Jump to content

Menu

DC Metro is going to start checking bags...


Recommended Posts

and packages (randomly), of passengers. WTOP just e-mailed me the story.... because of the recent threats. I remember when security screenings were more random at airports...I remember when there were no security screenings in airports. I wonder how long before the nudie scanners arrive at a Metro stop near you...:glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ack2:

and packages (randomly), of passengers. WTOP just e-mailed me the story.... because of the recent threats. I remember when security screenings were more random at airports...I remember when there were no security screenings in airports. I wonder how long before the nudie scanners arrive at a Metro stop near you....

 

 

:glare:

 

Wonder how effective it'll be, given the political sensitivities at play wrt airport security.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, to me, is a clear 4th Amendment violation. Simply because I am traveling somewhere does not give the gov't probable cause to search my belongings, or my person (persons aren't being searched, yet).

 

Frankly, I'm really sick of hearing the, "if you buy a ticket, you surrender your rights" argument. It's a slippery slope, and IMO completely unnecessary. The random searches will be ineffective, because no one will use psychological/behavioral profiling.

 

Searching the random diaper bag, woman's purse, man's briefcase is not likely to deter someone who truly wants to harm people... they'll find another way. They usually do.

 

IMO more "security measures" like this do nothing but make the "bad guys" more creative, and reduce the general public's opposition to infringements on their person, or their belongings.

 

A police state does not make me feel more secure -- and that's where I see the continued expansion of policies like this taking us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: Especially because terrorists have blown up trains before:(

 

So, when they blow up a bus? Or, start using their cars as bombs as has happened overseas? Do police then have the authority to randomly check legally-parked cars on the street? Same logic... they used it as a weapon before, so we should submit to more searches of our private property.

 

Where does it end?

 

Reminds me of this story where an elementary school teacher banned student-brought pens and pencils from her classroom because they could be used as weapons.

 

Well, I do know that pens and pencils (among other things like frying pans, and rolling pins) CAN and HAVE been used as weapons, by a very small minority, the idea that we should ban anything that could be used as a weapon is well, seen as ludicrous.

 

However, it is an extention of the very same logic being used to infringe on our 4th Amendment rights, and we simply say, "well, it has been tried before... so, okay!"

 

I was stabbed with a pencil in elementary school. I was stabbed by a "friend" with an xacto-knife, blade #1 in college, and had to get stitches in my finger... a person could use any number of ways to inflict harm using means and opportunity available in the public square. That does NOT mean an xacto-knife should be classified and regulated as a weapon, nor should it give the state the right to search my person or my things without probable cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, to me, is a clear 4th Amendment violation. Simply because I am traveling somewhere does not give the gov't probable cause to search my belongings, or my person (persons aren't being searched, yet).

 

Frankly, I'm really sick of hearing the, "if you buy a ticket, you surrender your rights" argument. It's a slippery slope, and IMO completely unnecessary. The random searches will be ineffective, because no one will use psychological/behavioral profiling.

 

Searching the random diaper bag, woman's purse, man's briefcase is not likely to deter someone who truly wants to harm people... they'll find another way. They usually do.

 

IMO more "security measures" like this do nothing but make the "bad guys" more creative, and reduce the general public's opposition to infringements on their person, or their belongings.

 

A police state does not make me feel more secure -- and that's where I see the continued expansion of policies like this taking us.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if you have nothing to hide, why does it bother you so much?

 

If they want to see my body outline in a scanner, so be it. They see thousands of them a day. I don't think a body which has had a child and seen its better day is something to be turned on by :tongue_smilie:

 

I have nothing to hide in my bags, if they want to search thru it they will find a pharmacy and some crayons but not much more.

 

It is honestly the people whom seem so "what do you mean you are checking *my* bag?!" that scare me and make me think that they *do* have something to hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when they blow up a bus? Or, start using their cars as bombs as has happened overseas? Do police then have the authority to randomly check legally-parked cars on the street? Same logic... they used it as a weapon before, so we should submit to more searches of our private property.

 

Where does it end?

 

Reminds me of this story where an elementary school teacher banned student-brought pens and pencils from her classroom because they could be used as weapons.

 

Well, I do know that pens and pencils (among other things like frying pans, and rolling pins) CAN and HAVE been used as weapons, by a very small minority, the idea that we should ban anything that could be used as a weapon is well, seen as ludicrous.

