Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LTnewsDawg

Giving away far too many of our constitutional rights

Recommended Posts

LTnewsDawg

"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 th...

 

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrkglsr65

Great letter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52skidoo

remember...

 

if you have nothing to hide..

 

you have nothing to worry about?

 

times sure have changed since bush left office..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

And if the powers that be had any faith that the next time a plane is brought down and hundreds killed, that the folk, including Ms Peterson, would just say "Oh well. Shit happens", then maybe things would ease up at the airports. But that isn't what would happen.

 

No, folks would start howling about the ineptness of government, even while demanding that the government "do something". And whoever was out of power would start the process of pointing fingers and finding someone to blame. Heads would roll. Careers would end. And hell, we'd probably look for someone to invade and occupy.

 

Being in a plane at 38000 feet is a particularly vulnerable place to be. Just a big enough pop to put a hole in the skin of a plane would most likely be the end of it all, and in a really dramatic way. Everybody getting a full body scan is probably a bit of overkill, but to my knowledge, that isn't how the technology is used. But do folks object to the use of said technology in some situations.

 

I don't fly much, but a week ago we flew to Portland. Oregon for a concert (A "life is too short" trip). Philly airport was fun. I guess I had that Ted Kaczynski thing going, with the unkempt hair and beard, and 5 AM up all night eyes. I was wearing my best wool shirt and a hoody, but they seemed particularly interested in my size 13 workboots. They pulled me out of line, and I noticed that there were 5 agents surrounding me in case I made any sudden moves. That's SOP, I'm used to it.

 

I thought they were going to ask me why my eyebrows weren't on a leash or something, but this is where technology stepped in. After wanding me, they ran a sample paper across the seams of my boot, then fed the paper into a little mass spectrometer looking for explosive residue. I had just a moment to consider what could be on my boots, given that we have fiddled with homemade rocket propellant and various solvents to clean bones and crystals in the shed. But the scan was clean.

 

I thanked them for their trouble. Seeing as I looked like I had just crawled out of my bunker, I didn't think the added attention was unwarranted. Funny thing, on the way back, after I had trimmed my beard, and dressed in a turtleneck and a tweed jacket with the leather elbows, I was not singled out..

Edited by nvh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citydweller

Great column, Carol. Pity most people won't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

Great column, Carol. Pity most people won't get it.

 

No, I think I get it. I've been on the receiving end of bad warrants and illegal searches. I am quite cognizant of the 4th Amendment and the slippery slope arguments. I am troubled by the pervasiveness of security cameras on the streets, and the Patriot Act gave me the vapors. Warrantless wiretaps and searches, data mining and such appear to me as unnecessary and unconstitutional. And the atmosphere of fear, of neighbors watching neighbors is all troubling.

 

I had a run in with a local LEO after some good frightened folk called them because I was "acting suspiciously" with a rock hammer and backpack sampling exposed rock in a railroad cut, and saw the locals point me out when I returned to my truck. When I explained to the officer what I was doing, he suggested that it would be best if I stayed in my own neighborhood and look for arrowheads instead of minerals.

 

But I am focusing on air travel. Like I said, you are in a particularly vulnerable position on a jet at 38000 feet. All your self-defense abilities and survival skills, your strength and stamina, being quick on your feet and aware of your surroundings are absolutely meaningless if someone can poke a hole int he skin of that plane with a small amount of explosives.

 

The Nation wrote a piece about the people behind the people involved in this latest "don't touch my junk" and the horror stories featured in the media of late.

 

While this issue is certainly important—and offensive—to Americans, we are nonetheless skeptical about how and why this story turned into a national movement. In fact, this whole campaign feels a bit like déjà-vu: As the first reporters to expose the Tea Party as an Astroturf PR campaign funded by FreedomWorks and Koch-related front groups back in February, 2009, we see many of the same elements driving the current "rebellion" against the TSA: Koch-related libertarians, Washington lobbyists and PR operatives posing as "ordinary citizens," and suspicious fake-grassroots outrage relentlessly promoted in the same old right-wing echo chamber.

