Checkpoint Charlie

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, Probable Cause is the issue that makes checkpoints a really bad idea if you give a shit about freedom at all. Alcohol checkpoints are relatively simple; does the person smell like a bottle of VO or sound like a slurpy being spilled? But stopping for proof of citizenship or legality WELL WITHIN ONE'S OWN BORDERS is another matter entirely. At that point, you've given the government a license to detain you anywhere, anytime, including your own home, without any real probable cause at all, because, after all, what constitutes probable cause at a checkpoint? Nothing. Invariably, this either leads to racial profiling (illegal under the equal protection clause as well as against basic American principles) or requiring citizens to carry proof of citizenship everywhere.

[rob]

Scott, you don't have a problem with random checkpoints being setup to search people without probable cause? Didn't you swear to defend the constitution?

 

They are not being searched.

 

So how will they catch drug dealers? How will they catch illegal aliens? Can't aliens get driver's licenses pretty easily? How will they catch nukular weapons in the trunk?

 

So what's the value of this again?

 

Probable cause during stops.

 

Like, "you're wearing a turban. Open the trunk." ??

 

Nope. More like "You have an Obama bumper sticker. QUIT RESISTING ARREST!" "SIR! STOP RESISTING!"

 

How should I know? I am not a cop. I am just saying that it is not a gestapo technique but rather a thought out check point looking for something specific or to increase safety through catching/ discouraging drunk drivers.

 

But your comments before made it seem like this technique was going to catch drug dealers, human traffickers and terrorists. But now that is seeming less and less likely. I question how they are going to catch illegal aliens, especially if the alien is not the driver. How will they catch BC Bud in the trunk? How will they catch terrorists with smuggled plutonium? These things would all be better policed at THE BORDER where they have the authrotiy to actually police these kinds of things.

[akhalteke]

Yes, Probable Cause is the issue that makes checkpoints a really bad idea if you give a shit about freedom at all. Alcohol checkpoints are relatively simple; does the person smell like a bottle of VO or sound like a slurpy being spilled? But stopping for proof of citizenship or legality WELL WITHIN ONE'S OWN BORDERS is another matter entirely. At that point, you've given the government a license to detain you anywhere, anytime, including your own home, without any real probable cause at all, because, after all, what constitutes probable cause at a checkpoint? Nothing. Invariably, this either leads to racial profiling (illegal under the equal protection clause as well as against basic American principles) or requiring citizens to carry proof of citizenship everywhere.

 

You are assuming these things. I do not. You assume that the government is out to get you.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I question how they are going to catch illegal aliens, especially if the alien is not the driver.

 

I know some aliens had manufacturing defects, but now they are illegal? WTF? They'll have to pry my aliens from my cold dead hands!

[akhalteke]

Scott, you don't have a problem with random checkpoints being setup to search people without probable cause? Didn't you swear to defend the constitution?

 

They are not being searched.

 

So how will they catch drug dealers? How will they catch illegal aliens? Can't aliens get driver's licenses pretty easily? How will they catch nukular weapons in the trunk?

 

So what's the value of this again?

 

Probable cause during stops.

 

Like, "you're wearing a turban. Open the trunk." ??

 

Nope. More like "You have an Obama bumper sticker. QUIT RESISTING ARREST!" "SIR! STOP RESISTING!"

 

How should I know? I am not a cop. I am just saying that it is not a gestapo technique but rather a thought out check point looking for something specific or to increase safety through catching/ discouraging drunk drivers.

 

But your comments before made it seem like this technique was going to catch drug dealers, human traffickers and terrorists. But now that is seeming less and less likely. I question how they are going to catch illegal aliens, especially if the alien is not the driver. How will they catch BC Bud in the trunk? How will they catch terrorists with smuggled plutonium? These things would all be better policed at THE BORDER where they have the authrotiy to actually police these kinds of things.

 

Seems to be working in Montana.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Scott, you don't have a problem with random checkpoints being setup to search people without probable cause? Didn't you swear to defend the constitution?

 

They are not being searched.

 

So how will they catch drug dealers? How will they catch illegal aliens? Can't aliens get driver's licenses pretty easily? How will they catch nukular weapons in the trunk?

 

So what's the value of this again?

 

Probable cause during stops.

 

Like, "you're wearing a turban. Open the trunk." ??

 

Nope. More like "You have an Obama bumper sticker. QUIT RESISTING ARREST!" "SIR! STOP RESISTING!"

 

How should I know? I am not a cop. I am just saying that it is not a gestapo technique but rather a thought out check point looking for something specific or to increase safety through catching/ discouraging drunk drivers.

