In today's news...

[Tassadar]

Re: In today's news...

You must be registered to see the links

Are the laws discussed in this article real? Strip-searches for minor arrests? Someone please tell me this is sensationalism... but at the same time it doesn't surprise me considering what the TSA gets away with.

Yes, they're quite real. It's not quite as bad as that article implies in practice.... Yet. At least not all the time. But it's getting there, and I'm looking for countries to emigrate to after graduation because of it.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: In today's news...

Well then... that is terrifying.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: In today's news...

Well, in all honesty how can the police be sure you're not carrying a weapon unless they strip-search you? I'm not saying I completely agree with them, but I'd rather not be stuck in a cell with a knife wielding maniac that still has his knife because he was picked up on a traffic charge and the police weren't allowed to thorougly search him... Is what I might have said previously.

However, with the timing of these laws it's not even a question of what they're trying to achieve, they're rapidly scrambling to fortify their positions of power before any large amount of people stop and think "Hey, our system of government IS SHIT, it has been for a long time. But NOW we have the tools (just think, you could vote on laws on your smartphone) to build one that is truly democratic, fuck this system let's take everyone up on capital hill out of power and make a better one".

The USA has been saying "We are at war, we are at war" for so long I can't remember when we weren't. And they're right that we are at war, but the prize isn't some oil buried in the desert, or the saftey of our citizens, it's our very souls these sons of bitches want. And untill the people of this nation wake up and realize the gravity of what's happening we're all fucked.

But guess what kiddies? It's not going to end in the USA, to think that is foolish, when they see the effectiveness of these techniques in turing those who would resist into compliant, mindless drones other countries across the world will start to employ them. Maybe not as quickly, just letting them creep in while you pay attention to whatever some dipshit on the news who reads whatever's on the teleprompter tells you. So if you think running away is going to save you, sadly you are mistaken.

The only recourse is to resist. No I'm not talking about rallies, or "peacefull protests" I'm talking about sending a message that can't be mistaken, forgotten or misconstrued, find every last one of these megolomaniacal tyrants and kill them.

tl;dr Slicer want live on the moon

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: In today's news...

Splicer, do you star as a villain in the next Rainbow Six game?

And there are plenty of ways to make sure someone doesn't have a weapon without stripping them naked... if they have a knife up their asshole then they probably have bigger concerns then stabbing someone.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: In today's news...

Splicer, do you star as a villain in the next Rainbow Six game?

Yeah, there are probably alot a glaring similarities if Mr. Clancey hasn't decided to go with the whole religious fanatacist route (thought I'll admit that tom clancey games are just too frustrating for me to play, so I wouldn't actually know).

Unfortunately terrorists have become synonomous with anyone that doesn't agree with the unwholesome leadership we face (at least in the US), and the idea that their end goals are to creat chaos, spread fear, and cause as much damage as possible to whatever possible. And in fact, some of the US' greatest heroes, our founding fathers, would have to be called terrorists by the current use of the word. But their goals weren't anywhere near close, as I've been taught by my history book, made in the USA btw.

Now, I'm not saying that I should be considered on the same level as someone like George Washington, simply that the term terrorist is far too general in who it can be used to describe, and too rigid in what to expect of that person or group's actions. I don't want to kill millions of people to spread fear and pain. I want to cause change, in the only way I can see having any effect. Because time and again our "leaders" have shown us that they just don't give a shit what we want, and any lesser acts of resistance will be ignored or be punished.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

Yeah, there are probably alot a glaring similarities if Mr. Clancey hasn't decided to go with the whole religious fanatacist route (thought I'll admit that tom clancey games are just too frustrating for me to play, so I wouldn't actually know).

Unfortunately terrorists have become synonomous with anyone that doesn't agree with the unwholesome leadership we face (at least in the US), and the idea that their end goals are to creat chaos, spread fear, and cause as much damage as possible to whatever possible. And in fact, some of the US' greatest heroes, our founding fathers, would have to be called terrorists by the current use of the word. But their goals weren't anywhere near close, as I've been taught by my history book, made in the USA btw.

Now, I'm not saying that I should be considered on the same level as someone like George Washington, simply that the term terrorist is far too general in who it can be used to describe, and too rigid in what to expect of that person or group's actions. I don't want to kill millions of people to spread fear and pain. I want to cause change, in the only way I can see having any effect. Because time and again our "leaders" have shown us that they just don't give a shit what we want, and any lesser acts of resistance will be ignored or be punished.

The organized targeting of noncombatants (civilians) to inspire general fear and disorder in an asymmetrical conflict in an attempt to achieve one's political agenda is what distinguishes terrorists from other criminals and/or military organizations. By that definition, radical elements of the "Sons of Liberty" might well be considered terrorists -- they tarred and feathered officials and representatives of His Majesty's government on multiple occasions. On the other hand, these acts were primarily an action taken by angry mobs, lacking strong unified leadership. This was a day and age in which centralized leadership with immediate communication was unheard of.

I think it's important to draw a line between the "Sons of Liberty" and the "Founding Fathers" of the American Colonists and, eventually, Revolution. Certainly that line was marred on more than one occasion, but by and large the Continental Congress was primarily aimed at a peaceful resolution with Parliament and the King. It was only after several rebuffs and what essentially boiled down to a declaration of war by the King (in response to the conciliatory "Olive Branch Petition") that the Congress resolved to draft and consider the Declaration of Independence.

This is the body of people that you're comparing to modern terrorists, such as al-Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf. Al-Qaeda leadership (centralized and employing modern communication methods) has deliberately set about acts of mass murder upon American civilians, stamping out thousands of lives in the process. This is a comparison that should not lightly be suggested. I think you're completely wrong.

As someone who works for our elected officials (primarily POTUS) I want to remind everyone of the significant gap between terrorist, military and criminal. I am concerned about this new law: the ability to strip-search on any arrest seems extreme. On the other hand, police officers are people just like me. I believe that the majority of law enforcement officials in this country are basically good people who aim to "serve and protect," and if this law is necessary to ensure that more of them are able to come home to their families at the end of the day, then so be it.

tl;dr Besides, in the end it always comes down to how much money you can afford to spend on your lawyer. Those that know the system can normally beat the system.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: In today's news...

I'd like to hear what a British history book has to say on the subject. As we all know, history belongs to the victor.

However I think you misunderstand my meaning, I was attempting to show that how the word is currently used can be to descibe people whos actions are not even remotely close to those of modern terrorists. Though it looks like I failed...

And lastly, I'm supposed to allow myself to be degraded and humiliated so somone else can be ABSOLOUTLEY SURE that I'm not carrying a fuckin rocket launcher in my pants? I don't think so. It would be far more reasonable if there were stipulations placed on this, like it only applied to those with a history of violent offenses or mental disorders, as it stands an officer of the law can pull me over for a broken headlight, take me down to the station and strip me down WITH NO REASON WHATSOEVER. I too would like to believe that our law enforement professionals won't abuse this, but unsupervised power breeds corruption.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

I hardly consider nudity to be the worst offense a penal system can inflict, or even close. Before joining the military we are required to disrobe and spread our cheeks for non-tactile examination. I would object more strenuously to the possibility (sometimes inevitability) of beatings and rape, but these abuses, epidemics of most penal systems, are not so vehemently protested.

And as I said, I also question the need for this law. I agree that it could use more controls and stipulations. Even so, if I were to spend a night behind bars I might just sleep sounder knowing that everyone had been processed and checked for weaponry. I don't think this should be compared to Nazi Germany and I think this law, while perhaps absurd, is not worth the attention it has garnered from the media.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: In today's news...

This is just for going into a holding cell. Not for going into the penal system.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

Again, though... if I were to get shit-faced (which, let's face it, can occur on occasion) and I spent the night with the other drunks and meth-heads, it would probably be good to know that nobody in there had a weapon. I've been stopped by police on many occasions for less serious offenses (taillights, running red lights, speeding, etc) and never once has one of them even suggested that I might be placed under arrest. The only situation I've heard of where an acquaintance of mine was placed in a holding cell was if they were DUI (driving under the influence) or under the influence of illegal drugs.

If you're getting a DUI, chances are you've got much more to be worried about than momentary nudity. If you've got a taillight out, I seriously doubt you've got to worry about arrest.

As enjoyable as this is, we seem to be dominating this discussion -- I'm going to head to bed and see if anyone else cares to weigh in.

 

[Nunu]

Re: In today's news...