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/156647/tsastroturf-washington-lobbyists-and-koch-funded-libertarians-behind-tsa-scandal

 

 

I don't recall this level of shrieking during the Bush years, and I strongly suspect this is just another facet of the broad "death by a thousand cuts" attack on Obama. i realize that this puts me way out of step with my fellow "progressives", but so be it. "Selective" use of additional screening for people like me really doesn't bother me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrkglsr65

I don't recall this level of shrieking during the Bush years, and I strongly suspect this is just another facet of the broad "death by a thousand cuts" attack on Obama. i realize that this puts me way out of step with my fellow "progressives", but so be it. "Selective" use of additional screening for people like me really doesn't bother me.

 

 

Maybe you don't recall, but if you were in my living room, you would have heard me cheering on Keith Olbermann as he complained about these abuses including the misnamed, Patriot Act. But then, when Obama got in, he turned into a lap-dog!

 

I, for one, don't usually demand that government "do something" because I am old enough to know that things work out much better when government backs off. The "security" measures at the airport are just a big show for the voters. The US government really doesn't give a damn WHO is in the US, and would rather hassle citizens than actually keep foreign nationals out of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

The 4th Amendment has been interpretted differently many times over since it was written.... you can thank SCOTUS. The true meaning of the 4th Amendment hasn't been practiced in a very long time, probably since it was written. Every state has it's own version and the Supreme Court rules all. The reason? To suite the needs of our ever changing society. Certainly the writers had no idea that someone would fly a plane into a building killing thousands, but the Supreme Court has interpretted the 4th Amendment that airport security may be intrusive in the interest of public safety. If the 4th Amendment was a universal guide to all searches and seizures, intrusions, et. al. then all search warrants would read the same, but they don't. A search warrant in Maryland is about the size of a 5x8 index card, a search warrant in PA can be several pages long... who is correct in their interpretation of what is necessary to intrude? Fact of the matter is, if you don't like the intrusions at airports, don't fly. Since 9/11 I have flown 39 times and never once was I upset by airport security... unless I had dirty socks. It seems that those that complain about airport security are people that don't fly often, it's really not that big of a deal. But I think its the significance of governmental intrusion that has them upset, always leaning on the Constitution when they are inconvenienced in the slightest. But board a plane one time and have someone set their balls on fire and you'll be saying, "how were they able to board a plane with explosives strapped to their nuts," or "why didn't government intelligence pick up on the fifty YouTube videos where he said he was going to do this." You should be supporting these steps to thwart another attack, not condemning the measures taken to do so.

 

The writer says that the terrorists have one, to that I say - You're right, they have.. they have you supporting the ease of movement across our country and into our country. Bring on the body scanners, I say. Because I don't want my last minutes with my family to be via a cellphone on a plane destined to slam into the side of a building.

 

Well said my friend! I'll full quote this one seeing I feel it should be said yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

The 4th Amendment has been interpretted differently many times over since it was written.... you can thank SCOTUS. The true meaning of the 4th Amendment hasn't been practiced in a very long time, probably since it was written. Every state has it's own version and the Supreme Court rules all. The reason? To suite the needs of our ever changing society. Certainly the writers had no idea that someone would fly a plane into a building killing thousands, but the Supreme Court has interpretted the 4th Amendment that airport security may be intrusive in the interest of public safety. If the 4th Amendment was a universal guide to all searches and seizures, intrusions, et. al. then all search warrants would read the same, but they don't. A search warrant in Maryland is about the size of a 5x8 index card, a search warrant in PA can be several pages long... who is correct in their interpretation of what is necessary to intrude? Fact of the matter is, if you don't like the intrusions at airports, don't fly. Since 9/11 I have flown 39 times and never once was I upset by airport security... unless I had dirty socks. It seems that those that complain about airport security are people that don't fly often, it's really not that big of a deal. But I think its the significance of governmental intrusion that has them upset, always leaning on the Constitution when they are inconvenienced in the slightest. But board a plane one time and have someone set their balls on fire and you'll be saying, "how were they able to board a plane with explosives strapped to their nuts," or "why didn't government intelligence pick up on the fifty YouTube videos where he said he was going to do this." You should be supporting these steps to thwart another attack, not condemning the measures taken to do so.

