Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Police Stopping All Cars Entering BWI (Baltimore-Washington Int'l Airport)
ABC 7 News ^

Posted on 01/06/2004 9:10:00 AM PST by Sub-Driver

Police Stopping All Cars Entering BWI Tuesday January 06, 2004 11:20am

Linthicum, Md. (AP) - Maryland Transportation Authority police are stopping all cars entering Baltimore-Washington International Airport for security checks.

Police officials say that the "100 percent security checks" began after 10 a.m. Police say the sweeps are not a response to a specific threat.

Police aren't saying how long they will continue checking every car that enters the airport.

Airport officials say that the sweeps are not expected to create major delays entering the airport. And they still recommend that passengers plan on arriving 90 minutes before their scheduled flights.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Maryland; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: airportsecurity; bwi; orangealert4
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-209 next last
To: RightWhale
You think the fourth amendment applies only to private property?
161 posted on 01/06/2004 10:55:30 AM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
No, I favor racial profiling even though it is unconstitutional, mainly because it is an effective tactic in this war. But taking away MY 4th amendment rights? No way.
162 posted on 01/06/2004 10:55:34 AM PST by palmer (Solutions, not just slogans -JFKerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
I think my point about NORAD, military bases, the pentagon, back rooms of a police station, the wells of congress, and other buildings still applies to this discussion. Why can we be denied entry, searched, and scrutinized in these areas and not airports? If one is unconstitutional then surely all are. A law allows for these activities and its been upheld at some point as constitutional.

Perhaps you should change your argument to one of advocating a new ammendment to the Constutition instead of being against the security.

163 posted on 01/06/2004 10:56:54 AM PST by Naspino (Exodus 22: 28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: independentmind
you're absolutely right...but we baltimoreans don't like being thought of as a suburb of dc, so our traffic tie-ups are our own, thank you very much.
164 posted on 01/06/2004 10:56:54 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
It is what it is, for better or for worse.

We've charged the Supreme Court with interpreting the document, mostly out of a matter of necessity. If you're really interested in overruling Marbury v. Madison, it's an interesting idea, but I don't really think it would go anywhere.
165 posted on 01/06/2004 10:57:21 AM PST by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Opinions are never the final word. The next court can reverse everything. The issue of private property rights will probably never end since we are discovering more about it every day. The issue of public property didn't even come up until the Federal gov't bought a tract of land from France. How can we know what public property means when we created it tabula rasa with next to no legal precedent?
166 posted on 01/06/2004 10:57:44 AM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I can still remember when most "conservatives" would find the idea of "papers, please, comrade" to be abhorrent.

US Conservatives still do find it abhorant. It's the Big Gubermint Socialist RINO's here that argue against anything plainly written (4th Amd.). It doesn't suit their need in parsing everything out. Blackbird.

167 posted on 01/06/2004 10:57:45 AM PST by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention; palmer
The following exception bears noting:

Border Search Exception--the basic idea here is that special attention should be paid to a nation’s borders and certain transportation routes. For this reason, immigration points and international airports can search and seize (for as long as 16 hours) on the basis of reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. Also allowed is "drug courier profiling" of suspicious persons that may be transporting contraband along a commonly used Interstate or airport for drug trafficking. Profiling stops have also been authorized for people who appear to be soliciting prostitutes.

168 posted on 01/06/2004 10:58:25 AM PST by Iron Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
If one is unconstitutional then surely all are

I would agree with this statement, except insofar as the military base, because normal rules don't really apply there.

I disagree about the denying entry part. I don't think there is any constitutional implications there. Searching is a different story. It shouldn't be allowed. It has been in certain areas, wrongly. Boarding planes, included--the rationale as we've discussed before.

169 posted on 01/06/2004 11:01:33 AM PST by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
the fourth amendment applies only to private property?

The 4th Amendment originally applied to private property since there was little public property at the time. It is being stretched to apply to issues involving public property. The USA invented public property, kind of an Old Europe concept, but didn't include a manual of procedures. The Mining Law, 1876, was the first attempt to begin regulating use of public property, and many are still contesting the results. Public property has simply not been thought out, the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate the problems.

170 posted on 01/06/2004 11:03:47 AM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
I am not arbitrarily searched at my local police station. Why don't you mandate it if you are in favor of consistency? Obviously reasonable compromises can be made about the nature of suspicion and searches in the context of security needs or threats. If the airport truly needs to search everyone, then they should. But what was presented here, there was no specific threat.
171 posted on 01/06/2004 11:04:12 AM PST by palmer (Solutions, not just slogans -JFKerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Yes, that's interesting, but it is what it is now, and for the last 35 years. This notion of property as the touchstone is a spectre and I think not based on the text of the amendment.
172 posted on 01/06/2004 11:04:58 AM PST by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle
For this reason, immigration points and international airports can search and seize (for as long as 16 hours) on the basis of reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause.

I don't disagree, but we still require reasonable suspicion.

173 posted on 01/06/2004 11:06:34 AM PST by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: All
Any update on what is happening at the airport? Cubicle Bound here.
174 posted on 01/06/2004 11:13:23 AM PST by Pro-Bush (Homeland Security + Tom Ridge = Open Borders --> Demand Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
you can see now why we do indeed need the Patriot Acts.

Yes, it's to give all the Statist the right to search a once free peoples at will. Thanks for outing yourself. Blackbird.

175 posted on 01/06/2004 11:14:40 AM PST by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
Ah I get it. Its the reverse argument we're making. Instead of "if you don't want to be searched don't fly" -- you are saying "if you don't want to get blown up -- don't fly"?

I've read that now six times, and frankly I have no idea what it is you're trying say. Try again? The only thing I can offer is this, in a Constitutional Republic, the feds have to have a warrant to search me, re: the 4th Amd. I wouldn't fly today if you put a loaded gun to my head. I have no fear of terrorist, none what so ever. If the rest of you lazy bums want to be subject's, knock yourself out. Don't attempt to take my right's away, you'll find that a rough road to travel. Blackbird.

176 posted on 01/06/2004 11:22:42 AM PST by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
I disagree about the denying entry part. Denying entry is far worse than searching to me. You are denied entry into something that you pay for (via taxes). i.e. If all white men with social security numbers ending in 3864 were denied entry to the airport today because of a "credible" threat what justice would that be?

It seems voluntary searches are a middle ground that allows you entry provided you don't match the security concern.

177 posted on 01/06/2004 11:27:50 AM PST by Naspino (Exodus 22: 28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle
Those sure are a lot of exceptions. I had no idea that there were so many and were so broadly defined. It's frightening. In fact, there are so many that it would seem to me to be a whole helluva lot easier just to repeal the 4th Amendment rather than have it go through death buy a thousand cuts.

Viva la revolucion!
178 posted on 01/06/2004 11:28:17 AM PST by VMI70 (...but two Wrights made an airplane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
LOL, I apologize, my mistake.
179 posted on 01/06/2004 11:28:27 AM PST by mindspy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: palmer
I am not arbitrarily searched at my local police station.

I seriously doubt you can stroll back to the holding cell area unsearched.

180 posted on 01/06/2004 11:29:05 AM PST by Naspino (Exodus 22: 28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-209 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson