Who among our members has been searched, thinks they will be searched, or hopes they won't be searched?

-- Craig

Well, I always hope I won't be searched. An I going to do anything different because of the searches? Nope

I take an MTA bus, the subway and a MetroNorth train on the way to work each morning (reverse the order for the trip home) ... and each of those modes of transport is (in principle) subject to search. So I figure it'll happen sooner rather than later.

As a CCMACLU (card-carrying member of the ACLU) and a lawyer, I feel it's my duty to protest searches made without reasonable suspicion. But I also have no objection to showing the innards of my briefcase or handbag to a security guard when I enter a museum, the library, the opera house, etc. So I'd probably permit it, though grudgingly....

I think they're looking for big bad bombs, of course, but they won't turn a blind eye to anything they find that they don't like.

-- Craig

Helen; I am very much of mixed minds about this, myself. As a lawyer and once the ONLY ACLU member in the county in which I lived, I don't have much sense of humor about the 4th or the 5th Amendments.

I was in Europe while the Red Brigade was running amok, right on the heels of the massacre of the Israeli athletes, and while the Turkish -Cypriot incident was going down. In Rome, there seemingly was an APC on every street corner, and there were soldiers with assault rifles on catwalks rigged over the concourse in Fumiccino. In Kusadasi, Turkey yanks (see?) were viewed with great suspicion and mistrust.

And yet, I never heard of a random search. Absent reasonable suspicion or at the very least a colorable Terry scenario, I don't think I would react well to a random stop & frisk in this country.

I do tryly admire the manner in which the British seem to be handling their travails. I suppose 3 million cameras in central London helps. But that's another story for another day. They seem to have struck a reasonable balance between security and personal freedom, if a bit over-regulated.

When I was flying to the US a lot, when boarding the plane in Newark, 'random' meant anyone with a foreign passport.

I suspect that on the subway, random will be anything but!

Sigh, the 5th Amendment ... I find it distressing that as a result of Kelo I agree with JJ. Scalia & Thomas on something. (Am I the only one who keeps hearing Cole Porter's "Anything Goes" -- good's bad today, and black's white today, and day's night today -- in her head these days?)

Anyway, on the 4th I agree with your concerns about how random those "random" searches will be, and wonder why random searches are more acceptable than those based on a Terry or equivalent suspicion. I think someone on the news last night admitted that they'd be focusing more on folks with bigger bags -- as a practical matter that makes sense, but then it's not truly random.... And I don't think the DWI/roadblock system of just searching every third or tenth (or whatever) person would work ... everybody would immediately try to game that system somehow.

Whenever I see/hear the term "random search", my first thought is, "how pointless".

If they're doing one out of ten, and aren't looking for something in particular (big bag, foreign-looking, etc), the odds are excellent that they would MISS any terrorist in the group.

Besides, they wouldn't actually have to do it themselves. All they would need to do is what some drug transporters do: give the "package" to some unsuspecting fool who's willing to take $10 to carry something on board because the terrorist is "overloaded". Just hand the backpack to Mr./Ms. CleanCut Helpful and get it past the inspection point.

Sue

Here in Brazil we get to put up with what they call the "blitz". These are random car stops and searches. They basically set up a roadblock manned by smg armed police and stop whatever car they feel like. The then check your documents, glove compartment, trunk, pockets, bags, whatever they feel like searching. They are also searching for anything and everything that they may have reason to take an intrest in.

On the street we are subject to random stop and searches, anyone walking downtown may be stopped and frisked at any moment.

I would hate to see the US turn into a police state like the one I live under.

What's going to happen when a person on the NY subway is stopped and searched and they turn up a little baggie of pot? Will that be admissible evidence? We stopped student "X" to search for explosives but turned up a bag of weed.

I don't support the smoking of weed but don't think this isn't going to play out before the month is up. How about the kid who turns to run because he has a bag of weed and the police shoot him for trying to blow up a subway car?

I'm sorry. I don't like where this is headed. If they really want to filter out bombers they would use dogs to sniff around looking for explosives. I would say anyone who was a "hit" with the dog should be subject to search. That also removes the racial profiling from the issue, the dog says search and you get searched. Mac

And of course, if they know the bags will be searched, they'll switch to carrying on their person. Wouldn't be the first time someone has strapped explosives to themselves.

Personally, I am very unhappy about the idea of random searches. I'd much perfer they had explosive sniffing dogs working the lines and searched based on cause.

Obviously, they may not have enough explosive dogs yet, but quite frankly, they could announce the use of the dogs, and they could deploy what they have, explosive dogs, drug dogs, whatever. People would have no way to know that some of them were not explosive dogs or at least which ones. And then, as more explosive dogs are available they could trade out the non-explosive dogs.

I think this would be a larger deterent, and also more effective (once ramped up).

One thing that is very distasteful is that they will ding you for things other than what they are looking for. Personally I make it a policy to only carry what is legal, but I find the whole approach distasteful and an assault on our rights. While it may be legal, I think it breaks the public trust in regard to the government respecting our right to privacy.

This is a slipperly slope IMO. I'd rather live with a bit more risk and retain my freedom.

-john

Pict wrote:


They specifically said that you will get you for anything illegal, not just what they are looking for.

-john

I've only ever met one search dog in a professional capacity.

High school, they got sick of the pot on campus. So, the state cops show up at 730 and walk the dog. It walks right past the biggest dealer in school, and sniffs some poor girl's bag. She's a preacher's kid, I swear that if baptists had nuns she would be one, and she total freaks out, crying and begging and praying. It had twigged to her tuna fish sandwish.

The dog sniffed me, to, but I was chewing on a slim jim openly. Sniffed everyone with lunch in thier bag, or eating breakfast. Missed every pot head.

Search dogs, BAH!

Even if they can get enough dogs, it is a matter of body packing to get around it. Body packing gets around drug dogs, should work for bomb dogs.

I don't like what they do here in Ohio at public schools with their random checks -- they also walk the dogs through the parking lot and they say they are doing it so the dogs will 'hit' on weapons, drugs or anything they think is contraband -- if the dog jumps up on the car, it is searched. We are fast becoming a police state.

