In reply to Curmudgeon:
I thought it was pretty well accepted that the TSA's molestations of the general populace don't really prevent terrorism.
In reply to Curmudgeon:
I thought it was pretty well accepted that the TSA's molestations of the general populace don't really prevent terrorism.
And there you go bending words. 'Molestation of the general populace'.
But past that: there is unfortunately no proof either way. If someone decides not to do something because there's a real good chance they will get caught, then how do you quantify that? Answer: you can't.
Down here the zoo parking lot used to be a scene for car break ins until they put in security cameras and advertised their presence. The number of break ins dropped. That the numbey dropped can be quantified. Exactly how many didn't get committed? No way to tell.
The only way to know just what TSA might have stopped is to just do away with it, stand back and count incidents. You want to be part of that experiment? I don't.
I'd love to be part of an experiment that reduced government intrusion, control and oversight of my life and liberty.
I'd dearly love to go back to the old days, when I could, and did, walk into airports with my shotgun over my shoulder.
In reply to Curmudgeon:
Molestation means causing someone trouble. But, I guess I could have used a less loaded word such as "bother" but where is the fun in that?
And yeah, I want to be a part of the non police state experiment. I am not saying give up airport security. Just improve it. And cut out the grabass.
In reply to Curmudgeon:
The difference is the TSA while annoying isn't violating the Bill of Rights. This throwing people who are American citizens in jail without trial is. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is what makes this country so great and giving that away because of some threat is letting that threat win.
I disagree, I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment. Specifically, a violation of the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure.
foxtrapper wrote: I disagree, I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment. Specifically, a violation of the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure.
I agree, it violates the 4th.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
So 6 for with 7 against and one little berkeley is confused by the ballot. Good news everyone! We aren't a facist nation! 
Curmudgeon wrote: Good example: everyone is all up in arms about how the 'Occupy' protesters were pepper sprayed in California. They should be happy they weren't in just about any other country in the world because instead of being pepper sprayed they probably would have had the E36 M3 beat out of them. (And for the record, in many ways I agree with their group's stated grievances.) Close to home, our own Gov Haley had them removed from the State House grounds on flimsy excuses but they immediately (like the next morning) got their day in court and are right back where they were but this time with a judge's blessing. Try THAT E36 M3 anywhere else in the world. Let me know how it works out.
From an officer on another site I frequent talking about this very topic:
Pepper spray is just above verbal commands in use of force continua in the overwhelming majority of U.S. jurisdictions, so odds are yes. Pepper spray is actually considered less forceful and dangerous than jointlock escort techniques and certainly beneath ground-cuffing. Various techniques the protesters use involve affixing groups together by tightly gripping each other's hands inside PVC fittings to prevent prying them apart, jamming multiple subjects into a number of hula hoops to create a human blockade, or simply locking arms in large groups while sitting and refusing to move. In such a situation pepper spray can be quite useful, as you aren't prying anyone apart that way safely, and when sprayed the normal human instinct is to release one's grip on whatever and bring the hands to the face. The protesters actually want to obtain spray footage to elicit sympathy and outrage. That's why they use women and coach them to scream and cry "Why are you hurting us?!?" and things like that. They are very active in manipulating video and photos to their advantage. At one point years ago a bunch of protesters tried the "hold hands in the PVC" method and rather than use a Dremel or something to cut them apart (and risk opening up an artery) the police swabbed out their eyelids with a Q-Tip dipped in spray. It worked and their airways were crystal clear but the images of JBT's "torturing" peaceful vegan souls by poking them in the eyes with hot pepper were considered shocking to the SWPL masses.
Legally speaking, the officers were perfectly within the law. And you're right, try that E36 M3 in any coutry but maybe five or six of them and you'd get wooden shampoo before anything else.
Grizz wrote: Legally speaking, the officers were perfectly within the law.
So was Gadaffi and it didn't help him a lick when the mob turned on him.
Curmudgeon wrote: Good example: everyone is all up in arms about how the 'Occupy' protesters were pepper sprayed in California. They should be happy they weren't in just about any other country in the world because instead of being pepper sprayed they probably would have had the E36 M3 beat out of them. (And for the record, in many ways I agree with their group's stated grievances.) Close to home, our own Gov Haley had them removed from the State House grounds on flimsy excuses but they immediately (like the next morning) got their day in court and are right back where they were but this time with a judge's blessing. Try THAT E36 M3 anywhere else in the world. Let me know how it works out.
We do have it pretty good in the U.S. We just have to guard against those who would surely like to change things to a more totalitarian government.
My thoughts are that Congress/Senate pass laws purely because they know they won't have to deal with them. We live in a two tiered society. The peasants, you and I, have to live one way while Gov't officials are exempted from TSA searches, the effects of a drug war, Terrorism charges, etc. When our governing bodies have to live by the same rules we do, then laws will change.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:Grizz wrote: Legally speaking, the officers were perfectly within the law.So was Gadaffi and it didn't help him a lick when the mob turned on him.
