How is this Legal? Roadside checkpoints for terrorism. From the TSA., page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 05:56 PM by Taupin Desciple

Originally posted by drew1749
reply to post by whatsinaname

I just don't understand how this is okay...at all. Inspecting truck drivers randomly is not okay. It's there job it's not like they're just choosing to drive the trucks. Just no words. This isn't okay at all.

Speaking of 1984 I've never read it. Any good? I love books.
edit on 10/21/2011 by drew1749 because: (no reason given)

I agree with this practice, I just don't agree with who is doing it. I see no reason for the TSA at all. Just another federal agency that is only capable of screwing things up.

Your claim "It's their job. It's not like they choose to drive the the trucks" has me flabbergasted. Truck drivers who drive for companies may not have a say in what the cargo is, but it is their job to know what it is. How else would they know to put haz-mat labels on their trucks or not? They have a shipping manifest that tells them what they're hauling. If they don't like it they can refuse the load and hook up the cab to another trailer with a load they do want to take. If they refuse a load in St. Louis and the only other load the company has that the driver is willing to take is in Kansas City, then that's his perogative. If a company has a problem with drivers who do that a lot and fire them, the driver has the option of being an independent contacter if he has his own rig. Then he can really pick and choose what he hauls. That's what independent contacters do. They contract loads independent of any one company

Agencies at checkpoints know the difference between owner-ops and company drivers and, hopefully, the TSA does as well. Knowing this difference would hopefully dictate how thorough a search is. In other words, the people who conduct searches like this will treat a Wal-Mart truck a lot differently then they will a truck driven by Bubba who is willing to haul anything from explosives to horses to toilet paper in order to keep his family fed.

Some Bubbas are good guys. Some aren't. You need to realize this. You also need to realize that the only reason the state of Tennessee went along with this is that the federalis probably threatened to cut off certain federal fundings if they didn't want to play ball. They do that you know.

edit on 21-10-2011 by Taupin Desciple because: Grammar

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 05:58 PM by Expat888

lmao .. Rights ? Legal ? Surely you jest.. Those no longer exist in the new totalitarian states of amerika. The state can..and will do anything it pleases .. After all the state is just taking care of the citizens and protecting them from the .. Erm.. Who's the enemy this week ? Erm.. Whoever.. Now be good little citizens keep quiet.. move along dont question the state and forget those silly little things called rights that you once had.. The state provides for all..

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 05:58 PM by boncho

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by drew1749

I've been through a few of them, they were no big deal. Stop for 5 mins, or wonder if there's a bomb headed towards a nuclear power planet, your choice.

Yes, because those people would surely drive through a security checkpoint and get caught...

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 05:59 PM by loam

reply to post by drew1749

Anything is 'legal' in a nation that no longer respects the rule of law.

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 06:04 PM by ga-`tv-gi

There was a thread back last year about the same ting in Ga some where found it

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 06:06 PM by Silverado292

reply to post by drew1749

I'm sorry I don't have any information at hand but I've always been told that checkpoints are unconstitutional. So it's probably like everything else that's been going on the last 100 plus years thats unconstitutional as well, no one really notices because we're so divided and distracted by everything thats going on.

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 06:11 PM by Taupin Desciple

reply to post by drew1749

Not to be rude, but if you're taking law classes then you better start thinking outside the box. Quick.

You sound like a good enough guy. A little naive, but good. The federal government these days have no regard for the current laws as they will make up anything in the name of "National Security". And the fact that these laws fly in the face of current laws doesn't bother them in the least. The majority of the population fall for it because they believe the lies and half-truths that are told them by the Govt. via the main stream media (MSM). This is how they "get away with it".

If something like this really bothers you to the core, you may want to look into another profession, because things like this are only going to get worse IMO.

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 06:12 PM by Unit541

What's different and new about this, really? I mean from a relevancy standpoint. It's not like the TSA is patrolling the highway pulling people over at random and searching their vehicles...

TSA agents stationed at 5 weigh stations and 2 bus stations to do the searching. Trucks and buses are searched all the time, nothing new about that. However with the TSA manning this position, the state no longer has to foot the bill for officers to do the searching.

Don't get me wrong, this is a door opened for another federal agency to move in on the states, and I'd rather keep that door closed. Especially the types of people the TSA is prone to hiring and "empowering"...

As for the "justification", sure it's possible to catch some terrorists on the highway I bet. However, they're not likely to be driving a big-rig, and it's less likely they're going to carry out their nefarious intentions on a bus. So citing "terrorism" as the justification for embedding federal employees on our highways to "look fer stuff" is almost comical.

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 06:21 PM by AllUrChips

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by AllUrChips

Reasonable cause: "He/she looked suspicious."

Case closed.

N/A
second line.

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 06:23 PM by agentblue

Originally posted by drew1749
reply to post by AllUrChips

Well roadside tests for drugs are okay. Think about sobriety checkpoints. That kind of thing has been legal for a while...this though seems a bit far fetched. THE TERRORISTS ARE ON THE ROADS!!! HIDE GUIZE!

the road side checkpoints are not legal.... Supreme court ruling on "the right to travel" means that they are breaking the law by stopping you in a checkpoint because there is no probable cause to stop you.

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 06:23 PM by S7rike

Only thing i think of. How it can be legal is the Probable cause of terrorism which is bs but a cause.
Now one thing that violates the 4th is game wardens.

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 06:26 PM by AllUrChips

Originally posted by drew1749
reply to post by AllUrChips

Why are you being rude to me? I didn't say they can search your car. Wait are we talking about them searching your car for drugs here? I'm assuming it means that they're going to check you to see if you're under the influence of drugs.

Also calm down and don't be so rude to me man. It hurts. lol

Im sorry lol. I get heated abought my rights and understand we are fighting the same cause afterall! I was just trying to convey the law juxtaposed to our rights ya know? Again, sorry, but be thankfull we BOTH have the right to have our own opinions, but when it comes to the law, I live by no grey area.

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 10:21 PM by DragonTattooz

Originally posted by agentblue

Originally posted by drew1749
reply to post by AllUrChips

Well roadside tests for drugs are okay. Think about sobriety checkpoints. That kind of thing has been legal for a while...this though seems a bit far fetched. THE TERRORISTS ARE ON THE ROADS!!! HIDE GUIZE!

the road side checkpoints are not legal.... Supreme court ruling on "the right to travel" means that they are breaking the law by stopping you in a checkpoint because there is no probable cause to stop you.

As much as I wanted you to be right, it seems the SC actually made a 4th Amendment DUI Exception.

The Case: In Sitz v. Michigan, the Supreme Court ruled that the potential benefit to society of removing impaired drivers from the roads justified the violation of Fourth Amendment rights caused by checkpoints.

Source

In my opinion DUI checkpoints are a 4th Amendment violation. Period. I do not support drunk driving, and I think penalties for anything bad that should happen because of drunk driving should be extremely severe. I also do not drink alcohol at all, so for me this is strictly a constitutional issue.

edit on 21-10-2011 by DragonTattooz because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 10:54 PM by fixer1967

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by drew1749

Anything is 'legal' in a nation that no longer respects the rule of law.

You are so right. ANYTHING they do is legal and everything we do is illegal from their point of view. The very word LEGAL has little meaning to them. They think that is they can do it and that makes it legal. People need to wake up and see the light at the end of the tunnel for it is freight train and we are going to get ran over. Legal, illegal, right and wrong mean nothing to those people.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^