I actually agree with this. I would much rather see profiling than the current system if for no other reason than that far fewer people's rights would be abridged. I'm not talking racial profiling, either. I'm talking mannerisms and that sort of thing.Just let me make this clear. I think you have every right in the whole wide world to object vociferously to current security screening procedures. We live in extraordinary times. We are being beaten to death by our own Constitution....that profiling is illegal. That, to me, is the ridiculous part of the whole debate.
Just let me make this clear. I think you have every right in the whole wide world to object vociferously to current security screening procedures. We live in extraordinary times. We are being beaten to death by our own Constitution....that profiling is illegal. That, to me, is the ridiculous part of the whole debate.
This is the most asinine argument I've yet seen on this subject. So because it's not the exact same privacy that's being infringed upon, one is OK, the other is not? :doh
I'll quote myself again, since you glossed over my point without really addressing it:
No, the ridiculous part of this debate is that you seem to think you need the government's permission to choose your own method of travel. There is no other way to interpret "you don't have the right to fly."
Your argument is childish, imo. I don't need the government's permission to chose to travel one way or another. Travel any way you'd like. But if you choose to fly, OMFG!!!!!!!, be prepared that the security of other passengers aboard that airplane comes before your right to object to security protocols legally in place.
Your argument is childish, imo. I don't need the government's permission to chose to travel one way or another. Travel any way you'd like. But if you choose to fly, OMFG!!!!!!!, be prepared that the security of other passengers aboard that airplane comes before your right to object to security protocols legally in place.
The woman says she was singled out for "extended search procedures" while preparing to board a plane to Amarillo in May 2008.
“As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs’ breasts to everyone in the area,” the lawsuit said.
“As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated.”
The lawsuit claims that other employees laughed and made jokes about the incident "for an extended period of time".
The distraught woman left the screening area to be consoled but when she re-entered the boarding area employees allegedly started joking about the matter.
"One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that 'he would just have to watch the video,'" the suit said.
Saying that body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslim-American groups are supporting a "fatwa" — a religious ruling — that forbids Muslims from going through the scanners at airports.
Airport body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslims say - USATODAY.com
It was at a news conference that Napolitano was asked by CNSNews.com, "On the pat-downs, CAIR has recommended that Muslim women wearing hijabs refuse to go through the full body pat-downs before board plans. Will you insist that they do go through full body pat-downs before boarding planes?"
Napolitano didn't answer the question. Instead she talked about the need to keep powders and gels and liquids off passenger jets.
What she did say was, "We are doing what we need to do to protect the traveling public and adjustments will be made where they need to be made."
Napolitano: 'More to come' on Muslims, pat-downs
Oh, by the way -- my right to "object" to anything is not trumped by any airline security concern. :roll:
No, you keep INSISTING that you don't have "the right" to fly. You even put it in bold.
So, perhaps you should explain exactly what you mean by "the right to fly," and why, in your estimation, we don't have it.
Yeah, right. Security protocols like this would not offend you, eh?
Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'
Oh, by the way -- my right to "object" to anything is not trumped by any airline security concern. :roll:
Just let me make this clear. I think you have every right in the whole wide world to object vociferously to current security screening procedures.
I would agree with this. You certainly may object. And if you used a more reasonable approach, I might agree with you.
What didn't you understand about my Post #274?
What disingenuous horse****.
You won't agree with me because you think this is fine. That isn't going to change.
What actually mean is, you'll agree with ME if I'm "more reasonable" and agree with YOU.
:lamo
We have no Constitutional right to fly sans whatever regulations and conditions are put in place surrounding that flight.
I have a right to go into a restaurant any time I want to, unless I'm barefoot and the restaurant says no.
I have a right to enter an airport terminal building. I don't have the right to get on an airline unless I follow whatever regulations and conditions are put in place. If I'm drunk, I lose that right. If I refuse to follow regulations and conditions to get me past the checkpoint, I lose that right.
I do think it is fine, but I linked a video and argument different than yours that was more reasonable earlier. It related specific to children and their difficulties. By treating everyone as a them and not addressing actual arguments, you lose any chance of actually finding common ground.
It doesn't work like that.
I don't need the Constitution to expressly permit anything I want to do.
The government needs to justify its intrusion to me, not the other way around.
It's not remotely the same. The public nature of the tranportation, the history of actual efforts to bring things on a plane, remeber 9/11? It wasn't wmds either.
So, there are real and significant differences. treating them as if they were the same is simply inaccurate.
It doesn't work like that.
I don't need the Constitution to expressly permit anything I want to do.
The government needs to justify its intrusion to me, not the other way around.
And by frequently declaring your opinion as "fact," which you have done several times over the last few days alone, you've given up any claim to "reasonability." Too late for that now.
Yes, it DOES work like that -- and your big-bad government already did justify it. It's called "The Law," duly enacted by your representatives.
Buy a ticket, refuse the checkpoint security measures, leave the airport, lose your money spent for the ticket. The ticket'll give you "standing," and you can take it all the way to SCOTUS. Be my guest.
But in the meantime, if you don't intend to do that, when you get in the security line at the checkpoint, wouldja' mind keepin' it movin'????
You can state all you want that some privacies should be infringed and others should not, but that doesn't make you right. You're arguing for some of the most invasive violations of privacy for one of the safest forms of transportation. It's frankly ridiculous that you think getting on a plane is the most vulnerable you're going to be at any given point in your life. Your argument that airplane security can be rationalized because it's been a threat in the past is even further off base. You've never heard of Oklahoma City... Or Columbine? How many planes were involved in those?
No, my opinion is my opinion. Fact is fact. Molestation and even feeling up has a factual definition outside of opinion. Not knowing the difference between the two seems to be your problem and not mine. And by going the hyperbolic exaggeration route you did begin with, you left reason and not me.
And it is never to late to stop and make a reasonable argunment.
Been doing it all day. :roll:
Your argument is childish, imo. I don't need the government's permission to chose to travel one way or another. Travel any way you'd like. But if you choose to fly, OMFG!!!!!!!, be prepared that the security of other passengers aboard that airplane comes before your right to object to security protocols legally in place.
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?