Gadaffi didn't have hot pockets and reality tv to keep the mob fat, lazy and stupid.
Kids in my HS used to bring shotguns to school (in the trunk) so they could go hunting after school. Something called Columbine put the final nail in the coffin of that freedom. I don't see anyone in this discussion bringing them to task.
Used to be if you had a face and money you could get on an airplane and go anywhere you wanted. The occasional hijacking to Cuba wasn't so bad because the planes, passengers and crews always got home safely. Eleven jihadists carrying boxcutters stole aircraft then slammed them into the WTC and the Pentagon causing us to rethink letting just anyone on an airplane. Where's the outrage at them in this discussion?
Y'all grumble and complain about how the government is trampling your rights. How about, for a change, get pissed at those who are REALLY behind the changes?
Maybe you could support Bush's (now Obama's) war on terrorism? Maybe support wiping those slimy 'suicide child bombing' E36 M3s off the face of the earth, as they so richly deserve?
Or is that getting too close to the real issues? Is it just easier to grumble and complain that the TSA gets too close to your junk?
Damn, that 'blame everyone but the real perps' type of attitude pisses me off.
So we're supposed to complain that the vast vast majority of people on this planet are really berkeleyin stupid and are responsible for all of the overreaching kneejerk reactions and zero tolerance horseE36 M3 on the planet?
Cause I do that all the time with little to no response other than getting accused of being a cynical jaded shiny happy person.
Curmudgeon wrote: Y'all grumble and complain about how the government is trampling your rights. How about, for a change, get pissed at those who are REALLY behind the changes? Maybe you could support Bush's (now Obama's) war on terrorism? Maybe support wiping those slimy 'suicide child bombing' E36 M3s off the face of the earth, as they so richly deserve?
People are always going to be pissed off at another group of people and want to destroy them. Welcome to human race. Look in the last few years how many people in the US have died from terrorist attacks? How many have died in the US from murder? Do you think anyone who is thought to be a murderer should get just thrown in prison without a trial? To me that is what this issue comes down to. I will never get behind anything that results in the stripping of rights given by the constitution or bill of rights. berkeley that.
I am quite aware of the nature of human beings. But as to the difference between a murderer and a terrorist:
Terrorism = act of war. Look it up. Interesting treatise on the subject: http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1564
Operating as a terrorist is basically defined as operating outside of the norms of warfare. Thus a terrorist KNOWINGLY puts himself at risk of not getting due process. So we are back to you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The garden variety murderer (if such a thing exists) is specifically excluded from being labeled and tried as a terrorist because they are motivated by personal gain or for personal reasons. Thus they committed a civilian crime and are entitled to civilian due process as spelled out in the Constitution.
A terrorist is politically motivated, views himself as a soldier at war and sees nothing wrong with killing innocent bystanders to make their point. Thus, just like a soldier on the battlefield, he is subject to immediate extermination by the other side.
He cannot claim to be at war, commit acts of war, then when caught claim to be a garden variety criminal and get a civilian trial. It doesn't work that way. Back to having their cake and eating it, too.
But despite that in an effort to bend over backwards to be 'civilized', the Western world has tried to find other ways to deal with this problem. One of those methods is Guantanamo Bay. (Ding! The bell rings for the NEXT round.)
pilotbraden wrote:foxtrapper wrote: I disagree, I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment. Specifically, a violation of the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure.I agree, it violates the 4th.
'Unreasonable search and seizure'. So what's a reasonable search in y'all's definition?
Curmudgeon wrote: 'Unreasonable search and seizure'. So what's a reasonable search in y'all's definition?
1) Establish probable cause 2) See 1.
Imagine if every law enforcement officer could pat you down anytime, anywhere to see what you had in your pockets for no good reason. Make you empty your trunk, swing by the house to search for any wrongdoing... ya know... because you might be up to something.
Curmudgeon wrote: I am quite aware of the nature of human beings. But as to the difference between a murderer and a terrorist: Terrorism = act of war. Look it up. Interesting treatise on the subject: http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1564 Operating as a terrorist is basically defined as operating outside of the norms of warfare. Thus a terrorist KNOWINGLY puts himself at risk of not getting due process. So we are back to you can't have your cake and eat it too. The garden variety murderer (if such a thing exists) is specifically excluded from being labeled and tried as a terrorist because they are motivated by personal gain or for personal reasons. Thus they committed a civilian crime and are entitled to civilian due process as spelled out in the Constitution. A terrorist is politically motivated, views himself as a soldier at war and sees nothing wrong with killing innocent bystanders to make their point. Thus, just like a soldier on the battlefield, he is subject to immediate extermination by the other side. He cannot claim to be at war, commit acts of war, then when caught claim to be a garden variety criminal and get a civilian trial. It doesn't work that way. Back to having their cake and eating it, too. But despite that in an effort to bend over backwards to be 'civilized', the Western world has tried to find other ways to deal with this problem. One of those methods is Guantanamo Bay. (Ding! The bell rings for the NEXT round.)
nutshell version is you're saying that it is ok to suspend the right of an American citizen to have due process depending on the crime committed?
