Court rules NY police can search bags at subways....

[PokerPacker]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...

Let us not forget that little part. :laugh:

i think you forgot the rest of the amendment in there. you might as well post that in the "taken out of context" thread.

[Larry]

My, aren't you a walking talking cliché! Let me explain this "victory" thing to you. When we were engaged in fighting in WWII, it impacted the lifestyle of everyone in the country, while we were fighting the war. Then we won. And when I way we won, I mean that most of the enemy was killed and the rest surrendered unconditionally. After that, there was a return to normalcy.

And that is guaranteed to never happen in this "war".

So please explain to me the difference between "temporarily" ignoring the Constitution, and, say, a "temporary" tax.

[Larry]

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, FDR interred a bunch of American citizens of Japanese descent. What is it that Bush is doing that's as bad or worse than either of those things?

And both of them were wrong.

(And anybody who points at those acts as justifications, is somebody who's trying to defend something that's wrong.)

[PokerPacker]

And that is guaranteed to never happen in this "war".

So please explain to me the difference between "temporarily" ignoring the Constitution, and, say, a "temporary" tax.

oh, i know. people will complain about one of them. but which one...:idea:...of course, the taxing.

[Teller]

No it's not your right to ride the subway - but it is your right to not be searched without proper cause or warrant and the subway last I checked was PUBLIC transportation. Like I said before Nelms, I'm cool with this for now - but your thinking is way too common these days. On the left and the right people treat the constitution of this country like it gets in the way of their better plan.

Serious question, Destino. Should we do away with security at airports? Afterall, it isn't "reasonable" to think most people are going to bring weapons when they fly. Or is it a risk-reward type of scenario? And what makes subways so explicitly different?

I do not in anyway support anything that's going to be used as an excuse not to get a warrant. However, if it's applied as the court intends (to ensure the safety of passengers) then I'm all for it. The problem, obviously, is how to make sure it's used correctly.

[fight_on_til_you_have_won]

Police state? :whoknows:

[Larry]

Serious question, Destino. Should we do away with security at airports? Afterall, it isn't "reasonable" to think most people are going to bring weapons when they fly. Or is it a risk-reward type of scenario? And what makes subways so explicitly different?

I'll touch that one.

(IMO: )

If the government is searching people as they get on an airplane, it's unconstitutional.

If the airline searches people (and tells people in advance that they'll be searched, before they buy a ticket), it's private enterprise.

If the search is conducted in the airport (as opposed to on the plane), then yeah, the search is taking place on public property. But to me, itmakes sense to argue that well, there isn't room on the airplane for an x-ray machine, and it's cheaper to have four machines for the airport than to have one for each gate.

(I'll admit: It's a rationalization that I've come up with, because I'm looking for a way to justify something that, rationally, can't possibly be justified under the Constitution.)

[luckydevil]

I'm cool with this for now - but your thinking is way too common these days.

What makes you think that the government is going to willingly give up this power when this war ends (could be decades)?

[PokerPacker]

What makes you think that the government is going to willingly give up this power when this war ends (could be decades)?

from what i know about government is that it loves to keep temporary powers.

[Teller]

I'll touch that one.

(IMO: )

If the government is searching people as they get on an airplane, it's unconstitutional.

If the airline searches people (and tells people in advance that they'll be searched, before they buy a ticket), it's private enterprise.

If the search is conducted in the airport (as opposed to on the plane), then yeah, the search is taking place on public property. But to me, itmakes sense to argue that well, there isn't room on the airplane for an x-ray machine, and it's cheaper to have four machines for the airport than to have one for each gate.

(I'll admit: It's a rationalization that I've come up with, because I'm looking for a way to justify something that, rationally, can't possibly be justified under the Constitution.)

So we should do away with the TSA? And really, doesn't the potential loss of thousands of lives make the x-raying of luggage reasonable? I think this whole debate revolves around our personal definition of the word "reasonable;" and being as far right and left as you and I are, I'm not holding my breath for a consensus.

[JimboDaMan]

"Temporary". Tee hee hee. "Temporary".

[Larry]

So we should do away with the TSA?

As I understand it, the TSA is about as "government" as, say, the Post Office.

At least the part that hires thousands of poorly-trained, surley people who can't be fired and think that playing dominance games with airline passengers is, AFAIK, strictly created for the purpose of acting as rent-a-cops for the airlines. (The airlines just don't want them to be wearing airline uniforms, because this way, when people inevitably get ticked at them, the airline can pretend that they're not airline employees.)

Again, to me, having the people doing the searches be government employees (on paper) is a case of "yeah, it's over the line, but I can live with it."

[luckydevil]

from what i know about government is that it loves to keep temporary powers.

Yep

EDIT:

The notion that Larry is far left is asinine.

[Teller]

Again, to me, having the people doing the searches be government employees (on paper) is a case of "yeah, it's over the line, but I can live with it."

Agreed.

[Destino]

Serious question, Destino. Should we do away with security at airports? Afterall, it isn't "reasonable" to think most people are going to bring weapons when they fly. Or is it a risk-reward type of scenario? And what makes subways so explicitly different?

I do not in anyway support anything that's going to be used as an excuse not to get a warrant. However, if it's applied as the court intends (to ensure the safety of passengers) then I'm all for it. The problem, obviously, is how to make sure it's used correctly.

No we shouldn't. Maybe you missed my earlier post where I said that because of the current situation this should be tolerated. I use the word tolerated on purpose, because this is something wrong that should be put up with because we need to right now, NOT accepted as being right and good. Allowing law enforcment to search citizens at will without cause is not good or right, it's flat out unamerican. Also the metro isn't being run like the airport where everyone goes through security and everyone knows going in what's expected.

The way it's used correctly is simple - as soon as this war ends, so does this policy. Make it clear that these types of powers are strictly to be temporary in nature and reviewed regulary. The problem is the government doesn't like to give anything back - look at the patriot act for example.

[PokerPacker]

damn patriot act. if anything, it should be UNpatriotic act.

[Section106]

Maybe it's time you actually read something with factual information and realize that there are times when current sacrifices are needed to prepare the future for not having to have sacrifices.

If you actually paid attention to real news reports instead of your anti-Bush, he is responsible for everything incling the weather in New Orleans b.s., you would know that several HUNDREDS of documents have been found, translate, and prove that Saddam did infact have many connections to AQ and OBL. Though there is no direct evidence saying that he, saddam, himself ever met with OBL, there is evidence that his son met with top AQ members atleast 4 times before 9/11, and phone records show that Iraqi officials spoke with high ranking members of AQ atleast on 2 seperate occasions afterward.

Get the idea through your head that we may have to sacrifice some of our Constitutional rights today so that we can survive, and then tomorrow we will still have a Constitution. Otherwise, I guess you can fight for having these rights though a temporary sacrifice would prevent more attacks and hundreds of thousands dying and ultimately losing the entire Constitution because the US no longer exsists.

Okay laughing boy, I'll bite. Have you seen these documents? Have you read these documents? Has the government produced one single WMD? Are you watching too much Fox and Friends? Can you provide a single link to this evidence?

And where I have I responded about Bush and the weather? Let's confine our debate to the facts at hand. Bush lied to get his war with Saddam. This cabal of neo-cons have wanted this war since the early 90's. I'll offer anything written by the Project for the New American Century as my proof. I bet you've never heard of that outfit though.

The President of the USA, GW Bush himself has said on national TV that '"we have no evidence that Saddam was involved with the 9/11" attacks.

The tenous innuendo that passes for evidence in the minds of Reeps these days is baffling. Not one American soldier's life is worth wasting over toppling Saddam and the subsequent occupation of Iraq.

And if Saddam and his sons were so bad because they had a meeting with OBL then why hasn't OBL been dealt with? The criminal is still out there. Bush said, "You know, Nora, I just don't spend that much time on him" when asked by Nora O'Donnell about the hunt for OBL.

Why are you not mad as heck that the man responsible for all this mess is out there plotting and directing AQ while Bushco waste American blood and treasure enriching Bechtel, Halliburton, and KBR? We've created a Shiite theocracy in Iraq that is sympathetic to Iran for Christ sakes. This is the brilliant foriegn policy of Bush? Are you kidding me?

There is no way we should sacrifice any one freedom for security. Isn't it the line of the administration that the terrorists hate our freedoms? Is Bush trying to placate the terrorists by stripping us of all those freedoms?

3,000 people died on 9/11. But 30,000 Americans die every year from the pollution caused by coal fired power plants. And Bush has relaxed those standards. If we're concerned about American lives then why not clean up the pollution, commit to solving or minimizing global warming, insure all Americans, start an Apollo project to get us off Middle Eastern oil, work to save and strengthen the middle class, work to eradicate food insecurity and homelessness, create jobs to elevate people out of poverty, etc...

This war is a sham and I shouldn't have to give up my rights and freedoms. If Bush caught OBL and destroyed AQ in the first place we wouldn't have to have this conversation. The Reeps are using this like they use abortion and gay marriage, to scare you into giving them more and more power.

[Section106]

...Get the idea through your head that we may have to sacrifice some of our Constitutional rights today so that we can survive, and then tomorrow we will still have a Constitution. Otherwise, I guess you can fight for having these rights though a temporary sacrifice would prevent more attacks and hundreds of thousands dying and ultimately losing the entire Constitution because the US no longer exsists...

