I suspect your claim. I see no reason, either, why you would be any different than the millions who have LIVED under oppression. People die for freedom only when they have an opportunity to do so. One meaning of oppression is that such a means is not available. In our slow tortured march to the chip that you've predicted is our fate, what do you plan to do, commit suicide, or shoot somebody? Where is the war, the battle you plan to fight in. We die not by assault but by inches.
Yes, we do. Thanks for acknoledging the slippery slope exists. And yes, the battle for freedom is won in relatively short, violent bursts, while the road to oppression is long and incremental. Wow, what do you know, we agree.
My point is to OPPOSE those increments as they occur. Not to stand by twiddling my thumbs.
Moonie, your argument is ridiculous because it can be used to erode every human right there is. With individual liberty comes risk. Always has, always will.
Moonie, this argument can be used to violate all privacy. When arguing against probable cause, you argue against all privacy.
You fear the government, government power, government evil. You are a Libertarian. You maybe didn't test 100% one like I did, but somewhere up there.
Yes, Moonie. All people have the potential to go bad and harm or oppress others. But only a government has the unlimited power to enforce it. Therefore a government who's sole purpose it is to guarantee individual rights is needed to keep the strongest from violating those rights, but must also check itself as well
The problem is, that once a government has stopped these violations, it must stand down. If not, it becomes the bully it was created to stop.
Okey Dokie.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter