Spend $16.99 so you can wear this to your grave
Posted on 07/22/2005 11:06:07 AM PDT by BigFinn
Reacting to the NYPD's announcement Thursday afternoon that police would randomly—but routinely—search the bags of commuters, one concerned New Yorker quickly created a way for civil libertarians to make their views black-and-white. In a few outraged moments, local immigrant rights activist Tony Lu designed t-shirts bearing the text, "i do not consent to being searched." The minimalist protest-wear can be purchased here, in various styles and sizes. (Lu will not get a cut. The shirts' manufacture, sale, and shipment, will be handled by the online retailer. Lu encourages budget-conscious New Yorkers to make their own and wear them everywhere.)
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had announced the legally obvious—that New Yorkers are free to decline a search and "turn around and leave." But Lu, who is a lawyer at Urban Justice Center, warned that even well-intentioned cops could interpret people's natural nervousness or anger as "reasonable suspicion." The possibility of unjustified interrogation and even arrest is real, Lu said.
Although police promised they would not engage in racial profiling, Lu said that, as with all street-level policing, people of color and poor immigrants would be particularly vulnerable, especially if encounters lead to arrests.
Oops, I meant to write that I am NOT saying that grannies and drug users SHOULD be targeted. I left out the word "not" in my previous post and that completely screwed up the meaning of my post.
BTW: Better an Indian doctor or Colombian banker (I know many) than the white trash shanty Irish/Russian welfare cases that I lived around in Brooklyn. White people aint all that, I'm afraid, just certain types of White people.
The US is NOT and has NEVER been an extension of "Europe." You are thinking of Argentina.
The guy said "I would do anything be safer".
Most post was in response to this claim. This WOULD make him safer. It's a fact. An irrefutable fact.
If he doesn't implement this, then he lied. He would not, indeed, do anything to be safer.
Is it absurd? Yes. That was the point.
"I am saying that grannies and drug users SHOULD be targeted for random searches - I'm saying that is what WILL be done."
SHOULD, or you mean SHOULD NOT?
From the prior posts, I think you meant to say they shouldn't.
Got it. :)
My father also thinks we should allow immigrants other than Europeans (with some exceptions), but I also disagree with him. He's a minority of one. LOL! The Catholic prelate may not be such a small minority, but still a minority it is.
Smile. God loves you too.
It may well be futile but I doubt you'll find many courts agreeing that it is unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment is one of thos amendments that lends itself to "interpretation". One mans reasonable is another mans "unreasonable search".
A city that requires bags to be searched as a condition for using public transportation during times of war would almost certainly win their case in court. A city that requires every homeowner to allow police to search theri property would almost certainly lose their case in court.
Reasonable vs unreasonable is all very subjective.
;-) Say hi to Tom Fleming for me.
I am not an open borders person.
I was just using that as an analogy - suppose we had no immigration issue with mexico - no one was coming here from mexico. then what would border security be for? national security. what are the odds of stopping a small terrorist team from crossing, short of building the Berlin wall across 1000s of miles? very low odds. so does that mean we should have no border security, because the odds of catching a bad guy is low? of course not.
LOL!
Does he too have his name carved on the stair stones facing the field? You know what I mean?
I haven't visited the Rockford Institute since 1998, when I was a grad student at U of Chicago. I used to be a Paleocon, then I grew up.
then any type of law enforcement, taken as an attempt to prevent an act from occuring, rather then investigate it after it has occurred, violates the constitution.
do I have a constitutional right to fly on a plane anonymously? why are they asking for ID and examining the lists of passenger names? the searching of trucks entering NYC tunnels - that violates the 4th amendment too, so we must do away with that I guess.
what can we do domestically to provide some deterrent? between the left and the libertarians, we might as well just surrender domestically.
Excellent Post! This has been an excellent thread.
"I was just using that as an analogy - suppose we had no immigration issue with mexico - no one was coming here from mexico. then what would border security be for?"
What do you mean by "no immigration issue with mexico?"
But anyway, this is not the case - we do have immigration issues with Mexico and the rest of the third world who's allowed to pour their unwanted, undesirable elements into our country. Legal immigration is a bigger issue than illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a short-term problem, hopefully, while legal immigration is a critical long-term, state-sanctioned issue. Illegal immigrants shoul be deported to their respective countries and should not have been allowed to enter through our lax borders. Legal immigration laws must be changed to what they were prior to the paasge of the '65 Immigration Act.
"Diversity is tyranny. "
No....
Diversity is perversity. ;)
I said SUPPOSE. Suppose the purpose of border security with mexico had nothing to do with illegal immigration - suppose Mexico was an economic shangri-la and no one was crossing into the US. what then would be the purpose of border security with Mexico? national security. so if we apply the same "odds maker" theory, we wouldn't need any of it, since the chances of catching a terrorist crossing is small.
I was going to ask you what you wanted to be when you grew up. Lol!
You seem to have had your growing up process reversed. It usually goes from theory (infancy) to law (adult). You seem to have gone from law to infancy. Am not saying you're an infant. I'm only using terms that come to my deranged mind as I type here.
Be good and don't ever change (except on immigration issues and ideology, of course). And, when are you going to change that name to a masculine gender? You're a man, right?
Search 125 Broad Street, 18th floor. NYC. Chances are good there will be anti US/pro Islamic terrorism info tucked away somewhere.
I am named after the GREATEST cinematic Capo of all time, one Peter Clemenza. You want to "go the mattress with me?" Oh, "Leave the gun, take the cannoli."
"Diversity is perversity. ;)"
OK. About combining the two slogans to: "Diversity is forced perversity"?
"The war on drugs has already eroded most of our freedoms"?
Most of 'em? I'm looking around trying to find the ones I lost - Damnee, can't find one! - Yer teasing me, yer gotta be a doper! right? come on now, tell the truth! You sneeky you!
Your supposition is irrelevant if them Mexicans are still allowed to migrate to the States legally. To habeus corpus OR not to habeus corpus. That is the question.
Hey, a little Latin doesn't hurt. I think I used the expression correctly, didn't I? ;)
Ok. Thought you were using Clemenza as a first name.
Maranzano is my mentor and consanquine (sp?). Related to Bonanno, Provenzano and Di Benedetto.
Clemenza must have been on the other camp of the Castellamarese War, 'cause the name doesnt ring a ny bells.
Are you sure you spelled them cannolli correctly?
Disregard my prior post. Just noticed the "cinematic".
You were talking fantasy land, while I was pouring my guts out.
Boy, that one sent me Googling.
We're going to eventually have to kill every freaking one of them if we're going to survive.
I disagree.
I believe the Islamists in general can be quarantined, and we (could have?) can annihilate the core group of Jihadists in such a manner as to discourage future problems from these varelse.
But, of course, the ill conceived Bush "hearts and minds" Iraq campaign is counter productive and has set us back years, tears, and fortune.
And all so tragically unnecessary had Bush and his minions been focused on OUR national security and not retreated from Pakistan!
Class.
I hope it's a pejorative. What does it mean?
No one that went to grad school in 1998 is a grownup. ;-)
I hope it's a pejorative. What does it mean?
You should be asking zeugma!
I didn't memorize the definition, but yeah I'd say it's pejorative. Something akin to outer space aliens.
I think I prefer the cameras over manhandling.
I think I prefer the cameras over manhandling.
The border argument is not an apt comparison at all. We have authorized checkpoints and established procedures for entering the country legally. Thus we can conclude that ALL other entries are illegal. And while we can't seal the borders, we do indeed have the technology and other resources to put one hell of a dent in the influx.
Moving beyond the borders (pun not intended), the obvious common-sense solution is profiling. There's not one solitary thing about it that's evil. It's just one more example of sacrificing national security for the sake of nothing more than idiotic political correctness shoved down our throats by a small minority of the population. Reality is that if you focus on the problem group, the odds of preventing something rise dramatically. Since our current authorities are absolutely unwilling to do that, however, I don't know that I have any solutions. We're trying to run a race with an eighty-pound bag of concrete strapped on our back.
The random searches will in practice be even worse, of course, since they will probably be handled like the random searches on airline boarding. Not only can likely targets not be afforded greater scrutiny, they're actually afforded LESS by rules that say no more than two Middle-Eastern males can be subjected to secondary screening. It's insanity on display.
MM
Sorry about that. Well, actually I'm not. I think it's a great term, though I think you get the best feel for it after reading "Ender's Game" and "Speaker for the Dead". Both are excellent novels BTW, if you're into science fiction at all.
I believe the Islamists in general can be quarantined, and we (could have?) can annihilate the core group of Jihadists in such a manner as to discourage future problems from these varelse.
For those who haven't done the Googling, I'd like to expand a bit on the term "varelse", and the other terms that are related to it. I think this will more fully enable a more fruitful discussion on why I think they are varelse.
In the book, Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card put forward a series of classifications for what is in the book, alien races, but is adaptable to our single planet as well.
There are four different classifications of people. Remember that with each of these terms, they are mutual. if group A and B are Framling to each other, the A considers B to be Framling, and B considers A to be Framling.
Utlanning- A human we recognize as part of our same world and species, yet from another town or country.
Americans are generally Utlanning to each other. We relate and share more or less the same basic culture. The British would probably also be Utlanning.
Framling- A human we recognize as part of our same species, yet from another world or planet.
Most of Europe and possibly central america is more or less Framling as far as Americans are concerned. Communication and peace between Framling is possible.
Ramen- When a lifeform is considered human, but is of another species. Being able to think and behave at a human level and act civilized.
We would generally consider far eastern nations as being Ramen. Dissimilarity of history and culture between, say Japan and the United States is great. Nonetheless, peace and communication is possible because we are each Ramen to each other.
Varelse- A creature with whom communication is impossible. If such a creature is belligerent, then it is the only time when war is truly unavoidable and necessary.
This system is largely non-judgemental in that if group A and group B are Varelse, there can be no meaningful communications between each other. If they are not hostile, they can live in peace even though they cannot communicate. If one of them is hostile, then war is inevitable. Any war waged must be total war. You cannot stop until the other side has been completely anihilated, because they can't be reasoned with. They will keep coming because they see no value in you, your beliefs, your culture, or even you as a living being.
Look around the world. In every culture they exist, muslims are a violent and dangerouis force. They enslave entire peoples, and destroy any remnant of foreign cultures they come into contact with. (See the Buddas blown up by the Taliban.) In India, they kill Hindus. In Bosnia, they kill Christians. In Isreal, they kill Jews, of course. In the Philipines, they kill Christians, and pretty much anyone else that moves. When they don't have other people to kill, they turn on themselves and start killing each other depending upon which particular sect of Islam they happen to be a part of. More than anything else, they seem to worship death and destruction. This is not something one can just say "live and let live" to, because they just plain do not want to let you live.
Perhaps they are Ramen, and the lunatic fringe among them can be weeded out so that they may find some way to exist with. I am not entirely sure. Muslims seem to have been on this violent course for centuries now. The modern world appears to be an anathema to them, and their ideology seems, to me anyway, to be too easily twisted into a murderous one. The folks who blew up the London subway stations were British. From what I understand, they grew up there, yet their rage at those different from themselves was such that death and carnage was the only way they felt they could adequately express themselves.
I hope to G-d I'm wrong about that, because if I'm not, this next century may be even bloodier than the last, and that's saying a lot.
See post 584. I elaborate at some length. :-)
You are trying to say that the city of New York owns nightclubs?????
They are not overseeing the security. The feds are.
"As a New Yorker, I consent to anything that will make me safer"
I don't think these measures are enough.
I think the police should go to every neighborhood in New York and randomly search every fifth house.
