Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 7/10/02 3:47 PM, Jeffery Smith at jls@runbox.com wrote: > No. Someone pointed out that the airport checkpoints encroach on rights > against unreasonable search and seizure. My feeling is that, under the > circumstances, one cannot rely on the Bill of Rights applying here > (including freedom of speech and right to bear arms). My comment was that > nobody who wrote the Bill of Rights had any reason to believe that people > would do something called hijacking of something called a jet plane or that > people would use something called x-rays in a something called an airport > to prevent something called terrorism. > > And what are you so pissed off about? > > Jeffery > > At 11:10 AM 7/10/02, you wrote: >> So, are you implying that the Right to Bear Arms should apply on >> airplanes??? Even >> taking the silly legalistic point of view, an airplane is private >> property, and as >> far as I know the owner of a private property has the right to restrict >> people >> from bringing in weapons onto that property, or any other items for that >> matter. >> >> This whole debate is plain silly. Yes, security precautions are >> inconvenient, but >> what is the alternative? I just flew from Zurich to Tel Aviv and back. I >> assure >> you that the checks at Tel Aviv airport in particular are most >> inconvenient, and >> it is certainly not pleasant having to show up 2 1/2 hour early for an 8 a.m. >> flight--but I also know that no El Al plane has been hijacked in the past 25 >> years, and I am grateful for the safety. And by the way, in most airports >> outside >> the U.S. the security checks are carried out by professional, properly >> trained law >> enforcement officers, not minimum-wage rent-a-cops. >> >> Nathan >> >> Jeffery Smith wrote: >> >>> Whenever someone invokes the old "we are at war" clause (which G.W. does >>> incessantly), it seems that the Bill of Rights goes on the back burner. >>> Before 9/11, the airlines had to revoke Freedom of Speech (yes, people >>> making offhand remarks got bounced from flights) and Right to Bear Arms, >>> and they have had to take the search and seizure thing one rung higher. >>> Apparently our founding fathers didn't think of terrorism when they penned >>> those rights (and this was only 3 years after America's first act of >>> terrorism...the Boston Tea Party!). >> >> -- >> Nathan Wajsman >> Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland >> >> e-mail: wajsman@webshuttle.ch >> mobile: +41 78 732 1430 >> >> Photo-A-Week: http://www.wajsman.com/indexpaw2002.htm >> General photo site: http://www.wajsman.com/index.htm >> >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html I think we seem to forget that the 9/11 hijackers commandeered the planes with objects that were legal to bring aboard at that time. While the changes put in place since are designed to prevent this from happening again, the failure lies totally and completely with both our government and there failure to protect us from our enemies and with the airlines that have repeatedly failed at security. I doubt that our enemies will be using an aircraft again anytime soon. I also doubt that strip-searching grandmothers will prevent hijackings in the future. Security begins at the borders. It begins with a Justice department not engaged in protecting a President's ass (Clinton) and actively engaged in defending our borders from foreign enemies. These people should have never set foot on our soil in the first place. 35-40 YO on student visas? Hell, in college even my son's only on the five year plan. Should raised some eyebrows, huh? BTW, before we get into a hissy fit about the Bill of Rights, let's understand one thing; these rights are granted to the citizens of the US by the constitution, not foreigners here illegally. We have the right to meet an alien at the airport or foreign consulate, check him/her over and either deny entry or return them to their country of origin, without appeal. Before we restrict the rights of law abiding US citizens, we need to first protect ourselves from those who would do us harm. If this means denying or restricting entry, or deportation then lets get to it. Not to be xenophobic, but by now, if the Justice department does not know the whereabouts and situation of every Arab national here in the US then we have a lot more to worry about than some petty violation of the Bill of Rights. (What the hell does this crap have to do with cameras anyway?) - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html