"Papers Please" -- DC Will Deal With Crime By Sealing Off Neighborhoods and Requiring ID For Entrance

At what point did we allow the government to tell where we could or could not go? This is insane. They are missing the point. It is not travel or access to neighborhoods that need to be regulated.

The Constitution and bill of rights are not documents that list the things we are allowed to do. They are documents that list the things the government can not do to us.

This is starting to sound like the Soviet Union in the sixties.
Think about it!

are there no homeless in this cordon sanitaire? A lot of the homeless people I know don't have ID, but they do need to be able to move around to go feeding centers and shelters etc.

They're only stopping people in vehicles, not people on foot. So that shouldn't affect the homeless, or most of the criminals, for that matter.

They're only stopping people in vehicles, not people on foot. So that shouldn't affect the homeless, or most of the criminals, for that matter.

Excelent. All should go as planned. Job well done.

Maybe we need to build a wall around these ghettos...errr...neighborhoods, you know, for our own protection.

Not for our protection. For there protection. Trust us we are with the government...

Naw, just sounds like two good old-fashioned totalitarian liberals like Adrian Fenty and Cathy Lanier at work. You know, in DC only the criminals are allowed to arm themselves. We have hopes though that that's about to change.

Bill:

It is fascinating that the area in the Country with the most onerous gun control laws, has to resort to this to try to address criminal behavior.

But, will they listen? Nah.

Killfile,

good question, probably about the same percentage of armed LEO's who are victimized.

Has anyone figured out that crime goes down when you put more police on the street? City governments are trying to reinvent the wheel. They want to eliminate the police force so they can spend the money somewhere else. Hey-passing the expense on to private citizens who pay with their lives. I be somebody is going to do a study which proves this.

Crime also goes down when you create jobs and opportunity. Sounds like D.C. is the new Baghdad on the Hudson.

More like the new Flint, MI on the Potomac.

Did I type Hudson? I meant Potomac. Must be the Altzheimers kicking in.

wmolaw

The most famous act of a citizen in DC using their personal weapon and thus violating the law happened twenty years ago when the late liberal columnist Carl Rowan shot a kid for swimming in his pool. I @!$%# you not.

Friends of mine live in an old schoohouse that has been converted to lofts on the edge of the Trinidad 'hood on Maryland Avenue. The area isn't that bad by day but I'd want to be out of there and not on the streets at night. Good luck getting a cab up there too.

Just applied for my internal passport (called a drivers license renewal) yesterday. Had to provide a birth certificate (birth registration not good enough) Social Security card (so much for not being used as identification) and proof of residency. Only been a licensed driver in this state for 40 odd years. This one is good for 8 years. Probably be dead before it expires.
My point is, remember how shocking we used to think it was when we read about how people in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union needed "papers" to travel in their own countries?

It's a slow rot, but a rot never-the-less.

Bill:

Of course I remember that. And Rowan was a fanatic (in public) anti-gun, pro gun guy!

And the gun was unlicensed, and he shot the skinny dipper.

Of course, life in the People's Republic of Anacostia has always been a bit on the surreal side. We're dealing with a city that had a crackhead for a mayor, a city council that condemned people to death by elocution, and a city government notorious for its bureaucracy (Purgatory has nothing on the DC Department of Motor Vehicles.) Let's not even get started on the public schools, which make Baltimore's look like paradise. Heck, I'd rather teach in Detroit than DC!!

All that having been stated, this still seems like a move of desperation, not a move based on intelligent analysis. I can't see it doing much good.

All that having been stated, this still seems like a move of desperation, not a move based on intelligent analysis. I can't see it doing much good.

