in one way we are worse than a traditional police state. Our society's shared belief in "social contract" democracy means we give the interferers with liberty a legitimacy they never have in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. We forget that the ability to withhold "consent of the governed" doesn't disappear just because a majority says otherwise.

"Wade" wrote:

You purchase the ticket to get from point A to Point B.. which is your right to that ticket, but in my mind, once your agree to the exchange you in essence waive your 4th amendment right to travel using this method.

On several overlapping grounds, among them:
1. Unreasonable search under 4th amendment.
2. Invasion of natural right of privacy.
3. Restriction of natural right to travel.
4. Patriot Act should have been held unconsitutional.
5. Fear doesn't stop terrorism, it encourages it.
6. TSA has regularly adopted procedures that don't work; we should believe them this time because...?
7. If you have to presume that the average traveller is a criminal, then you've already lost.
8. Threatening a civil lawsuit if you fail to go through the screening? On what grounds, pray tell?

zombie - just cuz you agree with wade doesn't mean he 'gets' it any more than anyone else. wait - that could be taken so many different directions. ;)

in another thread there was a discussion about how if you had a daughter, she'd be a slut & that would make you happy. ok, if she's a slut, do you not try to help her prevent pregnancy & teach her about responsible sex?

to me, having screenings is a preventative thing much like the condom, the pill, the iud, and/or the sponge.

lookie there - i somehow made this about sex - go figure. LMAO!!

"4PackGirl" wrote:

Exactly. Planes are privately owned so by purchasing a ticket you're entering a contract in which you agree to what would normally be an unlawful search.

"djcubez" wrote:

Planes are privately owned so by purchasing a ticket you're entering a contract in which you agree to what would normally be an unlawful search.

"djcubez" wrote:

The events of 9/11, however, created such shock within the population, including among those in Congress, that it provided a political opportunity to get restrictive policies in place. Less than 60 days after the attack, Congress was asked to vote on a lengthy (over 200 pages) and extremely complex piece of legislation that, in its final form, was only presented to members of Congress less than 24 hours before the vote. Few members of Congress would have been familiar with the history of new security theory and with the types of new programs and changes to the law proposed, and the very complexity of the act, and the need to understand interactions among various provisions of the act and between the act and other changes in the law made it very difficult to understand just what all of the changes would mean. The difficulty of the analysis required, the fact that additional changes to the law have followed almost non-stop, and the generation of a political situation in which expressions of concerns about civil liberties have been chilled all combined to slow down public and congressional debate over whether or not all of the new changes to the law are actually acceptable, constitutional, appropriate, and even effective as applied to achieve their stated goals.

Some -- but not all -- of the Act's provisions included a sunset in 2004; when a provision has a sunset clause it expires unless it is explicitly renewed when the time set for the sunset arrives. Even before Congress discussed whether to allow those provisions to lapse, renew them for another limited period, or make them permanent, the notion of a sunset was more rhetorical than something that would have a major impact: The original sunset provision did not apply to electronic surveillance and other key elements of the Act. The original sunset provision did not apply to the national database of information about individuals being established under the Act. And the original sunset provision did not apply to any investigations that are ongoing. Because the language being used to describe pursuit of terrorism defines the effort extremely broadly, this means that almost any investigation could be carried out just as it was before sunset because it could be defined as related to terrorism. This aspect of the sunset provision significantly limited its actual effectiveness.

Since 9/11, restrictions to civil liberties include not only this same restriction on speech, but also a reduction in the following rights:
- the right to a fair trial,
- the right to associate with others,
- the right to privacy, and
- the right to access government information.

In the past it was always understood that any restrictions on civil liberties during wartime would be put in place for a limited period of a few years at most. This was an important element in their acceptability to the citizens of the United States. The Patriot Act and related policies are being put in place for a much more extended period: From the start, President Bush has claimed the war on terrorism will last for at least 50 years, which would mean at least two generations of US citizens would live their lives without basic civil liberties. Bush has also explicitly described the conditions being established as permanent new conditions; should other changes in statutory and regulatory law put in place after the Patriot Act remain, these would in fact make the new environment for civil liberties permanent. Thus while what is being built is described as necessary for wartime conditions, in fact what is being put in place is potentially a permanent and quite radical loss of many of the civil liberties that have been defining features of the US.

The PATRIOT Act works retroactively going back 15 years, so activities that were perfectly legal at the time they took place could now be considered terrorist and, therefore, criminal.

Support for the PATRIOT Act when it was passed, and for related changes in the law ever since, has depended upon the governments argument that the new provisions put in place for purposes like surveillance and curtailing the release of government information were necessary in order to protect national security (now often referred to as homeland security). Very shortly after the PATRIOT Act was passed, however, the government began using its surveillance provisions to do things such as investigate financial fraud and scams against the elderly, neither of which can be defined as national security issues even under the broadest interpretations of the categories of the enemy under new security theory.

Historically the government has drawn the line between acceptable and unacceptable political speech that is critical of the government at the line drawn by the clear and present danger test. This provision of the Patriot Act, however, redraws the line of unacceptability at "intimidation or coercion" in the attempt to change government policy. The Patriot Act did so by defining a new category of terrorism called "domestic terrorism." A domestic terrorist is one who illegally threatens human life or appears to intend to
- intimidate or coerce a civilian population or
- influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion or
- affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination or kidnapping
The definition of the illegal action of concern here is extremely vague and loose and does not require intentionality. If a group of demonstrators unintentionally knocks over a fence on government property because there are so many people pressing forward, for example, the activity could be defined as terrorist under this definition.

The right to associate with others -- part of the right to assemble protected by the First Amendment -- is important to political speech because through association voices are amplified. It is also important to political speech because through association individuals learn and develop their ideas. Up until the changes put in place by the Patriot Act, individuals were held responsible only for their own actions. Even if one were involved with a group in which others took part in illegal activities, association with the group and promotion of its ideas were protected as constitutional rights.
Under the provisions of the Patriot Act, however, one can be treated as a terrorist not on the basis of one's own actions, but because one is associated with a group any member of which has been involved in illegal activity -- whether or not it is sanctioned by the group and whether or not one is aware of this activity.

having access to government information is considered of fundamental importance to a functioning democracy. Two ways in which that access has been restricted since 9/11 include making it more difficult to successfully request information from the government under the Freedom of Information Act, and reducing the amount of information in the governments as opposed to individual hands by making it easy for presidents to withhold documents from the national archive, which provides our historical memory.
The national security exemption in the FOIA, which justifies withholding information requested if releasing it would endanger national security, is being interpreted much more broadly. Kinds of information never before covered by this exemption are now included, such as property maps, environmental information, and data about hazardous waste sites. This change makes it possible to withhold much more information legally. The Department of Justice has particularly encouraged communities and states to withhold information regarding the civil infrastructure (roads, sewer lines, power lines, etc.).
In October of 2001, President Bush signed an executive order allowing sitting or former presidents to veto the release of presidential papers. If there should be a disagreement between the sitting president and a former president regarding the release of the latter's papers, a decision by either to withhold the documents is sufficient to prevent their release. Thus even if a former president believes his papers should be made available to scholars and reporters, a sitting president can keep this from happening.

the federal government has authority to prosecute only violations of federal law, while states prosecute violations of state law. However, the Patriot Act gives the federal government authority to prosecute violations of state law. This provision makes it possible for the attorney general to determine on a case by case basis which crimes should be considered crimes against the federal government and thus definable as terrorism.

All top government officials are either elected or appointed. The president and vice president are elected (though we arent free to vote on this separately rather than as a team), and the members of the cabinet, who head the departments of the federal government, are presidential appointees who must be approved by Congress. As we have seen several times in recent years, there are times when Congress will not approve a presidential appointee, and then someone else will be considered, so the role of Congress in selecting the most influential leaders in the federal government is critical. After 9/11, however, President Bush issued an executive order that gave him the right to completely replace every member of the cabinet with his own choices without Congress being involved at all -- should a national emergency be declared. It is the president who declares a national emergency.

There are three ways the Patriot Act and related policies affect the right to a fair trial as established by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution: The right to know what evidence is being used against you has been lost, the right of confidentiality in conversations with your attorney has been lost, and the right to have an open courtroom during your trial so that the media and others would know what is actually going on has been threatened.

Under the Patriot Act, information gathered via secret surveillance can be kept secret, even from someone charged with a crime on the basis of the evidence and even from that person's attorney. Thus one could be charged, convicted, and even sentenced to death without ever knowing the evidence upon which such decisions are based.

Historically a law enforcement officer needed to meet the following criteria to
get a search warrant:
- a specific individual had to be named
- a specific crime had to be involved
- a judge had to be convinced to grant the search warrant on the basis
of probable cause that the named individual was involved with the specific
crime identified
Under the Patriot Act, all that is required to get a search warrant is:
- telling a judge that the search being requested would be related to
an ongoing investigation
This means that:
- individuals not named in a search warrant can be searched
- no specific crime need be identified
- no evidence has to be produced that individuals being searched actually
have anything to do with any crimes

The Patriot Act reverses historical precedent by making it possible to conduct covert (secret) searches. Historically such searches have been illegal. Police must knock and announce their presence before searching, and must leave a notice and receipt at the place from which property was taken. While the FBI has in the past conducted covert searches occasionally, it did not have legal authority to do so. The Patriot Act makes covert searches legal not only in cases involving terrorism, but in any federal criminal case. Covert searches make it much more likely that search warrants will be abused. Covert searches make it impossible for the terms of a search warrant to be contested by individuals asserting their Fourth Amendment rights to protect against searches of the wrong home or outside the terms of the search warrant. Covert searches can also be used to place equipment for ongoing surveillance in place.

Under the Patriot Act, damage to a computer system that costs more than $5,000
to repair is considered terrorism. The damage can be cumulative over time. Thus someone who playfully hacks a system in order to send his girlfriend a love note might be deemed a terrorist if the organization that was hacked can claim it cost it more than $5,000 to repair the hack or to change the system in such a way that it would be protected from similar activities in the future. Intention is irrelevant, as is the question of whether or not there was actual harm to the government, society, or an organization.