What Exactly is Terrorism?

[Travis In Austin]

As far as I know, political correctness is not part of law enforcement.

I suppose you never waited in those TSA lines in the airport? Never read-up on the outcry against "racial profiling?"

How does all that connect? Racial profiling is against the law as a violation of equal protection.

Not in an airport it isn't or within 50 miles of a border by a customs on border official.

So are you saying the 14 th amendment doesn't apply there? Or, by simple practicality all the people at the southern border are Mexican?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

You can profile people at an airport. There is clear case law on that. I guess you never watched Miami Vice. They can sniff your luggage, check your bags, decide who gets a more extensive search. It was commonplace in the mints after 9/11.

Have you ever driven theough the immigration inspection coming back from TJ, or an AG inspection into California, or back from Vegas. Those are "border" crossing inspection stations. The Rhenquist Court, and way before, said LE could develop profiles to select whose car gets pulled out of line for a full inspection.

Away from an airport or border it is absolutely illegal to pull a vehicle over or stop someone based on profiling. In addition, "he fit the profile" is no longer a means to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Notice that the lifting of 4th Amendment in these areas is for pragmatic purposes. It seems that the Supreme Court, when it is of a mind to do so, can set aside the desire for political correctness when it comes to accomplishing important purposes.

You know better than that. I bet I could call up my good friend Professor Dix and he would say that he has had a section on border searchs starting with the 1st Edition.

I think the ohrase you are looking for is "reasonable expectation of privacy" not "political correctness." Deciding where you have it, and where you don't doesn't have anything to do with politics or race. If you have it, and where, has everything to do with liberty.

When I grew up we had that, those were the days.

 

You and I are both well-educated in the law and readily capable of parsing through the rhetoric in order to see what's really going on.  Why do you think airports and borders are so special that we are allowed to engage in racial profiling?  I bet you don't need any hints.

 

Now, let's take this logic for what it really is.  Law enforcement is allowed to racially profile people in airports and near borders.  That's right, racially profile.  Why?  Does this have to do with expectations of privacy?  You wouldn't be insinuating that at airports, Muslims have different expectations than Caucasians?  Nor would you suggest that Mexicans have different expectations of privacy than Whites when they are within so many miles of a border.  

 

Nope.  It has to do with efficiency.  There is too much processing that would have to be done in order to maintain a "politically correct" a/k/a "racially neutral" search protocol.  Thus, political correctness must be set aside so law enforcement can do a better job.

 

True or false?

 

P.S.  I had Dix for Crim Law II.  He was a good professor.

I had a 50% chance you had Dix your first year, and about a 100% chance that you used the Dawson & Dix casebook, that is why I dropped the name.

He is a great man, I have used him in cases as an expert, (he helped me get the first improper photography statute in Texad held unconstitutional). I have had him at parties at my house and students he had 20 or 30 years ago just flock to him, and 99% of the time he would say their name before they could even try and remind him.

He thinks on a level that is just astounding.

It has been ages since I looked at the legal specifics of border searches. The cases that come mind are Carroll, I think bootlegging near Canada and the one that is recited constantly is Almedia Sanchez, that 20 miles away from the border and being hispanic isn't enough to justify stopping a vehicle. A checkpoint is a completely different matter.

In thinking about it, I don't think a search at a port of entry like a border or airpirt by customs implicates the 4th Amendment. My very vague recollection is that these are considered "reasonable" searches by statute. As you are well aware, the 4th Amendment protects unreasonable searches and seizures. I don't think they even had to enter a reasonableness analysis for a border or customs search.

I seem to recall where their might be some difficulty with a strip, body cavity or other invasive search and what, if any, standard would be required. I can't remember where that went.

So neither the 4th or the 14th Amendment apply to a detention for a reasonable length of time or a reasonable search.

They can pick you out for the long delay for any reason, or no reason. They can chose to stop only Muslim sounding names, people coming in from Columbia with no luggage, only blacks, only whites, everybody, nobody, or suspicious looking characters. That last one tends to get me a lot.

After 911, for aboutna year, they were doing rechecks right before you boarded. You went through security, 4 hours to go through at Dulles in Octobet, a month after the attacks, then as you waited to board the plane you could be pulled out at random for an additional look through your carry-on luggage on a table in front everyone, and a oat down search. They were picking elderly white people, and people were majorly pissed off.

I don't think I had to start going through security until I was about 10 or 12. Major shift obviously, and then you started hearing the phrase "since 9 11 we have had ...." We were in an armed police state, National Guard in full duty grear, helmets on and machine guns at the ready stationed inside every door, dogs sniffing for explosives. We had Yellow, Orange and Red alert days and some idiot AG explaining what it meant on National TV, and then that went away. It was a time, a real time, and then we jumped into two wars, or what ever you call them, one being the longest in US History, and counting.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, I was so relieved to see that as he stood in that carrier deck. I have slept like a baby ever since.

(That last sentence was cynical Travis)

[Travis In Austin]

Willard was radicalized by Ben.

You were too young for that, or did they remake it? Big sing from that by Michael Jackson, I think he was solo fornthat, maybe one of his first solo efforts.

