TSA Doing Random Truck Searches On Tennessee Highway 578
OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA is expanding its presence to the American road system. As part of its Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) program, TSA agents are now working at 5 weigh stations and two bus stations in Tennessee. They are randomly checking trucks with 'drug and bomb sniffing dogs', and encouraging truck drivers to join their First Observer Highway Security Program and report anything suspicious that they see to authorities. VIPR is allegedly not a response to any particular threat."
Wow. (Score:2)
wow.
Re: (Score:3)
though nothing happened in the last decade
Yeah, and all that time wasted rewriting code for Y2K! Nothing happened!
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
that analogy is irrelevant. one was a response to something we KNOW was going to happen BEFORE it happened (or rather didn't, due to the dilligent work of those that sought to prevent it), the other was a knee-jerk response to something that should have been spotted before it happened, but wasn't.
you can't say attacks have been prevented by the TSA's ball groping, and naked-scanning-irradiating-machines without some form of proof. considering the massive scale of abuses the TSA is committing, it'd better be solid proof of thousands of attacks directly foiled by ball-groping, otherwise it simply is not worth the sacrifice in freedom.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope our freedom was worth it.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The underlying reason 'slippery slope' arguments are considered a logical fallacy is that formal logic uses absolute formulas: ALL men are mortal - Socrates is a man - therefore Socrates is mortal. You can't use logic the same way starting from "MOST men are mortal". It's not considered a proper logical argument to say "If we take step E, we will inevitably eventually end up at Step Z". That doesn't mean it's illogical to argue that a series of events tends in a certain direction, or that it is at least po
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
The fact that there are more people whining about security at airports than dying in hijackings is a good thing. Because back when it was the other way around, that shit was whack.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean it was better back when more people were dying in airports than there were people whining about hijackings? I'm not so sure.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean it was better back when more people were dying in airports than there were people whining about hijackings? I'm not so sure.
When was that, actually?
No, seriously. No one's getting killed in the airports. There was one horrific day that no one sane wishes to see repeated. Without any change in security, the circumstances that allowed the attack to occur were gone: placid passengers who would quietly let themselves be highjacked.
More to your point, is it worth it to molest (or violate in another way) one million passengers to save one life? Because at best this is how much protection we are getting from this.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he must have meant back in the 70s or so. There was a time period when there was a lot of hijacking, relatively speaking. Then there was almost none for a long time. Then there was 911 and everyone invented a lot of largely irrational security safeguards. If you secure the cockpit door, it becomes almost impossible to hijack a plane. The most you can do is blow one up, and that involves killing fewer people than you would kill if you blew up a bomb at a medium-sized high school sporting event.
Which makes the TSA, mostly, a massive way of pumping money into the economy. I don't mind a few of those--it's good to keep people employed--but we should have them employed in a productive way, rather than one which makes the system less efficient. Put them on environmental projects, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
And we've seen this time and time again from the shoe bomber to the underpants bomber, people reacted quickly to neutralize the threat.
And those two had the right idea for taking down a plane - an instantaneous, devastating attack that gives other passengers no time to react. Luckily both botched their bomb design.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How I can I prove a negative? If a terrorist planned on taking over a plane, then abandoned the plan once he saw the security line at the airport, how would anyone know? I, for one, used to carry plastic weapons on planes for self defense. Now, I don't, because I don't want to get caught. I agree the security is too much, but there's no way of knowing what was prevented.
Yeah...because a terrorist would have seen a gigantic security line at the airport and thought, "damnit, my plan is foiled!" instead of taking the opportunity of the high density of people to start killing them right there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Job program. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are only so many TSA people you can fit inside an airport.
Let's hire MORE and put them to work ... checking TRUCKS! And buses, yeah! Because that's where the terrorists will strike next.
In the year 2035, 51% of the population will be employed by the DHS/TSA to watch/search the other 49%.
Re:Job program. (Score:5, Insightful)
An Israeli security expert, maybe Rafi Sela, said it's a mistake to put threat assessment and security implementation in the same organization. Do that, and it starts inventing reasons why it should grow.
Re: (Score:2)
So let the Israelis do the threat assessment and the Palestinians implement security, and the problem in that part of the world won't grow?
Re:Job program. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
They do all sorts of profiling all right -- where it makes sense. There aren't all that many suicide bombers with, say, nordic features.
But there are Nordic gunmen who like to use bombs, so that's perhaps an invalid argument.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/08/14/norway-gunman-visit.html [www.cbc.ca]
Re:Job program. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it sounds like it's actually been quite successful, just as the TSA airport searches have been successful. People keep saying "but they haven't caught any terrorists!" and "they failed to catch several bombs!", but who cares? That's not the reason for the TSA's existence. The TSA's purpose is to help prosecute the Drug War, and they're doing a pretty good job at that, as they've caught lots of people transporting drugs. This is good because then these people can be thrown into private prisons, and those prisons make more profit, part of which they can give to various politicians in bags handed under the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Time for a regime change.
Re: (Score:3)
"Lisa, I want to buy your rock!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
DRIVING IS ABSOLUTELY A RIGHT.
To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
One of the arguments the Federalists gave against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution by implication. For example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
The power is not enumerated as a power of congress, so the TSA can't do it legally, so it is our right. Don't let that stop you from being a living breathing argument against the Bill of Rights though.
That potential misunderstanding of the US Constitution is why the ninth and tenth amendments had to be added. They expected the government to say to people "hey that's not in the Bill of Righ
wtf? (Score:2)
drudge report (Score:2)
I am almost sure now that this site is just a mirror of drudge.
What happened to the constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom to travel not something we have anymore?
Should I be carrying my papers?
At what point do we tell these assholes to fuck off? This is one government department that needs to be shutdown.
Re:What happened to the constitution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Agent: What citizenship are you? me: US...i didn't cross any border... Agent:Where you going?
me: San Diego
Agent: Where you coming from?
me:Phoenix
Agent: Where do you live?
me: Phoenix
Agent: Didnt you just come from El Centro?
me: well yeah...passed through it driving here... (ohyou.jpg)
Agent: How long you staying?
me: 3 days
Agent: You have anything in the trunk I should know about?
me: nope
Agent: 3 days and no clothes?
me: its in the trunk
Agent: I thought you said there's nothing in the trunk...(trollface.jpg)
I didn't sign up for this bullshit...Being treated like an ass, as if it is a priviledge to travel within my own fucking home country and prove I'm not some terrorist to everyone with a uniform.
Re:What happened to the constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah.... I play a different game with those fuckers.
Agent: What citizenship are you?
Me: The one on my drivers license.
Agent: Where you coming from?
Me: Where I have been.
Agent: Where do you live?
me: Where I came from.
Agent: Didnt you just come from El Centro?
me: I don't know.
Agent: El Centro is where you just came from.
Me: Then why did you ask?
Agent: How long you staying where you going?
me: I don't know yet.
Agent: How could you not know?
Me: It depends.
Agent: On what?
Me: On what happens when I get there
Agent: You have anything in the trunk I should know about?
Me: I have no idea.
Agent: You don't know what is in your trunk?
Me: No, I know what is in my trunk more or less.
Agent: Then is there anything I should know about?
Me: I don't know who you are or what your job description *is* so that is impossible to answer.
This goes on till one of two things happen. A tazer or they just get frustrated and let me go.
Re:What happened to the constitution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Officer: "Have you had anything to drink tonight?"
Me: "No."
Officer: "Where are you going?"
Me: "That needn't concern you."
Officer: "Pull over to the side and park your vehicle and get out your papers, now!"
After producing my papers and waiting over half an hour while they no doubt looked for any possible way to arrest/ticket me, I was released. There was no cause to detain me, other than my refusal to reveal my destination (as is my right). It is odd, but not at all unusual anymore, that the government should exercise its power over individuals for asserting their rights.
Re:What happened to the constitution? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a close friend that is a medically discharged veteran that is now fighting MS. He was pulled off a Greyhound bus put up against a wall with 2 TSA "agents" keeping him at gun point with M4 carbines with the safety off. For no real reason, seems like they were just looking for drugs on the bus.
When asked if he saw anything suspicious, he said he had indeed seen something off being in the US. Some guys with black caps behaving weirdly. When he was asked to describe them further, he described the TSA agents themselves. They weren't too pleased when he told them this was not what he had fought and came back disabled for.
I can fully understand drug searches, and to some extent support it. But you do NOT pull people off a bus, put them up against the wall and aim weapons at them.
I'm sure having people exit the bus, sit down on the sidewalk and have your weapons at low ready would be just as useful as the above and far less disrespectful and scarring than the above.
Re:What happened to the constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm saying this nicely, as a person from another country, yes, you are signing up for it, because you do nothing.
Blind Freddy can see you are in a police state, and it's getting worse by the day. The fate of the USA is inevitable.
So, what are YOU going to do about it?
Interesting isn't it.
Re: (Score:3)
The time when I noticed it most clearly was recently flying back from a trip in Europe. The airline screening there is about the level the US screening was in the 90's - efficient, pleasant, and necessary. Coming back into the US felt like entering a prison camp - it was very odd. If you don't travel - like many Americans - then you don't really notice it much unless you live in a border state.
Most of the populace is so stupid and lethargic now that it's not really even worth the effort to try to change it
Re:What happened to the constitution? (Score:4)
Here's the only thing that should come out of your lips when you are stopped on a non-border crossing:
Am I being detained or am I free to go?
repeat several times.
If they mention anything about searching your vehicle say you know your 4rth and 5th ammendment rights and you do not conscent to any searches.
Then go back to repeating the first phrase.
Re:What happened to the constitution? (Score:5, Informative)
They're USCBP / DHS. They don't have to give a badge number and are by and large above the law. You have no Fourth Amendment rights against them since according to the Government, CBP can do suspicionless searches under the "border search" exemption anywhere within 100 miles of the border (which of course includes most populated areas of the United States). The ACLU calls it the Constitution-Free Zone [aclu.org] and if you don't like it, you might want to consider donating as they're trying to fight it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
These are freight trucks used in commerce -- commonly 18-wheel trailer trucks (American version of container trucks), which are required to weigh in at weight stations at certain intervals on their trip. They are often used for smuggling, which was why the weigh station system was built. They are adding more checks to the process, perhaps not because they think they'll catch anyone outright, but because the knowledge of improved operations will deter those who wish to take advantage of this transport system
Re:What happened to the constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
...which was why the weigh station system was built.
This is not true. States have weight limits. Mostly based on the amount of tonnage allowable per axle. They have these for safety, and road maintenance. Smuggling has nothing to do with it, as a weigh station would be useless for finding it, unless your smuggling tons of material. How would a weigh station even detect smuggling? A lot of times trucks aren't weighed upon leaving the terminal, unless it is to measure compliance with local laws about load weight. And truck weight is highly variable too. So if a truck left the depot weighing X (there is no requirement as far as I know to report this to the state, if this measurement is even taken), and ends up at a station weighing X+1, that weight could even fuel, oil, the trucker purchasing souvenirs, a hitchhiker, a passenger, mud stuck to the chassis, etc...
Re: (Score:3)
Let me be the first to say it: "Heil Obama!"
First Bushtard, now this two-faced fascist is carrying on the previous administrations descent to a police state.
Re: (Score:3)
So are you voting for the right person for this job [cbsnews.com]?
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. I called bullshit on the air travel thing too. This is an argument made by tyrants and their asshole lackeys.
Re: (Score:3)
the searches are random, meaning that theoretically every single path in all of the USA is covered.
your argument is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No one forces you to keep closed containers in your home.
No one forces you to draw your curtains.
No one forces you to NOT install these convenient transparent walls.
Re: (Score:2)
No one forces you to live outside our sanctioned government community safety dormitories.
Re: (Score:2)
No, please stop parroting what the department of motor vehicles drones on about. Driving is *NOT* a "privilege". It is a *right*, as it obviously should be because my tax money is used to create and maintain the roads. *HOWEVER*, just like most other rights, they can be taken from me for just cause.
Courts hold driving is a right, not a privilege (Score:5, Informative)
Drving, despite what the DMV and the police would have you believe, is a right well-established by both law and court decision. Yes, the police are lying to you as they overreach their authority, shocking I know.
