Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government

Court says: 'Terror Fears Can't Curb Liberty' 210

Posted by Hemos from the good-steps dept.
jettoblack writes "Finally, a glimmer of sanity... according to the AP, "Fear of a terrorist attack is not sufficient reason for authorities to search people at a protest, a federal appeals court has ruled..." Another great quote: "We cannot simply suspend or restrict civil liberties until the War on Terror is over, because the War on Terror is unlikely ever to be truly over..." Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote for the panel. "Sept. 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court says: 'Terror Fears Can't Curb Liberty' More

Court says: 'Terror Fears Can't Curb Liberty'

Comments Filter:

  • No Shit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tyndmyr ( 811713 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @08:34AM (#10555250)
    Glad someone finally figured it out... Does this mean they'll be getting rid of the real threats to our freedom, like the Patriot Act and Bush?

    • Re:No Shit (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tyndmyr ( 811713 ) *
      That came across abit much like flamebait... Sorry, just the bitterness.

      Heres the nice version. We all know the quote from benjjie, and its certainly true. Every time the politicians can scare a fair number of the population, theres a massive freedom grab. Wake up people..the odds of dying to a terrorist attack in america is incredibly small. And no, I dont care what terror alert the base is on, or what color terrorist threat it is...

      What risk of dying, per year is enough to yield freedom to avoid? 1/1

      • You know it is posible to have democracy and security at the same time. Its not easy but it can be done. I live in Israel and we somehow manage to have a multi party democracy (I think there are 14 parties in the current kenneset). WE have a supreme court that can and does tell the goverment to go take a hike from time to time, and the goverment listens! We also have 10 or so different papers, if you think Israel does not have a free press read Haaretz and Eretz Sheva and compare (the first is left wing the
        • It takes a while for beauracracy to set in for governments, generally. Given enough time, the Israeli gov will probably have issues too.

          The many parties should help with that though... Unfortunately we dont have this luxury. You do have a more statistically likey security threat than us as well.

        • It will be a democracy when you allow palestinians to vote.
          • Arabs who are Citizans of Israel are alowed to vote. There are 3 Arab parties in the Kennest. Arabs who live in the teratories are not citizens of Israel. They can in theory vote in PA elections.

  • There is hope for my waning faith in Americans. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spikexyz ( 403776 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @08:34AM (#10555252)
    Maybe soon someone will see that this whole security thing is a farce. Saying it has prevented terrorist attacks is like Bush holding up a stick and declaring the stick repels Gorillas. -- Well you don't see any gorillas do you?? It's a farce and it's freaky that you're all falling for it!

    Stop being lemmings. Question your leaders. Listen to Jon Stewart!

    You put men on the moon; there has to be some smart people in the country...get them out of the closet...and make one of the president. PLEASE!
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • That's OK, they probably stole it from somewhere else. It's an old joke.

        The fact of the matter is the FBI and other counter-terrorism agencies in the U.S. have prevented terrorist attacks. Right now al-Qaeda is suffering from a credibility problem among the nutcases in the world. They made several smaller hits around the world (Madrid, Indonesia, etc), but they haven't pulled off anything in the U.S. since 9/11. Hopefully they never will, but not for lack of trying.

        This isn't proof that Bush's Doctrin

        • Re:There is hope for my waning faith in Americans. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by scotch ( 102596 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @11:23AM (#10556414) Homepage
          If one credits the Bush Administration for keeping us safe after 9/11, doesn't one have to blame the Bush Administration for not keeping us safe on 9/11? Just curious - I'm not saying you have that opinion, exactly, and I certainly don't, but those who support the present administration because of the feeling of safety they get should think about that. The real reasons for the lack of terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 are

          • The terorrists have limited resources
          • Even in our non-security-aware pre-9/11 day, terrorist attacks in the US were extremeley rare
          • The intelligence community has been tracking terrorist activity for decades. They're doing more of it now, sure, but they were doing in before.
          • General security measures at airports and other places (metal detectors, bomb sniffers, id checks, etc), while not perfect, certainly limited the types of action terrorists could take.
          • Conducting a terrorist activity in the US probably takes brains, connections, money, time, and other resources. Putting all that together in a group of non-self-destructive extremists is probably rare
          Of course, it may and probably will happen again. I personally think a better approach is a strong intelligence and home-land security community working on the problem behind the scenes. The public shouldn't need to get all slathered up about it with threat levels and campaign trail bullshit. Civil liberty restrictions are of course wrong and probably counterproductive as well. We don't need to be triggering the McVeihs whlie we're doing this.

          As far as being glad the shit is going down in Iraq rather than over here, that's pretty sad. Is that a new justification for the un-justifiable war? Stir up some hornets' nest in some country we don't care about to keep us safe at home? Will your opinion change with the number of US casualties exceeds those of 9/11 (non US casualties are already way over the 9/11 numbers, but not every cares about those people).?