That is a slippery slope as I don't trust anyone to make the decision of what constitutes terrorism. Remember the MO report that anyone who followed the constitutional party or libertarian party should investigated as domestic terrorists? Yeah don't want those guys deciding anything. Not to mention the moment they have that power all protesters will be considered terrorists.
It is at least to me pretty clear. They will push and push until the people start to stand up then they'll use laws like these to try and weed those people out. Then when all that left are the "I can't live without gov't assistance" sheeple who believe only criminals have guns and you should be arrested for talking bad about the gov't, the transition to socialism would be complete.
Also I agree with whomever said tyranny on the left and anarchy on the right. That is the scale used by the founding fathers as they tried to find a balance between the two. The politicians have warped it into conservative and liberal.
Terrorism means that someone has decided to operate outside the norms of so called 'civilized' (ha!) warfare. Thus they eschew the protections afforded soldiers and more importantly the protections of the laws governing civilized society. Violence is involved along with death and injury to innocent bystanders (remember the London bus bombings? How about the Spanish train bombings? Didn't see a whole lot of combatants riding those).
So are those garden variety murders committed during a robbery or are they an act of war? I think the second. That means they can legally be killed or held as 'enemy combatants'.
Split hairs all you like, and refer to a rather ridiculous position paper but the people who choose to try to change society that way (rather than through established channels) decided to leave the norms of civilization behind. They get what they deserve.
I know, I know: the Founding Fathers did exactly that, stepped outside the boundaries. They were also quite aware of the possible costs: 'We must all hang together, else we shall certainly hang separately'. But to try to compare their struggle to whatever the hell al Quaida is doing is an insult to their memory.
Curmudgeon wrote: Terrorism means that someone has decided to operate outside the norms of so called 'civilized' (ha!) warfare.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: 'Unreasonable search and seizure'. So what's a reasonable search in y'all's definition?1) Establish probable cause 2) See 1. Imagine if every law enforcement officer could pat you down anytime, anywhere to see what you had in your pockets for no good reason. Make you empty your trunk, swing by the house to search for any wrongdoing... ya know... because you might be up to something.
So lemme ask you this: In your 'hood, there's been a rash of car thefts, they get hauled off to the local scrap dealer who don't ask no questions. Your E30 parts car is sitting out front, it's got a great motor but trashed transmission. The cops stop two guys in a ratty pickup with a car dolly behind it just down the street. Do you think 'man I wish the pigs would leave people alone' or do you think 'berkeley YEAH!'?
Yeah. I thought so. It's OK for them to do it to someone else when it's YOUR E36 M3 that might get ganked. But they damn well better not mess with you.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: Terrorism means that someone has decided to operate outside the norms of so called 'civilized' (ha!) warfare.
Need to read before ya jump the gun.
Quoting myself directly above your post:
'I know, I know: the Founding Fathers did exactly that, stepped outside the boundaries. They were also quite aware of the possible costs: 'We must all hang together, else we shall certainly hang separately'. But to try to compare their struggle to whatever the hell al Quaida is doing is an insult to their memory.'
Curmudgeon wrote: Need to read before ya jump the gun. Quoting myself directly above your post: 'I know, I know: the Founding Fathers did exactly that, stepped outside the boundaries. They were also quite aware of the possible costs: 'We must all hang together, else we shall certainly hang separately'. But to try to compare their struggle to whatever the hell al Quaida is doing is an insult to their memory.'
Sorry. It's a Friday after a long week. The Ommegang Dubbel is clouding my judgement. I suspect it will be all kneejerk reactions and penis jokes from here on in.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: Need to read before ya jump the gun. Quoting myself directly above your post: 'I know, I know: the Founding Fathers did exactly that, stepped outside the boundaries. They were also quite aware of the possible costs: 'We must all hang together, else we shall certainly hang separately'. But to try to compare their struggle to whatever the hell al Quaida is doing is an insult to their memory.'Sorry. It's a Friday after a long week. The Ommegang Dubbel is clouding my judgement. I suspect it will be all kneejerk reactions and penis jokes from here on in.
I blame Dick Chaney.
Curmudgeon wrote: So lemme ask you this: In your 'hood, there's been a rash of car thefts, they get hauled off to the local scrap dealer who don't ask no questions. Your E30 parts car is sitting out front, it's got a great motor but trashed transmission. The cops stop two guys in a ratty pickup with a car dolly behind it just down the street. Do you think 'man I wish the pigs would leave people alone' or do you think 'berkeley YEAH!'? Yeah. I thought so. It's OK for them to do it to someone else when it's YOUR E36 M3 that might get ganked. But they damn well better not mess with you.
That story sounds like they had probable cause.
See... they were looking for a car thief and they checked out someone who was behaving like a car thief.
I notice your story didn't feature cops stopping or searching a 55 year old mother of 4 on her way to the grocery to see if she had any knowledge of car thefts in the area.
You'll need to log in to post.
