Court rules NY police can search bags at subways

[Cobra]

I disagree, random searches of on Subways are neither a effective means of fighting terrorism or constitutional. Didn't the constitutions clearly state something about unreasonable, unwarranted searches and seizures. Me riding the Subway does not in the slightest way incriminate me as a terrorist and they have absolutely no valid reason to search me or my belongings. Not to mention picking a few people out of a huge crowd at random is not going to be effective at stopping a terrorist because he is very unlikly to be searched himself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060811/ts_nm/security_newyork_dc

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Random bag searches by New York police at subway stations are constitutional and an effective means of combating terrorism, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

"In light of the thwarted plots to bomb New York City's subway system, its continued desirability as a target, and the recent bombings of transportation systems in Madrid, Moscow, and London, the risk to public safety is substantial and real," the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling.

The court disagreed with the New York Civil Liberties Union, which last year sued the city claiming that the random bag searches police have conducted since July 2005 bombings on the London underground rail system were unconstitutional and would not deter an attack on America's largest subway system.

The NYCLU had argued the searches were ineffective as police had too few checkpoints and invaded privacy rights. But the court said the testimony of three counterterrorism experts showed the value of the searches.

"The expert testimony established that terrorists seek predictable and vulnerable targets, and the program generates uncertainty that frustrates that goal, which in turn, deters and attack," the court said.

Among the experts who testified were Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism chief, who said he believed most U.S. transit systems were "under protected."

The judges noted the importance of the experts' belief that the unpredictability of the searches "deters both a single-bomb attack and an attack consisting of multiple, synchronized bombings, such as those in London and Madrid."

While the court agreed the searches compromised riders' privacy, "the kind of search at issue here minimally intrudes upon that interest" because the random searches were limited to bags that could contain explosives and last only seconds.

The judges noted that New York's subway system had been a "prime target" in the past, including a 1997 plot to bomb Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue subway station and 2004 plot to bomb the Herald Square subway station in Manhattan.

"Because this program authorizes police searches of all subway riders without any suspicion of wrongdoing, we continue to believe it raises fundamental constitutional questions," said New York Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chris Dunn.

New York City's law department noted the court's decision followed Thursday's news of a terrorist plot in Britain to detonate bombs on passenger planes traveling to the United States.

"The program -- whose constitutionality two federal courts have now recognized -- enhances the safety of millions of New York City subway riders," said Kate O'Brien Ahlers, spokeswoman for the city law department.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't care about combating terrorists.

They only care about making the government look foolish.

I agree with the decision, it's not unreasonable search just as running security checks at airports isn't an unreasonable search. If you're using mass modes of transportation the good of the many outweighs the, in this case non-existent, rights of the one.

[dsanthony]

People are open to searches when boarding planes and entering govt buildings.. entering the subway is no different.

Why is the left so paranoid and delusional? Why do they protect (highly suspect) application of principle over human life?

Why can't they nominate a viable presidential candidate?

[Alonzo]

I don't have a problem, except that they should not be able to confiscate, or arrest someone, for possessing any non terrorism related item (ie. no arresting people for possessing crack).

Me riding the Subway does not in the slightest way incriminate me as a terrorist and they have absolutely no valid reason to search me or my belongings.

I hope you oppose racial profiling.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Why?

You're subject to arrest at airports if you're found to be carrying illegal substances.

Your lack of logic, as always, is consistent.

[dsanthony]

Racial profiling is a legitimate policing tool. Liberals will lose that battle, over the long run.

[lily]

Going to have to disagree with you on this one, Cobra. IMO, the good outweighs the bad. A quick search through my purse isn't going to kill me, or take away any of my civil rights......but searching through someone's purse might save someone.....besides, if it's well known, as in this instance or any time I've gone to a concert or sporting event, I can't be the only one that knows not to put in my purse anything I don't want to get caught with.

With the search being random, you'll never know if it will be your turn, thus it's already a deterant to anyone with brains.

[lily]

Racial profiling is a legitimate policing tool.Â*Â*Liberals will lose that battle, over the long run.


This is brought up so much, it really is laughable. I don't think anyone working in an airport, bus depot, train depot, or any other place where large groups of people gather can honestly say they don't racial profile. They'd be lying if they said differently.

[Cobra]

No one agrees, I guess I'll just be the lone dissident then. It is a violation of a persons rights, you should be protected from this kind of thing via the constitution IMO. Better to be be free than safe is kind of my stance on this. The government doesn't need such a power, slippery slope the reason. What’s next searching people for no reason who just happen to be walking down a public street because they may be a terrorist with a bomb even though there is absolutly no evidence to suggest that.