I just have to say that I can't let this liitle piece of cowardice go. Taylor 36, you are a coward. If you seriously think some non-state, amorphous terrorist organization will destroy America then do us all a favor and turn in your voter registration card. Grow a pair and stand up for your rights. Our fore fathers fought and died so that no one could take away their freedom. Why would you so easily give up your freedoms in the face of so little a threat?

And I'm still waiting for the links of those news reports that disprove the 9/11 Commision, the Duelfer Report, and the President's own words.

[twa]

Section 106, perhaps you can tell me the solution besides throwing W under a bus? :laugh:

[Section106]

Section 106, perhaps you can tell me the solution besides throwing W under a bus? :laugh:

George Will just told us the answer when he said, "John Kerry was right when he said that the war on terror is 'primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires co-operation around the world'". If we investigate and arrest those that would do us harm and break international law then we have removed the threat, preserved justice, upheld peace and fostered good will with those countries that would harbor anti-American sentiment and terrorists based upon our current foriegn policy. Attacking Iraq without provocation or justification, other then the misguided political theories of Francis Fukiyama, and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is actually creating more terrorists while OBL plots more attacks. The answer is do solid police work and promote peace.

Its now 5 years since the 9/11 attacks. Do we have enough Arabic translators to actually make sense of all those calls the NSA is intercepting? No. The Defense Dept has actually fired scores of translators because they are gay.

5 years after 9/11 and Bush has spent the last year quietly diverting 6 million from developing new explosive detection equipment even though the administration knew of the threat of liquid explosives.

The answer is simple. Rescind the Bush tax cut so that the gov't actually has enough money to hire and properly train TSA agents, give them the latest tools to actually do the job, secure our ports, secure our borders, re-engage in diplomacy to win back our friends and lessen tensions with our enemies, and (most importantly) replace our troops in Iraq with an international police force.

[twa]

George Will just told us the answer when he said, "John Kerry was right when he said that the war on terror is 'primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires co-operation around the world'".

That might be feasible IF we had co-operation

Do you think Iran,N Korea,Syria or even the Saudi's and Pakistan would fully co-operate? :laugh:

If we investigate and arrest those that would do us harm and break international law then we have removed the threat, preserved justice, upheld peace and fostered good will with those countries that would harbor anti-American sentiment and terrorists based upon our current foriegn policy.

Oh , I truly look forward to these magic trials...are you serious?

Attacking Iraq without provocation or justification, other then the misguided political theories of Francis Fukiyama, and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is actually creating more terrorists while OBL plots more attacks. The answer is do solid police work and promote peace.

Iraq was just minding thier own business and probably would be one of those countries helping us in our police actions ,right?...What color is the sky in your world?

Its now 5 years since the 9/11 attacks. Do we have enough Arabic translators to actually make sense of all those calls the NSA is intercepting? No. The Defense Dept has actually fired scores of translators because they are gay.

I actualy agree to some degree here,but the security clearances are a problem with many. My son is going thru a white level one now.

5 years after 9/11 and Bush has spent the last year quietly diverting 6 million from developing new explosive detection equipment even though the administration knew of the threat of liquid explosives.

The answer is simple. Rescind the Bush tax cut so that the gov't actually has enough money to hire and properly train TSA agents, give them the latest tools to actually do the job, secure our ports, secure our borders, re-engage in diplomacy to win back our friends and lessen tensions with our enemies, and (most importantly) replace our troops in Iraq with an international police force.

No matter how much we spend,security is a illusion when dealing with terrorists,it must be addressed where they are supported and train and the philosophy behind it.

As long as we engage in open borders and free trade there will be no way to totaly safeguard against attack. Just as capturing or killing OBL will not end terrorism.

What countries are going to supply this internatial police force? :laugh:

Though weren't you argueing against searches earlier?

[Section106]

No matter how much we spend,security is a illusion when dealing with terrorists,it must be addressed where they are supported and train and the philosophy behind it.

As long as we engage in open borders and free trade there will be no way to totaly safeguard against attack. Just as capturing or killing OBL will not end terrorism.

What countries are going to supply this internatial police force? :laugh:

Though weren't you argueing against searches earlier?

I was argueing against warrantless and random searches. If you investigate a suspected terrorist based upon evidence and obtain a subpoena based upon probable cause then arrest them and convict you've done what the Constituion says. You also forgo the necessity of letting a suspected terrorist free when you botch the investigation and refuse to follow the law. This has already happened because Bush cares not for the rule of law.

I find Bushco's contempt and laziness even more horrific given the FISA law as it is written. A secret court has been set up to grant subpoenas that require no evidence for 72 hours. We already have the tools. All this justification from Bushco is simply a power grab. They want to expand the Executive and get rid of the checks and balances that protect Americans from the abuses of absolute power.

If security is an illusion, as you say, then why forfeit any rights or freedoms to give the gov't unlimited albeit temporary power? Gov't doesn't forfeit power easily once it has it. And why trust Bushco to return or curb power when the administration has screwed up everthing it has touched? That is foolishness.

I was all for the invasion of Afganhistan. We had a clear goal and the support of the world. Had we totally crushed the Taliban and captured or killed OBL then you have seen the cessastion of Wahabi-ist Islam, at least outside of Saudi Arabia. Instead Bush has turned OBL into a prophet in that OBL said that America would attack an oil rich ME country without provocation. Bush and his neo-con buddies have actually engendered the very philosophy they claimed to want to destroy.

The multi-national force will come from the United Nations. Of course this will take meaningful diplomacy. We should start by removing Bolton immediately and then show the world that everyone has a stake in a stable ME.

Edit : I forgot to point out that the foiled terrorist plot in England was done by police. It was an investigative effort that relied on intelligence instead of fear, aggression, shock and awe, or military might.

And I think that those ME countries you named would like to talk to us if they felt we could be trusted to do what we say. I remember that Iran actually wanted to give us an AQ operative they had in custody after 9/11. Bushco of course refused to talk and then named them one of the Axis of Evil. My point is we, as Americans, have to act right in the world. We are the leaders of the free world even after all that Bushco has done to ruin that image.

[twa]

section 106

On one hand you argue that Bush is ignoring the courts wishes,while at the same time you refuse to accept the courts ruling on searches???

Does this mean you support Bush not giving up rights as president to FISA??

I think you will find the terrorist hold our laws in the same reguard as yourself

You will also find the foiled terrorist plots were not undone with police,but rather the inteligence branches. You will also find the British had several of the 7/7 bombers under survielance but discounted the threat posed untill too late.

My vote would be towards counter terror execution squads...hunt and eliminate threats and leave the police for criminals.

[Section106]

section 106

Does this mean you support Bush not giving up rights as president to FISA??

I think you will find the terrorist hold our laws in the same reguard as yourself

You will also find the foiled terrorist plots were not undone with police,but rather the inteligence branches. You will also find the British had several of the 7/7 bombers under survielance but discounted the threat posed untill too late.

My vote would be towards counter terror execution squads...hunt and eliminate threats and leave the police for criminals.

I don't understand the first question. FISA grants a warrant based upon the need for expediency in matters of national security that must be backed up with evidence to meet the criteria of probable cause up to 72 hours later.

However, Bushco hasn't even bothered to go to FISA and has simply taken matters into his own hands with the lose interpretation given to him by his council that the Pres has unlimited powers based upon the authorization to use force in Iraq. Nevermind that Congress rejected Bush's initial demand for these type of sweeping powers in the act itself.

Moreover, most of the evidence that Bushco has been gathering is inadmissable in court due to the lack of a proper warrant. This is dangerous in that the Bush Justice Department will let potential or real terrorists go due to improper and illegal methods of investigation. Their methods go to the belief by Bushco that they can simply declare a suspected terrorist an "enemy combatant" and hold them indefinately without having to grant these people their Geneva Convention rights or their Constitutional rights in the case of American citizens. This is un-Constitutional, however, as ruled by the SCOTUS. The President is NOT above the law.

In the matter of the NY court ruling, it is my opinion that the ruling will be found un-Constitutional when challenged. However, the people of NY will have to endure random, warrantless searches until someone sues NY state and wins.

I know you're playing a game of "gotcha" but I don't find your reasoning all that strong or logical. Your idea of counter terrorist execution squads is horrible on its face and un-American to its core. The whole Bush agenda of pre-emption is a dangerous departure from the American tradition of attack when provocted and only to protect America and her allies.

You would also have to invade a country to carry out these operations or have their permission to carry out military operations within their borders. You scoffed earlier at my assertions of international co-operation. However, your idea would require more blood, treasure, force, and co-operation that we can muster at this time.

And sometimes intelligence and police fail. That doesn't mean that we should stop the hard work to start dropping bombs on innocent civilians.

Again, those that would give up freedom for security deserve neither.

[skins4eva]

Regarding the subway searches: in a perfect world, where we could live with our constitutional rights in tact forever, I would be a happy man. But, since I ride the subway every day to and from work, I'm ok with the searches. They are very infrequent, and if you don't want your bag searched, it's pretty simple: take the bus or get on at a different entrance.