I like how Journeyman put it, that if the dog says search than you get searched. Only one problem with that.... there are thousands of different kinds of explosives and most dogs can only be trained to ?hit? on 5 to 8.
Second, I know the media loves to pump up the idea that racial profiling is illegal, but it is not. That is it is not illegal when used with other reasons and not just race (i.e. actions, clothing, behavior, location, time of year, etc. )
I want to know since when does random mean anyone with a foreign passport? That may be true in your experience, but how come we keep seeing the 80 year old ladies being searched on the news?
O and not liking searches without reasonable suspicion, well not even the courts can agree on what that means (especially the 9th circuit court) so I?m not going to bother.
Wow the cameras help? If they help how come they have been getting blown up lately?
I love Susan?s thinking about the terrorist?s giving the package to someone. But the problem with that thinking is that isn?t how they act. As it is well documented they want to die for their ?religious cause? to get their ?heavenly rewards?.
I may sound like I am a anti rights - pro government, but I?m actually the opposite. I am very much for minimalist government. But being a governor, mayor, president, senator, etc., is kinda like being a police officer or even kinda like being in the military. It doesn?t matter what they do, there is always someone in the public on the news whining and crying about not liking what they are doing. If the politicians let things go along as normal without ?random searches? or some other means to try to stop an attack and something was to happen, they would be crucified. But now they are tying to avoid a incident and they are still being crucified.
I have always had the mentality that if you don?t like what is happening, don?t whine, come up with a better idea on how it should be done and make it happen.
But because our country is full of a bunch of OVERLY SENSITIVE, EASILY OFFENDED, people that somehow constantly get air time on the news, nothing that is ?truly effective? will ever be done.
WOW sorry about the rant, guess I woke up on the wrong side of the bed. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I must admit, that I'm getting worried about these recent events. I saw president Bush talking about the free world and democracy.... Now I found out that a guy in the UK was held down by 2 police officers... the third officer shot 5 bullets in the guy... Now it has come out thay he had nothing to do with the bombs overthere. <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> If this continu's it looks like the terrorists are getting what they want. <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Personally, I think it would be a fine thing if national security in the USA were turned over to the ACLU. I think they would do a bang-up job preventing bus bombs.

Regards, Vince

Actually, they are in charge of our security since we are prohibited from profiling the very people who set these bombs off.

The ACLU only protects the parts of the Constitution that it wants to protect, not the whole thing. Have you noticed that they won't touch the "illegal search & seizure" parts with a ten-foot barge pole? Why? Because "we don't deal with property".

Sue

Re "Search dogs, BAH!"

You may have run across a less than talented or motivated dog.

I knew another one that had an amazing nose, and I saw him both in training and in action. In some of the training scenarios, the cops let me choose the hiding place while the dog and handler were in another part of the building. Dog found the ganja in nothing flat.

Sadly, this was a very happy, good-natured Belgian malinois that died from bone cancer at a ridiculously young age.

Dogs are lot like people: They're individuals. Some are brilliant and some are duds.

But a dog with a good nose and desire and with love and respect for the handler is something to see in action.

RE. Kelo I found O'Connor's dissent far more eloquent [Dear all: Helen and I are talking about the recent US Supreme Court decision in which the Court found it perfectly OK to condemn private property in the name of public use and sell it to a priovate developer in the name of urban renewal. See: ]http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct...04-108.ZS.html] although Thomas' law clerk wrote a wonderful dissertation on the history of the "publicf takings" clause of AM 5.

I have never had as much heartburn with so-called profiling as I am supposed to have. In context, I have to agree with police friends (I really do have a few) because if you are looking for a brown guy carrying a pack, it really makes perfectly good sense to stop all the brown guys carrying packs. Unless, of course, you are the brown guy carrying the pack full of camping gear.

I am much more distrustful of the 'random' search - as you point out, there is always a way, and nothing is 'random.'

Now, by god, there is concept you don't hear every day: PUBLIC TRUST. What ever happened to that? Perhaps the same thing as public civility?

My, but change is hard. And sometimes rather sad.

That's right up there with 'public conscience'

Yes, we would have, had we been given a chance, because we would not have made the folks with the bomb hate us.

Actually, had the abuse not occured then there would be no attention paid. What, you want us to focus on those portions of the bill of rights not subject to abuse?

But, here's a test: name one.

What on earth are you talking about? Remeber 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine that made so many so angry?

While we're all concerned about the civil liberties aspect of this, there's the practical question that Craig's original post poses: What, if anything ,are you going to do about it?

I don't look forward to the prospect of walking 30 miles home. With that in mind, I've removed the small fixed blade I normally carry in my pack. I still have a pocket folder, and a Leatherman tool (neither in the pack).

Personally I don't care. And I tell you why... I saw what was left of people after 9/11 and if that stupid back pack search will prevent somebody from detonating a pipe bomb on the tracks than I'm all for it. I'm on the brain detail in NYC and I don't feel like pulling bodies from the tracks. I worked few suicides in the tunnels and it wasn't a nice experience. If you tell me that your freedom is more important I will be more than happy to give you rubber gloves, flashlight and send you down trying to match somebody’s arm, to a torso and than account for ten fingers that maybe got mixed up or got partially eaten by rats. A bum with burning shopping cart disabled NYC Subway system for a day and closed part of the line for next 2 years. Imagine what a well placed bomb can do.

Now I also do understand that such search leaves a lot of room for abuse (aka TSA). Also even a silly thing like somebody with a dime bag in his pocket becomes a problem. But from another point of view crime rate will go down. Not everyone is privileged enough to carry a badge that gives you some immunity. But what are you carrying in your backpack that you don’t want to disclose? Terrorists are not going to blow up a 7 am bus in Wisconsin but 7 am bus in Times Sq. Also by buying MTA token for a ride you are technically on their ground therefore you agree to their rules. Again I will repeat that searches leave a lot of room for abuse and on Oprah commercials will run about lawyers being more than happy to handle “if you've been searchw rongfully you have a right to compensation”. Maybe it’s time to do something for the greater good and suffer.

But NYC Transit System is a vulnerable point. It is a miracle that nobody did anything yet.

The thing is that when you face Mrs. Smith to tell her that her boy is dead because somebody’s personal freedom was more important that her son’s life don’t expect her to understand. I learned to value a human life and I do believe that in order to do the right thing you don’t have to save thousands. It all starts with one life. If that search finds one bomb, one handgun that’s at least one life saved and that’s good enough to me.

I've tried to keep my mouth shut, becuase this isn't really the place, but since our legal eagles are mentioning it.....

Am I the only one who feels like the bill of rights was burned by the Kelo ruling? *shivers* Property siezed becuase it can be put to "better use" from a tax point of view. Random searches at mass transit. HAVING to carry ID.

I'm waiting for us all of us here to be declared undesirable subversives, and sent to a reeducation camp.

My mother used to be a teacher. Part of why she got out is becuase school searches. Cops show up, and the doors are LOCKED, with a cop watching. No one goes in or out. Dog sniffs everyone, ever pack is searched.

Keep in mind, this is in rural Vermont. Other, more modern schools have security cameras everywhere, and armed cops in the halls. The halls have doors every so often, which can be locked using remotely controlled electromagnets in the CLOSED possition, while said cops go through in teams, frisking every student there. I know that set up was challanged in court, but the fact that we are treating students like prisoners....

Becoming a police state?

Or maybe the second ammendment? The ACLU is not a friend of the NRA, and that is very, vey sad. Enough legal firepower there to maybe break the Patriot Act if they were set out to make a full out attack.

That said, I give money to both.

Now there's a thought: be nice to these "folks", give them whatever it is they want, and maybe they will leave us alone.

Newsflash--unless you subscribe to their rather narrow views regarding religion, particularly the role of women in society, then they are going to hate you. If that's the price to be left alone then I'll take their hate any day.

Terrorism isn't about religion. Maybe to the dumb grunts, but it isn't. And to them, the use of a heathen to deploy a weapon would seem like a great practical joke. "HAHAHAH!!! We pay them to die, and they do it!"

At least Ii'd find it funnier than anything in thier possition.

(Sorry, Chris, I slipped, bad mouth, going to wash out now)

you mean : "we don't even have to pay them for...." <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Thomas Jefferson

Mat we are told to obey the laws of the land, but the people enforcing these laws distort ands pervert them in the name of safety; at the cost of Liberty. You can take our liberties and yes Mat you may have less body parts to pick up; (which by the way is a job you get paid for and you signed on for.) but by taking this liberty you have taken one more piece of America freedom.

One day you can tell your grand kids how you remember a time before America was a police state, and people had freedom and rights guarantee by our constitution. So sleep well; and remember hind sight is 20/20.

Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Thomas Jefferson

That's what Helen and I were talking about above -- Kelo is going to have very broad implications.

I have litigated against the government in one form or another for my entire career, and of all the trends I've watched, this has the greatest potential for abuse.

[And by the way, our local ACLU chapter did a 2nd amendment case a while back -- we couldn't get suit approval from the national, so the lawyer that originated it carried it along himself until they litigated it to a draw.]

I've been biding my time on this thread, but now I will cut loose.

Dogs will not stop the bombs from coming. If they did, there wouldn't be any more suicide bombers going off in Iraq now.

The people responsible for sending bombs to kill innocents aren't the people actually using the bombs. The responsible parties have power and control. What is it that people with power want? That is the motivation. It has little or nothing to do with hate.

I am an Ex-Pat living and working in the occupied zone of Baghdad with four different US Government badges driving a US government registered vehicle. Every day I am stopped and searched and the car I drive is searched at least three times. If you search everyone, then it doesn't really matter much anymore. Getting searched is better than getting dead. You do what you gotta.

Iraqi men and women who enter the green zone every day to come to work for us have to raise their shirts at the checkpoint as they walk by. Yes, even the women. Islamic culture finds this quite repugnant, but they do what they have to do to survive, and getting paid American dollars is survival. Again, you do what you gotta do.

I am searched at least once every time I come and go from Baghdad at the airports. So is anyone else that goes through the metal detector and sets off the alarm. I'd rather be searched than be in a fireball at 30,000 feet. It is a long walk home from here.

Random searches will be a lousy deterrant. They've already tried that here. It didn't work. Now they search everyone's everything. That stopped the car bombs and the strap on bombs from coming in the green zone, at least for now. The people who get searched don't like it, but they keep coming and going because this is where they get money.

I don't pack a firearm because it is against the rules, but I am allowed to pack the biggest, nastiest blade I can carry, concealed or otherwise. Like I said before, I have two SRKs and a couple 4 foot wooden impalers. Admittedly, they are no match for even a beat up AK-47, but you do what you can.

No TSA agent has taken anything of mine yet while travelling, and I've done my share. I have lost some things to customs agents in other countries. Like someone else said, you learn to expect this. You are not going to argue for long with a guy with a Baretta and a badge in Turkey, or Kuwait, or Yemen....

Does that work?

First we get searched to go on airplanes. It might save a life - everyone agrees - saving lives is Good. Then we get searched to go onto a subway - it might save a life. Everyone agrees - saving lives is Good. Then we get searched going on Trains - It might save a life - everyone agrees - saving lives is Good. Then we get searched going on busses. Then we get searched entering shopping malls. Then we get searched on the street, or wherever we may be. I don't think it's possible to effectively defend against terrorism without living in what amounts to a prison. Are we willing to do this? I'm not. Aren't we supposed to be free from unlawful searches? Is any search lawful now because it's in the interest of national security? That seems mighty broad in scope to me.

Overall, I agree with you. But my bag is just that. MY bag. I like my stuff to be touched my me (or my wife), and that's it. That's personal privacy and freedom. All I carry is first aid items and flashlights. No big scary knives. But it's my stuff.

Unfortunately, such concepts are being trod underfoot by the "greater good" idea. That which benefits (or is perceived to benefit) the greater number of people is more important than that which benefits the few or the one. I can see how that would apply here.

The NYC police are doing it all wrong, though. "Random" is never random, and random won't do any good, anyway. If you want to screen everyone, then profile everyone. Work up a racial profile on everyone and go from there. It'll never happen, but it would be interesting to see someone try.

-- Craig

What would Jefferson say now? That was then, this is........ Jefferson was a very wise person, as were many of his "rebel friends." I am of the opinion he would have advanced his thinking with the tmes, needs, threats, etc. Weapons of mass distruction on those days were more likely microbes, and not even known to the world.
There are plenty of places you can move to in order to escape these terrible violations of our rights.
Me, I will continue to fly and work in a schedule for the TSA time delays and prepare myself by having common sense enough to know what not to take with me in order to stay out of trouble.

"GOD Bless America, still the best place to live!"

The "Greater Good"... That sounds like something the Soviet Union would have applauded. The individual must sublimate him/herself for the Greater Good. Ochen Khorosho! My delaem vse dlya khorosho naroda!

I feel so cynical.

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison

Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. -- Harry Emerson Fosdick

The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. -- Edmund Burke, letter, April 3, 1777, to the Sheriffs of Bristol.

It is seldom that liberty of any kinds is lost all at once. -- David Hume

The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. -- Edmund Burke

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, 18 Nov 1783

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.


Some quotes about liberty from people who lived in far more dangerous times than we.

