The police state spreads

[guardian]

On top of the Patriot Act, TSA gropings, Napolitano's announcement today that she intends to institute TSA procedures for trains, subway, boats. Now we have the LA county Sherrif announcing "random searches of passengers and their belongings" on commuter trains. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/06/random-searches.html


Welcome to the future! Sieg Heil!

[leftstreet]

1. Correction: The police state spreads....to the middle class

Blogs and forums go wild

[WCGreen]

24. BINGO!!!

[MineralMan]

2. They've been doing this in most subways for years. Subways

are a natural target. LA's just behind the times.

[CreekDog]

9. do i need to get part of me xrayed before riding the subway here?

what do you think?

(no i can't opt out at the airport --not allowed)

[MineralMan]

22. I don't think they're doing that anywhere. I don't think they will be,

either. Random bag searches. Since 2005 in NYC. They were found to be constitutional, too, you know.

[CreekDog]

26. that is being done somewhere --Los Angeles International Airport

you've heard of that place. it's near the beach.

:hi:

[MineralMan]

27. Yes, thanks. We were discussing other forms of transportation,

though. Yes, they're scanning a small percentage of passengers at LAX. Here in the Twin Cities, too.

[CreekDog]

30. do you know about CastScope?

it is Forced not optional.

[MineralMan]

36. Why, yes, I do know about it.

Think about how easy it would be to hide a weapon or a bomb in a cast or a prosthetic limb. Why, I can buy plaster bandage material right at my local farm supply store. I could make myself a very nice, neat cast with it. The prosthetic limb...not so much.

So, how do you suppose they're supposed to see what's going on in that cast? Given how easy it is to make a cast, they really do need to look to see if it's concealing something, doncha think? Makes sense to me.

So, yes, I do know about the CastScope. It's been mentioned a bunch of time in these threads. I even went and researched it on Google. Very interesting. If you have a cast, it's going to get looked at. It's a must-do thing, you see. So, if you travel with a cast or a prosthetic limb, you're going to get it scrutinized. I can't imagine you wouldn't expect that.

[CreekDog]

37. xray my stuff, not my body

why should i expect otherwise?

[MineralMan]

40. What's under that cast, sir? We can x-ray it, cut the cast off, or

you can fly once it's removed. Your choice.

[CreekDog]

48. that's not the choice i'm presented

the equipment they are using is to be used while the aforementioned thing is on the body.

if they want to test it on their own, i'm okay with that.

they'll need to make an exception to what they told me to actually allow the thing you say.

[MineralMan]

49. The TSA regulations forbid them from asking you to remove

prosthetic limbs. So, that explains that. They still have to examine it, though. Truly.

[sabrina 1]

38. And you are okay with this? Oh, and no, there were no

full body scanners in the subways OR airports because Civil Rights groups succeeded in stopping this assault on our rights, until now.

The profits will be huge for Big Business. So I guess 'mission accomplished' for them.

But the fight for our Constitutional rights will go on. And I have no doubt it will eventually be successful as it has been up to now. This is a set-back, but there has never been a fight for rights that didn't have set-backs.

[MineralMan]

41. Okay with what? Random screening of people's packages on

subways? Sure. Subways have been bombing targets for a long time. I like to ride on the subway. I rarely carry a bag, though. If I did, I'd be happy to let security people look through it if they wanted to.

Scanners on subways. Seems unlikely to me.

[sabrina 1]

47. Full body scanners seemed unlikely in our airports also, until

now. There are billions, possibly trillions to be made from them, and with friends in high places, the manufacturers finally managed to make a fortune.

Subways have been targets. The Clinton Administration stopped a subway plot that had the potential to be far more devastating than 9/11, using Intelligence and not ignoring warnings.

Lots of places are targets of attacks, our borders eg where ships come in every day that could be carrying nukes, but we don't stay awake at night worrying that either.

So, why the obsession with planes? We know 9/11 could have been stopped so why is the focus not on the criminal negligence of the administration and of Rudolph Giuliani, whose willful negligence was the real reason why it happened? That issue has never been resolved so it could happen again if some elected official were to react in the same way.

Terrorism is as old as civilization. Nations never have given up their rights for the miniscule threats that terror poses.

Okay with what? I think you know what I mean. But if you feel uncomfortable to answer, that is your choice. I believe you actually have answered, so no problem :hi:

[MineralMan]

51. Planes affect people in a way few other things do. That's why.

I never thought those scanners were unlikely. They always seemed inevitable to me. The technology exists. They'll use it.

As for 9/11, there were many reasons it happened. Primarily GWB ignored the threat. That won't happen again, most likely. The threats are being closely followed now, and technology is being put into place. I do wish they'd focus more on shipping and cargo, though.

I'm not uncomfortable answering any question, so ask away. I'll be happy to answer.

[sabrina 1]

52. Of course they were inevitable, now that we know the role money

plays in the 'terror/fear' market. But back when Bush was in power, and the left still believed he was an abberation, someone who viewed the Constitution as 'quaint' and had no idea of what the Bill of Rights was all about, a threat to the rights of all Americans, it was worth the battle to keep those anti-Constitutional machines out of our lives, and it was a successful battle, until now.