[BigStewMan]

if we had a friend like Ben.

Edited December 4, 2015 by BigStewMan

[Travis In Austin]

Assisted suicide, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia are the most difficult moral decisions we can face. I think the law is little help as the obvious moral challenge is much larger.

 

I agree with that entirely. Yet, I think the decision to go to War, invade, attack another country should be at the top of the list, and by a wide margin. It just seems too easy sometimes. Now you have a contest of who can come up with a way to say that they would be as war with Assad, and how many many more troops they would have then the guy who just answered, and how much quicker they would be in there.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

Willard was radicalized by Ben.

You were too young for that, or did they remake it? Big sing from that by Michael Jackson, I think he was solo fornthat, maybe one of his first solo efforts.

 

 

When I was in elementary school, my mom took me to the pet store, and I got a domestic female rat.  A few weeks later, and I got a male rat.  Before I knew it, we had so many, I began supplying the pet store with new rats.  My friends' parents would tell me about Willard.

 

Actually, rats are very smart.  They are trainable  My favorites had names, and they were not for sale.  I could let them run around the house, and when I would call them by name, they would come running from wherever they were and jump up on the bed and come give me "rat hugs."  They knew their names.  Those were an interesting couple of years as a kid.

[BigStewMan]

I'm scared of you Jeff.  

[Jim Naseum]

Assisted suicide, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia are the most difficult moral decisions we can face. I think the law is little help as the obvious moral challenge is much larger.

I agree with that entirely. Yet, I think the decision to go to War, invade, attack another country should be at the top of the list, and by a wide margin. It just seems too easy sometimes. Now you have a contest of who can come up with a way to say that they would be as war with Assad, and how many many more troops they would have then the guy who just answered, and how much quicker they would be in there.

Yes, good point. I can figure out how to rationalize a war decision made by a general who will be on the field. I've never figured out how to rationalize that decision when made by a comfortable, cozy, safe, politician. I can't see how that stain on the soul can ever be removed.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

What I don't understand about all this is how somebody can "become" radicalized. How does somebody living the American dream with a stable government job where they get to travel around in the field suddenly want to be a jihadist. The guy had a family. I don't get it. I can see how somebody with nothing to lose can grow up knowing nothing but war might be drawn to the dark side. That wasn't this guy's story though. That's some major brainwashing or something.

[Jim Naseum]

Stupid Comment of the Day

"It amazes me that no one could have seen the radicalization." -- Charlie Rose, CBS This Morning.

He was referring to the San Berdo shooters.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

That's some major brainwashing or something.

 

 

I think it was poon.  They are saying it appears the wife might have radicalized him.  If it was, that explains why money and family don't matter.

[Paducah Home Theater]

 

 

I think the terror was just focused on other people, wasn't it? We terrorized Indians, then slaves, then blacks during the KKK days. They were certainly terrorists, right?

Everybody always leaves out the Irish. There were more Irish slaves over here than black ones.

 

Oh really? You probably might want to check that out before posting that in a public forum under your business name.

I would also look carefully at any source that claims that.

You might want to start by looking at the difference between a slave and an indentured servant. They are not the same thing.

By the way, which president freed the Irish?

 

 

I'd rather not wreck this thread any further than this response, but...

 

Apparently the problem with history today is that historical documentary producers and historians for the Center for Research and Globalization can just make up whatever crap they want to.  Who are you supposed to believe?  This isn't exactly crazy conspiracy theorists that are saying things like this.  

 

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/27/1265498/-The-slaves-that-time-forgot

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963

 

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[CECAA850]

I can see how somebody with nothing to lose can grow up knowing nothing but war might be drawn to the dark side. That wasn't this guy's story though. That's some major brainwashing or something.

 

To quote Huey Lewis. "It's the power of love"

[Jim Naseum]

What I don't understand about all this is how somebody can "become" radicalized. How does somebody living the American dream with a stable government job where they get to travel around in the field suddenly want to be a jihadist. The guy had a family. I don't get it. I can see how somebody with nothing to lose can grow up knowing nothing but war might be drawn to the dark side. That wasn't this guy's story though. That's some major brainwashing or something.

Getting people to kill others is not hard at all. You would think it is, until you look at how totally easy soldiers adopt killing as desirable. It really only takes one simple conversion that amounts to this: We are good, they are evil.

I've been studying the Great War. It's remarkable that MILLIONS of men went off to kill each other with almost no cause at all! The history of war of course emphasizes personal glory. And apparently, the psychological need for this glory is quite deep.

It turns out that getting people to kill is awfully easy.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited December 4, 2015 by MrCatsup

[BigStewMan]

That's some major brainwashing

I recently saw a television documentary made by a British filmmaker. His brother became a terrorist and is now in prison. This filmmaker began making the documentary when his brother first joined what he called a radical islamist group in England. He ate dinner with his brother and his friends and said the guys all seemed very nice and fun to be around; but, then he attended one of their (for lack of better word) "meetings" and he was amazed how these nice guys were suddenly talking violent and it was scary.

He interviewed the top dog of that radical group...he mentioned that some accuse him of brainwashing these young men.  The guy responded, "if brains need to be washed..." 

[Paducah Home Theater]

It turns out that getting people to kill is awfully easy.

 

I just can't wrap my head around getting people to ignore the consequences.  Yeah getting people who are already soldiers to kill, sure, probably easy, but that's their job, it's expected.  As a civilian though, you pull that trigger and your life is over.  You'll never see your kid grow up, never see your wife again.  Most likely you and your wife will be dead by the end of the day, and if not, you'll be behind bars for decades.  Everything you've ever loved and known, gone.  Millions of people will instantly hate you.  What exactly would make an established successful seemingly sane American ignore all of this?  

Edited December 4, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Jim Naseum]

It turns out that getting people to kill is awfully easy.

I just can't wrap my head around getting people to ignore the consequences. Yeah getting people who are already soldiers to kill, sure, probably easy, but that's their job, it's expected. As a civilian though, you pull that trigger and your life is over. You'll never see your kid grow up, never see your wife again. Most likely you and your wife will be dead by the end of the day, and if not, you'll be behind bars for decades. Everything you've ever loved and known, gone. Millions of people will instantly hate you. What exactly would make an established successful seemingly sane American ignore all of this?

I was not referring to professional soldiers. Yes, to them it's a job. Professional soldiers are rare, because in history most soldiers are just recruited from the masses. Farmers, laborers, miners and so on are recruited by the millions to be killers for their nations. They get virtually no training, and no time to adapt to being killers. Here's a gun, shoot all those evil guys wearing blue uniforms. Done.

History is chock a block with wars over which unseen god to follow. Joe believes in Xenox, Pete believes in Thoran. They are neighbors and coworkers, but run to opposite sides of the field of battle. And yes, they really try to kill each other. This is the exact feature of human psychology that is routinely exploited by generals and pols.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

Willard was radicalized by Ben.

You were too young for that, or did they remake it? Big sing from that by Michael Jackson, I think he was solo fornthat, maybe one of his first solo efforts.

 

When I was in elementary school, my mom took me to the pet store, and I got a domestic female rat.  A few weeks later, and I got a male rat.  Before I knew it, we had so many, I began supplying the pet store with new rats.  My friends' parents would tell me about Willard.

 

Actually, rats are very smart.  They are trainable  My favorites had names, and they were not for sale.  I could let them run around the house, and when I would call them by name, they would come running from wherever they were and jump up on the bed and come give me "rat hugs."  They knew their names.  Those were an interesting couple of years as a kid.

After Willard came out they did a rv show in how they made it, it was amazing what they could one to do, let alone 100s at the same time.

So how did the Cat and the rat get along?

[Travis In Austin]

It turns out that getting people to kill is awfully easy.

I just can't wrap my head around getting people to ignore the consequences. Yeah getting people who are already soldiers to kill, sure, probably easy, but that's their job, it's expected. As a civilian though, you pull that trigger and your life is over. You'll never see your kid grow up, never see your wife again. Most likely you and your wife will be dead by the end of the day, and if not, you'll be behind bars for decades. Everything you've ever loved and known, gone. Millions of people will instantly hate you. What exactly would make an established successful seemingly sane American ignore all of this?

Being married to a *****/******* with a lot of money.

Edit: Opps, can't say that on here, first one involves thenend of the alimentary canal, second was the proper term for a female dog.

Edited December 4, 2015 by dwilawyer

[Travis In Austin]

Assisted suicide, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia are the most difficult moral decisions we can face. I think the law is little help as the obvious moral challenge is much larger.

I agree with that entirely. Yet, I think the decision to go to War, invade, attack another country should be at the top of the list, and by a wide margin. It just seems too easy sometimes. Now you have a contest of who can come up with a way to say that they would be as war with Assad, and how many many more troops they would have then the guy who just answered, and how much quicker they would be in there.

Yes, good point. I can figure out how to rationalize a war decision made by a general who will be on the field. I've never figured out how to rationalize that decision when made by a comfortable, cozy, safe, politician. I can't see how that stain on the soul can ever be removed.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

You do it by using terms that marginalize life. Like "Boots on ground" instead of, I'm am going to send your sons and daughters over there.

[Wolfbane]

 

 

 

Assisted suicide, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia are the most difficult moral decisions we can face. I think the law is little help as the obvious moral challenge is much larger.

I agree with that entirely. Yet, I think the decision to go to War, invade, attack another country should be at the top of the list, and by a wide margin. It just seems too easy sometimes. Now you have a contest of who can come up with a way to say that they would be as war with Assad, and how many many more troops they would have then the guy who just answered, and how much quicker they would be in there.

Yes, good point. I can figure out how to rationalize a war decision made by a general who will be on the field. I've never figured out how to rationalize that decision when made by a comfortable, cozy, safe, politician. I can't see how that stain on the soul can ever be removed.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

You do it by using terms that marginalize life. Like "Boots on ground" instead of, I'm am going to send your sons and daughters over there.

 

 

I'd say that the West, China and Russia can either deal with the issue over there now or continue to accept the fact that there are already 'boots on the ground here' and that these numbers are growing.