• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 200.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 123456
Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
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

_Clare_
_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast
Member Since: 22nd Oct 2002
Total posts: 5967
Posted:Hohum.

I'm not sure it helps to compare the holocaust and the second world war to random bag searches.

I know there is a similarity of principle, but the circumstances are just too different.

Anyways, I think we're getting a little too involved in this (I know I am, I was supposed to go training half an hour ago!!)

So we should just agree to disagree. hug

You believe (I think) that dying for your cause, whether it be rights and liberties or something else, is a noble and just action.

I believe that human life is sacred above all causes...

Both ideals are valid and have strong supporting arguments.

Anyways, have a lovely weekend doctor... good luck on the subways smile


PS: nice rant frostypaw smile


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

flid
flid

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire
Member Since: 27th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3136
Posted:Written by: frawstypaw
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



lets just hope it isn't the monster raving conservatives that get back in power umm


Delete

_Clare_
_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast
Member Since: 22nd Oct 2002
Total posts: 5967
Posted:Nope. Cos next time we're all going to get our acts together, stop being stoner hippies, and vote in the greens.

Aren't we?! umm


biggrin


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

flid
flid

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire
Member Since: 27th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3136
Posted:I don't fully endourse the labour government's descisions with foreign policy etc, but lets face it, the UK has always been a bit of a power crazed loony when it comes to world domination. We all whinge (myself included) about the US, but we have more megalomania per square inch than they do.



Albeit a bit slow off the mark at getting certain things done that they've talked about for years, at least labour haven't screwed around with it's own country in quite the same way the conservatives have in recent years. I would be most pissed off if the conservatives got back in any time soon (although their promises on repealing fox hunting ban, being facists on immigration etc would probably never materialise if they did) than if labour stayed in. That said, I didn't vote for either of them



offtopic


Delete

_Clare_
_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast
Member Since: 22nd Oct 2002
Total posts: 5967
Posted:Neither of them deserve that power and responsibility.

smile


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Completely offtopic but hey...

Anyone else see the comment "Evil" and "Diet Evil" made by someone a while back? Blair is Evil, Howard is Diet Evil. Same with Bush and Kerry. The vast majority of people I know voted Liberal Democrats... umm

"I believe that human life is sacred above all causes..."

Does that extend to the destruction of the planet? Like, to save more people's lives we're busy cutting down rainforests and stuff.

(Finally gets back on-topic)

I always thought that enlightened self interest was better than dying for a cause. Like then you can run away and do more to help your ideal? If you let them search your bag, then start up a rally to protest the invasion of privacy. I think this would be slightly better than refusing and (possibly) getting arrested/shot.


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_
_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast
Member Since: 22nd Oct 2002
Total posts: 5967
Posted:"Like, to save more people's lives we're busy cutting down rainforests and stuff."

Are we? I thought we were chopping down the rainforests to make room for McDonalds cows?!

smile


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

spritie
spritie

Pooh-Bah
Location: Galveston, TX
Member Since: 9th Sep 2001
Total posts: 2014
Posted:Written by: Sethis

I always thought that enlightened self interest was better than dying for a cause. Like then you can run away and do more to help your ideal? If you let them search your bag, then start up a rally to protest the invasion of privacy. I think this would be slightly better than refusing and (possibly) getting arrested/shot.



I agree with Sethis here. One exagerrated point of view is the current goings-on in Zimbabwe. In such instances were there is severe oppression by some sort of dictator (and let's face it, that is what Mugabe has become) then I think it is worth sacraficing what you can in the hopes of ridding a country of such a person and all the harm he has done that country...there is serious food shortages, gas shortages, and no real hope of overcoming them in the near future because the people left to farm a bunch of the land really have no idea how to do so. Is living in such misery really better than taking a stance against it?


Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Ah, but then we move onto the whole "Quality of life" vs the effectiveness of death debate.

I think you basically need to ask "What will my death accomplish?" and "Is this more or less than what I can accomplish alive?"

Which is why I intend to die saving a busload of schoolkids heroically wink

Also you need to balance the possibility that if you start a rally, then all those who attend might be shot, so...


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

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Firepoise


I'm not sure it helps to compare the holocaust and the second world war to random bag searches.




I think it does.

It's easy to look at Nazi Germany in hindsight as a series of events that happened in rapid succession. But in reality, it took well over a decade for it to go from a relatively benign democracy to a murderous autocracy. Think of where you were a decade ago. A decade ago I wasn't even in my final year of high school.

These things happen in little steps and the slope is slippery. First the government searches bags on public transport, then on the street, then they're in our homes and arresting us without warrants. It sounds extreme, but it is our responsibility to resist this slide.

Governments, unchecked, tend to expand to fill any unfilled spaces.

As for life being sacred at all costs, as a physician I think I have good experience to give me the right to disagree with it. I've seen life preserved at all costs and it's not pretty...

I would rather die than live in an autocracy. Above my life lies my liberty.


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

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Valid point. It's easy, when looking at history, to lose perspective of how much time means. It's all very well saying 1939-45 but that is still 6 years of war. That's it starting when I was 12, and I'm 18 now. Imagine growing up with war as a background for that part of your life. 6 years. *6* years. It's a long time to be fighting.

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

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Doc Lightning

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.



But for many, it's not a case of not being able to understand it- they understand perfectly, yet still either don't particularly object to searches, or, as is apparent from some replies on this thread, actually welcome them because they believe it can, in some small way, help prevent some bombings in public places.

Fact is, as as been mentioned before, when it comes to governmental rights vs. personal liberty, it isn't a black and white thing- the government has, and has always had, to some degree, the power to invade ones liberty.

Whether it's the right to breathalise suspected drunk drivers, and jail them if found guilty; the right to search properties with a warrant etc, etc.

ie, there's a line to be drawn dividing what is acceptable invasive government behaviour, and what is unnaceptable.

You consider bag searches to be unnaceptable, others consider them to be good.

Just because Nazi Germany progressed from bag searches to horror, doesn't mean that such progression is inevitable.

Fact is that some people are going into crowded places with big bags full of explosives; i see no reason why there could not be a day when a bag is searched and found to contain a bomb- given that possibility, it's inevitable that some portion of the population will support bag searches.

And whilst you would rather die than undergo a bag search; others would rather put up with it as they believe that it can maybe prevent one of the future attacks.

Some people are happy to put up with some restriction to personal liberties,if only because they realise that there are always some such restrictions anyway.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by:
Fact is that some people are going into crowded places with big bags full of explosives; i see no reason why there could not be a day when a bag is searched and found to contain a bomb- given that possibility, it's inevitable that some portion of the population will support bag searches.



And on that day at least one bomb will go off somewhere else in the system.

Rather than accept that these searches are futile, they will expand them. Because governments are bad at admitting they're wrong.


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

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Given that, for example, four terrorists co-ordinate to attack a city on a particular day; if one of those happens to be searched prior to reaching their intended destination- that that would mean one less bomb going off where it was meant to.

Whilst the remaining three would indeed be unnaffected, it seems to me that three attacks is preferable to four.

I understand your point that, if bag searches are futile, then they are not only pointless, but also invasive of personal liberty, and, given that premise (that searches are futile), i would agree with you.

However, I, and many others, do not feel at all sure that bag searches are futile. I've read your reasons so far and am not convinced- could you give some evidence that bag searches are futile?

Also, above I've described a possible scenario where a bag search could prevent a bomb exploding in it's intended target area- if you're holding on to the claim that searches are futile, could you relate that to the above scenario?

I'll say here that I think many aspects of the US and UK governments approach to security are likely flawed (I'm sure you're aware that, in the UK, a innocent man has basically been gunned down and killed on suspicion of being a bomber), so I am open to any good reasons why bag searches are inneffective- but, it does have to be reasons related to inneffectiveness, i'm not going to be swayed by tales of Nazi Germany.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:How about this for an argument?

Say you're a bomber. You see people being searched ahead. Would you walk up to the police like everyone else? Or would you:

1. Turn around and find somewhere else to detonate the bomb.

2. Detonate immediately, taking as many people with you as you can.

3. Knowing that people on the tube/subway are being searched, you instead plan to target somewhere else of importance, like buses. Or maybe just a crowd of people.

These are the reasons I disagree with the effectiveness of random searches. It seems to me to simply be something that the police are doing to reassure the public. Reassurance is fine, but it's still invasive and ineffective.


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_
_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast
Member Since: 22nd Oct 2002
Total posts: 5967
Posted:Hmmm.

(goddammit, I should be able to just walk away from these threads eek)

Anyways, Sethis, I think those are actually good arguments in support of random searches.

A bomber will always try to make his/her way to the most crowded area - for maximum effect.

If they are turned away, or have to find somewhere else, there is a strong likelihood it will be less crowded...

As for targetting buses instead... well, in this ineffectual hypothetical world - I'll always choose the option where fewer people die.


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:^^ so basically, random searches must be made in every public place where there are crowds. Cinemas, football gounds, schools, hospitals, parks, concerts, airports, the list goes on and on. It is simply impossible to randomly search people in all these places.

And a bomber won't necessarily go to a crowded area to achieve effect. You'd only need to kill a few people in schools or hospitals to have parents pulling their kids out, or people not going to get treatment.

You simply can't fight this kind of warfare, which is why I support talking to the people involved, rather than declaring that you'll fight to the death, or "Won't give an inch".


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_
_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast
Member Since: 22nd Oct 2002
Total posts: 5967
Posted:I support the searches, and any attempt to understand why the bombers have been motivated - talking to the actual bombers might not achieve much, though.



But none of us can really know what is the best policy. Each situation has to be looked at individually.



I can only speak from the experience of what happened here (which, incidentally, was much more than just random searches).



We also had internment without trial (where the police could arrest and hold you for as long as they wanted without telling you why).



The police and security forces (British army) had the power to search you or your home any time they liked (it wasn't difficult to obtain a search warrant).



Random bag searches as you entered a big shop or football ground or any crowded place was pretty tame (and despite the fact the power was available, it wasn't always used).



For the majority of people, the powers introduced under the Northern Ireland Anti-Terrorism Bill were a hassle, nothing more.



But abuses of those powers certainly did take place.



During the 70s, 80s and 90s, the predominantly Protestant police force (RUC) interned (a practice which was eventually stopped) and searched many more Catholics than Protestants - leading to the ongoing distrust of the police service here (and hatred of the British army in some areas).



Despite these abuses and the extent to which rights can be infringed, I still support random bag searches - because essentially, I don't think they do any harm.



Internment, on the other hand, is an entirely seperate issue... and while it is still being used in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (hmmm, insurgency anyone?!) I can't see it being reintroduced here.


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by:
These are the reasons I disagree with the effectiveness of random searches. It seems to me to simply be something that the police are doing to reassure the public. Reassurance is fine, but it's still invasive and ineffective.



DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!

We've got a winner! biggrin


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

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:I'll just point out that the above quote merely contains the opinion that searches are purely for reasurance and consequently are ineffective, without giving any reason or evidence that this is the case.

I'll say again- some people consider that searches are not purely for reasurance, and that they can, in some scenarios, be effective (see my example above).

It's OK to hold the opposite opinion, but, if you want to convince others, you're going to have to come up with some reasons or evidence to substantiate your views.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Hello Dave? You read my post above where I listed 3 ways that searches are ineffective. You're welcome to argue with those. Presumable Doc also read my post, and didn't want to quote the entire post because it's quite large.

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

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:I agree with your points above, however, as firepoise points out, a terrorist who has to detonate his/her bomb in a different place to the one intended, is likely to cause less harm than they otherwise would have.

Also, a person with a suspiciously large bag, who appears to be going to x, until they spot a search team and then walk away, could well be spotted and pursued- forcing them to either detonate their device in far less than omptimal conditions, or give themselves up.

Bag searches will not stop all attacks- they may stop some, and lessen others.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Phellan
member
Location: Kamloops, BC
Member Since: 20th Oct 2003
Total posts: 74
Posted:It would seem that perhaps these checks might *perhaps* find the odd explosive, at best. But how many news groups have smuggled faked explosives aboard planes, into goverment buildings, etc to test such defenses? You see it all the time on American TV.

Truth is the odds of locating such an explosive are relatively low, at best it just gives individuals a sense of reassurance, that's human nature, we believe we are safe because such precautions are in place. Fact is it isn't so. Random searches in the subways? Fine bomb an airport. Anyone ever seen how many folks crowd into an airport at those check-in desks? How much more explosives could you load into LUGGAGE? What are you gonna do to check that? *everyone* there would have it. Bring a bag into a university, again everyone has one. Create car bombs and go to a crowded and busy street in rush hour.

The fact is that no matter *what* the police do, there will always always be a way around the security measures unless you live in an absolute totalitarian state, even then as shown by the fact that rebels form and fight those gov'ts it would appear absolute saftey is impossible.

The only real discussion here is what is an acceptable degredation of our way of life in order to gain a "sense" of security, though that sense is in truth just that, intangible and a dream.

As Doc's says, our rights will be eroded, each attack will cause more security, more elaborate and invasive ways to try and stop such attacks, and the people will allow it because as OWD states, many people believe that 2 or 3 explosions is better than 4 or 5. But if that's the case, if you're willing to believe that your rights being eroded is a small price to pay for potentially saving 50% of the victims well. . .

Perhaps the terrorists really have won. They instill fear and forced gov'ts to limit rights, become invasive. And by allowing them to do so our "free" societies, become less free. If these terrorists really are as many people claim attacking our societies for what they stand for, then by changing how we treat our citizens and by changing the laws to become more Authoritarian then we have been manipulated and changed by them.

The Violation of a citizens right by the goverement will never be justified, the moment it is we slide down a very slick slope. It's not because the goverment is evil or misguided -- it's because in our fear we will allow our goverements to take those rights and to make us safe, and in doing so we will be guided by fear and hate of those who make us afraid. And those emotions can never be used for good.


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Phellan

It would seem that perhaps these checks might *perhaps* find the odd explosive, at best. But how many news groups have smuggled faked explosives aboard planes, into goverment buildings, etc to test such defenses? You see it all the time on American TV.




Let's take two public buildings, both potentially terrorist targets, identical in all ways except that one has a bag checking team (not checking all bags, but just some) and the other doesn't.

As a terrorist wanting to deposit a bomb in a rucksack, which building would you choose to target?

As a citizen, which of those buildings would you prefer your wife/husband worked in?




Written by: Phellan


Truth is the odds of locating such an explosive are relatively low, at best it just gives individuals a sense of reassurance, that's human nature, we believe we are safe because such precautions are in place.



your previous quote acknowledges that checks might find some explosives, so it's not the case that 'at best' it just gives reasurance; 'at best' it stops an attack.




Written by: Phellan



The Violation of a citizens right by the goverement will never be justified, the moment it is we slide down a very slick slope. It's not because the goverment is evil or misguided -- it's because in our fear we will allow our goverements to take those rights and to make us safe, and in doing so we will be guided by fear and hate of those who make us afraid. And those emotions can never be used for good.



again, where's the evidence? I've previously pointed out that where there is government there is always some portion of the population who will have their liberty inhibited- it's always that way, a matter of degree, not absolutes.