 

However, it is an extention of the very same logic being used to infringe on our 4th Amendment rights, and we simply say, "well, it has been tried before... so, okay!"

 

I was stabbed with a pencil in elementary school. I was stabbed by a "friend" with an xacto-knife, blade #1 in college, and had to get stitches in my finger... a person could use any number of ways to inflict harm using means and opportunity available in the public square. That does NOT mean an xacto-knife should be classified and regulated as a weapon, nor should it give the state the right to search my person or my things without probable cause.

 

Cars are private transportation so no the police cannot randomly search them. I am thinking that our government probably has intelligence data suggesting that the metros are a target:( I think our government is doing its best to prevent another attack with honest intentions IMHO. I think it would be foolish to do nothing IMHO if they do have info regarding possible attacks.

 

Of course, I think the teacher took it too far in the example that you gave. OTOH, I am happy that box cutters have been banned from airlines.

 

As for profiling, I think that is more un-American than random searches on public transportation IMHO. Whom do we profile in all sincerity? There have been American jihadists:(.

Edited by priscilla
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that's turning the 4th Amendment on it's face -- evicercating it.

 

After all, if you don't have anything to hide, than Protective Services should have every right to see what you're doing in your home, with your children. Denying them entry, is like saying you've got something to hide!

 

If you don't have anything to hide, than a police officer should have every right to pull you over, ask you to get out of the car, sit in your seat, test what is in your coffee mug, feel under your seat, check your baby to make sure the car seat is correct, that it's diaper is changed... if you deny him access, it's like saying you've got something to hide!

 

My property is my property. My person is my person. I am guaranteed under the 4th Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures (generally understood to mean not without probable cause).

 

If the new litmus test for security is we have to be willing to PROVE we have nothing to hide, than we are returning to the feudal days of old, where the burden of proof is no longer on the prosecution, innocence until proven guilty is gone, and you have to prove yourself innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

That is wrong. It undermines the system of law, and denys guaranteed rights by at least the 4th and 5th Amendments.

 

If the gov't wants to try to take them away, make them do so legally, by Amending the Constitution... don't just walk away and say, "well, you should be willing to prove you have nothing to hide!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are 2 interesting articles on profiling:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112603025.html

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112502167.html

 

I am a strong supporter of Israel but I think these articles bring up valid points of the huge expense to mimic Israel's airport security and of the problem of profiling certain groups of people in America.

 

My 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for profiling, I think that is more un-American than random searches on public transportation IMHO. Whom do we profile in all sincerity? There have been American jihadists:(.

 

You are talking about racial profiling, I specifically talked about psychological/behavioral profililng... two completely different things.

 

Your rights don't dissappear because you are on public transportation, any more than they do being on a public sidewalk should give them right.

 

We have bought into this mentality that it "must be okay," because I bought a ticket, or got on a bus, or took the Metro... to go to work, to shop, to get to school...

 

Also, I have yet to see any evidence that random searches net bombers... it's an illusion of security that doesn't really exist. Because if someone wants to cause harm, they will find a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that's turning the 4th Amendment on it's face -- evicercating it.

 

After all, if you don't have anything to hide, than Protective Services should have every right to see what you're doing in your home, with your children. Denying them entry, is like saying you've got something to hide!

 

If you don't have anything to hide, than a police officer should have every right to pull you over, ask you to get out of the car, sit in your seat, test what is in your coffee mug, feel under your seat, check your baby to make sure the car seat is correct, that it's diaper is changed... if you deny him access, it's like saying you've got something to hide!

 

My property is my property. My person is my person. I am guaranteed under the 4th Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures (generally understood to mean not without probable cause).

 

If the new litmus test for security is we have to be willing to PROVE we have nothing to hide, than we are returning to the feudal days of old, where the burden of proof is no longer on the prosecution, innocence until proven guilty is gone, and you have to prove yourself innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

That is wrong. It undermines the system of law, and denys guaranteed rights by at least the 4th and 5th Amendments.

 

If the gov't wants to try to take them away, make them do so legally, by Amending the Constitution... don't just walk away and say, "well, you should be willing to prove you have nothing to hide!"

 

I agree that the examples you give would be unreasonable search. However, I don't see doing checks for public transportation only as leading down the slippery slope to unreasonable searches IMHO. We already have safeguards against that slippery slope and I honestly do not always think the slippery slope argument is valid IMHO. Of course, as citizens we should be always involved to see that slippery slopes don't happen:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are 2 interesting articles on profiling:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112603025.html

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112502167.html

 

I am a strong supporter of Israel but I think these articles bring up valid points of the huge expense to mimic Israel's airport security and of the problem of profiling certain groups of people in America.

 

My 2 cents.

 

Read... and the first article, it is noted that the Israeli system could stand some improvements, by the Israeli's themselves... I believe we could take the good and leave the bad. Mistakes would be made, but that is still a far cry better from telling TSA agents to pretend the pat-downs with small children are a game (like Pedofiles groom their victims)... and a whole host of 4th Amendment issues.

 

The second story... well, it's only a matter of time until the TSA budget swamps that. The sheer number of people, equipment, maintenance to support this system in every bus terminal, metro station, train station across the United States will far outstrip the Israeli Budget for security.

 

There are other ways... there have to be other ways. That keep our principles, and our Constitution preserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read... and the first article, it is noted that the Israeli system could stand some improvements, by the Israeli's themselves... I believe we could take the good and leave the bad. Mistakes would be made, but that is still a far cry better from telling TSA agents to pretend the pat-downs with small children are a game (like Pedofiles groom their victims)... and a whole host of 4th Amendment issues.

 

The second story... well, it's only a matter of time until the TSA budget swamps that. The sheer number of people, equipment, maintenance to support this system in every bus terminal, metro station, train station across the United States will far outstrip the Israeli Budget for security.

 

There are other ways... there have to be other ways. That keep our principles, and our Constitution preserved.

 

I believe they have exempted children under 12 thank goodness. Honestly, I believe most of the terrorists are Muslim extremists but I think it would be wrong to single out all Muslims. I think it is against our American principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the examples you give would be unreasonable search. However, I don't see doing checks for public transportation only as leading down the slippery slope to unreasonable searches IMHO. We already have safeguards against that slippery slope and I honestly do not always think the slippery slope argument is valid IMHO. Of course, as citizens we should be always involved to see that slippery slopes don't happen:)

 

Like a frog in a pot of cold water, because he doesn't really notice it's too hot before it's too late... as we allow the gov't to infringe, each infringment is only a small step from where they were before, until the right is essentially eliminated.

 

Isn't history filled with examples of things along these lines? Why should we think the general populous of the US would even notice?

 

There were things with regard to re-written textbooks, and other educational issues that my mother campaigned on in the mid-80's. People didn't believe her. But by 2010, when Texas continues the tradition... it's "shocking" that this could be happening in America.

 

Prior to the 1990's it was unheard of for "life" to be patented... but get your people in the right places, and now companies can take your "contaminated" seed...which the company contaminated, and essentially your livelihood due to patent infringements.

 

And prior to the creation of "agencies," and "executive orders" -- actual laws had to be passed by people who were supposed to be accountable to their consitutents. Today, we are more at the mercy of bureaucrats whose very existence depends upon "improving" regulations on everything from what we are allowed to eat, drink, grow in our back-yards, to what measures terminally ill patients should have access to.

 

Did you hear that the FDA was revoking the use of a drug for Stage IV Breast Cancer victims, because it "doesn't help enough" people?

 

We the people are not involved. We are blissfully ignorant, and rationalize away our freedom every, single, day. It's been going on for years...I just don't see it stopping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they have exempted children under 12 thank goodness. Honestly, I believe most of the terrorists are Muslim extremists but I think it would be wrong to single out all Muslims. I think it is against our American principles.

 

No, children under 12 are not exempt from pat-downs, they simply "modified" them -- but that doesn't mean a child under 12 will not have their genitals touched. This is a quote from the 12/1/2010 article I linked above... this is within the past month.

 

 

 

Following an outcry last month over the use on children of "enhanced pat-downs" -- which involve the touching of genitals -- the TSA announced a new "modified" pat-down for children under 12. However, as the
, the new rules are "unclear" on whether TSA agents can touch children's genitals.

