|
I do care, but at the same time I don't. It's a private company, which I have an issue with, but then again I would have an issue with the government doing it too. If they were actual law enforcement I would have less issue. Another issue is the scanner of course gives off radiation. If I traveled a LOT in my job, that would worry me. Though the doses are probably very small. The pat search, I don't have a huge issue with. I would kind of be irritated by Jamal grabbing at my junk and frisking me, but if it was Melissa the hot brunette, probably not as much. Might sport wood just to surprise her. :giggle:
Also, no actual terrorist plots/acts have been foiled by airport security, so I think like someone said earlier, they are doing it more for trafficking and smuggling. Either way, there have to be better ways to go about this. I do think political correctness is hurting us, by tip toeing and avoiding profiling. At the same time, if we passed up searching granny and the children, potential terrorists would probably catch onto this and recruit old and young people to carry stuff on-board. It's all a mess, and I really don't care. There are alternative means of travel, if it's THAT big of an issue to you. I don't travel much, so I'm not worried. I'd probably do the scanner before I would pat search. So what if they have a blurry x-ray image of my junk. |
Originally Posted by Torkel
(Post 660764)
Hrrmmm.. well, no, that is not quite right. Off topic, I know, but I just got to comment on this common misperception. The rights of the American people are in no way greater then the rights of the people living in for example the EU-countries.
In everything else, I totally agree with you! |
Originally Posted by Torkel
(Post 660764)
Hrrmmm.. well, no, that is not quite right. Off topic, I know, but I just got to comment on this common misperception. The rights of the American people are in no way greater then the rights of the people living in for example the EU-countries.
In everything else, I totally agree with you! Let me rephrase, the United States of America has the first and only Bill of Rights in which it expressly outlines the limitations on the power of the gov't yet it protects the rights of liberty and property of it's citizens. It also grants people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and again limits all powers not specifically granted to the gov't expressly to the people. Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience. I also want to point out - Life Under Sharia law:
|
The commoners not only get to touch the royal family, they get to marrie them even! Over here, the princes in line for the throne actually just married her personal trainer. ;-)
I assume the part on sharia was for the topic body scanners and terrorists. |
On the one hand, I'll certainly agree with those who observe that the US, like the UK, is becoming more and more of a surveillance state, and I'll say that I felt much less "oppressed" by the police in France and Germany than I do every day driving on the streets of most towns here in the states.
And fine, backscatter X-ray won't do squat insofar as folks who want to shove C4 up their assholes. I think we're all in agreement there. But what's the big deal? 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. That's the fourth amendment in its entirety. Pretty simply, really. How is it unreasonable to want to see whether folks passing through airport security are carrying? Not "does it accomplish anything useful", but "why are you even trying to compare it to the police barging in and rooting around inside your house at will?" |
I had a $75 bottle of cologne seized at the airport. I've had a tube of tube paste seized. I've had a lighter seized, a leatherman, a book of matches, a bottle of Paul Dean's sweet and sour sauce.
however, I continue to be able to smuggle through a pocket knife time and time again. Those are unreasonable seizes. Searching everyone who enters an airplane is unreasonable. Especially on the notion that every once in a while they get hijacked by some random Muslim. Every once in a while a a church gets shot up...should the gov't start making people pass through metal detectors before enter church? Why not...same thing? Searching random people is still unreasonable. Allowing strangers to view a digital image of my naked body is unreasonable, especially without my consent. I'm pretty sure this violates many peeping laws. Having the alternative method of being grouped is unreasonable. Please tell me the ratio of airport security searches to terrorist bombing arrests. Now please tell me the ratio of random/profiled/"common sense" Mexican border searches to drug/human/gun trafficking arrests. Those searches are a blatant waste of taxpayer dollars. they do nothing to stop terrorists and they walk a fine line over the Constitution. A TSA official has been recorded during an attempted body search saying, “By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights.” I'm sorry Joe, but as our Declaration of Independence states, our rights are inalienable. I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to know what inalienable means. We are fighting a war against Terrorism, not a war against Americans. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 660997)
however, I continue to be able to smuggle through a pocket knife time and time again.
|
So, because you can't remember to follow the clearly posted rules and ensure that your Paul Dean's sweet and sour sauce is separated out into containers of 3 oz or less and placed in a clear ziploc bag, TSA rules are unreasonable? I've been packing my sweet and sour sauce in my checked baggage for years, never had a problem. (I hate lugging heavy bags around the terminal anyway. The fewer condiments I have to carry the better.)
All I'm saying is that some of these folks are trying to twist a law that governs the powers of the police to search your home, car, workplace, etc (these are general examples only) and apply it to an area where your reasonable expectation of privacy is understood to be vastly diminished. It's called the open fields doctrine, folks. |
The gov't invested billions of dollars in these full body scanners in direct response to the underware bomber, and the Government Accountability Office study earlier this year concluded that had these scanners been in use they may not have detected the explosive material that was allegedly brought onto the airplane.
billions of dollars could have gone into better programs that actual stop terrorist activity and we can all bring our Paula Dean sweet and sour sauce home with us. And yes, TSA rules are unreasonable. I can still stab your fucking face off with a pencil that I can still bring on board. And the terrorist, if they decided to bother with airplanes anymore will do the same. Hell if they were smart they start bombing stadiums or shopping malls. the gov't should just ban people from gathering in large groups so there's no chance a terrorist can injure a large number of people at once. that seems like the most logical solution. giving up our individual freedoms and establishing unaccountable gov't organizations and wasting billions of dollars for false sense of security is leading American in the wrong direction. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 660989)
On the one hand, I'll certainly agree with those who observe that the US, like the UK, is becoming more and more of a surveillance state, and I'll say that I felt much less "oppressed" by the police in France and Germany than I do every day driving on the streets of most towns here in the states.
And fine, backscatter X-ray won't do squat insofar as folks who want to shove C4 up their assholes. I think we're all in agreement there. But what's the big deal? 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. That's the fourth amendment in its entirety. Pretty simply, really. How is it unreasonable to want to see whether folks passing through airport security are carrying? Not "does it accomplish anything useful", but "why are you even trying to compare it to the police barging in and rooting around inside your house at will?" |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 661015)
The gov't invested billions of dollars in these full body scanners in direct response to the underware bomber, and the Government Accountability Office study earlier this year concluded that had these scanners been in use they may not have detected the explosive material that was allegedly brought onto the airplane.
billions of dollars could have gone into better programs that actual stop terrorist activity and we can all bring our Paula Dean sweet and sour sauce home with us. And yes, TSA rules are unreasonable. I can still stab your fucking face off with a pencil that I can still bring on board. And the terrorist, if they decided to bother with airplanes anymore will do the same. Hell if they were smart they start bombing stadiums or shopping malls. the gov't should just ban people from gathering in large groups so there's no chance a terrorist can injure a large number of people at once. that seems like the most logical solution. giving up our individual freedoms and establishing unaccountable gov't organizations and wasting billions of dollars for false sense of security is leading American in the wrong direction. The point is that this facility was deemed low risk because of its location. Nevermind how much damage would be caused if targeted. |
our rights are inalienable. You give them up freely because you'll all weak liberal altruist collective second-handers.
|
Really, it's a moot point whether any of you individually are fine with giving up your own right against unreasonable search and seizure -- some people are fine with giving up their right to bare arms, but that doesn't mean their personal decision negates other peoples' right to bare arms.
|
Airport "Security"?
