Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   "We cannot simply suspend or restrict civil liberties until the War of Terror is over, because the War on Terror is unlikely ever to be truly over. September 11... cannot be the day liberty perished in this country"   (cnn.com) divider line 742
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

38928 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2004 at 9:58 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



742 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-10-16 08:13:27 PM  
How does it impede your right to assemble?
 
2004-10-16 08:14:06 PM  
Suddenly introducing lawsuits is a red herring.

No, it's not a 'red herring'. It's a valid concern for anyone who's EVER had to organize any sort of public event. Risk management is a sad part of the planning of any event concerning more than 10 people these days and has been for some time now. It's just not something people think about tho. It's also helpful to consider what thoughts must go thru the minds of anyone who's now got to organize any sort of public event with one less way to excercise due diligence in light of any lawsuit after the fact.

You can reduce the risk, but what's an acceptable level of risk?

Dunno. Ask the people in the crowd. Ask the event organizers. Ask the lawyers. There used to be this thing in the law called 'assumed risk'. That's been taking a beating lately tho.

To me, the US is already more law-bound than I would like. Poliec and federal agents already have too much power

I agree - but who gave it to them? We did. And we gave it to them slowly, over the past 15 odd years or so. Too late to ask for it back now, it's gone. I'd just like to know where to go from here. Bomb tossing fanatics on one side, nosy government officals on the other. All I get from everyone on the subject is still more ideology and demogogery - and nothing on this thread shows me anyone here is any different.

How should we protect ourselves from domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh?

The same way we protect ourselves against domestic terrorists like ELF/ALF - increased survellance, tighter on site security, better guards and increased vigilance. Damn shame what I'd call 'common sense measures' you seem to call 'fear mongering'. Quit letting your ideology do the talking, maybe you'll wake up.
 
2004-10-16 08:14:09 PM  
It was a crack Maddag. Disregard.
 
2004-10-16 08:14:59 PM  
Disregard misspelling your name too. Sorry.
 
2004-10-16 08:15:05 PM  
fishrockcarving:
I think the security measures at airports are draconian and ineffective. You are much more apt to die on your way to the airport, than to die from a terrorist attack once you're on the plane.
 
2004-10-16 08:15:26 PM  
Weaver95

Too late to ask for it back now, it's gone.

Untrue. Why on earth would you think that?
 
2004-10-16 08:16:11 PM  
How is making the protesters walk through a metal detector taking away their freedom to protest?
 
2004-10-16 08:16:17 PM  
It impedes your right to assemble.

So I can ignore red lights on the way to a protest - they're slowing me down, impeding my right to assemble?

Cool!
 
2004-10-16 08:16:57 PM  
GraphicAddiction:
Maybe I ought to cut down on the cofee and take a xanex. This shiat always gets me worked up.
 
2004-10-16 08:18:19 PM  
Untrue. Why on earth would you think that?

Have you ever tried to get anything back once the government has it? Good luck - nothing short of extensive, sustained and expensive legal action EVER gets anything back from the government once they've got a hold of it. That applies to everything from seized property to constitutional rights.
 
2004-10-16 08:18:59 PM  
Ah, don't fret it MDJ, I'm just putzing around being a nuisance anyway.
 
2004-10-16 08:19:06 PM  
maddogjew Draconian? Walking through a metal detector is draconian?

Is it the actually act of walking through the metal detector, or is it that you have to put your keys in the little basket that make it draconian?
 
2004-10-16 08:20:10 PM  
Weaver95

Yes, it takes extensive, sustained struggle in order to regain lost-- or never present-- civil rights. A struggle like, say, the civil rights marches, or the struggle gays are going through right now. It's not "too late" it's just "very hard".

You seem to paint a picture of an inexorable drive towards totalitarianism. Is this what you believe?
 
2004-10-16 08:20:42 PM  
Weaver95:
Now your just being difficult. What is to stop the Gov from putting real delays in speach they consider unpopular? Your arguments and your mindset appear to want to squash all anti-goverment protests. Is this ok by you? If you want to live like that, there are many countries that might be willing to take you.
 
2004-10-16 08:22:22 PM  
Fishrockcarving

It's having the damn wand prodding my ballsack that's draconian.

No, the real point is that all that security effecively achieves nothing. If you don't know already, look up all of the news stories of screeners with criminal pasts (and I'm not talking about marijuana posession), screeners failing on the "tests" that they send through, screeners using the x-ray equipment to find valuables to steal. Meanwhile, the cargo holds on the planes, the non-inspection of plane equipment, etc. are all still heartily with us.
 
2004-10-16 08:22:46 PM  
I think the security measures at airports are draconian and ineffective. You are much more apt to die on your way to the airport, than to die from a terrorist attack once you're on the plane

Actually, you could probably take down a plane with a couple of well placed bottle rockets and a lucky shot or two, assuming you know what you're doing. IMHO security around runways isn't tight enough in most places.
 
2004-10-16 08:22:54 PM  
fishrockcarving:
Getting patted down, and cavity searched IS draconian. What would your definition be? Getting shot for looking suspicious? Where do YOU draw the line? If your grandmother was felt up by strangers, wouldn't you be upset?
 
2004-10-16 08:26:11 PM  
You seem to paint a picture of an inexorable drive towards totalitarianism. Is this what you believe?

I believe what Machiavelli had to say on the topic:

Wanting therefore to discourse on what were the institutions of the City of Rome and what events brought her to her perfection, I say, that some who have written of Republics say there are (one of) three States (governments) in them called by them Principality (Monarchy), of the Best (Aristocracy), and Popular (Democracy), and that those men who institute (laws) in a City ought to turn to one of these, according as it seems fit to them. Some others (and wiser according to the opinion of many) believe there are six kinds of Governments, of which those are very bad, and those are good in themselves, but may be so easily corrupted that they also become pernicious. Those that are good are three mentioned above: those that are bad, are three others which derive from those (first three), and each is so similar to them that they easily jump from one to the other, for the Principality easily becomes a tyranny, autocracy easily become State of the Few (oligarchies), and the Popular (Democracy) without difficulty is converted into a licentious one (anarchy). So much so that an organizer of a Republic institutes one of those three States (governments) in a City, he institutes it for only a short time, because there is no remedy which can prevent them from degenerating into their opposite kind, because of the resemblance that virtu and vice have in this instance.

Emphasis mine.
 
2004-10-16 08:27:40 PM  
Weaver95:
The only way to be perfectly safe, is to kill every man, woman, and child. Otherwise there will always be risk. You will never be safe until you are dead. Hell, your wife could develop a brain tumor, get physcotic and kill you while you slept. Is the answer to lock your wife down every night before you go to sleep, so you can be safe from that risk?
 
2004-10-16 08:28:30 PM  
fishrockcarving -

The airplane - protest comparison is apples and oranges.

If many of the passengers of the plane do not show up, the flight will be delayed or cancelled. I seriously doubt the protestee will delay or cancel their event because there are not enough protestors on hand.
 
2004-10-16 08:30:04 PM  
jwadeo:
I see once again your MaddogJew to english translator is working. Can you get me one of those?
 
2004-10-16 08:30:13 PM  
Weaver95

And I disbelieve that. I think that with enough citizens aware, the slide towards depotism or anarchy can be halted indefinitely.

But your suggestions so far would hasten us towards a police state.
 
2004-10-16 08:30:54 PM  
Cavity searches are not the normal security measures at airports. To dismiss all security measures at airports because a very few extreme instances are over the top when improperly applied is stupid.

This thread is about protestors walking through a metal detector, not about grandmothers getting felt up by strangers.

If this was about grandmothers getting felt up by strangers, I would have a different opinion on it. But this is about protesters walking through metal detectors.

Not about grandma getting felt up.

Walking through a metal detector on the way to exercise your 1st amendment rights is not a complete stripping of your 4th amendment rights.
 
2004-10-16 08:31:20 PM  
The only way to be perfectly safe, is to kill every man, woman, and child.

Nope, that's not it and you know it. The answer, if answer there be, is to bring back the concept of 'assumed risk'. Mention that to a trial lawyer tho and they'll cringe and fight you every step of the way.

Or you could just make everyone walk thru a metal detector. That'd work too.
 
2004-10-16 08:32:56 PM  
Weaver95

There are plenty of explosives not detectable by a metal detector.

The concept of assumed risk is still with us. Yes, the recent tort decisions of america have been mind-boggling horrible, but that, too, is a precipice we can climb down from. Assumed risk has been diminished, not vaporized.
 
2004-10-16 08:33:05 PM  
I'm thinking the constitution might need to 'bend' a little. Hey - Roe v Wade was bending the rules to fit the whims of society.

Are you farking kidding me?!?! Legal and safe abortions are a societal whim??? Give me a break.
 
2004-10-16 08:34:29 PM  
fishrockcarving -

It is an attempt to stamp out your 4th admendment right. As I said, plane to protest is apples and oranges.
 
2004-10-16 08:35:12 PM  
And I disbelieve that. I think that with enough citizens aware, the slide towards depotism or anarchy can be halted indefinitely.

It's a losing battle tho. Eventually every government slides towards anarchy or despotism. Welcome to the real world. Sucks, don't it?

And I'm still wondering where all these judges were when the DUI/drunk checkpoint laws were enacted. Or why they didn't speak up when someone proposed the first 'no knock' drug raid for that matter. The time to complain about our eroding rights was when the war on drugs started strangling our bill of rights in the dead of night.
 
2004-10-16 08:36:10 PM  
There are plenty of explosives not detectable by a metal detector.

That's why you have the K-9 unit standing next to the metal detector. Everyone pet the nice doggy on the way to the protest!
 
2004-10-16 08:36:29 PM  
fishrockcarving:
Where does it stop though? Do we stop with metal detectors? When you start abridging the right to assemble, it becomes a slippery slope.

I brought up grandmothers, because mine (who is 79) was felt up by security guards last time she flew. I can understand why though, old Jewish woman look a lot like terrorists.
 
2004-10-16 08:37:53 PM  
Weaver & fishrock

Don't even bother. It seems that some people would rather have 100s of US citizens blown up 1x than pass through a metal detector 10x. That's a core difference between us and them.
 
2004-10-16 08:38:30 PM  
I'm thinking the constitution might need to 'bend' a little. Hey - Roe v Wade was bending the rules to fit the whims of society.

Are you farking kidding me?!?! Legal and safe abortions are a societal whim??? Give me a break.


You obviously don't know anything about RvW.
 
2004-10-16 08:39:00 PM  
Legal and safe abortions are a societal whim???

Well, technically it was the whim of a few judges that were outside the mainstream opinion of the times but that's neither here nor there.

frickin' activist judges....Ah well, they opened the can of worms, i'm just exploring some of the consequences.
 
2004-10-16 08:39:38 PM  
FortuneCookie

I would rather sacrifice my own life, and live in a society with others brave enough to sacrifice their lives, then cower in fear behind increasing police powers in order to keep me safe from terrorists, yes.
 
2004-10-16 08:39:42 PM  
FortuneCookie:
you are right, because thousands right here in the US are lost to terrorist's bombs everyday.
 
2004-10-16 08:40:48 PM  
FortuneCookie -

Actually, I think Weaver has an understanding of our view, he just does not agree with it.

I am not so sure about fishrock.
 
2004-10-16 08:42:11 PM  
It seems that some people would rather have 100s of US citizens blown up 1x than pass through a metal detector 10x. That's a core difference between us and them.

It's interesting to see how far they'll go with it tho. I don't think the Left realizes what we're up against with the islamic fanatics. We've been lucky so far - the bad guys have had a hell of a time moving assets into position over distance lately (hmm...wonder why?) but eventually they'll get off another attack on US soil.
 
2004-10-16 08:44:08 PM  
"And I'm still wondering where all these judges were when the DUI/drunk checkpoint laws were enacted. Or why they didn't speak up when someone proposed the first 'no knock' drug raid for that matter. The time to complain about our eroding rights was when the war on drugs started strangling our bill of rights in the dead of night."

I wish I was able to form a well thought out opinion when the war on drugs started. But I was way too young. Looking back on it now, I agree it is a total crock of shiat. Our country has some of the most rediculous drug laws in the western world.
 
2004-10-16 08:45:11 PM  
They are not abridging the right to assemble. They are making provisions for the safety of the protesters and everybody else. I have the right to keep and bear arms, 2nd amendment, and within the laws of many states, I could carry a rifle to a protest, and as long as I am not wielding it in a threatening manner, I am within my constitutionally protected rights. How do you feel about the abridgement of that right?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, because it is not really about abridging my rights, it is about protecting the rights of the protesters to protest peacefully, without having to worry about some nut with a rifle. But, it is an abridgement of my constituionally protected rights.

BTW, my 71 year old Dad also had to submit to a pat down on one of his flights. If he managed to endure it without getting outraged, I guess I can tolerate it on his behalf.
 
2004-10-16 08:45:50 PM  
Weaver95:
Last generation it was the communists, this time it is the muslims, I wonder what our kid's boogeyman will be? It seems like we always have some bugaboo to worry about.
 
2004-10-16 08:46:10 PM  
"hmm...wonder why?"

It is certainly not the borders of our country or cargo ships.
 
2004-10-16 08:46:23 PM  
I would rather sacrifice my own life, and live in a society with others brave enough to sacrifice their lives, then cower in fear behind increasing police powers in order to keep me safe from terrorists, yes.

Great. But what do you do about the thousands of people in the crowd around you that don't share that opinion? Do they have a right to protest peacefully and NOT be used as a shield for a fanatics suicide attempt?

...he just does not agree with it.

I think you're a dollar short and a day late. You might have had a point 15 years ago. You'd still have a point today had 9/11 not happened. I disagree with your outright refusal to consider the impact of radical terrorists on current security procedures. At least you could acknowledge the threat and it's impact...?
 
2004-10-16 08:48:28 PM  
Weaver95

Used as a shield? Who is using them as a shield?
 
2004-10-16 08:48:30 PM  
Last generation it was the communists, this time it is the muslims, I wonder what our kid's boogeyman will be? It seems like we always have some bugaboo to worry about.

A lot of people hate the US. There will always be people who hate the US. Dosen't mean we stop protecting our citizens tho.
 
2004-10-16 08:49:06 PM  
fishrockcarving:
What? They didn't give him a cavity search? He could have been a terrorist! I feel so scared! I should right my senator ant tell him that there should be required cavity searches on all flights. You never know, anyone could be a terrorist.
 
2004-10-16 08:49:27 PM  
Who is using them as a shield?

Do bother reading anything I write?
 
2004-10-16 08:49:35 PM  
fishrockcarving -

You would probably be arrested for disturbing the peace as it would cause people to go into a chaotic state.

Why do you keep bringing up airplanes? Seriously, why?
 
2004-10-16 08:50:58 PM  
Weaver95:
So what if they hate the US? Does this mean we should go against every intention of our founding fathers? We are playing into their hands damnit! They want us to become more like they are. Don't you see?
 
2004-10-16 08:54:01 PM  
Does this mean we should go against every intention of our founding fathers?

Show me where the founding fathers forsaw the threats we face today. They wrote the US constitution as an open ended document, allowing us to be flexible to meet challenges as they present themselves. All i'm saying is that we recognize that we're in a very different sort of conflict here - one that was largely inconceivable when the founders wrote the constitution - and we adapt to the new rules of engagement.
 
2004-10-16 08:54:16 PM  
jwadeo I do have an understanding of your view. I just think you are wrong. The airport analogy is a good one, because we have accepted it, and have come to discover that walking through a metal detector does not strip us of our rights, does not subject us to unreasonable search and seizure, and is a painless and effective way to provide for the security of many with a minimal inconvenience to everyone involved. We do it in courthouses, schools, city buildings, rock concerts, and nobody bats an eye, but the minute protesters are asked to do it, they biatch about the 4th amendment surrendering. The same protesters who walk through one to get to a concert without thinking twice complain about being denied their civil rights when asked to do it at a protest.
 
Displayed 50 of 742 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report