More BS government restrictions "in the name of security"

[Marko Kloos]

There actually is a real reason for the ID check, but it's not what you think. It does look like proceedural window dressing, but I promise you it isn't.

There is a reason, of course. Get people used to taking commands from a guy with a badge; it will cement state authority on bigger issues if people are conditioned to a man with a uniform telling them what to do in relatively inconsequential matters.

 

[GSB]

Stop questioning the State, prole. Back to work with you.

 

[GSB]

Here's another little brush with mindlessness. A couple of years ago, I worked near a post office that was in a federal courthouse. One lunch, I walked over to mail something. I was barred from entering the building by the guard because I carried a cell phone (I was on-call at the time and could not leave it in the office, although I kept it turned off unless I got paged).

Okay, I figured that this was so that people wouldn't take disruptive devices into the courtrooms and annoy the judges. That's fine. What bothered me was that none of the armed security guards could tell me the reason for the policy they enforced at gunpoint. They really didn't know. Had I tried to get past them with my cell phone, I imagine they would have tackled me and arrested me. But they wouldn't have been able to tell me why they had to do it, other than that "it's the rules, buddy".

It's a small thing, I know, but it's emblematic of a larger problem: drones of the State enforcing rules with force even though they have no understanding of or interest in why the rule is there (did none of these guys ever even have the slightest curiosity about WHY the rule was there?). I think that is potentially a very dangerous thing for a free nation.

 

[40ozflatfoot]

No one likes these guys. The Feds in the building don't like them, the VIPs don't like them, YOU don't like them. They take a lot of crap every day.

You can say that of all security guards, both public and private "rent-a-cops."

And a lot of LEOs, too.

But they wouldn't have been able to tell me why they had to do it, other than that "it's the rules, buddy".

Again, very common. Assuming, of course, the guard in question has a defined set of orders (rules) to follow. Oftentimes they have no on-the-spot guidance, and have to wing it. That could be why they asked to see your ankles.

I'm not trying to justify it...just explain it.

 

[GSB]

I certainly don't have a beef with the guards enforcing the rules in this case. My concern is that they had no interest in understanding why the rule that they were prepared to enforce was even in place to begin with.

In this case, it's inocuous and I could figure out the reason on my own. It was just a minor inconvenience. But maybe the next rule they blindly enforce won't be as harmless. And maybe the one after that is a little worse. When people given the discretion to shoot you for not obeying "the rules" don't think long enough about the 'why' of the thing to decide if they SHOULD be enforcing a particular rule (put that yellow star back on, young man, or face the consequences), that is a recipe for eventual trouble.

You see where I'm going with that.

 

[Mike Irwin]

So, I'm confused...

What you're saying is that because everything that can be tried can be rather easily circumvented, nothing should be tried at all?

How about some suggestions for "effective" security measures designed to impede or prevent what you're yelping about?

 

[SpyGuy]

What you're saying is that because everything that can be tried can be rather easily circumvented, nothing should be tried at all?

No, what I'm saying is that there are effective means of increasing security, and then there are stupid rules that have no effect other than to inconvenience us or deny us our rights.

For example...
What if some highly-paid GSA bureaucrat pulled a rule out of his nether-region proclaiming that everyone entering the building had to flap their arms, bob their heads, and cluck like a chicken. It won't do a damn thing to stop terrorists, but hey, those are the rules. What do you mean you don't want to do that? What do you mean it won't increase security? Quit "yelping" and comply!

How about some suggestions for "effective" security measures designed to impede or prevent what you're yelping about?

I served as a US Naval Intelligence Officer for ten years. I have implemented unit-level terrorist countermeasures and I have provided unit-level counter-terrorist training. I have organized and conducted field operations in foreign countries. So yes, I do know something about security. If the feds wish to solicit my services as a security consultant, I'd be more than happy to assist them.

But they already have plenty of highly-paid "security experts." Hell, what are all our tax dollars paying for at the FBI, the FAA, the INS, etc.? You remember those agencies don't you? They're the ones who collectively allowed the 9-11 attacks to occur.

As for "yelping"...
Since when does standing up for our rights and a responsible government constitute "yelping"? Perhaps you're on the wrong Web site. There is plenty of "yelping" going on here.

 

[Shin-Tao]

One of you said something very close to the truth.

I suggest all of you write your congressmen, the General Services Administration, and the Federal Protective Service and voice your well researched opinions with them.

 

[Mike Irwin]

I simply fail to see how being asked to provide identification is somehow a violation of someone's rights.

"Perhaps you're on the wrong Web site."

Yeah, that must be it.

 

[SpyGuy]

I simply fail to see how being asked to provide identification is somehow a violation of someone's rights.

Does that mean you favor a National ID system?

The problem wasn't that they were just asking to see identification (as if we had the option of not complying). The problem was that they were denying us legitimate access to OUR government because we weren't carrying "authorized" identification papers.

One step closer to a police state.

 

[George Hill]

All this effort to drop off your tax forms? Try US MAIL, FED EX, or better yet, E-File.
"Enough "homeland security" fantasy, let's get back to reality... " Welcome to the new reality. Sorry to break it to you, but you walked into a federal building during a time of war and you couldnt be bothered to bring out your Drivers License?
That's what you call Unrealistic Customer Expectations. You mean to tell me that you drove all that way without a drivers license? Your luck you didn't get pulled over. Use your argument on the State Trooper.

Oh, I know... because your having a bad day, all security procedures should be waived?

Get real.

 

[Shin-Tao]

Needing a photo ID to gain acces to a SECURE Federal building equates to a NATIONAL ID SYSTEM?

Pick your fights wisely gentlemen, and learn to debate in a rational manner.

 

[John/az2]

We're at war?

When did congress declare war?

Curious minds want to know!

 

[George Hill]

I think this thread has run its course.
Closed.