Posted on 12/05/2005 12:57:58 PM PST by JOAT
Well, lets take 100 potential suicide bombers, or criminals or other malcontents. Scenario 1, we do nothing. Don't look at them, no checks, free to carry onto a bus or metro anything at all at anytime they please, even during a time of heightened alert.
Scenario 2, we don't do nothing. We look at them, look for suspicious behaviour, profile potential threats, check some ID's.
Sinmple question. Which scenario is more likely to deter or detect someone with bad intentions?
If it is known that on a certain bus all ID's are checked, or they are checked at random, would you be more likely to use this bus, or one where you knew nothing was being done?
Has it occured to you that the Muslim world wants to kill us all??
Sounds familiar. "Why don't you just execute us and get rid of all of this!"
(Saddam trial)
According to reports, and to a reasonable guess as to what happened, there was no actual checking of IDs - just checking that people produced something akin to ID when demanded. There was no confirmation of authenticity of ID, no comparison of name with "allow entry"/"trusted" lists. At best, the ID checker merely confirmed that the ID was sufficiently similar to something he expected, and that the photo suitably resembled the person producing the ID - this is not viable security.
Exactly. She was not a terrorist. There was not the slightest hint that she might conceivably (short of paranoid delusions) be a terrorist.
Why, then, was she required to produce ID? and told to leave when she didn't show ID? and arrested when she didn't leave?
What else is being done on this bus? (as regards security) If this is the only thing, then would you prefer security that is being done but not viable, as you put it, or nothing at all?? According to reports, Dewey beat Truman and Gore beat Bush in Fla. I am very suspicious of reports. Perhaps there was a threat that we do not know about and the strategy was to engage passengers and look for signs of nervousness, suspiciousness, etc. Fact is we can't know every detail about this. The discussion is to what degree to we accept having to provide identification in some cases.
50 year old grandmother Deborah Davis' wants to kill me? Oh, I guess you're right. Send her to a labor camp. Lock her up for life. Kill her.
Duh! as I smack my forehead. How could I have missed that?!!
Well the easy question first. she was arrested for not following orders from a federal officer.
The other answer - read my posts. Apparently there was not the slightest hint that Atta was a terrorist. Apparently the woman who tried to blow herself up in Jordan recently, there was not the slightest hint she was a terrorist. Not enough space here to continue that list..
If "work" involves entering a secure facility, and there is viable concern that anyone entering the perimeter might be a terrorist or otherwise cause serious trouble, then YES (insofar as the bus just go around the facility, and only those having reason to enter be allowed in).
Were I facilities manager, letting the general public in via bus and then "securing" it by empty overtures of "checking ID" would NOT be tolerated. A secured facility should be just that: NOBODY ENTERS WITHOUT POSITIVE CONFIRMATION OF REASON TO BE THERE (to wit, every ID is checked against a list of authorized entrants).
I will not submit to an unreasonable request regardless of from whom it comes, uniform or no. I agree with you, more can be done, the argument on this thread from some seems to be to do NOTHING at all. That is what I have a problem with. And poor old Granny with 5 grandchildren is trotted out as the poster-granny for that camp.....
Atta et al had IDs.
I am all with you an that, it is permissable and reasonable to provide ID when entering certain restricted areas. It is the law in some cases. So, I don't know why all the hubbub. Again, she is a poor helpless granny, so the correct thing to do is ignore the larger picture and focus on this poor soul and her unfortunate travails and live vicariously through her so all (or some) here can spout out loud all the things they've memorized from reading the papers....
I don't agree that the burden of proof is met by a terrorist threat, because the people being searched are not the ones making the threat and therefore have done nothing to bring suspicion upon themselves. The terrorist cannot be allowed to determine the liberty of everyone else. If you are going to say the terrorist threat is 99% then you shut down the train, bus, or ship, and deal with it that way. Joe Citizen does not deserve to have his rights stripped because Joe Terrorist wants to make trouble.
yes. He did. scenario 1 - don't check atta's ID. scenario 2 - check atta's ID. Under which scenario is there a more likely chance that he will be found out? Too bad it didn't work that time.
I am not saying it is the only solution, but the argument that we shouldn't do it at all is absurd. Why have a traffic stop, 90% are doing nothing unlawful, 10% are ticketed. Was someones life saved by doing this and taking a drunk off the road? Or should we do Nothing because some people get in a twist about it??
I guess a disagree that my rights are violated in a situation where there is a credible threat on a particular bus and that is the reason for the search.
Sounds like you just want to search the terrorists and leave everyone else alone?
(snicker)
Then why search, just go to where the terrorists live and lock them all up now and all will be well...no need for anymore violation of rights cause from now on we will only search terrorists..
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.