• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 123456
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:The NYPD has now begun random bag searches on subway riders.

Yup, folks, in the U.S. you can be randomly stopped and searched.

I sure hope this gets knocked down, because I'd rather die in an explosion than have the fourth amendment trampled.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete Topic

Posted:Id just rather try moderate my own views than have a moderator do it.

I am very likely to write something i will regret. So il just stop myself before i do it, then everyone's happy


Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: duballstar

hmmm... i dunno about that, if you refuse to be searched you could end up pinned to the floor with a hole in the head... frown



Fine.

Live free or die.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Firepoise


The idea being, if you've nothing to hide, then you don't have a problem.

The searches stopped with the ceasefires.



Great theory used by many despots to oppress their people.

There will never be a ceasefire with Al-Qaeda. We'd have more luck exterminating all rats in the NYC subway system.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

flid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002

flid

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire

Total posts: 3136
Posted:Written by: Firepoise
The idea being, if you've nothing to hide, then you don't have a problem.



Someone I know went to the ideal home show this year with adult toys in their bag, but luckily for them weren't searched wink

When i slung my large rucksack onto the top bagage holder on an intercity train a couple of weeks ago I was unaware that Sir_Sheep had stuffed the electric toothbrush into the front of my bag. Of course as I jammed it in as far as it would go it started vibrating, followed by everyone around focusing their eyes on me. It was light hearted thou, everyone just thought it was a vibrator, the myth of which I quickly dispelled by getting it out and showing them smile


Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas

Total posts: 3899
Posted:Written by: Doc Lightning

Written by: duballstar

hmmm... i dunno about that, if you refuse to be searched you could end up pinned to the floor with a hole in the head... frown



Fine.

Live free or die.



"give me freedom or give me death"


-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Written by: vanize

Written by: Doc Lightning

Written by: duballstar

hmmm... i dunno about that, if you refuse to be searched you could end up pinned to the floor with a hole in the head... frown



Fine.

Live free or die.



"give me freedom or give me death"



All very nice, and in principle I agree, but I think the cold reality might change your opinion if you happen to be staring down the barrel of a gun.

What Tony Blair has been talking about recently just makes no sense. If we advocate a "shoot first, ask questions later" then:

A. It means that there is no hope of negotiating with terrorists. This is a policy that I personally do not agree with, because it costs lives, and prolongs the conflict.
B. Terrorists have nothing left to lose. If discovered, they will likely detonate any explosives, rather than possibly surrendering.
C. Never mind a fair trial before execution, last time I checked England didn't *have* the death penalty, so it's wrong on all levels. You cannot justify killing someone on "Suspicion". That's what "Evidence" is for.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:"Great theory used by many despots to oppress their people."



Very true.



It's also saved countless numbers of lives.



I don't agree with random searches, but I also don't agree with people carrying bombs and guns in public areas. I guess it's a personal choice.



Anyways, the people who do the searches aren't looking for drugs, alcohol or sex toys ( smile ) - just bombs or guns. They don't care, and wouldn't waste their time, on the rest.



Doc, if there were bombs every other day in New York, if many, many innocent people (including your friends and family) were being shot every day - would you still oppose random searches in the street?



"give me freedom or give me death"



The rallying cry of 'freedom fighters' and suicide bombers the world over.


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

flid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002

flid

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire

Total posts: 3136
Posted:Written by: Sethis
A. It means that there is no hope of negotiating with terrorists. This is a policy that I personally do not agree with, because it costs lives, and prolongs the conflict.





I'm personally extremely happy that I live in a country where we don't negotiate with terrorists.



Terrorists seek to change political policies. Our political polices are made by democratically elected bodies (yes, we voted labour back in).



If terrorists can change the democratic process then that's a really bad thing for us all.



If we negotiate with a terrorist group, we'll encourage a whole wave of would be terrorists into the idea that causing violence will let them also change policies. That's not cool, and I don't want to live in a society where that happens.



Spain pulled its troops from iraq after the madrid bombings. This is really bad for the spanish people. Sure, they are less likely to have another train bombing by people apposed to spain's involvement with iraq, but they've had their views changed by fear, not logic. They've also openned themselves up to attacks by people with views on other policies, who otherwise may not have thought there was a point in doing so.



The whole point of shoot to kill is to be used in cases of national security. We're not talking here about someone stealing something from a shop and being gunned down by police without trial. I'm very pro Human Rights, I was chair of an Amnesty International group for the past 2 years with 80 plus members. I'm also a realist, and I know that if i was threatened, I had a 99% sure chance that someone was going to kill me and others around me unless i killed them first, and those around me said the same, put in that situation, I'd kill them. I'm vegan, i have been for over 5 years. I don't beleive in causing unnessecary violence and death to animals, and in our society today I don't beleive that this is needed. If however I was being attacked by a grizzely bear and I had a gun, I'd shoot it with no hesitation. I'd probably try and wound it, but if in the case of a suicide bomber where the only way you can stop them is to kill them, then I have no problem with that - it's outside everyday life.


Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:But I still haven't had anyone explain why removing British troops from Iraq would be a bad thing for England. I don't see why politicians are incapable of admitting that they sometimes make mistakes. Tony Blair would get a lot more respect from me and pretty much everyone I know if he just said "I made a mistake in invading Iraq, and I apologise."

Rather than Bull*hitting about how we "Mustn't give an inch" to the terrorist "evil" then maybe it'd be slightly more constructive to go beyond rhetoric and examine why they're attacking us.

"(yes, we voted labour back in)."

Did we? They got in with under 60% of voters voting for them. (And considering that about 60% of people actually voted, that means that less than half of the population wanted them back in) I want to know how that can happen in a "Democratic" society.

About the encouragement of terrorism, how many more bombings have there been in Spain after they pulled their troops out? None that I can recall. And surely using violence to change policies is exactly what we did when we invaded Iraq? Without a UN resolution, I might add. (International Democracy? Not here mate.)


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Sporky


Sporky

addict
Location: Glasgow

Total posts: 663
Posted:I airsoft in my spare time. For those who don't know what that is think paintball but with realistic guns. Imagine in I get caught with one of those in my bag (admittidly I carry them in locking cases). The police won't like a teenager carrying a HK MP5k in his rucksack, even if it is only a replica.

Did you know that Bin Laden hated Saddam? Saddam wanted a secular 'government' and Bin Laden is a fundamentalist. Al Queda only appeared in Iraq -after- the UK and Us invaded. So much for Bush and Blairs 'harbouring terrorists' bs. And the only reason why we knew that Saddam had WMDs is because we still have the reciepts for them!

Basically WE are ass much to blame as the terrorists themselves for everything that goes on and perhaps we should deal with it in a way that does not involve bombing small countries!


Have faith in what you can do and respect for what you can't

Delete

Posted:Written by: flid


Spain pulled its troops from iraq after the madrid bombings. This is really bad for the spanish people. Sure, they are less likely to have another train bombing by people apposed to spain's involvement with iraq, but they've had their views changed by fear, not logic.





Do you think the views of the spanish people have been changed or the views of the government have changed? Its not as if any of the countries that invaded iraq / afghanistan asked their citizens to vote to decide on whether the invasion should go ahead or not. There were huge protests against the invasion in many countries. The people didnt want to invade but the government did, the government had their way but the people were attacked.


Delete

flid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002

flid

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire

Total posts: 3136
Posted:I feel like the new Raymond smile



Written by: Sethis
But I still haven't had anyone explain why removing British troops from Iraq would be a bad thing for England





That depends what you think a good thing for england is. It's easy to seperate us from the rest of the world and ignore the concept of a foreign policy and interaction with other countries. Whether you beleive that we invaded iraq to rid the world of WMD (doubtful), rid the world of a country harbouring terrorists (doubtful, pakinstan would be a better option), rid it of an evil dictator who treated his people bad (doubtful, iraq is a former british collany, we did far worse things to the indigenous population when we had it) or bring political puppets into a country rich in oil (possible. Can you imagine a world without oil? Forget petrol, we would be absolutely crippled without plastic), the war that we started isn't over. You can't just kill off the government then say "job well done" and go and invade someone else. If we want to make sure the country doesn't repeat any of the things we went to war for in the first place for (war is *very* expensive), then now is not the time to pull out, because they haven't been achieved yet.



Written by: Sethis
Did we? They got in with under 60% of voters voting for them. (And considering that about 60% of people actually voted, that means that less than half of the population wanted them back in) I want to know how that can happen in a "Democratic" society.





First of all, I didn't personally vote labour, nor did any of my immediate family members who I know of. You can't however blame voter apathy as undeomcratic. People who didn't vote are putting into practice their democratic right not to. Sure someone may say "labour are cocks!", but if they didn't vote for another party then they can hardly be taken seriously.



Written by: Sethis
Tony Blair would get a lot more respect from me and pretty much everyone I know if he just said "I made a mistake in invading Iraq, and I apologise."





Did he make a mistake in Invading Iraq? There is controversy over whether the intelligence on WMD was correct or or not, but I know I for one am not sad to see Saddam go. I've yet to meet an afghan or iraqi refugee in Human Rights work who'se felt the same about the fall of the Taliban/Saddam respectively.



I beleive (me personally) that there's things in the world which we don't all need to know the finer points of, that it's just not practical to tell everyone (especially when we don't know who the enemy is) every single military point or those relating to national security. In these cases I just have to trust these services, who generally do a pretty damn fine job. As for changing foreign policy as a whole, that's a political thing not military.



Written by: OneFinalStep
Did you know that Bin Laden hated Saddam?





Yep.



Written by: Sethis
(International Democracy? Not here mate.)





Well, you only need watch a few minutes of the Eurovision Song Contest to confirm the fact that countries interaction with each other isn't always based on what the best song being played is.



Written by: Spiderbaby
Do you think the views of the spanish people have been changed or the views of the government have changed?





The most important issue here I think is the fact that it was a new government who made the choice, not the one which sent troops there in the first place, it may well have always been that party's policy (I'm not a spanish political amateur let alone expert, so I can't really comment more than that).



Written by: Sethis
About the encouragement of terrorism, how many more bombings have there been in Spain after they pulled their troops out? None that I can recall.





The UK media isn't particularly great at reporting things in other countries. From what I recall the ETA did a car bombing several months after the madrid bombings. Spain doesn't really have as much envolvement in forgein policy compared to countries like the UK, US, Australia etc. Their having 1300 troops in iraq in the first place was more a token jesture.


Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Written by: flid

I feel like the new Raymond smile

First of all, I didn't personally vote labour, nor did any of my immediate family members who I know of. You can't however blame voter apathy as undeomcratic. People who didn't vote are putting into practice their democratic right not to. Sure someone may say "labour are cocks!", but if they didn't vote for another party then they can hardly be taken seriously.



Yes, but it seems a bit daft to me that a government that hasn't been voted in by the majority of the population still retains the same powers as a government which was.

Written by: flid
Did he make a mistake in Invading Iraq? There is controversy over whether the intelligence on WMD was correct or or not, but I know I for one am not sad to see Saddam go. I've yet to meet an afghan or iraqi refugee in Human Rights work who'se felt the same about the fall of the Taliban/Saddam respectively.



Don't get me wrong, I don't think Saddam was a nice guy, but there were multiple problems in the way the invasion was managed.

1. Inadequate information. The weapons inspectors were not given enough time. The Military Intelligence pretty much admitted that they didn't have a clue what weapons Saddam did or did not have.
2. No UN resolution. This is undemocratic and completely unsupportable. It could not have hurt to wait one more month to get a resolution, and ignoring the UN basically renders the entire concept of it useless. It was set up to prevent and mediate international wars and issues.
3. You cannot, on any grounds, justify invading another country on the basis of it's internal government. What Tony Blair said was basically "We have a better system of government, and we will force our opinion onto you" what no-one seems to notice is that this gives every Islamic Fundamentalist, Neo-Nazi and other extremist out there the justification to say *exactly the same thing* Who is to say who's got a better system of government?

Written by: flid
I believe (me personally) that there's things in the world which we don't all need to know the finer points of, that it's just not practical to tell everyone (especially when we don't know who the enemy is) every single military point or those relating to national security. In these cases I just have to trust these services, who generally do a pretty damn fine job. As for changing foreign policy as a whole, that's a political thing not military.



Yes, but I'm not saying to reveal National security issues, but I would like to know WHY we went to war, and on what evidence.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:"I feel like the new Raymond"


ubblol

Not yet darlin


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:the discussion of our electoral system is a bit away from the scope of this discussion i think - i too would prefer proportional representation in britain but it doesn't really apply to a thread about the terror attacks...

i also have reservations about why we went to war but i do not believe that is why the bombings are happening here or in iraq.

the extremeists who are carrying out these attacks have a definite goal: a fundamentalist islamist superstate.
they believe that all muslims around the world should be subject to the extreme fundamental laws of islam first and foremost - no matter what society they live in.

personally, i don't believe that can ever happen in a modern world.
so what we are left with is a terror campaign that has an outcome that can never be achieved shrug


i'm not a massive supporter of some of britain's foreign policies nor some of the choices based on those policies but i categorically disagree with the statement that "we are as much to blame as the terrorists themselves for everything that goes on".

these are not iraqi civilians turned freedom fighters/terrorists that are attacking us.
if it were, the argument citing the war as the primary basis for this terror campaign would hold a lot more weight.

they are religious extremeists who do not represent a majority - neither the majority of iraqis, nor the majority of muslims worldwide and as such, their aim is not one shared by the people they think they represent (all muslims).

frown


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

flid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002

flid

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire

Total posts: 3136
Posted:you just couldn't keep away could you cole wink tongue

Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 4145
Posted:Flid, the Spanish public opposed the war, I think it was something like 85 % that said no to it in polls, but Aznar still decided to go for the America-friendly option. So what the new government did was actually what most of the Spanish population wanted all along; they had even announced before the elections that they were going to change the Iraq policy, so it's not just a decision based on fear.

DJ Dantana, I don't even know where to start with your post. But if you deport people from various minorities, most of your universities can shut down, because it's the foreign students and postgrads who do lots of the research and have to bring their own money for it, too. But thanks to the new regulations, numbers of students from Arab and some Asian countries are already going down, so there's a bit less reason for you to worry about them.

Why are all the trouble spots in the world related to Islam? Let me think... because the ones Bush cares about are? Poverty in Africa - just in Islamic countries? ETA terrorists in Spain - Islam? Suppression of people and starving children in North Korea - Islam? Mugabe in Zimbabwe - Islam? Open your eyes, there's more trouble in the world than attacks on America and supporting countries.


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Cole, you're right when you say that the electoral system is off topic.

Written by: coleman
so what we are left with is a terror campaign that has an outcome that can never be achieved shrug



But surely this is about as realistic as the "War on Terror"? You can't wage a military battle against either suicide bombers or people who shoot at you, jump over a wall, drop the gun and become innocent civilians again.

On a side note, how much terror are Muslims feeling at the moment? Especially the ones who have done nothing wrong.


Written by: coleman
but i categorically disagree with the statement that "we are as much to blame as the terrorists themselves for everything that goes on".



Who is this comment directed at, please? Is it just a general statement, or are you addressing someone? I have yet to hear anyone on these forums saying "We're just as bad"

Anyone notice how concerns about G8 have disappeared overnight? There are still billions of starving people, but now it seems to have disappeared under a wave of anti-terrorist rhetoric.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:flid - yeah yeah redface van was dead right about me!

sethis - i agree with your comparison to the 'war on terror'.
as long as i can remember, the policy of the uk has always simply been 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' - i think that is a far more understandable statement and clearly defines the country's stance.

a 'war on terror' is a financial and political statement more than a military stance in my opinion.
it suggests to me that there is a concerted effort to fight international terrorism in new ways - for example passing laws that mean the assets of known terrorist funders can be frozen, preparing cities and other likely targets for all types of terror attacks and so on.

as for your last point, that comment was general but if you read up just a few of posts you will see exactly that statement on these forums smile

as for g8, the summit did go ahead as i'm sure you know - you can read an overview of the outcomes here.
the decisions i would like to have seen come out of the g8 summit did not quite get made but at least the terror attacks did very little to disrupt the talks - what affairs the media chooses to cover is a very different issue however...


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Firepoise
Doc, if there were bombs every other day in New York, if many, many innocent people (including your friends and family) were being shot every day - would you still oppose random searches in the street?

"give me freedom or give me death"

The rallying cry of 'freedom fighters' and suicide bombers the world over.



If it happened every day I'd still oppose it because it would have no chance of stopping it.

BLANKET searches work (searching EVERYONE) but random searches don't.

"Give me freedom or give me death" is the cry of freedom fighters and suicide bombers. I will remind you that the American Revolution Army was a guerilla army...

I am a freedom-fighter. I fight with my deeds and words, not with weapons. And I will die for my cause.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

flid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002

flid

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire

Total posts: 3136
Posted:Written by: Doc Lightning
I am a freedom-fighter.



And we thought that glint in your eye was just due to being hungover shrug


Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:Hmmm. As I said in my first post, I don't agree with searches - but I more strongly disagree with innocent people dying.



Blanket searches are impossible in everyday life... but random searches give some reduced form of protection. (the bombers are going to feel less comfortable)



I understand your argument, and support it in principle... but in reality, when the threat of bomb and gun attack is real... random searches aren't the worst thing in the world.



""Give me freedom or give me death" is the cry of freedom fighters and suicide bombers. I will remind you that the American Revolution Army was a guerilla army..."



shrug yes. So was the IRA. So was the UVF, LVF and others. So is ETA. So is al-Qaeda. Doesn't make it right. America was built on the blood of others... it's not something to be proud of. Anyways, I don't think we can really compare those conflicts - society and the world has changed too much since then.



"I am a freedom-fighter. I fight with my deeds and words, not with weapons. And I will die for my cause."



We are on the same side. I have no respect for anyone who resorts to violence as a means to an end... but how will you die for your cause? I don't understand smile


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:I'll die for my cause by dying in an explosion before I allow my civil rights to be stripped away under the guise of "security."

-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:Hmmm.



You won't do anyone much good dead (and that would be a waste of all those years in doctor school smile )



Is it such an invasion of civil rights to agree to a simple search? Is it really the 'guise' of security... I'm more inclined to believe that some protection is provided.



I'm not sure it's such a terrible thing... but then, I grew up with random searches, so it doesn't feel so strange.



To be honest, I don't know how much impact they had here (I do know it became fairly routine). But perhaps those searches did work... I'm quite glad to be here, alive, to have those civil rights you talk about smile



Goodnight xx

EDITED_BY: Firepoise (1122591799)


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Firepoise:

AMENDMENT IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, in effect, yes. It is. There is no probable cause to search me, as an individual, for simply riding the Subway.

I don't know what's sadder, that the government is doing it or that Americans are simply rolling belly-up and letting them.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:Yeep. I don't have such unwaivering faith in the US constitution at the best of times.



However, surely one of it's redeeming points is the openendedness which allows for interpretation?



"unreasonable searches"



Is it unreasonable to try to prevent innocent killing (the aim of the searches)? No, of course not.



Searches are hassle, surely, but it's not unreasonable.



As for probable cause... hmmm. The problem is no-one looks like a bomber - and I know you're not suggesting guards only search one religious group or another.



(for example: scouts on holiday tongue smile )



I really don't know, doc (also it's late and my brain has stopped). I understand your anger... but I'm just not sure random searches (carried out properly) are such a bad thing.

EDITED_BY: Firepoise (1122592495)


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Firepoise


However, surely one of it's redeeming points is the openendedness which allows for interpretation?



"unreasonable searches"



Is it unreasonable to try to prevent innocent killing (the aim of the searches)? No, of course not.





The purpose of this amendment was to prevent the police from just wandering into your house and searching you because "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." So yes, they are quite unreasonable.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />



Searches are hassle, surely, but it's not unreasonable.



As for probable cause... hmmm. The problem is no-one looks like a bomber - and I know you're not suggesting guards only search one religious group or another.



That would not be probable cause, either. Probable cause means that you have to be doing something which causes direct suspicion that YOU, specifically are up to no good.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />



I really don't know, doc (also it's late and my brain has stopped). I understand your anger... but I'm just not sure random searches (carried out properly) are such a bad thing.





I'm sure they're a horrible thing for two reasons:



1) They don't work. They can't search more than 1% (and that's wildly optimistic) of the 4.7 million passengers that ride the NYC subway every day. Which makes a bombing much less than 1% less likely because in a coordinated bombing attempt they'd have to catch EVERY bomber.



2) The 4th Amendment was written for the express purpose of preventing so-called "random" searches and seizures. If you read commentaries by the Founding Fathers, the reasoning for this was quite clear. British troops were rummaging through people's houses and randomly arresting people.



This amendment was written because it was believed that privacy is a fundamental right. Random searches strip us of that right. One might argue "well, you don't HAVE to ride the subway." Technically that's true. I also don't HAVE to leave my house...except if I don't then I can't get anywhere. And I don't have a feasable alternative to the subway. Nor do millions of New Yorkers.



This is a fundamental part of living in a democratic society. I find it very sad that so many can't understand it, Firepoise. I am sad that people seem to take their right to be secure in thneir person, home, and belongings for granted and that they would give it up for even a false sense of security.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:"to prevent the police from just wandering into your house and searching you"

I entirely understand your reasoning... it causes considerable anger here too when the police burst into someones home in the middle of the night to search (it's also part of the reason that US/UK troops are so hated in Iraq - they've been doing that since the start of the invasion).

shrug maybe I've just become used to it. Quite sad really.

However, they're not doing that in NYC (yet). And I can't see it getting that far... you guys hold so dearly to your consitution I can't see it being allowed.

"Probable cause means that you have to be doing something which causes direct suspicion that YOU, specifically, are up to no good"

But surely, in this sense, 'probable cause' is up to individual interpretation? The guard or policeman on the street has to make that choice then and there. That's going to leave room for human error...

"They don't work."

I think they do. They don't work if the aim is to prevent every terrorist attack - that's impossible - but they do form some slight deterrent (which is better than none).

However (and I can only base my judgment on my own experience), the number of people who ride the subway in NYC is three times the population of Northern Ireland (the whole country). It's probably fair to say that random bag searches had a greater impact here than they would there smile

I don't know (again biggrin). For me this debate essentially comes down to whether rights and democracy (and it's a dubious democracy there at the minute) are more important than human life... and I don't believe it is. Human life is sacred - above all things.

Is any cause (in this day and age) really worth dying for?


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Firepoise

However, they're not doing that in NYC (yet). And I can't see it getting that far... you guys hold so dearly to your consitution I can't see it being allowed.



"I can't see it going that far" is why so many Jews were still in Germany come the start of the pogroms.

Written by:


But surely, in this sense, 'probable cause' is up to individual interpretation? The guard or policeman on the street has to make that choice then and there. That's going to leave room for human error...




There's a fair amount of legal precedent about what constitutes probable cause and what doesn't.

Written by:

"They don't work."

I think they do. They don't work if the aim is to prevent every terrorist attack - that's impossible - but they do form some slight deterrent (which is better than none).



I think I just gave a very good numerical explanation as to why they form no deterrent at all...at best. And at worse they might goad some group into jolting the false sense of security that these searches are meant to offer.

Written by:

I don't know (again biggrin). For me this debate essentially comes down to whether rights and democracy (and it's a dubious democracy there at the minute) are more important than human life... and I don't believe it is. Human life is sacred - above all things.



I disagree that human life comes above all things. My father fought in WWII to stop the Nazis and Japanese from taking over the world. He would have given up his life for his country and for the liberty for which it stands. Now our own country is under attack from our own government.

And so now the fight is ours.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

frostypaw


Great balls of fire
Location: Tunbridge Wells, Kent

Total posts: 643
Posted:Written by: Sethis

3. You cannot, on any grounds, justify invading another country on the basis of it's internal government. What Tony Blair said was basically "We have a better system of government, and we will force our opinion onto you" what no-one seems to notice is that this gives every Islamic Fundamentalist, Neo-Nazi and other extremist out there the justification to say *exactly the same thing* Who is to say who's got a better system of government?



bada bing bada boom.

i have to say here in the UK at least we have been making the situation worse for many years with a policy of encouraging immigrants/other faiths/groups to bring their culture with them wholesale

now before someone thinks i'm being horrendously xenophobic there's nothing wrong with other cultures and faiths but at the same time they have to live HERE not in an island of their old ways/country/ancient religious ways or conflict is inevitable with the 'real world' of the pretty liberal UK all around them - we need symbiosis not isolationism. with such rifts and violently ranged opinions within our own country is it really any surprise people get THAT pissed off...

much smaller differences (just between denominations) is enough to cause chaos in Ireland....

and then putting myself in their shoes you see 'your' goverment who you feel little association and sympathy with and who you almost certainly didn't vote in doing these things in 'your' name....

so much that could be working better :| our goverment is screwed and i for one will celebrate them leaving after this term which will once again be full of cockups and media posturing with little real progress

(rant rant rant sorry)


I can SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Delete

Page: 123456

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [terrorist* win] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > LONDON TERRORIST ATTACK- PLEASE CHECK IN IF YOU LIVE/ WORK IN LONDON [311 replies]
2. Forums > And the terrorists win [171 replies]
3. Forums > Iraq now more or less of a terrorist haven? [62 replies]
4. Forums > Why does the Media keep helping the terrorists? [30 replies]
5. Forums > win a trip to space [6 replies]

     Show more..