|
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 12946891)
I totally agree. If the government believes that someone has committed a crime, then that person should be arrested and tried for it. Restricting people's travel based on what the government thinks they might be planning to do in the future is reminiscent of "thought crime" in Orwell's 1984.
Bruce If they're merely mentally contemplating a crime, they haven't done anything illegal. |
Originally Posted by star_world
(Post 12945915)
I'm sure that makes sense to you mate but... bit hard to work out what's going on in your mind there...
By definition, that makes TSORon a suspected terrorist. TSORon has stated that he believes that it is quite acceptable for Constitutional Rights of people to be violated if they're suspected terrorists. Since TSORon is now a suspected terrorist, I ask him how he feels about having his rights violated for that reason. I'm fairly certain that (if he responds) he's going to state that "suspected terrorist" should only apply to the peasantry, not to the high-and-mighty employees of TSA or other government agencies (though he won't word it quite that way), and that only the suspicions of the high-and-mighty matter, not those of the peasantry. |
Originally Posted by sethb
(Post 12947752)
If they're planning a crime, and any action has been taken towards committing it (even an action that by itself is quite legal, like buying a crowbar) and there's more than one person involved, they've committed the crime of conspiracy.
If they're merely mentally contemplating a crime, they haven't done anything illegal. Unfortunately, in the "current Post 9/11 Environment", silly little things like the law don't seem to matter to our government. |
Originally Posted by sethb
(Post 12947752)
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 12946891)
I totally agree. If the government believes that someone has committed a crime, then that person should be arrested and tried for it. Restricting people's travel based on what the government thinks they might be planning to do in the future is reminiscent of "thought crime" in Orwell's 1984.
If they're merely mentally contemplating a crime, they haven't done anything illegal. This Homeland Security blacklisting -- the primary reason for TSA's airport ID check -- is extra-judicial punishment. We're punishing people based on accusations. Before the blacklists were implemented, we already had processes to restrict the movement of people based on a judge's ruling. The blacklisting simply allows our executive branch of government to sidestep the judicial branch, handing out punishment -- for any reason they like or no reason at all -- without the involvement of a judge or jury. If you believe that America should be as this nation's founders intended, Homeland Security's blacklisting is wholly un-American. Quoting the Identity Project's "What's Wrong With Showing ID?" page: Honest people [...] go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere. [...] Another program which depends on showing ID is the Watch List and No-Fly List. Airlines are issued these secret lists by the federal government and are required to request ID from their passengers in order to check them against the secret lists. This has resulted in countless citizens with names similar to bad people being harassed, arrested, or prevented from traveling by aircraft including every person named 'David Nelson'. Much has been done to make travel by air safer. Cockpit doors have been secured, pilots are armed, and Air Marshals patrol airplane cabins. Increased physical security at airports has dramatically increased the safety of our nation's skies. Above all, the mindset of the flying public has also changed: no longer will passengers remain passive in the event of a skyjacking. The demand for ID does nothing for security while making honest Americans less free. Every government that has imposed totalitarian rules told its populace that it was doing so to "uphold freedom" or "improve the security of the homeland" or "root out terrorists and subversives." These ends do not justify unconstitutional means. We uphold freedom by exercising it – not by restricting it. Using this country's transportation system to conduct a dragnet, using government secret lists of wanted people, degrades our freedom and makes people less inclined to voice their opinion for fear of ending up on these secret lists. While the present administration may have benevolent intentions to justify their actions, our future is imperiled by this wholly un-American activity. |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 12947889)
Seth, you seem to conflate suspicion of wrongdoing with conviction by a judge or jury of having done wrong.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 12947134)
Given the current mood of the congress to engage in actions that further bring the populace under control of government I think we may be pushing rope when hoping for correction within DHS/TSA.
|
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 12947889)
This Homeland Security blacklisting -- the primary reason for TSA's airport ID check -- is extra-judicial punishment. We're punishing people based on accusations. Before the blacklists were implemented, we already had processes to restrict the movement of people based on a judge's ruling. The blacklisting simply allows our executive branch of government to sidestep the judicial branch, handing out punishment -- for any reason they like or no reason at all -- without the involvement of a judge or jury. If you believe that America should be as this nation's founders intended, Homeland Security's blacklisting is wholly un-American.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by PTravel
(Post 12948192)
True, but fortunately the Republicans are in the minority so it's unlikely that any of their legislation will get passed.
|
When has either major party actually decreased the power of the government to rule the people?
|
Can we keep this about the OP issue? I'd like the issue to stay in TS/S, personally.
|
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 12826220)
Good for Phil!!!!! Yes, TK, this could get very interesting. Phil hit all sorts of hot buttons at once. I admire him.
If you read Sherri's blog a little further you will see that apparently her doctor's office is requiring a photo ID each and every time a patient comes in for a visit - in compliance with some FTC rule, allegedly designed to stop identity theft. Seems to me the more often one is required to have one's ID available for review and scanning, the greater the chance of having one's identity stolen. Photo ID to see doctor |
There's also an issue with confidentiality of medical records under HIPAA. No doctor wants to discuss medical history with someone who may not be the patient. That can be a serious crime.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 12950724)
There's also an issue with confidentiality of medical records under HIPAA. No doctor wants to discuss medical history with someone who may not be the patient. That can be a serious crime.
Bruce It is now a Federal Law and within it is given the right to request a picture ID. I used my library card once and then my work ID, both have pictures. The reception gal asked for a DL, and I handed her my library card and she never said a word (guess she didn't know the difference). |
Library card
Originally Posted by rgfloor
(Post 12951187)
Right on the money, my wife works in a hospital and this is all about HIPPA confidentiality.
It is now a Federal Law and within it is given the right to request a picture ID. I used my library card once and then my work ID, both have pictures. The reception gal asked for a DL, and I handed her my library card and she never said a word (guess she didn't know the difference). |
Originally Posted by FWAAA
(Post 12827008)
From the blog:
:confused: Any legal basis for ordering a traveling companion to leave an airport under threat of arrest or for "banning" that companion from the airport property for 24 hours? Did the iron fist BNA cop move to ABQ and take over their airport police force? As far as your case Phil, I don't know the specific circumstances and I'm sure you can't elaborate, but many will be paying attention the court hearing coming up in Feb. I just hope the thousands of dollars being shelled out by you and others is worth it. Actually I'm surprised I haven't seen the recent cases here on FT where searches and subsequent arrests have been thrown out due to TSA overstepping the administrative search, or maybe I didn't go through enough of the threads. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:47 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.