On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 11:09:05PM -0700, Tao, Greg wrote: > -- In the military, there is no "free speech" as we know it in the civilian > world. You have UCMJ, and for good reason...to maintain the unified chain of > command I'll grant this one while noting that the military is a voluntary organization (at the moment) -- people are free to voluntarily revoke their civil rights. > -- Airport security personnel don't need a warrant to run everybody through > metal detectors and other security checkpoints This I've wondered about; I'll be interested to hear how John Gilmore's suit against the government, UAL, and southwest airlines regarding requiring identification before being allowed to board an airplane turns out. I've also wondered how legal it is for concert organizers to check for weapons before allowing people to enter a concert. I expect someone refusing to comply with a search would be refused admittance, and I am not sure if the legality is decided by law in each state, county, or city, or if this is decided federally. > -- law enforcement not able to search obvious places of interest due to the > stringent requirements for getting a search warrant I must stand by my earlier comment. If law enforcement officials cannot explain to the satisfaction of a judge why a place is of obvious interest, I'm all for keeping them off. Regarding the alledged case of weaver beating an ex-wife with a skillet, or a basketball player's drug stash, I think I've got to go with the technicalities. We hear occasionally about a gross miscarriage of justice (I'm guessing the weaver incident you alluded to, I know no details of it, nor stoudemire's drug habits) on a technicality, but I have to think the technicalities involved are to prevent gross miscarraiges on an innocent population from an autocratic police. We have technical rules on evidence to deter an all-powerful police force, and I think it more or less works as-is. > The status quo just feels like it protects criminals more than it does > honest people. Yes, it can feel that way. And, in the short-run, it is probably true. I am willing to grant criminals a little short-term protection if it leads to long-term stability. I am thinking primarily of the long, depressing, course of history in countries without guaranteed rights; people living in a society with fewer constraints on their police forces inevitably suffer worse -- criminals and honest people alike. (Counter examples welcomed.) > Yet our willingness to allow criminal investigations to stall for fear > of minor inconveniences or the possibility that searches might uncover > some popular criminal activity such as recreational "soft" drug use > shows a somewhat insensitive aspect of our culture, particularly when > delay in criminal investigation can cost lives. I'd be interested in hearing from the law enforcement officers on this list the proportions of cases stalled for fear of minor inconveniences. I think you'd be able to draw the conclusion from my earlier statements that one person's "minor inconveniences" are another person's foundations of secure and safe living. I think drug laws would involve a whole separate thread. I know I'd like to see them more or less repealed. (If Stoudemire likes to smoke some weed, why should we be spending police payroll on trying to prevent him from smoking some weed?) > I am reminded of Kitty Genovese in New York City. For those of you > not familiar with the name, check out http://www.lihistory.com/8/hs818a.htm. > No less than 38 of her neighbors witnessed her being stabbed to death over > the course of 35 minutes. I fail to see how granting further police rights would have caused callous neighbors to call the police for her aid. Especially since the stabbings apparently took place on public streets; I'd be surprised if there are requirements for search warrants on public land. Instead, with some speculation, I actually draw a tentative conclusion that Genovese's neighbors are already afraid of the police; if this is the case, then perhaps police already have too much power? > There's got to be something we can do besides accept the status quo... Yes. I think it is very useful, and even necessary, to discuss balances between individual freedoms and needs of society. If we blindly accepted the status quo, I fear we would chisel away pieces of our granted freedoms slowly, until we are surprised at how few we have left. Periodically discussing the reasons why the status quo was put into place will remind us of the great benefits we derive from it. (As well as downsides, but I'm biased in favor of the status quo, so I don't give the downsides as much time in the spotlight. I trust you'll do that. :) Thanks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 28 2002 - 02:29:21 PDT