 

 

 

Addressing the controversy over pat-downs of children last month, TSA regional security director James Marchand
the TSA was working on new practices to make children more comfortable during the pat-down process."You try to make it as best you can for that child to come through. If you can come up with some kind of a game to play with a child, it makes it a lot easier," said Marchand, promising to make it part of TSA training.is the second security lesson of 9/11.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like a frog in a pot of cold water, because he doesn't really notice it's too hot before it's too late... as we allow the gov't to infringe, each infringment is only a small step from where they were before, until the right is essentially eliminated.

 

Isn't history filled with examples of things along these lines? Why should we think the general populous of the US would even notice?

 

There were things with regard to re-written textbooks, and other educational issues that my mother campaigned on in the mid-80's. People didn't believe her. But by 2010, when Texas continues the tradition... it's "shocking" that this could be happening in America.

 

Prior to the 1990's it was unheard of for "life" to be patented... but get your people in the right places, and now companies can take your "contaminated" seed...which the company contaminated, and essentially your livelihood due to patent infringements.

 

And prior to the creation of "agencies," and "executive orders" -- actual laws had to be passed by people who were supposed to be accountable to their consitutents. Today, we are more at the mercy of bureaucrats whose very existence depends upon "improving" regulations on everything from what we are allowed to eat, drink, grow in our back-yards, to what measures terminally ill patients should have access to.

 

Did you hear that the FDA was revoking the use of a drug for Stage IV Breast Cancer victims, because it "doesn't help enough" people?

 

We the people are not involved. We are blissfully ignorant, and rationalize away our freedom every, single, day. It's been going on for years...I just don't see it stopping.

 

I am against GMO food and would be happy to see it gone. As for avastin (sp?), the drug that was revoked against breast cancer, either medical research supports its use or it does not. IMHO if the evidence does not support its use, then it should not be used. As a nurse, evidence based practice has been very important not only for nurses but for doctors since prior to this push the past couple of decades, often there were instances of not much evidence.

 

I pose this question: who would have believed that crazy terrorists would have blown themselves up just to kill innocents? I know it was a shock to me and I truly believe these terrorists are not done:(. What is the answer? I think we should at least attempt to do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pose this question: who would have believed that crazy terrorists would have blown themselves up just to kill innocents? I know it was a shock to me and I truly believe these terrorists are not done:(. What is the answer? I think we should at least attempt to do something.

 

But, this was nothing new -- people were using themselves as bombs well prior to 9/11, just not in the United States. We were only "surprised" because we had been insulated from it on our own soil for more than 20 years (I recall news stories about these types of bombings, etc. going back in the middle east during 1970's, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this type of behavior going on for many more decades prior to that.)

 

No, I don't believe they are done. I actually believe there is much worse to come, and that all the security measures currently being employed will have zero effect to prevent it.

 

Like I said earlier... terrorists know that the bags are going to be searched, so they strapped them to their bodies... if metal detectors are then used, they will find ways to compartmentalize metal which can be scanned, and use plastics... if bomb-sniffing dogs are employed, they will switch materials... they will simply change tactics. That's what people who are intent to do harm do... they change tactics.

 

If someone is intent to kill me, but they are denied a gun -- that doesn't remove their intent to kill me, it simply removes their legal ownership of a gun. They could still get a gun illegally, or perhaps will use another weapon. A knife, a car, shove me in front of a bus... they will find a way to make it happen if they truly want me dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that's turning the 4th Amendment on it's face -- evicercating it.

 

After all, if you don't have anything to hide, than Protective Services should have every right to see what you're doing in your home, with your children. Denying them entry, is like saying you've got something to hide!

 

If you don't have anything to hide, than a police officer should have every right to pull you over, ask you to get out of the car, sit in your seat, test what is in your coffee mug, feel under your seat, check your baby to make sure the car seat is correct, that it's diaper is changed... if you deny him access, it's like saying you've got something to hide!

 

My property is my property. My person is my person. I am guaranteed under the 4th Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures (generally understood to mean not without probable cause).

 

If the new litmus test for security is we have to be willing to PROVE we have nothing to hide, than we are returning to the feudal days of old, where the burden of proof is no longer on the prosecution, innocence until proven guilty is gone, and you have to prove yourself innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

That is wrong. It undermines the system of law, and denys guaranteed rights by at least the 4th and 5th Amendments.

 

If the gov't wants to try to take them away, make them do so legally, by Amending the Constitution... don't just walk away and say, "well, you should be willing to prove you have nothing to hide!"

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Well said indeed!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...