Well before these terrorist attacks, some individuals had their rights violated, it wasn't then a slippery slope into fascism, and I really see no evidence that bag searches will be either.

If a driver is suspected of being drunk, he/she can be pulled over and forcibly tested for the presence of excess alcohol. This is accepted, and it is good.

That individual may well feel violated, especially if they know they've not been drinking; nevertheless, to stop abuse, stops are necessary, good, and accepted.

So what's the difference between examining a suspected drunk driver, and examining the bag of someone suspected of carrying explosives?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave


I'll just point out that the above quote merely contains the opinion that searches are purely for reasurance and consequently are ineffective, without giving any reason or evidence that this is the case.







I'm going to explain how the searches are being done. Once I'm done, -- pardon me for being blunt -- you must be the world's second-biggest idiot to believe that these searches have a slow snowball's chance in hell of stopping a bombing.



1) The searches are "optional," meaning that if you refuse to be searched you just turn around and walk right back onto the street.



2) The searches are not done at every station.



3) About one of every ten people who enters a station where there is a search is going on would be searched.



So, suppose I'm a terrorist and I go to get on a train at the Broadway and 96 St. Station and...oops, there's searchers there! I get stopped. Being only the fifth biggest idiot in the world, I refuse, turn around and walk back out. Gee, what am I going to do now?



Oh, walk ten blocks (a quarter of a mile) down Broadway to the 86 st. Station and get on there where they aren't searching. Or up 9 blocks to 103 st. Get on a train, and blow everyone to smithereens.



Now, OWD, given this information, I challenge you to honestly claim that you still believe these searches stand any chance at all of catching a terrorist.



Still trying to cling to your argument? Let's go back to your public building example. Let's say that one building isn't searching people and the other is searching people, but ONLY AT ONE ENTRANCE.



Personally, as a terrorist, I'm going for the latter because they're being all smug and stuff.

EDITED_BY: Doc Lightning (1122767674)


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

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Firstly, I'm talking about the concept of bag searches in general- the specific bag searches you're talking about, if they are as you say, do sound somewhat silly. To be effective, it sounds like they would have to be beefed up somewhat (specifically, for example, by removing the optionality).

As for my building example, I'm assuming it would be done sensibly by people who know what they're doing,and therefore searches would be in opporation at all entrances.

So, to conclude, I'm not particularly in support of ineffective and badly run search procedures, but that in no way invalidates bag searches in general, because well thought out search procedures could, as previously argued, prevent some attacks (IMO).


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Hang on, does anyone have any idea how many entrances would need to be guarded to protect the subway/tube? And are they seriously going to be searching people who work there?

And even if you do tie up the entire police force with random searches, then you get huge increases in crime, and further drain on police resources.

And how simple would it be for 2 terrorists to bypass the system?

Terrorist 1 goes to the checkpoint, and looks shifty. Police pull him over, and he makes a fuss about the search. 2nd terrorist just walks past while police are busy arguing with his accomplice. And don't try to tell me that the police are stopping everyone who goes past.

Searches just don't work. shrug


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

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Now that we've established that they don't work unless you search EVERYONE...

Let's return to the 4th Amendment. It's there for a reason.

It's there to prevent stuff like this. The Constitution does not guarantee safety, it guarantees liberty. Liberty ain't free, folks. Sometimes it has to go before death.

If you trade liberty for safety you will get neither and deserve less.


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

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by:
If a driver is suspected of being drunk, he/she can be pulled over and forcibly tested for the presence of excess alcohol. This is accepted, and it is good.



In that situation it is an issue of probable cause. If you are SUSPECTED of driving drunk you may be pulled over and breathalyzed.

However, random road stops where all drivers were breathalyzed were found to be unconstitutional.


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

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Doc Lightning

Now that we've established that they don't work unless you search EVERYONE...



To establish something you're going to need more than a couple of examples, especially when my examples seem to show that selective searching can work. You're going to need reasoning and evidence.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

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..