Is there any military or police members here who can answer this question?

reply to post by jackinthebox


What are your thoughts on business offices, where bags, briefcases, purses, are subject to search upon exiting? Do you feel that there are never circumstances where it's a good idea to know what someone's coming in or leaving with?

Where is BlueRaja's post? It sais he posted last, but the only thing I see is my last post as being the last.


EDIT
Well, that was weird. His post showed up when I posted this one, half a day after I noticed the problem. Guess the system had to be force fed.

BRB


[edit on 2/29/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by BlueRaja


Let's say you work for a company that checks your bag on the way out, for loss-prevention reasons. You know that is the policy when you decide to go to work there. You have a choice. Personally, I have not found the method very effective, and therefore do not really agree with it, but it is not a state-sanctioned violation of privacy.

As far as entering a building goes, again you have a choice most of the time. The only exception might be a courtroom. Even there, they don't really search you, unless you set off the metal detector though. And furthermore, you know they are going to check you when going into court, so don't bring your book-bag or bags full of Christmas presents.

In general though, I do not agree with any sort of personal searches as a matter of routine. Even in courtrooms really, unless there is a specific threat.

You do bring up a good point however, and the answer really comes down to where you think the line should be drawn. I do not think that line should be drawn in a blanket fashion across a vast public system. Furthermore, once you allow the line to be moved, it will keep being moved. Subways today. Your private vehicle tomorrow. And as you probably know, if an officer wants to look through your car, he doesn't have to think hard to find a reason. Next it will be anywhere you go in public. Once you have gone that far, the last step is into your home.




[edit on 2/29/0808 by jackinthebox]

No I for one think this post is completely misdirected from the first post.



I think he's indefinetly meaning too point out "Corrupt Cops" and not those who try too help people.

Our "Government" with their "Trillions" needs too _HELP_ stop this POLICE BRUTALITY that has not STOPPED since the BEATING OF THAT BLACK DUDE IN LA.

Ok, I'm surpressed, Poverty, Whatever, Born into it, not my fault, yet I'm CCNA Certified and have an IQ of 140, and read almost all day after work (Electrical Apprentice).

The thing that bothers me is that we have soldiers in Iraq raping people, undoubtely they never needed too be there in the first place.

Another thing that bothers me is that cops have undoubtedly killed people because of race or a certain situation that may have FRIGHTENED them, for instance one accidental and this is just ONE "accident" happened in New York where a man was pulling out his wallet when the cop was coming too him and the cop shot him dead right there because he was BLACK.


This man had no gun on him or in his car.

I personally think militaries will come too a hault as for humans too come anywhere close to evolving destruction will not be a part of our race anymore.

We must spread the knowledge that no matter who you are, if you're on this forum and you're not sitting in a fatty mansion knowing what next experiment is going to be taken place at S4, Nellis Airforce Base, then really you amount to NOTHING


BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT RUNS US.
THE GOVERNMENT MAKES SO MUCH MONEY OF US.
AND THE GOVERNMENT _IS_ CORRUPT.

And it will come to a halt. Soon, VERY soon........

reply to post by Prophet-Ezekiel


I think there is a large misunderstanding when it comes to race relations and law-enforcement. Maybe this is the way I see it from a New York point of view, but it's not really about race anymore here, and I can tell you that from personal experience. It's more about cultural identity. If you're a white kid riding with Nas bumpin' and rockin' a fresh 59/50, you're just as much a target as a black kid riding the same way.

No, racism still exists, and there is an undoubted amount too proove it exists within our police forces, and prison forces, etc.


Perfect example -- personally knowing a Adult Probation Officer (not mine never been on probation, just done 20 hours of computer service for a DIP, but i cleaned my act up.) that has aryan brother hood tatoos, claims hes not part of it, then i talk to a girl that says when she was in juvenille hall and he was in there that he tried doing stuff with her etc.


Our government is corrupt in every way shape and form, and there is schools molesting childeren, juvenille guards raping childeren, soldiers raping people, false murder, you can't discredit the fact that the racism does exist and it very well is declining as more and more people open their eyes but I go into a yahoo room Politics Lobby and everyone is screaming about how Obama cant be president because he's black.


HE'S BLACK.....
Ok, let's check is his blood blue without contact to oxygen.
Yes.
Is his brain all gooey and doin all sorts of processes on 4-8 hertz
Yes.
Does he have feelings?
Yes.