Nobody doubts that life is precious and must be preserved, but I agree with Madison, Franklin, Paine, and others that in the long run, the state, even a “benevolent” one is far more dangerous to the individual and his liberty than a foreign power. What troubles me about our national response to terrorism, is that rather than do the hard things like control the borders, keep track of foreign nationals from parts of the world where violent, anti-US ideology predominates and aggressively develop/implement technology that improves security without hassling Americans who are just trying to get to work on time, we have chosen to search the backpacks of middle-schoolers and take nail files away from old ladies. I’m told by people who are supposed to know these things that the Bill of Rights was to apply only to US citizens, but I am sure that by now some judge has held that it applies to illegal aliens, too. Even those that have entered the country illegally to do us harm.

Does that mean that guests in our country from Abu Dhabi should have a harder time entering the country? Yep. (After 9/11, some wag on television said, “Remember, it wasn’t nineteen Norwegian Lutherans that attacked us!”) I can live with that easier than I can life-long Americans being stopped every fifty yards with the command, “Let me see your papers.” If I choose to go to Baghdad or Turkey, I do not expect to have the freedom for which the Founders pledged their “Sacred Honor.” But within the borders of the United States and for the citizens thereof, I pray that God will save us from the day when the bespectacled, leather trench-coated policeman can smugly say as we are dragged away, “Your papers are not in order.”

I’m not sure that day is all that far off.

A bit of a rant - Sorry. But I believe the issues being discussed are of fundamental importance and I felt obliged to respond. Even if it is not a pure survival topic ... but then again, maybe it is.

Randy P.

I'm sorry, but even though it's Matt's job and he does get paid for it, I doubt that makes picking up body parts any easier. Please understand that he is coming from a viewpoint having witnessed several tragedies and is doing what he can to make things better.

I agree with him, and I agree with you. It's finding an answer that will satisfy everyone that is tricky. I won't stand for this faulty system, will be active in implementing a better one as much as I can, and will keep my eyes open for a real danger. I think that's all I can do.

Yes, but as brandtb highlights below, I really don't want to have to walk 30 miles to my office -- that's my only alternative if I don't take public transit, which means that I'm essentially required to consent to these searches.

Darn -- I thought I was the only person who'd been a member of both the ACLU and the NRA at the same time! (The NRA membership was actually only for work purposes ... the firm I was working for at the time had the Remington Arms Company as a client, and I needed to keep abreast of regulatory developments.)

Rick, please don't take this as a personal attack, but (a) that statement regarding liberty & security was (as gutdoc says above) made by B. Franklin, not T. Jefferson and (b) please tell me where you live & work, because I can't tell whether you truly understand what daily life in a major urban area is like. A lot of personal liberties & rights are compromised or surrendered when one lives/commutes/works cheek-by-jowl with millions of other people in the NYC metro area.

In principle, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, I agree that civil liberties should be sustained to the utmost letter of the law. (That's why I am a member of the ACLU -- I don't agree emotionally with all of their positions, but I agree intellectually with most of them because the ACLU is a fierce defender of constitutional and other legal rights -- no matter how unpopular the folks whose rights they're defending.)

But in real life I (like Polak187) believe that it's a miracle that no terrorist incident has happened yet on the NYC transit system. If we can get a decent search procedure set up -- minimize the potential for abuse and maximize the potential for locating possible attackers -- then I am willing to accept that search procedure as the price of living in NYC. (I'm not happy about it, mind you, but I'm willing nonetheless.) And by the way, it costs about $475/month for covered parking in my neighborhood ... I have much better things to do with that money -- like feed my ETS-fuelled gear lust -- than keep a car in Manhattan merely to avoid "random" searches on the subways & trains.

Sperately and apart from notions of fundamental fairness and the notion that human rights are human right, wherever they are found (with which I agree) part of the argument for extending Bill of Rights protection to aliens apprehended on our soil is the same pragmatic argument against torture: reciprocity. Don't do to them what you don't want done to ours.

I think I will add to my collection of seemingly outmoded concepts begun a few posts back: "honor." Now there's a strange notion -- refrain from torturing prisoners because it's not honorable to do so? How quaint!

My latest ex-wife used to do a lot of immigration work;she told me a lot of war stories. I had some time on my hands waiting for something to happen in the old federal building here, and noticed that there were immigrationn hearings in progress. I went up and watched for a while. You know what they say about making sausage -- be real glad you are a citizen. I promise, visitors to our contry, legal or illegal, are treated none too well.

No -- me too -- where's the contradictioin?

Bingo.

Why do you think guerilla warfare works so well?

The contradiction is that the ACLU is very willing to cover everything but the Second Ammendment.

When varous housing authorities chose to say that anyone living in low income housing couldn't own guns, the ACLU said nothing. They also seem to ignore the fact that the "assualt weapons" scam is based on cosmetics, and is thus a First Ammendment issue, rather than being base on technical merit.

That being said, the ACLU does an OK job most of the time.

Ben hit part of it on the head. Search everyone. One car, one party of visiting "dignitaries" (high school students from Podunk). one box of oranges that isn't searched is a weak point. If I was looking to make an attack, I would watch the watchers, seeing if I could find the pattern to thier "random", and exploit it. If I couldn't, overload them with multiple attackers, one would get through to accomplish his mission. Ben, any comments on that statement?

Searching everyone wouldn't be that horrible to me, so long as the guys running the scanners were trained and honorable. I woudl grumble, but I would accept it so long as I could carry a sidearm on mass transit with a CCW card. If I couldn't... I have to think about that one. It would defeat the purpose of CCW permits.

Randjack, if you would, extend my apologies to your local ACLU chapter for all the stuff I've said about them and the Second. I'm serious, I've said some pretty nasty things. Very cool that you guys took the fight that the national wouildn't.

See you in the camps in three years.

I'll second that! <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Reading this thread over the past few days reinforces a concern that I have had for quite swome time. Theso-called terrorists have not and will not succeed in destabilizing our country directly, but I am beginning to fear that they will force a crisis in our national character with as yet unforseeable consequences. Let me explain.

There is an aspect of our national character that exists nowhere else in the world. It is a strain of individualism that begins with the renegades that founded this country and runs through our art, literature, popular culture -- everything. From James Fenemore Cooper to the legends of the trappers, to cowboys, to the modern era a lone-wolf cops, it is a romanticism of radical individualism that pervades everything. The servivalist branch of this forum's devotees is another example - the misguided notion that if everything goes to hell, one can just go one's own way.

The conflict is that we are really terribly social people. Most people are not loners, individualists, or renegades, or if they do fancy themselves as such, they do so within the confines of a renegade convention. For example, if you want to be a punker, you best adhere to the punker fashions in or to fit in. Lets face it, most American fail pretty dismally in the true individualist department. Those who really are individualists are generally mistrusted, feared, or ridiculed. That conventionality leads to our great strength. The "greatest generation" that waged our last world war so effectively was so effective precisely because they pulled together so well when the chips were down.

So, we have an inherent conflict between our two natures, the individual and social being. We can't stand to be thought of as conformists in a very profound way that is alien to most europeans, and certainly to most all orientals. But it is more than just a pretense -- it is so internalized that the idea of somebody digging through our stuff at checkpoints, indeed, the very idea of checkpoints, offends us deeply -- me too. But the stringth of the nation lies in our ability to focus our combined might against a common enemy.

And this series of posts in this thread shows how it is deviding us, and alienating us from our government. I don't have an answer. I can't change my nature, either, and I can't start trusting my goverment because I've seen to much. But, maybe if we recognize the conflict in our nature, we can begin to resolve it.

CCW is a joke here in ohio -- as soon as we got CCW through the legislature, businesses all over put up signs that guns are prohibited on the property, even with a CCW -- so what's the use of having one? My employer was one of the first to plaster pictures of guns with a circle and a line through it all over the building and parking lot. Great! you can carry a licensed gun, but you can't take it anywhere.

No other government that was in existance when the Constitution was ratified still exists without radical alteration.

The English added a Prime Minister and the House of Commons. Germany is a country, not a lot of squabbling fifedoms. Dito Italy. Spain is no longer a monarchy. The Tzars, Emperors and Shogun would no longer recognise Russia, China or Japan.

All things of human creation wear out, or more often, spoil. I can't say for sure if we are the visionaries who wish to search the future, or the reactionary dinosaurs who pine for the past. Nor do I care.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, so I'm going to shut up now. I'll reply to myself if I figure it out.

***WARNING- REDNECK RANT ABOUT TO BEGIN***

I just love listening to/reading folks nitpicking a common sense issue to death...
what's the problem with busting the kid with the dime bag... is it not against the law???
If you're stopped in traffic during a DUI road block, and you've got an ILLEGAL firearm, isn't it STILL against the law???
If you're found with a LEGAL firearm, shouldn't you be allowed to go on your way, rather than being needlessly/ILLEGALLY hassled for having something that while politically incorrect, is nevertheless LEGAL???

The sensible laws should be enforced, the nonsensical laws should be abbolished, and the criminals and misguided legal folk (read that, police, lawyers, and judges) should be made to find other employment (at the very least).
Kids shouldn't be hassled for saving fellow students' lives (the inhaler story).
Homeowners shouldn't be prosecuted for protecting their property (forget the "neccesary force" arguement, if you don't want to DIE, don't break into anywhere).
Folks with prescriptions for medical marijuana shouldn't have to worry about visits from the DEA... street dealers should be executed... unless/until their drug of choice is made legal.

The law should be more concerned with the rights of the truly innocent, and to Hades with the rights of the criminal.

If this is all to simple, then I guess I COULD BE a Redneck, but that's the way I'll be... to the end.

***REDNECK RANT NOW OVER***

Troy

Well said.

That's a good point -- history is a great teacher.

We evolved from 13 original colonies into what we are today. Gone are witch hunts, slave labor, scarlet letters, and many other things we would consider crazy. Yet at one point they were deemed acceptable.

Time has a funny way of putting a perspective on everything.

Our country has dealt with the brunt of civil war, various world wars, economic doom, and natural disasters. Terrorism is just one more item to add to that list. We'll overcome that, too.

"Theso-called terrorists have not and will not succeed in destabilizing our country directly, but I am beginning to fear that they will force a crisis in our national character with as yet unforseeable consequences."

So-called ?

They are terrorists. I'm not sure what else you would call them. I mean, they are not freedom fighters, guerillas, patriots, the underground, the resistance, the Black Panthers, the AARP, or the Girl Scouts. They won't force a crisis in our national character either--they are going to lose and lose bad.

"Lets face it, most American fail pretty dismally in the true individualist department."

I think you better define what you mean by "most American" (sic). There are some pretty rugged people out west here who do not look to the government to solve all their problems. In fact, all some of us ask is to be left alone. Not everybody lives in an urban area. I feel for the people of New York City. Not only do they have random searches, but they also have to face this war every day in a way that I do not (yet) have to.

It is up the the people of NYC to decide if they need random searches or not. It is they who are facing the greatest threat. Not the Senate, the President, SCOTUS, or the ACLU. The people of NYC will find a balance between security and liberty. It may not be what I would choose as a non-New Yorker, but it will be a New York solution. Who am I to argue with that?

Regards, Vince

I think he was refeering to people who don't socialize and are totally self reliant except for powder and some metal items they barter a bushel of something for to the blacksmith or the general store owner.

Humans have become to specialized, as evidenced by a departure from an agrian society to an artisan and academic society. Even farmers are as much artisans at this point.

when I use the word "terrorist" I always put it in quotes or refer to them as "so-called" because I refuse to give them credit for inflicting terror.

You do not feel the the "rugged westerner who just wants to be left alone" is often, not always, merely living out a stereotype?

Two points to you.

My problem with it is if it is OK to search everyone (or random people, whatever) in the transit system, why not just search people on the streets? Why not search everyone's place of business and their homes too?

I make a point to not do or carry anything illegal. However, if a police officer stopped me and asked if he could search my car, I'd be inclined not to allow it. Why? Because if we don't protect our rights, we won't have them. If the only people who refused a search were guilty of something, simply refusing implies you are guilty.

I sort of consider standing up for your rights like jury duty. If you and all your peers get out of jury duty, then who, exactly, is going to be sitting there? You have to exercise and stand up for your rights, and you need to perform your duties.

Ok, let's get a bit more practical on how things apply to us here on Equipped. I commute about 25 miles each day. I carry a fair amount of stuff. While there is nothing illegal in there, there is a lot of stuff. Lots of stuff that most people don't carry. Stuff that is carefully packed so it can all fit in a small pack. So I can expect in any sort of search where I get "hit", that I'll be spending a fair amount of time, both getting searched, and then I'll have to try to get things arranged such that they fit back in my pack. If this happens with any sort of frequency, I'd either have to reduce what I carry substantially, or find a different way to transit.

Matt, I'm sorry for what you've had to deal with. And while you probably didn't mean it, I would in fact help with the unpleasant chores if I was allowed/asked. IMO it is all part of the price we pay for our freedom.

