A True American!

[mrsleeve]

but I do feel that in some cases they should at least do like the Israelis do, if the guy looks arab...search him...and in this case...if the guy looks like a mexican or a smuggler, stop them. Not PC by anymeans, but realistic way of handling it...I wish they would do that at the airport...a 80year old grandma isnt about to go blowing up a plane...

This is truth, bu then you would have the ACLU, NAACP, and untold latino organizations crying foul and that its profiling. Well when you have Mexicans sneaking into America from mexico illegally then you are not in general looking for a white guy now are you.

Also shortly after 911 my garndpa, who at was 79 the time had a pacemaker an 14 stints in his body not to mention a couple of screws and a plate. Tripped the metal detector in the Detroit air port on the way to Az for the winter and was recovering from stint surgery and had a medical cards for all the metal in his body. Also strict doctors orders no bending over for any thing, well the home land security dick had no interest in his medical cards showing his metal or his doctors orders. The guy practical cavity searched him on the spot, my grand am is flipping out an through out it all they were humiliated by these ass holes an told if that would prolly miss their flight. While 4 arabs, rags on their head and all walked right on through with out a second thought while they were humiliating 2 elderly people to make a point, long story short my grandma shut up (under threat of arrest) and did make their flight but just barley an had to under go a second check at the gate.

[uofom3]

I wonder if the 4th amendment would apply here....

For those that dont know what it is :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution

Though I am up in the Air about CHECK POINTS, I do understand the need for them in the SW. but I am not 100% on them for a daily basis in some areas...but 40miles from the border I understand. Its even more understandable with whats been going on in mexico the past year or so.

( drug wars, kidnappings, all around criminal illegals, ect )

but I do feel that in some cases they should at least do like the Israelis do, if the guy looks arab...search him...and in this case...if the guy looks like a mexican or a smuggler, stop them. Not PC by anymeans, but realistic way of handling it...I wish they would do that at the airport...a 80year old grandma isnt about to go blowing up a plane...

holy shit?! are you feeling ok? we have another voice of reason on the site.

[tofubento]

holy shit?! are you feeling ok? we have another voice of reason on the site.

I guess...just doing a bit of reading and knowing a bit about our goverment can help make informed decisions.

Its like the entire phone tapping and other violations of our rights...are they really violations?

I mean think about it...if you have nothing to hide why worry?...in that same breath...if you dont have something to hide, worry!...its like our gun rights...though we still have them they are soooo tightly lashed with this law or that law...and it all started with one or two ...well there is no reason you NEED that kind of weapon.

Or as what was pointed out earlier about cars and safety equipment...instead of trying to make people better drivers we make them dumber by making driving...well no longer driving...its aiming and pointing a 2 ton vehicle.

and it may not relate 100% but I had to post it...

[joshh]

The police officers who daily put their lives on the line for you, going out to do the shit jobs that neither you nor I would ever have the balls to do, the police officers who keep the criminals from taking over and running your country, those police officers have earned and are due the utmost deepest respect and gratitude of the people.

The troops who are sent overseas to fight and die in senseless wars for you, in unimaginably stressful and violent situations, just so that we can all sleep safely at home in our beds, and enjoy our freedoms like wasting endless hours on forums like this, those troops, who have died and whose names in the thousands decorate memorials like the Vietnam wall in Washington, and especially those troops who have survived to come home again and must somehow find a way to lead normal lives, those troops deserve our utmost deepest respect and everlasting sincere gratitude.

Those troops, and those cops, daily do their duty to uphold your Constitution, to serve and protect you.

Those troops do NOT deserve to come home and find themselves being dragged from their cars by overzealous Homeland Security forces at some random immigration checkpoint 100 miles inland from any border!

No matter how fiercely we disagree with the reasons for going to war, or the reasons for enforcing laws, this discussion topic and all of the arguments presented in it are not about showing respect for cops, nor about "showing our disdain for cops".

When you and your government start allowing Homeland Security officers to drag people from their cars at random checkpoints far inland of any border, absent either probable cause or consent, then you have an obvious problem. This has nothing at all to do with showing respect. This is a clear violation of your Constitutional rights, and a clear violation of a US Supreme Court ruling in "US vs Martinez - Fuerte" reaffirming those rights.

When you stop challenging such abuses, when you start believing that it's somehow disrespectful to challenge such abuses, when your friends and neighbours start bullying you and saying you should be shot for being such a disrespectful dick because you choose to challenge such abuses, can't you see that it's the beginning of the end for you and your Constitution?

The First Amendment to your Constitution says:

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Your Constitution gives you the right to speak out when there is an injustice. Many countries around the world don't permit their citizens to complain if they think their government is doing something wrong. Certainly not in public forums like this.

You have the right, guaranteed by your Constitution, to say anything you please in public. And the off-topic section of this forum allows you to broadcast your opinions to the world on any topic you please, it doesn't even have to be about BMWs.

That means you are entitled to say anything you wish here. It's your right.

It's not a bad idea though, to give a little thought beforehand to what you are writing. In your case, Joshh, your writings make it obvious to everyone in the entire world that you have nothing but dandelion fluff and empty space between your ears, as is so amply demonstrated by your earlier comments, but most particularly by this latest gem:






Once again, please refer to your Constitution. The very first line in fact.

The Constitution of the United States of America

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

You the people, you are the government.

You vote to elect people to represent you in all levels of government. You choose to receive blessings like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and Guantanamo, because of who you voted for. You are to blame for this!

If you don't like what your government is doing for you, pull your head out of your ass, stop wasting time diddling yourself while watching porn, move your stretched fat ass off your couch, and contact your elected representatives to tell them exactly what you want them to do for you. If they're not working for you, elect someone else, or run for office yourself!

Ah yes the usual double standard. You choosing what is and isn't a cop protecting us.
Go back into your igloo and get your head out of your ass.
There goes your whole argument.

[joshh]

Excellent! Thank you for that outstanding article. Other than the asshat bit, this is the first intelligent rebuttal anyone has made.

I encourage you all to read the NY Times article in E30Cabrio's link. Instead of the usual pap fed to you by CNN and FoxNews, this article actually does a very good job of summarizing the issues and explaining why the Supreme Court decided as it did on the issue of DUI Checkpoints. Equally fair, the article published the opposing views of the judges who dissented.

I work in the automotive safety industry. I fully support any measures necessary to remove the scourge of drunk driving from our roads and highways. The NY Times article quotes the accurate observation made by Justice Blackmun that the ''slaughter on the highways of this nation exceeds the death toll of all our wars".

Rather than train people to drive safely, we now have restrictive speed limits so people can only crash at lower speeds. We spend bazillions installing heavy and expensive safety equipment into all our new vehicles, none of which we ever intend to need or use. Things like frontal airbags, side airbags, curtain airbags, ABS, traction control, Electronic Stability Control, Automatic Tire Pressure monitors, not a single one of which exists on the perfectly adequate fun and reliable 1986 BMW 325 that I enjoy driving. You can't buy a new car these days without all that stuff on it, yet we still haven't managed to do something as simple as convince people that drinking and driving will kill you.

Enough of that rant, back to the NY Times article.

As good as that article is, you still need to look a bit deeper to understand what is wrong with the Homeland Security checkpoints shown in the YouTube clips in this thread.

In 1990 the Supreme Court confirmed that, yes, randomly stopping vehicles at roadside DUI checkpoints is a "seizure" under the IVth Amendment.

However, they further ruled that such a "seizure" is "reasonable" only if the benefit to society outweighs the brief inconvenience imposed on the travelling public. "The average delay for each vehicle was approximately 25 seconds."

Please read carefully,

"In Delaware v. Prouse, we disapproved random stops made by Delaware Highway Patrol officers in an effort to apprehend unlicensed drivers and unsafe vehicles. We observed that no empirical evidence indicated that such stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety and said that ''it seems common sense that the percentage of all drivers on the road who are driving without a license is very small and that the number of licensed drivers who will be stopped in order to find one unlicensed operator will be large indeed.'' We observed that the random stops involved the ''kind of standardless and unconstrained discretion [which] is the evil the Court has discerned when in previous cases it has insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed, at least to some extent.'' We went on to state that our holding did not ''cast doubt on the permissibility of roadside truck weigh-stations and inspection checkpoints, at which some vehicles may be subject to further detention for safety and regulatory inspection than are others.''

"In sum, the balance of the state's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. . . ."

