"Persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not cover items taken off of work premises. You are in your "employers" house, using their "papers and effects", and as such the Bill of Rights does not apply.
The second part says "unreasonable searches and seizures". A strong case can be made that searching a scientist on his way out of the NIH is quite reasonable, considering some of the deadly stuff they have there.
Lastly, the individual signed away his 4th Ammendment rights with respect to the Company grounds when he signed his employment papers.
The 4th Ammendment protects one on/in one's personal property. The company's property is another matter.
You work at the National Institute of Health. Most of the Bill of Rights does not apply when you are on company grounds or on company time:
You don't have freedom of speech. Your employer can, and will, fire you for speech that harms the company.
You most likely aren't allowed to bring firearms on site. The 2nd ammendment doesn't apply at work.
Your desk and person are subject to searches without cause.
Your rights at work are whatever the company says they are on the employment agreement you signed when you started there.
I work at a D.O.E. lab and have been subject to the same searches you have. It comes with the territory. It comes with your job. You agreed to it implicitly when you accepted employment. If you don't like it, go work somewhere else.
Do you have to like it? no. Do you have to put up with it? If you want to remain employed, yes.
You do have a choice here. You just don't like the options.
We haven't even been shown the evidence yet! Neither did we show the Taliban the evidence when we demanded that bin Laden be turned over to us. Why not?
What part of Osama bin Laden's "confession" yesterday did you miss?
The part we he said America had it coming?
How about the part where he called for more of it to happen?
How about the part where he said that Americans will not have security until Palestine does?
he confessed...and offered up a threat of more attacks on US civilians.
Hate to shatter your preconceptions about your dear old pop, but your dad didn't write it, fella. It's been circulating around the internet for several days.
More likely, someone sent it to your dad and he is taking credit for it.
I bet he wrote the Canadian editorial from 1973 as well...and the Nostradamus quotes.
The US is far more powerful than Bin Laden and his supporters, and I'm sure more Afghani civillians will be killed than were killed in the WTC.
Really? Even the taliban itself reports less than two dozen deaths from last night's military actions (no word on what percentage of those were civilian).
Do you really think that more than 6,000 Afghani civilians will be killed?
Or has your "hate America first" attitude clouded your better judgement.
interesting how americans are so sure of this... THERE HAS BEEN NO EXPOSURE OF EVIDENCE. THERE HAS BEEN NO TRIAL. How is it that you feel you can enact a sentance without a trail?
The released videotape of bin Laden yesterday was, for all intents and purposes, a confession.
He did it. He admits doing it. He's happy it was done. He says it will happen again.
Bush's presidency has now come down to this singularity:
if bin Laden is still breathing and at large in November of 2004, Bush will not see a second term.
Forget the current 92% approval rating. His dad had a 90% rating at the height of the Gulf War as well. 18 months later he was getting less than 40% of the vote and losing to Bill Clinton.
That 92% support is a mile wide and an inch deep. If he fscks it up...if bin Laden survives until '04.... Bush will not. 3 years is an eternity in politics. If, in the fall of '04, we are still mired in recession and mired in a "war on terrorism" that hasn't succeeded, Bush's 92% approval will have whittled away.
If, however, bin Laden is eliminated, Bush will be president until '08. It's that simple.
Whether he wanted this or not, the timing of Bush's meteoric approval ratings rise is not necessarily good for his re-election hopes in '04.
Do you really think we're only killing the Taliban with our cruise missiles and bombs?
The difference here, and it is a very big difference, is that we are taking every possible precaution to make sure the fewest innocent civilians are killed.
OBL/Taliban (and no, I don't separate the two...they are two heads of the same beast) take every possible measure to maximize the number of innocent civilians that are killed.
We are attacking their capability to launch future attacks.
We are better than them. Let's not equivocate with moral relativism about their society simply being "different". We care enough about their civilian population to try to limit their suffering, even dropping them food and medicine (something their government denies them).
OBL calls for the death of innocent American civilians. We are trying to free an imprisoned people (especially their women) while eliminating the sub-humans who treat their women like pets in the first place.
There is right and wrong here. It's not "West vs. Islam". It's Right vs. freaking Wrong.
I can't stand George W. Bush....but he is handling this situation EXACTLY in the correct manner (as I'm sure Gore would've done as well).
....Not to mention the fact that the major news outlets were about to release the results of their joint study of the Florida election results.
The date that this study was going to be released: September 16th.
It was an independent analysis of the 200,000 over-vote and under-vote ballots. It was paid for by the major news outlets in the United States. It has been indefinitely "shelved" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
The story can be found at salon.com.
If you were suspicious of the US Gov't, you might think someone wanted attention diverted away from a study that perhaps shows that Al Gore won the 2000 election.
I'm not saying I agree with this conspiracy theory, just that it is another "thing that makes you go 'hmmmm'".
The same thing happened to Bill Maher of "Politically Incorrect" fame.
He made a statement that was an indirect slam against the Clinton Administration, but some right-wing shock jocks took it as an attack on the US military and Bush. Maher and his advertisers have been hammered with hate mail from the "Free Republic" types and Limbots ever since.
What Maher basically said was that it would be "cowardly" of us to lob cruise missiles at terrorist camps from 2000 miles away, like we did in 1998. He was calling the decision makers (i.e. Clinton) cowards, not the military.
But right-wing nuts reacted to the second-hand information they got from fellow wing-nuts like Mike Gallagher and went ballistic.
Very much the same way that slashdotters went ballistic on the WP.
Bill Maher has always been very pro-military on PI, but because he is impartial and sometimes takes the leftward position on some issues (drug war, death penalty), the conservatives in this country saw it as an opportunity for an attack. Never mind that he was implicitly criticizing their arch-enemy Clinton...he is sometimes liberal, so he must be taken off the air.
But, nothing I have seen in his character, his words, or his deeds in the past has given me the confidence to believe that he is.
I have an image of him calling up his dad on Air Force One Tuesday morning crying, "Dad, what do I do now?"
He is a small man, lacking in gravitas, courage, and intelligence.
He's gonna have to grow into the suit in a hurry....or else move aside and let Cheney take over.
Just about the worst person we could have running things right now is the George W. Bush from birth to Tuesday. Hopefully this situation is a life-changing event for him and he finally becomes a man.
I have found that most of the MCSE's and other Microsoft-y techs I know either graduated from two-year technical schools, or graduated with liberal arts degrees or a "light" science degrees like "Library Science" or "Information Science".
OTOH, most of the *nix-type techs I have run into have at least a 4-yr degree in Computer Science or EE, and many have Masters and PHD's.
I can only come to the conclusion that Microsoft developers and admins are the "lowest common denominator" when it comes to the IT professionals.
People with real computing expertise seem to gravitate toward the *nix world.
I realize many people will still be pissed with this decision and spew a ton of vitriol towards Mr. Bush, but you have to recognize that this was a huge comprimise on his part.
Ok, now I get it.
Republican reneges on a campaign promise = "huge compromise on his part"
Democrat reneges on a campaign promise = "lying bastard said anything just to get elected"
But, just out of curiousity, exactly when does a unique and complete human life begin?
American law (and common sense) dictates that a person is legally dead when they have no brain function (in the cerebrum).
To be consistent with logic, we should therefore define human life as beginning when brain waves can be detected in the cerebrum of a fetus. This occurs sometime between the 10th and 12th week of gestation.
Simply solution: If a woman wants to have an abortion, perform a brain scan on the fetus. If it detects brain activity, it is a legally-protected human being. If it doesn't, then by our current definition of death, it is not yet alive and can be aborted.
Basically, every abortion during the first 2.5 to 3 months of pregnancy would be completely legal and unrestricted.
We define death based on the detectable activity in the brain. Let's define life the same way.
Do you really think that the US energy policy in the next four years is going to include ANY money for research in this area?
This technology would threaten the economic well-being of GW's oil buddies (i.e. campaign contributors)....you can expect NO funding for fusion research until at least January of 2005.
"I have as much authority as the pope.
I just don't have as many people who believe it."
Slashdot Mirror
Neither. But Gore had a lot more to do with it's growth and development than Gates did.
In the 80s, as a Senator, Gore at least knew what the Internet was...and helped provide funding to the NSF that helped speed up its development.
Bill Gates didn't even know the Internet existed until 1995.
The Bill of Rights is left at the door when you are on company time.
The second part says "unreasonable searches and seizures". A strong case can be made that searching a scientist on his way out of the NIH is quite reasonable, considering some of the deadly stuff they have there.
Lastly, the individual signed away his 4th Ammendment rights with respect to the Company grounds when he signed his employment papers.
The 4th Ammendment protects one on/in one's personal property. The company's property is another matter.
Your rights at work are whatever the company says they are on the employment agreement you signed when you started there.
I work at a D.O.E. lab and have been subject to the same searches you have. It comes with the territory. It comes with your job. You agreed to it implicitly when you accepted employment. If you don't like it, go work somewhere else.
Do you have to like it? no. Do you have to put up with it? If you want to remain employed, yes.
You do have a choice here. You just don't like the options.
Bush II's "war on terror" just pulled the plug. All with the implicit endorsement of the entire Senate, save for that brave soul Russ Feingold.
In 10 years, will we even remember what it was like to be "secure in our possessions and papers"?
We defeated the Soviet Union....now we are on a path to become them.
What part of Osama bin Laden's "confession" yesterday did you miss?
The part we he said America had it coming?
How about the part where he called for more of it to happen?
How about the part where he said that Americans will not have security until Palestine does?
he confessed...and offered up a threat of more attacks on US civilians.
What evidence would satisy you?
oh...that's right, none.
More likely, someone sent it to your dad and he is taking credit for it.
I bet he wrote the Canadian editorial from 1973 as well...and the Nostradamus quotes.
Is your dad a script-kiddie too?
Really? Even the taliban itself reports less than two dozen deaths from last night's military actions (no word on what percentage of those were civilian).
Do you really think that more than 6,000 Afghani civilians will be killed?
Or has your "hate America first" attitude clouded your better judgement.
The released videotape of bin Laden yesterday was, for all intents and purposes, a confession.
He did it. He admits doing it. He's happy it was done. He says it will happen again.
Guilty. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, vaporize him.
if bin Laden is still breathing and at large in November of 2004, Bush will not see a second term.
Forget the current 92% approval rating. His dad had a 90% rating at the height of the Gulf War as well. 18 months later he was getting less than 40% of the vote and losing to Bill Clinton.
That 92% support is a mile wide and an inch deep. If he fscks it up...if bin Laden survives until '04.... Bush will not. 3 years is an eternity in politics. If, in the fall of '04, we are still mired in recession and mired in a "war on terrorism" that hasn't succeeded, Bush's 92% approval will have whittled away.
If, however, bin Laden is eliminated, Bush will be president until '08. It's that simple.
Whether he wanted this or not, the timing of Bush's meteoric approval ratings rise is not necessarily good for his re-election hopes in '04.
The difference here, and it is a very big difference, is that we are taking every possible precaution to make sure the fewest innocent civilians are killed.
OBL/Taliban (and no, I don't separate the two...they are two heads of the same beast) take every possible measure to maximize the number of innocent civilians that are killed.
We are attacking their capability to launch future attacks.
We are better than them . Let's not equivocate with moral relativism about their society simply being "different". We care enough about their civilian population to try to limit their suffering, even dropping them food and medicine (something their government denies them).
OBL calls for the death of innocent American civilians. We are trying to free an imprisoned people (especially their women) while eliminating the sub-humans who treat their women like pets in the first place.
There is right and wrong here. It's not "West vs. Islam". It's Right vs. freaking Wrong.
I can't stand George W. Bush....but he is handling this situation EXACTLY in the correct manner (as I'm sure Gore would've done as well).
The date that this study was going to be released: September 16th.
It was an independent analysis of the 200,000 over-vote and under-vote ballots. It was paid for by the major news outlets in the United States. It has been indefinitely "shelved" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
The story can be found at salon.com.
If you were suspicious of the US Gov't, you might think someone wanted attention diverted away from a study that perhaps shows that Al Gore won the 2000 election.
I'm not saying I agree with this conspiracy theory, just that it is another "thing that makes you go 'hmmmm'".
For now, I'll give Bush the benefit of doubt.
If you can't get the name right, how can you expect to fight it?
Actually, the 4th ammendment guarantees it as well.
It secures my right against search and seizure without probably cause.
Scanning my email without a warrant is an unlawful search.
He made a statement that was an indirect slam against the Clinton Administration, but some right-wing shock jocks took it as an attack on the US military and Bush. Maher and his advertisers have been hammered with hate mail from the "Free Republic" types and Limbots ever since.
What Maher basically said was that it would be "cowardly" of us to lob cruise missiles at terrorist camps from 2000 miles away, like we did in 1998. He was calling the decision makers (i.e. Clinton) cowards, not the military.
But right-wing nuts reacted to the second-hand information they got from fellow wing-nuts like Mike Gallagher and went ballistic.
Very much the same way that slashdotters went ballistic on the WP.
Bill Maher has always been very pro-military on PI, but because he is impartial and sometimes takes the leftward position on some issues (drug war, death penalty), the conservatives in this country saw it as an opportunity for an attack. Never mind that he was implicitly criticizing their arch-enemy Clinton...he is sometimes liberal, so he must be taken off the air.
But, nothing I have seen in his character, his words, or his deeds in the past has given me the confidence to believe that he is.
I have an image of him calling up his dad on Air Force One Tuesday morning crying, "Dad, what do I do now?"
He is a small man, lacking in gravitas, courage, and intelligence.
He's gonna have to grow into the suit in a hurry....or else move aside and let Cheney take over.
Just about the worst person we could have running things right now is the George W. Bush from birth to Tuesday. Hopefully this situation is a life-changing event for him and he finally becomes a man.
I believe that the physics involved here are valid, but the ship would have to be very large.
"The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark", by Carl Sagan.
I urge everyone to read this excellent book, especially the chapter entitled "The Baloney Detection Kit".
I have found that most of the MCSE's and other Microsoft-y techs I know either graduated from two-year technical schools, or graduated with liberal arts degrees or a "light" science degrees like "Library Science" or "Information Science".
OTOH, most of the *nix-type techs I have run into have at least a 4-yr degree in Computer Science or EE, and many have Masters and PHD's.
I can only come to the conclusion that Microsoft developers and admins are the "lowest common denominator" when it comes to the IT professionals.
People with real computing expertise seem to gravitate toward the *nix world.
Just my observations.
And thank {your favorite diety here} for that!
It's in the President's job description to do what in our best interest, not what it's his own.
When Clinton did things that were seemingly only directed at his "getting re-elected", you Republicans denounced it vociferously.
When Bush does the exact same thing, you consider it a wise move and "dodging a major bullet".
Bush promised us a more ethical administration that is not "poll-driven". I guess he lied.
Ok, now I get it.
Republican reneges on a campaign promise = "huge compromise on his part"
Democrat reneges on a campaign promise = "lying bastard said anything just to get elected"
American law (and common sense) dictates that a person is legally dead when they have no brain function (in the cerebrum).
To be consistent with logic, we should therefore define human life as beginning when brain waves can be detected in the cerebrum of a fetus. This occurs sometime between the 10th and 12th week of gestation.
Simply solution: If a woman wants to have an abortion, perform a brain scan on the fetus. If it detects brain activity, it is a legally-protected human being. If it doesn't, then by our current definition of death, it is not yet alive and can be aborted.
Basically, every abortion during the first 2.5 to 3 months of pregnancy would be completely legal and unrestricted.
We define death based on the detectable activity in the brain. Let's define life the same way.
This technology would threaten the economic well-being of GW's oil buddies (i.e. campaign contributors)....you can expect NO funding for fusion research until at least January of 2005.
"I have as much authority as the pope.
I just don't have as many people who believe it."
Give the $300-$600 Bush is trying to bribe you with to the EFF.
He wants to buy your votes in '02 and '04. Use it to buy freedom instead.
"I have as much authority as the pope.
I just don't have as many people who believe it."