-john

I used to be the local group leader of Amnesty International, and would occasionally go out to give talks to anybody who cared to invite me about what Amnesty does. Once and a while I would mention in passing that I was also in the ACLU and the NRA. Man, you talk about some strange looks...

It is a prison here in Baghdad. We are surrounded by concrete walls 12 feet tall, razor wire, and armed guards 24/7. All our movments are controlled.

In this environment, you have one of three choices: get searched, get killed, or go home. If things get as bad back home as they are here, everyone will be reduced to the same three choices.

It really doesn't matter much what you are willing to do. If things go wrong, you will have to make a choice. The question is, where will you go? Fortunately, it hasn't become as bad as it is here, yet. So you have more choices, and searches are unlawful only as long as the law does not change. Oops, the law has changed now, hasn't it. The Patriot Act allows things that were not possible before.

If you cannot detect the threat from a distance, then you must treat everyone as a hostile, or die. Unless people are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of others, this is where we are headed. Is it going to be every man for himself? It already is here, more or less.

Let me put it another way. If Shopping malls across the country were being systematically targeted by terrorists, and no one did anything to secure the remaining malls, do you think people would continue to just come and go like nothing is happening? I would not go back there until I was sure it was safe to do so, and that requires unfortunately that everyone coming and going be searched. There simply is no other way to go about it.

I understand your ideals, and I am willing to fight to preserve our freedoms just the same, but you must understand this; the first time a car bomb goes off that kills people you care for, and you find out that the cops could've searched the vehicle, had every opportunity to do it, but the driver refused and so was sent on his merry way, how will you feel then? How about after the 4th or 5th time it happens? How many people that you care for must die before you decide that being searched is better than being killed? That is the real practical conclusion to this scenario.

Iraqis hate being searched all the time. They have told me this many times over. They endure it day in and day out because they know that everyone that comes here is searched, and this is a safe place for them to be, unlike outside where they don't get searched that much, but people get blown up and shot everyday.

That isn't what is happening back home, thank God. If it ever does, you can be sure that searching people regularly will be a fact of life that you cannot avoid.

You sound as if the fact that we are sliding into a police state doesn't bother you.


But the Constitution hasn't.

The 4th amendment of the Constitution:
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.

When the US starts to look like Baghdad we will most certainly no longer be able to brag about being the "Land of the Free".

My apologies for the misunderstanding. There is a major news organization that refuses to use the word "terrorist" to describe the suicide bombers and I thought that you were doing likewise.

As far as "rugged westerners" go, I'll admit that it is more a state of mind than a geographical phenomenon. This board is proof of that.

Regards, Vince

I figure I'll be seached sooner rather than later - something about a military style patrol pack, obviosly full of "stuff" (my go kit) - should be a fun day, as nothing is illegal, but there is a lot of ODD stuff in there

Matt,
My BIGGEST complaint with the so called "Random searches" on the subway is that they won't really work the way they have said they will do them

I object to having to go through BS for what is really (forgetting technical term this AM - excuse me) (edit: "Visual Deterrence") a SHOW of security, which does deter a less determined criminal, but that's not what we are dealing with.

We SHOULD use profiling - start with ALL known factors, hand them to a statistian, and have them work out the models, a good one will find factors you'd never guess at, and will end up discounting ones you think are obvious! If they turn out to be race/religion, so be it

Again, my complaint is when we lose rights for INEFFECTIVE measures. Heck, we can't even keep the homeless out of the subway with their big carts (court rulings) - what's to prevent someone from putting a bomb there? With the way it is right now, all they would have to do is have a guy with NO backpack case the station to see if they are doing stops, and if they are, they go down 7 blocks to the next station, and walk in.

AKA my complaint isn't with the searches so much, as in the fact that they are really useless searches. If I can figure out ways around them with the little bit of thought that I've given the problem, imagine the ways around the problem someone who is dedicating their life (literally) to the problem

STOP, STOP, STOP....you are making too much sense.

I agree 100%.

Thanks for your perspective.
Be safe over there.

But Ben, thankfully for now you are comparing apples and grenades. What is your position on 'our' present real world? I understand that in view of your recent experiences you are likely to be more tolerant of the intrusions of security once safely [hopefull]back here, but is itmerely a matter of acclimation, the frog in the water effect, or is it your pricipled belief that we should learn to accept escalating intrusion w/o further complaint?

Are the "terrorists" so dumb that random searches will prevent an attack? Of course not. They're highly motivated, well funded, intelligent people. The bag searchs are CYA by our leaders, not deterrents for theirs. And since they don't make me any more secure, but DO infringe my rights, I'm against them.

Did they started to search people down in Florida too or is it just NY/NJ thing?

Ben, I'd be one of those who not bother you. I'd support, quietly, the mission of the Coalition, but I would also like to see them go home. Becuase there are too many historical precidents for safe places that weren't so safe.

I would rather take the risks and still have the freedom to travel within my homeland as I wish, and say what I wish, gather where I wish, and live as I wish. If people hate me becuase of the freedoms I embrace, I feel sorry for them with thier sad lifes. And if someone wishes to try to kill me because of that, so be it. I'm not likely to go along with the plan quietly.

If my hometown became like the green zone, I would load my gear in my car, and burn the house. I would leave, amd not look back. I have it easy, I know- single, no kids, heck, I don't even have a goldfish to worry about. For others, it isn't as easy a choice, and I aplogise if I sound uncaring. Even if I was married, though, it would be to someone for whom the choice was just as easy. I know what it means to be persecuted- you fight or you flee.

I might sound like I'm joking about reeducation camps for political undesirables filled with engineers, ACLU'ers and gun owner, but I'm not. I'm all three of those, and a "pagan". I know that if I'm not just gunned down in the street (likely, I'm stubborn), I will end up in such a camp. And I know there are people who would love to kill me becuase I am a "pagan", which means that if they bag me, they go straight to heaven. After all, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. I know what it means to be an undesirable, trust me.

America isn't that far away from turning into theo-facist state. But I don't plan on living to see it, nor do I plan on changing my way of life becuase another flavor of theo-facism doesn't like me either. If we change, they win.

The way you fight terrorism is with openness, not paranoia. You build your communities back up, rather than making everyone afraid of thier neighbors. And as a nation, we are too dumb to put it together. Everyone is eager to fear and hate the other people on thier subway car or bus- how many of us see the same faces, 30, 40, 60 minutes a day, and have for years? How many of us know thier names? That is how we could beat these... gangsters.

