Posted on 12/30/2004 2:08:16 PM PST by Marine Inspector
Carloads of Muslim New Yorkers, all U.S. citizens, were detained for hours by federal agents after they returned from an Islamic convention held in Toronto over the weekend. A Pace University student said she was asked by a border patrol officer at the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge crossing whether the wire in her bra was a weapon. A white Flushing resident said U.S. officials refused to tell her why she was being held for eight hours.
"It's just appalling," said Jean Tassi, 53. "If I didn't have on a head covering, I would have never been stopped."
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection official said agents acted on intelligence that conventioneers may have terrorists in their cars.
"We understand that most of these conferences are legitimate, but it is our duty, it is incumbent on us to verify the identity of everybody entering the U.S. - even citizens," said Kristi Clemens, a Washington spokeswoman. "I understand their frustration."
More than 30 people had attended "Reviving the Islamic Spirit" convention at the Skydome that was billed as a spiritually uplifting event.
"I refuse to be treated like this in my own country," said Miriam Soliman, 20, a Brooklyn-born finance major who said she was interrogated about her underwire bra.
It is because of those tactics that we have to adjust our methods and a good citizen understands that. In fact, creating a common federally-mandated ID will make life easier for everyone, except those who have something to hide, or just like to play the role of contrarian.
How does this take away freedom? Especially when you consider the circumstances we are faced with. Thumb prints at ALL entry ports, fine, we can track the movements of suspects easier.
I've always been a believer in the concept of those who live outside the law should not be allowed to hide behind it when they are caught, whether they are gangsters or Gitmo detainees.
By the way, there was nothing in my post about being in favor of the change in extradition laws, I simply stated what the issue was and you, RS, made the inference, again, on your own; I am, in fact, against it.
As for amending the Constitution, though, I would also oppose your efforts, if it involved many of the propositions of posters to this thread. I feel that weakening the Constitution is only hurting ourselves, as the true hampering of the terrorist scum is by standing up for freedom and not being cowed. Any additional infringement of American citizen's rights is only a poor bandaid attempt to prevent physical damage, while strengthening the Constitution attacks their ideological basis.
I invite you to state clearly your specific proposals--What amendments/other actions do you think it will take?
An overdue fixing of the American public's lack of concern with identity theft is different from taking their rights or biometrically registering us (again, how can fingerprints prove a person is a citizen unless they have them on file already?) Many insurance companies are coming up to speed on identity theft, and even though it's for financial reasons, so are many financial institutions. However, there are still many holes. Unfortunately, many of them are in online services for drivers licenses, etc.
People would call me paranoid when I warned that poor security on DOT websites was a vulnerability to security, and now see who's paranoid.
I cannot defend the accusations of being "self-referential" and "narrow-minded" simce I am not, and have shown more willingness to look beyond the narrow view of Constitutional fundamentalists.
The Constitution is a LIVING document and adjusts with the times.
Your statement was
" But that was 218 years ago, and times were different. "
Am I supposed to believe that you meant something other then the laws that were set down at that time are not applicable NOW ? What DID you mean by that ?
"Thumb prints at ALL entry ports, fine, we can track the movements of suspects easier."
But thumb prints at ALL entry points are NOT applicable to citizens at this time - That is simply not the issue here as it is NOT what the law allows.
CBP is NOT authorized to track citizens movements.
"I've always been a believer in the concept of those who live outside the law should not be allowed to hide behind it when they are caught"
These ARE CITIZENS, who have not broken any laws, were not informed that they were being investigated for any possible breaking of laws, and it is reported that they were in fact LIED to by CBP who said they were pulled out on random checks.
"In fact, creating a common federally-mandated ID will make life easier for everyone."
You allready seem to have no problem with CBP agents ignoring valid documents, and subjecting targeted citizens to unwarrented delays - now you want to expand this to the interior of the country ?
"...but I have been referred to as American Indian by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania..."
Cool, does that mean you get a piece of the casino action ? 8-)
Simply, the 18th Century is not the 21st Century, that was evident if you read the entire statement.
Citizen ID's could easily be Passports, and include fingerprinting. How does that impinge on your freedom? These ARE CITIZENS, who have not broken any lawsHow do you know they are innocent? You cannot know any more than you can call them guilty? They are presumed innocent, but their actions can make them appear guilty and this is why a PROFESSIONAL may want to dig deeper. The members of the terrorist cell in Buffalo contained citizens, too.
Times have changed,pal, the 19 monsters that crashed the planes on 9/11 were all Moslems, and that alone is enough for suspicion.
Fingerprinting and photography weren't part of the IDs of the 18th Century, but gunpowder and personally owned cannons were. Hmmm...sounds like they were willing to live with our Constitution, even with lesser ID than today, and with weapons of quite-a-bit-of-destruction. You see, it was the oppressive British who tried to take away the cannons and gunpowder, and the Constitution/BOR was written under the feeling that was a bad idea.
No, I said "American Indian," not "Rendell Thug"...
You've just "removed all doubt." (see Abraham Lincoln)
"Simply, the 18th Century is not the 21st Century,"
Gee, glad you cleared that up ...??? Now what the heck does THAT mean ? Just what rights laid down in the Bill of Rights to you think should be ammended without an act of the people ?
"They are presumed innocent, but their actions can make them appear guilty and this is why a PROFESSIONAL may want to dig deeper. "
What actions made them appear guilty of breaking what law ?
The action of wearing a headscarf ?
"Citizen ID's could easily be Passports, and include fingerprinting. How does that impinge on your freedom? "
It appears you are advocating internal passports ... is this a correct assesment ?
And I am asking you to stop referring to me.
"They are presumed innocent, but their actions can make them appear guilty and this is why a PROFESSIONAL may want to dig deeper. " What actions made them appear guilty of breaking what law ? The action of wearing a headscarf ? Possibly, as I stated ALL of the 9/11 hijackers were Moslem, ALL of the Chechnyan "Black Widows" wear headscarves.
"Citizen ID's could easily be Passports, and include fingerprinting. How does that impinge on your freedom? " It appears you are advocating internal passports ... is this a correct assesment ?No...it would be the regular passport and be used to here as an ID and abroad as a passport, obviously
Perhaps your tinfoil helmet is a bit tight?
And that's why a police officer can pull you over if you have a broken taillight...but he still has to tell what it is that gave him the reason to pull you over. Why can't the CBP tell us something specific that gave them the reason for their actions, to show they weren't just violating the regulations?
As was posted earlier in this thread, it's not hysteria that suggests that open-ended powers can be abused...for example, the platform by which Catholics were targeted as being "automatically disloyal to the US, since their loyalties are with the Pope!" I don't want that type of idiotic behavior in the US!
BTW, those who crashed the planes were also male. Many other males commit murder each year. If you're male, do you mind if we treat you differently, just to make sure you're not possessing weapons that make you capable of such? Christians were bombing abortion clinics...let's infiltrate churches to be sure none of those terrorist attacks are being planned...after all, their Bible talks about "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"... how can there be any "moderate Christian"...if they don't have swords, they aren't true Christians! </sarc>
"Possibly, as I stated ALL of the 9/11 hijackers were Moslem, ALL of the Chechnyan "Black Widows" wear headscarves."
You have still not answered ...
What law were they suspected of having broken ?
I'm hoping the sarcasm of my last post isn't misunderstood. I think our disagreement comes from a few basic points, where I am more concerned about government intrusion/monitoring than you and some others. I'm kinda surprised that with the uproar over Hillary's FBI file misuse, FReepers would be so eager to put more data into the hands of the Feds.
Didn't think your bigoted "kill all muslims" mutual masturbation sessioun would get interrupted, didya?
Un-Americans like you ought to be rounded up and deported.
Then I'm still waiting for you to explain how their views on slavery and women's rights are relevant to their views on the power of government to keep free citizens under surveillance.
The Constitution is a LIVING document and adjusts with the times.
The only way it adjusts is through amendments. If you're not referring to an existing amendment which gives government these kinds of powers, or if you're not proposing such an amendment, then that comment is likewise irrelevant.
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.