• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge says government need not disclose air traveler security images


How in the HELL will the 4th amendment, ratified, 200 years before these machines were invented, going to address SPECIFICALLY THAT? C'mon Maggie, you're smarter than this. That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've seen on this site in a long time. An MRI is a medically necessary thing decided on between you and a medical doctor. A full body scan is not, and is mandated by a perceived level of risk that you pose without any due process or proof that you are a threat to that flight. After you spent hundreds on a plane ticket, if you want to exercise the right that ticket gives you, (and yes, once you buy a ticket you have a right to fly, or a full refund granted, so if you refuse the nudie booth you are entitled to your money back. You think that's going to happen? I think not!) you are subjected to this full body nudie booth.

If you don't see the difference then you are not worthy of debate.

How dare the gov't not mention full body scanners 200 years ago! :roll: :doh
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
What strawman????
Click to expand...

The one where you made it about some "right to fly" that was never mentioned, nor implied, when the issue clearly was about accountability with regards to a federal agency who has set itself up for security screening at airports [and increasingly at other places, like bus depots].


It doesn't, but that is meaningless as the 4th is used as a base used in case law to define the boundaries in which law enforcement and non-law-enforcement [like the TSA] can/can't operate. The amendment is generalized. The applications of it are not.

MaggieD said:
I guess an MRI is unConstitutional. Huh?
Click to expand...

Wow, really? You are making a point by comparing two different things, completely different set of circumstances? Comparing medical professionals to government agents?
 
Travelsonic said:
Wow, really? You are making a point by comparing two different things, completely different set of circumstances? Comparing medical professionals to government agents?
Click to expand...

Actually, the MRI is a perfect analogy. It is a body scan that you consent to. They are precisely the same set of circumstances from a fourth amendment perspective.
 

Reading comprehension problem? Did you not notice the bolded part?
 

Bold part: Since flying is not a constitutional right your concern here is misplaced. Civilians do not own US airspace.

Underlined part: You should read this...TSA Pilots Millimeter Wave Technology at Miami International Airport; Advanced Technology X-Ray Also Deployed


What more do you want? I would imagine that the tests that this thread mentions doesn't have this algorithm so it would be worthless for comparing to what is actually being used. As such the use of such photo's could only be used to purposely misconstrue and be used to villify the TSA.

Instead of going after these things how about a compromise? Charter, hire, or make an independent group to randomly go to the airports that full body scanners are being used in order to check to make sure that protocols are being followed by the TSA. They could show up without warning at any time. In fact lets go one step further and apply this group to ALL areas that the TSA is in period. They can check the procedures and protocols of the TSA all over the place. They don't even have to warn the TSA that they are there until after they themselves go through the check point to "test" what is being done. (edit note: after all, normal police agencies have their own "police" that investigates policemen why not the TSA also?)
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Bold part: Since flying is not a constitutional right your concern here is misplaced.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, traveling without overt intrusion, REGARDLESS of transportation, IS a right - to frame it solely in a "right to fly" aspect is IMO ignoring the deeper issues.


Interesting idea actually.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The moment that people started to complain about the TSA using body scanners being unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Oh really, it became a right to fly issue then and there? Considering the expanding, and potentially expanding application of these devices to other forms of transportation I am still having trouble seeing how objecting to this technology as it is now frames it that way.
 
LMAO
as already proven in this thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/86082-should-you-subjected-order-fly-airplane.html

TSA policy does NOT violate the constitution in anyway what so ever.

You can hate TSA, want it removed, think it goes to far and I may even agree with you, argue its effectiveness etc etc and all that is fine. However, no matter how bad anybody wants it to TSA policy does NOT violate the constitution.
 
Yes, Us citizens own our own airspace. It is controlled by the FAA a govt organization. I know it's hard to comprehend for liberals, but the govt works for us, not the other way around. If airspace isnt owned by the citizens of this country, then who in pray tell owns it that aren't citizens of this country? I can't wait for this answer.
 

Not sure what your position is on this subject so if I get it wrong I apologizein advance but the answer to your question has ZERO impact to TSA policy and how it does NOT violate the constitution

[B]IF[/B] thats even what you were getting at.:shrug:
 
Centrist77 said:
LMAO
as already proven in this thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/86082-should-you-subjected-order-fly-airplane.html

TSA policy does NOT violate the constitution in anyway what so ever.
Click to expand...

Proven how? A bunch of us waiving our pricks at each other over our opinions on the issue doesn't prove definitively jack squat in a factual sense. That is for a judge to decide, not you or I, or a thread of opinions, fortunately there is a stream of lawsuits still snaking its way through our legal system and [eventually] we'll see the court's view on these recent policies.

All you are doing is repeating the "it is because it is because it is" - no substance, just broken record repetition.
 
Last edited:

No thats what you are doing. You are screaming and making up meaningless irrelevant scenarios and hoping if you cry loud enough people will buy it. The other people are using common sense and logic and can see that even if they dont like the TSA it doesnt violate the constitution. Why? But the fact is theres no violation. You can dismiss it all you want but it wasnt a violation yesterday and it isnt today either LMAO. The proof is THERES NO AMENDMENTS BEING BROKEN lol

You provide the amendment you think is being broken and Ill gladly explain to you why you are wrong.

If TSA policy goes away it wont because it violates the constitution, that has already been proven.
 

Exactly..

1. reasonable = Arab looking dude with long beard.
2. Unreasonable = Grandma

I agree that full consent requires full disclosure. That said, I personally have no issues with the scan. I was recently scanned, and when in the scanner I felt nothing, and it didn't even cross mu mind that someone was looking at all my junk.. Who cares anyway. I got nothing to hide..


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Who cares anyway. I got nothing to hide..
Click to expand...


:lamo

Yeah, like it is possible to believe in, take advantage of the social and legal principals of privacy, and then on one hand be believe it is possible to hold the binary opposite simultaneously.

You can't have "NOTHING" to hide and believe in privacy, which is a concept of concealment. It is simply impossible logically speaking to hold such binary opposites simultaneously.
 

You have it right here. The government does work for us. But working for us and us owning what the government owns are two completely different things. The US government can own areas also ya know. Don't believe me? Try and get on any military base and when they detain you use the same arguement that you are using here. See how quickly they laugh at you.
 

awesome, we don't need those 9 overpaid judges in washington, DP will decide what's constitutional.
 
Zyroh said:
awesome, we don't need those 9 overpaid judges in washington, DP will decide what's constitutional.
Click to expand...

nice way to deflect but thats not what happened LMAO
remind me again which amendment is in violation and how?
 

It was in response to the poster saying that citizens don't own US airspace.

Yes, we do. Because we citizens could force a vote tomorrow to disband the FAA. Why? Because we own the FAA and the FAA operates the airspace, thus, we own the airspace.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
It was in response to the poster saying that citizens don't own US airspace.

Yes, we do. Because we citizens could force a vote tomorrow to disband the FAA. Why? Because we own the FAA and the FAA operates the airspace, thus, we own the airspace.
Click to expand...

See thats why i apologized in advance because I wasnt sure what you were getting at. Still dont get why that matters but its not for me to understand
 
dontworrybehappy said:
It was in response to the poster saying that citizens don't own US airspace.

Yes, we do. Because we citizens could force a vote tomorrow to disband the FAA. Why? Because we own the FAA and the FAA operates the airspace, thus, we own the airspace.
Click to expand...

Really? Try it. (note it is not the FAA that controls airspace. It just regulates it on the civilian side.)
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
nice way to deflect... *snip*
Click to expand...

Yeah, deflection... weren't you the one who claimed that a thread of nonstop back-and-forth arguing "PROVED" your point?
 
Travelsonic said:
Yeah, deflection... weren't you the one who claimed that a thread of nonstop back-and-forth arguing "PROVED" your point?
Click to expand...

Yes I did and it did prove it.

Werent you the one I asked to provide the amendment you think is being broken and Ill gladly explain to you why you are wrong but you chose not to answer?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold part: Since flying is not a constitutional right your concern here is misplaced. Civilians do not own US airspace.
Click to expand...

How is my concern misplaced when I expressly state it wasn't a constitutional issue?

The constiuttionality of tehse searches isn't really the issue, IMO.
Click to expand...


Granted, there are typos, but since I expressly said constitutionality isn't the issue, a rebuttal saying that I'm wrong because constitutionality doesn't make much sense.



I'm not sure why you think this addresses what I was saying.
 
I got nothing to hide..


Tim-
Click to expand...

Ok. So, since you have nothing to hide you won't mind me randomly dropping by to search your house and strip search you whenever I like? You can't possibly want to object, even though it is your right to refuse me, since you have nothing to hide.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…