• 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!

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

  • Total voters
    59
Kal'Stang said:
As for the 3rd circuit court setting policy they haven't. However if anyone else were to challenge this the judges that were presiding would use Hartwell in their deliberations. That is the way the courts work. They use past law to determine weather or not the plaintiff has a case or not.
Click to expand...

That's very true. But even if they don't cite Hartwell, any other district is bound to reach the same conclusion. It's just so basic.

The Hartwell case itself was an appeal that reaffirmed a lower court's ruling. Just because Hartwell addressed it doesn't mean that there is a serious dispute about the law. It's just that Hartwell's lawyers were throwing everything to the wall to see what sticks. The fourth amendment claim sure didn't stick.

I can't blame Hartwell's lawyers for giving it a shot, but it is so basic that it's almost a frivolous argument.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
That's very true. But even if they don't cite Hartwell, any other district is bound to reach the same conclusion. It's just so basic.

The Hartwell case itself was an appeal that reaffirmed a lower court's ruling. Just because Hartwell addressed it doesn't mean that there is a serious dispute about the law. It's just that Hartwell's lawyers were throwing everything to the wall to see what sticks. The fourth amendment claim sure didn't stick.

I can't blame Hartwell's lawyers for giving it a shot, but it is so basic that it's almost a frivolous argument.
Click to expand...

This distinguishes Hartwell quite handily. Respond to every point in it, in detail and in good faith, or it will be clear you simply post outrageous crap and have no intention of even maintaining a pretense of backing up what you say.

Ignore it, like you have everything else which refutes you, and your troll-ness will be conclusive.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/86082-should-you-subjected-order-fly-airplane-35.html
 
Harshaw said:
You're not quoting from the ruling. You're quoting from the procedural posture.
Click to expand...

Would this quote be any better? (note that it is the ruling and still it is the same as the procedural posture)

In conclusion, Hartwell’s search does not offend the Fourth Amendment even though it was initiated without individualized suspicion and was conducted without a warrant. It is permissible under the administrative search doctrine because the State has an overwhelming interest in preserving air travel safety, and the procedure is tailored to advance that interest while proving to be administrative search doctrine.
Click to expand...

And as it shows in the link I provided previously about this case there are other cases which cited the administrative search doctrine.

Harshaw said:
The fact pattern in Hartwell bears no resemblance to what's happening today, and the fact that it doesn't mention full body scans is precisely the point. It makes no judgment on them at all. It sure as hell doesn't approve them.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Just because it is a full body scanner doing the work instead of a metal detector doesn't matter when it concerns the points that I am talking about. Which is that you give your consent to be searched when you attempt to go through that security checkpoint. When you give your consent and go through that security checkpoint you waive your 4th amendment right away.

Harshaw said:
The court said that he consented to the scan because he stepped through the metal detector FIRST. THEN and ONLY THEN did they have ACTUAL CAUSE to search further for something illegal. This pattern is not in play.
Click to expand...

Please please read what you just wrote there. The court said that he consented because he stepped through first. Before then they could not search him without violating his rights. But because he stepped through it of his on volition he gave his consent and they were allowed to search him.

Harshaw said:
The court also based its ruling in part on the requirement that the search be minimally intrusive. It's not even a little bit clear that a court which considers a metal detector to be minimally intrusive would find the same thing about these body scans or the extensive pat-downs being performed. These searches are considerable step up -- and if they weren't; they'd be useless as "increased" security.
Click to expand...

That was a part of the judges ruling, correct. However it was in response to Hartwell trying to back out of being checked after they (security personnel) had identified that there was something in his pocket. He tried to assert that the security personnel were being too invasive because he had stated that he did not want to be searched anymore and would leave the airport.

Harshaw said:
So YES, these scans are easily distinguishable from Hartwell. Not the same case at all save for it happening in an airport.
Click to expand...

While the cases may not be the same technologically speaking they are the same in that the passengers give their consent the moment that they try to pass through that checkpoint. And that is what I have been argueing the whole time.
 
