Frisking at NFL games?

[Chavez]

Seriously, in this day & age, what reasonable person wouldn't want frisking/bag searches to go on?

 

The Bill of Rights may protect someone in this case (and that remains to be seen, obviously), but why wouldn't any citizen of this country concede that the rights of the thousands in the stadium to safely enjoy the game is more inviolate than their privacy? Common sense has to start prevailing in this country at some point, doesn't it?

 

That's a funny argument for a conservative.

[Chavez]

Because NFL games actually have more than 15 - 20K at attendence versus most NFL games run 65 - 75K at the game. Each would be terrible to have an terrorist incident, but with 3 to 4 times the people at an NFL game, the terrorist would make more headlines and inflict more damage.

 

...only if they destroyed the entire stadium, which would be tough to do with a device small enough to be concealed on your person.

 

Besides, with 80 games per team in the NBA and 162 in MLB, baseball and basketball present MORE opportunities to attempt to smuggle something in - and with more lax security, that makes them a riper target than the NFL.

[Chavez]

Not to mention awakening the sleeping giant that is the wrath of FF owners everywhere. They'd start with fantasy military units in the ME & the terrorist threat would be wiped from the face of the Earth.

 

Hey, what kind of league do you play in?

 

A 6 pt/killed, 2 pt/maimed terrorist with 10 pt bonuses for rescued hostages.

 

Sweeeeeetttt! Do you think I should start the 101st in Bagdad this week? TIA. Will answer yours.

 

DARPA looked into running what amounted to a "stock market" or "betting pool" for probable terrorist targets.

 

Intriguing idea but the politics of the time got it shut down.

[Bronco Billy]

That's a funny argument for a conservative.

 

 

Security and civil liberty are in direct opposition of each other. Every American understands (or should understand) this very basic concept. The greater the breath and depth of out civil liberties, the less safe and secure that we are.

 

In times of war (and I would argue that we are most definitely in a war for our existance and way of life with Islamo-fascists who abhor everything about our society and have demonstrated that they will go to the most extreme means in an effort to disrupt or derail it), concerns for security of the general public have to start to take precedence over some basic civil liberties.

 

That means that if security at football games have to frisk people before they enter the stadium in an effort to make everyone in that stadium even a little bit more secure - especially considering that a terrorist event at a NFL game would be quite a plum for the perpetrators - then every American should comprehend the importance of this decision and abide by it, and not place their own imagined self-importance above everyone else in that stadium. This is about the common good - something a lot of people seem to forget is a fundamental principle of any functional society. We restrict actions all the time in order to maintain greater safety - they are called laws.

 

And as the appeals court very clearly pointed out - and this seems to be lost on a lot of people who have a habit of screaming about their rights being violated - there is nothing guaranteed in our governmental documents that there is an inalienable right to attend a NFL game.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[Fatman]

Good way of losing revenue by turning fans away from the team/league altogether...

 

 

[Chavez]

Security and civil liberty are in direct opposition of each other. Every American understands (or should understand) this very basic concept. The greater the breath and depth of out civil liberties, the less safe and secure that we are.

 

In times of war (and I would argue that we are most definitely in a war for our existance and way of life with Islamo-fascists who abhor everything about our society and have demonstrated that they will go to the most extreme means in an effort to disrupt or derail it), concerns for security of the general public have to start to take precedence over some basic civil liberties.

 

That means that if security at football games have to frisk people before they enter the stadium in an effort to make everyone in that stadium even a little bit more secure - especially considering that a terrorist event at a NFL game would be quite a plum for the perpetrators - then every American should comprehend the importance of this decision and abide by it, and not place their own imagined self-importance above everyone else in that stadium. This is about the common good - something a lot of people seem to forget is a fundamental principle of any functional society. We restrict actions all the time in order to maintain greater safety - they are called laws.

 

And as the appeals court very clearly pointed out - and this seems to be lost on a lot of people who have a habit of screaming about their rights being violated - there is nothing guaranteed in our governmental documents that there is an inalienable right to attend a NFL game.

 

 

I agree completely with the court's decision - I just think conservatives have come a long way from "live free or die" mantra - "keep me safe no matter what" seems to be the drumbeat these days.

 

Especially since I regard most "increases in security" to be pretty pointless and needlessly intrusive; as Bill Maher pointed out, we can do security - in Vegas, they nail you for counting in your head. The ham handed attempts I see at ballgames and airports is intrusive and useless. Gimme EFFECTIVE security, not lip-service and band-aids.

[Bronco Billy]

Oh - and before someone decides to stretch my argument to some comparison to Nazism and an argument for the formation of a gestapo - that is something that couldn't happen in this country and everyone knows it. There are too many checks and balances to allow the restriction of civil liberties to go over the top - a couple of those checks & balances being the 1st and 2nd Amendments, which we will never surrender regardless of the threat.

[Chavez]

There are too many checks and balances to allow the restriction of civil liberties to go over the top - a couple of those checks & balances being the 1st and 2nd Amendments, which we will never surrender regardless of the threat.

 

The 4th is apparently negotiable.

[Bronco Billy]

The ham handed attempts I see at ballgames and airports is intrusive and useless. Gimme EFFECTIVE security, not lip-service and band-aids.

 

 

Yeah, just like monitoring who is taking flight school classes being ham handed - right up until planes get flown into buildings. That's a scenario that stretched the imagination until it actually occurred.

 

If the searches didn't take place - and they are hardly an inconvenience to anyone - imagine the uproar when a terrorist managed to get a vial of anthrax into the upper deck of the stadium and then released it across the crowd or some other similar event. Unless you are suggesting some type of survellience at NFL games similar to that in Vegas. I don't know that anyone wants to go that far. That's Big Brother type stuff.

[Bronco Billy]

The 4th is apparently negotiable.

 

 

Reasonably so... The First and Second Amendments are restricted at times also. No rights are absolute.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[Ursa Majoris]

This is about the common good - something a lot of people seem to forget is a fundamental principle of any functional society.

 

 

BB is a closet communist!

[Chavez]

Yeah, just like monitoring who is taking flight school classes being ham handed - right up until planes get flown into buildings. That's a scenario that stretched the imagination until it actually occurred.

 

If the searches didn't take place - and they are hardly an inconvenience to anyone - imagine the uproar when a terrorist managed to get a vial of anthrax into the upper deck of the stadium and then released it across the crowd or some other similar event. Unless you are suggesting some type of survellience at NFL games similar to that in Vegas. I don't know that anyone wants to go that far. That's Big Brother type stuff.

 

The problem is that the PRIOR security measure that were in place were more than enough to prevent 9/11. Had the US intelligence community not had its collective head up its ass.

[Bronco Billy]

BB is a closet communist!

 

 

[Bronco Billy]

The problem is that the PRIOR security measure that were in place were more than enough to prevent 9/11. Had the US intelligence community not had its collective head up its ass.

 

 

Whoa - let's not lose perspective here. There was a mandate in place that did not allow various intelligence agencies to share information. Ironically, the person responsible for producing that mandate - who was a deputy attorney general in the Clinton adsministration at the time - also managed to sit on the committee that investigated the intelligence failures that lead to the Sept. 11th attack. That memo could have been a critical road block.

 

That said, even if the Gorelich memo had never existed, there is still no way to know whether cross communication would have lead to a different outcome. Hell, if imigration laws had been enforced half of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack wouldn't have been in the country at the time of the attack.

[Chavez]

 

That said, even if the Gorelich memo had never existed, there is still no way to know whether cross communication would have lead to a different outcome. Hell, if imigration laws had been enforced half of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack wouldn't have been in the country at the time of the attack.

 

 

Also true.

[Bronco Billy]

Also true.

 

 

Always a pleasure to get into discussions with you, Chavez, even when we are diametrically opposed.

 

[godtomsatan]

I just don't like being told that I'm being searched because I might be carrying a bomb, when in fact, I'm being searched because I might be carrying a flask or a sandwich.

[Bronco Billy]

I just don't like being told that I'm being searched because I might be carrying a bomb, when in fact, I'm being searched because I might be carrying a flask or a sandwich.

 

 

Couldn't they be looking for a bomb while simultaneously trying to relieve you of your wineskin & twinkies?

[Chavez]

Always a pleasure to get into discussions with you, Chavez, even when we are diametrically opposed.

 

 

I don't know that we're diametrically opposed - I just look at the shake-out from 9/11, and it's disgusting how many ways that it could have been prevented by laws and procedures already on the books - let's use what we have already instead of passing more (and more intrusive) laws, especially when they whittle away at the Bill of Rights.

 

That said, if I object to something that occurs at a sporting event (searches, metal detectors, Hitler Youth rallies, etc etc), I am not required by any stretch to be there, and can choose to not go, and watch it from the comfort of my home atop a mound of guns and booze.*

 

 

 

* - unless it's a minor league or high school game.

[Donutrun Jellies]

I just don't like being told that I'm being searched because I might be carrying a bomb, when in fact, I'm being searched because I might be carrying a flask or a sandwich.

 

That is what it all comes down to ... Yep, just like we are lying to them when we pretend not to be sneaking in food, they are lying to us when they pretend not to be looking for it.

 

No grand rights argument or anything liberal or conservative ... just disappointment that the unannounced consequences of heightened security is the elimination of the thrill of sneaking a PB&J into a game to avoid spending $7.50 for a hot dog.

[Jolly Rodgers]

 

They just won their case on appeal. That's what your link says and it's what I posted directly above your post.

 

And that the guy was a Civics teacher absolutely floors me. How is it possible that he teaches kids Civics and doesn't understand how the Constitution & Bill of Rights works?

 

 

If you actually read at my post, I was refering to the quoted statement that talked about "if the Tampa people win their case....". Knowing and seeing what I was refering to, the Tampa people just lost their case........Like I said.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Jolly Rodgers

[Bronco Billy]

If you actually read at my post, I was refering to the quoted statement that talked about "if the Tampa people win their case....". Knowing and seeing what I was refering to, the Tampa people just lost their case........Like I said.

 

 

Holy crap. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over something so inane, but I actually did read your post, and it did not say the Tampa "people" lost their case, it said Tampa lost their case. When you name "Tampa" and don't name the plaintiffs, the implication is clearly toward the defendants in this case.

 

Would you like me to quote it for you again? At a minimum, it was misleading. Now get your panties out of a wad.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[Jolly Rodgers]

Holy crap. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over something so inane, but I actually did read your post, and it did not say the Tampa "people" lost their case, it said Tampa lost their case. When you name "Tampa" and don't name the plaintiffs, the implication is clearly toward the defendants in this case.

 

Would you like me to quote it for you again? At a minimum, it was misleading. Now get your panties out of a wad.

 

 

Sure whatever, it was misleading...

 

At a minimum, you're the one who decided to point it out in the first place so get you're the one making a big deal of it.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Jolly Rodgers

[Bronco Billy]

Sure whatever, it was misleading...

 

At a minimum, you're the one who decided to point it out in the first place so get you're the one making a big deal of it.

 

 

Oh yeah?

 

[frenchaccent] Well, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time. [/frenchaccent]

[Jolly Rodgers]

Oh yeah?

 

[frenchaccent] Well, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time. [/frenchaccent]

 

 

 

Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away!