Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The founders wrote the 4th Amendment precisely to prevent the government from arbitrarily declaring that a search is reasonable because of some vague "increased threat level. A search must meet a standard of reasonable, including, as the amendment states, "particularly describing the place to be searched".
The courts have also repeatedly ruled that "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" includes the right of the people to move their person and their goods from place to place freely and without hindrance. If a police officer stops you while walking down a public street, he has no right to detain you without probable cause. You are free to just walk away.
If you are walking down the street with a backpack, and a cop stops you and asks what in the pack, you have a right to say "I'm sorry, I don't have time to talk to you right now" and just keep walking. If the cop insists, you have a right to say "Am I being detained, and if so, for what probable cause?"
If you think such a search is NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment, at what point would it become a violation?
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you on this. I've stated my opinion and explained why I think that way.
That's absurd.
Walking down the sidewalk and being accosted by cops that demand to see what's in your pockets is simply NOT the same as a security guard checking your bags before you enter something like a subway car.
I'd call it an Apples & Oranges comparison, but it's not even that close.
There is no provision in the fourth amendment that allows for random searches or "common sense" searches:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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 searched.
There is also no provision that prohibits it.
Here's what too many people refuse to admit: We always trade rights for privileges.
IF you want the privilege of riding the subway, you trade your right to be left alone and not have your bags searched. If you don't want to have your stuff looked through, you have the CHOICE to not ride the subway.
IF you want to fly somewhere on a commercial plane, you trade your right to be left alone and not have your bags searched. If you don't want to have your stuff looked through, you have the CHOICE to not fly.
Here's what too many people refuse to admit: We always trade rights for privileges.
IF you want the privilege of riding the subway, you trade your right to be left alone and not have your bags searched. If you don't want to have your stuff looked through, you have the CHOICE to not ride the subway.
IF you want to fly somewhere on a commercial plane, you trade your right to be left alone and not have your bags searched. If you don't want to have your stuff looked through, you have the CHOICE to not fly.
The list goes on and on and on...
Actually the fourth amendment does prohibit it. The amendment states that a warrant has to be issued describing the specific place and people to be searched.
You seem to be sorely mistaken about what privelege means. A privelege is a type of right. Trading in your rights for certain priveleges is a situation that the founding fathers of this country were trying to escape. What you described in your above post runs completely contrary to the ninth amendment:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Rights afforded by the constitution are not conditional. They are not traded in for priveleges. This idealogy is the bedrock of the Constitution of the USA and one of the main reason why the War of Independence was fought against the British crown. It is amazing that an American citizen actually thinks that rights provided by the Constitution are negotiable and/or relative. Sad indeed.
Actually the fourth amendment does prohibit it. The amendment states that a warrant has to be issued describing the specific place and people to be searched.
You seem to be sorely mistaken about what privelege means. A privelege is a type of right. Trading in your rights for certain priveleges is a situation that the founding fathers of this country were trying to escape. What you described in your above post runs completely contrary to the ninth amendment.
Tell ya what, buddy.
Go to the airport and try to board a plane bound for London. Refuse to show them your ID and Passport. Refuse to let them "wand" you. Refuse to let them look at any of your luggage.
If they don't just smile and say, "Sure, go ahead!" be sure to launch into a loud diatribe about your 4th Amendment Rights.
Then get back with me about how that worked for you.
Go to the airport and try to board a plane bound for London. Refuse to show them your ID and Passport. Refuse to let them "wand" you. Refuse to let them look at any of your luggage.
If they don't just smile and say, "Sure, go ahead!" be sure to launch into a loud diatribe about your 4th Amendment Rights.
Then get back with me about how that worked for you.
Passing a metal detector over someones body and looking at an X-ray of thier bag is not a violation of the fourth amendment. Refusing somebody entry on PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION because they will not open their bag and only because some politician changed the threat color code is.
Passing a metal detector over someones body and looking at an X-ray of thier bag is not a violation of the fourth amendment. Refusing somebody entry on PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION because they will not open their bag and only because some politician changed the threat color code is.
Let me guess: You watch Fox News, right?
You can skip your petty, childish little Fox News comment. All that shows is that you have nothing worth saying, so you resort to nonsense like that. It makes a fool of YOU.
Now... Let's rethink what you wrote in your first paragraph. Are you going to try to say that X-Raying luggage is any LESS invasive than opening it and looking through it?
And are you going to try to argue that commercial airliners are NOT public transportation, while the subway IS?
Here's the deal: You do not own either a commercial airliner or a subway train. In order to enjoy the PRIVILEGE of boarding either of them, you have to do what is required. If that means paying $50, you either pay or you don't board. If that means having your luggage checked, you either have your luggage checked or you don't board. Neither has anything to do with the 4th Amendment.
...and by the way, I never watch Fox News. But how was Keith Olbermann last night?
Technically yes, they have caused terror. Though they also have caused the hardship and death of the very people many are trying to revenge and right social injustice for, like a virus consuming its host killing both.
First of all, I was in the WTC on 9/11 and then returned there to work for a few years, and while I see some change, it isn't all THAT drastic. I've flown a number of times--I enjoy it far more than I did before 9/11 since I no longer have a fear of death, and I didn't find airport security all that onerous.
Where the heck were you that you could get into a government building-or pretty much any corporate building--without ID before 9/11? Since 1993 most buildings had upgraded their security, at least in the NY metro area. Geez, at the WTC you couldn't get a pizza delivered upstairs--you had to go down 80 floors or whatever to pick it up from the guy.
Yes, security cameras have definitely increased. In some places, they were already there. You couldn't scratch your ***** at the WTC without being on camera before 9/11, either. Fat lot of good that did, huh?
As for the site restrictions, that is just sad, but necessary. The results of risk assessments, blast analyses, etc., all have to be taken into consideration now from a "what would I do if I were a terrorist" perspective.
The Patriot Act isn't necessarily bad if it's not abused. Good luck with that.
Won't even go into the wars--that's a whole animal unto itself.
.................................................. .................................................
Even if one feels "more secure" because of all the hassle getting on an airplane these days this still neglects the cost. The budget for TSA is over a $1 billion a year. I would say this is a direct outgrowth of 9/11.
You "won't into wars" You do realize the war in Afghanistan is a direct outgrowth of what happened don't you? If that costs $300 billion it is attributable to 9/11. Some Bush supporters claim the Iraq War resulted from the Twin Tower bombing. Others claim it has no connection. Whether it did or not, the cost still adds up daily and right now is at about $1 trillion.
Whether these things had to be done or not, the point is that they were done. When I measure the loss of liberty, loss of life, and loss of resources are country sustained, I think, unfortunately, the terrorists came out on top.
I suspect in Osama Bin Laden's most bloodthirsty fantasies that he never imagined he would destroy the whole USA. Germany and Japan couldn't do it during WWII.
What he did succeed in doing was cause millions of people to go into a blind panic. That panic resulted in expensive security measures and in laws that a large segment of the public finds disfavor with. He succeeded in causing us to send our armed forces overseas. He succeeded in getting us to spend billions on security measures. He created delay and disruption in the lives of virtually all of us. Millions of people have to now get passports to make daytrips to Canada or Mexico. An entire government agency was created because of him.
No, America hasn't been destroyed, nor will it be destroyed. However, the way we live has been seriously affected. For a ragtag bunch of losers in the Middleast to accomplish this is, sadly, a victory for them.
No, America hasn't been destroyed, nor will it be destroyed. However, the way we live has been seriously affected. For a ragtag bunch of losers in the Middleast to accomplish this is, sadly, a victory for them.
Fair points.
I would argue, though, that they way we live has not really been seriously affected. But I suppose that depends on your definition of "seriously."
And I think it'd be hard to Al Queda to claim much of a victory, considering how many tens of thousands of them have been killed. Of course, I know they have a different view of what victory means...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
