Constitutional Right to emit radiation?

[CanuckMA]

I found this.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/kyllo.htm

That does not appear to be entirely true.

The majority opinion upholds that the use of scanning technology infringes on 4th amendment rights.

The only question is whether a mosque is a public or private space. It is a privately owned and operated building open to the public as the owners see fit, but it is NOT public space.

 

[CanuckMA]

Can you offer me a legitimate reason passive scanning around mosques interferes with someone freedom to practice religion, unless maybe we snatch em for for taking the Sacramental Plutonium to the altar...

Because the scanning involves human observers. It's a short step from taking pictures of people entering and exiting the building. Freedom to practice your religion MUST include freedom of movement and assembly in your place of worship.

Today it's Muslims, during WWII, in North America, it was Japanese and Germans, in Germany, it was Jews.

I do not wish to live in a society where I am targeted simply for belonging to an identifiable group. If the governemt believes that there are grounds to survey a location, convince a court.

 

[Cryozombie]

Because the scanning involves human observers. It's a short step from taking pictures of people entering and exiting the building.

But Its legal to do so. I can sit outside your house and photograph you all I want, as long as I am not ON your property. I can sit outside a Mosque, a Catholic Church, or the Kingdom Hall of the Jehova's witnesses and do the same thing.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The majority opinion upholds that the use of scanning technology infringes on 4th amendment rights.

The only question is whether a mosque is a public or private space. It is a privately owned and operated building open to the public as the owners see fit, but it is NOT public space.

I dont know. After reading this I still dont think you are entirely right. http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/Thermal.htm In some situations where the scanner is being used to actually observe people and their activities inside a building you may be right. But I dont think this applies to this stuff. What is the danger of abuse here? Perhaps some innocent person with radioactive material in his home will be unjustly prosecuted? Im happy the gvt. is doing this.

 

[Flying Crane]

In other words, folks, just bend over and grab your ankles, and hope the bad man don't do it too much, right?



It isn't the US that Islamic Fundamentalists hate, it's the fact that infidels are in power anywhere.

If it was just the US, then why is there war and conflict ANYWHERE the Islamic world touches the non-islamic? Sudan, Israel, India, Thailand, the Phillipines, on and on and on. Anywhere Islamic populations touch non-islamic, fundamentalists groups engage in violence against their non-islamic neighbors.



The rest of your post is the same conspiratorial drivel I come to expect from those who buy in to the socialist view of history and politics. Again, it's the same old leftist propaganda recycled. The problem is that many on the left desire to view the islamic terrorists as simply just brothers in the struggle against 'the big baddies', which leftists define as the US in general, and Bush and republicans in particular.

After giving your post here a bit more consideration, I wanted to comment a bit further. As to your first comment about bending over and grabbing our collective ankles and waiting for the next attack, I say no. Actually, I think you should simply go about your life as you always have and don't worry about it. While I do believe that it is inevitable that we will be attacked again no matter what level of security the government tries to implement, at the same time I also believe that the chance that you or I specifically will be victims in those attacks are very very small. Yes, there will be victims. Who they will be is as unpredictable as when and where another successful attack will happen. But the statistics are hugely against any of us individually becoming a victim. Yes, it could happen, but it is something we have no way of predicting, and no control over, so I say live your life and don't be afraid of it.

With regard to your second comment above about there being conflict anywhere the Muslim world touches the non-muslim world, yes, you have a point. There certainly are radical muslims who hate the non-muslim world, and they are working to destroy all that is non-Radical Muslim. These are extremists, and they will always exist to some degree. No extremist is good, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or any other kind of extremist. They all have a twisted ideology that is not in line with the true teachings of their faith. But this does not excuse the actions of the US that have given these people legitimate reason to hate us. When you take the history of US global abuses and mix it with extremists who hate us, it is a volatile recipe. Our history of abuses have given strength to the extremist movement. Other Muslims who in their hearts are really moderates and wouldn't hate us (at leat not enough to want to attack us) join with the extremists because they are fed up with us. If we didn't continue to give them reasons to hate us, the extremists would have few followers, and would not have the resources to effectively strike us. There is a shared responsibility here. Crazy extremists do and will always exists, but we need to stop throwing fuel on the fire.

With regard to your last paragraph above, I would suggest that you might find a more productive debate if you stop throwing loaded labels at your fellow debaters, like "conspiratorial drivel" and "leftist propaganda." You are almost guaranteed a negative reaction when you do this, and it really detracts from any intelligent conversation that might otherwise be had. You catch more flies with honey, than you do with vinegar...

And no, I don't believe that those who swing to the political left see this situation in such a simple, black and white, good vs. evil way. They do not see the radical Muslims as "brothers in the struggle against the 'big baddies'". But they do recognize the complexity of the situation, and they do see that at least some of our own problems are the repercussions of our Nation's international activities.

With regard to your last sentence above, it should be clear that I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I see this problem as much larger than them alone. I don't feel it is a specifically Democrat or Republican issue as I feel all administrations for many decades have contributed to this and other problems facing this country. I am a proponent of looking at history with a critical eye, and seeing what we can learn from it. Maybe then we can come up with reasonable and sound solutions to these complex problems.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Something about the 4th Amendment?

Privacy, illegal search and seizure?

Scanning specific locations without a warrant is just as illegal as wiretapping without a warrant, or simply entering a building to physically search without a warrant.

Sorry, that's a distortion. The scanning is occurring in public places. Time, after time, after time, the courts have supported this kind of search.

It is NOT an illegal search, if what you have in your building, is leaking out into the public. For example, the courts have supported, for years, the idea that a K9 scent search, is not a 4th amendment violation of your expectation of privacy in a car. Why? Because the dog isn't looking in the car, he's scenting the public air around your car for the drug scent that is escaping in to public.

If you have a bomb in the front seat of your car, in plain view, and an officer walks by an sees it, is this an illegal search an seizure? Of course not, because, though the bomb is in your car, it is visible from a place where the officer, or the public in general, have a right to be, outside your car.

Scanning for radiation in a public parking lot fits perfectly with the existing case law a legal search. The officers are where they have a legal right to be. Moreover, they are only testing things, passively, that travel or drift in to a location where they have a right to be.

What's more, courts have long weighed evidence in regards to the exigent circumstances. A drug seizure based on a K9 search has a law enforcement interest, but it is hard to argue that it is an immediate public safety issue. A radiation scan, however, has an even GREATER public safety concern, so would be even more likely to be considered a circumstance where latitude is given.

So, once again, the claim that this is a 4th amendment violation, is bogus. The 4th amendment protects from 'illegal' searches and seizures....not ALL searches and seizures. As this type of search has a history of precedent along similar lines, I think they are on safe legal grounds, despite the hyperbole.

 

[sgtmac_46]

After giving your post here a bit more consideration, I wanted to comment a bit further. As to your first comment about bending over and grabbing our collective ankles and waiting for the next attack, I say no. Actually, I think you should simply go about your life as you always have and don't worry about it. While I do believe that it is inevitable that we will be attacked again no matter what level of security the government tries to implement, at the same time I also believe that the chance that you or I specifically will be victims in those attacks are very very small. Yes, there will be victims. Who they will be is as unpredictable as when and where another successful attack will happen. But the statistics are hugely against any of us individually becoming a victim. Yes, it could happen, but it is something we have no way of predicting, and no control over, so I say live your life and don't be afraid of it.

Not even the point at all. What I said was, should we as a nation simply decide that we're just going to bend over and take it when it comes. What if it's a small tactical nuclear device? Do you consider that an 'acceptable' level of damage and loss of life? Yeah, the odd's that I, personally, am going to die is small. Is it ok as long as only 50,000 Americans get killed in a blast? Do you consider that acceptable, to avoid offending anyone?

With regard to your second comment above about there being conflict anywhere the Muslim world touches the non-muslim world, yes, you have a point. There certainly are radical muslims who hate the non-muslim world, and they are working to destroy all that is non-Radical Muslim. These are extremists, and they will always exist to some degree. No extremist is good, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or any other kind of extremist. They all have a twisted ideology that is not in line with the true teachings of their faith.

