"Transition Zone" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
.. .
I am coming late to this discussion (having ignored it for the tedium of
the
Bush/Kerry attacks on this group)...

Just a quick question.

Without probable cause, why are we so quick to support a random violation
of
the most basic private matters? The constitution clearly states that are
'persons' are not to be subject to unreasonable searches, and I think the
concept of being forced to urinate in a cup under the supervision of
another
is pretty damned unreasonable.

This has nothing to do with Bush, I don't care if he snorted coke back in
the early 1970s (just as I didn't care that Clinton and Gore and Kerry
and
so many others smoked weed or whatever).

Since you were a ground-pounder instead of an airdale, of course you
wouldn't
give a hell what condition our pilots are like flying overhead


While they are flying, I would expect them to be stone cold sober.

What they do in their off-time is entirely none of anyone's business.

It has to do with basic privacy.

Privacy to do cocaine, not get caught and drive and then A-6 Intruder
where it
shouldn't go. Right ??

So, if George W. Bush blew off a **** test because he thought it was an
unreasonable breach of his privacy, I applaud that.

Just like you would officers that you would command, right ??


I was an E-5, the officers are held to such a low standard, that I expect
that they must be high most of the time.

If, OTOH, he supported the drug testing others, later, then he is a total
schmuck..

What's his military doing now ??

Dying at far too great a number.



Jonathan