by Thomas Sowell 11/23/10 No country has better airport security than Israel-- and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs? "Security" may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this administration in other areas is all too painfully apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures. Can you remember a time when a Cabinet member in a free America boasted of having his "foot on the neck" of some business or when the President of the United States threatened on television to put his foot on another part of some citizens' anatomy? Yet this and more has happened in the current administration, which is not yet two years old. One Cabinet member warned that there would be "zero tolerance" for "misinformation" when an insurance company said the obvious, that the mandates of ObamaCare would raise costs and therefore raise premiums. Zero tolerance for exercising the First Amendment right of free speech? More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke warned about the dangers of new people with new power. This administration, only halfway through its term, has demonstrated that in many ways. What other administration has had an Attorney General call the American People "cowards"? And refuse to call terrorists Islamic? What other administration has had a Secretary of Homeland Security warn law enforcement officials across the country of security threats from people who are anti-abortion, for federalism or are returning military veterans? If anything good comes out of the airport "security" outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people. Those who made excuses for all of candidate Barack Obama's long years of alliances with people who expressed their contempt for this country, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, may finally get it when they feel some stranger's hand in their crotch. As for the excuse of "security," this is one of the least security-minded administrations we have had. When hundreds of illegal immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring countries were captured crossing the border from Mexico-- and then released on their own recognizance within the United States, that tells you all you need to know about this administration's concern for security. When captured terrorists who are not covered by either the Geneva Convention or the Constitution of the United States are nevertheless put on trial in American civilian courts by the Obama Justice Department, that too tells you all you need to know about how concerned they are about national security. The rules of criminal justice in American courts were not designed for trying terrorists. For one thing, revealing the evidence against them can reveal how our intelligence services got wind of them in the first place, and thereby endanger the lives of people who helped us nab them. Not a lot of people in other countries, or perhaps even in this country, are going to help us stop terrorists if their role is revealed and their families are exposed to revenge by the terrorists' bloodthirsty comrades. What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security do not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter-- and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works. Meanwhile, this administration is so hung up on political correctness that they have turned "profiling" into a bugaboo. They would rather have electronic scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for some questioning. Will America be undermined from within by an administration obsessed with political correctness and intoxicated with the adolescent thrill of exercising its new-found powers? Stay tuned. |
Those who made excuses for all of candidate Barack Obama's long years of alliances with people who expressed their contempt for this country, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, may finally get it when they feel some stranger's hand in their crotch. |
Hussein should have instituted this policy in 2013 like the other unique programs he's initiated. I'd provide further commentary but I'm posting from work.
|
My problem with the security increases after each terrorist event is how many man hours are lost and how many people are inconvenienced due to them.
Shoe bomber - there have now been over 6 billion people, just in the united states, that had to remove their shoes at the airport. UK guy with explosive liquids - 3 billion people have had to bag liquids, scan liquids separately and restrict liquid container size. Underwear bomber - We now get the full body xray scans and/or serious groping. If all this adds just 2 minutes to each person's time in line that is over 3 million hours of passenger time lost since 2003. This does not include time lost due to changes after 911, just the changes made after failed terrorist attempts. Forgetting rights, it's an unreal amount of time and money lost. |
|
Originally Posted by Splitime
(Post 661063)
|
|
|
Here's how Bureaucracies work:
Want to hide something from view? Request a pat down. Bypass the multi-million dollar nudie scanners, and then cite the TSA's own rules that say they cannot ask you to remove a cast or prosthetic. I cant wait till a terrorist uses a cast to hide a gun or something in, then the TSA bans people with casts or prosthetic from flying on planes...or forces them to be cut off. |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 661101)
|
They were too busy spilling urine bags to notice.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 661021)
our rights are inalienable.
I have the inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So what if the thing that makes me happy is kidnapping and raping 7 year old girls, cutting their heads off, and mounting them as trophies in my den? Well, it turns out that I don't have the right to pursue Happiness in that particular way. If I choose to ignore this caveat and go ahead with it anyway, then assuming I get caught, I will almost certainly be deprived of my inalienable right to Liberty, and depending upon what state the trial is held in, my inalienable right to Life as well. It's one thing to argue that the TSA is an ineffective organization and that its policies are a load of crap. It's a different thing altogether to try and make a constitutional case out of it. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 661370)
Inalienable doesn't mean limitless.
I have the inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So what if the thing that makes me happy is kidnapping and raping 7 year old girls, cutting their heads off, and mounting them as trophies in my den? In what way is the person who expects to travel without either revealing their naked body or having their genitals groped encroaching on the rights of others? We don't let LEO's do full patdowns until they are arresting someone, you know. What the TSA doing is presumption of guilt, across the board. And while you personally may consider it only an inconvenience, the principle of the matter is something much more important -- our government deciding to treat everyone as potential criminal. Are we going to accept our government presuming that all citizens are guilty until a government employee has patted them down? |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 661374)
Are we going to accept our government presuming that all citizens are guilty until a government employee has patted them down?
It worked in 1984. Everyone loved Big Brother. Hey and they also used war as a method! |
I wonder what they'd do during the full pat down if you moaned really loud like you were totally getting off?
|
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 661388)
I wonder what they'd do during the full pat down if you moaned really loud like you were totally getting off?
lol would ensue. BTW: Virginia Code > Title 18.2 > Chapter 5 > § 18.2-130 § 18.2-130. Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy. B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location or enclosure for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast and the circumstances are such that the person would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy. C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a lawful criminal investigation or a correctional official or local or regional jail official conducting surveillance for security purposes or during an investigation of alleged misconduct involving a person committed to the Department of Corrections or to a local or regional jail. D. As used in this section, "peephole" means any hole, crack or other similar opening through which a person can see. E. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. (Code 1950, § 18.1-174; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 520; 1999, c. 351; 2003, cc. 81, 87.) TSA agents are skirting our peeping tom laws. |
Keyword: nonconsenting. You buying a plane ticket knowing full well the procedures that they have in place is you consenting.
|
God, next you'll tell me the Asian internment camps during WWII were okay as well, they gave up their rights when they were born Asian.
It's not consent if it's forced. The alternative is being groped; which skirts sexual assault/battery laws. Or not being allow to fly. Lose, Lose, Lose. And still not one terrorist has been caught. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 661411)
God, next you'll tell me the Asian internment camps during WWII were okay as well.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 661411)
God, next you'll tell me the Asian internment camps during WWII were okay as well.
|
its a great analogy. They
Just because the gov't does something, does not mean it's legal or just. Only that they have the legal monopoly to use force against you at will. |
Consent would imply knowledge yes? As a Canadian if I purchase ticket to Mexico with Air Canada that happens to have a connector in Seattle, am I made aware by the TSA that I will have to submit to the new security screening?
In 2009 I traveled to Cancun and then about 1 month later traveled to Toronto. Both times I was "Randomly" selected for our version of the extended pat down by the same security guy. Once I made the metal detector go off, the other I made it through with out issue. A pain in the ass mostly for the amount of additional time it took to pass through security. |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 661374)
What you've described isn't simply one person exercising their own inalienable rights -- it's someone forcibly encroaching on another individuals inalienable rights. That's the entire point -- we the people have empowered the state to bring justice to those who ignore or encroach upon the rights of others.
Driving fast makes me happy. Unfortunately, the state of Florida has decided that because the very straightest sections of I-75 can only be safely traversed at 70 MPH by 18-wheelers and Cadillacs with underinflated all-season tires driven by stoned people with cataracts, that all motor vehicles shall be limited to 70 MPH on that road, regardless of how much they weigh, what kind of tires they have, and whether or not their occupant has a valid competition license. In essence the government is infringing upon my right to drive fast with the top down on vacant roads at night, an activity which I believe that I can safely partake of without causing harm to others, and yet we simply accept this (albeit begrudgingly) as given. So, where do we draw the line? Free speech and privacy... I'm honestly a little bit annoyed by the way that we, as a collective, seem to get so hung up on these two particular things which, if we're honest, are little more than vague academic concepts to the vast majority of us, while saying nothing at all about all of the little institutionalized encroachments which actually do have some impact on the quality of our lives. I mean, when was the last time that you, personally, marched on Washington? When was the last time that you had the state police show up at your door asking to do an impromptu search apropos of nothing, or had a squad of National Guard troops show up at your house demanding to be fed and quartered for the night? In what way is the person who expects to travel without either revealing their naked body or having their genitals groped encroaching on the rights of others? We don't let LEO's do full patdowns until they are arresting someone, you know. What the TSA doing is presumption of guilt, across the board. And while you personally may consider it only an inconvenience, the principle of the matter is something much more important -- our government deciding to treat everyone as potential criminal. As an example, the second amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and yet I am prohibited by both state and federal law from bearing arms in a great number of places- schools, hospitals, courthouses, etc. At the entrance to many of these places, I am forced to submit to a magnetometer scan and an X-ray inspection of my belongings. By your logic, the government has decided that I am a potential criminal and, in doing so, is quite likely to cause my embarrassment and harm to my character by detecting and then displaying for all the world to see the battery-powered stainless steel dildo which I normally keep concealed in my shoulderbag.
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 661388)
I wonder what they'd do during the full pat down if you moaned really loud like you were totally getting off?
|
Joe, I understand your position, but it doesn't really speak to my argument -- most if not all of the examples you provide (speed limits, gun safe zones, etc) I consider to be unreasonable if not outright unconstitutional restrictions.
That we has citizens have accepted the gradually warming water around us doesn't mean we won't get boiled in the end. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 661397)
§ 18.2-130. Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy. B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location or enclosure for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast and the circumstances are such that the person would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I suggest that you read up a bit on the Open Fields Doctrine. The case of Hester v. United States (1924) determined that "The protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects," does not extend to open fields", and Oliver v. United States (1984) clarified that "open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance." Essentially, the standard of privacy which we enjoy in certain areas (such as residences) is understood specifically not to extend to public places. This same doctrine is applied all the time in the media, where one is understood to consent to being photographed or recorded simply by being in a public place, and no release is required to be obtained in order to print or broadcast same, regardless of context.
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 661427)
As a Canadian if I purchase ticket to Mexico with Air Canada that happens to have a connector in Seattle, am I made aware by the TSA that I will have to submit to the new security screening?
For instance, if a resident of Arizona (where one may openly carry a firearm without a license) traveled by car into Mexico (where possession of firearms by foreigners is specifically prohibited except in certain narrowly defined situations) and was subsequently arrested and placed in jail, what would your response be to that? |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 661428)
Free speech and privacy... I'm honestly a little bit annoyed by the way that we, as a collective, seem to get so hung up on these two particular things which, if we're honest, are little more than vague academic concepts to the vast majority of us, while saying nothing at all about all of the little institutionalized encroachments which actually do have some impact on the quality of our lives.
You have it completely backwards. The "Collective", as you put it, holds that the individual has no rights, that his life, his privacy, his genitals belong to the group and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force. Man is not the rightless slave of the state. Therefore man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 661436)
You have it completely backwards.
The "Collective", as you put it, holds that the individual has no rights, that his life, his privacy, his genitals belong to the group and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force. Man is not the rightless slave of the state. Therefore man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 661432)
I think that a reasonable person might elect to familiarize themselves with the laws and customs of a foreign country before traveling there.
For instance, if a resident of Arizona (where one may openly carry a firearm without a license) traveled by car into Mexico (where possession of firearms by foreigners is specifically prohibited except in certain narrowly defined situations) and was subsequently arrested and placed in jail, what would your response be to that? I was traveling from Singapore to Malaysia a number of years ago. Were were traveling by train and had to pass through customs/security at the terminal. In front of us were a couple who looked to be in their 20's that looked to have traveled a fair amount (backpacks with various flags on it). They got hauled away for additional screening/interrogation, resulting in a missed train. Do you have any idea why? They had an Israel stamp in their passports. Until I learned about this and witnessed it myself I would have never guessed in a million years that this would take place in Malaysia. Traveler beware indeed, and your point is taken. We should educate ourselves certainly. Having said that, if I hadn't heard about the full body scanners and the new gate rape via the media I wouldn't have had a clue about it. I traveled to New York last June and never though to check out what the TSA security procedures were like. In my ignorance (having traveled to the US many times) I could have been subject to a piss test and a body cavity search because I might be smuggling pot and gay marriage into the country. I like a lot of people make assumptions based on previous experience. Tell me this, since you have just recently traveled abroad and knowing your keen attention to detail did you know exactly what the experience/process was going to be at every country you passed through? Honestly? My bigger concern these days is having my laptop/iphone/ipad confiscated and searched at security checkpoints. And what are the implications when I'm asked for my password and refuse? I loath my next trip into the US because of this. Thank Zeus's butthole I can fly direct to Mexico. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 661436)
The "Collective", as you put it, holds that the individual has no rights, that his life, his privacy, his genitals belong to the group and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force.