        • I would point out that (although not necessarily by al-queada) we have had terror here since 9-11

          1)Anthrax being mailed to important people and people dying from it. Not to mention the effect is had on society: Mass Cipro sales and people not opening their mail.
          The Offender/s have not been caught.

          2)DC area Sniper terrorists. These guys terrorized the whole area from Richmond to Baltimore for months. They were caught, but only because they were stupid. What is to stop a smart terrorist from doing the s
          • Your examples are sort of valid, but terrorism is usually associated with an agenda, and these weren't. Both of these were instances of some lone nutcase or small number of nutcases running around trying to cause harm for kicks. By that argument the Unabomber, Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, Morgana the Kissing Bandit, or El Barto could be considered terrorists.

            I wouldn't say W is doing such a great job or the DoHS.

            The bureaucracy is clearly lumbering to a slow start, and I think they've really dropped the bal
            • My examples are valid. I live in the D.C. area and those examples were socially staggering. People were hiding while getting gas and afraid to open their mail. You can't say the anthrax thing was done by a lone or few nuts, because we don't know who did it, how they did it, how they got the anthrax, or if they will do it again.

              Granted the snipers were nuts, but effective nuts who were 9/11 sympathizers.

              Ok... thanks for the links.
              But what about those who don't have internet access?
              I just feel that there
              • I live in the D.C. area too. I'm just saying that the sniper was just like any mass murderer, just really good at it.

                But what about those who don't have internet access?

                Well, they'll have to do what we all had to do 10+ years ago. I guess you think they should put PSA's on during "Temptation Island" or something. That'll go over real well with the mouth-breathers. You could cause as much damage from mindless panic than a real attack.

    • "Stop being lemmings. Question your leaders. Listen to Jon Stewart!"

      Yes, Jon Stewart is the Great One. Must Follow Jon Stewart.

      Yes, Jon Stewart is the Great One. Must Follow Jon Stewart.

      Yes, Jon ...
    • To paraphrase from memory:

      In his speech tomorrow John Kerry will tell you his plan for America, next month at the Republican National Convention George W. Bush will do the same. Listen to those speeches. Then, turn the TV off and ... make up your own mind.
      Don't listen to this guy, or that guy, or her... (pictures of political commentators from different channels appear on screen)him, or...(picture of Stewart's Daily Show staff shows up) they don't even count..or that guy, kind of a dooche, or him.. You get
    • You need to recognize a useful distinction between "waning faith in AmericaNS" and "waning faith in AmericA".

      As counterintuitive as it may seem, the two are not synonymous.
      Even if the Gang Of Bush was or will be (re)elected by a 50%+1 majority of the popular vote, it doesn't necessarily reflect the basic character of the USA.
      It's not (yet) analogous to 1930s Germany.

      I too have waning faith in AmericA, and probably because of the same phenomena you had in mind.
      But the decision of an individual ***VOTER***
      • I disagree. I think losing faith in AmericaNS is perfectly valid.

        If you think America (more specifically, the United States thereof) is nothing more than the landmass covering the middle of the North American continent, then having faith in a clump of dirt is silly, anyway.

        If you think that America is the SPIRIT that this nation was born with, then losing faith in America is understandable, since AmericaNS are killing that most expediently.

        If you think that America IS its citizens and those chosen to "re
    • The sad thing is that most voters are more like Homer than Lisa:

      Homer: "Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm."
      Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, Dad."
      Homer: "Thank you, dear."
      Lisa: "By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
      Homer: "Oh, how does it work?"
      Lisa: "It doesn't work."
      Homer: "Uh-huh."
      Lisa: "It's just a stupid rock."
      Homer: "Uh-huh."
      Lisa: "But I don't see any tigers around, do you?"
      Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

      People, Homer is no

  • Security and Liberty (Score:3, Insightful)

    by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @08:48AM (#10555333) Journal
    Bravo! I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "Those who would exchange liberty for security will neither get nor deserve either."

    • Re:Security and Liberty (Score:5, Informative)

      by tid242 ( 540756 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:01AM (#10555410) Homepage
      Bravo! I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "Those who would exchange liberty for security will neither get nor deserve either."

      "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" source [wisdomquotes.com]

      i'd hate for this fabulous quote to get eventually get bastardised as Murphy's Law [wikipedia.org] has been.

      All in good faith, mind you, friend.

      -tid242

      • Thanks for correcting that. It sounds even better the way he actually said it. Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia link for Murphy's Law lead me to another one about Systemantics [wikipedia.org], which is relevant to the "Homeland Security" issue.

  • Some good news! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by uncoveror ( 570620 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @08:49AM (#10555343) Homepage
    At last, some good news! Not all the judges republicans have loaded the federal courts with are fascists. This could still be overturned on appeal, though.

    The right to assemble is the part of the first amendment most often trampled upon, and least often affirmed, but this is a victory!

    • Re:Some good news! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 )
      Judging by the actions at the Dems national convention and the lack of legislation repealing such abuses from Kerry I think the Dems are worse than the GOP as the GOP isn't saying they are against it then doing nothing to stop it.

  • darn... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:43AM (#10555710)
    ...activist judges! I bet terrorists have infiltrated the judiciary - we better dissolve it!

  • And in other news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by b-baggins ( 610215 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:45AM (#10555721) Journal
    An judge also ruled that fear of a murder attempt is not sufficient reason to search individuals at a public place because we will never eliminate all murder.

    The judge then retired to his gated community after checking in with the security guard.

    • Re:And in other news (Score:2, Insightful)

      by snwcrash ( 520762 )
      So if I'm afraid I'm going to be murdered we should just round up everyone on the steet and search them? Even if there is no reason to suspect any of them is plotting a crime?

      We are supposed to be free of unreasonable search, which means the police have to have some reasonable evidance that I am acting suspiciously. SCOUS has found that you can't search everyone in the area without probably cause on numerous occasions.


    • Speaking of "gated communities", do these exist in other first world countries (say, Canada, for example)?
    • An judge also ruled that fear of a murder attempt is not sufficient reason to search individuals at a public place because we will never eliminate all murder.

      "An judge" is flawed grammar, you mean "A judge".

      The rest of your analogy is also flawed. Searching everyone at the scene of a serious crime - go right ahead. Searching where there is supposedly evidence of intent to commit a crime - checks and balances are needed, e.g. a warrant.

      Searching everyone at a political protest because of a "heightened st

  • It is about time a judge said this. I have been waiting for this since 2001. Now if he could just wake up some of his colleagues, maybe we might be able to reverse some of the damage Dubuya has done to the Constitution.

    Okay, okay... I know... I am dreaming again...

  • Article Summary. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2004 @12:29PM (#10556948)
    I wish Slashdot would just report political news without the slant. Anyway, while the Summary stated that

    "Finally, a glimmer of sanity... according to the AP, "Fear of a terrorist attack is not sufficient reason for authorities to search people at a protest, a federal appeals court has ruled...""

    The article said "In the absence of some reason to believe that international terrorists would target or infiltrate this protest, there is no basis for using Sept. 11 as an excuse for searching the protesters,". Which is nice and all, but I would feel a lot better if the word "international" wasn't in there. There have been Terrorists born and raised in America.

    I noticed many people quoting Ben Franklin in the comments to this article. Do you realize you are quoting him out of context? He did write (and often said) "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Do you know what he was referring to? Not Al Quadia or their ilk for sure. He was talking about welfare and the welfare state. The essential liberty he spoke of was our right not to be unreasonably taxed by the government. Surely if he saw our government today with all of it's socialist programs he would roll over in his grave.

    If you read some of his writing you will find many quotes to that effect. Such as

    God helps them that help themselves.

  • Learn well! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @12:29PM (#10556949)
    It would seem that the branch of government most concerned about our civil liberties is the one that isn't directly elected. Direct elections aren't always the best way to guard our liberty.

    • Re:Learn well! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times ( 778537 )
      (you probably had this in mind, but...) that's exactly the point of the judicial branch. The fact that they aren't elected, and are usually appointed for life, it was done on purpose so they wouldn't really need to answer to anyone. They would be free from the need to play politics, and could make their decisions for honest reasons, making them the most likely of any of the branches to do what's "right" and "fair". That's the idea anyway. (though I'm just stating more explicitly what you seemed to imply

  • Wikipedia in ruling (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcelrath ( 8027 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:02PM (#10559351) Homepage
    This ruling is landmark for another reason. On page 16 (yes, I RTFA) of the ruling [uscourts.gov], the court makes reference to wikipedia!
    We also reject the notion that the Department of Homeland Security's threat advisory level somehow justifies these searches. Although the threat level was "elevated" at the time of the protest, "[t]o date, the threat level has stood at yellow (elevated) for the majority of its time in existence. It has only been raised to orange (high) six times." Wikipedia, Homeland Security Advisory System, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homelan d_Security_Advisory_System (last referenced Aug. 16, 2004). Given that we have been on "yellow alert" for over two and a half years now, we cannot consider this a particularly exceptional condition that warrants curtailment of constitutional rights. We cannot simply suspend or restrict civil liberties until the War on 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. Furthermore, a system that gave the federal government the power to determine the range of constitutionally permissible searches simply by raising or lowering the nation's threat advisory system would allow the restrictions of the Fourth Ammendment to be circumvented too easily. Consequently, the "elevated" alert status does not aid the City's case.

    Way to go wikipedia!

    -- Bob

  • So are the politicans and lawyers who have raped the Constitution, now revealed as slavering enemies of liberty, liable for the damages they've caused? Crimes against the Constitution this serious need impeachments. And treason needs hangings.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close