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.

The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong. Nor ought it to be presumed that the legislature meant to use a phrase in an unjustifiable sense, if by rules of construction it can be ever strained to what is just.

I don't understand how this has possibly withstood a legal challenge. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from passing ex post facto laws, which is exactly what this is.

I have to think the Supreme Court would strike this down if anyone challenged it. It's such a bald defiance of the Constitution.

May I remind everyone one more time that this heinous piece of legislation was signed into law by a Republican president. When it comes to my civil liberties, I fear moralistic conservatives far more than guilty liberals.

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. Under the terms of the Patriot Act, individuals involved in anything defined as terrorist activity as far back as 15 years ago could be pursued. The effect of this provision is to retroactively criminalize activities that were not criminal -- indeed, that were constitutionally protected -- at the time they were undertaken.
As we think about the implications of this we should remember that political groups long treated as subversive have now become highly admired official governments. Nelson Mandelas political party, the African National Congress (ANC), for example, was involved in what might be described as revolutionary activities in the late 1980s as they struggled to replace the apartheid government. Many people in the U.S. and around the world, however, provided as much support as they could to Mandela (who was then in prison) and his colleagues because they, too, believed that the racist government should be replaced by a government that genuinely served the South African population. In 1994 Mandela did win the presidency, South Africa was transformed, and Mandela is now seen as one of the truly great political leaders of the 20th century and perhaps all time. Still, under the terms of the PATRIOT Act it would be possible to define the ANC as having been a terrorist group and those U.S. citizens who engaged in such activities as promoting economic boycotts of South Africa in support of the ANC as engaged in terrorist activity that is now considered illegal as well even though that activity took place before the PATRIOT Act was passed.

Ah, but here you're glossing over a very important concept. Yes, purchasing the ticket amounts to a contract with the privately owned airline. Therefore, the customer must agree to abide by whatever regulations the airline itself imposes upon its own property, just as when your'e a guest in my house, you must obey by my rules or I have every right to kick you out.

The issue people like Wade, zombieslayer, and myself have with the TSA arrangement is that the government has taken it upon itself to impose these security provisions. When I purchase that ticket, my contract is with the airline, not with the government, which has (without my consent) made itself a third party to that contract.

I don't think any of us would have an issue with submitting to reasonable security procedures implemented by the airlines themselves. They obviously have a vested interest in protecting their own assets. When the entities implementing the security protocols are agents of the government, though, they should have to abide by constitutional guidelines, which (no matter what the Supreme Court for the sake of expediency may have found) I don't believe they are.

"djcubez" wrote:

The U.S. government owns the airports? Where is this documented?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Midway Airport is owned by the City of Chicago and boasts more than 300,000 yearly landings and take-offs. The site features plenty of interest for passengers and even contains an actual WWII SBD Dauntless Dive-Bomber plane, which is suspended high from the ceiling of Concourse A.

I inadvertently stated US government.. but they are owned by Local Airport Municipalities or Authorities regulated by the FAA..

Ask yourself this.. whom controls the Airtraffic in this country and dictates the conditions met by the airports themselves?

The FAA.. a direct arm of the Federal government and can halt a plane at any point.

Go past this issue.. how would individual airlines control security in this massive hubs with open concourses and terminals.. have checkpoints at the gates.. really that is going to save time and hassle. And more importantly.. would it be safer?

Probably not.. just more chaos and confusion.

"pack93z" wrote: