Posted on 12/08/2005 8:55:00 AM PST by JTN
When I read writings like the example below, I come to no other conclusion but that the writer is ignorant:
"We should never under any circumstances show ID's because of our right to not show ID's as written in the constitution (I forget again where is the ID thing written there?) "
yep, thats what I hope too. It will drive more traffic to her website. good for her.
No recent history tells us that civilian targets have sustained the largest number of deaths in a terrorist attack. Not to mention the economic impact. What happened to the WTC, filled with many thousands of civilians, was far worse than any other attack, anywhere. I feel the Federal government should be just as concerned about security of civilians as much as they are for their own facilities. With millions of unidentified people entering this country illegally, on a regular basis, they are clearly not.
you're problem is you extract a sentence from the context of the whole and use it to create something that did not exist for the purpose of your argument. sort of like the msm does.
It's been good, but a man's gotta get some work done. I respect everyone's opinion here, its good to debate.
Take care.
Exactly right.
Okay. Please explain why the right to not show an ID isn't in the Constitution.
People are using the public transportation to reach that facility. It's not a shortcut, it's a stop on the bus route. That stop obviously suits other passengers needs, it that stop makes the bus route unacceptable to her, she shouldn't ride on that bus.
Public transportation is for all the public. They have to come up with a policy that meets the majority of the publi's needs. It is not their responsibility to meet every individual's specific needs.
There's apparently a need for public transporation to the facility. They can also provide trasportation to other areas on the loop with a single bus, but it requires you to show identification since you're entering a government facility even if you never leave the bus.
If that is unacceptable to you. Don't use the bus.
Actually, the route transits the facility. Not all riders on the bus are going to get off at the facility. And the local park and ride is just on the other side.
End of story.
Interesting.
Supposed to have ID for "security purposes", but just say "oh, I forgot" and it's ok just don't forget next time.
Uh-huh.
Charges dropped on a "technicality" - sounds like she would have won, and they can't stand for that. New policy: drag each no-ID person to court, then drop the charges just before the rider wins - don't have to win the case, just have to harass people into compliance by making it too expensive via "press charges, then drop them". Methinks the court should (perhaps) have the option of saying "you pressed charges, you can't drop them just because you might lose."
Strange how so many on this forum support the 4th Amendment and want the feds to obey it.
I did not call her dangerous. I said she created a situation that could have been dangerous.
This wasn't her first trip on that bus. She knew she was going to be asked for ID. When she told them previously that she had left if at home, she was told that she would have to present it next time.
The job of those officers is to look for dangerous people that are trying to harm the public. She created a confrontation with them. That's just plain stupid.
Confrontations have a way of growing beyond our intentions. Sometimes confrontations are necessary. This one definately was not.
It is
Right here
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Asked how officers know a person's ID is genuine, she said, "We have trained professionals doing that work."
Who are you?
This is a bunch of crap! You can call yourself by any name you wish. In some sections of Los Angeles you can even get an official Drivers License with your chosen name boldly displayed thereon. The volume of the unofficial distribution of these real documents often exceeds that of the state printing office. If you get one, just be sure that you do not try to renew it at the DMV when it expires. The DMV in California is totally messed up when it comes to document control.
How do I know? Several years ago I presented myself for examination prior to renewing my license. This was during the time when they were installing the new automatic photo system. For some reason they chose to have me come in several weeks later to redo the photo. That triggered an avalanche of licenses. before it was over and without any help from me, I received a total of 5 licenses. Each had the same serial number, all had different pictures and three had my last name spelled different.
I really have to take exception to this BS of depending upon a piece of paper to tell someone else who I am.
Semper Fi
"unreasonable searches and seizures"
Key word: Unreasonable.
Yes unreasonable
and it is unreasonable.
Neither.
Bomber gets on bus, waves ID (easy enough to get one, legit or fake), gets in, blows up. How did checking ID help?
The problem, repeatedly explained and repeatedly ignored, is that the only thing the ID check does in this scenario is ensure that someone has an ID. Unless the ID is checked as being FOR THE FACILITY, or CHECKED AGAINST A TO-ENTER LIST, checking an ID only serves to show that someone gave this person an ID.
If someone is that determined to cause that much trouble, they'll get something that will sufficiently pass as an ID.
ID checker notices something suspicious, document seems not quite right, there IS no document, subject seems nervous, dress not appropriate for time/place/weather, ID reques and inspection allows close-up face to face eye contact, subject panics, etc., etc., etc. No ID check, 100% chance none of the above will happen.
If said bomber 'waved' ID, then it wasn't checked. Is this what you meant? Seems you are slanting your example to suit an agenda. How about bomber doesn;t 'wave' ID, bomber has ID checked, is asked for 2nd ID, is questioned, etc.
to someone with bad intent, absolutely it is unreasonable.
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.