RE: Warrantless searches -- A sign of things to come?

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

On Sun, 17 Apr 94 13:39:39
paul@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
 
>A Page 1 story in The Washington Post Sunday (94.04.17) reads,
>"Clinton Lets Police Raid Projects," "Warrantless Searches Said to Be
>Needed For Tenants Safety."
>

[Deletions]

What really gets me here is the alienability of the rights in question.

One of the prevailing arguements seems to be "the tenants are willing
to sacrifice their rights for more safety."

This of course misreads the question.  If it were only a questions of
relinquishing your own rights then there are procedures for the
waiver and consent to search.  What drives me up the wall is some tenants
saying they are willing to waive their own rights for safety when what
they are really doing is waiving EVERYONES rights for their safety.

This is merely another load of whiskey for the toothache.
Bust down some doors and we will solve the nations problem of violence.

I have to hand it to the administration, they managed to divert the
attention of the media from the other major screw-ups and cast a
"fight the violence" spotlight on it.  At least this cluster-fuck is
(in the current atmosphere) defendable.

What a crock.

The ease with which this nation disregards its own fundamental principles
disturbs me.

-uni- (Dark)