Constitutional Right to emit radiation?

[sgtmac_46]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10588528/

Apparently some are upset that the US government has impeded on their constitutionally protected rights to emit radiation.

Someone explain to me, please, just exactly how someone's rights are being infringed upon by scanning the air for radiation. Just exactly HOW is that, in any reasonable way, an invasion of privacy? What possible private concerns can be undermined by scanning for radiological weapons?

There's no eaves dropping, there's no singling out of any particular person, there's not even any interference whatsoever with the every day comings and goings. In fact, no one even knows it's going on. It isn't listening on people's private conversations, or reading their private documents, or even watching them. It is scanning for radiation.

What's more, it's being done on public property. From a constitutional rights perspective, you are not required to have a warrant on public property. You can conduct surveillance without a warrant on public property. So where's the invasion? Maybe someone could shed some light for me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

While I have a problem with some of the privacy issues previously mentioned, scanning for biohazards, radiological, or similar strikes me as one of the things they should be doing.

 

[sgtmac_46]

While I have a problem with some of the privacy issues previously mentioned, scanning for biohazards, radiological, or similar strikes me as one of the things they should be doing.

I know, right? Seems a no brainer for me. There is no invasion of privacy...so long as you aren't emitting radiation. And IF I was unknowingly emitting that much radiation...I'd kind of like to know.

The fact that someone would believe this is an invasion of privacy strikes me as....bizarre.


I think what have here is an effort to 'pile on' on the whole administration 'surveillance' scandal. There are, arguably, some issues, like you said, that need to be addressed. This one, however, isn't one of them.

 

[michaeledward]

The 'invasion of privacy' issue doesn't seem to quite describe the problem. It does sound like a 'right-wing' talking point however. Which would be a slippery slope indeed - because then it would open up other 'invasion of privacy' issues, which might be legitimate ... such as, abortion, say.

A more realistic issue might very well be the 'targeting' of the system.


If one wants to catch 'speeders', one sets up a speed trap on the road ... because that is where the 'speeders' are.

If one wants to catch 'illegal nuclear emmissions', on sets up the trap .... let's see ... where could we do it .... Oh, yeah, how about places where Muslem's gather, like Mosques.

And ... while most officials refuse to be quoted on this issue ... here is one quote

"We categorically do not target places of worship or entities solely based on ethnicity or religious affiliation. Our investigations are intelligence driven and based on a criminal predicate."

And yet, the off-the-record comments seem to indicate that most of the 120 monitoring sites were, indeed, focused at Muslem citizens of the United States.


.... if you aren't doing anything with that First Amendment right now ....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Considering that they see the biggest threat as extremist islamic terrorists, I would have to agree with them looking in the most likely spots. Looking at the local YMCA probably wouldn't be a good idea. They do have evidence of support in this country for terroristic actions from fringe members of the islamic community. Makes sense to start there. After all, you wouldn't monitor Kmart for speeders. I would be upset if I found out they scanned me, but, I'd rather have them scan me and find my neighbor, than not scan me and I end up as a crispy critter.

 

[michaeledward]

Considering that they see the biggest threat as extremist islamic terrorists, I would have to agree with them looking in the most likely spots. Looking at the local YMCA probably wouldn't be a good idea. They do have evidence of support in this country for terroristic actions from fringe members of the islamic community. Makes sense to start there. After all, you wouldn't monitor Kmart for speeders. I would be upset if I found out they scanned me, but, I'd rather have them scan me and find my neighbor, than not scan me and I end up as a crispy critter.

You don't ring a doorbell with a bazooka.

If the goal is to find extremist Islamic terrorists, it would seem that scanning public places is a rather random way of going about it. That's a lot of resources looking at a lot of innocent citizens on the off chance of finding, maybe, something.

And, if you're looking for 'radiation', why are you monitoring nuclear power plants, nuclear weapon facilities, and the like. Isn't that where the radiation is kept?

I would prefer they just go to Northern Pakistan and find Osama bin Laden.

 

[Flatlander]

I'm nearly certain that the authorities overseeing this monitoring would much rather have the option to monitor indiscriminately, disregarding cost considerations and man power problems. I have a sneaky feeling that there are likely a few restrictions there.

