Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Searching people entering a stadium isn't 'unreasonable'

A valuable right was upheld

Re: Well-deserved defeat for pat-downs, editorial.

Having experienced the indignity of being patted down at Raymond James Stadium many times, I always inwardly scoffed at the stupid public-interest justifications for this flagrant disregard of the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution.

Imagine the unlimited license to illegally frisk folks without any probable cause at all. I just wonder why it took so long to challenge this absurdity. Continued apathy on this issue could have resulted in our being body-searched at movies, malls, bowling alleys, dance halls and on and on.

The Constitution is not cheap pieces of paper. It is legal and invaluable and shows that citizens are vested with rights. When government authority attempts to repress citizens unjustifiably, the public must respond. This is the land of the free, and our Bill of Rights must never be sacrificed on the so-called basis of national security. Our edifice of American freedoms was built on a solid constitutional foundation and politicians must not be permitted to abort them.

Robert B. Fleming, St. Petersburg

The world has changed

Re: Well-deserved defeat for pat-downs.

I see that the Times is quite happy with the federal court decision prohibiting pat-downs at the Buccaneer games. Gordon Johnson, a 60-year-old civics teacher, was also content to take credit for the ruling, having brought the lawsuit at issue.

Do you suppose Johnson and the Times will be so eager to take credit the first time some Islamo-facist straps some C-4 to his body and blows a couple of dozen people to pieces? No. If that happens, the Times will just blame George Bush, Dick Cheney or some other "rich Republican."

The world changed on 9/11/01. The Times and people like Johnson just haven't figured that out yet.

Steven A. Royal, Tampa

Binge research is all wet

Re: UF to research appeal of binge drinking, July 29.

There's no big mystery. Obviously, these "shirts" never had kids. To a freshman, going "away" to school means absolute freedom to do whatever he wants. It is also coupled with "it will never happen to me," which is nothing more than the stupidity of youth.

Redirect that money to another study, like the investigation of insurance companies and the scam they are pulling on me and my fellow homeowners here in Florida. Now that would be interesting!

Kitty Mozina, Palm Harbor

An arrogant insurance attitude

Re: Insurance guru: Free the market, July 29.

Dr. Robert Hartwig's comments embody the callousness, shortsightedness, arrogance and duplicity of an industry that is a necessity to all property owners and yet is not regulated sufficiently, due to its political contributions and influence, to ensure a "square deal" for Americans.

National profits aren't enough. Instead, Hartwig validates that his industry isolates Florida as a separate profit center, limiting the pool that is the basis for our property insurance to our state alone and, thereby, fails to spread the risk sufficiently to create lower rates despite the fact that life insurance rates, for example, are calculated on a national basis.

And if his industry really believes that current state rules are "subsidizing millionaires" who build mansions in coastal areas, why don't they do something about it? Where are their innovative solutions besides a free market that means higher rates? They've got the influence in Tallahassee. Could it be that some of those mansions belong to their executives?

"Free" the insurance industry? No, free the consumer who is enslaved by this industry, its political connections and its callousness toward hard-working Americans.

Martin L. Altner, Clearwater

More roads are not the answer

Re: Split road, July 29.

There's no way that this plan, for another huge roadway circling our area, surprised me much. That's all we need, isn't it? Another huge road, bringing in more traffic, not less.

That is the basic problem, in my opinion: Some think of roads as a way of alleviating traffic. I think of them as an invitation to more congestion.

I can envision what Florida will look like in 2025: dozens of huge highways leading hoards of motorists this way and that, taking people past places they really didn't have to go to. But the road builders, and some local politicians, it seems, would rather have it that way, if toll revenue potential and contract favoritism have anything to do with it. Then those tolls collected can be spent on - you got it - more roads!

Pssst. Can anyone say "mass transit," or growth management? Not here in Florida, it seems. Maybe with luck when 2025 gets here, there might be a few acres of green space left in Hillsborough County.

Ron Thuemler, Tampa

Lieberman's losing attitude

Re: Sen. Joe Lieberman.

As a former resident of Connecticut, I contacted Joe Lieberman and my other senators when they were voting to go to war with Iraq. I heard from all of them, including Sen. Christopher Dodd, who sent a copy of his speech and why he was voting for it while I was against.

The only thing I got from Sen. Lieberman was a request for a campaign donation. I wrote back to tell him the check was not in the mail. I didn't object so much to his vote as his attitude: "Send money, I'm not interested in your opinion". Foolish me. I thought we voted for them to look out for our interests.

Eleanor H. Blossom, Homosassa

Re: Well-deserved defeat for pat-downs, editorial, July 30.

This weekend, liberals in the greater Tampa Bay broadcast and print media were celebrating U.S. District Judge James Whittemore's decision last week to order the cessation of the Tampa Sports Authority pat-down policy at Raymond James Stadium. Both the Tampa Tribune's Daniel Ruth on his Saturday morning radio talk show on WFLA and the Sunday St. Petersburg Times have trumpeted the decision as a victory in defense of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It is not.

Whittemore, a 1999 Clinton appointee quoting former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, has simply restated the expansive, deconstructionist Warren court interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment specifically addresses "unreasonable" searches. We allow searches of airline passengers to prevent terror attacks. What is "unreasonable" about a cursory search to mitigate the potential for a terrorist attack during a large public gathering?

Judge Whittemore has reasoned that there was no compelling evidence that "the threat of a terrorist attack on an NFL stadium is 'concrete' or 'real.' " His test of the credibility of the threat is essentially the fact that it has not yet occurred.

Imagine a senior Justice Department official testifying before some future 9/11-type commission: "Yes, Mr. Chairman, we did consider the possibility of thousands of casualties resulting from a terrorist attack on a packed NFL stadium. But because it's never happened before, we didn't believe we had the constitutional authority to prevent it."

As we consider our options for protecting our fellow citizens from acts of terror in these troubled times, we would be wise to recall the common-sense observation: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Timothy S. "Mac" McDonnell, St. Petersburg

[Last modified August 1, 2006, 02:25:38]