Cites follow, the reasoning is roughly this. A citizen cannot participate in modern society without the use of an automobile. Public transportation only covers a minor portion of the geography of the US. Bicycles and walking cannot cover the routine distances involved in modern life. On the other hand, driving is a dangerous activity with significant hazards to the public at large, thus the right to "Life," balances against the right to "Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Personally, I hope the TSA does expand to random traffic stops. I hope they start impementing strip searches for walking down the sidewalk. I want them to set up shop at the OWS rally near you. The faster they can provoke a full-out general revolt against their nonsense, the happier I'll be.
Here are the court decisions I promised you:
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
""Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. "
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of lo
Re:Courts hold driving is a right, not a privilege (Score:4, Insightful)
I beg to differ. A very good friend is approaching her thirtieth birthday and does not have a driver's license. The overwhelming majority of her transport is by walking or by train or bus, and she lives in Dallas, where public transportation is decent but not great. She travels as a passenger in a car with friends sometimes, but to my knowledge has never been in the driver's seat of a vehicle with the engine running. She has an active social life and is out with or at the homes of friends about half of her evenings.
There are also cities like Chicago and New York that have excellent public transportation. I spent a week in New York as a tourist and except for a couple of journeys down to southern New Jersey when friends drove, I felt little need to even use a cab, let alone rent a car.
As to your quotes, nothing there suggests to me a right to drive. A right to use the public roads is not a right to drive, but a right to travel along them in a legal manner. This may be as a licensed driver or as a passenger in a car, bus, or cab. In some cases, it includes other methods such as bicycle, walking, or even horse-drawn buggy or horseback. Driving is a privilege and has been recognized as such by the courts. For example, in John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept of Public Safety, a federal court specified as much.
You have the right to travel. You do not have the right to drive.
Re: (Score:3)
"A right to use the public roads is not a right to drive, but a right to travel along them in a legal manner."
Guess what? Most major roads prohibit travel by foot or non-motorized vehicles, especially interstates.
Which makes your entire argument moot.
Fine, but few rights are absolute (Score:3)
A right is something you have the privilege to do within the bounds of constitutional law, a thing in which no other citizen can discriminate against you or prevent you from doing, nor the government where it acts as an employer, a buyer of goods, etc. A liberty is generally something the government cannot prevent you from doing, under almost any circumstances
Re: (Score:3)
Really? I'd guess at least 50% of the people I work with don't have a car, and don't use one with any kind of regularity. They appear to participate in modern society just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit answer. When society chops up world into roads, making it almost impossible to get any where accept by those roads. (and yes, it is illegal to walk along an interstate), then things are way past any argument of privilege. It's bordering on necessity. Saying that driving is a privilege, is paramount to accepting a police state.
Why bother with a 4th amendment at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why bother with a 4th amendment at all (Score:5, Informative)
We say that because it's the ideals that were taught us in grade school, and espoused by the founding fathers. We are roughly as appalled by this as you are, but feel that there's almost nothing we can do about it. Compound this with about half the country feeling directly opposite of us, and clamoring for more paranoia, it's very frustrating. I feel nervous even writing this, and yes I realize that is a bad sign.
Re:Why bother with a 4th amendment at all (Score:5, Insightful)
By "about half the country feeling directly opposite of us" I have to assume you are talking about the more conservative part of the country. I guess I need to remind you that this program is being put in place and run by the liberals. The fact is, neither end of the political spectrum lack people willing to stomp on the rights of their countrymen to advance their political agendas and consolidate power. Until we get over the "left vs right" paradigm and focus on a "right vs wrong" paradigm this kind of crap will prevail no matter which party is in power.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean how the Egyptians made things ten times worse? Look, as Americans we have a very special reset button that will have a greater chance at working than most reset buttons. But it's just that, a RESET button. There is no guarantee that what comes after will be better, and doing so will destroy an untold number of lives. There's no going back once pressed, so we would rather be damned sure when pressing it.
Our Congress didn't Care... (Score:2)
As soon as "9/11 happened" I wrote to my congress critter and asked them _NOT_ to consider or pass any legislation in response to the attack.
