"DSK" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

I usually like what you have to say, but I'm still not clear on whether
"publicly" and "fingerprinted" belong together in a complaint. What
difference does it make who's watching?

Actually, I'd object to being fingerprnted at all, but there are certainly
more
negative connotations the more people are watching. With the powerful
association our culture has for fingerprinting = criminal, it seems pretty
obvious why.

There you go - proving my point again. If fingerprinting=criminal (which it
doesn't), then the person afraid of being fingerprinted shouldn't be allowed
to hold a government position which allows him/her access to classified
information. If they've got a criminal history then they don't qualify for
the job. End of story.

By the way, teachers and other such employees are required to be
fingerprinted. Does that make them criminals? How about the kids that are
fingerprinted for such programs as "Ident-A-Kid?" Are they criminals as well
because they were fingerprinted?


....I was fingerprinted for my pistol
permit in a room with several people who were doing administrative cop
things, and a couple of other guys waiting on a bench 10 feet away. Only
the
cop who printed me was close enough to matter.

Here in NC, we have concealed-carry permits which I believe requires
fingerprinting, but to get a license to buy a pistol all you need is a
signature
from your county sheriff.

Now THAT'S security. "Hey, cousin Bob? Since you're Sheriff now and me being
a criminal and all, can you sign my license to buy a gun since the last 3
Sheriff's wouldn't do it?" Great, just what we need.


But, for example, let's say that one of the cops who was present when you
were
fingerprinted stops you for some petty reason, traffic or something....
and
remembers your face but not where & why he remembers it... and you end up
handcuffed or worse.

If you end up "handcuffed or worse" I'm sure it's not because the cop
recognized you as someone that he fingerprinted for a job application. More
like because you committed a crime.



Of course, I just had 3 enormous oatmeal cookies and sugar shock may be
keeping me from seeing the point. That was a disclaimer. Be gentle with
me.
:-)

I only hammer those whose skulls have been proven thick enough to need it




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

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


I'm glad someone else feels this way. Law enforcement professionals should
have
*more* respect for constitutional rights, not less.

I have the utmost respect for regular, everyday citizens' constitutional
rights. But we're not talking about everyday citizens, we're talking about
government employees who have access to classified information.



Doug Kanter wrote:
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.

You mean people who enlist in the military? Yes, they definitely have
limits on
some of their constitutionals rights, and not just with regard to criminal
matters. They are allowed to vote, but not to publish political material
or
speech. But that's the military, would it make sense to have soldiers,
sailors,
and marines suing the gov't every time there was a battle? When you sign
up,
your ass belongs to Uncle Sam and they make that plain before you go in.

Thank you once again for proving my point for me - "You mean people who
enlist in the military? Yes, they definitely have limits on some of their
constitutionals rights, and not just with regard to criminal matters." I
just cut and pasted exactly what you just typed, which is exactly what
you've been trying to contradict for the last 4 hours. Make up your mind.


What bothers me is the casual attitude about privacy and consitutional
freedoms
for citizens... and the disdain for volunteers who might not want to
submit to
various kinds of negative procedures and/or hazing. No wonder they are
losing
people.

If they're volunteering for a governmental position, then they should expect
to be held to higher standards and screening processes.


A while ago I was associated with some hospital volunteers. People who
gave up
their time to try and help others when they need it most. The hospital
assigned
"volunteer coordination" as a subsidiary job to the least effective and
least
liked administrator.... who proceded to drive away all the volunteers.

Way to problem solve!

We're not talking about candy-stripers, we're talking about people who have
access to classified information and work for the government. BIG
difference.


Is the issue really national security, or is it just a front so a few
under-endowed guys can act all macho?

Yeah, that must be it. I'm glad you put that into perspective for all of us.

--
-= swatcop =-

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