Yes, but your dismissive way of simply insinuating that ALL extremists are bad, really misses the point. NOWHERE does the muslim world touch the non-muslim, that is not a conflict. We make excuses for this, by simply trying to write it off. Why try to say 'well, see, it's just that all extremism is bad, not that extremist Islam is particularly attrocious' while France burns, the US gets attacked, Spain, Great Britain, Indonesia, etc, etc, find themselves facing a terrorist threat.

Trying to make this simply about 'The US' is a cop out. It isn't just the US they hate, it's just the fact that the US happens to be the one to beat right now. We aren't the first OR the last. I suggest you reexamine what is actually happen from a historical perspective, not the more limiting 'I hate Bush' perspective. None of this is new.

But this does not excuse the actions of the US that have given these people legitimate reason to hate us. When you take the history of US global abuses and mix it with extremists who hate us, it is a volatile recipe. Our history of abuses have given strength to the extremist movement. Other Muslims who in their hearts are really moderates and wouldn't hate us (at leat not enough to want to attack us) join with the extremists because they are fed up with us. If we didn't continue to give them reasons to hate us, the extremists would have few followers, and would not have the resources to effectively strike us. There is a shared responsibility here. Crazy extremists do and will always exists, but we need to stop throwing fuel on the fire.

It's a typical ploy to talk about the US in vague and subtle innuendo, and not spell out the issues. Lets hear a list of these 'abuses' as they apply toward the Islamic world.

With regard to your last paragraph above, I would suggest that you might find a more productive debate if you stop throwing loaded labels at your fellow debaters, like "conspiratorial drivel" and "leftist propaganda." You are almost guaranteed a negative reaction when you do this, and it really detracts from any intelligent conversation that might otherwise be had. You catch more flies with honey, than you do with vinegar...

The reaction I get will be negative to those who disagree with it regardless.

I'm under no illusions. I've given up on converting anyone who embraces 'conspiratorial drivel' and 'leftist propaganda'. I prefer to embolden those who agree with me already, and perhaps convince a few fence sitters.

There's really not much middle ground between me and my ideological opposites, as the disagreement is less a disagreement of particular facts, and more about an entirely different view of the world in general and our place in it. Even our words don't mean the same things. We argue about context and connotation, and each of us tries to alter the definitions to fit our arguments. Why? Because, though it may sound alike, we don't even speak the same language.

I don't think it means that the left is evil...just naive about certain realities.

And no, I don't believe that those who swing to the political left see this situation in such a simple, black and white, good vs. evil way. They do not see the radical Muslims as "brothers in the struggle against the 'big baddies'". But they do recognize the complexity of the situation, and they do see that at least some of our own problems are the repercussions of our Nation's international activities.

They like to feel they are more 'nuanced' in their estimation, but in reality they are just engaging in that age old partisan struggle. They believe their only REAL enemy are conservatives, republicans, and most especially, Bush. Any enemy of Bush, is a friend of theirs. Sad but true.

More to the point, they can't accept the reality of a world where conflicts might be driven by anything more than a misunderstanding. That people really DO seek to destroy you.

With regard to your last sentence above, it should be clear that I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I see this problem as much larger than them alone. I don't feel it is a specifically Democrat or Republican issue as I feel all administrations for many decades have contributed to this and other problems facing this country. I am a proponent of looking at history with a critical eye, and seeing what we can learn from it. Maybe then we can come up with reasonable and sound solutions to these complex problems.

The problem, pure and simple, is a 12th century mentality among a small segment of the Islamic world, who prefer an age when women were property, Caliphs ruled, and the Islamic world was on the offensive. There is no room for negotiation with that mindset. It must be destroyed, and we need to stop considering it a valid world view and combat it any way we can.

 

[Flying Crane]

There's really not much middle ground between me and my ideological opposites, as the disagreement is less a disagreement of particular facts, and more about an entirely different view of the world in general and our place in it.

Yes, that does seem to be the bottom line.

 

[elder999]

Since I'm .....somewhat familiar with the program in question...

If "something" were detected-and I won't get into the myriad scientific hurdles involved, dependent upon type of material, quantity, distance, and type of building-suffice it to say that brick buildings not only offer shielding, but are also significantly more radioactive than those made of wood or concrete-and its method of detection and subsequent seizure were to result in arrests and trials, then the question of privacy, illegal search, etc., would be one for the lawyers to ask, and the courts to eventually answer-though one can certainly make the case that something that could be detected from outside a building would constitute probable cause, like marijuana smoke, or screams.

It's highly unlikely (without getting into details) that anything could be detected passively from such a distance.

It's also totally unlikely that if anything were (or has ever been) detected by such methods, that the question of evidence in court would ever come up, nor is it likely that it would ever make (or has evermade ) the papers-save for, in the case of say a hypothetical smaller yield device or so-called dirty bomb, mention of a "gas leak" or some other likely reason for evacuating several city blocks in the event that it were plausible to do so.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes, that does seem to be the bottom line.

And I don't say that in a dismissive way, but merely as an observation of the diametric differences among certain positions. I've come to the conclusion that the issue isn't one of a misunderstanding on a particular issue, but of a completely different perspective on the world in general.

Still, I do hold out hope that occasionally we might find common ground. This issue, however, doesn't seem to be one of those issues.

I guess we can agree to disagree. :asian:

 

[CanuckMA]

But Its legal to do so. I can sit outside your house and photograph you all I want, as long as I am not ON your property. I can sit outside a Mosque, a Catholic Church, or the Kingdom Hall of the Jehova's witnesses and do the same thing.

First, it's not legal. read http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...nlaw/kyllo.htm

for the Supreme Court's take on scanning.

Second, the comment was made about how doing so infringes on one's freedom of religion. By your comments I assume you are not part of a religious minority, and certainly not one that has been persecuted. I am. And if my place of worship was under constant surveilance, I might stop frequenting it, THAT infringes on my freedom of religion. This is especially true of Muslims in America today.

 

[sgtmac_46]

First, it's not legal. read http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...nlaw/kyllo.htm

for the Supreme Court's take on scanning.

Second, the comment was made about how doing so infringes on one's freedom of religion. By your comments I assume you are not part of a religious minority, and certainly not one that has been persecuted. I am. And if my place of worship was under constant surveilance, I might stop frequenting it, THAT infringes on my freedom of religion. This is especially true of Muslims in America today.

Your radiation rights are being persecuted? lol. Exactly what invasion is taking place....assuming you don't have a nuclear device nearby. There's no listening, there's no intrusion whatsoever. No, it's not a 'if you have nothing to hide' argument, there's ZERO invasion of privacy. Are you suggesting you might stop frequenting a church because government agents were detecting for radiation in a private parking lot?

Also, please deal with the post i've already made about passive radiation detecting. The church's aren't being 'scanned', the radiation levels in public parking lots are being analyzed. Huge difference, the precedent case law has been pretty clear on this kind of thing. This is nothing different that narcotics dogs, which the courts have upheld. In fact, a better case can be made for this, than narcotics dogs.

As I posted earlier.

Sorry, that's a distortion. The scanning is occurring in public places. Time, after time, after time, the courts have supported this kind of search.

It is NOT an illegal search, if what you have in your building, is leaking out into the public. For example, the courts have supported, for years, the idea that a K9 scent search, is not a 4th amendment violation of your expectation of privacy in a car. Why? Because the dog isn't looking in the car, he's scenting the public air around your car for the drug scent that is escaping in to public.

If you have a bomb in the front seat of your car, in plain view, and an officer walks by an sees it, is this an illegal search an seizure? Of course not, because, though the bomb is in your car, it is visible from a place where the officer, or the public in general, have a right to be, outside your car.

Scanning for radiation in a public parking lot fits perfectly with the existing case law a legal search. The officers are where they have a legal right to be. Moreover, they are only testing things, passively, that travel or drift in to a location where they have a right to be.

What's more, courts have long weighed evidence in regards to the exigent circumstances. A drug seizure based on a K9 search has a law enforcement interest, but it is hard to argue that it is an immediate public safety issue. A radiation scan, however, has an even GREATER public safety concern, so would be even more likely to be considered a circumstance where latitude is given.

So, once again, the claim that this is a 4th amendment violation, is bogus. The 4th amendment protects from 'illegal' searches and seizures....not ALL searches and seizures. As this type of search has a history of precedent along similar lines, I think they are on safe legal grounds, despite the hyperbole.

 

[Flying Crane]

It's a typical ploy to talk about the US in vague and subtle innuendo, and not spell out the issues. Lets hear a list of these 'abuses' as they apply toward the Islamic world.

These issues are too broad and large to adequately spell out and discuss on this forum. I am afraid you will need to do some homework.

I would suggest you read a book entitled Imperial Ambitions, Conversations on the Post-9/11 World, by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian. It is not long, and is an easy read, so it is not a big commitment in time to read this book. It took me an afternoon to read it.

This book is a collection of interviews Mr. Barsamian had with Mr. Comsky from March 2003 thru February, 2005. Mr. Chomsky, professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT, is not a champion of the Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives, Right or Left. He analyzes history, tracking the actions of the US over the last several decades. In these interviews, many of the abuses that I am referring to are brought up. Since these are interview trascripts, the book does not go into tremendous details regarding the events, but it brings them up and is a good place to start in getting a sense of the bigger picture. If you find yourself interested in particular topics that are brought up, other books are in print, including others by Mr. Chomsky and could give you more information.

Sorry I can't do better than that, but I really believe that my own attempts to spell out these issues on this forum would be tremendously inadequate.

 

[sgtmac_46]

These issues are too broad and large to adequately spell out and discuss on this forum. I am afraid you will need to do some homework.

In other words, nothing comes to mind, though your sure examples MUST exist.

I would suggest you read a book entitled Imperial Ambitions, Conversations on the Post-9/11 World, by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian. It is not long, and is an easy read, so it is not a big commitment in time to read this book. It took me an afternoon to read it.

Chomsky? I didn't realize you were going to be referring me to the fiction section.

This book is a collection of interviews Mr. Barsamian had with Mr. Comsky from March 2003 thru February, 2005. Mr. Chomsky, professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT, is not a champion of the Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives, Right or Left. He analyzes history, tracking the actions of the US over the last several decades. In these interviews, many of the abuses that I am referring to are brought up. Since these are interview trascripts, the book does not go into tremendous details regarding the events, but it brings them up and is a good place to start in getting a sense of the bigger picture. If you find yourself interested in particular topics that are brought up, other books are in print, including others by Mr. Chomsky and could give you more information.

Oh, i'm quite familiar with Chomsky. Chomsky calls himself an anarcho-syndicalist.

What he is, in fact, and always has been, is a communist apologists. He has taken everything about the cold war, and spun it so as to focus solely on the US, devoid of any influences created by the Soviets. This is the same man who denied that the killing fields of Cambodia existed, and ridiculed anyone who suggested they did. He went great links to defend Pol Pot (as he has done virtually every other communist tyrant).

Then, after it was evident to everyone that he was sadly mistaken, he tried to spin the whole affair and blame it one the US. Chompskyites the world over then participated in the attempt to completely bury Chomksy's defense of the homicidal regime of the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky only has credibility among the kook fringe of the left, who laud his linguistics 'accomplishments' as if they give him absolute credibility in the area of political and philosophical enlightenment.

If Chomsky wrote a book about World War II, it would consist wholely of 'unprovoked US Imperialist aggression against the free peoples of Germany, Italy and Japan.' It would begin with the D-Day invasion of Normandy, devoid of any context, and would describe it as a sneak attack against another nation. That's how devoid Chomsky's books are of objectivity and context. They count on the ignorance of the reader to any historical context on the subject matter, so he can substitute his own imagined context in it's place, therefore creating a mythos that paints the US as the great evil of the world.

Sorry I can't do better than that, but I really believe that my own attempts to spell out these issues on this forum would be tremendously inadequate.

