"DSK" wrote in message
...


swatcop wrote:


Hmmm. WHY won't they submit to fingerprinting? If they've got nothing to
hide, what's the problem?

Because it's an invasion of privacy and it's humiliating. I would not be
part of
any organization that insisted I be fingerprinted.

Thank you, you've made my point for me. If you won't comply with the
established rules, then you don't belong there. Oh, and as far as the
humiliation aspect, I've never seen public fingerprinting. Is that something
new in your neck of the woods?


I fingerprint people on a daily basis. You know
how long it takes? About 2 minutes. Maybe there's a reason they don't
want
to be fingerprinted, and if that's the case, then good riddance.

heh heh maybe you feel the same way about body cavity searches. Why don't
you
submit to one of them, in public? After all, if you've got nothing to
hide, why
not? It only takes two minutes.

First of all, body cavity searches will not determine if you've got a
criminal history or not. Secondly, they won't establish a permanent record
of an individual. Therefore, your body cavity search insult not only does
not apply, it just makes you sound dumber than you obviously already are.


I am sick and tired of the "if you've got nothing to hide, then you have
no
reason not to" line of reasoning with regard to Consitutional rights.

Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the
responsibility of protecting our nation.


I believe that citizens should be respected in their homes and in their
persons.
If the gov't cannot abide by that agreement, then we need to either rip up
the
Consitution once and for all (and many would say "good riddance") or else
get
the gov't back on the right track.

Again, thank you for making my point for me. The fingerprinting in question
from the original post (if you bothered to read it) purtained to individuals
employed by the United States Coast Guard (government position, in case you
dont abla). It's got nothing to do with respecting anyone in their homes. It
does, however, apply to individuals who have access to national security
issues. If you are uncomfortable living in a more secure nation because we
choose to screen the people who protect us, than maybe you'd be better off
moving somewhere else. Irag, for example.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

swatcop wrote:


First of all, body cavity searches will not determine if you've got a
criminal history or not. Secondly, they won't establish a permanent record
of an individual.

So, you think it would be fun to have one done on you? Great. I think there are
some other newsgroup political regulars who would like to watch.


Therefore, your body cavity search insult not only does
not apply, it just makes you sound dumber than you obviously already are.

Why does it make me sound dumb, because I am not in favor of a police state? I
guess a cop would be in favor of a gov't that would allow him to do anything at
all, to any citizen, anywhere... now that would be nice & secure, wouldn't it...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
swatcop wrote:


First of all, body cavity searches will not determine if you've got a
criminal history or not. Secondly, they won't establish a permanent
record
of an individual.

So, you think it would be fun to have one done on you? Great. I think
there are
some other newsgroup political regulars who would like to watch.

Geez, I must have missed something - I don't recall mentioning anything
about the pleasures of body cavity searches, only how they didn't apply to
the original post that you were trying to flame. Keep going - you're
sounding dumber by the minute.



Therefore, your body cavity search insult not only does
not apply, it just makes you sound dumber than you obviously already
are.

Why does it make me sound dumb, because I am not in favor of a police
state? I
guess a cop would be in favor of a gov't that would allow him to do
anything at
all, to any citizen, anywhere... now that would be nice & secure, wouldn't
it...


Obviously you've got a problem with reading comprehension. Here's a
suggestion: go back and actually READ what I wrote. Then take a few minutes
to digest it and think about what you're going to reply with before you
start typing. The goal is to fabricate an intelligent response, not just
flail away on the keyboard typing a response that amplifies your obviously
handicapped intelligence level.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

swatcop wrote:

Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the
responsibility of protecting our nation.


This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented
themselves as being in law inforcement.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Charles" wrote in message
...


swatcop wrote:

Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the
responsibility of protecting our nation.


This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented
themselves as being in law inforcement.

-- Charlie

Yeah, but it's true. In various news stories over the years, I've heard that
enlisted people are missing a few rights in criminal proceedings. It's just
accepted as part of the deal.

"Charles" wrote in message

This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented
themselves as being in law inforcement.

If it is a troubling statement, it ought to be troubling regardless of the
speaker. The fact is that active duty military members are subject to the
UCMJ as well as (and sometime instead of) civil law. In some areas the
standards and procedures of the UCMJ appear somewhat harsh in comparison to
civilian criminal law.