I got a letter back "assuring" me that congress was working as hard and as fast as possible to do _exactly_ what I begged them not to do.
Dear Rest Of The World:
Next time you decided to deport all your religious wackos, please do not send them all to one place. It weakens the gene pool. If you'd sent us some of those criminals you sent down under to dilute the wacjobber
Their mission (Score:3)
I'm not quite sure how that meets their mission:
The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.
Then again, I'm not sure how much of what they do furthers their mission. It would seem that most of the things they do actually restrict freedom of movement.
Re:Their mission (Score:5, Informative)
How about this mission statement:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Welcome, Comrades! (Score:2)
Wrong, Comrade! You are so wrong! They are pro-actively protecting us from the imminent threats of massive total destruction by terrorists from Eurasia and Eastasia [wikipedia.org]!
Welcome, Comrades!
Welcome to the Glorious Union of Soviet Corporatist Republics!
Maybe I'll call... (Score:2)
"Yes, I witnessed some people dressed in TSA uniforms at a weigh station, and I suspect they may be impostors. Could you send some agents over to check the situation?"
It is a response to a very specific threat. (Score:5, Insightful)
VIPR is allegedly not a response to any particular threat
The threat is very clear - budget cuts. With Osama gone, Al Qaeda a thin shadow of its former self (which was really never much to begin with) and no significant acts of terrorism for the last 10 years, the TSA and the DHS are in jeopardy of being pared back to a size much more appropriate to the risk -- i.e. practically nothing.
If they don't remind us to be scared, who will?
Occupied Country (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Occupied Country (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to be a little more straightforward than the ACs:
Read a fucking book.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So? He's got a few good ideas along with a lot of nutty ones. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US federal budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion for the third year in a row. Ron Paul proposes $1 trillion in cuts to end the madness, and dumbass Americans think he's on the nutty end.
I'm just waiting for the next US credit rating downgrade.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, Love Canal. Where a chemical company sold, under protest and for a nominal fee, a waste dump to a municipal government, explicitly noting the waste was there. Said government then proceeded to treat the dump in various stupid ways, releasing the waste. And then they sued the chemical company over it.
Tyranny (Score:5, Informative)
This is the thin leading wedge of tyranny. Everyone involved in the decision making process of this program, starting with Mr. Bill Gibbons, should be fired and banned from Government employment for life, as they have shown themselves as being clearly unworthy of the public trust.
"I heard... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't beat'em, pretend to be relevant (Score:5, Insightful)
My father drove trucks here for years through Tennessee, and I don't even need to ask him whether he thinks this is a ridiculous waste of time and taxpayer dollars. Every minute they waste off the road is money from their pockets. Especially when in many cases you leave the truck running during all of this bullshit in order to pull it to the various road markers for different pointless checks.
They will likely never find a single truck carrying anything of federal importance. All they'll do is use it for catching things which the THP or other federal agencies should already be handling, like catching drugs, and add one more level of red tape to the honest hard-working people.
Likelihood (Score:5, Insightful)
"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.
I wonder, has the TSA ever found a real terrorist? Except from their employees, that is. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not aware of any confirmed instances of a detained bomber at airport security. All the stories come from the ones that have slipped past. Luckily, there were post-9/11 Americans on board are aren't willing to put up with this shit anymore, and every attempt at terrorism in the sky has been thwarted by the passengers.
Re: (Score:2)
They stop about 100 guns a month from being carried on planes by passengers.
Uncontrolled search and seizure (Score:5, Insightful)
Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart.
Justice Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials
There's a perfectly good explanation... (Score:2)
Welcome (Score:2)
Remember (Score:2)
First they came for the airline passengers... (Score:4, Insightful)
and I was told I just shouldn't fly on airplanes.
Then they came for the truck drivers in Tennessee...
and I was told I just shouldn't drive trucks in Tennessee.
Then...
Don't people know this is a Godwin's Law offense? (Score:3)
This poem was the poignant reflection of a German theologian who was actually very humble and self-effacing in his phrasing. He supported Hitler initially but became disillusioned with the totalitarianism of the National Socialists (Nazis) somewhat quickly and spearheaded a group of German clergy who opposed the party. Most of the group caved, but he stayed the course and was finally arrested in 1937. He spent the rest o
Re: (Score:3)
GP is the single best and most on-topic modification of the original that I've ever seen. You, sir, can go screw yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
... and please consider saving it for more extreme situations.
When would be appropriate, in your opinion? When the damage is already done and there's nobody to listen? The Nazi's didn't START by gassing Jews and invading Poland, you fucking idiot. The guy wrote the poem to illustrate that evil starts small, and needs to be stopped early. Are you seriously suggesting that we wait until it's too powerful to stop, and THEN start complaining about it?
I don't think I've ever read anything so blatantly stupid.
They're just handing out cult literature (Score:2)
They just know they're out there! Surely someone has seen one? Checked in the back? Under the axles, sometimes they latch on, start chewing on the power lines.
Aw, c'mon, man, give me a break, I have to catch three more terrorists this month or I don't make my rent. Look,just point at some brown-lookin' trucker y
Nightwatch? (Score:3)
First Observer Highway Security Program an report anything suspicious that they see to authorities.
Mr. Welles, is that you? This whole thing was President Clark's idea wasn't it?
Are participants required to wear black armbands?
This will probay get me on the watch list but in my opinion President Clark is nothing but a Shadow puppet.
Voting (Score:4, Insightful)
Does jack squat any more. I watch as these Occupy people sit around and sing songs, people up at the capital sing slogans, and they expect things are going to change.
Not gonna happen. If you had the ability to print an infinite amount of money and give it to your friends and yourself, would you give up that sort of power and influence?
You certainly would! Right before you nuke every major city on the globe!
So this whole crapola thing with the TSA isn't going to go away without a real nasty revolution.
No way are the people who have that power going to step aside. They will put a terrorist boogey man in every place they can. If they can't they will nuke a city, and tell you if you don't give us complete control, another "terrorist" will nuke another city.
This is way out of control of the voting booth now.
I would seriously consider having a plan in place to leave the country sooner than later.
Because, if history is any guide, the next thing TSA will be doing is preventing any people from leaving the country, while of course if you are illegal, fine no problem.
There is a definite agenda here, and it is has nothing to do with terrorists that much is for sure.
-Hack.
Back to Reality (Score:2)
"We're calling it, the Knightwatch."
"Be a Government Informer. Betray Your Family & Friends. Fabulous Prizes to be Won"?
Papers, please. (Score:2)
Welcome to the Korporate States of Amerika.
Constitution-Free Zone (Score:5, Interesting)
Last I checked, Tennessee was further than 100 miles from the national border [aclu.org].
Or are they including foreign embassies and Native American territories in the US as right-to-search borders now? And of the former, I don't just mean static buildings but also ambassadorial mobile vehicles. Want to search without a warrant? Invite a foreign ambassador to visit a nearby county.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're within 100 miles of an airport with an international terminal and customs, then you're within 100 miles of the "border". I've built a map using Google showing these radii, for those interested.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7877280@N05/6266115249/in/photostream [flickr.com]
So it's not the majority of the country, but it's a big chunk of it. And all of this land falls under the TSA's direction. Welcome to your shiny new police state.
Osama Must Be Happy Now (Score:3)
See http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-02/ff_stasi [wired.com]
As we say, Stasi "is TSA." Anagram-wise.
Re: (Score:2)
Just remember, when they ask for your papers - don't run, otherwise they will shoot you in the back.
Re: (Score:3)
They won't find bombs, but they may find drugs. IIRC, it wasn't the original purpose of the TSA to be another DEA. A few good busts and you may be stuck with them, violating more liberties every day, all in the name of fighting "terrorism".
Re: (Score:2)
It is simple economics: supply and demand. If there is a demand someone will supply that demand. No morals o
Re: (Score:3)
This is at weigh stations.
Right now it is. Last week, it wasn't. Next week, who knows. We already get stopped for border searches nowhere near the border, and the supreme court continues to abrogate its responsibility to uphold our rights. This is a classic textbook example of the slippery slope.