Generally, whenever any random American starts waving the Bill of Rights around using it to defend or attack some particular point of view, it's almost always either the First, Second, or Fourth amendments, and it's almost always the same couple of lines of rhetoric. It's always "gubment can't take away mah guns" or "da man can't silence us no more" or some other such repetitive drivel taken straight from the lips of whichever celebrity happens to be lending their name and image to the movement in question. Nobody pays attention to the really important ones. Seriously, show of hands- without looking it up, can anybody here tell me anything about the 9'th and 10'th Amendments? Anything at all?
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 661455)
Tell me this, since you have just recently traveled abroad and knowing your keen attention to detail did you know exactly what the experience/process was going to be at every country you passed through? Honestly?
Coming back into the US I wasn't quite as ---- as I had plenty of time, wasn't worried about a connection, and I'm already fairly familiar with the laws and customs of the US. I had my form 6059B filled out ahead of time, so the only uncertainty was passport control, and that turned out to be pretty damn easy. For reference, airport security screening in the EU is almost identical to in the US (even for domestic flights) with the exception that removal of shoes is not mandatory. They have exactly the same rules concerning liquids, though they are, of course, described in milliliters rather than ounces. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 661485)
Nobody pays attention to the really important ones. Seriously, show of hands- without looking it up, can anybody here tell me anything about the 9'th and 10'th Amendments? Anything at all?
|
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232457
Doctors sound TSA germ alert Dangers include syphilis, lice, viruses, ringworm... ...WND reported two days ago on alarmed passengers who noted that TSA agents doing the pat-downs that have been described by critics as molestation since they include touching private body parts were not changing gloves between passengers. In fact, some apparently were patting down dozens of passengers or more wearing the same gloves. |
Use dogs:
And this guy explains how crappy the "improved" security really is: http://www.counterpunch.org/ridgeway11242010.html |
I'd rather just have them touch my body.
touch my body body, oh just touch my body. forever alone |
Thanks for helping me write my paper, guys.
My thesis is "The Transportation Security Administration should not be allowed to mandate the process of full-body imaging for additional security measures in airplane travel because it infringes on the privacy of human beings, wastes time, and is ineffective for the cost." |
If you want to give reason why it should not be allowed then you should look no further than the Constitution because that is the governing document that our government is supposed to adhere to.
The rest is trivial and nonsupporting to the statement of "should not be allowed". If you wanted to claim "why it should be discontinued" then yes, that would be but a few reasons. "ineffective for the cost" just made me laugh. 1. it's a government program, so of course it will be ineffective. 2. it's a government program of course it will cost a lot. |
Well gee... I'm just trying to get a good grade so I can get a degree so I can get a good job so I can make money so I can support a family. :(
I removed "be allowed to" |
1 Attachment(s)
Miss January in the TSA Calendar
|
Originally Posted by Cococarbine3
(Post 663501)
Well gee... I'm just trying to get a good grade so I can get a degree so I can get a good job so I can make money so I can give it all to the government so that they can distribute it as they see fit.
|
Originally Posted by RotorNutFD3S
(Post 663508)
ftfy
|
Not all of my money goes to the government... :(
|
|
my wife just flew out of reagan, no scanners...they were there, just not in operation.
|
Didn't have 'em at all at RSW last week when I flew out.
|
Good Link on a civil discussion about the actual costs and safety measures provided by the new scanner.
|
Newark didn't have anything up and running this week either. No patdowns were observed for that matter. Of course, the airtrain was down, along with the escalators, elevators and all of the electric sliding doors as well. Don't know if that had anything to do with it, but it sure did hose up transport between terminals.
|
TSA: We'll touch your balls, but ignore your gun!
According to one report, undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times. A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago's O'Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times. |
I am flying out of BWI next Tuesday to Laguardia and then down to Charleston. I am planning on getting pat down instead of the scanners. I am thinking I tell them I am gay and to please rub it a few extra times.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:17 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands