Page 81 of 88 FirstFirst ... 31717980818283 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 810 of 879

Thread: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

  1. #801
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    If access to any major highway was limited to specific locations and to go through you were subject to a search of your car and of your person, I'd say that would be perfectly legal to do.

    So you'd be fine living under a totalitarian regime? that is what you describe here.

    I'd love to make this my sig....


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #802
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Well, no one would answer this question before, possibly you have the integrity to do so....

    How many possible terrorist acts have been thwarted on domestic point to point flights within the US since Obama and the TSA blueshirts said we needed to do this?
    Why would, or how would, someone tell you classified information?

    Seriously, even if I did know, you think I'd risk my career and my freedom because some random guy on a message board wants to challenge my integrity by demanding I give him sensitive or classified information?

    Do you think there's some "Thwarted Terrorist Attacks Monthly" that go out to all the people in various federal law enforcement agency that says "Here's exactly what's been thwarted and feel free to share it with all your friends"?

    Sorry bud, but no...some rando on a message board questioning my integrity isn't going to make me violate the law.

    For that matter, how many Kids, grandmothers, or Nun's have been arrested with terror plans in the US at all?
    Before the shoe bomber, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that hid it in the shoe?

    Before the underwear bomber, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that hid it their underwear?

    Before 9/11, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that used box cutters?

    Before Richard Reed, how many half-white english Al-Qaeda members attempted a terrorist attack on the U.S.

    How hard is it to dress up as a nun? How hard is it to fathom someone using their kid as a bomb if they're willing to blow themselves up? Why is it that when we are "reactive" with things like taking shoes off people get upset, but then they want us to be reactive in regards to the focus of our security.

  3. #803
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So you'd be fine living under a totalitarian regime? that is what you describe here.

    I'd love to make this my sig....

    j-mac
    Large difference between thinking something is legal and liking it.

    For example, I think Westboro protesting is legal. I also dislike it.

    Though I think the hypothetical I stated would be a bit more questionable than the airports for the reason I stated in said post...namely, an incident on a highway would have significantly less impact on the national transit system and on the economy of the country and thus national security, and as such I think the "reasonable"ness of such a search would be far more suspect than that when getting on an airplane.

  4. #804
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And said fine was ridiculous and should've been dealth with. In regards to the 900 complaints, my question would be how many complaints were there in each year since TSA came into being? You need more evidence to say that 900 is actually worth while or not. By the way, statistically 900 is miniscule. 190,000 people go through O'hare airport alone in a DAY. Lets say all 900 complaints came JUST from O'Hare and JUST in one week...it'd still mean 1 in every 1500 had something to COMPLAIN about. Not necessarily did something wrong, but to complain.

    Now take O'Hare and spread that over to the 21 other Cat-X sized airports in the U.S. If you average 150,000 through them each per day, you're looking at one complaint for ever 15,000 passengers IF all the complaints were made in a single week.

    When looked at the sample size the number you're giving is MINISCULE and to imply it as somehow evidence of a wide spread thing is statistically ridiculous.

    That is not to say that LEGITIMATE cases of misconduct shouldn't be investigated. It absolutely SHOULD be. However for every legitimate problem, such as the guy who had his bladder bag broken, you have a "Don't Touch My Junk" situation where (up until the fine) there was nothing wrong there.



    Its still cases of the Media trumpeting up something to make it appear a bigger issue than it is, which raises public hyper awareness of it causing "complaints" to file in that would routinely not raise to the level of needing to do such. And you're also horribly incorrect about the reaction to it. Investigations into some complaints have occured, which is evident in the case of the man being apologized too by the TSA head himself for inappropriate conduct by an agent.

    The response isn't to STFU and take it, its to tell people to pleaes deal with it honestly and realistically and to also not try to actively disrupt air travel. With everyone and his brother who has the back of a hand ran down his leg calling it "Groping!" or "Fondling!" its hard to figure out which cases where someone actually LEGITIMATELY did something inappropriate and which cases someone did exactly what they should do but the person having it done is just pissy and doesn't like it.