 

But your comments before made it seem like this technique was going to catch drug dealers, human traffickers and terrorists. But now that is seeming less and less likely. I question how they are going to catch illegal aliens, especially if the alien is not the driver. How will they catch BC Bud in the trunk? How will they catch terrorists with smuggled plutonium? These things would all be better policed at THE BORDER where they have the authrotiy to actually police these kinds of things.

 

Seems to be working in Montana.

 

I've never seen a more thorough... and frightening passenger and carry-on search than at the Great Falls airport. WTF?

[mkporwit]

I know some aliens had manufacturing defects, but now they are illegal? WTF? They'll have to pry my aliens from my cold dead hands!

 

You know, talking about your cold dead hands and CCH aliens in the same sentence sounds like asking for trouble... it could probably be arranged.

 

Also, this is spray, and you're starting to talk about climbing. WTF?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You know, talking about your cold dead hands and CCH aliens in the same sentence sounds like asking for trouble... it could probably be arranged.

 

Good point.

 

Also, this is spray, and you're starting to talk about climbing. WTF?

 

Can you play hooky and climb this w/e??

 

[Stefan]

interesting how they are not doing checkpoints in eastern washington where there are more illegal immigrants. I guess they know we need them.

[mkporwit]

Can you play hooky and climb this w/e??

Maybe. I'd love to get out for a day at Tieton if the weather holds up. Have to check with the missus. It wouldn't be more than one day in any case.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Can you play hooky and climb this w/e??

Maybe. I'd love to get out for a day at Tieton if the weather holds up. Have to check with the missus. It wouldn't be more than one day in any case.

 

hmm WA pass would be nice, but only w/ overnight... I'll PM you... watching the weather too. Thompson has your name on it too, you know.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, Probable Cause is the issue that makes checkpoints a really bad idea if you give a shit about freedom at all. Alcohol checkpoints are relatively simple; does the person smell like a bottle of VO or sound like a slurpy being spilled? But stopping for proof of citizenship or legality WELL WITHIN ONE'S OWN BORDERS is another matter entirely. At that point, you've given the government a license to detain you anywhere, anytime, including your own home, without any real probable cause at all, because, after all, what constitutes probable cause at a checkpoint? Nothing. Invariably, this either leads to racial profiling (illegal under the equal protection clause as well as against basic American principles) or requiring citizens to carry proof of citizenship everywhere.

 

You are assuming these things. I do not. You assume that the government is out to get you.

 

I'm not assuming any such thing. This is based on history from many other like governmental efforts, from airport security to the FBI monitoring of mosques. And I don't assume that the government is out to get me. I may think that God is out to get me, or that aliens are out to get me, but not the government.

 

I do assume, correctly, that the government makes a lot of mistakes, is incompetent, is overzealous, does a poor job of tracking the effectiveness of its efforts, prioritizes mythical problems created by politicians over real ones, doesn't know how to use it's resources effectively, and has a habit of creating programs which take on a life of their own and spiral out of control.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I do assume, correctly, that the government makes a lot of mistakes, is incompetent, is overzealous, does a poor job of tracking the effectiveness of its efforts, prioritizes mythical problems created by politicians over real ones, doesn't know how to use it's resources effectively, and has a habit of creating programs which take on a life of their own and spiral out of control.

 

Exactly! Just say "no" to national health care.

 

[akhalteke]

Yes, Probable Cause is the issue that makes checkpoints a really bad idea if you give a shit about freedom at all. Alcohol checkpoints are relatively simple; does the person smell like a bottle of VO or sound like a slurpy being spilled? But stopping for proof of citizenship or legality WELL WITHIN ONE'S OWN BORDERS is another matter entirely. At that point, you've given the government a license to detain you anywhere, anytime, including your own home, without any real probable cause at all, because, after all, what constitutes probable cause at a checkpoint? Nothing. Invariably, this either leads to racial profiling (illegal under the equal protection clause as well as against basic American principles) or requiring citizens to carry proof of citizenship everywhere.

 

You are assuming these things. I do not. You assume that the government is out to get you.

 

I'm not assuming any such thing. This is based on history from many other like governmental efforts, from airport security to the FBI monitoring of mosques. And I don't assume that the government is out to get me. I may think that God is out to get me, or that aliens are out to get me, but not the government.

 

I do assume, correctly, that the government makes a lot of mistakes, is incompetent, is overzealous, does a poor job of tracking the effectiveness of its efforts, prioritizes mythical problems created by politicians over real ones, doesn't know how to use it's resources effectively, and has a habit of creating programs which take on a life of their own and spiral out of control.

 

So why are you afraid that the government is going to come to your house and detain you? I think the government is a pretty dysfunctional machine, but I don't have any Gestapo or KGB/FSB type ideas that they are going to come to my home and arrest me for shits and giggles...

[mkporwit]

I think the government is a pretty dysfunctional machine, but I don't have any Gestapo or KGB/FSB type ideas that they are going to come to my home and arrest me for shits and giggles...

So you agree they're dysfunctional and yet you're quite content to invest them with more powers to be dysfunctional with?

[akhalteke]

These are not new powers. This has been going on for a long long time. You are just hearing about it now because it is affecting yuppies driving their BMW's to their tee-time.

[tvashtarkatena]

There have been many, many cases of the wrong people being taken from their homes in the dead of night by heavily armed SWAT teams since 911 to 'fight the war on terror'. I'm not personally paranoid, but I'm also not OK with it happening on a regular basis on American soil. That's not what we're about.

 

You keep trying to reframe everything I say to personal paranoia, but, as I have none, it's a waste of your time and mine. The only thing I'm afraid of is old mayonaise. That shit'll kill ya.

 

You probably know full well already that my point was this: if you move random searches from the border, where they are appropriate, to anywhere, there is no real argument preventing those searches from being conducted in the home, as well. If national security always trumps constitutional concerns, such a program could easily be put into place. Look at the domestic spying program. In effect, our constitutional protections are gone.

[mkporwit]

These are not new powers. This has been going on for a long long time. You are just hearing about it now because it is affecting yuppies driving their BMW's to their tee-time.

No, this isn't new. It has been going on in upstate NY for what, at least 10 years? Maybe other places too. So does that mean it qualifies for being grandfathered in? Is there a statue of limitations for incompetence? I would think that if the government is dysfunctional then you should be advocating the pruning of its powers, not their expansion (of scope or locality of application)

[tvashtarkatena]

I do assume, correctly, that the government makes a lot of mistakes, is incompetent, is overzealous, does a poor job of tracking the effectiveness of its efforts, prioritizes mythical problems created by politicians over real ones, doesn't know how to use it's resources effectively, and has a habit of creating programs which take on a life of their own and spiral out of control.

 

Exactly! Just say "no" to national health care.

 

This is an oft parroted argument somebody in the GOP found in a cereal box about 40 years ago.

 

Programs like the one under discussion; the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, have been expensive debacles.

 

Other government programs, such as the robotic space exploration program, many environmental protections, the subsidized building of our national phone system, have been resounding successes. More to the point, other countries (nearly all of the 1st world) have implemented some form of national health care that offers higher quality, more universal coverage, and lower costs than ours. We entrust much of our services to government, and appropriately so, because many of those services are better delivered under success criteria other than the profit motive. Hence, your generic statement is a fragrant, drooping turd, delicately poised on a cocktail toothpick, ripe for consumption only by those such as yourself who have a taste for that sort of thing.

[sobo]

I don't like the idea of moving these checkpoints away from the border areas either. It's legal and required at the border; leave it there.

 

Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it...

 

 

[Bug]

The legal rights of motorists were lost in teh Reagan years during the war on drugs. Before that police needed probable cause to search a vehicle. Now we are not even pretending it is for teh war on drugs. It is, as the good sherrif pointed out, catching all kinds of criminals. All well and good until you get pulled over and they find a six week old empty beer can on teh floor of your back seat right after you stopped kissing their ass. Spiral out of control from there.

Its not that I am afraid the gov is out to get me. I just don't trust every Tom Dick and Harry with a badge in Podunk nowhere to act rationally and we just gave them teh power to pull us over and hold us indefinately while they ransack our car for whatever reason they decide to write down. I'm not paranoid. I've seen people beaten by small town cops and Elko Nevada was famous amoung hitch-hikers for getting arrested for littering and doing six weeks of hard labor in teh local gravel factory. No shit. The worl ain't perfect and we are giving a lot of imperfect people too much power.

[pc313]

You people don't have a clue!! 2.2 million people in jail's in this great contry,mayby 10% are innocent! Who knows, who cares!! Police State hell, "IT'S BIG BUCK'S"

[jordansahls]

I don't like the idea of moving these checkpoints away from the border areas either. It's legal and required at the border; leave it there.

 

Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it...

 

 

 

I'm all with you about the "doom to repeat" part. And what happened to the Japanese was inexcusable, but you cant seriously compare it to the Holocaust? I'm not defending what we as a nation did to our own Japanese citizens, but we sure as hell didn't murder 6 million of them.

[Fairweather]

Wow. Gotta side with the libs this time. This is total bullshit. I have no problem with the Border Agents conducting "interviews" at points of entry--like ferry terminals accepting inbound BC traffic--but interfering with internal freedom of movement on a state highway is utterly fucked. I may yet become an enemy of the state.

[olyclimber]

its not a "libs" point of view. its an American point of view.

 

in fact, anyone not pissed off by these non-border checkpoints should be deported back to the country they came from...unless they are native, and then they should be kicked back across the land bridge they came over on.