Ok, I don't think that he's too much different than any of us. the fact is white supremacy still exists and the Illuminati is a portrait of "Ultimate supremacy".

Booya.

reply to post by Prophet-Ezekiel


Believe me, I'm not trying to claim that racism doesn't still exist. I'm just trying to point out that all of these crimes against the citizenry are not exclusive to any race. More prevelant still in some cummunitites, certainly, but also keep in mind that part of the process to end racism is what we are enduring today. A lack of accurate understanding in a climate of reverse and double-reverse racism now. I see the trend of race-relations improving, while the trend toward system vs. citizens (of all colors) deteriorating at an alarming rate.

Racism keeps the people divided and conquered. The truth is that ALL poor people are the victims. Race-cards keep the poor people divided. Take prison gangs as the best example. All about race. Imagine if all the prison gangs united and demanded real jobs. The hustle would be over.

Who is "the tyranny of evil men?"

[edit on 2/29/0808 by jackinthebox]

Yeah, exactly. Stereotype is today's transformation of racism.

Martin Luther King shut down the racism bit for the most part. Then it just kind turned into well we cant blame the blacks for our problems lets blame the drug dealers and all the poor people.

No, if we weren't too allowed those people too sleep on the streets by funding them houses which shouldnt take too much since there is more houses on the market than people in houses.

We can talk about how its messed up, but really we all just have too accept it's messed up and stop making posts like "Why do we exist".

We exist just because we do and everything else does and we are on a little tiny rock in the middle of a HUMONGOUS galaxy and WE still think we're the almighty only thing in the universe.

We still complain about our own world.

We need too be like the Ret4s and start complaining about how other worlds are crappy and we need to help that civilization.

Get my drift? =D

reply to post by Prophet-Ezekiel


I am trying to understand how your response relates to the OP's question. He asked those of us that are in the military or law enforcement what we would do in a certain situation. Not whether racism is a problem in society. Nobody is gonna argue that racism isn't a problem, but it's not pertinent to the question being asked here though.

As a whole, the military seems to have more honor then the executive branch so I would hope that when an illegal order was given to them, they would refuse to follow it as it would violate state, federal and constitutional laws. The military is sworn to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Anyone giving illegal orders would automatically become an enemy of the state.

I believe some police and federal authorities may be given false information and may initially go along with orders but when they were verified, the orders would be rescinded and those that gave said orders would be arrested. That is of course my hope as those police, federal authorities and military personnel, are people just like you and me. They are not robots that follow orders without question.

reply to post by jfj123


The problem we face today is defining exactly what an "illegal" order is. It has been legal to torture people, hold people indefinately without any charges or due-process, and it is even legal to search someone without probable cause in the subways. How hot will the water get before you realize you've been boiled? This frog already jumped out of the pot and turned in his shield.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jfj123

 

The problem we face today is defining exactly what an "illegal" order is. It has been legal to torture people, hold people indefinately without any charges or due-process, and it is even legal to search someone without probable cause in the subways. How hot will the water get before you realize you've been boiled? This frog already jumped out of the pot and turned in his shield.

Well the problem is actually that we need prosecute those crimes.

It is illegal to torture in the united states. This is a crime.
Extraordinary rendition is also illegal.

The problem as I see it is that the American people are not demanding prosecution for these CRIMES.

If I steel something and get away with it, it doesn't mean what I did was legal.

reply to post by jfj123


Well, let's just stick to one simple example. The warrantless searches in the subways of NYC. Illegal in my book, but not according to the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no forum to prosecute the illegal activity, nor to challenge the ongoing practice.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jfj123

 

Well, let's just stick to one simple example. The warrantless searches in the subways of NYC. Illegal in my book, but not according to the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no forum to prosecute the illegal activity, nor to challenge the ongoing practice.

And there's the catch- The Supreme Court ruling becomes the precedent, as do other court rulings. Many laws are in effect merely because of judicial precedent, and not legislation. A good example would be gun control laws, or Roe v. Wade. There is nothing Constitutional about either of these, but because of judicial precedent, they are the law by default.
I don't like gun control, but that's not gonna keep me out of jail if I break the law. A lot of laws if strict constructionist views were taken would be overruled, but it's a case of the camel's nose has gotten into the tent. You'd have to have pretty strong political and public support to overturn all of the legal precedents. Many in the public like these precedents, even if they're not strictly constitutional, because it fits their lifestyle or agenda.
That's why I have to laugh when someone like Ron Paul says he'll change everything. Not without the Congress, Supreme Court, and public opinion, he won't. To sum it up- like it or not, you can't say unconstitutional=illegal, IF the highest Judicial interpretation says something's not illegal. We may not like it, but until it is changed by legislation, or another Court overrules it, then it is the law.

