- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Exactly. I'm an Authoritarian and always have been. Since our culture and society are either unwilling or unable to maintain a standard of decency, who is left but the government to enforce one?
Again, I've got nothing to hide. Personally, I'd do away with a fair number of the Amendments to the US Constitution, but that's just me.
What probable cause do TSA agents have on which to base their molestation of airline passengers?
Perhaps you'd be happier living someplace, then, like China or Cuba or Iran, where you can enjoy a level of rights and freedom more in line with what you deserve.
such as?.......
Jucon said:If you want to use Israel's security practices... if they ask someone who they are, where they are going, etc... one can plead the fifth. Should these people then be allowed on the flight? And if they refuse to have their bag checked should they be allowed on the flight?
..The 5th, 19th, and 21st for starters.
If they're strapping explosives to their penis, I don't think we can deter them.
you want to strip the right to vote away from women???
you want to make hard liquor & wine illegal in the USA again?
I'm down with mimicry of Israel's policies. They never get messed with.
First, the technology they use isn't all that great. It cannot tell if a metal object is inside or outside the body - replaced knees & hips and ortho repairs often involve metal parts. Many of us who have metal replacement parts refuse the X-ray not because we have something to hide but because we've had plenty of exposure to radiation in our lifetime already and know from experience that we are going to be patted down anyway because the X-ray will show a large piece or pieces of metal.Let's start with the most basic one.... The fact that many of them wish to refuse to submit themselves to the current scanning technology that the TSA uses. That right there is as good as an admission that they have something to hide, in my mind. More importantly however, is the realization that after that checkpoint, no individual has the right to possess any form of self-defense item, and therefore it is the responsibility of the TSA to ensure that nobody carries one beyond that point. If I'm going to WILLINGLY leave my 18 best friends at home, then the TSA had damn well better make sure someone else isn't bringing theirs along for the ride.
not sure I can answer the poll but ill answer your question.
Ill give you some opinions and facts.
Opinions:
"In general" I dont like the TSA, the need for them and their policies
I think its sad we need the TSA
If a person wants debate their policies vs effectiveness have at it.
I dont like the poorly trained personnel
Facts:
no laws are broken by TSA Policies, they do NOT violate the constitution.
Conclusion:
While Im not a fan, I fly frequently and am not phased by the TSA, they dont bother me and Id rather have them than not. Before, during and after my searches I think about them very little beyond conversations that I come across.
If someone can please prove TSA Policies violate the constitution.
Well the Constitution prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure." Can we agree that this is, at the very least, search and seizure, and that the dispute is over whether this is "unreasonable"? If so, I would submit that what distinguishes an unreasonable search and seizure from a reasonable search and seizure, is due process. In order for the police to search someone, they need to obtain either a warrant, probable cause, or consent....
The TSA will not and cannot force you to undergo a pat-down, body-scan, or have your bags searched.
But if you refuse to have these searches done, you cannot board the plane.
See? No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.
Goalpost shifting: 1st: The issue is not with bag searches, and not with screening all together, but the methods, and 2, you are forced to submit yourself to this government intrusion to use a PRIVATE service. On that alone my BS meter is off the charts.
So I'm free to refuse my pat down, be refused admission to the plane and then kayak to Hawaii to see my granddaughter and her kids.... this is so good to know. :roll:The TSA will not and cannot force you to undergo a pat-down, body-scan, or have your bags searched.
But if you refuse to have these searches done, you cannot board the plane.
See? No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.
So I'm free to refuse my pat down, be refused admission to the plane and then kayak to Hawaii to see my granddaughter and her kids.... this is so good to know. :roll:
But what's "elevated threats" Haven't we been at the same color ever since this happened? Habeas Corpus can be suspended during war, but that requires a declaration of war to officially be at war. Another thing we should probably re-institute since it seemed to help limit the wars we got into.
The TSA will not and cannot force you to undergo a pat-down, body-scan, or have your bags searched.
But if you refuse to have these searches done, you cannot board the plane.
See? No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.
..OK, so you're arguing that people are implicitly consenting to a search simply by buying the ticket and entering the security line in order to get on their plane, correct? If that's the case, would you be willing to apply that same principle to other spheres of life? For example: "The police won't randomly frisk you, if you stay in your house and don't walk down a public sidewalk." Or: "The police won't listen to your telephone calls without a warrant, if you simply don't use the phone." Or: "The police won't search your car without a warrant or probable cause, as long as you don't drive."..
Ban underwear.How do we deter underwear bombers?
an airplane is a machine that can be used as a weapon that can kill tens of thousands of people.
that said, I think its only prudent that we make sure passengers are not bringing bombs or other weapons onboard an airplane.
I'm sorry, but 9-11 changed some things. And as a NYer who breathed in yellow crappy air for 2 months and stared into the eyes of thousands of 9-11 family members last Sunday, I'd rather have people deal with the displeasure of being searched for weapons than another horrible terrorist attack.
but that's just me.
Well the Constitution prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure." Can we agree that this is, at the very least, search and seizure, and that the dispute is over whether this is "unreasonable"? If so, I would submit that what distinguishes an unreasonable search and seizure from a reasonable search and seizure, is due process. In order for the police to search someone, they need to obtain either a warrant, probable cause, or consent. Are we still in agreement?
So if you like, forget all the stuff about whether *you* would get arrested if you touched someone like this in another circumstance. Instead, ask yourself this: Would it be lawful for a *police officer* to search someone like this in any other circumstance, without a warrant, probable cause, or consent? I can't think of any such circumstance. The police can't rummage through your bags or randomly frisk you on the street. So what makes the situation at an airport different?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?