We do not know why 9/11 happened, or why the warnings were ignored, but we do know it served the interests of those who for so long wanted to invade the ME. It has been very profitable for the usual suspects and growing up around has been the equally profitable police state 'security' industry.

As for it never happening again, I do not have your faith in that.

They will focus on shipping and cargo if it becomes profitable to do so. No one who has been paying attention believes for a minute that any of these measures are meant to save the lives of Americans. How many Americans died today, victims of real threats to their security? And how many politicians could even answer that question? How many died as a result of terror today? The odds of death by terror are miniscule, the giving up of rights for such a miniscule threat is curious to say the least.

I asked if you, as a liberal, had been part of the effort to keep those scanners out of airports. It was a very successful effort, even Bush was unable to overcome the Constitutional challenges that were made against them. Or were you supportive of them then as you are now? I ask because I never knew a liberal who supported those threats to the freedom of Americans. The victories would not have been possible if there was not a united opposition to them on the left. It seems strange to me now to see any liberal support turning back all that work to protect our rights.

I see now that some states are planning to ban them with bi-partisan support. The fight to preserve our rights will not stop. It is far too important a battle. I am curious though about the sudden emergence of liberals who now support them.

[Frances]

3. So what do you propose the government do

when they get warnings of terrorist action?

Clinton got blamed for 9/11 even though he'd warned Bush that there were terrorist threats. If there had been screenings at Logan on 9/11, 3000 people would be alive today.

[leftstreet]

4. Maybe stop bombing the shit out of people in other countries?

Just a thought

[Angry Dragon]

7. +1000

A good thought it is

Our leaders create terrorists

[Matariki]

19. +1001

Don't know why we think we can invade sovereign nations with impunity. Use unmanned drones that blow the shit out of families and children without any repercussions.

[nc4bo]

43. At the risk of being called a parrot; +1002. nt

[HubertHeaver]

5. There were screenings at Logan. They got through anyway.

[T Wolf]

10. Correction - IF the screenings HAD WORKED, over 1,003,000 people would be alive today.

And Shrub would have lost in 2004.

And we might be making progress today instead of rooting on a Democrat who continues the worst of the repuke policies.

And NO ONE WOULD HAVE EVER HEARD OF Grifter Barbie and her clan of degenerates.

[Kennah]

16. Pre 9/11

Whenever I flew pre 9/11, I carried a 3" folding knife and they never blinked.

Box cutters, like those used on 9/11, could get through the security theater post 9/11 almost anywhere.

Prisons are full of incredibly innovative individuals who can make weapons out of damned near anything, even when their cells are getting tossed on a regular basis.

People put drugs and diamonds inside balloons or condoms, then swallow them or stick them up their rectums to smuggle the drugs or diamonds. Without a colonoscopy before boarding a flight, how exactly are we going to stop terrorists with C4 or semtex up their rectums?

How about planting sleeper cells inside the TSA to assist with the breaching of airliner security? Start back around October 2001, and send loyalists in the U.S. with no prior criminal record to apply for TSA gigs and work them way up to a point they could get guns and explosives on-board for 9/11 redux.

Or, maybe, we could stop invading and bombing other countries for no good reason. It would probably be more effective and ultimately prove cheaper. I'm will to try.

[guardian]

20. Me too

Pre-9/11 my airline carry knife was a Spyderco. I dropped it in the bowl with my keys and loose change. Half the time they just handed it back to me. Half the time they'd open it up, measure it on the ruler they had taped to the top of the xray machine...and then hand it back to me.

[NOLALady]

35. If there had been screenings,

the attackers would have planned something else to get our attention.

[sudopod]

55. Maybe we should accept a small elevation in risk as the price of being a free people.

[Kennah]

6. Why stop there?

I mean there are buses, taxis, private vehicles, bicycles and segweys harboring untold numbers of potential terrorists.

While I'm at it, there's a whole lot of suspicious pedestrians out there, just, well, walking around.

:grr:

[FiveGoodMen]

8. Your trying to be Over-the-Top, but next year these will be seriously discussed

Of course, I don't know that, but how much of what's going on today would we have laughed at and dismissed a decade ago.

Crazy and Evil have no limits.

[Kennah]

25. I'm only halfway going for over the top

The other half is my "what's next" reaction

[guardian]

12. Yes. And did you know that

many bombs can be made with household chemicals? I'm sure the 'safety at all cost' sheeple won't mind random searches of your house to check for the presence of potentially hazardous chemicals. While they are at it the new expanded TSA can require you provide a list of all persons with whom you have associated in the last year and your relationship to them.

[katnapped]

28. Oh, and another thing he didn't mention

They WILL look under the bed too

[hootinholler]

31. Good

Because my condoms, lube and toys are in the nightstand.