After all, if you have nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right?
Ed
"On what is supposed to be a Conservative Constitutional website, the denizens are laughing at the assertion of the most basic of Constitutional rights."
I don't think Freep is like that, much, anymore.
Or maybe I'm reading the wrong threads!
Seems like most of the posts I see are apologists for the loss of our freedoms...
Ed
It seems to me what we are fighting for is not freedom, but a police state.
Since we have nothing to hide, I guess we can all just walk through the streets butt naked.
"...here you are, in a conservative forum, no less, advocating pitching them all away, entirely"
The Freepers that don't mind losing their 4th Amendment rights might see it differently if the cops were developers taking the passenger's backpacks for Economic Development under Kelo vs. New London!
Ed
I'm not a liberal, and I would never consent to being randomly searched on the subway!
It's scary how disrespectful of the Constitution so many people have become.
The idea that innocenet people should lose their rights to protect the many is simply an extension of New York's belief that guns are evil, and should be banned...that the 2nd Amendment has less validity than stopping the 1% of gun owners that use their gun's in a criminal matter.
I think it's but a matter of time before most Freepers will applaud the seizure of guns across America, because it's better to lose some rights than be hurt by terrorists.
Ed
I don't know a thing about NYPD or most other east coast PD's, I am a retired west coast cop, and I must admit we did things a bit different out here.
Thanks for the history lesson on law enforcement, since I have written a few papers on the subject myself, you were lecturing the choir.
I prefer doing something to stop terrorism rather than just throwing open the doors and telling them to go for it. These guys cannot be appeased, they want our heads (literally). But one day everyone will wake up to that fact, but maybe it will be too late and then what constitution will anyone be referring to?
Rather than nitpick each other, we all need to get together and stop this stuff pretty darn quick. Good writing dude, I'm sure it enlightened folks.
But hey remove the cops if you like, it's not my subway. I don't ride on it. Still I hate to see people get hurt because someone decided to argue over terminology.
Either search EVERYBODY or search all those who fit the profile/description. See my post #49.
I think what has everyone panties in a bunch is plain old fashion poor choice of wording, by using the word "RANDOM".
I for one, am for searching with probable cause any suspicious persons. Call it instinct, profiling or whatever you like, it's obvious a certain few in a well recognized group of people have been established as terrorists. I haven't seen many old ladies with shopping bags blow things up, but there have been a few guys from middle eastern backgrounds. So we should shake them down.
Heck I don't mind getting my stuff searched. Just hope the guy next to me isn't carrying an explosive and sets it off in the search line.
Look everyone, this is a no win situation for the cops. They want to help stop this stuff, but if we are just going to argue back and forth, then guess who wins? Yup the terrorists.
What does the stadium security do when you're legally carrying?
Do you inform them, first, or do they just discover it and ask to see your CCW?
Ed
"You think it's unreasonable for the police to search backpacks of subway riders?"
Would you think it unreasonable to search every backpack of people walking down the sidewalk?
I'm not asking just rhetorically, I'm really curious, at what point do you think it is unreasonable?
And if you think it's okay to search everyone walking down the sidewalk, what about searching everyone's car, whenever they enter a metropolitan area?
After all, a car bomb will do more danger than a backpack bomb...
Ed
"There is no photography allowed on the MTA line"
What about people who can draw life-like pictures of the subway?
Seems like the only real solution is to paint all the windows black and blindfold all the riders, so they can't see their surroundings...
Ed
I have no idea what these officers are being told .. but if anybody in NYC is paying attention and is taking a clue from the UK and profiling - we'll end up safer in the end.
Somebody needs to tell the ACLU to pound sand. These people, for the most part, are not American citizens - and therefore have no "rights" afforded to them.
People are not being searched - only backpacks.
So .. I hope you enjoy being blown to bits.
But .. this whole thing is an offensive play .. in other words, if these bombers believe they will not be able to get into the tunnels, perhaps they will decide it's not worth the try.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.