On its own - at best your probably pushing pieces (you lock down one neighborhood, crime moves to another, lock down that one, it moves somewhere else). However as part of a larger plan it could be a beneficial tactic.

ffeine

The 'hood in question isn't in Ward 8 across the Anacostia. "Trinidad" is in NE and takes in Gallaudent University and the National Arboretum. It's nothing like it's being portrayed here. Like I said, I have friends who live right next door to it at Pierce School Lofts (an old schoolhouse -- Roberta Flack went there -- converted into lofts). I wouldn't want to be wandering the streets around there at night though and like I said, getting taxi service there at night is nigh on to impossible. Here's a look at the area's crime map.

Thanks Bill - I haven't lived in the District since '93(Brookland Neighborhood, right by CU), and was lazy when I skimmed the story. You're right - that area isn't all that bad at all. Bad ffeine! No biscuit!!

If someone told me I had to show ID to enter my neighborhood I'd think they were crazy and I'd try to move after my house value tanked.

It is not that unusual. There are many restricted access neighborhoods and apartment complexes where you have to show ID to get into.

Restricted or gated communities are usually created per directive of their residents. This article refers to access being controlled externally with little regard to residents' preferences. It stinks on ice.

Actually the article says nothing about the residents preferences. The closest thing it mentions is that it has that it has the provisional support of a councilman who ward is described as a war zone.

The thing is that restricted access communities cost money - something I suspect in short supply in the areas we are talking about.

Now I do wonder if they could achieve the same effect simply by increasing the police presence with out the ID checks. I also wonder if they will be working with the neighborhoods to get the community involved in crime prevention after they leave.

It is not that unusual. There are many restricted access neighborhoods and apartment complexes where you have to show ID to get into.

Not the same thing at all. Those are high-income neighborhoods that provide their own security. This is caging people using police.

Not the same thing at all. Those are high-income neighborhoods that provide their own security.

My point was simply a response to his that people actually elect to live in neighborhoods where ID is required - that the notion is not all that crazy.

Your right those are high income neighborhoods. They can afford to hire the security. I doubt that is an option in the areas that are being targeted by this program. It isn't caging people either. People who belong or have a legitimate reason to be there can come and they go as they please. It is though an effort to keep out those who don't belong there and want to do harm to the community.

I think the aspect many of us can't empathize with is what like to live there. Whether or not people feel safe to walk the streets at night or maybe even during the day. If you live in a relatively safe community it is pretty easy to be condemning this from the outside. To be there might give you an entirely different opinion.

I don't believe that it will be publicly paid protection. It will be hired security agencies, paid by the recipients. So it will work where the money is and will be really bad where it is not. Have you heard, the troops in Iraq are being fed by an outside contractor. Guess who is a part owner of that corp.- CHENEY. Maybe he can get into law enforcement as well. There will literally be war zones in the big cities. Why does Cheney always come off looking like the anti-christ? You know, Cheney NEEDS war to survive. Maybe he is the anti-christ.

History has proven that rehabilitation does not work unless it is posed as a choice of rehabilitate or be punished in a very horrible way. People don't gain moral virtue unless they are faced with no other choice. Being bad is just too profitable. Lets see, I can work for pennies and maybe pay for it or just take it and intimidate the victim into keeping their mouth shut - hmm.

The only way to punish people is to catch them. That means more police. The only way for people to feel safe enough to come forward is to have more police to protect them. Rehabilitation for beneficent reasons has never worked. As a recovering alcoholic I had to make a choice: Get sober or ride the garbage truck all the way to the dump.

I don't believe that it will be publicly paid protection. It will be hired security agencies, paid by the recipients.

Could also be referred to as private militia.

I bet they put the fences around the nice neighborhoods first. That will drive down the price of the rest of the area so that it can be bought up and re-developed and sold as new. This is beginning to sound like that socialist novel about the Chicago Meat Packer industry. After the family had lost everything, he returned to the house, it was repainted and had been sold - again - as new.

Despite having Thanks to some of the toughest gun laws in the country there were 338 gun crimes in the District of Columbia from March through the end of April.

There are many things wrong with how DC is run no need for them to keep piling on.

I don't know any short term solution the problem is how they zoned and use the land area for projects. The long term solution is to break those into small groups and spread them out amongst mixed use light commercial and non-subsidized residential. I don't think the D.C. area actually has enough land though they shouldn't have imported all the projects in the first place and distribute them amongst Maryland and Virginia areas as well.

Thank you very much but we in Virginia housed DC's criminals for a long time at the old Lorton penitentiary. 'Course, I'd be all in favor of giving DC back to the People's Republic of Maryland from whence most of it originally sprang.

Kyle

there have been continuing complaints among smart folks in urban areas, that the onerous gun control laws are, in fact, discriminatory and prevent the very people that need protection, from being able to protect themselves.

And you know what, they are 100% correct.

Exactly, too much gun control = the only people with guns are the criminals. And they know it so they are more quick to brandish them. Arizona has it right, if you have a permit you can carry an unconcealed side-arm.

How likely is it that someone will try to mug you if they see your shiny Desert Eagle .50 cal sitting on your dashboard or on your hip?

I used to see guys riding choppers with shotgun holsters on them when I lived there. Truly the wild west.

It's also quite impossible to have an effective gun control law when Virginia is right next door. Every would be thug on the east coast gets a straw buyer to pick up a gun for him there.

Adipic:

There is no such thing as "effective gun control," period.

However, I would readily agree with many other alternatives which make a whole hell of a lot more sense.

If ANY crime is commited with an illegal firearm, tack on ten years, period, no argument.

Now that is a true disincentive.

There is no such thing as "effective gun control," period.

Bull. There's no such thing as perfect gun control. The two terms are not equivalent.

Bull. There's no such thing as perfect gun control. The two terms are not equivalent.

True. Effective gun control requires training and practice.

Personally I believe anyone mentally stable and has not committed a felony should be allowed to own any gun they way. That said I think there is something to be said for requiring that gun owners must take a class or two where they learn how to care for an handle a gun, as well as a "friend or foe" course.

Adipic:

Well, 'effective' gun control is gun control that will take and keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

There is no 'effective' gun control.

FD:

I agree re: the course. Simple, but is a good thing.

I had my wife take one, and it was great. Even though I have been shooting since a little one, I also took one.

Well, 'effective' gun control is gun control that will take and keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

There is no 'effective' gun control.

Still bull, unless you equate "perfect" with "effective." By your definition, there can be no such thing as effective traffic control either.

Maybe NE needs to enlist the services of former D.C. mayor Marion Barry. If he hadn't become Councilmember for Ward 8 when he did, SE would have surely imploded years ago. In D.C. connections count - and Barry's a prime example of how to make them work for the benefit of the people.

You're joking, right?

Nope. I am absolutely not joking. Barry may have some personal challenges that had been widely publicized, but that never stopped him from getting the vital services directly to those who needed them most. Before Barry took over Ward 8 the general response from 911 professionals was to wait until morning and then play cleanup crew.

Apparently you must never have had to live in the 'hood. Any 'hood.

No but I've been in DC for nearly a decade and Marion Barry ain't done @!$%# for the area east of the Anacostia. Hell, they're just recently got their first grocery store over there and Barry doesn't have a damn thing to do with that. The ironic thing is that the new Giant sits on land Barry's administration had purchased back some years ago but never did anything with. When Tony Williams became mayor he sold it off to a private group that developed it. Previously Ward 8 had been most famous for the old Soviet style housing projects that were all the rage of the "progressive" do-gooders back in the '60s. Thankfully, most of them are being torn down.

I know it seems radical, but this has been requested by the community.

The residents requested help with the crime in the area, but they didn't request this.. And the police also wanted to search everyone's homes for illegal weapons in that area, but now they've toned it down into just being willing to do that for anyone who calls and asks them to. Let's see how many residents take them up on that one.

The answer to crime in DC is NOT for everyone who's honest to pack heat. Force your mayor to put more officers on the streets, and get those lazy SOB's out of their cars.

Put them on bikes or on foot, in pairs. A lot of them, and be willing to pay for the additional taxes.

Force your mayor to put more officers on the streets, and get those lazy SOB's out of their cars.

Kind of hard when your Senators and Representative hamstring the DC Budget year after year.

The answer to crime in DC is NOT for everyone who's honest to pack heat. Force your mayor to put more officers on the streets, and get those lazy SOB's out of their cars.

I tend to think that crime is not a function of the number of officers on the street. There may be some correlation, and I'm sure someone could dig up a study. What I think it stems from is the lack of jobs, family structure, incentives to work, decent work, education and all those things that just make life worth living.

More officers on the street may tone it down for a while, but people in need and people who've gotten the short end of the stick are still going to be people in need and people who've gotten the short end of the stick. npi. I would think that putting more officers on the street will increase the tension of the whole situation, not so much as fix the problem. A sloppy band-aid that mainly trains the officer in crowd control and teaches the citizen to expect such control.

Allan,

You're right, crime is the branch, poverty is the root. Want to reduce crime, make more decent jobs available.

Acid

Oh bull@!$%#. You know damn well as a local that the problems that have plagued MPD haven't a damn thing to do with money and everything to do with the incompetent local DC politicians and their equally incompetent (and at times criminal) cronies in the DC bureaucracy. Hell, they're still recruiting criminals to the force years after the Barry scandal with the same thing. And it's not a racial thing either as Larry Soulsby was as awash in corruption as any black politician or bureaucrat.

Want to reduce crime, make more decent jobs available.

Making decent jobs available to people who have never learned the value of getting up and showing up to work on time, because they haven't had good examples, isn't going to work. It's going to take a lot more than what you or I would consider to be a decent job to break this cycle. We can make opportunities for those who want to go for them .. but how do we make those chances for those who couldn't care less? How do we make them care? That's the real challenge.

Oh bull@!$%#. You know damn well as a local that the problems that have plagued MPD haven't a damn thing to do with money and everything to do with the incompetent local DC politicians and their equally incompetent (and at times criminal) cronies in the DC bureaucracy.

And that very incompetence and cronyism is encourages by Congress' meddling. What sane competent individual would want to work for the DC government? It isn't so much the lack of funds (that was badly stated) as the constant meddling. If you treat people as badly behaved children, which is what the US Congress does with the residents of the District, expect them to behave as such. If the jackasses in Congress (from both parties) would let the DC government actually run DC, then maybe more talented people would stay in the government.

As one non-police related example, I offer to you: why is Congress determining the fare structure for DC Cabs? (And no, I'm not pro-zone, it's just plain stupid for Congressmen to be imposing such picayune details.

As one non-police related example, I offer to you: why is Congress determining the fare structure for DC Cabs? (And no, I'm not pro-zone, it's just plain stupid for Congressmen to be imposing such picayune details.

And its plain cool for someone to use the word "picayune" in a sentence :) On a more substantive note, yes, there is no reason for Congress to get involved in this issue.

Carl Levin is the one who got a bee in his bonnet over the zone thing. I'm a fan of going to meters. The zone thing is a mess and there's also big fraud attendant with it. All of the VA cabs like Red Top and Blue Top have used meters for years. All of the crooked gypsy cabbies doing bidness (often funny) in the District are against it so they can't get away with charging people outlandish fares because the latter (mostly tourists and the elderly) don't jump their @!$%#. When I take a taxi home to Ballston from downtown it's a flat rate including tip of $15 take it or leave it. Fact is, DC has too many taxis chasing too few fare. More cabs per capita than any city in the country.

The whole thing about the endemic corruption in the DC government being Congress's fault is ludicrous as anyone (despite my Acid's protestations to the contrary) who has lived around here any amount of time would know. The Control Board went out of business years ago after brief run brought on by the District's fiscal insolvency. One thing that is a big problem is the fact that so much property in DC is tax-exempt including that of the sinecure for retired Democratic Party politicians known as Fannie Mae. That is a point that the Home Rule advocates are quite right about. And must commend Fenty and his Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee for taking on the corrupt teachers unions in DC and the entrenched interests on the School Board.

But to get back to the situation in Trinidad, most of the problems there with violent crime aren't as much rooted in that neighborhood which isn't all that run-down but in non-neighborhood people coming in there and which is why, upon additional reflection, I think Cathy Lanier and the mayor's response here is reasonable given last weekend's murders.

It may be "reasonable," but how is forcing people to submit to targeted searches on the street constitutional? Since when has the federal government had the power to prohibit Americans from traveling around our own country?

Since when has the federal government had the power to prohibit Americans from traveling around our own country?

Since they took it. When you apply for a driver's license, what you are really doing is signing a contract with the government giving them the authority to regulate you. They really only have the authority to regulate commerce.

If you drive for hire, you can be regulated. If you travel no, well unless you get a driver's license. Sneaky, isn't it.

According to what? Through all my years of driving in Sopranosland, I've never had an officer use this kind of logic on me.

According to what? Through all my years of driving in Sopranosland, I've never had an officer use this kind of logic on me.

Because, [drum roll] it doesn't work. The house of cards comes down. Once you know what the catch is, the game is over.

Since when has the federal government had the power to prohibit Americans from traveling around our own country?

Since they took it. When you apply for a driver's license, what you are really doing is signing a contract with the government giving them the authority to regulate you. They really only have the authority to regulate commerce.

If you drive for hire, you can be regulated. If you travel no, well unless you get a driver's license. Sneaky, isn't it.

Last time I checked my driver's license is issued and regulated by my state, not the Federal government. I'm not aware of any clause in the Constitution that would prevent the States from requiring you to have a license to drive on government roads (keep in mind you can drive on private roads all day long without a license).

The feds are going to start doing it soon. Many states have to comply with the federal regulations for drivers licences now. If they don't, the will not allow you to board an airplane, board a train, board a bus. It is only a matter of time, if your state won't do what the feds ask, before you can not go across state boarders.

They are linking fingerprints, social security, and birth certs. in this state now. Next time, it will be DNA, retinal scan, and blood sample.

The federal government has told all states that if they don't collect the data, then they will also lose federal funding.

Sounds like blackmail to me, but that is the way the old ball bounces these days.

The federal government has told all states that if they don't collect the data, then they will also lose federal funding.

Sounds like blackmail to me, but that is the way the old ball bounces these days.

Sounds like what the feds did to raise the drinking age to 21.

To clarify a point - I don't have a problem with the government making sure I can legally drive my car on public roads. By all means. But I do have a problem with the government searching my car without cause and forcing me to stay out of public neighborhoods. And I most certainly have a problem with the government thinking it can search my house, without a warrant, for possible traces of drugs.

I'm not aware of any clause in the Constitution that would prevent the States from requiring you to have a license to drive on government roads (keep in mind you can drive on private roads all day long without a license).

...It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Source And there you have it. Glad I could help. It's your right to travel.

I don't have a problem with the government making sure I can legally drive my car on public roads.

That is the trick. Making sure? They have us thinking they have to make sure we have our rights by taking them away and issuing them back? Do you want them to make sure you have the right of free speech by issuing a license for it? Can't you see where this leads?

If you have it, you have it. A republic is formed to protect those rights, never to take them away and permit their use just to make sure you have them. That's pretzel logic, and the exact method used to gain control.

but that is the way the old ball bounces these days.

Sad but true, but it's only because we have a comfort level that keeps us from being inconvenienced and a media that keeps us focused on other things.

It will come to a head again, as it always does. Hold on to your knickers, because it's going to happen before this set of threads wears out.

Ehhhh it's different - the constitution was written at a time when reckless driving meant hitting your horse too much. I don't see a problem with ensuring that you understand speed limit laws, can turn and do k-turns and reverse and that your car isn't falling apart. And, of course, of removing this privilege if you abuse it (cause accidents, drive drunk, etc.) But if you don't do that, you should be allowed to go anywhere you want on public lands.

Ehhhh it's different

Then leave. I like my freedoms and I don't want the government to take them away. If you're so determined to argue the point, draw the line for me. Where does it stop? When do you say, "Hey, that's too much."

Torture? It is it different now, you know. Do we need a little torture?

But maybe you're right. We need the government to nanny us. We're not smart enough to develop a society that is safe and loving.

Ehhhh it's different for sure, because of the government!

Don't think of it as nannying. Cars are potential killing machines and it makes sense for us to be taught how to drive and made sure to understand rules before we drive. Once that's done, do what you want.

a car is the most dangerous machine most people handle on a daily basis, and it's very dangerous as we all know too well. Requiring a minimum proficiency before being allowed to drive is best for everyone.

Requiring proficiency and controlling the registration of vehicles and people are two completely different things. And even if they were not, why can't citizens organize it? Oh yeah, we're not smart enough. Well then who is educating us? ......

even if they were not, why can't citizens organize it?

I think citizens did on some level, police, sheriffs, state men, they're all organized and they're citizens and citizens pay them. I suppose we could require a civilian to ride in every car, but who's going to pay him?

Reminds me of a joke:

One criminal remarks to another,"Why do people @!$%# about organized crime? Law enforcement is organized ain't it?"

I'm not sure I understand your statement:

There is NEVER an immediate solution to crime, and to suggest such a thing is idealistic, and only leads to the trampling of rights and the constitution.

Snagging (then arresting) the purse snatcher immediately seems pretty effective.

As far as the cordoning off of the NE blocks, if patrols aren't working, what would you suggest? Doing nothing allows the problem to continue, and I'm sure we're on the same page that homicides are a bad thing.

I am talking about a city-wide solution. There is no immediate solution for DCs crime. There may be a good one for the crime on 5th street, but you can't snag all criminals in a city in 10 days without destroying the constitution.

As far as the cordoning off of the NE blocks, if patrols aren't working, what would you suggest?

You really want to know? I'd suggest handing a gun to every citizen of DC, and a box of bullets. Within 10 days anybody who needed to be gone, would be.

If the people of DC could arm themselves, then it would give the criminals less certainty. DCs gun laws are a joke. "No law abiding citizen may protect themselves" as if the criminals are going to say "Guns are illegal? damn! I'm breaking too many laws as it is, I can't afford more!"

After a string of failed robberies and dead criminals, you might see a drop in crime. If nothing else, you'd see a drop in criminals.

Snagging (then arresting) the purse snatcher immediately seems pretty effective.

charnello,

I think what he means is that the purse snatcher is arrested, prosecuted, jailed, released, becomes the worst for it, perpetrates another crime, is arrested, prosecuted, jailed, released, becomes the worst for it, perpetrates another crime, is arrested....

Who wins? The courts and jails. They live off it.

But isn't cordoning off the sections worst hit and checking IDs better than waiting for the long term solutions? Save peoples' lives in the meantime.

I think it's sad it's gotten to this point, but doing something is better than doing nothing.

I don't think vigilante justice is the way to go. Giving people back their gun rights is one thing (which I am inclined to agree with), but Mars, your suggestion is a bit extreme.

I don't think the militarization of city neighborhoods is a clever idea in any way.

How is this going to save anyone's life? Yeah, the suburbanites who drive into that area to buy drugs might be a little better off, but I don't think the residents will be. Most of the drug dealers work on foot, and most of the crimes are due to beefs that are part of the neighborhood. All this will do is make those people resent the police more than they already do.

The result of a widening gap between the haves and have nots always results in violence.

You know what I mean. Must proofread before I post.

NewDraper

1) It's better to do something now and save lives than not.

2) Absolutely correct.

3) Micro view: The area to be cordoned is having tremendous difficulties where have nots are killing other have nots; macro view: you're absolutely correct

4) That's a tough one. I've known many low socio-economic people that are inspiring in terms of their taking charge of their personal responsibility. It can be done, but I would agree that it's difficult.