Harshaw said:
This distinguishes Hartwell quite handily. Respond to every point in it, in detail and in good faith, or it will be clear you simply post outrageous crap and have no intention of even maintaining a pretense of backing up what you say.

Ignore it, like you have everything else which refutes you, and your troll-ness will be conclusive.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/86082-should-you-subjected-order-fly-airplane-35.html
Click to expand...

Get real. Do you ever respond to everything in every thread? Or do you just respond to the points that you find to be worth your time? There have been some things that I have said in this thread which no one responded to, do you see me calling people trolls and their arguements invalid? If anyone is being a troll here it is you by saying such idiotic stuff.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Get real. Do you ever respond to everything in every thread? Or do you just respond to the points that you find to be worth your time? There have been some things that I have said in this thread which no one responded to, do you see me calling people trolls and their arguements invalid? If anyone is being a troll here it is you by saying such idiotic stuff.
Click to expand...

I know of nothing that you challenged me on directly that I didn't answer. I especially know of nothing where I said something to you, you fired back, and then I suddenly went silent. Unfortunately, Guy has stacks and stacks of it. He simply ignores anything which refutes him. He's doing it now.

Just because he agrees with you on this issue, it does not mean you have to defend his trolling.
 
Harshaw said:
I know of nothing that you challenged me on directly that I didn't answer. I especially know of nothing where I said something to you, you fired back, and then I suddenly went silent. Unfortunately, Guy has stacks and stacks of it. He simply ignores anything which refutes him. He's doing it now.

Just because he agrees with you on this issue, it does not mean you have to defend his trolling.
Click to expand...

I would defend you also if you were in his shoes. It has nothing to do with him agreeing with me.

As for what he hasn't responded to - If you are that concerned about what he hasn't responded to why not list a condenced version of it in a new post. Perhaps he just missed it. Besides, I would like to see what it is that "he hasn't responded to" also. After all you may have been responded to and just didn't see it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Would this quote be any better? (note that it is the ruling and still it is the same as the procedural posture)
Click to expand...

Why did you stop there? Why did you put a period down at the end, implying that was the end of the sentence? Why did you leave out the rest?

In conclusion, Hartwell’s search does not offend the Fourth Amendment even though it was initiated without individualized suspicion and was conducted without a warrant. It is permissible under the administrative search doctrine because the State has an overwhelming interest in preserving air travel safety, and the procedure is tailored to advance that interest while proving to be only minimally invasive, as that term is understood in Brown.
Click to expand...

Gosh, I don't know, could it be because it makes my point? That "minimally intrusive" is required?

This is highly dishonest of you.



And as it shows in the link I provided previously about this case there are other cases which cited the administrative search doctrine.
Click to expand...

So what? Do they involve the searches which are in play now?



Incorrect. Just because it is a full body scanner doing the work instead of a metal detector doesn't matter when it concerns the points that I am talking about. Which is that you give your consent to be searched when you attempt to go through that security checkpoint. When you give your consent and go through that security checkpoint you waive your 4th amendment right away.
Click to expand...

If it's minimally intrusive, yes.



Please please read what you just wrote there. The court said that he consented because he stepped through first. Before then they could not search him without violating his rights. But because he stepped through it of his on volition he gave his consent and they were allowed to search him.
Click to expand...

No, because he stepped through and it revealed something to look for which rose to the level of cause. Had it not, he could not have been searched further, whether or not he consented to the metal detector.



That was a part of the judges ruling, correct. However it was in response to Hartwell trying to back out of being checked after they (security personnel) had identified that there was something in his pocket. He tried to assert that the security personnel were being too invasive because he had stated that he did not want to be searched anymore and would leave the airport.
Click to expand...

No, they went into the reasons why it was minimally intrusive -- because there's no "stigma" attached to it, being out in the open. But while that may be true of a metal detector or a regular patdown, these revealing body scans and enhanced pat-downs go far past that -- especially if they entail baring a woman's breasts in plain sight.

At the very least, it's an issue which needs to be considered and is absolutely NOT dealt with in Hartwell. It goes well beyond it.



While the cases may not be the same technologically speaking they are the same in that the passengers give their consent the moment that they try to pass through that checkpoint. And that is what I have been argueing the whole time.
Click to expand...

Any "consent" you're arguing for here hinges on taking the step to walk through the scanner. This is irrelevant when evaluating the full-body scanners in general. And it sure is hell doesn't show a thing about "consent" being given merely by buying a ticket.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I would defend you also if you were in his shoes. It has nothing to do with him agreeing with me.

As for what he hasn't responded to - If you are that concerned about what he hasn't responded to why not list a condenced version of it in a new post. Perhaps he just missed it. Besides, I would like to see what it is that "he hasn't responded to" also. After all you may have been responded to and just didn't see it.
Click to expand...

He didn't miss it. His attention was called to most of it multiple times, and this is behavior which he's displayed in multiple threads on various topics, commented upon by multiple people.
 
Harshaw said:
Why did you stop there? Why did you put a period down at the end, implying that was the end of the sentence? Why did you leave out the rest?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because the part that Brown is mentioned is in a different paragraph completely?

In conclusion, Hartwell’s search does not offend the Fourth
Amendment even though it was initiated without individualized
suspicion and was conducted without a warrant. It is permissible
under the administrative search doctrine because the State has an
overwhelming interest in preserving air travel safety, and the
procedure is tailored to advance that interest while proving to be administrative search doctrine.

12Hartwell argues that once the TSA agents identified the
object in his pocket and he refused to reveal it, he should have had
the right to leave rather than empty his pockets. We reject this
theory. As several courts have noted, a right to leave once
screening procedures begin “would constitute a one-way street for
the benefit of a party planning airport mischief,” United States v.
Herzbrun, 723 F.2d 773, 776 (11th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted), and “would ‘encourage airline
terrorism by providing a secure exit where detection was
threatened,’” People v. Heimel, 812 P.2d 1177, 1182 (Colo. 1991)
(quoting Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d at 902). See also Torbet v.
United Airlines, Inc., 298 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002) (“To
avoid search, a passenger must elect not to fly before placing his
bag on the x-ray belt.” (citation omitted)).
12
only minimally invasive, as that term is understood in Brown.13
Click to expand...

The above is quoted directly from the link I gave previously. From the begining of the paragraph that I quoted on down until it mentions Brown.

As I already explained before....

That was a part of the judges ruling, correct. However it was in response to Hartwell trying to back out of being checked after they (security personnel) had identified that there was something in his pocket. He tried to assert that the security personnel were being too invasive because he had stated that he did not want to be searched anymore and would leave the airport.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
Gosh, I don't know, could it be because it makes my point? That "minimally intrusive" is required?
Click to expand...

Nope, because the part that mentions Brown is talking about him trying to back out of the security check after they had already discovered that there was "something" in that pocket.

Harshaw said:
This is highly dishonest of you.
Click to expand...

It is dishonest of you to try to say that I did not put things in proper context. You are the one that is trying to be dishonest by stating that I did something when I did not. And anyone can check what I just quoted by simply checking out the link that I had provided before. Which I will give again.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Harshaw said:
So what? Do they involve the searches which are in play now?
Click to expand...

Again, I am not talking about the searches by themselves or how they are done. I am talking about giving consent by attempting to go through the security check point. What is so hard to understand about that? Why is it so hard to understand that you can give up your rights by giving consent? And that you give consent when and only when you attempt to go through that security checkpoint? Seriously here folks, Its not rocket science.

Anyways those other cases are talking about what I am also. And no I'm not going to look them up. You can do so yourself using the link above as a reference guide. Remember I am talking about the administrative search doctrine.



Harshaw said:
If it's minimally intrusive, yes.
Click to expand...

And who defines what is minimally intrusive? You? A muslim packing a bomb? In any case did you not read what I wrote?

Incorrect. Just because it is a full body scanner doing the work instead of a metal detector doesn't matter when it concerns the points that I am talking about. Which is that you give your consent to be searched when you attempt to go through that security checkpoint. When you give your consent and go through that security checkpoint you waive your 4th amendment right away.
Click to expand...

Hell I didn't even ask a question in that and yet you write one sentence that is plainly an answer to.... something. I don't know what but it is plainly an answer to some question.


Harshaw said:
No, because he stepped through and it revealed something to look for which rose to the level of cause. Had it not, he could not have been searched further, whether or not he consented to the metal detector.
Click to expand...

Do you not know what it means to give your consent to do something? You seem to think that you cannot waive all of your rights away if you so choose. But you are dead wrong about that. You can waive ALL of your rights away at any time that you wish. In this case, by going through the security checkpoint, you are waiving away your 4th amendment rights.

Harshaw said:
No, they went into the reasons why it was minimally intrusive -- because there's no "stigma" attached to it, being out in the open. But while that may be true of a metal detector or a regular patdown, these revealing body scans and enhanced pat-downs go far past that -- especially if they entail baring a woman's breasts in plain sight.
Click to expand...

Do tell, mind showing me the relevent parts?

Harshaw said:
At the very least, it's an issue which needs to be considered and is absolutely NOT dealt with in Hartwell. It goes well beyond it.
Click to expand...

Which is what part? The use of the scanners? Or giving consent?

Harshaw said:
Any "consent" you're arguing for here hinges on taking the step to walk through the scanner. This is irrelevant when evaluating the full-body scanners in general. And it sure is hell doesn't show a thing about "consent" being given merely by buying a ticket.
Click to expand...

First I've never stated that you give your consent when you buy a ticket. I have only mentioned giving consent the moment you attempt to walk through the security checkpoint. There is a difference.

And yes, giving consent IS relevent. Completely and utterly so. If you do not give your consent and they still search you then they are violating your rights. If however you give your consent to be searched then you have waived away your 4th amendment rights. Which means that they do not apply. Which means that they could strip you down naked and give your bunghole a check. Provided that you knew that, that was a possibility before you attempted to go through.
 
This is the first time I've been cracked up by a poll troll.

More votes for cavity search than metal detector. :rofl
 
Kal'Stang said:
Perhaps because the part that Brown is mentioned is in a different paragraph completely?
Click to expand...

:doh

No, it isn't. It's the in the same sentence. You're confusing a FOOTNOTE (#12) with a PARAGRAPH.

I guess that shows how many opinions you've read.

In any case, there was no period there. You put that in yourself.



Nope, because the part that mentions Brown is talking about him trying to back out of the security check after they had already discovered that there was "something" in that pocket.
Click to expand...

No, that would make no sense; Brown doesn't have anything to do with that.



It is dishonest of you to try to say that I did not put things in proper context. You are the one that is trying to be dishonest by stating that I did something when I did not. And anyone can check what I just quoted by simply checking out the link that I had provided before. Which I will give again.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps it was just incompetence, as I pointed out above, and unfamiliarity with judicial opinions. But I assumed competence, and the placement of a period which wasn't there led me to believe it was intentional and dishonest. I will keep all this in mind in further interactions.


Again, I am not talking about the searches by themselves or how they are done. I am talking about giving consent by attempting to go through the security check point. What is so hard to understand about that? Why is it so hard to understand that you can give up your rights by giving consent? And that you give consent when and only when you attempt to go through that security checkpoint? Seriously here folks, Its not rocket science.
Click to expand...

You jumped in defending Guy (which he refuses to do for himself, even now), so naturally it appeared that you were defending HIS points. I wasn't addressing YOUR points, but HIS.

And who defines what is minimally intrusive? You? A muslim packing a bomb? In any case did you not read what I wrote?
Click to expand...

Brown is the controlling case. Note that I never claimed conclusively that the full-body scanners could never pass the test, only that they're obviously not the same thing as metal detectors and thus they need to be tested. The court in Hartwell did not do so, so Hartwell does not dispose of the issue.



Hell I didn't even ask a question in that and yet you write one sentence that is plainly an answer to.... something. I don't know what but it is plainly an answer to some question.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you shouldn't jump into the middle of an argument you're not actually a part of and argue your own thing. As I said, I wasn't addressing YOU.



Do you not know what it means to give your consent to do something? You seem to think that you cannot waive all of your rights away if you so choose. But you are dead wrong about that. You can waive ALL of your rights away at any time that you wish. In this case, by going through the security checkpoint, you are waiving away your 4th amendment rights.
Click to expand...

There are numerous things you cannot waive. You cannot waive your right to life. You cannot, say, tell a cop it's OK to slam your face into a table and then sign a confession -- you can still argue coercion and duress later. So no, you're wrong.



Do tell, mind showing me the relevent parts?



Which is what part? The use of the scanners? Or giving consent?



First I've never stated that you give your consent when you buy a ticket. I have only mentioned giving consent the moment you attempt to walk through the security checkpoint. There is a difference.

And yes, giving consent IS relevent. Completely and utterly so. If you do not give your consent and they still search you then they are violating your rights. If however you give your consent to be searched then you have waived away your 4th amendment rights. Which means that they do not apply. Which means that they could strip you down naked and give your bunghole a check. Provided that you knew that, that was a possibility before you attempted to go through.[/QUOTE]

The rest of this speaks to an argument I wasn't making or arguing with. I was arguing with Guy, not you.

But Hartwell absolutely is not only about consent, it's also about the level of intrusion, and you need to test both. That's right there in the conclusion, and in the part you erroneously thought was part of a different paragraph. It wasn't.

And Guy, having refused to defend what HE, not YOU said, as they're different arguments, has conclusively proven he has no intention to.
 
Harshaw said:
:doh

No, it isn't. It's the in the same sentence. You're confusing a FOOTNOTE (#12) with a PARAGRAPH.

I guess that shows how many opinions you've read.

In any case, there was no period there. You put that in yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you keep insisting that I put it in myself. I copy/pasted the dang thing as it was in the PDF. Anyone can look it up themselves and see that. In any case the part that mentions brown is for footnote #13, not 12 as you can tell by the fact that there is a little 13 after the word "Brown" and then below that is where it talks about 13.

Harshaw said:
But Hartwell absolutely is not only about consent, it's also about the level of intrusion, and you need to test both. That's right there in the conclusion, and in the part you erroneously thought was part of a different paragraph. It wasn't.
Click to expand...

Where did I ever say that Hartwell was only about consent? I've been argueing about one point so I used only one point.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't know why you keep insisting that I put it in myself. I copy/pasted the dang thing as it was in the PDF. Anyone can look it up themselves and see that. In any case the part that mentions brown is for footnote #13, not 12 as you can tell by the fact that there is a little 13 after the word "Brown" and then below that is where it talks about 13.
Click to expand...

Ok, then you've got this screwed up far worse than I originally thought.

You began by quoting from the conclusion, then after "be" you tacked on the final sentence fragment from footnoote 11. That big black line is there for a reason.

I quoted the sentence correctly, not mixing in any footnotes.


Where did I ever say that Hartwell was only about consent? I've been argueing about one point so I used only one point.
Click to expand...

And I wasn't arguing with YOU about THAT point, so most of this was entirely unnecessary.

But I do give you credit for being willing to defend your points.
 
Harshaw said:
Ok, then you've got this screwed up far worse than I originally thought.

You began by quoting from the conclusion, then after "be" you tacked on the final sentence fragment from footnoote 11. That big black line is there for a reason.

I quoted the sentence correctly, not mixing in any footnotes.
Click to expand...

So you're trying to say that this is the way it's suppose to look like...

In conclusion, Hartwell’s search does not offend the Fourth Amendment even though it was initiated without individualized suspicion and was conducted without a warrant. It is permissible under the administrative search doctrine because the State has an overwhelming interest in preserving air travel safety, and the procedure is tailored to advance that interest while proving to be only minimally invasive, as that term is understood in Brown.13
Click to expand...

Instead of like this....

In conclusion, Hartwell’s search does not offend the Fourth Amendment even though it was initiated without individualized suspicion and was conducted without a warrant. It is permissible under the administrative search doctrine because the State has an overwhelming interest in preserving air travel safety, and the procedure is tailored to advance that interest while proving to be administrative search doctrine.
Click to expand...

Since when is it customary for the footnotes to appear in the middle of a paragraph AND in the middle of a sentence?
 
Are you seriously going with this? Are you seriously contending that your construction is correct?


Kal'Stang said:
So you're trying to say that this is the way it's suppose to look like...



Instead of like this....
Click to expand...

I'm not just saying it. That's the way it is.

The way you have the sentence constructed using the footnote fragment doesn't even make grammatical sense.


Since when is it customary for the footnotes to appear in the middle of a paragraph AND in the middle of a sentence?
Click to expand...

They don't. They appear in the lower part of the page, under the black lines. The footnotes are formatted correctly.
 
Harshaw said:
Are you seriously going with this? Are you seriously contending that your construction is correct?




I'm not just saying it. That's the way it is.

The way you have the sentence constructed using the footnote fragment doesn't even make grammatical sense.




They don't. They appear in the lower part of the page, under the black lines. The footnotes are formatted correctly.
Click to expand...

Ok. I'm done. I'm not going to argue with someone that doesn't know how to read english.
 
In case you have not seen the images from a backscatter imager...
Manscan.jpg


backscatter.jpg


ul_backscatter.jpg


467588.jpg


Unions-tell-pilots-to-refuse-body-scanners.jpg


I'm cool with my junk showing like this. No biggie.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Ok. I'm done. I'm not going to argue with someone that doesn't know how to read english.
Click to expand...

I read English just fine. :roll: I also understand what's a footnote and what's the body of the text.

This isn't on me, dude. You just got it wrong.
 
I swear people have completely lost the ability for critical thinking these days. Hey look, the horse just ran out of the barn, go shut the door!

Why does it matter where a terrorist bomb is detonated? How is it any less terrorizing for terrorists to blow up the hundreds of people waiting in line to go through these security check points then blowing up a plane in mid air? The first time they blow up the crowd at the security gate, air travel will be shut down and government officials will be scrambling to convince us they have taken the necessary precautions to prevent that from happening again.

If we take the draconian steps necessary to prevent anyone from harming a plane, they will simply find another way to terrorize you. You either have to accept that bad things could always happen, or you have to give authorization for Orwellian solutions of monitoring people around the clock. If we are all monitored 24X7, we could put one hell of a dent in their ability to harm us. Is that where we are heading? Based on all the support I see from so many of you, it sure seems like that would find a scary level of support today.
 
American said:
My guess is that it is sorely underreported, just like rape is. There is a stigma attached to reporting it, or they feel it isn't worth it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's obviously worth reporting it, as it's making such a big stink. I'm just looking to see whether or not the stink is really warranted, based on the actual percentage of invasive pat-downs that generate a negative report from air travelers. I have no idea what percentage I'd find acceptable... I'd just like to see the numbers first.
 
ARealConservative said:
I swear people have completely lost the ability for critical thinking these days. Hey look, the horse just ran out of the barn, go shut the door!

Why does it matter where a terrorist bomb is detonated? How is it any less terrorizing for terrorists to blow up the hundreds of people waiting in line to go through these security check points then blowing up a plane in mid air? The first time they blow up the crowd at the security gate, air travel will be shut down and government officials will be scrambling to convince us they have taken the necessary precautions to prevent that from happening again.

If we take the draconian steps necessary to prevent anyone from harming a plane, they will simply find another way to terrorize you. You either have to accept that bad things could always happen, or you have to give authorization for Orwellian solutions of monitoring people around the clock. If we are all monitored 24X7, we could put one hell of a dent in their ability to harm us. Is that where we are heading? Based on all the support I see from so many of you, it sure seems like that would find a scary level of support today.
Click to expand...

My worry is that these unconstitutional searches will be extended to everywhere else and possibly video cameras everywhere. Because terrorists in other countries have blown up everything from bicycles to trains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom