What's new
By:

what do you think of the new TSA pat downs?

focadima said:
NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GET PATTED DOWN *YOU* are choosing to fly, if YOU want to fly YOU need to follow the rules, there are cars, planes, boats etc...
Click to expand...
In order to fly here, at a minimum, one is forced to waive their 4th Amendment rights. The very government charged with protecting those rights is the same entity denying those rights.

Denying our rights need not be a prerequisite of security.
 
at what point did I not say that??

you are chosing to fly, you are chosing to waive your rights

I was wondering If you could perhaps think of a good way to keep us all safe in the air??
Or a way to scan for potentially dangerous weapons or bombs??
 
a_s_b said:
In order to fly here, at a minimum, one is forced to waive their 4th Amendment rights. The very government charged with protecting those rights is the same entity denying those rights.

Denying our rights need not be a prerequisite of security.
Click to expand...

Thus why the government needs to butt the heck out of this situation....
 
eiramnoaj said:
Come on, this is CW. The fact that this thread hasn't turned to smut is shocking. This is definitely still about as close as we get to staying on topic.
Click to expand...

Joan - I tried to turn this into smut! In post #4 I spoke of mrsmom spreading her legs! :lol::lol::lol:
 
focadima said:
you are chosing to fly, you are chosing to waive your rights
Click to expand...
Correction: You are choosing to fly, you are forced to waive your rights.

Huge difference.

focadima said:
I was wondering If you could perhaps think of a good way to keep us all safe in the air??

Or a way to scan for potentially dangerous weapons or bombs??
Click to expand...
Staying in context, the answer to both is Rafi Sela.
 
but you are being forced to waive your rights (I dont agree) to keep a whole bunch of other people safe.....................you have to sacrafice the rights one the one to make sure the rights of others are safe
 
a_s_b said:
I guess it all depends on whether or not a person holds the Constitution's 4th Amendment in high regard.

Body scans and pat downs do nothing to prevent the loss of innocent life.

Again, I guess it all depends on whether or not a person holds the Constitution's 4th Amendment in high regard.

I already stated that I currently have no need to fly (and haven't for nearly 30 years), but my reasons have nothing to do with fears about terrorism (which is ZERO fear), nor avoiding the forced waiver of my rights.

People shouldn't have to change their travel plans to avoid places where their rights (freedoms) are denied ... the places that deny people's rights (freedoms) should be disallowed from doing so.

An airport with probably the greatest degree of threat to human life is the Ben-Gurion Airport, yet it's among the safest airports on the whole planet. They manage to provide a safe flying experience for their travelers without violating their rights, and without taking more than 30 minutes to get you from the parking lot to the boarding area. They also manage to do a monster amount of retail sales there.

The way we do security here is ridiculous, and ineffective.

That's fine. You're certainly free to maintain your own opinions. It doesn't change the fact that it most definitely about freedom for people who support the 4th Amendment (or at the least, the concept that forms its basis).
Click to expand...


BLAH BLAH BLAHHHHH BLAH
have not seen another 9/11 have we?
a better security, no fly list, pat downs and scans would have PREVENTED NOT ONLY THE LOSS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES but the lives that are STILL BEING LOST from 9/11 as the emergency workers develop CANCERS from the toxic fumes and chemicals of that day

so i respectfully say
BITE ME

FREEDOM has NOTHING to ****ing do with FLYING , it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RULES AROUND FLYING. In case people dont get it. FLYING IS A ****ING PRIVELEDGE NOT A ****ING RIGHT. LIKE HAVING A DRIVERS LICENSE AND OWNING A CAR. THSE THINGS ARE PRIVELEDGES. THEY ARE NOT RIGHTS AND THEY ARE NOT ****ING FREEDOM ISSUES. You want the PRIVELEDGE OF FLYING you have to BOW DOWN AND FOLLOW THE ****ING RULES for the Safety of the entire ****ing world. this isnt tiddly winks here.

**PS i am chewing on this topic right now in a very very very bad mood so dont take it personal i am just being a ********ICUS in general*
 
a_s_b said:
... but given the way people love to give away their freedoms, even that topic would devolve into a useless mess of non-discussion.
Click to expand...

what the ****ING HELL ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT? when did FLYING become a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT? last time i checked its not in there. its a PRIVELEDGE WITH RULES TO PROTECT THE SAFETY OF EVERYONE> GET A ****ING CLUE HERE instead of spouting FREEDOM BULLSHIT. if you find out yourname is on the NO FLY LIST, then come ****ing about freedoms. till then its a PRIVELEDGE AND NOT A ****ING RIGHT.
 
a_s_b said:
None of my posts are casually discussing the basic topic of rights being denied. I am discussing the specific rights afforded by the 4th Amendment being denied. And that specific reference was a reply to a post questioning how scanners and pat-downs are issues of freedom.

Somewhere else, I'd be happy to discuss the right to bear arms, and more specifically, the right to bear them on airplanes. I know there's one person here who can see the value, but I don't believe there's two.
Click to expand...


unreasonable search and seizure
are you ****ING KIDDING ME?

what the hell does THAT have to do with a PRIVELEDGE THAT HAS RULES?
 
Well, wasn't it the government who told people that the air was safe to breathe just after 9-11??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

Early statement by Christine Todd Whitman
On September 18, 2001, EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman told the public, via a press release, "We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air-quality and drinking-water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances" and that "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York … that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink.
 
mama22angels said:
Well, wasn't it the government who told people that the air was safe to breathe just after 9-11??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

Early statement by Christine Todd Whitman
On September 18, 2001, EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman told the public, via a press release, "We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air-quality and drinking-water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances" and that "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York … that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink.
Click to expand...


however all the reports in the world mean nothing when you can also read articles and find the statistics on the number of deaths due to CANCER for the emergency personel who were there at ground zero and even many of the survivors of that day who were exposed for a long period of time.
 
Exactly Sati... how long before the government ("who is saving you") will acknowledge that the full body screeners may not be as safe as they are touting them today. it took almost 2 years for the government to admit hm maybe the air wasn't so safe... they are still fighting to pay out.

Hind sight is 20/20, this may be why so many people are against it. Plus the fact that you are checked, body patted down, balls racked in public.. it isn't private at all. Women are having blouses lifted, skirts lifted in the middle of the airport, in the name of "safety"
 
9/11 was horrible, I lived and worked in the DC metro area at the time. Those who think that these invasive proceedures would have prevented it are mistaken. Box cutters (the weapon of choice on 9/11 used to get the planes) can easily be put into ones rear or vaginal cavity. The scans dont show internal contraband. The pilots are worried enough about the radiation from these new machines they are lobbying for alternatives. Also as far as the naked pics the government takes and says they erase read this http://consumerist.com/2010/11/100-body-scans-released.html . I will exercise my right not to fly as I am sure many others will. The airlines, however, better not come begging for another bailout due to people exercising their choice not to submit to this. Remember yall the shoe bomber guy got on after 9/11 and was almost sucessful if not for alert passengers and crew. When someone is determined to do something like that they find a way.
 
okay again i ask..

what is your solution then? How do you think we as a country can be sure we are safe on flights?

seriously
 
Do contracted screeners draw their authority from the Aviation Transportation and Security Act PL107-71 (ATSA), or do state and local governments have to codify ATSA to establish their authority to perform Administrative Searches? If so, what if there is a conflict with the State Constitution (e.g., random vehicle searches during heightened alert conditions)? Will the Screening Standard Operating Procedures be modified to accommodate these conflicts?

Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top