Rosa Parks of the Patriot Act generation?

Good for her! We all want security, but we should not allow our freedom to be sacrificed for it. She was courageous to take a stand on principle, especially for something that seems so minor. The security that they sought in this situation could have been achieved w/o 'carding' everyone on a public bus.

The Rosa Parks connection might be a bit of a stretch (this is not the same as segregation), but it's interesting anyway. There is a similarity in the passive resistance on a bus, and the timing of Rosa being honored in our capital.

This is from the mail bag on her site...

There's a couple of other interesting cases related to the rufusal to show ID...
http://www.papersplease.org/

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

 

What a courageous woman! She's taking it on the chin for the rest of us. Kudos to her, and Big Brother needs to chill out and work to get the bad guys the old fashioned way... within our system of justice, not this abomination inflicted upon this woman, and every other person on that bus, and anywhere else the "law" is being twisted and used against the innocent. No, she's not Rosa Parks, that lady broke the mold, but she's standing up for us all, and I applaud her

Thanks for the post, wnes. This one slipped past my radar screen.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I would hazard to say you don't make a habit of reading the Washington Times.

 

I make it a habit not to!



Keep D&D Civil.

 

**** the Patriot Act.

**** Big Brother.

 

This would be a lot more fun if someone....anyone....could take the govt's side on it. You know, throw the word freedom around when its totally inappropriate, that sorta stuff...

 

So what was it we heard after 9/11? Something along the lines of "they won't change our values and our way of life or they succeed"?

Well, so much for that...

 

How about Freedom from fear? Freedom from terrorist attacks? Freeom from the rabid Evolutionarists and those who hate Christmas?

And most imoprtant of all, what about Freedom from making decisions?

Please, think of the children.

Sincerely,

 

What is the problem with showing your ID when asked. A big deal is being made of it in this case, and a big deal has been made of it on this board in the past wrt some local police and ADA down their in Texas. Anytime someone has asked to see my ID, I have shown it to them and then gone about my business. It doesn't damage my life in any significant way, at worst it is a minor inconvienence. I think this ID checking thing is pretty dumb (it's not like the terrorists are going to whip out their al Queda membership cards), but going to jail over it seems like a tremendous overreaction.

 

It's un-American.

 

it's kind of insulting to compare this to Rosa Parks.

If these checks were instituted in 1995 - it's got nothing to do with 9-11 or the Patriot Act.

It may be an annoying inconvenience - but it's absolutely nothing compared to the institutionalized racism that Rosa Parks faced.

 

Precisely.

I was raised to simply respect that a law enforcement individual is doing their tax-payer paid job.

This lady is obviously overlooking the fact that there could have been a percieved threat at the time of this incident.

Now, on this side of it all, we all know she was no terrorist, but how would an officer/agent that did not know her background be doing his job if he didn't check into why a woman would resist so severly when she had confessed herself to be fore-warned/advised/told that she'd need her ID?

Stupidity.

You help rule yourself out of suspicion of guilt or any collusion/association with a percieved threat when you simply flash an ID.

Also, all she has to do is make sure she establishes some sort of running dialogue with the same agent (or two) for awhile, and then it's no biggie ever again.

I appreciate it when security checks me out. It makes me feel as though someone may be doing their job. Right or wrong in my feelings in any given instance. It is not inconceivable in the least that a security enforcer is merely going through the motions of a 9 to 5. But then that action is, at least it would seem, is a good deterent to criminal activity.

Much like a home security monitoring company decal on the window of your house. It may or may not be active or currently being surveilled, but a deterent nonetheless.

This woman is no Rosa Parks.

Upset about her loss of a job, perhaps. But that is NOT a civil right.

It is niether a civil right in this country, nor has it been to resist an officer of the law on any level.

Any local junior college rent-a-cop learns that in his training. If ANYONE is on or near a secured area and asked to show ID, they are obligated to show ID. Otherwise they may be on the recieving end of measures allowed to the fullest extent of the law required to obtain the ID, and or subdue the (now, given the resistance) suspect/perp.

Just show you're ID next time. Or don't go where they'll ask you.

When I was on vaction near, and at, national landmarks and monuments this past summer, I appreciated the security in place asking us to show ID and empty our pockets as we went into the building.

Took me less than 30 seconds.

I'm still free.

 

if it was me doing the same thing, i would never be heard from again.

 

Probably true.

But if it were to happen (hope not!) and you were heard from again, you'd be closer to the Rosa Parks role (based on the racial/ethnicity aspect of course).

 

but then again, if i went out and did it for the purpose of being a "rosa parks", that would defeat the purpose of the action.

 

Yes it's incredibly insulting to the civil rights movement to compare these incidents... This is just a bunch of liberals making up another reason to get angry at Bush. Nothing more.

 

But if no one had ever resisted officers of law, there'd be no civil rights. No Bill of Rights either. The script is being flipped again.

 

and rosa parks was simply an naacp agent trying to cause a stir.

 

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.