    The same probable cause that allows them to search everyone going into a court house or other federal buildings. Airports are government property. The air that the planes are flying in (at least over U.S. land) is U.S. Government Property. And due to the far higher level of impact on national security and the economy should something disrupt air traffic as compared to disrupting a court room it stands to reason a greater level of searching is needed and is allowed.



    Yeah, I am. A large amount of people is a large amount of people. Isolated incidents blown up in the media represent one large amount of people as much as it represents another large amount of people. But thanks for proving my point down below which you call a strawman. For a different "class" of people you have different rules and views on what is okay to do to them.



    And where am I saying that there shouldn't be an investigation. I'm saying there shouldn't be the wholesale stereotyping of the entire TSA, the attempt to paint the erronious actions as the norm, or that every flippant complaint should be looked at as if its definitely a violation.



    Except they have said and are doing investigations. This is standard process. Where have they made any statement that they will not investigate any of these complaints?

    Similar to something we experience on this board...simply because the investigation doesn't come to the conclussion YOU want it to doesn't mean that they're not hearing the complaint.



    The hyperbole on their part about the life and death nature of the scanners is as annoying as the hyperbole about groping and fondling. That said, the amount of potential damage to the economy with massive protests on one of the busiest days of the year likely helped cause the situation to be one where they felt that the need for safety was outweighed. Doesn't make it right, but don't think for a second they turned it off because they really provide no benefit to security.



    See above. And the same thing is happening in the federal employee wage thing. Don't say the rich need to pay more because their evil greedy bastards, that's class warfare. But you're fine to say that federal employees need to get paid less because they're lazy incompotent bafoons. Don't say that the military is a bunch of murderous thugs who are just there to get their jollies because of a few bad apples, but be sure to call all the TSA a bunch of sexual molesting perverted idiots because of it. Certain classes or groups of people are perfectly acceptable for conservatives to belittle, stereotype, and degrade in hopes of turning the public against them to push a political agenda.



    What happens when you refuse to take a breathalyzer? It gives them probable cause to take further action. You turn down going through the security in the technical way, they'll check you the analog way. Don't want either? Fine, take a train, bus, or car.

    And I'm sorry, am I incorrect in believing you're one of those people pushing for racial, ethnic, or religious profiling? If so, what the hell are you even doing bitching about the constitutionality of these searches if you're pushing for something already deemed unconstitutional?



    Actually...yeah, I believe the vast majority (and all the cat-x airports) are on government land. And yes, the sky over the country at the altitudes the planes fly IS government controlled. While they don't own the planes in the sky, they do own the area the planes are flying in.



    Unlike plane travel, an incident with a car is not likely to have nearly the same impact on our national transportation system nor on our economy so the level of search based on the potential threat isn't the same. Additionally the situations of when the searches could be conducted are not the same if you're talking about traffic stops as that is not a universal access point search.

    If access to any major highway was limited to specific locations and to go through you were subject to a search of your car and of your person, I'd say that would be perfectly legal to do.


    Courthouses are points of contention, and they have far fewer security measures than an airport. Usually a metal detector and a retired cop. I don't see how that's comparable to full body scanners and invasive inside the waist band pat downs.

    As for the media, I don't give a crap about what they are "hyping" or not. I am sure they are. The point is, however, there is an issue here with idiotic polices and 4th amendment violations. Clear violations, that the people are not standing for any longer.

    I still don't get why, in the name of national security we shut down these all important scanners over the thanksgiving weekend to avoid "protests". Seems if it's so important to fondle my junk (and I convince my wife there is nothing more important, but I digress), that fear of a terrorista far outweighs any rumor of a protest. If it's not that dangerous that we can forgo these invasive scans/junk fondling, in lieu of a protest, I guess the danger is not nearly as great as the TSA and the admin fear mongering.


    Also speaking of "large places" what about football games? Why no scanners and groping there? I mean how "safe" can we be here?


    And these scanners are bunk anyway, Shape one of these moldable explosives shape it like a tampon stick up a hoo hoo, and what are we going to do next? Refuse flight to women, or check hoo hoo's from now on?

    Let me ask you zyph, where is the line for you?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #805
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Why would, or how would, someone tell you classified information?

    Seriously, even if I did know, you think I'd risk my career and my freedom because some random guy on a message board wants to challenge my integrity by demanding I give him sensitive or classified information?

    Do you think there's some "Thwarted Terrorist Attacks Monthly" that go out to all the people in various federal law enforcement agency that says "Here's exactly what's been thwarted and feel free to share it with all your friends"?

    Sorry bud, but no...some rando on a message board questioning my integrity isn't going to make me violate the law.

    Come on Zyph, you can do better than that can't you? So you are telling us the ol' "I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya" crap?

    Truth is, that with the backlash coming out about this stepped up security the government would indeed trot out there some justification as to why these measures are taking place, if nothing else to quiet the mob. You have nothing to justify these measures.

    Before the shoe bomber, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that hid it in the shoe?
    Richard Reed? he was taking United flight 63 from Paris France, to Miami FL

    Before the underwear bomber, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that hid it their underwear?
    Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Hmmm, doesn't sound like a Nun to me, plus he was on Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam, to Detroit MI.

    Before 9/11, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that used box cutters?
    And we already had security measures in place that have prevented attacks for nearly 10 years now. Why all the sudden ramping up domestically?

    Before Richard Reed, how many half-white english Al-Qaeda members attempted a terrorist attack on the U.S.
    Again was flying from out of the country to a destination inside the US. Not a point to point domestic flight.

    How hard is it to dress up as a nun? How hard is it to fathom someone using their kid as a bomb if they're willing to blow themselves up? Why is it that when we are "reactive" with things like taking shoes off people get upset, but then they want us to be reactive in regards to the focus of our security.
    Many are not so willing to give their rights up without so much as a whimper.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #806
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And I'm SURE that the House chairman couldn't possibly be responding to public uproar
    no, the public uproar provides the impetus

    that's why the dem chair of house homeland security and his ultra progressive partner described these touchy tsa intrusions as "running afoul of privacy and civil liberties"

    the politics of these pat downs is pure poison, transparently

    party on, pal

  7. #807
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    A customer of popular women’s health company, Gladrags, relayed her recent experience at the hands of the TSA via email.

    In short, she was asked to walk through a radiation firing naked body scanner and complied. The scanner produced a naked image of her, but because her sanitary towel was obscuring her most intimate parts from prying eyes, the TSA agents pulled her aside for a full groin search. Not something to be relished by any person, let alone someone who has previously suffered sexual assault.

    Here is the woman’s email:

    I recently traveled via air, and was subjected to that new scanning device. “No problem,” I thought. I was wearing jeans and a linen tanktop, bra, panties, and one camouflage pantyliner.

    I’m a rule follower, so I never have any problems at the airport. Not this time. I was stopped, and then held for 15 minutes while they tried to find a female supervisor. I couldn’t get to my bag, my shawl or my shoes; just standing there while the TSA agents kept me in one place.

    Now, I don’t want this to be about bad TSA agents; they were doing their job, they were as delicate as they could be, etc., etc. But what ultimately happened is that I was subjected to search so invasive that I was left crying and dealing with memories that I thought had been dealt with years ago of prior sexual assaults.

    Why?

    Because of my flannel panty-liner. These new scans are so horrible that if you are wearing something unusual (like a piece of cloth on your panties) then you will be subjected to a search where a woman repeatedly has to check your “groin” while another woman watches on (two in my case – they were training in a new girl – awesome).

    So please, please, tell the ladies not to wear their liners at the airport (I didn’t even have an insert in). I’m a strong, confident woman; I’m an Army vet, I work full-time and go to graduate school full-time, I have a wonderful husband, and I don’t take any nonsense from anyone. I don’t dramatize, and I don’t exaggerate. I’m trying to give you a sense of who I am so you won’t think that this is a plea for attention, or a jumping on the bandwagon about the recent TSA proposed boycott.

