Of Subways and Suspects

[Annie]

SHe wasn't telling ANYONE what to do. Like his posts or not, there is more to them than Bush=Hitler.

Now both of you, back in your seats!

Thanks. He has been creepy as well as a bit of stalker. I'm returning to my seat.

 

[dmp]

Enough. Do I have to prune this thread and remove everything which isn't 'specific'? You guys are just plain hateful now...c'mon..knock it off.

 

[dilloduck]

Enough. Do I have to prune this thread and remove everything which isn't 'specific'? You guys are just plain hateful now...c'mon..knock it off.

SO---I get called a creepy stalker by a mod who refuses to deal with this privately? LMAO

 

[dmp]

SO---I get called a creepy stalker by a mod who refuses to deal with this privately? LMAO

Public? How's this for public.

That was your warning...keep bringing shit up, and you'll be on your first ban...24 hrs.

When it comes down to it, Moderators have eachother's back..always.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'll tell you a little story. I lived in Italy for a while. I drove a Saab. I was driving to town one day when 4 Carabinieri (police) cars came up on me, lights flashing and basically ran me off the road.

They all jumped out with UZI's in hand, shouting at me to get out of the car and lay on the ground. I speak Italian so I understood what they said.

While I'm on the ground, two guns pointing to my head and one barrel digging in the middle of my back, (yes, and nearly going to the bathroom all over myself) I hear them on the radio saying the "caught him."

They are searching my car, screaming at me not to move, and also screaming "Where is the money, Where did you put the money?"

I'm telling them I don't know what they are talking about ,etc...

The guns digging into me deeper..screams getting louder. I hear the two guys talking on the radio about a bank robbery that just took place. They are verifying the description of the guy; 5 foot 9, about 155, short brown hair, dark coat, driving a Saab, etc.

Yes...that is me.

I then ask the police officers if the suspect is American - first in Italians and then in English.

It was only then that they pulled me up, checked my I.D., saw that I worked for the U.S. Government, apologized and let me go.

I didn't resist. I let them do my thing. I explained who I was and what I was doing.

They let me go.

I didn't run. Had I run, I'd probably be dead.

I didn't do anything wrong so I had nothing to worry about.

If you don't do anything wrong, you don't have to worry about the police.

If if you don't run, regardless if you have done something wrong or not, you won't get killed.

Again, No Brainer.

Wow, that's quite a story GotZoom. Moral- don't run, it makes you look guilty.

CivilLiberty, here's an article to read that answers you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200507290808.asp

 

[Annie]

Wow, that's quite a story GotZoom. Moral- don't run, it makes you look guilty.

CivilLiberty, here's an article to read that answers you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200507290808.asp

Excellent link!

 

[CivilLiberty]

Wow, that's quite a story GotZoom. Moral- don't run, it makes you look guilty.

CivilLiberty, here's an article to read that answers you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200507290808.asp

It doesn't "answer" me - it mostly covers issues that I was not talking about.

As a generality I am NOT against security cameras in PUBLIC places where there is no expectation of privacy. (Though there are issues worth discussion regarding access to and archiving of tapes, etc.)

But there is a BIG difference between a camera in a public place, and a search of someone's private person.

As an example, a stock trader who is involved in arbitrage, or a patent attorney, or a bonded courier, all may be carrying sensitive documents that require a high degree of secrecy. All have a reasonable expectation of NOT being searched at random, and all have a right to protect the secrecy of the documents they are carrying.

I'm talking about RANDOM searches being unconstitutional. If a suspect provides *reasonable suspicion* that's another matter.

But that's besides the point - what I implied in my article is that no amount of searching is going to prevent a bombing. No amount of shooting innocent people in the head is going to prevent a bombing, either.


Andy

 

[Annie]

It doesn't "answer" me - it mostly covers issues that I was not talking about.

As a generality I am NOT against security cameras in PUBLIC places where there is no expectation of privacy. (Though there are issues worth discussion regarding access to and archiving of tapes, etc.)

But there is a BIG difference between a camera in a public place, and a search of someone's private person.

As an example, a stock trader who is involved in arbitrage, or a patent attorney, or a bonded courier, all may be carrying sensitive documents that require a high degree of secrecy. All have a reasonable expectation of NOT being searched at random, and all have a right to protect the secrecy of the documents they are carrying.

I'm talking about RANDOM searches being unconstitutional. If a suspect provides *reasonable suspicion* that's another matter.

But that's besides the point - what I implied in my article is that no amount of searching is going to prevent a bombing. No amount of shooting innocent people in the head is going to prevent a bombing, either.


Andy

Maybe I'm missing something here, wouldn't be the first time. There is NOTHING that will stop a suicide bomber, by definition. However, searches may prevent many innocents from being blown up, by the nature of those that willingly put themselves on the line-whether security, police, soldiers...

 

[GotZoom]

*ALOT* of people live in that apartment building - should they all be executed because there *may* be one or two terrorists living there two?


Andy

My point is: The brazilian guy ran. He ran because he knew he was in the country illegally. Had he not been in the country illegally, he probably wouldn't have run.

He would still be alive.

Your *ALOT* point and question is ridiculous. They suspect some people in the apartment might have a connection to terrorism. If a person walks out of the apartment and is called on by a police officer to stop; they should stop and answer questions. If this person should run away, he probably has something to hide.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Hello Andy welcome back!

Hey Bonnie!

...my fear would be the shooting of innocent people brought on by paranoia or mob rules mentality.

Careful Bonnie - that almost sounds like a liberal speaking!

Regarding your point about our civil liberties, I don't think it needs to be an either or proposition. I would hope we could maintain a reasonable amount of privacy without the government going too far in either direction, while still allowing those protecting us to not be so hamstrung that they become ineffective. From what I know about the Patriot Act it does just that, giving government a little more leeway to investigate while not becoming big brother.

The Patriot Act and its successors have gone too far - fortunately the SCOTUS has struck down some of the provisions.

The key is: Judicial oversight. I am NOT saying that people have an *absolute* right to privacy, but they do have a right to privacy outside the confines of DUE PROCESS. And the PA takes away alot of due process.

Due Process is the one thing that separates a free society from an totalitarian one - and due process is one "freedom" that we must protect.


Andy

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It doesn't "answer" me - it mostly covers issues that I was not talking about.

As a generality I am NOT against security cameras in PUBLIC places where there is no expectation of privacy. (Though there are issues worth discussion regarding access to and archiving of tapes, etc.)

But there is a BIG difference between a camera in a public place, and a search of someone's private person.

As an example, a stock trader who is involved in arbitrage, or a patent attorney, or a bonded courier, all may be carrying sensitive documents that require a high degree of secrecy. All have a reasonable expectation of NOT being searched at random, and all have a right to protect the secrecy of the documents they are carrying.

I'm talking about RANDOM searches being unconstitutional. If a suspect provides *reasonable suspicion* that's another matter.

But that's besides the point - what I implied in my article is that no amount of searching is going to prevent a bombing. No amount of shooting innocent people in the head is going to prevent a bombing, either.

Andy

I agree that random searches don't do the job all that well. They should start PROFILING and searching. How do you feel about that? I suppose you think that is unconstitutional as well even though we are at war. However, if done right, the average citizen would be left alone.

In the meantime, while we continue to be "politically correct" random searches are better than nothing. I don't agree with you that "no amount of searching is going to prevent a bombing". There is the possiblility that it can - and that is better than doing nothing at all.

 

[dilloduck]

Hey Bonnie!



Careful Bonnie - that almost sounds like a liberal speaking!




The Patriot Act and its successors have gone too far - fortunately the SCOTUS has struck down some of the provisions.

The key is: Judicial oversight. I am NOT saying that people have an *absolute* right to privacy, but they do have a right to privacy outside the confines of DUE PROCESS. And the PA takes away alot of due process.

Due Process is the one thing that separates a free society from an totalitarian one - and due process is one "freedom" that we must protect.


Andy

The PA doesn't take away any due process. It merely changes the definition of what it is and this definition has been altered several times in our history. I find it interesting that you have no problem altering the Constitution yet you feel as if no one should tinker with due process.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I agree that random searches don't do the job all that well. They should start PROFILING and searching. How do you feel about that? I suppose you think that is unconstitutional as well even though we are at war. However, if done right, the average citizen would be left alone.

In the meantime, while we continue to be "politically correct" random searches are better than nothing. I don't agree with you that "no amount of searching is going to prevent a bombing". There is the possiblility that it can - and that is better than doing nothing at all.

I *almost* made a comment on profiling.

I do NOT support "affirmative action" and tangentially, I have many reservations regarding certain anti-discrimination laws.

Our nation has had a long history of ethnic profiling. Ethnic and cultural profiling are related but separate. There are two issues here to examine:

1) Is racial/ethnic/cultural profiling a "constitutionally unreasonable" denial of due process?

2) Does racial/ethnic/cultural profiling create a negative coefficient of safety due to the lack of interdiction of non-profiled demographic groups?


For the first question, it easy to indicate that profiling is "constitutionally unreasonable", but it is also easy to state that it is valid in the context of a compelling governmental interest.

Here's a good examination of the issue:

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/profiling.html

A problem with "racial" profiling in this context is its failure to accurately profile a desired target demographic. The the average white person in America is not likely able to distinguish an arab from an indian, though the two could not be more different. Simply a profile of "brown skin" (which accounts for the majority of the world's population) is doomed to fail at the start, and solve no safety related issue.

Perhaps if you live in the lilly white plains of the red states you may not see the issue as clearly as those of us in major urban centers.

Attempting "racial profiling" in Los Angeles for instance is pure folly - there's not enough man power in all of the police departments in the state to even begin such a task. But, such a task is pointless.


This brings us to question two above: Racial profiling is *not* a useful law enforcement "tool" in that it is easily circumvented. Look at John Walker Lindh - he's a white guy, but still a Talaban that met with Bin Laden. racial profiling would totally miss him - had he been used for terrorist activities he could have wreaked havoc untold.

The point of all this is that racial profiling is not a magic bullet to solving this problem, and the great distrust and resentment it causes within the profiled community is exceedingly counter productive. Moreover, focus on a specific groups based solely on race is to be in ignorance of the bigger picture.


Regards,


Andy