I see. What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate. What does the 4th Amendment have to do with the question of whether 5,000 people nationwide should be asked a few questions? Are you assuming that these people are going to be arrested and then questioned? That's not how it works. If they were to be arrested, then the 4th will kick in. This is not an adversarial situation. Nor is it custodial. It's just asking questions. Your comparison to race and black Americans is an old ruse. We should be beyond that trick. I repeat, you misunderstand the 4th Amendment's application to what is being asked of law enforcement. -----Original Message----- From: owner-crime@/var/spool/majordomo/lists/crime [mailto:owner-crime@/var/spool/majordomo/lists/crime]On Behalf Of Crispin Cowan Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 3:31 PM To: webb1973 Cc: crime@private Subject: Re: CRIME Kudos to Acting Police Chief Andrew Kirkland webb1973 wrote: >Yeah. Way to go, Chief. I'm sure the families who lost loved ones on 9-11 >will enthusiastically support your politically correct decision. And, if, >and when one or more of the 200 non-citizens does something to contribute to >more deaths from another terrorist activity, they'll fully understand your >decision not to ask questions because it was the politically correct thing >to do. Isn't America great! > Since when is honoring the Bill of Rights (specifically, the 4th Amendment http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html ) "political correctness"?! With equal validity, you could argue that a violent crime is likely to be committed by a young black man in the next week, and mandate "interviewing" all young black men. There is a reason that arbitrary search and seizure is unconstitutional. ObCRIME Mailing list: It was recently reported http://www.msnbc.com/news/660096.asp?cp1=1 that the FBI has added a new feature ("Magic Lantern") to Carnivore that will seek to obtain crypto keys from suspects' computers using an e-mail virus. An interesting question I have not seen answered is whether the FBI or other government agencies will need a warrent to deploy such tools, or to use the fruits there of. Anyone in law enforcement have a clue of whether you need a warrent to hack into a suspect's computer? Or is someone stupid enough to run Microsoft Outlook as their mail client considered to have just brought it on themselves? Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com Security Hardened Linux Distribution: http://immunix.org Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun May 26 2002 - 11:32:05 PDT