The Supreme Court ruling on DUI Checkpoints says it is okay for motorists to be briefly stopped, in the state's interest in preventing drunken driving.

If you are stopped, roll down your window, and breath alcohol fumes into the face of the officer, he has probable cause to assume you're drinking and driving. If you were busy pitching empty beer bottles out of your window while approaching the stop, that would be probable cause to assume you've been drinking. If the officer looks in your windows and sees empty bottles rolling around the floor of your car, or a bottle in a paper bag between your legs, etc., all that would be probable cause.

If they have probable cause to suspect you of drinking and driving, they can force you to blow into a breathalyser. If they have NO probable cause to suspect you of DUI, you are not required to risk voluntarily self-incriminating yourself by blowing into the breathalyser just for fun to see what would happen.

If they invite you to do it anyway, you'd be an idiot to voluntarily give consent and accept. Absent probable cause, if they invite you anyway and you decline to give your consent, that does NOT give them probable cause to then force you to blow.

Absent any sign of probable cause, the police cannot detain you more than "briefly". If during a Drunk Driving checkpoint, they also ask your consent to search your trunk for illegal aliens, you have every right to refuse, since the purpose of this stop, as per the Supreme Court decision, is the prevention of drunken driving.

A similar ruling was made in the much earlier United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), where someone had been stopped and caught with several illegal immigrants hiding in his vehicle. He appealed the conviction on the grounds that he had been stopped without probable cause, since nobody could possibly have seen the people hiding on the floor of his car if he hadn't been stopped by the checkpoint.

The Supreme Court ruled in this case that, yes, randomly stopping vehicles at roadside Immigration checkpoints is considered to be a "seizure" under the IVth Amendment. But they further ruled that such a "seizure" is "reasonable" only if the benefit to society outweighs the brief inconvenience imposed on the travelling public.

The Supreme Court ruled that Immigration checkpoints at permanent facilities, not free-roving checkpoints, are allowed to stop all traffic to make a visual inspection of the vehicle limited to what can be seen without a search. In the Martinez-Fuerte case, that meant the conviction stood.

The Supreme Court further clarified that after the brief "seizure" at an Immigration checkpoint, a IVth Amendment "search" for illegal immigrants was only justified if there was "probable cause", or "consent".

Absent "probable cause", or "consent", you are free to continue on your way. Refusal to grant consent is NOT grounds for probable cause.

Now watch this Youtube clip again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrFRObbSDDo

The stop is waaaaaay longer than the average 25 seconds, and the Homeland Security officer is clearly overstepping his mandate.

He is asking the occupants of the vehicle to voluntarily hand over their ID so he can run a computer check to determine whether they have any outstanding felony warrants. He is asking the occupants to step out of the car so that he can search their vehicle for contraband, search the trunk for drugs, bring the drug-sniffing dog.

At no time is there any mention of illegal immigrants, no probable cause, and certainly no consent given to a search. The guy repeatedly states that he is NOT giving his consent to a search. And still the Homeland Security officer drags him from the car.

This is the "evil" which was referred to in the Supreme Court ruling quoted above. How have things been permitted to degenerate this far?

You're a foaming at the mouth wacko. Can you possibly see why they might do this so close to the boarder! It's not Kanas you know. Come on now, head out of ass.
Now you're just arguing to disagree.

[mrsleeve]

Hey josh buddy you your the one with ones head up his ass. Now it seems that the US govt has some rather sinister things planed for us the the United States Citizen!

I have left this out of here till now, but there are provisions to turn the US in to 1930's germany.

do me a favor an humor me and goggle
"FEMA REX 84 program" and explore a few of the results.

Not that I think it will ever happen or that its entirely real. But the executive orders are in place to make it happen. Thats the part the should bother all of us.

I am not some anti govt milita right wing nut I am for small govt and live by the provisions of the US Constitution, the men who wrote it were way smarter than you or I. They had just lived through generations of what is starting to happen here. I am just concerned where our great country is headed an the thought that this can happen here is been planed out. Hell its has happened here during WWII with the Japanese Americans, yes that was war time this is not!!!!.

So please pull you head out of you ass an see what is happening right under our noses.

Was it not Rumsfeld that said "We have a plan to invade Canada" I really dont think he was kidding.


These Check points are nothing more than a way to condition people that its ok to let the govt search you for no reason an that we all should get used to giving up our constitutional rights or suffer the wrath of the GOVT.

[joshh]

Hey josh buddy you your the one with ones head up his ass. Now it seems that the US govt has some rather sinister things planed for us the the United States Citizen!

I have left this out of here till now, but there are provisions to turn the US in to 1930's germany.

do me a favor an humor me and goggle
"FEMA REX 84 program" and explore a few of the results.

Not that I think it will ever happen or that its entirely real. But the executive orders are in place to make it happen. Thats the part the should bother all of us.

I am not some anti govt milita right wing nut I am for small govt and live by the provisions of the US Constitution, the men who wrote it were way smarter than you or I. They had just lived through generations of what is starting to happen here. I am just concerned where our great country is headed an the thought that this can happen here is been planed out. Hell its has happened here during WWII with the Japanese Americans, yes that was war time this is not!!!!.

So please pull you head out of you ass an see what is happening right under our noses.

Was it not Rumsfeld that said "We have a plan to invade Canada" I really dont think he was kidding.


These Check points are nothing more than a way to condition people that its ok to let the govt search you for no reason an that we all should get used to giving up our constitutional rights or suffer the wrath of the GOVT.

Yes it must be a way to condition people considering how many people go through these check points?
Another foamer at the mouth.....
It's all a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!

[Schniddy]

You'll like this one:
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.



Of course we have a plan to invade Canada. We have a plan to invade EVERY country on the planet! It is called preparation.

The Nazi Germany shit is nothing new. FDR liked the idea back in the thirties. We have been moving more socialistic since then, maybe even before. Our constitution is in the shits.


Mr Canadian master, we all know you support Obama. Why such the double standard?

[paddyhart]

Watch Obama change his attitude after seeing the morning intel briefings.

And not just on Middle East issues but with boarder issues and finding terrorist cells in the U.S. and counter proliferation etc.

For all those that make fun of BP, ICE, etc. Yes, they aren't the brightest group in America but in general I would put them above the median line for America on whatever standardize test you want to use. The smartest folks are off working for investment banking etc and looking was to fuck you. These folks are trying to make a difference.

[uofom3]

^

You know who is going to be really pissed off about Obamas election? The people who voted for him...

[mikegar]

You'll like this one:
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.



Of course we have a plan to invade Canada. We have a plan to invade EVERY country on the planet! It is called preparation.

The Nazi Germany shit is nothing new. FDR liked the idea back in the thirties. We have been moving more socialistic since then, maybe even before. Our constitution is in the shits.


Mr Canadian master, we all know you support Obama. Why such the double standard?

really now? EVERY country. im sure the us has plan to invade all the superpowers and a majority of the other ones. but i wouldnt think that the us would have plans for EVERY country. and as far a being prepared, just having plans for countries isnt enough. with wars against groups of people that dont belong to a particular country. i mean come on our current war situation could never be mistaken for prepared.

[tofubento]

^

You know who is going to be really pissed off about Obamas election? The people who voted for him...

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! so true!!!

Obama is going to pay for EVERYTHING!!!


Dont get me started on how smart his campaign was on using the blatant stupidity of Americans.....

by the way...I am stocking up on ammo and mags...JUUUUST in case...plus since he got elected...gun sales have gone through the roof. Even anti-gun nuts have turned into...well gun nuts. LOLOL

[Jordan325iC]

You guys are hilarious. Keep fighting! Just a few more keystrokes and you will achieve victory!


But seriously, you are all doing exactly what the forefathers intended. Maintaining the balance by constantly examining the needs and ideals of the nation. Some of the debate is actually fairly intelligent. I would just encourage all of you to refrain from using ad hominem attacks in your arguments. They might feel good, but they ultimately degrade the level of the discussion and make it impossible for the opposing side to seriously consider your arguments.

[napabavarian]

you guys are hilarious. Keep fighting! Just a few more keystrokes and you will achieve victory!


But seriously, you are all doing exactly what the forefathers intended. Maintaining the balance by constantly examining the needs and ideals of the nation. Some of the debate is actually fairly intelligent. I would just encourage all of you to refrain from using ad hominem attacks in your arguments. They might feel good, but they ultimately degrade the level of the discussion and make it impossible for the opposing side to seriously consider your arguments.

qft

[e30nub]

i like turtles.