What's next. If someone wants to do damage in a public place they will do it. Searches will not deter a determined bomber. I think it's overkill. If it would stop these nut jobs then i would welcome searches. It will not, so yes i think it violates peoples rights.
Do You Think Bag Searching Violates Your Rights?
by minimus 125 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Jeffro
What's next. If someone wants to do damage in a public place they will do it. Searches will not deter a determined bomber. I think it's overkill. If it would stop these nut jobs then i would welcome searches. It will not, so yes i think it violates peoples rights.
If a fence or barrier is put up near the edge of a cliff, perhaps a lookout, it will stop a lot of people from falling. But there is still a chance that someone may get past the barrier and fall off the cliff... so do we give up putting up such barriers altogether because they don't work? Afterall, people have a right to go wherever they like, right? No, we accept the benefit of the safety measure for reducing the risk.
-
hillbilly
Yep.
However, I dont do illegal things so I submit to searches. I refuse to give up the option to NOT be searched. And you wont step foot on my property or house without a signed warrant. Unless I ask you to be there you dont have a right to be.
If memory serves, we sent the English home, and illegal search and seizure whas one of the rubs. The "patriot act" needs to visit the Supreme Court.
~Hill
-
IronGland
Of course it does. The question is what balance between rights and safety are people comfortable with? Also, we should stop acting like we dont know the profile of who's likely to be a bomber.
-
undercover
EvilForce has some good points...
More people are dying from cars, guns, knives than from terrorists but we go own driving, owning guns and knives. We know the risks but we go on...fearlessly.
The government is using the fear from terrorists attacks to slowly take away our freedoms and rights...they make such a big deal out of it that they build up a fear that we are constantly under an imminent terrorist attack. People get scared and freely hand over their freedoms to feel safer. And that's exactly what the government wants...frightened people. Frightened people are easier to control than strong ones.
When you really think about it, the government(and media) are enablers for the terrorists.
-
hillbilly
One other thing for all you NON -US commentators...
The 4th Ammendment is the cornerstone for and litmus test for a whole bunch of state and Federal laws that allow police agencies to LEGALLY observe and collect data/eveidence of suspected criminals and their activites.
Those Laws have evolved over the years...as times changed so did the methods of criminals and the methods we have to enforce law.
So much of what we are seeing today is knee-jerk media reaction... The media wont tell you that the existing laws are fine. What we dont want to admit is we just dont spend money on basic law enforcment.
Some times we cant. A shrinking economy has taxed local law agency budgets is many communities in the US. Even with the Clinton Era grant to hire police and fund equipment we still have communities in this country who are forced to LAY off police, fire and para-medics to balance the books.
In my opinion... we have enough laws... the question is are we willing to fund the basics or argue about the emotional issues and waste money on new laws that shrink our rights?
~Hill