[sport]

Don’t forget street corners and crossroads, your bedrooms, your living roms, your kitchend, supermarkets. But, as you can tell from the responses, the slavation of the sheep is almost complete.

[1rudeboy]

The Heritage Foundation has an excellent report about the forty or so terrorist plots foiled in the U.S. since 2001. I suspect that you’d be surprised at some of the targets. baaah

[1010RD]

I was unaware of the "special needs" exception to the 4th Amendment until reading this article. Here's the case from the NY Subway: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1252582.html As set forth more fully below, we hold that the special needs doctrine may apply where, as here, the subject of a search possesses a full privacy expectation.   Further, we hold that preventing a terrorist attack on the subway is a “special” need within the meaning of the doctrine.   Finally, we hold that the search program is reasonable because it serves a paramount government interest and, under the circumstances, is narrowly tailored and sufficiently effective. Here's more on the "special needs" exception: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm The special needs exception covers testing which 'is not designed to serve the ordinary needs of law enforcement [because] . . . results may not be used in criminal prosecution.' Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 666 (emphases added). Even so, a search in the special needs context almost always requires individualized suspicion. See, e.g., Portillo v. U.S. Dist. Court, 15 F.3d 819, 823 (9th Cir.'94) (requiring individualized suspicion for urinalysis testing under the probationer special needs exception). The rare special needs cases which do not require individualized suspicion involve persons who voluntarily participate in a highly regulated context. See, e.g., Von Raab, at 671, 677 (noting that 'certain forms of employment may diminish privacy expectations' for the 'employees who seek to be promoted' to certain positions); Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton, 1995 WL 373274, *6-*7 (U.S. June 26, '95) (noting that schools are highly regulated and 'like adults who choose to participate in a `closely regulated industry,' students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy'). Nonetheless, routine searches that intrude into prisoners' bodies without probable cause may be upheld only when the search is undertaken pursuant to a valid prison regulation that is reasonably related to a legitimate penological objective. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 87-91 ('87); see, e.g., Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 387 (9th Cir.'90) (remanding for evidence of a specific penological objective because 'general protestations of concern for the welfare of the citizens of Nevada and the prison community are simply insufficient to render the involuntary seizure of blood specimens, even from prison inmates, constitutionally reasonable'). ********************************************************* The Courts' reasoning is very faulty and a true slippery slope. Essentially they argue two items: A. The NY Subway system is large, critical and an icon therefore the VIPR teams are not violating the 4th and B. A highly regulated system allows for this type of search. So essentially they're green lighting more government regulation because of government regulation/ownership and ignoring A. by applying it to just about everywhere. What if the transportation company is private? At what point do they have to post guardians/protectors everywhere? The best prevention of terrorist acts proven by both Great Britain and Israel is effective intelligence work. Random testing cannot work and doesn't. It is a vast waste of resources and security theater.