Wait, interstate TSA checkpoints now, too?

It's amazing how much has changed since 9/11. My neighbor works in a hospital and the other day she was telling me that a DHS rule now requires that there be no straight avenue into a hospital. Instead, vehicles have to take a circuitous route. The supposed reason is that this would prevent someone from driving a bomb-rigged car through the front of a hospital and detonating it inside. I was left wondering what this would mean for ambulance response times.

What's the point of bombing people who are already sick?

TheArtOfScience wrote:

What's the point of bombing people who are already sick?

That sounds like terr'ist talk right there, boy.

Minarchist wrote:
clover wrote:

But Tennessee has nuclear stuffs! And terrorists drive dirty bombs around in UHaul trucks! Don't you read Tom Clancy novels?

I did briefly think of Oak Ridge Laboratory for a moment, but even that is research-driven; it's not a huge reactor area or anything. Even if they incinerated the entire compound, I don't think there's enough radiation there really approach nearby Knoxville.

Again with the rational thinking. Clearly you're not cut out for DHS work.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

What's the point of bombing people who are already sick?

Given our national response to the destruction of an office building, woe to the terrorist organization that hits a hospital or a school.

bandit0013 wrote:
TheArtOfScience wrote:

What's the point of bombing people who are already sick?

Given our national response to the destruction of an office building, woe to the terrorist organization that hits a hospital or a school.

What kind of monters would bomb a hospital?

TheArtOfScience wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
TheArtOfScience wrote:

What's the point of bombing people who are already sick?

Given our national response to the destruction of an office building, woe to the terrorist organization that hits a hospital or a school.

What kind of monters would bomb a hospital?

So? We didn't do it on purpose. Totally different.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

What's the point of bombing people who are already sick?

My guess is they'd be bombing the nurses and doctors and equipment and medicine to maximize the casualties of an attack on another local location.

Sick logic, but kinda like how in a game you always go after the healer units earlier rather than later.

There's a lot to learn from games, kinda like how Gen. Sherman was the first to be all like "I'm in ur baze, killin' ur doodz."

Minarchist wrote:

Great, so now I can only go north and south out of Nashville, not east or west? f*ck you, TSA. f*ck. You.

EDIT: from the first of three sources listed in the linked article:

"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Where in bloody hell do you think a terrorist is going to attack in Tennessee? Honestly. You don't think they'd have their eyes on NYC or DC or LA or Vegas first? Or, y'know, just about any other place in the country?

Terrorists are most likely to be found in Pakistan. I say we send the TSA there.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

Great, so now I can only go north and south out of Nashville, not east or west? f*ck you, TSA. f*ck. You.

EDIT: from the first of three sources listed in the linked article:

"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Where in bloody hell do you think a terrorist is going to attack in Tennessee? Honestly. You don't think they'd have their eyes on NYC or DC or LA or Vegas first? Or, y'know, just about any other place in the country?

Terrorists are most likely to be found in Pakistan. I say we send the TSA there.

That's an awesome idea!

Didn't the joker explain the attractiveness of hospitals as a target for those wishing to sew anarchy?

TheArtOfScience wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
TheArtOfScience wrote:

What's the point of bombing people who are already sick?

Given our national response to the destruction of an office building, woe to the terrorist organization that hits a hospital or a school.

What kind of monters would bomb a hospital?

Or a school?

Food for thought:

The Government Has Broad Legal Authority to Search Laptops, Phones, Cameras, and Other Devices at the U.S. Border. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable government searches and seizures. This generally means that the government has to get a warrant to search a location or item in which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Searches at places where people enter or leave the country are considered "reasonable" simply because they happen at the border or its functional equivalent, such as an international airport. (source: EFF)

If TSA highway searches become common, then it would seem a natural progression that searching our laptops, portable hard drives, and usb sticks while we are driving would then also be considered "reasonable" simply because they happen at a place where other searches occur. Maybe it is time for to consider data encryption a reasonable course of action. Certainly it is time to re-read Doctorow's Little Brother and think about how to use technology to empower ourselves against abuses of authority.

Wow...another step towards a police state. Airports, rail stations are also heading that way, and now highways?
Next: large screens with faces of fugitives!

Sparhawk wrote:

Wow...another step towards a police state. Airports, rail stations are also heading that way, and now highways?
Next: large screens with faces of fugitives!

Or large screens with the face of the Supreme and Glorious Leader

At this point, anyone claiming we don't live in a police state does not understand what that phrase means. The fangs are getting longer, and just because they haven't bitten you yet, doesn't mean they won't.

Malor wrote:

At this point, anyone claiming we don't live in a police state does not understand what that phrase means. The fangs are getting longer, and just because they haven't bitten you yet, doesn't mean they won't.

A secure state is when someone else randomly gets stopped at a security checkpoint. A police state is when you do.

I'd like to point out that this isn't new. If you live near the U.S./Mexico border, Border Patrol has been doing this for awhile.

I have a friend that lives 45 mins south of me and I can't visit him without playing 20 questions with the Border Patrol. Just making sure there aren't any filthy Mexicans in your car sir, have a nice day.

Agent 86 wrote:

I'd like to point out that this isn't new. If you live near the U.S./Mexico border, Border Patrol has been doing this for awhile.

I have a friend that lives 45 mins south of me and I can't visit him without playing 20 questions with the Border Patrol. Just making sure there aren't any filthy Mexicans in your car sir, have a nice day.

What happens if you refuse to answer the questions?

Nevin73 wrote:
Agent 86 wrote:

I'd like to point out that this isn't new. If you live near the U.S./Mexico border, Border Patrol has been doing this for awhile.

I have a friend that lives 45 mins south of me and I can't visit him without playing 20 questions with the Border Patrol. Just making sure there aren't any filthy Mexicans in your car sir, have a nice day.

What happens if you refuse to answer the questions?

If it's anything like air travel they detain you as punishment until 15 minutes before the legal limit that they have to charge you with something, and then they let you go.

IMAGE(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSE3ROyJxV3WOk2VcV661l_AfGqKDdK3iCcAH8AwRG3YX5zLI0Ijg)

Borodin has become disillusioned and wants to back to Russia now. And he's taking both his wives with him.

DudleySmith wrote:

IMAGE(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSE3ROyJxV3WOk2VcV661l_AfGqKDdK3iCcAH8AwRG3YX5zLI0Ijg)

Borodin has become disillusioned and wants to back to Russia now. And he's taking both his wives with him.

Both Tennessee and Texas are a long way from Montana.

Yonder wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Agent 86 wrote:

I'd like to point out that this isn't new. If you live near the U.S./Mexico border, Border Patrol has been doing this for awhile.

I have a friend that lives 45 mins south of me and I can't visit him without playing 20 questions with the Border Patrol. Just making sure there aren't any filthy Mexicans in your car sir, have a nice day.

What happens if you refuse to answer the questions?

If it's anything like air travel they detain you as punishment until 15 minutes before the legal limit that they have to charge you with something, and then they let you go.

Pretty much this. You'll be pulled over, asked to exit the vehicle, more questions, they'll probably ask if they can search your vehicle and they will definitely run the dogs over it.

My friend has to commute through the checkpoint every work day. One time, when he was on his motorcycle, he got to spend about two hours with them when the drug dog false positived on the the sandwich in his backpack.

Agent 86 wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Agent 86 wrote:

I'd like to point out that this isn't new. If you live near the U.S./Mexico border, Border Patrol has been doing this for awhile.

I have a friend that lives 45 mins south of me and I can't visit him without playing 20 questions with the Border Patrol. Just making sure there aren't any filthy Mexicans in your car sir, have a nice day.

What happens if you refuse to answer the questions?

If it's anything like air travel they detain you as punishment until 15 minutes before the legal limit that they have to charge you with something, and then they let you go.

Pretty much this. You'll be pulled over, asked to exit the vehicle, more questions, they'll probably ask if they can search your vehicle and they will definitely run the dogs over it.

My friend has to commute through the checkpoint every work day. One time, when he was on his motorcycle, he got to spend about two hours with them when the drug dog false positived on the the sandwich in his backpack.

Well, the dog was positive that he wanted it at least.

Out of curiousity yesterday I was reading stuff on sobriety checkpoints. A DUI lawyer's FAQ suggested that you have the right to state that you do not agree with checkpoints and that you can refuse to answer any/all questions without a lawyer present. Now how much pain and delay you would have to go through if you do that, it didn't say.

DudleySmith wrote:

IMAGE(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSE3ROyJxV3WOk2VcV661l_AfGqKDdK3iCcAH8AwRG3YX5zLI0Ijg)

Borodin has become disillusioned and wants to back to Russia now. And he's taking both his wives with him.

What about all his rabbits? Surely she can't cook them all for him before he leaves.

Malor wrote:

At this point, anyone claiming we don't live in a police state does not understand what that phrase means. The fangs are getting longer, and just because they haven't bitten you yet, doesn't mean they won't.

Can we agree that Wikipedia is an OK source for this? I gave you the benefit of the doubt and consulted the oracle.

The use of the term is motivated as a response to the laws, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime's concept of the social contract, human rights, and similar matters.

Genuine police states are fundamentally authoritarian, and are often dictatorships. However the degree of government repression varies widely among societies. Most regimes fall into some middle ground between the extremes of civil libertarianism and totalitarianism.

I'm not saying we're not moving along the continuum, just that we're not "there" yet. Just as we do not yet live — Praise Batman!— in a theocracy.

On topic, I was in Iowa and they pulled everydamnbody off the Interstate and onto a weigh station. They checked headlights, looked in cars. I believe the term for this is "a big ol' fishin' expedition."

I'm not saying we're not moving along the continuum, just that we're not "there" yet.

Random stops demanding your papers, back when this country actually was fairly free, were the definition of a police state.

Malor wrote:
I'm not saying we're not moving along the continuum, just that we're not "there" yet.

Random stops demanding your papers, back when this country actually was fairly free, were the definition of a police state.

Yeah, not sure we're there yet either, truth be told. This just rattled me enough to start looking for my cultural fire exits if it gets worse.

At least sobriety checkpoints have reasonable expectations. They're performed in residential areas or near drinking establishments, on weekends and later in the evening, even more so on drinking holidays such as new years, where there is an increased likelihood of finding what they're looking for. The interstate in Tennessee doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable place to look for terrorists.

Besides, if you were planning on driving something such as a dirty bomb across the country, wouldn't you plan ahead and map out a route that took you on the backroads, avoiding any such potential checkpoints?

It's not just the TSA.

IMAGE(http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20111021&Category=NEWS06&ArtNo=110210365&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Drivers-face-drug-checkpoints-highways-near-Flint)
IMAGE(http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20111021&Category=NEWS06&ArtNo=110210365&Ref=V1&MaxW=300&Border=0&Drivers-face-drug-checkpoints-highways-near-Flint)

"We're doing everything by the book," Genesee County Undersheriff Christopher Swanson said. "We think there's major loads (of drugs) coming through here from all over, every day. And this is one of the tools we use -- narcotics checkpoints."
The practice has legal experts on searches and seizures at two law schools in Michigan, a constitutional law expert in Lansing and the American Civil Liberties Union calling the practice out of bounds and out of touch with state and U.S. Supreme Court rulings that ban such practices.

Based on a case out of Indianapolis, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2000 that narcotics checkpoints where everyone gets stopped on a public road are not legal and violate Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures, professor David Moran at the University of Michigan Law School said.

Wayne State University Law School professor Peter Henning said police can set up roadblocks to search all who pass by, but only if a crime has just been committed.

And Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, who said he was not consulted by Pickell about the checkpoints, said that after a court challenge, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that so-called "sobriety check lanes," put in place to nab drunken drivers, were illegal.

So they know it wrong, and ruled in previous court cases to be wrong and yet they are still doing it.