Don't sell yourself short. I give you far more credibility than I do Noam Chomsky. Though, the religious following the Chomsky is legendary. Just by even suggesting he has no credibility, i'll probably be targeted for 'liquidation' by the Chomsky mafia.....fortunately, none of them can shoot straight.

 

[Cryozombie]

First, it's not legal. read http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...nlaw/kyllo.htm

for the Supreme Court's take on scanning.

Ok, First, Your Link is broken, try again.

I have to assume based on your post, however, that is about the supreme courts take on SCANNING. My post was about PHOTOGRAPHY, in response to your quote that it was "a short step from taking pictures of people entering and exiting the building" which, I dont know what the laws are up there in Canada where you are, its legal down here. Check with an American Lawyer and see what they have to say about your right to do it here.

Second, the comment was made about how doing so infringes on one's freedom of religion. By your comments I assume you are not part of a religious minority, and certainly not one that has been persecuted.

I still dont see evidence that passive scanning of people or buildiungs infringes on one's freedom of religion. So I present this: (1) Can you please give me a concise reason that passive scanning prevents anyone from worshiping? and (2) Is it any more restrictive of religion than saying that a Mormon is NOT allowed to have more than one wife, or that a Devil Worshiper cannot sacrifice small animals (Satanists, Take note, I said Devil Worshiper not Satanist) or that a Christian Judge cannot display the 10 commandments? Nah, its actually less, because 1 tells you how you can and cannot worship, the other doesnt.

 

[CanuckMA]

Ok, First, Your Link is broken, try again.

I have to assume based on your post, however, that is about the supreme courts take on SCANNING. My post was about PHOTOGRAPHY, in response to your quote that it was "a short step from taking pictures of people entering and exiting the building" which, I dont know what the laws are up there in Canada where you are, its legal down here. Check with an American Lawyer and see what they have to say about your right to do it here.

Well, it's not MY link.

On the photography, if a private citizen camped himself outside my house or place or worship and photographed it constantly, I'd call the cops to investigate. If a law enforcment agency did the same, I'd want to see the cause for the surveilance. It is not legal for law enforcemnt to set up surveilance without cause.

I still dont see evidence that passive scanning of people or buildiungs infringes on one's freedom of religion. So I present this: (1) Can you please give me a concise reason that passive scanning prevents anyone from worshiping? and (2) Is it any more restrictive of religion than saying that a Mormon is NOT allowed to have more than one wife, or that a Devil Worshiper cannot sacrifice small animals (Satanists, Take note, I said Devil Worshiper not Satanist) or that a Christian Judge cannot display the 10 commandments? Nah, its actually less, because 1 tells you how you can and cannot worship, the other doesnt.

Polygamy and cruelty to animals is against the law.

Surveilance of a specific place of worship can stop people to freely enter that place of worship thus infringing on their freedom of religion. If you enjoy living in a society where your rights can just be trampled without cause, I feel for you.

 

[Cryozombie]

Surveilance of a specific place of worship can stop people to freely enter that place of worship thus infringing on their freedom of religion.

Uh... no. If someone thinks/knows they are being watched and CHOOSES not to go thats a CHOICE. If the government said "You cant go in there" THAT would be infringement.

There is a BIG difference, even if you dont see it.

Why would anyone be afraid, unless they were carrying radioactive materials? Like I said before, I vollunteer my house, they can sit outside and scan. Why? Cuz it doesnt affect me one way or another.

If you enjoy living in a society where your rights can just be trampled without cause, I feel for you.

Again, no big news flash there... they can, and pretty much will, trample my rights, your rights, their rights... at the drop of a hat. Many of mine have already been taken away... and we do what we have to do.

*I* personally believe I have all the *rights* that I am willing to TAKE for my own, regardless of what the government, conservative moral majority or Gun-fearing liberals have to say about it... and when the time comes that they take enough of my rights away that it actually impacts me in a way that makes me fearful for my freedoms or saftey, and it can't be changed, I'll leave.

So far Im less concerned that Scanning buildings for radiation is as much of an infringement as say telling me I HAVE to wear a seatbelt for my own saftey.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, it's not MY link.

On the photography, if a private citizen camped himself outside my house or place or worship and photographed it constantly, I'd call the cops to investigate. If a law enforcment agency did the same, I'd want to see the cause for the surveilance. It is not legal for law enforcemnt to set up surveilance without cause.

Yeah, you'd call the police, but that doesn't mean they could do anything about it if they were on public property. The media does this all the time...camp out, outside someone's house, on public property, and photograph them. Perfectly legal.

Surveilance of a specific place of worship can stop people to freely enter that place of worship thus infringing on their freedom of religion. If you enjoy living in a society where your rights can just be trampled without cause, I feel for you.

All irrelavent. Nobody knew about the surveillance, as it was covert. What's more, nobodies freedom to come and go was violated. You've got no legal standing on this issue. No one is in any way violating anyone's freedom of religion. The idea that the police might not be nearby is not enough to justify the idea that your freedom to freely engage in religion is somehow infringed. It's an abstraction. 'The police are violating my rights, because I THINK they might be nearby', it doesn't fly.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Uh... no. If someone thinks/knows they are being watched and CHOOSES not to go thats a CHOICE. If the government said "You cant go in there" THAT would be infringement.

There is a BIG difference, even if you dont see it.

Why would anyone be afraid, unless they were carrying radioactive materials? Like I said before, I vollunteer my house, they can sit outside and scan. Why? Cuz it doesnt affect me one way or another.

Even beyond that, the police sit in public places and scan people all day long, often times without anyone knowing it....they call it radar. This is no different.

When the courts decide the admissability of certain searches, they often heavily take in to account the degree of intrusion involved. Scanning radiactive particles present in the air of a public parking lot has nearly ZERO intrusion involved. The abstraction that people just MIGHT not want to visit church, because they think police MIGHT be scanning a public parking lot nearby for radioactive particles is extremely weak and nebulous.

Again, no big news flash there... they can, and pretty much will, trample my rights, your rights, their rights... at the drop of a hat. Many of mine have already been taken away... and we do what we have to do.

I support your rights, and would defend them against any unreasonable searches and seizures....However, this is not even REMOTELY unreasonable.

*I* personally believe I have all the *rights* that I am willing to TAKE for my own, regardless of what the government, conservative moral majority or Gun-fearing liberals have to say about it... and when the time comes that they take enough of my rights away that it actually impacts me in a way that makes me fearful for my freedoms or saftey, and it can't be changed, I'll leave.

Funny you should mention that....most of the people whinning about scanning public parking lots for radioactive particles, were not in the least concerned when Janet Reno's justice department was hunting down law abiding Americans on the slightest provocation in the name of gun-control. But let the government look for actual terrorists, who by virtue of the fact that they might be aliens, are a protected class, and watch them fly in to a rage.

So far Im less concerned that Scanning buildings for radiation is as much of an infringement as say telling me I HAVE to wear a seatbelt for my own saftey.

They pick and choose their concerns based on some rather bizarre criteria, do they not?

 

[Flying Crane]

There's really not much middle ground between me and my ideological opposites, as the disagreement is less a disagreement of particular facts, and more about an entirely different view of the world in general and our place in it. Even our words don't mean the same things. We argue about context and connotation, and each of us tries to alter the definitions to fit our arguments. Why? Because, though it may sound alike, we don't even speak the same language.

I am trying to understand your ideology, and I have a specific question. With respect to the amount of hatred that certain radical elements have for the US, especially in the Middle East but also elsewhere in the world, to what do you attribute this? Is it purely radical Islam (at least in the Middle East) demonizing all that is not Islam? Are there other factors involved? Do you believe that the US has ever in the last 100 years or so, done anything in these regions involving politics, or natural resources, or economics or anything else, that might have caused these people to resent, or even hate us? Do you believe that the US is mostly, or even completely innocent of actions that would cause these people to hate us? Do you believe that the US has any obligation to treat the rest of the world with a sense of global fairness and respect, even if it means we as a nation give up control of some natural resources that we might have taken for ourselves? Is there something else, that I have completely missed? If you could clarify your beliefs with regards to these points, I would appreciate it.