Posted on 12/05/2005 12:57:58 PM PST by JOAT
I do not!!
No. It was an overwrought comment that deserved the response it got.
They? I guessed someone has reached the end of the road to serfdom.
Imagine a military base with several buildings, with a checkpoint at the entrance.
Imagine this is not a military base but a federal office building.
By the way, according to another tread, she purposefully took this bus knowing the situation when she could have taken other busses to her destination
Apparently not:
It started when Mrs. Davis began commuting to her new job in Lakewood aboard an RTD bus that made a regular stop at the Denver Federal Center. Each time, federal police boarded the bus and asked passengers for ID.
Mrs. Davis produced her driver's license once, but it rankled her. The next few times, she begged off, saying she had left her ID at home. Finally, an officer told Mrs. Davis that she would need to show proof of her identity the following Monday.
And here's something else to consider
"I spent the weekend trying to decide if the Constitution had changed since I was in eighth grade, and I decided it hadn't," said Mrs. Davis, who has a son serving in the Army in Iraq.
Go Mrs. Davis. You got more guts than most. The following Monday, after the officers boarded the bus, one of them "asked me if I had my ID with me, and I said, 'Yes,' " she recalled. "Then he asked me if he could see it and I said, 'No.' "
Again this is the 'do nothing because we can't be 100% perfect with everything' argument. There are 2 people. One has his ID checked, the other does not. Are you trying to argue that they both have the same chance of being caught if they are up to no good? You do not think the ID check just might provide a tiny little eensy weensy chance to catch someone vs doing nothing at all? What if there is no ID, it is found to be forged, the name is on a wanted list, it is expired, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
It is not the solution, but we must do everything we can.
They can't prove anything ... and besides, I've got a bulletproof alibi.
Bingo. That IDs somehow deter terrorism is a popular delusion. They forget Atta et al had IDs.
'tis a Leftist mindset that enough conversation (and showing & approving an ID amounts to a conversation), all evil can be averted. Terrifying how the delusion is infecting the Right.
Problem is: there is 0% evidence that she was a potential threat in any conceiveable way. That someone waved the "she could be a terrorist!" boogeyman is NOT justification of broad revocation of rights.
If there's that much concern, public busses shouldn't be entering the facility. Checking that everyone has something vaguely resembling ID sure isn't going to provide safety.
Yup, your sarcasm detector is busted.
Then toss everyone in jail and be done with it.
Here's a better alternative: find legal solutions that comply fully with the Constitution. Allow exercise of the 2nd Amendment, and you'll find the terrorist threat change dramatically - WITHOUT infringing on the 4th Amendment.
The picture still illustrates my desire who the next victims of the terrorists should be.
Absolutely! And think how much safer we'd be with internal passports! Just think: if we demanded passports every time we crossed state lines (or maybe even entered cities, crossed tollbridges etc) we could catch lots more terrorists! And what about checking into hotels? Why, the possibilities are *endless*!!
"Problem is: there is 0% evidence that she was a potential threat in any conceiveable way."
I respect your opinion. Here is the problem. I was not there, you were not there (I assume) and when is the last time the MSM reported all the details in an unbiased manner? So, neither of us know everything about this. You are free to make the assertion that there is 0% evidence. It does not mean a whole lot. In order to get to this 0%, exactly what was the evidence and or reason for the request to see ID?
Evidence, reason, protocol? If you were on the bus and witnessed the whole event and then spoke to the grandmother and the police and had a good understanding of threat level and policy, then I could better appreciate your point. I don't recall anyone saying she was a terrorist, did I miss this? Please show it to me.
I think certainly there is concern about a bus entering a 'secure' facility. What do you suggest, that everyone hoof it to and from work, or that some reasonable measures be taken to try and do something vs doing nothing? Finally I don't know where the construct of something "vaguely resembling an ID" comes from. Please elaborate. If it looked suspicious, then the search would have been successful, perhaps.
"I thought FR was not in favor of staged street theater by left-wingers. Guess not."
FWIW the Rosa Parks incident was staged by left-wingers as well. IIRC the CPUSA was behind her. They thought the incident might destabilize 'corrupt' American society or some damn thing.
If cops are investigating something i would show(and have shown-more than once) ID. But I don't like this sort of PC crap that may tend to de-sensitize Americans to police intrusion.
Great point.
How is an ID check going to stop a suicide bomber?
The lazy poster's way of ego satisfaction. Take a couple words from a post and rant and rave about it. I would suggest that you are a lunatic, but I won't. Your ideas are lunacy, though.
It's like they expect that a terrorist's ID will have "TERRORIST" printed on it or something, y'know?
So in your view don't want to hear "your papers please" then don't travel or at least not anywhere the state says you shouldn't.
Somehow that doesn't seem like the sort of country I want to live in.
Round the damned terroists and their supporters up and leave the rest of the country free.
>They own the land.
>>They? I guessed someone has reached the end of the road to serfdom.
Not even close. When they own all the land in the USA then yes. The Federal government has control over the land in question. Want to shut down the agencies and auction off the land? I would be all for it. Cut the size of Government by 90%? I am with you. But as long as they 'own' the facility they can restrict access.
>>Imagine this is not a military base but a federal office building.
It does not matter, same Federal governement, they can set the same rules. That was my point.
>By the way, according to another tread, she purposefully took this bus knowing the situation when she could have taken other busses to her destination
>>Apparently not: [...]
Apparently so, just like I said, on the day in question she knew this particular bus's special restriction but got on it anyway to challenge the rule.
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.