[Alonzo]

Why?

You're subject to arrest at airports if you're found to be carrying illegal substances.

Your lack of logic, as always, is consistent.


Cobra's opposition to this ruling is the same reason why I oppose it for anything other than the prevention of terrorism.

No one agrees, I guess I'll just be the lone dissident. It is a violation of a persons right, you should be protected from this kind of thing via the constitution IMO. Rather be free then safe is kind of my stance on this. The government doesn't need such a power, slippery slope it it. What’s next searching people for no reason who are just walking down a public street because they may be a terrorist with a bomb about to use it even though there is absolutly no evidence to suggest that.

Eh, it's borderline. I'm not going to be overly concerned either way.

[Alonzo]

Why?

You're subject to arrest at airports if you're found to be carrying illegal substances.

Your lack of logic, as always, is consistent.


Cobra's opposition to this ruling is the same reason why I oppose it for anything other than the prevention of terrorism.

No one agrees, I guess I'll just be the lone dissident. It is a violation of a persons right, you should be protected from this kind of thing via the constitution IMO. Rather be free then safe is kind of my stance on this. The government doesn't need such a power, slippery slope it it. What’s next searching people for no reason who are just walking down a public street because they may be a terrorist with a bomb about to use it even though there is absolutly no evidence to suggest that.

Eh, it's borderline. I'm not going to be overly concerned either way.

[Nathan Brazil]

Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't care about combating terrorists.

They only care about making the government look foolish.

I agree with the decision, it's not unreasonable search just as running security checks at airports isn't an unreasonable search.Â*Â*If you're using mass modes of transportation the good of the many outweighs the, in this case non-existent, rights of the one.


They're both unreasonable.Â*Â* If Americans hadn't been deprived of their Second Amendment freedom to bear arms, the damn terrorists would have been afraid of hijacking any airplanes on September 11th.

Random bag searches, huh?Â*Â*That's gonna keep the droopy pants gangster looking terrorist from carting a cylinder of sarin gas aboard the train strapped to his leg?

It's gonna stop a suicide bomber wearing a strap-on tool?

No, but it does get the population used to being treated as suspects all the time.Â*Â*And today we have Americans who can't bring their own water onto an airplane.

Let's nuke Islam and get it over with, already.Â*Â*

Want an effective way to deal with random terrorists acts?Â*Â*Announce that for every American killed by an Islamofascist, the United States will randomly select a muslim holy site and bomb it out of existence without warning.

Then do it.

If they're going to treat us like the Great Satan, let's give up and start acting like it. It'll be a lot more fun.

[BoogyMan]

I don't have a problem, except that they should not be able to confiscate, or arrest someone, for possessing any non terrorism related item (ie. no arresting people for possessing crack).

Me riding the Subway does not in the slightest way incriminate me as a terrorist and they have absolutely no valid reason to search me or my belongings.

I hope you oppose racial profiling.


Is crack illegal?Â*Â*Hmmm, seems like last time I checked it was illegal, so if found, you bet they should be able to arrest your crack smokin butt!

[Alonzo]

The searches are for terrorism. These would not be granted for any other reason.

[BoogyMan]

The searches are for terrorism. These would not be granted for any other reason.


So if while searching for terrorism purposes an officer finds something illegal he should be hamstrung to do his job to enforce the law? This is so ridiculous I have to wonder if you don't write these things just to get a response.

[Nathan Brazil]

The searches are for terrorism. These would not be granted for any other reason.


So if while searching for terrorism purposes an officer finds something illegal he should be hamstrung to do his job to enforce the law?Â*Â*This is so ridiculous I have to wonder if you don't write these things just to get a response.



Easy solution to that minor difficulty.

De-criminalize recreational pharmaceuticals.

That won't resolve the basic immorality of random searches, but it will defang a major argument against them.

Instead of random searches, how about profiled searches of Middle-Eastern looking males younger than 60 and older than 13? That's who the principle suspects are, aren't they? That would conserve resources and leave the majority of Americans alone.

If you dislike that, explain why the police concentrate on searching for males when looking for a serial rapist.

[Alonzo]

So if while searching for terrorism purposes an officer finds something illegal he should be hamstrung to do his job to enforce the law?Â*Â*This is so ridiculous I have to wonder if you don't write these things just to get a response.



A kid robbed our house once. The cop went over to the kids house without a search warrant. The parents let him in and he saw the kid, and the kid had his hand closed. The cop asked him for what was in his hand, the kid refused. The cop then forced him to open his hand. The kid had marijuana, but the cop violated the law and could do nothing about it.

The police aren't being restrained from doing their job, they wouldn't have found it otherwise.

[BoogyMan]

A kid robbed our house once. The cop went over to the kids house without a search warrant. The parents let him in and he saw the kid, and the kid had his hand closed. The cop asked him for what was in his hand, the kid refused. The cop then forced him to open his hand. The kid had marijuana, but the cop violated the law and could do nothing about it.

The police aren't being restrained from doing their job, they wouldn't have found it otherwise.

Illegal is illegal. The premise you are setting up is completely ridiculous.

[dsanthony]

I think you're misreading that situation. The cops did not "violate the law". It is a legal command to show what is in your hand. You could be carrying a weapon. The parents let the police in, so they did not require a warrant.

More likely (as is true in almost every state) the possession of small amounts of mj is either not criminal or has such a small offense attached to it that police usually just tell the holder to "throw it out."

You're a sad liberal. You sent the police over to arrest this kid, apparently. Didn't you try to counsel him before invoking the authorities?

[Alonzo]

I think you're misreading that situation.Â*Â*The cops did not "violate the law".Â*Â*It is a legal command to show what is in your hand.Â*Â*You could be carrying a weapon.Â*Â*The parents let the police in, so they did not require a warrant.

More likely (as is true in almost every state) the possession of small amounts of mj is either not criminal or has such a small offense attached to it that police usually just tell the holder to "throw it out."

Well, according the policeman who was there, the evidence could not be used since he had no warrant and forced the kid to open his hand. I think I trust his opinion on the law more than yours.

Besides, almost 700,000 arrests for possession of marijuana occured in 2004.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm

And possession of marijuana is a criminal offense throughout the u.s.


You're a sad liberal.Â*Â*You sent the police over to arrest this kid, apparently.Â*Â*Didn't you try to counsel him before invoking the authorities?


Is this supposed to be funny, or is this the extent of your debating skills?

[Bama]

Alonzo, I'm not sure how this may have been handled in the state were this incident occured. But, In the state of Alabama, this would be a legal and good arrest. In Alabama and I think most states once I am allowed in the house and I have reason to believe that the kid has something in his hand, I can order him to open the hand and if he does not, I can force it open. 30 years as a city policeman I have had this happen before.

[Alonzo]

They went to the kids house because of the robbery, since he had a history with the police and they had recieved a tip that he was involved. The policeman said that when he saw the kid he had his hand closed, but since he had forced the kids hand open after the kid refused he couldn't do anything. This occurred in vermont and was by a state policeman (the town in which it occurred has no local police force). No search was consented to, the drug was not in plain view. The policeman was simply allowed to enter the house. There was no concern over safety, and no warrant for arrest.

Simply allowing a cop to come in and ask questions is not the same as consenting to a search.

[Rider]

Hi Lily, you wrote: This is brought up so much, it really is laughable. I don't think anyone working in an airport, bus depot, train depot, or any other place where large groups of people gather can honestly say they don't racial profile. They'd be lying if they said differently.
The only problem with this is that an airline security department and airport secuity can be penalized thousands of dollars if it can be shown that members of certain groups (oh, lets say muslim males, 17-36 of middle eastern descent) are disproportionately targeted for search. It also leaves them wide open for law suits. TSA officials can be punished or fired for the same offense. How many times have we heard about the blue haired granny being searched while three middle eastern males pass through without a hitch?

[Rider]

Nathan wrote- Want an effective way to deal with random terrorists acts?Â*Â*Announce that for every American killed by an Islamofascist, the United States will randomly select a muslim holy site and bomb it out of existence without warning.
If we really want to end terrorism quickly, instead of messing with their holy sites, let's carpet bomb a muslim city for every terrorist event or thwarted event. These snakes would be rooted out and killed by their own people after about two cities or so.

[Rider]

Zo wrote- The searches are for terrorism. These would not be granted for any other reason.
IMHO, if you are in a public place, especially a public conveyance like a train station or airport you should be liable for search anyway. Your reasoning is steeped in 40 years of obstructionist court decisions by left wing judges. Warants protect the old concept of " a man's home is his castle", not automobiles or purses. Crime in this country could be massively reduced if police were allowed to do their job.

[Nathan Brazil]

Zo wrote- The searches are for terrorism. These would not be granted for any other reason.
IMHO, if you are in a public place, especially a public conveyance like a train station or airport you should be liable for search anyway. Your reasoning is steeped in 40 years of obstructionist court decisions by left wing judges. Warants protect the old concept of " a man's home is his castle", not automobiles or purses. Crime in this country could be massively reduced if police were allowed to do their job.



Your opinion is wrong. A man's person should be inviolate, and probable cause should be required for any search at any time in any place.

This ain't liberal obstructionism, it's recognizing that freedom is destroyed by granting government too much power. It's not the intent of the Constitution to make it easy for police to "do their job", it's intended to protect everyone from the biggest threat to freedom there ever was: our own government.

What comes when these random searches fail, as they will? Travel permits?

[lily]

This ain't liberal obstructionism, it's recognizing that freedom is destroyed by granting government too much power. It's not the intent of the Constitution to make it easy for police to "do their job", it's intended to protect everyone from the biggest threat to freedom there ever was: our own government.

You baffle me me Nathan........sometimes you can be rational!

[dsanthony]

Zo wrote- The searches are for terrorism. These would not be granted for any other reason.
IMHO, if you are in a public place, especially a public conveyance like a train station or airport you should be liable for search anyway. Your reasoning is steeped in 40 years of obstructionist court decisions by left wing judges. Warants protect the old concept of " a man's home is his castle", not automobiles or purses. Crime in this country could be massively reduced if police were allowed to do their job.



Your opinion is wrong.Â*Â*A man's person should be inviolate, and probable cause should be required for any search at any time in any place.

This ain't liberal obstructionism, it's recognizing that freedom is destroyed by granting government too much power.Â*Â*It's not the intent of the Constitution to make it easy for police to "do their job", it's intended to protect everyone from the biggest threat to freedom there ever was: our own government.

What comes when these random searches fail, as they will?Â*Â*Travel permits?


Inviolate? That's a big word..

The police in this case could not have entered the house without a warrant. If they are invited in by the owner, then the owner has waived that right.

[Rider]

A few years back my wife, daughter and I were returning home after dinner out. To our surprise a patrol car with lights on was parked in our driveway. As I got out an officer approached and informed me that someone had called 911 from our home reporting domestic abuse. I told the officer that no one could be home as he was looking at my family. He told me that by law he had to search our home. That got my dander up, but by that time I wanted armed cops to search our house top to bottom as someone must have called. No one was found and later the cop came back by and told me that the house behind ours was 108 1/2, but came through as 108. Our lot had been subdivided years ago.
Still, I wonder just how the law could give the cops the right to search my home against my permission.

Any thoughts?

Nathan wrote- Your opinion is wrong.Â*Â*A man's person should be inviolate, and probable cause should be required for any search at any time in any place.

This ain't liberal obstructionism, it's recognizing that freedom is destroyed by granting government too much power.Â*Â*It's not the intent of the Constitution to make it easy for police to "do their job", it's intended to protect everyone from the biggest threat to freedom there ever was: our own government.

What comes when these random searches fail, as they will?Â*Â*Travel permits?
Nathan that's an excellent point. But if we follow your reasoning out, I would think that there would be no way to search persons boarding planes, trains, ships, etc. unless there was probable cause. Of course, we could search everyone, but we would have to shut down the country. Can you accept any temporary loss of freedom to provide a means to win this war and protect innocent lives?

[dsanthony]

A few years back my wife, daughter and I were returning home after dinner out. To our surprise a patrol car with lights on was parked in our driveway. As I got out an officer approached and informed me that someone had called 911 from our home reporting domestic abuse. I told the officer that no one could be home as he was looking at my family. He told me that by law he had to search our home. That got my dander up, but by that time I wanted armed cops to search our house top to bottom as someone must have called. No one was found and later the cop came back by and told me that the house behind ours was 108 1/2, but came through as 108. Our lot had been subdivided years ago.
Still, I wonder just how the law could give the cops the right to search my home against my permission.

Any thoughts?

Nathan wrote- Your opinion is wrong.Â*Â*A man's person should be inviolate, and probable cause should be required for any search at any time in any place.

This ain't liberal obstructionism, it's recognizing that freedom is destroyed by granting government too much power.Â*Â*It's not the intent of the Constitution to make it easy for police to "do their job", it's intended to protect everyone from the biggest threat to freedom there ever was: our own government.

What comes when these random searches fail, as they will?Â*Â*Travel permits?
Nathan that's an excellent point. But if we follow your reasoning out, I would think that there would be no way to search persons boarding planes, trains, ships, etc. unless there was probable cause. Of course, we could search everyone, but we would have to shut down the country. Can you accept any temporary loss of freedom to provide a means to win this war and protect innocent lives?



If the police have probable cause that a crime is being committed, they do not need a warrant. A 911 call constitutes probable cause.

[dsanthony]

A few years back my wife, daughter and I were returning home after dinner out. To our surprise a patrol car with lights on was parked in our driveway. As I got out an officer approached and informed me that someone had called 911 from our home reporting domestic abuse. I told the officer that no one could be home as he was looking at my family. He told me that by law he had to search our home. That got my dander up, but by that time I wanted armed cops to search our house top to bottom as someone must have called. No one was found and later the cop came back by and told me that the house behind ours was 108 1/2, but came through as 108. Our lot had been subdivided years ago.
Still, I wonder just how the law could give the cops the right to search my home against my permission.

Any thoughts?

Nathan wrote- Your opinion is wrong.Â*Â*A man's person should be inviolate, and probable cause should be required for any search at any time in any place.

This ain't liberal obstructionism, it's recognizing that freedom is destroyed by granting government too much power.Â*Â*It's not the intent of the Constitution to make it easy for police to "do their job", it's intended to protect everyone from the biggest threat to freedom there ever was: our own government.

What comes when these random searches fail, as they will?Â*Â*Travel permits?
Nathan that's an excellent point. But if we follow your reasoning out, I would think that there would be no way to search persons boarding planes, trains, ships, etc. unless there was probable cause. Of course, we could search everyone, but we would have to shut down the country. Can you accept any temporary loss of freedom to provide a means to win this war and protect innocent lives?



Entering public buildings, or boarding planes, is a voluntary act. You can choose not to submit to the search by not entering the building. Entering those secure buildings is an agreement to submit to a search.

[Alonzo]

Entering public buildings, or boarding planes, is a voluntary act. You can choose not to submit to the search by not entering the building. Entering those secure buildings is an agreement to submit to a search.

Evidence? Allowing an officer to enter a house is a big difference when compared to allowing the officer to search the house.

[dsanthony]

Yawn... look it up.

[Bama]

[quote=alonzomourning23]
They went to the kids house because of the robbery, since he had a history with the police and they had recieved a tip that he was involved. The policeman said that when he saw the kid he had his hand closed, but since he had forced the kids hand open after the kid refused he couldn't do anything. This occurred in vermont and was by a state policeman (the town in which it occurred has no local police force). No search was consented to, the drug was not in plain view. The policeman was simply allowed to enter the house. There was no concern over safety, and no warrant for arrest.

Simply allowing a cop to come in and ask questions is not the same as consenting to a search.
************************************************** **

I don't want to look like I am trying to highjack this thread but I telling you that if a police officer is allowed in the home by a parent and the kid is there also, there are a number of things to look at.
1- I have been allowed into the home by a parent.
2- I'm have been allowed in to investigate a minor who I believe was involved in a crime.
3- The suspect is in the room in plain view. His hand is closed.
4- In the closed hand there may be an item from the crime scene, he may have a weapon like a knife, or he may have a piece of candy.
5- I don't know what he is hiding in his close hand.
In the state of Alabama as in most states I as a peace officer have the right and the duty to see what he is concealing in that hand.
In the case as you report it out of Vermont, if it happen in Alabama,to bad for the kid. I,m the winner and he is the loser. Bama

[Nathan Brazil]

Still, I wonder just how the law could give the cops the right to search my home against my permission.

Any thoughts?[quote]

Yeah, they had probable cause to search.

[quote=Rider]Nathan that's an excellent point. But if we follow your reasoning out, I would think that there would be no way to search persons boarding planes, trains, ships, etc. unless there was probable cause.

There's an idea. Limiting searches to those who might be suspected of doing something, with a legally justifiable reason. Who'd've thunk?



Can you accept any temporary loss of freedom to provide a means to win this war and protect innocent lives?

No, they're not "temporary". Or haven't you noticed?

You want to win the "war on terrorism"?

Decriminalize drugs to defund many terrorist networks and disinvolve the criminal gang networks.

Nuke Tehran the next time a single American is killed in a terrorist attack, then start working down a list of muslim "holy" sites to make the cost to the muslims more than our costs, starting with Mecca.

If it's a freakin' war, treat it like one and make the enemy pay. Otherwise acknowledge that it's a political game focused more on controlling domestic populations than curbing enemy activity.

Try reading 1984 and Animal Farm.

[Nathan Brazil]

Inviolate?Â*Â*That's a big word..

The police in this case could not have entered the house without a warrant.Â*Â*If they are invited in by the owner, then the owner has waived that right.Â*Â*


No, antidisestablishmentarian is a big word. And we're discussing involuntary searches of a man's person, not the made up case described in an earlier post no bearing much relevance to the case at hand.

Inviolate is the correct word.

[Rider]

DS wrote- Entering public buildings, or boarding planes, is a voluntary act. You can choose not to submit to the search by not entering the building. Entering those secure buildings is an agreement to submit to a search.
My feelings, exactly.

Nathan wrote- There's an idea. Limiting searches to those who might be suspected of doing something, with a legally justifiable reason. Who'd've thunk?
Well, that certainly sounds good, but won't sound so good after a few hundred or a few thousand people die in the next attack.

Nathan also wrote- No, they're not "temporary". Or haven't you noticed?
There has been much said and written about the terrible abuses upon our freedoms carried out by this administration, but I think it's odd that we don't hear more complaints from people who have been harmed by all of these abuses. Our government has acted many times in the past to curtail constitutionally guaranteed freedoms during time of war and they always seem to get restored. Being vigilant in protecting the rights of citizens accused of committing crimes is not only good, but necessary in a free country, but when madmen bent on suicidal murder and mayhem declare war upon us common sense must be observed.

And finally, in regards to the search of my home, Nathan wrote- Yeah, they had probable cause to search.
Well, the cops arrived to find no one at home. After we arrived, I and my wife attested to the fact that nothing had happened and no one had called 911. So you (who appears to be quite rightly sensitive to our rights) think that an obviously questionable phone call allows a warrantless search of my home?

[Nathan Brazil]

Well, that certainly sounds good, but won't sound so good after a few hundred or a few thousand people die in the next attack.

That's fascinating. Wanna know why the animals that planned the September 11th atrocities were confident their plans could work? They knew the limitations of the searches and that law abiding humans would voluntarily accept being disarmed in exchange for the privilege of riding in those airplanes. There was no probability that anyone on the aircraft might be carrying a gun.

If citizens hadn't been denied their Second Amendment freedom, there would have been a significant deterrent potential on any and all American flights against illegals taking over airplanes with illegal weapons.

In other words, the federal security plan FAILED. Today's more extreme measures are equally ineffective. Given time, there WILL be another hijacking.

Want to make it so that no person can carry ANY weapon aboard a public transport? You gotta fly nekkid, and you gotta fly in your own personal cage. Like cattle. And your luggage has to be shipped on a separate unmanned carrier.

We're getting closer to that day. Now you can't bring your own water on the plane.

Nathan also wrote- No, they're not "temporary". Or haven't you noticed?
There has been much said and written about the terrible abuses upon our freedoms carried out by this administration, but I think it's odd that we don't hear more complaints from people who have been harmed by all of these abuses.

They're locked away without habeas corpus rights.

Our government has acted many times in the past to curtail constitutionally guaranteed freedoms during time of war and they always seem to get restored.

Seem to is right. It establishes a precedent to make it easier to exert even more control the next time.

Being vigilant in protecting the rights of citizens accused of committing crimes is not only good, but necessary in a free country, but when madmen bent on suicidal murder and mayhem declare war upon us common sense must be observed.

Yeah, I know. That's why we should profile Arab/Muslim looking men between the ages of 15 and 55 and stop making life difficult for everyone else.

It's called "racial profiling". It's a good thing. Because it works.

And finally, in regards to the search of my home, Nathan wrote- Yeah, they had probable cause to search.
Well, the cops arrived to find no one at home. After we arrived, I and my wife attested to the fact that nothing had happened and no one had called 911. So you (who appears to be quite rightly sensitive to our rights) think that an obviously questionable phone call allows a warrantless search of my home?[/quote]

They had a phone call. For all the cops knew, a couple broke into your house, then had a major fight, and the neighbors called the cops thinking it was you, or maybe you were lying your asses off to the cops and Jon Benet Ramsey's twin sister was dead in the basement as a result. The cops don't know you, and what, they have to take your word that all your offspring are out there on the lawn with you?

An investigation was certainly warranted, unlike the baseless presumption of guilt a totally random search must imply.

[Rider]

Nathan wrote- That's fascinating. Wanna know why the animals that planned the September 11th atrocities were confident their plans could work? They knew the limitations of the searches and that law abiding humans would voluntarily accept being disarmed in exchange for the privilege of riding in those airplanes. There was no probability that anyone on the aircraft might be carrying a gun.
Yes, they knew the limitations of the search they'd undergo, but a major factor was that they knew that no one would expect the plane to be crashed into a building. The passengers on FL 93 found out and took action.

If citizens hadn't been denied their Second Amendment freedom, there would have been a significant deterrent potential on any and all American flights against illegals taking over airplanes with illegal weapons.
I imagine that if guns could be carried then the hijackers would have had them, too. While I am a staunch supporter of the right to carry, I imagine more airliners would be brought down accidentaly by untrained bozos than hijackers every could. Even trained professional soldiers are not allowed to carry loaded weapons on aircraft unless headed into eminant combat. Even then they are strictly controlled.

In other words, the federal security plan FAILED. Today's more extreme measures are equally ineffective. Given time, there WILL be another hijacking.
I agree.

They're locked away without habeas corpus rights.
Prove it. There could also be hundreds in the clutches of space aliens, but I doubt that, too.

Seem to is right. It establishes a precedent to make it easier to exert even more control the next time.
If you were right on this we would have sedition laws and suspension of habeas corpus rights at this time, no?

Yeah, I know. That's why we should profile Arab/Muslim looking men between the ages of 15 and 55 and stop making life difficult for everyone else.

It's called "racial profiling". It's a good thing. Because it works.
I agree.

They had a phone call. For all the cops knew, a couple broke into your house, then had a major fight, and the neighbors called the cops thinking it was you, or maybe you were lying your asses off to the cops and Jon Benet Ramsey's twin sister was dead in the basement as a result. The cops don't know you, and what, they have to take your word that all your offspring are out there on the lawn with you?

An investigation was certainly warranted, unlike the baseless presumption of guilt a totally random search must imply.
Really? So all a cop would have to do to search your house is put in a call from a phone booth reporting domestic abuse at your house and viola! No search warrant necessary. BTW, random searches are usually permitted by the courts ie. drivers license checks, DWI checks, baggage inspections, locker checks, etc.. It's specific searches of persons and dwellings that get thrown out.

[Nathan Brazil]

Yes, they knew the limitations of the search they'd undergo, but a major factor was that they knew that no one would expect the plane to be crashed into a building. The passengers on FL 93 found out and took action.

That too was part of it, but the takeover itself would not have been planned if there was some possibility of the passengers having real arms.Â*Â*

If citizens hadn't been denied their Second Amendment freedom, there would have been a significant deterrent potential on any and all American flights against illegals taking over airplanes with illegal weapons.
I imagine that if guns could be carried then the hijackers would have had them, too.

They were in the country illegally.Â*Â*That pretty much rules out them having current carry permits, ya think?

Also, the Russians had nuclear weapons, but they never used them on us. Why? Because we had'em, too. The risk of one person having a gun would put any plot to take over an airplane in jeopardy.


While I am a staunch supporter of the right to carry, I imagine more airliners would be brought down accidentaly by untrained bozos than hijackers every could. Even trained professional soldiers are not allowed to carry loaded weapons on aircraft unless headed into eminant combat. Even then they are strictly controlled.

There's not much a stray bullet can do to damage a modern airplane.Â*Â*I speak with professional knowledge, here, but you could entertain yourself by hunting the up the Mythbusters show where they put the explosive decompression theories to the test.

They're locked away without habeas corpus rights.
Prove it.[/quote]


U.S.Terrorism Prosecutions, 2005: How Much Progress? (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00101.htm)

Amidst charges that President Bush and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are inflating the number of criminal prosecutions for terrorism, five cases shed light on the administration's mixed record of convictions during 2005.

In a Florida case, officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) falsified documents in an effort to cover repeated missteps and then retaliated against an agent who first complained about the problems.

After being held for more than three years in U.S. military custody, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago and labeled an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration, was charged conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals and providing "material support" to terrorists - but not with the charges he had been originally accused of: plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States and to blow up apartment buildings using natural gas lines. The case against the so-called "Detroit sleeper cell" - once hailed as a significant Justice Department triumph in the "Global War on Terror"-- was dismissed after a jury convicted two men of supporting terrorism. Now a federal grand jury in Detroit is investigating whether the lead prosecutor, Richard Convertino, should be indicted for hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense, including altering dates on three FBI forms using correction fluid to conceal an apparent violation of federal wiretap law.

I do recall that Bushy promised us that the PATRIOT Act wouldn't apply to citizens. But this citizen was held for three years in military custody without formal charges being filed.Â*Â*Typical civillian law requires that charges be filed within 72 HOURS of arrest.

There could also be hundreds in the clutches of space aliens, but I doubt that, too.

I don't.Â*Â*It explains Hillary's popularity.

