Are we losing our rights in the name of safety?

[BridgeTroll]

Just for you JC... since we discussed constitutionality back on page 7 or 8...

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the most obvious context in which the legality of airport security searches is determined. Like airport security searches, the role of the Fourth Amendment is to balance privacy and law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" by stipulating that any search conducted must be made on reasonable grounds. In addition to the reasonableness of the grounds, the courts commonly weigh three aspects of a search to determine whether the search is reasonable: the degree of intrusiveness of the search procedure; the magnitude and frequency of the threat; and the sufficiency of alternatives to conducting a search. Courts also consider the effectiveness of the search in reducing the threat and whether sufficient care has been taken to limit the scope of the search as much as possible, while still maintaining this effectiveness.

So while Chris above says...

an issue that's plainly prohibited by the 4th amendment, I mean this one's not even questionable.

Up to this point... it IS NOT prohibited by the fourth.  Perhaps it will be but somehow I do not think it will be.  Again... certainly not a lawyer.  If this is "clearly unconstitutional" as some claim... a judge would have stepped in long ago and halted the practice.

[cityimrov]

Up to this point... it IS NOT prohibited by the fourth.  Perhaps it will be but somehow I do not think it will be.  Again... certainly not a lawyer.  If this is "clearly unconstitutional" as some claim... a judge would have stepped in long ago and halted the practice.

A judge can step in and hault the practice?  Wow, I never knew a judge could do that.  Can you show me some other cases where "a judge would have stepped in long ago and halted the practice" out of the blue?  I don't know of any. 

[BridgeTroll]

Here is a very recent one...

http://thepage.time.com/2010/10/12/federal-judge-halts-dadt-enforcement/

District Court Judge Virginia Phillips orders military to "immediately suspend" investigations related to imposing the ban on openly gay service members.

[BridgeTroll]

True... I assume lawsuits have been filed and I along with everyone else is awaiting a decision.  I would guess it will come quickly as it is "a clear violation of the fourth."

[ChriswUfGator]

with an issue that's plainly prohibited by the 4th amendment, I mean this one's not even questionable.

I wonder why no judge has halted the practice as unconstitutional yet?  Hmmmm... why could that be?

Because they just started doing these new procedures in the last couple weeks. What do you expect?

[BridgeTroll]

Exactly... 

[ChriswUfGator]

Exactly... 

That doesn't mean it's not unconstitutional, BridgeTroll. That only means that this hasn't been around long enough for a court to have time to declare it unconstitutional.

[BridgeTroll]

What strange bedfellows... Here I am defending the Obama adminstrations actions in this case while other traditional supporters are condeming their actions... What a great country!

It is Bizarro World...

[cityimrov]

The odd thing I'm curious about is why there isn't more protest about TSA, not really for the body scanners but what they represent.  If a bomber blew up a train, I'm sure the public will clamor for TSA to be at train stations and subways and so forth till it's a part of every one of our lives.  

At the same time, what prevents the TSA from following an order (under a correct leadership) that let's say "The United States has banned Bibles"?  The TSA can be quickly switched to an agency that enforces that rule.  

I hear arguments all the time about "Death Panels" and how "Obamacare" can be used to deny health care access to everyone.  The TSA could then be used to deny transportation if you carry a Bible - even possible enforcement of the law.  They are already there, how long would it take to give them enforcement powers for other parts of the law.  What is limiting their power?  

Ya, this has a low chance of happening but if people are willing to argue about "Death Panels" why are they enthusiastically supporting an agency like the TSA which is even more intrusive and risky since it has a possibility of doing the unlikely scenario above?  

You can no longer ride the train anymore.  You could no longer fly.  You can forget about any type of public transportation if you don't comply with a certain FEDERAL law.  The same arguments used against health care can be used against the TSA - and they make more sense there!  

I don't get it, if people are willing to use these arguements against health care, why can't see the same thing applies to TSA?

[Coolyfett]

The sky is NOT falling, the protesters got OWNED lol, mission FAILED the world keeps spinning. Checkmate.

[ChriswUfGator]

The sky is NOT falling, the protesters got OWNED lol, mission FAILED the world keeps spinning. Checkmate.

Until it doesn't.

Give up your rights when you find it convenient, a day will come when you'll need them and you won't have any left.

[cityimrov]

The sky is NOT falling, the protesters got OWNED lol, mission FAILED the world keeps spinning. Checkmate.

I don't think this is suppose to be a sports game.  

Until it doesn't.

Give up your rights when you find it convenient, a day will come when you'll need them and you won't have any left.

Actually, for most people, this doesn't apply.  They don't care since what they want do is what the majority does.  It's easy to live in any government from a dictatorship to democracy if you do what the majority does (hoping your ethnicity, gender, birth, etc is the right one in some places).  Most people in the world don't prefer rights, they prefer "safety"  (i.e. perceived safety) and will pretty much work around anything to get it as long as it doesn't interfere with their daily lives and everyone else is doing it.  I mean, isn't safety the reason most people have fight wars since the beginning of the human race?  

Also, how else did you think the founding fathers sold the idea of the creation of the United States to the rest of the country way back then after the Revolutionary War?  The states were more then happy to go on their own but the sales pitch of a stable and safe country is how they sold the Constitution to the states.  

[JC]

The sky is NOT falling, the protesters got OWNED lol, mission FAILED the world keeps spinning. Checkmate.

I don't think this is suppose to be a sports game.  

Until it doesn't.

Give up your rights when you find it convenient, a day will come when you'll need them and you won't have any left.

Actually, for most people, this doesn't apply.  They don't care since what they want do is what the majority does.  It's easy to live in any government from a dictatorship to democracy if you do what the majority does (hoping your ethnicity, gender, birth, etc is the right one in some places).  Most people in the world don't prefer rights, they prefer "safety"  (i.e. perceived safety) and will pretty much work around anything to get it as long as it doesn't interfere with their daily lives and everyone else is doing it.   

That perfectly describes BT and a number of other posters...

[BridgeTroll]

How perfectly imperceptive of you... It does not describe me at all...

[JC]

How perfectly imperceptive of you... It does not describe me at all...

Buddy... I might just take the time to show how much of a hypocrite you are when it comes to issues of government overreach.