And are too busy, we can't be bothered, so we will loose. Even if we win militarily, we will loose at home, by becoming something at least as bad as the dreams of those who attack us.

Or you follow the Isreali model. They don't have to run a gaunlet to go to a mall. They have good security, but it is non-intrusive.

Let me share one of my favorite stupid criminal stories. Man gets off a plane in Isreal. He is broke, so he decides to rob a store. Toy pistol vs. customers with real Uzis. He survived, got life for his stupidity. The customers shrugged it off, they were just doing thier part as citizens.

Sounds like a better plan to me.

More to the point, humans are no more random than computers. Computers at least use a mathematical equation to simulate randomness. Humans use thier baser impulses.

Well, we don't have a subway in Orlando. But they've been doing bag searches at Disney for a while.

We do have a public bus system (Lynx). I have no idea what happens on it, though. No idea about security at KSC. I don't go anymore, since my front yard has a decent view and it's 50 miles away. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Yeah... after I had time to cool down 'n' let the venom out, I sort of rethought what I'd committed to print, and realized that it might have sounded like I was "Pro" search. While I'm NOT in favor of searching everybody on the street, there neccessarily have to be searches of some people out there (if profiling's the answer, then so be it, I can't think of a different/better way to "hit" more bad guys than innocent folk). My point was, and is, if you get caught, don't start whining because you get busted. For those who are inconvenienced/bothered/held up from their busy schedules, maybe the answer would be to give some VERY LOW KEY guidelines to the people doing the searches... until you find a clear and present danger, REMEMBER, 99 out of 100 are going to be innocent people... so treat them like they're your mother/brother/kids until there's a reason to turn into Judge Dredd. I guess the bottom line would be (in MY perfect world), stomp the bad guys on both sides of the badge. There aren't one in a hundred criminals out on the street, just like there aren't one in a hundred bad cops out there, but when you find one, crush it like a roach, never to be a problem to society again.

This is beginning to turn into another rant, so, so long for now.

Troy

AMEN!!! And don't forget, an armed society is a polite society.

Troy

Got a question for everyone who lives in a major metroplex. I avoid them like the plague, mainly becuase I can't breath very well in them and they aggrivate my claustraphobia.

I'm a fairly big guy, no matter where you measure. I have long hair, a big old beard. I've been accused of a looking like a biker, and I tan very dark, and when I do, I look very middle eastern. I really am a nice guy, but I have made people nervous.

If I have to go to these places, should I just offer the first cop I see a look in my bag? I know what it means in terms of S&S, but I don't do drugs, and if I don't have a permit, I don't carry. The heaviest thing I have is my Leatherman as a rule.

Am I likely to get myself in more trouble than I'm trying to avoid?

Now remember... don't step on the big kitty's tail, he might wake up and EAT you. <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Troy

You remind me of an idea I had years ago....

There was a piece on NPR about three, four years ago about the Humaine Society having trouble with tigers that were about to enter adolescents being dumped on their steps, I think it was mostly in Texas, but it's been a while. Aparently, someone was breeding and selling cubs without permits, and the people who bought them didn't really think about what they were doing.

My idea was, train them for police work. *manic grin* Not search, more as patrol. A tiger who is wearing body armour would make me think strongly about ceasing and desisting. Imagine the SWAT team threatening to "send in the cat!" The first time, it would not be taken seriously, but after the first few perps get eatten, well, even a crackhead can get that picture.

I think so. You are specifically drawing attention to yourself.

-john

Sure there is. It's probable cause and evidence. :-)

Yes, I know it makes their job harder. But at the end of the day, they can be proud and know they took the high road while doing their job.

Let me throw this out. I'm not opposed to having different standards for national security vs police enforcement. But I think we have to have well defined rules and that we need some compensation for the liberties they take with our liberties.

For example, I could see expanded ability for national security interests to survail and investigate folks w/o reasonable cause. HOWEVER, any findings that did not specifically relate to national security must not be used against that person.

So, for example, they put Aunt May under the microscope and find out she's been she's been cheating on her social security benefits, but isn't planning on blowing up the Brooklin Bridge. After they close the case (and maybe after a waiting period like 6 months of holding the files), they throw the file through the shredder.

That leaves them open to profile people, do investigations w/o cause, etc, but they can only do something with the information in a very narrow case (national security).

It would still be pretty scary and there would still be potentials for abuse. A lot of checks and balances would need to be built in. But it's an idea.

Another example of compensation would be trade for the following:

1) ok, you get your national id cards
2) but you offer national CCW

Disclaimer - this is a bit off the cuff. there are probably holes everywhere...

-john

Thanks for your input, please forgive my miss quote. I had read it was Tom who said it. If Ben said it first, than he stole it from Tom.....LOL
I live in Baltimore which isn't that big I know, but I personal would rather be throw off a train or out of an airport than give up my rights. However, this is unrealistic for most people with family and jobs they need to get too.

I believe however, if more people were willing to take a stand. About the wrong way to do things than maybe our government would come up with the right way. After all this is a Replic we live in, isn’t it. We the people should be able to come together and say this is a bad idea; so why don’t we.
I guess that would mean we have to care about more than just are jobs and lifestyles and give a little more of our selves.

Do you really think Ben & Tom, if alive today would say to us, give up what we put our lives, the lives of our families and children on the line for, to give us a nation where we were free of terror and terrorist namely the standing army’s of the king. I think these men understood oppression and fear for live and limb all to well. That is why we have checks and balances in our constitution; to keep our government from becoming oppressing.

America is called the home of the brave because we stand up for what is right and just. Our forefather were brave because they took a stand; we shouldn't give up those liberty’s so easily cause they didn't come cheap; and once lost to us, will not come back cheaply either.

My gut reaction is no. When I think about it, however, it's far better to prove you're "harmless" without being asked.

For instance, at my credit union, the signs say you may be asked to present your membership ID to the teller. I relieve them of having to ask for my ID by simply showing it to them with every transaction I make.

Doesn't cost me anything and saves them some breath.

If I were to enter an establishment that reserves the right to search my bag, I might very well volunteer it for searching. I have lots of first aid supplies, an Inova XO3, either a SwissTool or a Leatherman Wave, a small crowbar, gloves, and a respirator.

I would explain I was carrying the last three items in light of the London bombings. I'm tall, thin, geeky, nerdy, and I weigh 130 pounds. I'm clearly no threat, so people tend to believe me. Also, I find it difficult to lie. Cub scout oath and all that.

-- Craig

I hate reply to myself, but it looks like I'm not the only one with this idea. FoxNews had a guest talking head on from security think tank saying that these random searches were pointless, and that he observed people offering to open thier bags to the cops. He pointed out that anyone that willing to share was probably harmless.

But on second thought, I think it might be best to just wait to be asked.

That's not a good idea, that's a GREAT idea.

I gotta tell ya... I LOVE the trade idea <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Troy

Unless of course you have a hidden compartment in your bag so by opening and showing it to the guard makes him/her just do a quick search and not find the hidden compartment.
But then again you could offer your open bag and that would make the gaurd more suspicious and think that you are trying to hide something and take you aside for a "special" search <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Or that you are trying to divert his or her attention from something else.

-john

That might be tolerable. *dirty grin*

Advice, strong advice, for all our younger memebers. No matter how cute she is, never, ever ask the cop who pulles you over for her phone number. <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I've always wanted to have a large cat just to chase or taste those pesky door to door salespeople. But having an armoured kitty would certainly turn heads.

Class IIIA spectra and maybe, somehow, eye armour for a a 250 pound tiger... Only thing scarier would be the same gear made for a 440 pound liger that can look into second story windows if it wants. Can we say juggerkitty? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Heck, I'm trying to find eye armour for one of my cats. In a perscription. Like that would work.

Had my first experience with the bag searchers yesterday - I had to go from our main company "campus" (66th and Broadway) down to Times Square
Get to the top of the steps for the sourth bound 66th st stop, and you can see the sign at the bottom of the steps - "Bag Searches"

Go downstairs with my Becker Patrol pack - aka fairly good sized military style bag, loaded with about 40 lbs of gear EXPECTING to be stopped (in fact wanting to, so I could tell you guys what exactly they did), when I was waved through - guess I wasn't one of the random lucky ones, but the old lady who came down 30 seconds later with a smallish purse got stopped

The BIGGEST joke in all this? If you went to the northbound side, and came in there was no search, and you can take the cross over tunnel - also there was no search at the entrance on the south bound side - aka 3 ways to get in that station, ONE was being searched

As a high ranking Federal Officer I was talking to this AM said to me "It's a feel good security measure to make the public feel that the MTA is doing something. It will end when the ACLU files their suit today or Tommorow. It wasn't really meant to catch anyone"

Well, I hate to say it, but you are right.

It reminds me of a scene in the movie "Spaceballs." The ship is about to blow up, and somebody yells to the president "Do something." He picks up the microphone and yells over the entire ship "Do something."

The people in charge just want to "do something" so that they can say that they tried. Never mind if much thought went into the action, or if anything will even be accomplished.

And even if the random bag searches DID work, then the bad guys would just switch targets. I have never been to NYC or London, but from what I have seen on TV, you just have to send a bomber in the middle of a crowd crossing the street at rush hour. Or, you could hit a mall... or the line of people waiting to get into a popular bar...

Guy I knew kept a maglight between the seats of his car. So he gets pulled over and the policeman shining the light in the window asks "what are you doing". He pull out his mag, shines it back in the cops face and says "nothing, what are you doing". I'm sure you can figure out what happened from here <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

While everyone would like to think that all law enforment personnel are the jack booted thugs they've heard/read about they basically are just doing their job. And it does not get any easier on them or you when you walk up and try to give these people a hard time.

It comes down to preparation or panic: Will they be able to search everyone and prevent an incident? No. Will them searching a handful of bags make most people feel safe because they see law enforcement doing something? Yes. This is the real world, thinking that everything that life is going to be "fair" should of been outgrown.

Uhm, I don't think I am. If any of our law enforcement members feel I am, the should tell me.

I nearly was a cop. Something happened, that's all I will say, that made me unwilling to follow through with those plans. I have friends who are police, and I respect most cops. I've also seen cops who were just there to wear the badge and strut about looking important. It is the latter who I worry about, because they often end up going the furthest, just like these kinds of people do in any organisation.

I shared my idea about the F-9 tiger becuase I thought it was funny. It goes into the same catagory of throught as loading B-52s with the heads of sledge hammers for attacking armoured vehicle columns and smashing them rather completely, with zero UXO risk. A grim joke from someone with a strange sense of humor, made funnier becuase it might work.

I used to think that was sci-fi, until I saw one on TLC. What will Herr Frankenstein come up with next, maybe a cross between a Kodiak and a Polar bear???
Now THAT'S a REALLY scarey thought.

Troy

I had the honor to meet Patrick, of the Shambala Preserve, about 7 years ago, and then again about two years ago. It blew my mind becuase I'd been having ligers in my dreams for years, but everything I read made no mention of them.

For those that don't know, a liger is when a gentleman lion and lady tiger become friends. They don't occure in the wild, but there have been a couple dozen born in captivity. The 440 pounds specimine I mentioned would be a little one. Patrick is almost 900(!!) pounds, and he doesn't have to strain to put his front paws on the top step of a 12' step ladder and look his handler in the eyes, but he is supposed to be big even for a liger. And he's getting midlife paunch. :P Ligers also don't mule out, and breed true- there is a park in India that has second generation ligers. And they are all supposed to be really mellow, but when you are that big, what's going to stress you out?

And what was the last words of thier self destruct mechanism? "Have a nice day." Everyone worried about have a nice day, while the world ends. Sounds about right.

And when they land on a civlized planet.. "Space balls?..... There goes the planet."

Keep 'em comin' dude... I like your sense of humor, but I don't think the sledge hammers would be as effective as the flakked out cat <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />.

Troy

Well, if I was targetting modern, western MBTs or t-90s, I'd probably move up to 40 pound mini-anvils. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Force = mass*acceleration.

Assuming release altitude of around angels 20, 23ft/sec^2 acceleration, with a 40lbs mass equals.... wow, I never thought I'd use calculus like this..... A big honking hole in the roof of a tank. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

But yeah, a tactical team with a trained and geared up liger is scarier.

Edit: OK, it is a LOT of energy. My computer and calculators all agree, we are talking about something in the area of 1.7x10^9 tons of energy. That equation does NOT take into account drag and resistance, however, so that number assumes constant, infinate acceleration, rather than reaching a finite terminal velocity. If anyone is enough of a geek to check my numbers... diff((40*32)/(x^2))dy/dx, from 0 to 20000, using pounds, feet and seconds (x).

LMAO!!!

I just had a vision of roit control.

OK, here's one from the department of "great lines just before a trip to jail":

Cop says to the guy, "Do you know why I stopped you, sir?"

Guy says, "You thought I had donuts?"