I find it funny how some people are against the ACLU filing a lawsuit to find out if the government of the state or federal governments ever go to far. After all wouldn't you rather they challenge the law on the merits and if found unconstitutional it be remedied or withdrawn?
lederuvdapac Yesterday, 02:50 PM
I think we are taking the situation out of context with the broader war on terror. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. During World War II, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 which allowed for the internment of any persons of Japanese, German, or Italian descent. While Lincoln's measure was later declared unconstitutional and the internment of US citiens is still deemed terrible...the fact remains that both men are still regarded as among the finest presidents we have ever had. The reason is that they got the job done. Lincoln preserved the Union and Roosevelt won the war. Because of this, these leaders were "forgiven" of such grievances.
Like a few people have said even if the people or the courts agreed with what Lincoln or Roosevelt did it was wrong. Especially in Roosevelt's case, because it was a roundup of people without justifications just suspicions based on their race/ethnicity disregarding whether they were citizens or not. We also did it after 9/11 with the roundup of middle eastern men without any probable cause of guilt.Post-9/11 Immigrant Roundup Backfired - Report US Report Faults the Roundup of Illegal Immigrants after 9/11
The Justice Department's roundup of hundreds of illegal immigrants in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks was plagued with "significant problems" that forced many people with no connection to terrorism to languish in jails in unduly harsh conditions, an internal report released today found.
A total of 762 illegal immigrants were jailed in the weeks and months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as the authorities traced tens of thousands of leads and sought to prevent another attack. Most of the 762 immigrants have now been deported, and none have been charged as terrorists.
The Justice Department has sought to maintain the secrecy of the arrests, fighting news organizations' efforts to gain access to deportation proceedings and for disclosure of more information about the detainees. Public information about the arrests has been fragmented; the report offers the most detailed portrait to date of who was held, the delays many faced in being charged or gaining access to a lawyer, and the abuse that some faced in jail.
While I am glad that they deported the people that were here illegally for overstaying their visa's, to condone the roundup is wrong as the evidence shows no one that was rounded up was charged with terrorists activities.
lederuvdapac Yesterday, 02:50 PM
I think the same applies to our current War on Terror. The precedent is set that once the war or conflict is over, that any extraordinary measures put in place are withdrawn. I do not see our liberties being attacked. Every time i go to an airport or enter a commercial entity...a person is search or must go through a metal detector. Nobody argues when such a search is conducted then.
This is a very laughable argument for several reasons. As most people believe the War on Terror
is going to last a very long time if not generations, so any laws that were put in place to deal with this will be here a long time. Once government has powers we really don't see them taking them away, as well if the War on Terror does last a long time if not generations and people come to expect that certain civil rights are taken away/curtailed, will people remember how it was before such rights were taken away and require those rights given back? Also who said that they would withdraw these extraordinary measures once its over since they won't be in office at the time?
With your argument about airport vs. commercial entities a few people tried to address this but didn't completely finish the argument. As a few people said with airports everyone
has to go thru the security checkpoints, which means metal detectors, bags searched thru x-ray and possible more extensive searches if their's suspicions. Compared to commercial entities they don't have a right to search you unless they have someone that is specifically trained and is licensed with those abilities such as armed guards. Most of the time they are their just to try and prevent theft and in most cases such as most retail stores they can't even detain you unless trained to do so and have reasonable suspicion.Loss Prevention Retail Store Exit Bag Checks
Are Door Bag Searches Legal?Shoplifting Detention & Arrest
Yes, as long as the inspection is voluntary. No, if the bag check is involuntary or coerced. This is a rather fine legal distinction that is subject to misunderstanding and abuse. Basically, nothing in the law gives the merchant the right to detain a customer for the purpose of searching a shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft.
In and effort to prevent thieves from walking out the door without paying for merchandise, sometimes it becomes necessary to detain and arrest those suspected of shoplifting. Retailers sometimes employ plain-clothes loss prevention agents specially trained to detect, apprehend, and arrest shoplifters. Some believe that arresting shoplifters is the greatest deterrent as the word is spread by store employees and gets out on the street. If a detention and arrest policy is desirable, it is critical for the merchant to understand the local laws of arrest before confronting anyone. Remember that the laws of the state will differ from store policy.
So you're comparisons between airports vs. commercial entities is apple and oranges. As well stores aren't using metal detectors they are electronic article surveillance tags that if not removed will trigger an alarm. Even if you could some how still make a comparison it would fall on one last thing airports are searching everyone for safety vs. stores protecting their investment of merchandise.
Then there is this example that shows how flawed the random searches at the subway terminals is from FargoUT
FargoUT Aug 4 2005, 10:04 PM FargoUT
No. As a friend of mine who lives in New York City says, "I'm not willing to sacrifice any freedoms in the name of 'security'." His argument was bolstered by a personal example. One day while heading to work, he was fingered out for a random search. He asked if this was a requirement. The officers told him no, but if he didn't, he couldn't ride the subway. He said thanks and walked back up the stairs. After a ten minute walk, he entered the next station without a single officer guarding its entrance. What is the point in searching randomly? It's trying to find a needle in a haystack.
's friend and the others I have heard thru the news is if they don't allow the officer to search which means they can't enter there what is stopping them from just going to another location and have no problems, even if there was officers at each station are they going to pick out the same person so it would not matter where the person tried to enter the train station? I think not that is one of the flaws of doing random searchs, its more of a perception of safety rather then actual.
I based my assertion on the fact that i live in new york city and thus watch the network news channels that have asked commuters about the situation. However research backs up my claim: N.Y., N.J. commuters OK with bag searches
did you even read your own article that you claim backs you up? From the article we get....N.Y., N.J. commuters OK with bag searches
Stepping off the subway Monday, Roberta Nelson said she hadn't been stopped yet by a police officer wanting to search her bag. If it happens, she said, she won't mind.
"I think it's necessary," Nelson, 30, said. "But I agree with a lot of people that it's not going to be a deterrent."
A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found that 53% of those surveyed said the federal government is not doing enough to prevent terrorist acts on buses, subways and trains, while 39% said the government was doing the right amount.
Robert Kramer, who travels from his home in Hoboken, N.J., to Manhattan each day for work, said the searches are fine provided they don't prolong his commute.
"As long as it does not double my commuting time ... I'm for it," he said. Kramer said
If it's not a deterrent what good is it? As well the other part I highlighted said the rider had no problem's with the random searches as long as it didn't inconvenience him.
Also the title of the article doesn't actually hold up to the article or the poll, since the poll doesn't ask a specific question. Such as.... Are you ok with the new random searches at the train stations? or Do you think the random searches are the right course of action to protect you? If the poll then represented what the title of the article says then you would have evidence to back up your claim.
This is what happens when societies are scared, they let their government make broad and over reaching measures which usually are only feel good measures and not necessarily care if this measure or that measure should not be excepted because it works against what our founding principles are. Just remember how right before the elections when their was some hint they that Al-Queda might do something, I can't remember what was said right now but it went something along the lines of it might be necessary to hold off the elections? Or how fast me might go into martial law if we do get attacked again?
For the record I am against the the police road blocks whether it for seat belts (I where mine all the time), the drunk driving ones etc. , because usually people know about them and find ways around them if they need to for what ever reason. I feel if you are going to stop me I better have done something wrong.
Cube Jockey Posted Yesterday, 08:23 PM
That is also precisely the wrong reaction and are nothing more than a "feel good" gesture. Terrorists will continue to stike at soft targets in this country and elsewhere. Everyone was worried about flying after 9/11 - I wasn't. I knew that planes were no longer a soft target and never would be used again. I have also commented numerous times how vulnerable the public transit system is - lo and behold. Before this London bombing happened Congressional Republicans had voted down additional spending on public transit for security and infrastructure - they've now changed their tune. You can guarantee the next time this happens it'll be in a new area.
Funny Cube Jockey
I have been saying the same exact thing also.
Let us not for get this statement
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.