Really? So all a cop would have to do to search your house is put in a call from a phone booth reporting domestic abuse at your house and viola! No search warrant necessary. BTW, random searches are usually permitted by the courts ie. drivers license checks, DWI checks, baggage inspections, locker checks, etc.. It's specific searches of persons and dwellings that get thrown out.

No, that would be actionable by the victim, since it construes fraud on the part of the government.Â*Â*But in a real situation described by you, an investigation was warranted.Â*Â*Remember?Â*Â*You asked for "common sense"?

[Rider]

Nathan- About Padilla; he was hardly an innocent citizen deprived of his rights. He should have gone straight to Gitmo as a combatant. He was obviously a Islamist goon, right?

"No, that would be actionable by the victim, since it construes fraud on the part of the government. But in a real situation described by you, an investigation was warranted. Remember? You asked for "common sense"?

Why would it be actionable? I doubt that the cop would fess up to the call, no? And I'm not arguing whether the investigation was waranted, I'm asking why no warant?
It's odd to me that you would be so concerned over the rights of Padilla, but at the same time dismissive of a homeowner's.

"There's not much a stray bullet can do to damage a modern airplane. I speak with professional knowledge, here, but you could entertain yourself by hunting the up the Mythbusters show where they put the explosive decompression theories to the test."

A stray bullet through a half empty fuel tank? Hydraulic lines at 3000 psi? Fuel lines?Â*Â*Some fuel lines are pressurized to over 300psi. That could make a hell of a blow torch. The pilot? Inverters or avionics?Â*Â*How much of a risk do you think the public would settle for? Or for that matter, the pilot? I've dealt extensively with jet aircraft and I'd have to emphatically disagree with you on this one.

[Nathan Brazil]

Nathan- About Padilla; he was hardly an innocent citizen deprived of his rights. He should have gone straight to Gitmo as a combatant. He was obviously a Islamist goon, right?

Helpful Information for Persons Immigrating to the United States from Totalitarian Dictatorships:

In the US, persons accused of crimes are presumed innocent until they are convicted by a jury of their peers after a trial.

Prior to this trial, an arrested person has the right to be informed of the charges against him, and the right to confront his accusers.

Welcome to America. Please don't break our laws to test this.

"No, that would be actionable by the victim, since it construes fraud on the part of the government. But in a real situation described by you, an investigation was warranted. Remember? You asked for "common sense"?

Why would it be actionable?

Because if it wasn't from a legitimate call, the cops have done violated the law. Did I say it would be easy to prove? Nope. Can it be proved? Probably. Got money?

And I'm not arguing whether the investigation was waranted, I'm asking why no warant?

Exigent circumstances.

It's odd to me that you would be so concerned over the rights of Padilla, but at the same time dismissive of a homeowner's.

Padilla's in prison...for four years now, without anything remotely resembling an arraignment, let alone a trial. This is real.

The homeowner is hypothetical, and certainly he could refuse permission to search and then if you want to bring in a hypotenuese you can make the cops wait to get a judge to sign a warrant.

Meanwhile, Padilla is still in jail.

"There's not much a stray bullet can do to damage a modern airplane. I speak with professional knowledge, here, but you could entertain yourself by hunting the up the Mythbusters show where they put the explosive decompression theories to the test."

A stray bullet through a half empty fuel tank? Hydraulic lines at 3000 psi? Fuel lines?Â*Â*Some fuel lines are pressurized to over 300psi. That could make a hell of a blow torch. The pilot? Inverters or avionics?Â*Â*How much of a risk do you think the public would settle for? Or for that matter, the pilot? I've dealt extensively with jet aircraft and I'd have to emphatically disagree with you on this one.[/quote]

Yeah, like I said, there's not much that a stray bullet can do. Fuel tanks are designed to withstand lightning, I'm not to worried about the occasional bullet. I don't work in Hollywood after all, real fuel tanks don't blow up at a sneeze.

Well designed aircraft have redundant hydraulic systems and protocols for loss of system pressure. Also, a bullet won't cause a hydraulic fire, there'll have to be some idiot smoking nearby to ignite the vapor cloud. Not to mention that hydraulic fluid typically has a high flash point and that many modern syntheses of hydraulic fluid have a high water content, too.

The pilot...like the redundant hydraulic system, modern airplanes are outfitted with a spare pilot.

As for risk, IMO anyone that gets in one of those things to travel has brass balls. I just build 'em, I hate riding in 'em, even though I know the majority of accidents are caused by the guy driving it or the high school grads working on it, and not the basic engineering.