Reply With Quote
Me either, but the other guys who liked to slide around naked on their bellies made it kinda weird... Maybe they never had a slip and slide. I never understood why someone would want to slide around in soap s and lord knows what else.
They were just showers. I didn't have anything to be embarrassed about.
Me either, but the other guys who liked to slide around naked on their bellies made it kinda weird... Maybe they never had a slip and slide. I never understood why someone would want to slide around in soap s and lord knows what else.
*looks sideways @ leemajors*
Wtf. I thought it was bad enough when dudes would use a bar of soap they found on the floor in the shower stall.
people in Victoria are weird.
This is the head-scratcher: why even bring up McVeigh (or the 911 terrorist arrested under similar cir stances which this article omitted)?
How would strip-searching either terrorist have resulted in a different outcome? What could authorities hope to find stashed in those keisters which would have prevented the respective tragedies of OKC and 9/11? What did either terrorist do whilst in jail with their uninspected crotches that justifies the decision? The terrorist angle seems like an appeal to fear, not reason. (It's no doubt the paranoiac in me, but I'd be lying if I said that weird remark didn't make me su ious of the decision in general.)
Regardless, the ruling is an open invitation to abuses and the consequent civil lawsuits. The TSA xray leak lawsuits will be chump change compared to the violations perpetrated by a larger and less-regulated level of law-enforcement professionals. Not that the justices should vote with the treasury's checkbook in mind, but sometimes the expensive road is expensive because it's a bad idea.
I wouldn't say "necessary," though part of the opinion is devoted to the difficulties of processing inmates in larger counties. Not everyone will be strip-searched as a result of this decision at the county level. It's just not unreasonable to do so given the administrative concerns of running a jail.
The Court does seem a bit bipolar these days. They recognize cons utional facets for plea bargaining one day, then come down very "law and order" in this.
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/03/the_...hes/singleton/What virtually none of this anti-Florence commentary mentioned, though, was that the Obama DOJ formally urged the Court to reach the conclusion it reached. While the Obama administration and court conservatives have been at odds in a handful of high-profile cases (most notably Citizens United and the health care law), this is yet another case, in a long line, where the Obama administration was able to have its preferred policies judicially endorsed by getting right-wing judges to embrace them:In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that in the interest of security, prisons could conduct visual body cavity searches of all detainees after they had contact with outsiders. For years after that ruling, lower courts ruled that the prison had to have a reasonable su ion that the arrestee was concealing contraband before subjecting him to a strip search upon entering the facility.As The Guardian said yesterday: “The decision was a victory for the jails and for the Obama administration, which argued for an across-the-board rule allowing strip-searches of all those entering the general jail population, even those arrested on minor offenses.” Civil rights lawyer Stephen Bergstein added:
But in recent years, some courts have begun to allow a blanket policy to strip search all arrestees.
The Obama administration is siding with the prisons in the case and urging the court to allow a blanket policy for all inmates set to enter the general prison population.
“When you have a rule that treats everyone the same,” Justice Department lawyer Nicole A. Saharsky argued, “you don’t have folks that are singled out. You don’t have any security gaps.”This evidence suggesting that minor offenders are not smuggling contraband into jails was not good enough for the Obama administration, which is asking the Supreme Court to endorse the restrictive strip search policy in Florence. At oral argument, a lawyer for the Obama Justice Department told the Supreme Court that “[p]rotesters…who decide deliberately to get arrested… might be stopped by the police, they see the squad car behind them. They might have a gun or contraband in their car and think hey, I’m going to put that on my person, I just need to get it somewhere that is not going to be found during a patdown search, and then potentially they have the contraband with them.” This position would probably be identical to that advanced by a Republican presidential administration.What makes the Obama DOJ’s position in favor of this broad strip-search authority particularly remarkable is that federal prisons do not even have this policy. As The New York Times‘ Adam Liptak explained, “the procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures.”
Obama = Bush 3.0
How the US uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses
In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.
Our surveillance state shown considerable determination to intrude on citizens sexually. There's the sexual abuse of prisoners at Bagram – der Spiegel reports that "former inmates report incidents of … various forms of sexual humiliation. In some cases, an interrogator would place his penis along the face of the detainee while he was being questioned. Other inmates were raped with sticks or threatened with anal sex". There was the stripping of Bradley Manning is solitary confinement. And there's the policy set up after the story of the "underwear bomber" to grope US travelers genitally or else force them to go through a machine – made by a company, Rapiscan, owned by terror profiteer and former DHA czar Michael Chertoff – with images so vivid that it has been called the "pornoscanner".
Believe me: you don't want the state having the power to strip your clothes off. History shows that the use of forced nudity by a state that is descending into fascism is powerfully effective in controlling and subduing populations.
The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness. Enslaved women were sold naked on the blocks in the American south, and adolescent male slaves served young white ladies at table in the south, while they themselves were naked: their invisible humiliation was a trope for their emasculation. Jewish prisoners herded into concentration camps were stripped of clothing and photographed naked, as iconic images of that Holocaust reiterated.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...itical-control
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...search06m.htmlThe Washington Supreme Court has limited the ability of police to search someone's car after they've been taken into custody, further extending a long tradition of affording state residents more privacy protections than are guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Cons ution.
The ruling overturns the convictions of two men in unrelated cases who were stopped by police, after which officers found drugs during searches of their cars.
The justices, in an 8-1 vote on Thursday, held that police must obtain a warrant to search an arrested driver's car even if they believe it contains evidence of the crime for which the person was taken into custody.
need a warrant to search your car, but no warrant to search your rectum or vagina.
The car isn't going to jail
99.9% of minor violators have nothing dangerous up their vaginas and rectums
Is it also unfair to search the rectum of an accused murderer before a conviction?
Is it fair to treat a minor traffic, etc violator the same accused murderers?
I think fair is searching everyone going in or searching no one.
I lean towards strip searching no one, but I can understand the need for it.
Of course the left-wingers read only what they want.
The first line in the article :
Washington-- The Supreme Court refused Monday to limit strip searches of new jail inmates, even those arrested for minor traffic offenses.
You are only subject to strip search if you are actually arrested or are in jail, if you are pulled over for a simple speeding ticket you don't get strip-searched, you just get a ticket unless officer arrests you for something legit.
Ah, I'm so relieved!
If you are arrested, not charged, not convicted, just arrested, say good bye to your control of your vagina and rectum.
Of course the right-wingers spin the anti-Human-American right-wing activist extremism of their VRWC political hacks in SCOTUS.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-10-2012 at 11:42 AM.
Typical overreaction by you.Ah, I'm so relieved!
If you are arrested, not charged, not convicted, just arrested, say good bye to your control of your vagina and rectum.
I personally don't have anything to worry about, never have done anything to get arrested. You sound like you are scared to get pulled over for a minor traffic violation ticket, the police won't do anything except give you a ticket.
I was pulled over for a minor traffic violation last week, got a ticket, and was on my way. No threat of a strip search or arrest, etc.
not an overreacation, just stating facts.
And you, Miss Pollyanna, assume the new scope of police up your rectum and vagina will never be abused.
boutons is all about the vagina and rectum today.
your valued, numerous contributions are always informative, GFY
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