reply to post by BlueRaja


You are actually quite accurate. But why is this unconstitutional "legislation from the bench" allowed in the first place? If something is uncontitutional, it is in fact illegal. The problem we face today, is that our court system no longer practices law, but public policy. You are no longer entitled to the inalienable rights of a sovereign person, but priveleges alotted to the privately owned corporate entity that you are, as identified by your SS number, that can be taken away at any time arbitrarily.

The U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933. The entire nation, from the Federal government, down to the soveriegn individual, is now privately owned by the recievers of the U.S. bankruptcy which occurred that year.

Our Constitution Has Been SUSPENDED...oh, has it now?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

You are actually quite accurate. But why is this unconstitutional "legislation from the bench" allowed in the first place? If something is uncontitutional, it is in fact illegal. The problem we face today, is that our court system no longer practices law, but public policy. You are no longer entitled to the inalienable rights of a sovereign person, but priveleges alotted to the privately owned corporate entity that you are, as identified by your SS number, that can be taken away at any time arbitrarily.

The U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933. The entire nation, from the Federal government, down to the soveriegn individual, is now privately owned by the recievers of the U.S. bankruptcy which occurred that year.

Our Constitution Has Been SUSPENDED...oh, has it now?

I would agree that activist judges are a threat to democracy. I'm not sure I'd say that it's illegal for precedents to be set though. Their argument would be that the Constitution is a living document, and as times change laws need to be updated. I don't necessarily concur with that point of view- I prefer constructionist judges that don't try to read into things, or create new law. It would appear that we both have the same concerns, but are just coming at them from different angles.

reply to post by BlueRaja

Their argument would be that the Constitution is a living document, and as times change laws need to be updated.

You can update the laws all you want, but you can't mess with the Constitution. That document is the very definition of what it means to be an American. Whatever other laws they decide to make or change is fine, as long as it fits into the framework layed out by our forefathers.

If there were to be some desperate need to change or update what constitutes the very definition of this nation, then a Constitutional Amendment is required. You can't just go around arbitrarily creating policies, which are referred to as "laws", that contradict the Constitution.

Again, back to the subject of the subway bag searches. The Supereme Court did not change the Constitution to make it legal. They simply enacted a statute based on their "interpretation" of the Constitution, which happens to be in direct contradiction to it. Just because they say it is Constitutional does not mean that it actually is. The only way to make the bag searches truly legal, would have been to make a Constitutional Amendment.

The same goes for our currency as well. Just because it has printed on it that it is "legal tender" does not mean that it is. Currency that is not backed by gold or silver is against the law under the Constitution.

[edit on 3/5/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Then we're in agreement on constructionism being the way that the Constitution "should be" interpreted. The problem as I pointed out is when you have differences of legal interpretation, where they read in things/read out things, that appear obvious to the casual observer.

Ex-service member here - Air force SP to be exact.

(disclaimer) Who I was and who I am now are two totally different people.

As an SP in the Air Force I would have engaged Americans up to and including execution. To be fair - It would be reported that the citizenry had blown up a National Guard armory or such and are now to be considered the enemy. Disarmament would be a must, I and others would start confiscation and one of you (us) would not comply. You would shoot my buddy and I would shoot you and so it begins.

Today - the person I have once again become would under no circumstances be able to engage American citizens under any order period.

I have become smarter and not so easily manipulated.

My friends have spoke at length on how much we have changed and how we know in our youth in the military we would have done whatever the orders called for.

Look, bottom line is when a service member is in processing He, or she is "sworn in" in the confines of a room by another service member. There is a flag in the room, you and the other 30 or so 20 somethings say "I do" and its off to the races. I cannot recall another time in my service career that it ever came up as to what we swore to do that day. The average service member has no idea what he. or she has sworn to do. They largely follow orders period.

Case in point - I got 12 shots in about 2 minutes. It was called the gauntlet. I have no idea what was injected and at the time I didn't give it a second thought or even think to question it.

For what it is worth my Mother told me one day she was so happy when she could see the humanity come back to my eyes after having been out for awhile. I didn't even serve in combat, I cant imagine what these guys are becoming today with the things they are being exposed to, and are being asked to do.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by KMFNWO]