5) Options range from social programs to revamping the education system (really the only long term poverty beater). Fenty and Rhee are making progress on the education front, although it's tricky business as DC parents are loathe, understandably, to have the painful changes made while their children are in school (thus increasing the chance that their kid will get lost in the cracks).

Again, I think it's sad things have deteriorated to this point, but doing something is better than allowing what obviously hasn't been working to continue.

Thanks for a thoughtful opinion. I absolutely agree with you about education. We can pay up front as an investment or we can pay on back end for a lot of lost causes. You are right to that it is a sad situation.

I agree with point 4. This type of thinking allows those not living in said areas to intellectually wash their hands (and pocketbooks) off the problems in the inner cities.

Good point. I kind of address it with point number 3 of #14. I guess what I was looking for is some commentary from people who live there. I totally agree with you about the prison system. Privatization of the penal system is a travesty.
My first, gut reaction is that if the cops are at wits end, maybe this is because it is not a police matter. Amping up the police action jsut might escalate the problems.
I am not sure exactly what you are implying or assuming with the direct correlation with the War on Drugs and the specific problems in DC. Are they all drug related crimes?

“This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities,” Nickles told The Examiner.

So, it's constitutionality has been tested and approved, which is why he says:

“I’m not worried about the constitutionality of it.”

[you obviously read the article; I'm quoting that for those that don't take the time to actually read the article they're commenting/voting on]

My impression is that he is confident it is Constitutional - particularly since it has apparently been used elsewhere.

"This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities," Nickles told The Examiner. "I'm not worried about the constitutionality of it."

The question to be asked is which other cities.

Beirut? Fallujah? Culiacán?

I thought he was saying he didn't care if it was or not.

He cares, but only if challenged, thus he nips it in the bud by proclaiming it's constitutional.

These are police checkpoints, not the imposition of martial law.

These are police checkpoints, not the imposition of martial law.

Nice statement. Worked really well for some little man back in the 1930's. He also got rid of the Boyscouts and replaced it with the Hitler Youth.

The problem is not with the checkpoint, it is with the intention of the checkpoint.

They will demand ID. If they think you don't belong in that part of America, then you will either be turned away, or arrested.

Again, the phrase of the day is? "Papers Please".

I once took a 6 week summer class in Russian, back in High School. The one phrase that I learned cold was: your passport, please. Here's hoping we're not heading down that path.

Ok, I have, and nothing happened. But I will say I was lucky.

But I was free to do just that.

Bottom line. It is my right to go where I want as long as I don't infringe on anyone elses rights. If you can not do that, then the officials are not doing their jobs. They are asleep at the wheel or eating to many damn donuts.

Yeah, because everyone knows the checkpoint was invented by the US ARMY in Baghdad!

You don't see anything militaristic in this policy?

Doppleganger is notoriously inaccurate.

It happens to all of us. I usually just delete mine if I find out I've double seeded something.

dammit!

I usually ignore it. Sometimes I am first sometimes somebody else. Different newsviners get different exposure for a whole host of reasons some within their immediate control some not. I would rather a good seed get double posted than little or no exposure.

well, it des show that killfile and I are on the same page. And I admire him. ;)

You do good work Nearing and it shows.

Thanks guys.

I didn't notice, but winsome cowboy let me know that one day.

I am honored to be in your shadow Killfile.

Now if we could only get paid for this...

Must be those weekly "we're on the verge of attacking Iran" seeds. They're always a surefire vote-getter and earnings booster on Newsvine as well as anything to do with impeaching the president, trying him for war crimes or suggesting that the US is as much the focus of evil in today's world as any number of countries. I may take to seeding them myself. I need a new three metal. ;>0

Yes, honey, it seems that people are starving for the truth and really appreciate that it be brought to them all in one place.

Perhaps you'd do well to try it.

;o)