[Xenotime]

11. If it makes people safe, what the difference?

I find it interesting that people want safety and security and when it's given to them, they complain.

[guardian]

15. Safety is an illusion.

You can never be completely safe. I for one am not willing to give up my rights, my autonomy, my right to chose, just so YOU can FEEL safe.

I'd rather have ten more 9-11s than an oppressive police state.

[Xenotime]

17. What rights are you giving up?

Nobody is stopping people. Turning them around and keeping going somewhere.

[laughingliberal]

23. That would be the right to be free of searches and seizures in the absence of probable cause.

Funny. Once upon a time that meant something to people. Course it was a bunch of really old fashioned types who failed to see how nice a police state could be.

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.

[alarimer]

53. Unfuckingbelievable.

Are you some kind of sheep or something?

Because only a sheep would acquiesce to the kind of intrusive, unwelcome erosion of our civil liberties.

[sally cat]

13. If we go from 50,000 TSA folks to 500,000 unemployment drops way down.

[villager]

14. "If you have half a pound of hash in your bag, they are going to arrest you"

The key paragraph is here -- it's not about "terror" at all. Of course:

"She said police are primarily looking for explosives, but won't turn a blind eye to other issues. "They are police officers," Tyrrell added. "If you have a half a pound of hash in your book bag, they are going to arrest you. I would suggest if that's the case you are one of the people that wants to walk away."

In other words, it's the usual 4th amendment violation that we've come to accept with bovine placidity...

[sofa king]

18. As a former longhair, I know what "random" means.

It means being "randomly" selected every single goddamned time. It is tantamount to harassment for those on whom it inordinately focuses, it diverts time and attention from monitoring behavior to focusing on mere phenotype, it wrecks the impartiality of those involved in screening and falsely rewards them for persistence in focusing on these unlikely venues of investigation. I'm a decent person with no ulterior motives, so I know for sure that the hours of time people spent scrutinizing my long flowing locks was time wasted or worse, time that allowed someone else to get past. I'm sure most people who somehow deviate from our society's mythical norm understand exactly what I say.

All this will ensure is that the next fool to screw up travel is going to look like John Forsyth, and he'll start his revolution from the first class section (just like the last time).

[Matariki]

21. The date on this article is June 13 2008.

Not that it makes it somehow better. Just isn't an expansion of the current TSA overreach.

[RKP5637]

29. Very good point!!! n/t

[Rebubula]

32. UnRec for Nazi Hyperbole

Until there are violent marches sprouting up across the countries, people getting sent to concentration camps and are led by President Obama - keep your ignorant hyperbole to yourself.

Seriously...how many adults are on this board?

[Frances]

39. Not many

When the people in the Branch Davidian compound refused to come out, people hysterically demanded that the gov't attacked the compound. After the gov't attacked, people hysterically condemned the gov't.

I think people are reacting hysterically now to the searches, but the same people will react hysterically if there is a terrorist attack.

[14thColony]

42. Of course

Because unless we're sending Jews to gas chambers it can NEVER be fascism. Do we have to wear the black Hugo Boss uniforms too, or is that optional?

[Rebubula]

45. No..

...obviously there is a long period leading to total fascism.

However, to point to an enhanced pat down crap as evidence the Nazism is on the rise is specious at best.

Any post that compares ANYTHING happening today as REMOTELY close to Germany 1933 until 1945 is patently ignorant and will always get an UnRec and lecture for me.

[14thColony]

50. Naziism was merely a totalitarian form of fascism

And thus while Fascism includes Naziism, they are not interchangeable terms. A system can be fascist even though it may never morph into the totalitarian form that Naziism became. Argentina, Chile, Spain and Italy were all clearly fascist states, but they never evolved into the totalitarian form that Nazi Germany epitomized.

I'd respectfully suggest that you might want to consider the possibility that a) a state can be fascist without being totalitarian, b) just like democracy, there are many roads to fascism or any other political system -- just because we don't look like Country X in Year Y might mean we're not on THEIR road, but it doesn't negate the possibility the road we're on might still lead to the same destination, and c) fascism, like other political ideologies, carries the DNA of the culture that spawns it; therefore American fascism would never look exactly like any of the other forms that we've already seen, because they arose in different cultures.

[HipChick]

33. I'm glad...

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-09/justice/virginia.bomb.plot_1_qaeda-al-awlaki-speedy-trial?_s=PM:CRIME

[truebrit71]

34. Someone has to stop this madness. I "hope" we get some "change" soon...

...before there are no rights left to ignore...

This is blatantly unconstitutional.

[katnapped]

44. Perspective, people!

Fascism is SO 20th century, people! Could NEVER happen in this country, especially with the Big Big O in charge! Now back to being good obedient citizens.

:sarcasm:

[Rebubula]

46. And...

..overreaching hyperbole is the current trend.


Bravo!

[Liberal_in_LA]

54. omg. The sheriff or security or whatever they are dress differently..literally like jackbooted thug

s. Big boots tucked into pants.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Date of article at link, June 13, 2008

So this is not new stuff.