It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Terror fears don't trump Constitution, court rules

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Fears of a terrorist attack are not sufficient reason for authorities to search people at a protest, a federal appeals court has ruled, saying September 11, 2001, "cannot be the day liberty perished."


A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Friday that protesters may not be required to pass through metal detectors when they gather next month for a rally against a U.S. training academy for Latin American soldiers.


www.cnn.com...

Simply beautiful, I have always thought this and I am glad to see more and more courts uphold such beliefs. We do not need a Patriot Act nor a Patriot Act 2. As well, I am boggled that the Latin American training camp is still in existance. You can be sure that people will get arrested this year, but this Academy is notorious for the people that it trains. Good Job America!


[edit on 16-10-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   
This is in my own back yard, I go to Colombus to do some shopping at the base all the time, I am very happy with these rulings, is about time our courts take matters into their hands to protect the citizens of this country from our own government.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I agree with the statement and ruling, but I do wonder how much harm is there in going through metal detectors (like you would at an airport). I would like to hear the argument of how it is a violation of the constitution because I am probably just not seeing that side of it. And would this make metal detectors at schools a violation as well? I'm not sure I understand.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   
.
Perhaps America is getting past the hysteria about terrorism.

Many times more likely to die in an automobile accident.

Many Many times more likely to die of heart disease.

With Bush creating more terrorists in Iraq this may not last, but for now terrorism is a low probability death.
.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 02:48 AM
link   
perhaps they are disrarging the metal detectors as an excuse to mow down the crowds with assault rifles at the first sign of trouble... ?

what is most likely the case, they know nothing drastic will be attemped in the name of protest, there is nothing to fear from some harmless protestors, as long as they can lock them up indefinatly.

lets just see how many get arrested. the RNC had about 2000 arrests, metal detectors are for public saftey, like in the airport if you have the public being attack you lose busniss same at theme parks. the government would rather arrest us then waste money on metal detectors imo...



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   

"We cannot simply suspend or restrict civil liberties until the War of Terror is over, because the War on Terror is unlikely ever to be truly over. September 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country."


My faith in humanity has now been temporarily restored



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Going through metal detector is a breach of your freedoms?!?! What freedoms do metal detectors take away? If I'm not mistaken most knives and guns are made of metal. What do the protesters have to hide?



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
There's nothing to hide. If you read the article, last year 10,000 protestors were forced to go through one security gate. The protestors aren't even allowed on the grounds of the base, if so, they are arrested. The point is, anyone can go to where they are going at anytime, but the columbus officials wanted metal detectors there for the protestors. There's been a lot of stigma against protestors as a result of the Patriot Act. I'm glad to see the courts doing something about it.

By the way, that's the lamest excuse in the world, 'what do the protestors have to hide?'



posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
That's great
, it's about time they did something to prevent our rights from being taken away, as always, it could possibly lead to chaos if they passed more bills taking away our rights. Now it's time to put those rumors about the United States going under martial law to waste.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
What a great day for freedom! Now this can be used as a precedent for doing away with those pesky metal detectors at the airport. Sure, why not? And maybe it will show those overzealous workers who try to guard our borders that they have no right to question anyone who would cross our borders.

And I was aked to open my trunk at Logan airport a few weeks ago. Boy did I feel violated!


So what if an avoidable tragedy could possibly be averted. If it does happen, I can just blame Bush and Ashcroft for not protecting me.

I feel safer already.[/sarcasm]

:shk:



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I think you are taking this a little too far jsobecky.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
As one who flies regularly (I go to California every two months) I don't mind the metal detectors at airports, nor the luggage search (it's happened only once, in Atlanta), nor even taking off my shoes. I think that's quite alright.

However...

I think a line must be drawn somewhere. I think that asking demonstrators to go through metal detectors takes away part of the meaning of a demonstration - being able to exercise your freedoms and show you still have them.

jsobecky - you say this could be used as a precedent for doing away with security measures at airports. I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of happening, and it shouldn't. However, if the court had gone the other way and authorized the use of metal detectors at demonstrations, couldn't that be used as a precedent to further limit and curtail future demonstrations?

North American society is a society that doesn't know where to draw the line, in either way.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Laws like this are made to give the government more control.

Implimenting things like this is accepting that the terrorists have won. The fear they have created has eroded the rights of those in a 'democracy'. But the, we know who is really responsible for the fear don't we?



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Jsobecky the airports are a whole different matter, and for anybody that has never been in that particular base let me tell you, the base is in the middle of the town and the main highway pass across of it, you can enter the base from anywhere because is a training area and different trails are scattered all over along Side of the main highway.

Yes since 9/11 they were force to put cement dividers to stop traffic from going freely through the training areas and now they even have a gate to stop free traffic to the main post, but still you can enter from any trail if you really want to.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
HAAH Jsobecky you got 'em good! Metal detectors are not a breach of your freedom. Whne protesters are carrying signs comparing Bush to Hitler you can expect the authorities to be cautious. "If they're stupid enough to make that sign then they must be stupid enough break some windows or turn over a few cars"



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Verfed, do you even know what this protest is about? You don't seem to know, because this protest has been occuring long before Bush came into office. They started recently putting up the metal detectors. And I'm sure the reason they put them up was to protect the protestors that you are trying to insult!

Such hypocrisy...



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Hypocritical? What? Anyways this Court statement concerns all protests not just one.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
jsobecky - you say this could be used as a precedent for doing away with security measures at airports. I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of happening, and it shouldn't. However, if the court had gone the other way and authorized the use of metal detectors at demonstrations, couldn't that be used as a precedent to further limit and curtail future demonstrations?

The issues seem to be a direct infrigement upon the 4th amendment and an indirect curtailing of the 1st amendment, not the venue where they occur. So I think it is perfectly valid to use it as a precedent for airports, courthouses, and other such places.

Maybe someone can convince me that the constitution protects airports but not protest gatherings. So far, I don't see the difference.

And to answer your question, has the use of metal detectors at airports limited or curtailed air travel? No, it hasn't. So it is fair to assume that protests would not be affected, either.




posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by verfed
HAAH Jsobecky you got 'em good! Metal detectors are not a breach of your freedom. Whne protesters are carrying signs comparing Bush to Hitler you can expect the authorities to be cautious. "If they're stupid enough to make that sign then they must be stupid enough break some windows or turn over a few cars"


When we sacrifice an inch of freedom for a foot of security, then we deserve the miles of destruction ahead of us.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
It's not about curtailing the action itself. It's about people's right to privacy. The job of the courts is to interpret the constitution. As much as sooome people would like to look at everything in black & white, it simply doesn't exist that way. There are precedents for airports, courthouses, homes, businesses, public libraries, etc. etc. That's how the system works.

Once again, it's not black&white, we aren't computers here thinking of 1 and 0. We are humans and as humans we have reasoning abilities to have 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 etc. etc. Don't play the dope, you know the deal here...







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join