So, when pennies need to be pinched, what is the intelligent choice? Selecting locations with a higher likelihood of providing results seems to be a good one. Finding ways to make the program as efficient and effective as possible doesn't seem to me to be a malicious activity... it's simply intelligent spending.

 

[Flatlander]

I would prefer they just go to Northern Pakistan and find Osama bin Laden.

Though helpful, I don't for a second believe that this would significantly increase the safety of Americans. I think that this homeland security stuff you guys are doing will never, ever go away.

 

[shesulsa]

Though helpful, I don't for a second believe that this would significantly increase the safety of Americans. I think that this homeland security stuff you guys are doing will never, ever go away.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Because we are a nation of fearful citizens and that is not by accident. And we all know that the more fearful we are the more tolerant we are of a stronghand to "protect us." And the more power we are willing to give them. It seems many of us would rather be imprisoned without freedom too just as long as they got the bad guy as well.

*looks around for bad guy ....*

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Radiation isn't radiation. The "signature" of a power plant is different than than of a bomb. I suspect that in those cases they are looking for a difference from what is "normal" for the area being monitored.

As to the secret police, nope. It's here to stay. At least we aren't required to keep our TVs on 24/7 yet.

 

[michaeledward]

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Because we are a nation of fearful citizens and that is not by accident. And we all know that the more fearful we are the more tolerant we are of a stronghand to "protect us." And the more power we are willing to give them. It seems many of us would rather be imprisoned without freedom too just as long as they got the bad guy as well.

*looks around for bad guy ....*

I think the 'nation of fearful citizens' comment is dead on.

I refuse to be fearful, which may explain why my voice seems the loudest (on this board at least) concerning the 4th Amendment abuses revealed in the past week.

I believe Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men' book opens with a chapter on 'There is on Terrorist Threat'.

I am aggrevated every time I have to remove my shoes when I get on an airplane. I do not feel any safer because of that action.

I think those most justifying the actions of the NSA, are, perhaps, the most fearful among us.

 

[Cryozombie]

I am aggrevated every time I have to remove my shoes when I get on an airplane. I do not feel any safer because of that action.

Here's the problem tho... and Im with you, it aggrivates me, and its one of the reasons I almost never fly anymore... but check it out...

Guy gets on a plane with a shoe full of explosives. Now we have to "de-shoe". Much like Kid goes into school with a gun, now we have to pass thru metal detectors...

It happenes, they look for a "Simple" solution. And honestly, its obnoxious but probably DOES make things safer, because my twisted mind picks thing up like that... If I saw that guy with the shoe bombs get busted, and they went "Hey hey, well, wanst he clever, but c'mon, whos gonna try it again" and did nothing... I would file that away as a way to get explosives on a plane SHOULD I EVER NEED TO... which means the people who think they DO need to would probably think exactly the same thing.

Besides, Id rather take my shoes off then go thru one of those airports that use x-ray vision cameras to look at my willie.

 

[michaeledward]

Let me first send my condolances to your willy. I'dl be worried about a mob scene if I walked through one of those machines.

And, I don't believes it makes us any safer because, as the President has stated, the terrorists can 'adapt'. If someone has bad designs, and they know shoes are getting looked at, they'll find another way to accomplish their objectives.

After watching my wife get frisked post 911, I, like many others, figure there has to be a more intelligent way.

I actually think now, I am less concerned with safety. Maybe it would be better if we spent all the security money (or at least some of it) on landing gears and reverse thrusters for airplanes.

 

[Flying Crane]

A more realistic issue might very well be the 'targeting' of the system.

If one wants to catch 'illegal nuclear emmissions', on sets up the trap .... let's see ... where could we do it .... Oh, yeah, how about places where Muslem's gather, like Mosques.


And yet, the off-the-record comments seem to indicate that most of the 120 monitoring sites were, indeed, focused at Muslem citizens of the United States.

Let us not forget the shameful acts of our nation during World War II, when we sent thousands and thousands of Japanese-American citizens to intern camps, basically Prisoner of War Camps on our own soil, just because they shared an ethnic history with one of our wartime enemies. We are supposed to learn from these past mistakes. We said "never again", but here we are, heading down that same road.

 

[Flying Crane]

Besides, Id rather take my shoes off then go thru one of those airports that use x-ray vision cameras to look at my willie.

Hey, if ya got it, flaunt it!!

 

[sgtmac_46]

You don't ring a doorbell with a bazooka.

If the goal is to find extremist Islamic terrorists, it would seem that scanning public places is a rather random way of going about it. That's a lot of resources looking at a lot of innocent citizens on the off chance of finding, maybe, something.

And, if you're looking for 'radiation', why are you monitoring nuclear power plants, nuclear weapon facilities, and the like. Isn't that where the radiation is kept?

I would prefer they just go to Northern Pakistan and find Osama bin Laden.

Kind of a bogus argument, as what they are LOOKING for is evidence of illegal weapons.

What's, i'm going to go out on a limb here and argue, since the technology they are using is classified, that they are scanning (passively) for Muslims visiting mosques who have come in contact with radiation and emitting abnormally high levels of it.

Now, what are the odd's that a devoit and radical muslim, intent on detonating some sort of radiological bomb, visiting a MOSQUE? I'd say...better than average.

What's more, being a passive scan, from a public place like a parking lot, NO one's rights, first amendment or otherwise, are impacted upon. You are not invading anyone's privacy, you are not restricted their movements. Heck, if they don't show up positive for radation, you won't even know who you've scanned.

Personally, I could care less. This is no more of a violation of rights that getting radared as you fly down the interestate. As a matter of fact, since the tests are passive, rather than active, they are LESS intrusive than police radar.


I also might add, that those complaining the LOUDEST are also those who criticized the president the MOST for intervening with Islamic extremists visiting US flight schools, a fact that, had the government intervened in, those same people would be making the same arguments they are making now.

This isn't based on fear, it's based on sound reasoning. What's more, as i've pointed out before, I don't support whole sale surveillance of US citizens. I support going where the problem is. That's the difference. Some want WHOLESALE monitoring, because it's 'fair'.... To heck with 'fair'. Go after the problem. If that problem happens to the threat of radiological weapons from a certain segment of society, then by all means passively monitor them for radiation from a public parking lot.

Many of you have confused dislike for the President, for attacking even reasonable investigative methods. It's a purely emotional response.

 

[Flying Crane]

Kind of a bogus argument, as what they are LOOKING for is evidence of illegal weapons.

What's, i'm going to go out on a limb here and argue, since the technology they are using is classified, that they are scanning (passively) for Muslims visiting mosques who have come in contact with radiation and emitting abnormally high levels of it.

Now, what are the odd's that a devoit and radical muslim, intent on detonating some sort of radiological bomb, visiting a MOSQUE? I'd say...better than average.

What's more, being a passive scan, from a public place like a parking lot, NO one's rights, first amendment or otherwise, are impacted upon. You are not invading anyone's privacy, you are not restricted their movements. Heck, if they don't show up positive for radation, you won't even know who you've scanned.

Personally, I could care less. This is no more of a violation of rights that getting radared as you fly down the interestate. As a matter of fact, since the tests are passive, rather than active, they are LESS intrusive than police radar.


I also might add, that those complaining the LOUDEST are also those who criticized the president the MOST for intervening with Islamic extremists visiting US flight schools, a fact that, had the government intervened in, those same people would be making the same arguments they are making now.

This isn't based on fear, it's based on sound reasoning. What's more, as i've pointed out before, I don't support whole sale surveillance of US citizens. I support going where the problem is. That's the difference. Some want WHOLESALE monitoring, because it's 'fair'.... To heck with 'fair'. Go after the problem. If that problem happens to the threat of radiological weapons from a certain segment of society, then by all means passively monitor them for radiation from a public parking lot.

Many of you have confused dislike for the President, for attacking even reasonable investigative methods. It's a purely emotional response.

I dont think the real objection is whether or not civil rights have been directly violated, but rather that this kind of activity is a targeting of a certain ethnic and religious group on a broad scale by the government. This is a step in the direction of demonizing and scapegoating a broad group of people. Once the government takes a step down that dangerous road, it becomes easier and easier to take the next step after that. Eventually, we end up with things like Internment camps like Japanese-Americans were put into during WWII, or worse yet, the Jewish Holocaust. While these may be extreme examples, they all started out as something that the people of the time considered "modest" and "reasonable" and grew into something terrible. It is this trend in our government's activities that people find objectionable.

Muslims and Arab-Americans are becomming the scapegoat for this administration. They want Americans to be constantly afraid, and that is easier to do when there is a minority group who can be demonized and scapegoated. The administration wants Americans to believe that any Muslim or Arab is a potential terrorist or enemy of the state.

In reading the online article, I did not get the impression that what they were hoping to find was individuals who are emitting unusual amounts of radiation, (i.e. "badguys" who were exposed to radiation in the middle east before slipping illegally into the US to commit terrorist acts) but rather looking for a source of radiation kept at the mosques that would indicate there are activities going on centered around building some kind of a dirty bomb with radioactive material. Making a broad assumption that mosques and other centers of Muslim and Arab activity in the US are going to be hotbeds of terrorist activity is racist, and goes a long way in sending a message to other Americans that they not only need to be constantly afraid, but specifically be afraid of Muslims and Arabs. This casts suspicion on all Muslims and Arabs, making people question and suspect their neigbors for no good reason, and is wrong, plain and simple.

 

[Cryozombie]

I dunno... I can see justification to these methods...

I mean, if I commited a series of Murders and they knew it was a white guy who did it would it make sense to haul a bunch of Black men in for a lineup?

If you were going to Buy Christmas presents, would you do it for a Christian or a Jew?

If a group of radical muslums was blowing things up all over the world, would you look for a group of Buddist monks?

I mean... come on now...

Scanning for radiation in a place its more likey to be found makes... well... sense... But if you are really worried about it, you can tell them to come sit outside my house and scan. Sure... its a waste of time. But its fair right?

I mean hell, Im not a shoplifter but I am passivly scanned for stolen merchandise everytime I leave a store... what about MY rights If it goes off by accident, everone around me will assume I am a shoplifter, and thats not right!!!

​

 

[Flying Crane]

I dunno... I can see justification to these methods...

I mean, if I commited a series of Murders and they knew it was a white guy who did it would it make sense to haul a bunch of Black men in for a lineup?

If you were going to Buy Christmas presents, would you do it for a Christian or a Jew?

If a group of radical muslums was blowing things up all over the world, would you look for a group of Buddist monks?

I mean... come on now...

Scanning for radiation in a place its more likey to be found makes... well... sense... But if you are really worried about it, you can tell them to come sit outside my house and scan. Sure... its a waste of time. But its fair right?

I mean hell, Im not a shoplifter but I am passivly scanned for stolen merchandise everytime I leave a store... what about MY rights If it goes off by accident, everone around me will assume I am a shoplifter, and thats not right!!!


​

You have good points, and this is what makes this a difficult issue.

If there is a solid suspicion that a specific individual, or group of specific individuals, or specific mosque is engaged in dangerous activity, then they should be monitored to determine if there is a legitimate threat. But to blanket an entire group of people because of a shared ethnic or religious history is inappropriate.

When we walk out of a store, we are all often scanned for stolen merchandise. Modern technology makes this possible. What makes it acceptable is that it is done across the board without discrimination (assuming, of course, that the scanners themselves do not create a health threat). If you don't want to be scanned you have the option to not shop at that store. But by way of comparison, what if the store made a policy that only African-Americans would be scanned, based on some statistic that our prison populations contain a higher percentage of African-Americans? We would all be outraged, and nobody would deny the racism in that activity.

When the government conducts secret monitoring like this, there is no "opt-out" opportunity, like choosing to not shop at the store that conducts scanning. And remember, these people who are being monitored by the government are US Citizens. Unless specific people are targeted for monitoring, there can be no claim that only non-US citizens are being targeted, who might not be entitled to the same protections and rights under US law.

 

[Flying Crane]

I dunno... I can see justification to these methods...

I mean, if I commited a series of Murders and they knew it was a white guy who did it would it make sense to haul a bunch of Black men in for a lineup?

​

​

If they knew a white guy was committing murders, they would haul in someone who fit the description. But the description requires more than just the fact that you are white. If every white guy in the neighborhood was hauled in based on the fact that he is white, we would be outraged. We need to go after specific people against whom there is a solid body of evidence to make them suspect. Just because someone shares an ethnic or religious background with the real bad guys does not make them somehow guilty by association.