    I just don’t want another woman to have to go through the “patting down” because she didn’t know that her glad-rag would be a matter of national security.”
    Sanitary Towel Prompts TSA To Grope Sexual Assault Victim

    a more mainstream source: Female passenger subjected to patdown after her sanitary napkin showed up on body scanner : Hot Topics

  8. #808
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    Courthouses are points of contention, and they have far fewer security measures than an airport. Usually a metal detector and a retired cop. I don't see how that's comparable to full body scanners and invasive inside the waist band pat downs.
    They have fewer security measures, but also warrant fewer. And for a point of contention the practice has been going on for a pretty damn long time without it being deemed unconstitutional yet.

    As for the media, I don't give a crap about what they are "hyping" or not. I am sure they are. The point is, however, there is an issue here with idiotic polices and 4th amendment violations. Clear violations, that the people are not standing for any longer.
    And I disagree with the notion of clear violations of the 4th amendment. I think there are isolated incidents of people taking the searches too far. I think the majority of them are well within the boundries of the law.

    Though again, my issue isn't even so much with people disagreeing with the methods. You don't like the full body scanner? Fine. You don't like the pat downs? Fine. Argue that, no issue here from me. My issue though is with people who are simply using the complaints to push for things that are unquestionably unconstitutional, or use ridiculous hyperbole, exaggeration, and faulty logic when discussing it to imply a far larger and more widespread issue then it is.

    I still don't get why, in the name of national security we shut down these all important scanners over the thanksgiving weekend to avoid "protests". Seems if it's so important to fondle my junk (and I convince my wife there is nothing more important, but I digress), that fear of a terrorista far outweighs any rumor of a protest. If it's not that dangerous that we can forgo these invasive scans/junk fondling, in lieu of a protest, I guess the danger is not nearly as great as the TSA and the admin fear mongering.
    I think it was rather dumb for them to cave into threats and turn off the machines. My only guess is they felt the protests were going to be legitimate enough to where it would cause a severe issue for the transit system as wait times on the busiest day of the year would become astronomically long as they have to give the large majority of travelers hand searches.

    Your reasoning is faulty reverend, as it tries to compare two situations (One of the busiest travel days of the year mixed with a nation wide protest compared to a normal travel day) and act as if they're analogs. They're not. It could be concievable that normal travel + these scanners is safer than normal travel without these scanners...but extremely busy travel + huge protests could cause more harm than normal travel without scanners.

    Also speaking of "large places" what about football games? Why no scanners and groping there? I mean how "safe" can we be here?
    The threat to national security posted with something happening at a football game is less than with an airplane, and thus less interest in the government investing money to put said scanners into those area.

    However, I know going into Fedex field I've been wanded before and I've also been given a pat down. Not as "invasive" as what goes on with airports at the moment now, but as I said the potential threat is greater on the planes.

    Not to mention they're relatively poor analogs since generally...even if its helped financed by a city...stadiums aren't federal property.

    And these scanners are bunk anyway, Shape one of these moldable explosives shape it like a tampon stick up a hoo hoo, and what are we going to do next? Refuse flight to women, or check hoo hoo's from now on?
    Wonderful. Something like this can be thought up for EVERY form of security. Are you for scrapping all airport security? If so, that's fine, but lets be up front with your position. Because there's no a single form of security present that you can't come up with something like you just did.

    Let me ask you zyph, where is the line for you?
    I don't know, and won't know until we hit that point and it sparks as "the line" for me. Hypotethically speaking, it'll be when we start doing something that is clearly unconstitutional to me. So far, I've not really seen it. If we go to less security in the airports I'd be fine with it (As long as the people calling for it don't bitch if/when something happens), but lets do it with actual reasonable and realistic confrontation with the issues rather than exaggerations and over reactions.

  9. #809
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    First, I think one of TSA's biggest issues is being reactionary instead of proactive. The primary threat right now is muslim extremists. That may not always be the main threat. It is also not the only threat. It is also not the ONLY thing the TSA is there for.
    Yes, thus far, this is the only explanation for what they're doing. What other excuses have they used?


    Second, thank you for your pathetic and worthless hyperbole with the "groping" comment.
    You're very welcome!


    Third, yes, I think the most intelligent way to both effecitvely and constitutionally (because unlike some conservatives I don't say "**** the constitution" whenever it benefits me to do so) go about the screening is to screen everyone with further screening happening based on certain criteria. Do I think the way TSA does it right now is the perfect way? Absolutely not. There's definite places for improvement. But I think the general method is the best for the nature of our countries air traffic and the balance of our needs of security, expediency, and constitutionality.
    So although it is ineffective and is against the Constitution you are still for it. I'd never heard before that the Constitution had to be "balanced" but i suppose anything can happen in the political climate today.

    The terrorists are laughing while Americans are removing their shoes and any other suspicious clothing, having their intimated selves exposed to strangers, having those same strangers run their hands over their bodies, including little girls, and ignoring a significant part of the Constitution. While going out of their way to not offend Muslims this same government has no compunction about offending ordinary Americans, and will fine and jail them if they don't comply with this insanity. And you're all for it.

    Yes, silly me, not imagining that its fine to **** on the constitution.
    That's one way to put it.

    .Yay! More ignorant hyperbole! No one is having their crotches exposed, and once again your implication with the negative tone of the word grope there is far different than what is happening.
    I suppose you haven't seen the photos and videos.
    Now I agree, we are horribly reactionary. Guess what, what you and others are proposing is REACTIONARY. Its saying "this is the problem now, lets just deal with that". What you and others are doing is no different than the shoe thing.
    Can you be more specific here? How do i relate to "the shoe thing"?


    The person that wants to **** on the constitution is making an allegation of tyranny...that's funny.
    And who is genuinely want to **** on the Constitution? Wasn't it you who said it should be "balanced"?

  10. #810
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Come on Zyph, you can do better than that can't you? So you are telling us the ol' "I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya" crap?
    No J-mac, I'm pulling the "I can lose my job if I post SSI or higher information" crap mixed with stating that its unreasonable to think that since people aren't telling you things that would be considered classified that it means its not happening. Seriously, all you want, you not being seemingly mature enough to understand there are actual restrictions and rules regarding information in some jobs isn't going to magically make me or others divulge stuff.

    Think back to the Bush Administration even. Was there weekly briefings given out to the public explaining every single attack or possible threat that was thwarted by TSA? Are you suggesting TSA did almost nothing while Bush was in office as well?

    Richard Reed? he was taking United flight 63 from Paris France, to Miami FL
    The point being that he wouldn't fit this mystical testable stereotype of a terrorist prior to his action.

    Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Hmmm, doesn't sound like a Nun to me, plus he was on Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam, to Detroit MI.
    Again, the point being that just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done in the future.

    And we already had security measures in place that have prevented attacks for nearly 10 years now. Why all the sudden ramping up domestically?
    And thank you for making my point about the media. This "ramp up" you speak of isn't something new. TSA has been "ramping up" its security since its inception. Multiple years ago it upgraded many airports with the "sniffer" machines that puffs air and looks for trace chemicals. It was a number of years ago when the first of the body scanners started to make the news. We had changes with things like the shoes, the liquids on the plane, etc. TSA has been "ramping up" since its inception, its not something new, its not like for 10 years it was completely stagnant and all of a sudden new stuff is being done.

    Many are not so willing to give their rights up without so much as a whimper.
    You're right, they're not willing to (potentially since the SCOTUS hasn't said its unconstitutional yet) give up their rights.....they're just apparently willing to give up OTHER peoples rights since so many pushing against this are pushing for something that HAS been ruled on by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

Page 81 of 88 FirstFirst ... 31717980818283 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •