TURN AROUND. SQUAT***SPREAD YOUR CHEEKS

Naomi Wolfe
The Guardian''


"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.

Is American strip-searching benign? The man who had brought the initial suit, Albert Florence, described having been told to "turn around. Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks." He said he felt humiliated: "It made me feel like less of a man."

In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack? Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity? In still more bizarre non-logic, his and the other justices' decision rests on concerns about weapons and contraband in prison systems. But people under arrest that is, who are not yet convicted haven't been introduced into a prison population.

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.


***"


=====================================================================


You can count on the US Supreme Court
to protect your rights!


Can't you?

Quote: "In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack?"

Perhaps had you actually read the opinion you would have the answer. Justice Kennedy did not argue a strip search would have prevented the attack. Rather, the pointed out that "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." He provided several examples that included Timothy McVeigh (traffic stop), serial killer Joel Rifkin (also a traffic stop), and one of the 9/11 terrorists. Each one of these examples is accurate.

Justice Kennedy then went on to point out that experience has shown even minor offenders have been caught attempting to smuggle contraband into prisons either for their own purposes or having been coerced by others. This all suggested that a universal search policy where officers do not have to guess who might be smuggling was justifiable.

If you want to read the actual decision to see its real reasoning, you can do so here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-945#writing-10-945_OPINION_3



"The world is a mess and I just need to rule it." --Dr. Horrible.

Well, Shock, this is another scenario where us voices from the wilderness have been shouting out "heads up calls" regarding the subversion of our Bill of Rights and implementation of police state totalitarianism over the past 12 years. Like the obvious earth changes the planet's undergoing, seems that the "sheeple" out there still in their "can't happen here", "what, me worry?" denial, like the German Jews who convinced themselves that Hitler meant them no harm. No question about the reality that we're in an cyclical era of major change in every aspect of human existence over this and the next few years. Too bad that pseudoskeptics and ignorant convinced the universe revolves around their booties insist upon sabotaging the people's awareness and prudent preparations.

And with the opinion linked right before you, you still don't address the actual reasoning of the Supreme Court. Right or wrong, the guy had an arrest warrant out for him. He was taken to a prison and processed like every other prisoner.


"The world is a mess and I just need to rule it." --Dr. Horrible.

Well, actually, the opinion was not right before me when I responded to Shock's post. If you'll not the time I posted the article, it's clear that I was typing my response at the time you posted your opinion. even though my post is an observation regarding the scenario the SC decision created rather than the decision per se.

Strawmen aren't facts, Keith. They tend to get blown away as soon as you build them.

And you can count on arrested people not to have drugs or weapons can't you?

I had one inmate smuggle a lit cigarette up his anus so he could keep smoking after lock down at nite.

I agree. Strawmen are not facts and the OP was nothing but a strawman argument. Now then, the actual text of what the case did say is a fact. I provided that.


"The world is a mess and I just need to rule it." --Dr. Horrible.

Keith.

I posted the article-
I didn't write it-
I didn't vouch for it-
I haven't read the opinion
and I don't intend to,
but I do defend the articles effort to bring about discussion
of the withdrawal of what I regard as rights my generation thought it fought for -
withdrawals condoned, I feel, by people who don't give a damn for such rights---

Here's what I would like to see discussed:

DISCUSSION POINT ONE ""strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time.

DISCUSSION POINT TWO: "This *** ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time,"

DISCUSSION POINT THREE: "and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection."

Tell us Keith,
without repeating your opinion of me
and without attempting to defend the Court,
or who shot John--
your opinion of the pros and cons of the above three measures.

I'd like to see Keith overcome his obsession with shooting the messenger, branding the poster a liar, and concentrate on critical, analytical discussion of the topics posted. Maybe it takes a few more years of life on this planet for people to understand that attitude creates animosity and lash back, where as civil, substantiable discussion of the topic presented without attacking the messenger never does.

Anyone reviewing this thread can see I have not branded anyone a liar. At least until someone falsely claimed I had.


"The world is a mess and I just need to rule it." --Dr. Horrible.

Quote: "DISCUSSION POINT ONE ""strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time."

Answer: The question assumes a false premise. The case did not hold what you claim. You are not subject to "strip search upon arrest." You are subject to a strip search upon incarceration. Those are actually two different things. If you read the case, you might understand the difference.

Quote: "DISCUSSION POINT TWO: "This *** ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time,"

Answer: I think the NDAA over reaches, but it didn't say that either.

Quote: "DISCUSSION POINT THREE: "and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection."

Answer: Here's the anti-tresspass bill.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

State your specific objections.

In the meantime I have to laugh at the irony of someone who tells me he wants deeper discussion about things, but then openly refuses to read a Supreme Court decision that he criticizes. Apparently, deeper understanding doesn't include actually reading a decision that you criticism.

Undoubtedly, it will turn out to not include reading a bill that he also criticizes.


"The world is a mess and I just need to rule it." --Dr. Horrible.

I'd like to see people who object to the strip search work as a guard in a jail sometime. Guards should have the right to stay alive. Tough job.

JEL sez:

I'd like to see people who object to the strip search work as a guard in a jail sometime. Guards should have the right to stay alive. Tough job.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dehumanizing all for the safety of the miniscule JEL?
One should think of those who were driven Postal!

I agree with Hedz and Shock this is way way over the top I quite sure we will see more rulings from the is SC that are more Soviet and nature.

Keith,

From Omphaloskepsis
to Anal Gazing,
you are Harvard's best-
and that rates you a 10!

followed closely,
in the latter department,
one supposes,
by Jel.

Frankly, were I a federal judge,
I would rate you 9.9
for being one who could always find
a statute and/or precedent
to uphold whatever opinion I might write.

And, for what it is worth,
I do note that now
you occasionally post something
without calling someone a liar
and so I rate you .5 in that respect

Anyway, we appreciate your having set up this board
and permitting us access to it, and that's worth many 10's.

Have a good day---there's more to you than you think.

Quote: "Dehumanizing all for the safety of the miniscule JEL?"

I really don't think "all" are incarcerated. The point raised if valid. For the safety, not just of guards but also of other prisoners, those placed in jail need to be searched.


"The world is a mess and I just need to rule it." --Dr. Horrible.

JEL, I have to know, how the hell did he keep it lit?????LMAO. I gotta read this one!