 

The writer says that the terrorists have one, to that I say - You're right, they have.. they have you supporting the ease of movement across our country and into our country. Bring on the body scanners, I say. Because I don't want my last minutes with my family to be via a cellphone on a plane destined to slam into the side of a building.

 

How many rights are you willing to give up in exchange for the false belief that it makes you safer?

 

The true meaning of the 4th Amendment is exactly what the 4th Amendment says. We have the Constitutional protection from searches unless authorities have probable cause to believe that we have or are committing a crime. Doesn't matter the size of the paper or the size of the gun that authorities carry etc. etc.

 

It doesn't matter if you don't mind the intrusion. What matters is the erosion of the Constitutional rights that we will never get back once they are lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citydweller

Sometimes a society "puts up with" abuses of founding principles for the sake of convenience, or because it's "not worth fighting about". But usually, there comes a point where people start to say "Okay, you know, enough is enough, you've gone too far with this shit."

 

I think that's about where we are, for many folks who hadn't given the issues enough thought until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citydweller

But none of it will realistically thwart another determined terrorist attack. The more the government publicizes the ways and means they have to discover intrusion, the more they aid potential terrorists in knowing what they can't get past security. It makes no sense, other than the fact that it keeps the innocent traveling public frightened, cowed and compliant to any demands set upon them by authority.

 

If you can take down an airliner with a couple box cutters, you can do it with a neck tie. All that's needed is organization and resolve, and there's no scanner that can detect that. This business is about controlling our populace, not preventing terrorism. We're being trained not to look at the cup that the ball is under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarlDelos

Well there hasn't been another terrorist attack, has there? [knocking on wood, hard]

 

There hasn't?

 

There's been anthrax in the mail.

There's been a couple of snipers on the Washington beltway.

There have been shootings on college campuses, and high schools, and even at a local Amish school.

 

If we haven't had any more terrorist attacks, you better define for me what you mean by terrorist attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarlDelos

Planes into buildings, airport security is the reference.

 

This country is like a house with a hundred doors and windows. It doesn't make any difference how secure the other 99 are, if you leave one window or door unlocked, you're toast.

 

If I were trying to terrorize the US, I'd attack the food supply,

 

Put a contaminant in the cups that beer gets served in at a bowl game. A bunch of people get sick drinking beer, you assume they had too much beer, so people keep drinking the beer, and people aren't as likely to refuse beer for an off taste as some other foods. You end up with tens of thousands of sick people in one city, and if you pick the right contaminant, it's a communicable disease. Lots of newspeople travel from that city to their home cities before anyone figures out what the problem is, so you have pockets of sickness in a number of other big cities as well.

 

Or contaminate bags of salad. People don't cook it, they don't even wash it, they just dump it in a bowl and add dressing. It has a short shelf life, so most of what you contaminate will be consumed rather than sit on the shelf until it's consumed.

 

Or you could sneak code into the computer chips used in cars or trucks. They all have clocks and calendars built in. Can you imagine that starting at 8 AM, November 1, 2012, all the Ford F-100s manufactured in the prior seven years suddenly had computers that would let you speed up but not slow down, and then on November 2, the same thing happened to Toyota Corollas? Nobody would want to drive anything on November 3....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

It's the perception of giving up your rights, you're really giving up none. Which rights do you think that you give up when you fly? I don't think I'm giving up any... show me where in the Constitution it say that you are protected in airports. If you want to hold the government to the 4th Amendment fire then you might want to consider these other areas of governmental intrusions:

  • You're driver's license. When you apply for a driver's license the government has the right to run your driver's history from all states... it is a search of your personal information without probable cause.
  • Your're state inspection. When you bring your car in for a state inspection a certified by the governement official searches your car - inside and out. Without probable cause.
  • Home Inspection. When you sell your home you have to have a Certificate of Occupancy. The government comes into your house and inspects it for liveability. Without probable cause.
  • If you're a truck driver. Drive a truck and the government can inspect you anytime, anywhere with no probable cause.
  • At a courthouse. When you walk into the courthouse you are searched head-to-toe. Without probable cause.
  • The US Supreme Court. Take a tour of the Supreme Court and you'll be searched... without probable cause.... kind of ironic that the biggest enforcer of the Constitution violates your 4th Amendment rights, isn't it?
  • ACLU Headquarters. Got business at ACLU HQ or any satelitte office? You'll be met at the door with a full security sweep.... no probable cause.
  • Buying an alcoholic beverage. You want to have a drink? Be prepared to be searched... for your proof of age... no probable cause.
  • Eating out. That diner you eat at is subject to search without a search warrant. why? To protect you..... without probable cause.

Why do some accept some 4th Amendment violations, but not the airport? You certainly want to drive; you've accepted that the law requires a vehicle inspection; you'll sell your home and be okay with the home inspection; you'll probably take tours at the White House or any museum and accept those searches.... but for some reason air travel doesn't get a pass. You've already given up your 4th Amendment... as defined by the writer... but we're willing to accept it in certain areas. All searches are optional at airports... just like museums... if you don't want to be searched to tour a musuem or fly, don't go. Otherwise, I fully expect you to stand outside of your local state inspection station with a cardboard sign.

 

You see, the 4th Amendment only comes into play when it suits you (generally, not specifically you). Without the exceptions that we voluntarily adhere to, our society would come to a stand still. You don't to have fly anymore than have to drive, drink, eat out or tour buildings. So I'll say it again: If you don't want to be searched, don't fly.

 

Come on, Maffi. You won't even make me break a sweat! This article and my point has to do with personal bodily searches. Home inspection is a request. You open the door. And the home inspection is on the physical structure. If you have had home inspectors paw through your drawers (either furniture or the ones you are wearing!), he committed an illegal act. Your other references are equally silly, and completely inapplicable.

 

And my argument about illegal searches does include public buildings as well. Rights that law-abiding citizens should be defending with the same fervor the Founding Fathers exerted.

 

My Constitutional rights go with me. Wherever I go, I have them. They belong to me. And that includes flying. Driving. Walking down the street. Except people like you who are willing to give up their rights for, as the article says, just the warm fuzzy feeling of safety which is just an illusion, are seeing the rights of everyone eroded.

 

The radiation of a full-body scan is equivalent to a mammogram. So, in other words, you have soaked up the equivalent of 39 mammograms. Radiation can cause cancer. Sure hope you cling to your rights to healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

But none of it will realistically thwart another determined terrorist attack. The more the government publicizes the ways and means they have to discover intrusion, the more they aid potential terrorists in knowing what they can't get past security. It makes no sense, other than the fact that it keeps the innocent traveling public frightened, cowed and compliant to any demands set upon them by authority.

 

If you can take down an airliner with a couple box cutters, you can do it with a neck tie. All that's needed is organization and resolve, and there's no scanner that can detect that. This business is about controlling our populace, not preventing terrorism. We're being trained not to look at the cup that the ball is under.

 

City gets it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh
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.

 

What is "unreasonable"? That is the crux of it. I don't think we can harken back to "original intent". Technology has changed in ways that the Founding Fathers (TM) could have never imagined.

 

Speaking very narrowly, I don't think a "search" of airline passengers for weapons that could potentially be used to kill hundreds if not thousands of people is unreasonable, considering that a lack of such searches would make the deaths of hundreds or thousands relatively easy to do, and there are peopele who have expressed an eagerness to do it.

 

Wholesale monitoring of electronic communication (ie data mining), on the off chance that a randomly intercepted communication may be part of a terrorist plot, does impress me as unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

Come on, Maffi. You won't even make me break a sweat! This article and my point has to do with personal bodily searches. Home inspection is a request. You open the door. And the home inspection is on the physical structure. If you have had home inspectors paw through your drawers (either furniture or the ones you are wearing!), he committed an illegal act. Your other references are equally silly, and completely inapplicable.

 

And my argument about illegal searches does include public buildings as well. Rights that law-abiding citizens should be defending with the same fervor the Founding Fathers exerted.

 

My Constitutional rights go with me. Wherever I go, I have them. They belong to me. And that includes flying. Driving. Walking down the street. Except people like you who are willing to give up their rights for, as the article says, just the warm fuzzy feeling of safety which is just an illusion, are seeing the rights of everyone eroded.

 

The radiation of a full-body scan is equivalent to a mammogram. So, in other words, you have soaked up the equivalent of 39 mammograms. Radiation can cause cancer. Sure hope you cling to your rights to healthcare.

 

Are you serious? You can't be serious! Oh ye who hails from the "don't build the mosque" crowd jumps on the "don't infringe on my space" band wagon????????????? Seriously? LOL I know you're just voicing this opinion to get a rise out of people now. I know you wouldn't dare to stand up for your own rights(your opinion of course which you put over the rest of our safety) and screw the rights of those that want to build the mosque.

 

I know I know here it comes...................you don't have a problem with the mosque right? Just that they could have been more sensitive about it. LOL

 

Keep in mind that I hail from the crowd that says "screw everyone's rights if it makes this country safe". Hell.....half the people complaining about pat downs and scans should be jumping for joy over the fact someone is actually looking at them or god forbid wanting to feel them up. I've seen some of them and I'd say "hell no..................................go right through mam!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

 

What is "unreasonable"? That is the crux of it. I don't think we can harken back to "original intent". Technology has changed in ways that the Founding Fathers (TM) could have never imagined.

 

Speaking very narrowly, I don't think a "search" of airline passengers for weapons that could potentially be used to kill hundreds if not thousands of people is unreasonable, considering that a lack of such searches would make the deaths of hundreds or thousands relatively easy to do, and there are peopele who have expressed an eagerness to do it.

 

Wholesale monitoring of electronic communication (ie data mining), on the off chance that a randomly intercepted communication may be part of a terrorist plot, does impress me as unreasonable.

 

A condom packed with that small amount of C4 or PETN can be swallowed, or inserted in a body cavity. They can be triggered by a cell phone.

 

So, are you willing to have your wife or daughters receive a pelvic exam by a minimum wage airport security screener? And are you okay with a proctoscope? And are we stepping up the radiation exposure to PET scan from mammogram?

 

 

http://www.donovanexplosives.com/products.htm

 

(I ask that respectfully)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

Are you serious? You can't be serious! Oh ye who hails from the "don't build the mosque" crowd jumps on the "don't infringe on my space" band wagon????????????? Seriously? LOL I know you're just voicing this opinion to get a rise out of people now. I know you wouldn't dare to stand up for your own rights(your opinion of course which you put over the rest of our safety) and screw the rights of those that want to build the mosque.

 

I know I know here it comes...................you don't have a problem with the mosque right? Just that they could have been more sensitive about it. LOL

 

Keep in mind that I hail from the crowd that says "screw everyone's rights if it makes this country safe". Hell.....half the people complaining about pat downs and scans should be jumping for joy over the fact someone is actually looking at them or god forbid wanting to feel them up. I've seen some of them and I'd say "hell no..................................go right through mam!"

 

Attack the post not the poster

 

I stand up for my rights every single day in a hundred different ways. And I am sorry that you think so little of yours. Because any idea that you are safe because of the illegal searches that are occurring is a false sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

A condom packed with that small amount of C4 or PETN can be swallowed, or inserted in a body cavity. They can be triggered by a cell phone.

 

So, are you willing to have your wife or daughters receive a pelvic exam by a minimum wage airport security screener? And are you okay with a proctoscope? And are we stepping up the radiation exposure to PET scan from mammogram?

 

 

http://www.donovanex...om/products.htm

 

(I ask that respectfully)

 

Why do you start with the most extreme examples? Are "anal probes" proposed. I don't see this as an either/or situation. Do you?

 

The key word is "reasonable". I don't think magnetic scanning and checking of luggage is unreasonable. Do you? I don't think chemical "sniffers" are unreasonable. Do you?

 

I don't think "full body scans" in limited circumstances are unreasonable. And I'm apparently deserving of special attention. (I do understand). Do you object to their use entirely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

Why do you start with the most extreme examples? Are "anal probes" proposed. I don't see this as an either/or situation. Do you?

 

The key word is "reasonable". I don't think magnetic scanning and checking of luggage is unreasonable. Do you? I don't think chemical "sniffers" are unreasonable. Do you?

 

I don't think "full body scans" in limited circumstances are unreasonable. And I'm apparently deserving of special attention. (I do understand). Do you object to their use entirely?

 

I think full body scans are invasive, a health risk, and completely unreasonable.

 

I find sexual molestation by strangers completely unreasonable, especially for children, and yes, children are being subjected.

 

And my point is that technology should be developed to detect the various chemical signatures of explosives, and all this other ridiculousness is completely ineffective and unconstitutional.

 

As to my "extreme example"? A year ago having groin searches and having breast cancer survivors having to remove their breast prosthesis from their bras because they were groped by security would have been considered an "extreme example", don't you think??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

In all the times I've flown I have never had a full body scan, or a search. Your premise is that the TSA searches is a fourth amendment violation, which it is not, but you claim to have it with you everywhere you go. So then I ask, do you also carry the latest precedents and court decisions concerning the constitution? If you have ever read a constitutional challenge you will observe case law in the footnotes as well in the body. There a literally hundreds of challenges to the 4th Amendment, if not thousands, every year. Each ruling presents a new meaning of the constitution and how it is interpretted, TSA searches have ruled to be legal and not a violation of the constitution. The scanner you refer to has been deemed by the FDA as safe, and the FDA is run by Senate and Obama approved Margaret Hamburg, M.D. But if you don't trust the Obama Administration head of the FDA, then you have the option to not go through the scanner and submit to a frisk instead. I don't know how much you fly, but if you have ever been through airport security you'll likely see that both situations are pretty rare. I'll bet that 99% of travelers go through security without a full body search. But if you're concerned about being in that 1% then you don't have to fly.

 

And my other examples are absolutely applicable. They are searches that are a matter of law. You can't sell your home without the search, you can't enter a White House tour without the search and you can't drive your car without the search. Yes, some are more minor than others, but they are warrantless searches nonetheless. Searches conducted absent of probable cause. If you are going to say that the Constitution should be upheld and adhered to even at the most foundational of levels, then you should object to the other searches. But you and others don't because you have accepted that those searches are necessary, acceptable and an option you're willing to overlook. Like flying, selling your home, eating out and touring the Supreme Court are completely optional.

 

That's why I say that the constitution is only whipped out when the public is somehow perceptually inconvenienced. But you'll renew your driver's license every four years knowing full well that when you renew your license you are consenting to a search (just like you consent to search when you buy an airline ticket). And I'm not just talking about a consent of your driving record. Did you know that when you sign for your license you are consenting to a blood draw without a warrant? If you are involved in an accident the police can have your blood drawn without your consent or knowledge. Don't want to be searched? Don't drive. It's optional, like flying. Why is it acceptable to walk into a courthouse and voluntarily submit to a search but not at an airport? The sheriff's office will search you head to toe, even with a full body patdown if necessary. Drop a quarter down your knickers and walk through security and see if they find it. Object to the search if you want to; like the airport, the courthouse will tell you that if you don't want to be searched you need not enter.

 

The problem with how dissenters of the airport searches interpret the constitution is that they view it as a blanket, do all, end all policy. The 4th Amendment says that the government cannot search your personal property, it doesn't address consent. When you fly you are consenting to the search. Just as other areas in your life require a search with your cosent, so does airport security.

And my point is a rallying cry to Constitution loving, rights loving, freedom loving American citizens to stop freekin' consenting to the trampling on and destruction of our Constitutional rights! Clear enough??

 

And, let me tell you, the NSA doesn't search the people who look like terrorists because they are afraid of being accused of profiling! Half the time, when I have flown, they select the mildest looking, the least likely to give them a boatload of crap.

 

How safe did you feel when you flew that flight with me after they confiscated my PLASTIC Bic mechanical pencil? Feel a whole lot safer, did you?

 

The whole NSA is a stage play to give you the illusion that they are keeping you safe. But you will trade your constitutional protection against search and seizure (a neighboring passenger lent me his Cross pencil -- metal and a whole lot better for stabbing than my plastic one, so I could continue underlining and making margin notes) to protect you from 59 year old women reading books. It is laughable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

Attack the post not the poster

 

I stand up for my rights every single day in a hundred different ways. And I am sorry that you think so little of yours. Because any idea that you are safe because of the illegal searches that are occurring is a false sense.

 

I know the rules so don't waste your breath because you're offended that I think your ideals are humorous and your reasoning behind it is even funnier. That wasn't an attack no matter how you wish to spin it. I find it even more amusing that I knew you'd whine about the post. :skype_emoticons_set_2_5590_2599 Being predictable isn't always a good thing you know.

 

BTW.....................there is nothing illegal about searching someone to get on a plane. The planes are private property and it is up to the owner and yourself to agree on the terms of entry. No different than a bar scanning people to get in. I stood in line for an hour to get into Seacrets in Sept. and was patted down and scanned since I'm such a scary looking character. You have no right to complain that you are being screened to enter private property. Walk or drive and you don't have to worry about it but if you want to ride on a plane that is owned by someone else..............suck it up and bend over for the nice man who is getting paid to feel you over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

I know the rules so don't waste your breath because you're offended that I think your ideals are humorous and your reasoning behind it is even funnier. That wasn't an attack no matter how you wish to spin it. I find it even more amusing that I knew you'd whine about the post. :skype_emoticons_set_2_5590_2599 Being predictable isn't always a good thing you know.

 

BTW.....................there is nothing illegal about searching someone to get on a plane. The planes are private property and it is up to the owner and yourself to agree on the terms of entry. No different than a bar scanning people to get in. I stood in line for an hour to get into Seacrets in Sept. and was patted down and scanned since I'm such a scary looking character. You have no right to complain that you are being screened to enter private property. Walk or drive and you don't have to worry about it but if you want to ride on a plane that is owned by someone else..............suck it up and bend over for the nice man who is getting paid to feel you over.

 

You claim to know the rules and yet here you are once again posting about me instead of about the topic.

 

And it is not the owners of the planes or the airlines who are driving the search guidelines. It is the government.

 

And you obviously know nothing about the NSA scans or the search process if you think them similar to bar scanning. Educate yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

I know the rules so don't waste your breath because you're offended that I think your ideals are humorous and your reasoning behind it is even funnier. That wasn't an attack no matter how you wish to spin it. I find it even more amusing that I knew you'd whine about the post. :skype_emoticons_set_2_5590_2599 Being predictable isn't always a good thing you know.

 

BTW.....................there is nothing illegal about searching someone to get on a plane. The planes are private property and it is up to the owner and yourself to agree on the terms of entry. No different than a bar scanning people to get in. I stood in line for an hour to get into Seacrets in Sept. and was patted down and scanned since I'm such a scary looking character. You have no right to complain that you are being screened to enter private property. Walk or drive and you don't have to worry about it but if you want to ride on a plane that is owned by someone else..............suck it up and bend over for the nice man who is getting paid to feel you over.

 

The thread topic is not me, my posting style etc.

 

The topic is constitutional rights.

 

Of course, I do recognize that you are an expert at detecting whining, being such a Class A whiner yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

You claim to know the rules and yet here you are once again posting about me instead of about the topic.

 

And it is not the owners of the planes or the airlines who are driving the search guidelines. It is the government.

 

And you obviously know nothing about the NSA scans or the search process if you think them similar to bar scanning. Educate yourself.

 

I asked you a question(a couple actually) and you say it was an attack. Humorous yet again.

 

Do you also fail to see that had these measures been in place in 01 there would a lot more citizens of this country alive? But I'm sure you're glad they were killed since your rights were protected back then.

 

And yes the government is taking charge here with the scans and pat downs since the companies haven't done it. Doesn't negate the fact they are screening you in order to enter private property now does it? So............................get rid of the TSA and make them all airline employees and you'll have no problem at all huh? Somehow I doubt that. I'm chuckling yet again. I'll point out yet again that you have no rights when it comes to entering private property other than the choice to not enter if you don't like the terms of entry.

 

Enjoy your games if you will but I'm right and you know it. My opinion has nothing to do with your posting style but it has everything to do with what I view as a warped opinion on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citydweller

Well there hasn't been another terrorist attack, has there? [knocking on wood, hard]

It's fairly easy to release Anthrax from a car or drive it into a building packed with explosives. The determined terrorists don't seem to be utilizing that option and our government isn't infringing upon free travel throughout our highways.

 

And these things don't strike you as odd, even possibly ludicrous?

 

The terrorists have declared that they will do anything and everything to attack us and our way of life, to obliterate us, to drive our evil society from the face of the earth.

 

But only with airplanes.

 

Our borders are porous, our highways, factories, public spaces, trains, malls, all largely unprotected and open to attack, all across this country, every day.

 

But only airplanes will do for these bloodthirsty, determined fiends.

 

And when a "foreign-trained" terrorist does attempt a simple car bomb at Times Square, it fails miserably and is immediately "discovered", and the bomber quickly found, confessed and dealt with.

 

How neat, and tidy. And how it stretches the limits of credulity to the snapping point.

 

We must be vigilant against pens and razors on airplanes, because The Enemy can down a crowded aircraft with them.

 

But they can't blow up an SUV, even with the promise of Allah's eternal salvation.

 

Funny, they blow up cars, trucks and buses all over the Middle East, their home, every day, with no problems.

 

Why is it that here they can only take down aircraft with box cutters?

 

What's wrong with this picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

And these things don't strike you as odd, even possibly ludicrous?

 

The terrorists have declared that they will do anything and everything to attack us and our way of life, to obliterate us, to drive our evil society from the face of the earth.

 

But only with airplanes.

 

Our borders are porous, our highways, factories, public spaces, trains, malls, all largely unprotected and open to attack, all across this country, every day.

 

But only airplanes will do for these bloodthirsty, determined fiends.

 

And when a "foreign-trained" terrorist does attempt a simple car bomb at Times Square, it fails miserably and is immediately "discovered", and the bomber quickly found, confessed and dealt with.

 

How neat, and tidy. And how it stretches the limits of credulity to the snapping point.

 

We must be vigilant against pens and razors on airplanes, because The Enemy can down a crowded aircraft with them.

 

But they can't blow up an SUV, even with the promise of Allah's eternal salvation.

 

Funny, they blow up cars, trucks and buses all over the Middle East, their home, every day, with no problems.

 

Why is it that here they can only take down aircraft with box cutters?

 

What's wrong with this picture?

 

Thank you.

 

Anyone and everyone in the ME seems to be able to make a suicide vest. Roadside bombs all over. No duds.

 

Here? Guy can't light his shoe, another with underwear bomb, fizzles (I would say smoke and mirrors but don't want to appear cynical!) in the "car bombs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarlDelos

The key word is "reasonable". I don't think magnetic scanning and checking of luggage is unreasonable. Do you?

I don't think chemical "sniffers" are unreasonable. Do you?

 

I don't find chemical "sniffers" objectionable, because they aren't intrusive, but they aren't very effective, either.

 

Lives are made up of time. Take five minutes from each of 12 people, and it's a man-hour. Take 24 man-hours and it's a man-day, 365 man-days make a man-year. And if you are using up 500 man-years of screener time and 500 man-years of passenger time for every passenger whose life is extended 20 years from avoiding a plane crash, does that make sense?

 

Al Queda spent less than $5000 to train people for the 9/11 hijackings, and convinced 4 people to commit suicide. Perhaps they convinced 19 people to commit suicide; we don't know. But we've spent several trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan in response, and we're spending a shitload on airport security in response to it. That's an awful big bang for their buck. Isn't our over-reaction encouraging them to spend a few thousand more dollars? They don't need to actually do any damage, don't actually need to get anyone to commit suicide. They send a Richard Reid with a shoebomb that doesn't work, can't work, is guaranteed to get caught, and it scares the hell out of us, and we spend another trillion dollars on prophylactic measures that do nothing.

 

Since 9/11, we've reinforced cockpit doors in airliners, and we've taught passengers that in case of hijacking, not to go gently into that good night. but to resist actively. Those two things make a difference. The rest of our airport security isn't doing a damned thing to make us safer.

 

And Al Queda knows it. We're funnier to watch, from their point of view, than an old Keystone Kops movie. They don't need to attack us again. They can accomplish just as much by letting us see our own shadows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...