The Fourth Amendment

[unrequited]

Since Reuters sometimes changes URLs or restricts access to old articles:

Boston Police to Randomly Search Rail Riders
Tue Jun 8, 2004 10:37 AM ET

BOSTON (Reuters) - Boston's transit police will randomly search subway and commuter train riders' bags and packages, making it the first American city to do so after March's deadly bombings in Spain, officials said on Tuesday.
"This is a proactive policy designed to deter and prevent a terrorist attack," Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Police Chief Joseph Carter said.

The random searches will begin in July, before July 4 Independence Day celebrations and ahead of the Democratic National Convention at the end of July.

Boston has the nation's fourth largest rail system with nearly 1 million train and subway riders daily. Locals voiced concern about security at the convention site, which stands above a subway station and near a major train station, prompting the closure of both stations during the July event.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. cities have stepped up security. And efforts to secure rail systems have been ramped up after the March 11 train bombings in Madrid, which killed 191 people.

Carter said the random searches will be conducted by all 247 uniformed MBTA officers and four bomb sniffing dogs.

"We want the MBTA to be inhospitable to terrorists. They can go someplace else," he said.

Carter said the planned searches will randomly pick out riders and are not aimed at singling out anyone.


I'm wondering what ever happened to our 4th Amendment which states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/)

It's the friggin' FIRST ELEVEN WORDS of the 4th Amendment. I understand while terrorism is looming, and CIA and other security analysts expect with high certainty we'll be attacked again before November's Elections, we're talking about the search of private citizens on a public transportation, without reason and without probable cause. It won't be random, it will be of males 18-60 of minority decent, primarily of Arabic/Indian decent. I wonder how many 25-35 white and black men will be searched, or 45+ women? This would be different if they set up security checkpoints and searched everybody as in airports today, but that's not the case. It's going to be used by the police as a harrasment technique, or a precursor to other charges if one looks "unsavory". This goes right along the lines of my former debate entitled, "Papers Please" (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22papers+please%22) about a Supreme Court case requiring the devulging of personal identification to uniformed officers without suspiscion or probable cause. "America, Land of the Free" is slowly just becoming "America".

[StealthMonkey]

It's sad that current circumstances have led to the near abolishment of the bill of rights. I think its wrong, and more pointless than anything. If someone really wants to get a bomb on a train, and I mean REALLY wants to, random searches aren't going to stop that. Also, so they search in Boston, fine, the terrorist will just pick one of the many other rail systems in the states. All this is going to do is invade the privacy of American citizens. Just like those stupid patriot acts and everything else that has been done since 9/11. :x

[Spyder]

While they claim that its completely random, i think they are going pick out the sketchy looking people and search them. This reminds my of an email i got a few weeks ago:

Profiling People Prohibited:

To ensure we Americans never offend anyone - particularly fanatics intent on
killing us -- airport screeners will not be allowed to profile people. They
will continue random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline
pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of
the President's security detail, 85-year-old Congressmen with metal hips,
and Medal-of-Honor-winning former Governors.

Let's pause a moment, reflect back, vow to NEVER forget, and then take the
following test based on actual cuts from history, on whether or not we
should engage in profiling:

In 1972, at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped & massacred by:
(a) Olga Korbut
(b) Sitting Bull
(c) Arnold Schwarzenegger
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Lost Norwegians
(b) Elvis
(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women on a Quilting Tour
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
(a) John Dillinger
(b) The King of Sweden
(c) The Boy Scouts
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A Pizza Hut delivery boy
(b) Patricia Ireland and three other crazed feminists
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:
(a) The Smurfs
(b) Davy Jones
(c) The Little Mermaid
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, & a U.S. Navy diver was
murdered by:
(a) Captain Kidd
(b) Charles Lindberg
(c) Mother Teresa
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
(a) Scooby Doo
(b) The Tooth Fairy
(c) Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
(a) Richard Simmons
(b) Grandma Moses
(c) Michael Jordan
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

In 1996, The Khobar Towers barracks at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia were bombed
by:
(a) The Vienna Boys Choir
(b) The Ohio State University football team
(c) Alec Baldwin
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) Mr. Rogers
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
(c) The World Wrestling Federation
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

On 10/12/00, the USS COLE (DDG-67) was attacked in Aden, Yemen, and 17
American sailors were killed by:
(a) Rosie O'Donnell
(b) Barbara Streisand
(c) James Carville and Paul Begala
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked & destroyed & thousands of people
were killed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd
(b) The Supreme Court of Florida
(c) The Jamaican bobsled team
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
(a) Enron
(b) The Lutheran Church
(c) The NFL
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
(a) Bonny and Clyde
(b) Captain Kangaroo
(c) Martha Stewart
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

On 4/28/02, a suicide truck bombing of a synagogue in Tunisia killed 19
people. Those responsible include:
(a) Ted Williams' children
(b) D.C. sniper suspects
(c) online pornographers
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

On 10/12/02, two nightclubs in Bali were bombed and resulted in the death of
over 190 men, women, and children. Most were Australian. The heinous
bombers were:
(a) Bally Fitness Club towel boys
(b) Bally slot machine repairmen
(c) Oscar Hammerstein II, who wrote Bali Hai for South Pacific
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

On 11/28/02, the Paradise Hotel near Mombasa, Kenya was attacked by a
suicide bomber and a car bomb that killed 10 innocent Kenyans and three
Israelis tourists. Who did this:
(a) Augusta National Golf Club members
(b) a group of crazed Wal*Mart Greeters
(c) UN. Weapons of Mass Destruction Inspection Team
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

On 12/30/02, three Southern Baptist missionaries providing free health care
to the poor at the 80-bed Jibla, Yeman hospital were slaughtered by:
(a) Raelian cultists
(b) Michael Doonsbury and Rob Reiner
(c) NASCAR
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

On 3/4/03, 21 innocents were killed and 170 injured while taking shelter
during a rain shower at the airport at Davao City on Mindanao, the
Philippine Islands. The homicide bomber was:
(a) Phil Donahue
(b) Phyllis Diller
(c) Phil Spector
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

On 5/13/03, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 34 honorable people, including 8
Americans, were murdered by:
(a) Karem Abdul Jabbar and Sean Penn
(b) Paula Abdul and Mike Farrell
(c) Muhammad Ali and Janeane Garofalo
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.

Hmmm . . . Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do
you?

[Uthor]

I'm sure this is allowed just like searching of school lockers is allowed. Or how if you are stopped for a legitimate reason on the road (i.e. speeding, broken lights, swearving in and out of traffic), then your car is considered fair game for a search (no warrant required). It's just like being searched before getting on a plane or getting into a large concert, but the volume of people taking trains prevents every person from being searched, thus it's random.

That said, I doubt this will make anyone feel safer from terrorists and a whole lot of people more annoyed, though it will probably cut down on random violence on trains. As said above, if you reallt want to , this isn't going to deter you. It's just for a show of sercurity.

[Thordic]

Or how if you are stopped for a legitimate reason on the road (i.e. speeding, broken lights, swearving in and out of traffic), then your car is considered fair game for a search (no warrant required

Uhm, no. The cop is NOT allowed to search your car without your consent. Thats why he keeps asking you till you say yes.

The only part of your car the cop is allowed to search is anything that is within your grasp. He could technically search the pocket in your door or between your seats if he thought there was a threat to his safety. This is just so you can'd hide a weapon close enough to grab quickly. Glove compartment doesn't count.

There is no reason to EVER consent to a search. By doing so you are GIVING UP YOUR RIGHTS. If one of your friends left something illegal in your car, or you forgot about those fireworks in your trunk, then you are screwed because you gave the policeman permission to search your car.

If he searches your car without your express permission (You have to say yes or some other affirmative statement to his asking to search your vehicle), then anything he finds is inadmissible in court. He could find a body in your trunk, and it'd be useless as evidence against you.

Its amazing how many people don't know their own rights.

[unrequited]

I'm sure this is allowed just like searching of school lockers is allowed.

Oh, you mean like a locker seach such as this one?

http://wistv.static.worldnow.com/images/1515796_BG2.jpg
http://www.wistv.com/global/story.asp?s=1515796&ClientType=Printable
http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/stratford-raid.htm (ignore the consipracy theory rabble, I'm no left wing nut either, the pictures speak for themselves)

Or how if you are stopped for a legitimate reason on the road (i.e. speeding, broken lights, swearving in and out of traffic), then your car is considered fair game for a search (no warrant required).
No it's not like that because you gave them probable cause. If you have broken lights you can refuse and SHOULD refuse a search of your trunk. You should read up a bit on the definition of probable cause the the rights of personal search. This website gives very good tips and backs it up with law on traffic stops, etc.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/faq.html

It's just like being searched before getting on a plane or getting into a large concert, but the volume of people taking trains prevents every person from being searched, thus it's random.
Again, it's not like that at ALL. Airplane boarding searches are relatively new, they're only 20 years old (1983) and they were challeneged all the way up to the Supreme Court. It is a necessary inconvenience, but one which is established in legal precedent. There is no precedent for train searches. Should they be allowed to search random bus riders? I don't think so.

That said, I doubt this will make anyone feel safer from terrorists and a whole lot of people more annoyed, though it will probably cut down on random violence on trains. As said above, if you reallt want to , this isn't going to deter you. It's just for a show of sercurity.
If you feel it will do no good besides reduce mistermeanor crimes, then why not just step up police prescence WITHOUT random searches? It's a show of security at the cost of our civil liberties. I have nothing to hide from the cops, and most searched as well, but that doesn't mean that the cops have the right to search us without cause or suspiscion. These words that are on a sheet of paper in the Capitol are words which people have fought and died for. It's a shame they're not treated with the respect they're deserved with regards to the effort to write them.

Put yourself in the shoes of any of the parents of the high school mentioned above. After learning cops ransacked your kid's locker and pointed a gun in his face after forcing him to the ground, would you be:

a) happy they found no drugs and the high school is a safe place for your kid to go to school?
b) pissed off because a cop pointed a gun in his face and forced him to the ground regardless of the drugs which weren't found anyways?

If you answered b... well then there's no getting through to you.

[[BUD]Apollo]

You know waht if a cop wants to search me on a train or anywhereelse for any reason and says hey were just checking for security breaches due to maybe a tipoff or a suspicion of terrorist activity I dont think I would mind the slightest bit, unless of course I was in a rush!!!! or going somewhere that I needed to be right away!!! I would proabably thatnk the guy for risking his life to try and save mine. And back when they added the 4th amendment to the constitution, they weren't planning on the country being attacked with bombs the size of a baseball taht can take out a skyscraper......BAck then they had cannons and stuff so theres another point to sit on. Times change and so should the rules of society!!!!

[Uthor]

I think my comment was mistook. I do not agree this should go on. I was just trying to point out that there is a precident of sorts (airlines, schools, concerts) where people are searched without warrants. It is natural to assume that this can be extended to trains, and buses as was mentioned. I don't think this sould extend to trains because it WILL extend to buses, and then cabs, and then people on bikes, then people walking, etc.

I also appologize with the error in the car search comment. I could have sworn I saw/read/heard something to the effect that your car is essentially public property once it's on the road. My mistake.

I do not believe this will have the desired effect of detering terrorists, with only a side effect of lowering violent crimes on trains, which can be better achieved without random searches.

[unrequited]

Times change and so should the rules of society!!!!

Rules should change, not our rights!!!!

The point of Amendment 4 was so that the government would never hold the power of an unjust policestate, able to control and restrict every aspect of a citizen's rights. It was meant to draw a line between our police and law abiding citizens. What if you were going to a 3rd interview for a $150,000 job and you had a briefcase with you and were asked to open it. And then the lock jams, and you can't. You're gonna tell me you're gonna conceed opportunities and your civil liberties for the sake of what exactly? Politeness? Now, think of what would happen if you're riding the T from MIT into downtown Boston on July 5th, and your roomate happened to leave $20 of fireworks in your backpack (a couple m80's, nothing too bad). They could and would arrest you under God knows how many different infractions (arson, controlled dangerous substances, intent to cause harm, intent to kill, I don't even know what else in the Patriot Act), all of which you would be technically guilty of regardless of intent. Good luck explaining your roomie borrowed your backpack the weekend before to go camping in the forest. It probably "wouldn't" happen, but it could and it very well might.

I was just trying to point out that there is a precident of sorts (airlines, schools, concerts) where people are searched without warrants.
I don't think there even exists this precedent. Like I said above, there have been cases fought and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court to deem airport searches a special case. But schools are still being fought, and private events such as concerts have nothing to do with public service, so it's not a question of rights, it's a question of rules you must follow if you wish to enter the venue.

I'm glad you're also opposed.

[[BUD]Apollo]

WEll unrequited rules and rights coincide together......Rights are given to us, but rulesa re expected to be followed. While most of us people follow the rules, there are a few that are not only trying to break them but kill thousands or maybe millions while breaking the. Think about what your saying. I see you live in NJ, well im from New York I saw the smoke billowing from the trade center from my job. I watched as people leaped from the building on TV. I coulndt leave NY to go to a wedding in TN. Havoc broke loose all over the place here and we were under attack. I dont care if our rights get taken away so some searches may take place to ensure my safety and my familes. REAd waht I said , these laws were made 200 hundred years ago. Today the 4th amendment has been and will be chagned dramatically due to the world changing.............There are alot of people out in the world that dont like the US. And therer allowed over here and there trying to hurt us. Lets be real man.!!!!! I know I want the good guys to cathc the bad guys, I mean we play CS for christ sakes, look at what terrorism can do!!!

[unrequited]

I see you live in NJ, well im from New York I saw the smoke billowing from the trade center from my job.
I had a job in the Citicorp building that morning because I was working for a consulting company in Fort Lee at the time. Lucky my boss was a half hour late and we didn't leave on time, otherwise we would have spent the entire day in the city much like I'm sure you did. What I did do was spend the morning flying down the NJ Turnpike (on the east coast looking over the river) with cops on my bumper going 95 (I was the last car on the turnpike before they closed it in both directions) heading back down to Newark where it was a prison. The entire city was on lockdown, because the airport is there. So I'm not any less a part of September 11th because I lived across the river, nor is a farmer in west Kansas who was tilling his fields at the time. You weren't any more apart of it because you worked across the river from me, and you're not any more qualified in this debate.

I dont care if our rights get taken away so some searches may take place to ensure my safety and my familes. REAd waht I said , these laws were made 200 hundred years ago.
What you fail to recognize is that what these random searches MAY do is stop or deter a terrorist from bringing a bomb or biohazardous device on a train. What these random searches WILL do is inconvenience everyday law abiding tax paying citizens which have done nothing wrong. And this inconvenience is illegal by today's laws, and upheld by over 200 years of legal prescedent. It isn't something you just throw away because we're scared right now. You really think that having 1 cop on every train that's running (I doubt they could pull that off even in Boston which is the #4th largest rail system in the US) is going to stop a determined terrorist from sneaking down an entrance during rush hour, walking the 30 feet through the ticket-stiles when it's packed and waiting all of 10 seconds before blowing himself up with a pocket-sized grenade killing 5 people, or areosoling a teaspon of anthrax killing a 500? You're massively dillusioned. We are needlessly sacrificing out rights.

If we as an American people conceed our every last civil right in exchange for "rules" as you put them, then we no longer reserve the privilege of calling ourselves free. We then become a police-state which is no different than a dictatorship except instead of us controlled by the whims of a single general, we're dominated by the "rules" of a select few who are acting out of paranoia vs. sensability.

[Dissman]

As far as this entire thing goes.

When you are riding any form of transportation, airplane, train... you do lose some rights... do you lose the right not to be profiled racially and be searched at whim. I will say no... if they were going to buy scanners and scan everyone that goes through... i wouldnt be raising an issue... it's the implied concent to being searched at whim that i disagree with.

As far as the entire "rights should change with changing times" goes, i say no, pretty wholeheartedly... no. As for some of the provisions of the Patriot Act, i say that they are fine... Such as asking for an ID when opening a bank account, or a wire tap authorization by a judge covering any number that a person uses (like if they should switch cell phones and dump one and get another...) but there are a lot of provisions, especially the search provisions, that i disagree with wholeheartedly... the entire idea of making a "covert" search... if someone is not home for weeks, then i think it's proper to make a search when they arent there... but waiting to leave to make a secret search is wrong, plus a lot of the gag provisions are wrong... as well as some of the other provisons inside. I dont believe that the CIA and FBI should be complete and total islands with no communication between them... if the CIA gets good intelligence that someone is going to do something at a certian place at a certian time... there shouldnt be a rule saying that you cant tell the FBI about it.

This is like new gun control laws because of violent crime that go directly against the constution... criminals will get them no matter what, criminals frequently have machine guns.. but it's very hard for a civilian to own one... the assault weapons ban... how many criminals want to use a $2000 rifle for crime? Also, when has gun control proven to reduce crime, it has failed dismally every time it has been tried... with usually the same result, a near explosion in the crime rates... so in addition to losing a civil right, your making your life more dangerous... whereas increased gun possession such as CCW laws... have had a positive impact in reducing the crime rate.

I think that Ben Franklin said it best.

"He who trades freedom for security gets neither."

There should be some changes to the way security is done after 9/11 to make transportation more safe... but not "random" searches that are nothing more than abusing a sepecific group...

Honestly we should do more about immigration law enforcement.. people overstaying their visas, undocumented / illegal immigrants should be incarcerated and/or deported.. defending the borders should be a high priority... as well as cracking down on illegal drugs and drug users. (Legalization, if at all, should take the form of HOMEGROWN drugs only... due to the fact that drugs are one of the MAJOR CURRENCIES of terror.)

But as for this search nonsense, it wont solve anything... the terrorists are recruiting american looking individuals to carry these attacks, we need to disrupt their networks here and abroad through good intelligence and policework... not through harrassing some to all citizens, hoping to catch a few.

Note: Needed an edit to refine a point, the message as a whole is the same, and the second edit is me adding this note

[Dissman]

Also, about the school searches, the courts have ruled that the standard for juveniles at school is "reasonable cause".. not "probable cause"

As for the search, i think the methods used were way over the top... the near swat assault was just over the top and is not really acceptable... although, the search in and of itself was legit... but the method is quite close to police brutality.

[[gh]Spurty]

I loved the post by Spyder about profiling.

I worry about this very little. I have zero to hide and if it allows the police function without people having the really stupid 'RACE' card, then serach me every time I travel. Scratch one up for the lawful.

In England, the right for the Police to stop you on the street and give you a full cavity search was ended in 1982. Go think about that for a while (no I was never searched in this manner in the UK, but I was searched three times as a kid loitering up town)

[[gh]Spurty]

I worry about this very little. Too clarify, I worry very little about being stopped and searched or questioned. Why? Becuase its something I can see and deal with fairly.

What I do NOT agree with is the Big brother mentality where they watch you 24/7 and try to save you from yourself.

[steaLer]

i commend british health ministry for not banning smoking in public places. just another way some governments in US trying to save the citizens aka babysitting.

[unrequited]

Well this is another topic altogether, but Ireland and Norway just passed their laws for the ENTIRE country. Something to think about. Right now it's just in a couple NYC bars, and some places in Texas/California I think.

-Unrequited

http://www.christopherwu.net/

[ArchAngelKIng]

One persons freedom should not interfer with another persons rights! Smoking in public places puts a health risk on many people that is not reasonable. People with breathing problems or comprimised breathing should not have to inhale smoke of another! Even healthy people should not have to endure the cancer causing, lung corrupting smoke of another.

Public places are for conformity and respect of others. You wanna smoke! do it in your house! Even still there is a good arguement for your family to have you arrested and jailed for smoking in the house 2.

You wanna kill yourself, fine, do it without killing anyone else!

Cheers,

AAK

[Azrael]

Lawrence, KS just passed a law that will stop smoking in all public buildings, including bars, restaurants and smoking rooms for employees in stores. I'm with this every step of the way. Smoking is an addiction, a health hazard and just plain disgusting. How many food service workers do you think wash their hands after they have a cigarette? The answer: Not many, unless their manager is watching them like a hawk. AAK hit the nail on the head. Someone's "freedom" to smoke does not override my right to live. And don't say "Well, just don't go there". It's everywhere, and non-smoking sections are a joke.

The reason it must be done like this instead leaving it up to the owner of the establishment is the same reason for almost anything in the business world: money. If it is up to the owner, of course they are going to allow smoking, because they will lose customers if they don't.

Only problem with this is now there are going to be 50 people on the doorstep of every public building smoking.

[squeak]

Hey, I admit I do enjoy an expensive cigar every now and then (like, twice a year max), but I do that with my friends in the comfort of our own residence. People who have to have that cig on every break and after every meal etc sicken me for their lack of respect for other people. Hell, there is NO respect these days for anyone/anything. blah blah blah my rant is over that is my $.02

[Dissman]

Smoking is an addiction, a health hazard and just plain disgusting.

You know the funny thing, it seems to be one of the only addictions that's not "OK"... it's "OK" to be addicted to harder drugs... the government even for many years treated it as a disability and gave money to drug addicts... i also think it's kind of funny and hypocritical for people who rail on and on about smoking who are immeadiately on the bandwagon for legalizing drugs... it kind of seems like a double standard.

You know, it's funny, that... back in the days of smoking on airliners the air quality was on average BETTER than it is now, because they had to run the climate control system constantly to vent the smoke... if bars and resturants are willing to submit to air quality standards (as in changing the air over at a certian interval to keep the air clean... as is done in firing ranges and in a lot of high tech smoke-rooms in bars in places) to be able to allow smoking in their establishments, i'd say "go for it." but your right, non-smoking sections are a joke in most places...

[squeak]

if bars and resturants are willing to submit to air quality standards (as in changing the air over at a certian interval to keep the air clean... as is done in firing ranges and in a lot of high tech smoke-rooms in bars in places) to be able to allow smoking in their establishments, i'd say "go for it." but your right, non-smoking sections are a joke in most places...

agreed 100%

[Azrael]

if bars and resturants are willing to submit to air quality standards (as in changing the air over at a certian interval to keep the air clean... as is done in firing ranges and in a lot of high tech smoke-rooms in bars in places) to be able to allow smoking in their establishments, i'd say "go for it." but your right, non-smoking sections are a joke in most places...

agreed 100%

Ditto. I just wanted to say that was a very good point.

[unrequited]

...so back to this 4th amendment...

-Unrequited

http://www.christopherwu.net/

[Dissman]

Yeah, speaking of the 4th amendment, i made a post that i dont think anyone has touched on... I wont bother quoting myself.

[unrequited]

Since the original debate got lost on the FCS forums, and this debate's pretty much on the same topic:


http://nolassf.live.advance.net/images/kelley/2004/062304_toon.jpg

[Dissman]

I think the comic is very funny.

I refer you back to my eariler comments as well to my new sig.

[[gh]Spurty]

Ah, ironic isn't it?

Laws these days lack common sense. There again, so do people out of an attempt to locate some degree of comfort living in the modern world. Example, do you STOP for every STOP sign, or just slow down? if the answer is No, I slow down, then why have STOP signs?

As for your 4th ammendment , seems you are willing to 'chance it a bit'. I'd rather not chance it myself, however if a mooslim guy with a bag of bulky wires is on the train next to you, you probably wanna review that policy .

I see lots of indian/arab looking people inspecting trains from top to bottom and no one moves a muscle. One day, on a commutor rail, I asked the guy what he was looking for and he ran off. Now, what the hell, I'm a bad man, I broke someones law somewhere. Wonder if it will ever matter.

What bothers me is, people will never think to ask why that guy was spooked by my asking what he was doing. NO ONE WILL THINK!! I might get told to keep my nose out of other people's business though. Which I don't mind, as long as its LEGAL and not LEATHAL.

Did you know that in 1974, strip searches were no longer allowed by the English Police? Yupe, up until 1974, the Police could stop you and strip you in the street if they thought you were hiding something (drugs usually).

Do you think these amendments help or hinder progress when your country is under some threat from Terrorists? (thats one question)

Do you think that the these amendments help you more or less when you are at peace with the World? (thats the flip side, most of you will want to drag the above back to, but can't as I know that game).

Personally, I think they are all very clever clauses. Perhaps too clever. We'll have to leave that up to the philosphers. :)

[[gh]Spurty]

I'm wondering what ever happened to our 4th Amendment which states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/)

Note the 'against UNREASONABLE searches' <-- when there IS reason (threat alert states that someone will be carrying a bomb on a train to the DNC), it is no longer UNREASONABLE. Just thought I'd throw that in as well (or don't these caveats matter as much when they seem to back the other basis for the argument?)