I think the main point is that this law and ones like it are perfectly reasonable if everyone uses it as intended. The problem only arises if it turns out that police officers are douchbags and decide that the hot chick who was speeding may be carrying a concelead weapon in her pants (i'm sure even in such circumstances it is performed by female officers but still). given that this all rose out of someone being strip searched twice for having an unpaid parking fine (i think he was black though so that makes it all legit... right?), that situation is one small step away from happening, or more likely already has.

At the end of the day giving police the laws they need to do their jobs perfectly requires laws that need subjective judments and there will always be people who abuse those judements. Theoreticaly a solution would be to have increased accountability for poor judgements but then that only flips the tables making police scared of doing their jobs.

I dont think there is a right answer other than to make people better... and we all saw how well that turned out.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: In today's news...

I hardly consider nudity to be the worst offense a penal system can inflict, or even close. Before joining the military we are required to disrobe and spread our cheeks for non-tactile examination. I would object more strenuously to the possibility (sometimes inevitability) of beatings and rape, but these abuses, epidemics of most penal systems, are not so vehemently protested.

This isn't just for penal systems though. And seriously, you guys just have large cells for groups of people that aren't going to proper prison? Up here even holding cells for the night are mostly individualized.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

I think the main point is that this law and ones like it are perfectly reasonable if everyone uses it as intended. The problem only arises if it turns out that police officers are douchbags and decide that the hot chick who was speeding may be carrying a concelead weapon in her pants (i'm sure even in such circumstances it is performed by female officers but still). given that this all rose out of someone being strip searched twice for having an unpaid parking fine (i think he was black though so that makes it all legit... right?), that situation is one small step away from happening, or more likely already has.

I agree with everything you've said, except I will point out that the original victim that everyone keeps talking about was being arrested for an outstanding warrant, an offense that landed him in jail for six days (so not simply a minor traffic violation). Unfortunately in his case, the warrant had been already dealt with -- it was an administrative error.

And seriously, you guys just have large cells for groups of people that aren't going to proper prison? Up here even holding cells for the night are mostly individualized.

It varies by the jail, but yes we do. Sadly one of the difficulties our law enforcement faces is an occasional abundance of petty lawbreakers, especially on occasions like St. Patty's Day when people can get a little crazy while under the influence.

 

[Unnatural Kiwi]

Re: In today's news...

Again, though... if I were to get shit-faced (which, let's face it, can occur on occasion) and I spent the night with the other drunks and meth-heads, it would probably be good to know that nobody in there had a weapon. I've been stopped by police on many occasions for less serious offenses (taillights, running red lights, speeding, etc) and never once has one of them even suggested that I might be placed under arrest. The only situation I've heard of where an acquaintance of mine was placed in a holding cell was if they were DUI (driving under the influence) or under the influence of illegal drugs.

If you're getting a DUI, chances are you've got much more to be worried about than momentary nudity. If you've got a taillight out, I seriously doubt you've got to worry about arrest.

Those traffic citations you mentioned aren't arrestable offenses anyway. If you had a no SDL (state driver's license) charge for example along with that then there's the possibility of going to jail. A DUI or DDI, yeah you're going to jail.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

I read the news today... oh boy...

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Rule 34]

Re: In today's news...

So Anders Behring Breivik, the guy that killed 77 people in Norway, claims

You must be registered to see the links

.
... I got nothing.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

So Anders Behring Breivik, the guy that killed 77 people in Norway, claims

You must be registered to see the links

.
... I got nothing.

Gotta love the crazies.

 

[lurker]

Re: In today's news...

So Anders Behring Breivik, the guy that killed 77 people in Norway, claims

You must be registered to see the links

.
... I got nothing.

...I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: In today's news...

Actually I love this entire article just for this one quote

"We of course understand that that will not succeed, but we are obliged to present his arguments."

What the fuck, his own lawyer can comment that they're going to lose with that defensive before they even start? Why the fuck can't we do that?

 

[Wonderboy]

Re: In today's news...

I really respect his lawyer actually, no-one wanted to be his lawyer, and it's not really good pay. Then this guy goes out and says that "Everyone deserves a lawyer, it's part of our democracy." As for pleading self- defense, crazy people be crazy...

Personally, I think the Norwegian laws are too timid... They're the international equivalent of the teacher saying she will have a dialogue with the parents of the bully beating kids bloody in the schoolyard...

Just do a search for Norwegian prisons on Google...