View Poll Results: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

Voters
113. You may not vote on this poll
  • invasive pat downs

    12 10.62%
  • Non invasive pat downs.

    31 27.43%
  • Subjected to radiation so you and or your children can be virtually stripped searched.

    17 15.04%
  • Real strip searches

    11 9.73%
  • Cavity search.

    53 46.90%
  • walking through a metal detector.

    52 46.02%
  • other

    29 25.66%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 35 of 50 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 497

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

  1. #341
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The difference is perception. In reality, anything that is "public" belongs to all the People and we are entitled to use it. Be it land or service. It's ours, we're the collective property owners.
    It's not just about perception, it is about a very practical difference. Public property isn't "partly owned" by all citizens the way, say, a husband and wife might both own the same bank account. Public property is owned publicly and administered publicly. You can't just demand your share of public property the way one party in a joint tenancy might. It's a very fundamental (and basic) difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    But your failure is the same as before. While I can agree to certain reasonable practices, the fine print cannot abdicate in full my rights.
    Wrong. You agree to whatever the airline's predetermined policies are when you enter into the contract with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    And since we're talking about government agency, there are restrictions on what they can and cannot do.
    You're right about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    These restrictions exist outside the "I bought a ticket" fable you keep repeating.
    But you're wrong about this. Once you enter into a contractual relationship with the airline, by buying their ticket, you agree to their predetermined safety procedures. Your chance to assert your rights passed after your purchased the ticket and thereby contractually waived those rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    These restrictions have existed since the construct of the Constitution.
    This is a non sequitur. Once again, the Constitution doesn't protect the airline passengers from being searched by an airline when they have already consented to the search by buying the ticket. Your argument has already been attempted in the Hartwell case, and it failed. Look it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It does matter if it's the government or the airline performing the search because THE GOVERNMENT IS RESTRICTED. That is the absolute. I may agree that you can look through my bags or send me through a metal detector. But I do not agree to gross violations of my rights and human dignity because I'm forced to go through the airports to get very long distances on reasonable time scales.
    I don't think you get the libertarianism thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I think in your statist defense, you have forgotten how rights work.
    This is not an issue of statism. I never defended the government's right to impose this restriction on the airlines. That is where a libertarian should be outraged. But once the airline has implemented the body scanner policy, even if the government forced it to do so, the passenger has not claim against the government. There is no standing! There is no rights violation! Learn the law before you spout off about it, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    This is not between the airlines and the government.
    Read Hartwell, above, and then try to tell me that. At the very least distinguish your point from Hartwell (which you can't do, of course), or else you aren't even making an actual argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The issue is the government's actions against the People.
    Wrong again. The government is taking no action against the passengers, the airline is. The government action is against the airline company. That is where the rights violation is, assuming the airline doesn't consent to implementing the TSA regulations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That is the dynamic at question.
    Do you even read what you write?

    Come back and talk to me when you have read some of the relevant law, which you obviously haven't.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 11-22-10 at 01:24 PM.

  2. #342
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,520

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Wrong. You agree to whatever the airlines predetermined policies are when you enter into the contract with them.

    No, they don't. Once you enter into a contractual relationship with the airline, by buying their ticket, you agree to their predetermined safety procedures. Your chance to assert your rights passed after your purchased the ticket and thereby contractually waived those rights.


    This is a non sequitur. Once again, the Constitution doesn't protect the airline passengers from being searched by an airline when they have already consented to the search by buying the ticket.
    That's funny; topshelf produced what the "contract" says according to Delta and United. Nothing in there about that. Yet, you've produced nothing, nada, zip, zero to show what you're saying is right.


    Your argument has already been attempted in the Hartwell case, and it failed. Look it up.
    Where in Hartwell did the court say anything about consent by buying a ticket?

    Where in Hartwell did the court say anything about these full-body scans?

    How does the ruling in Hartwell apply to the entire nation?

    These are questions you simply refuse to answer.


    I don't think you get the libertarianism thing.




    I never defended the government's right to impose this restriction on the airlines.
    Show, exactly, how this restriction is imposed on the airlines. Show the code or the specific regulation which says it's imposed on the airlines and not on the passengers.

    But once the airline has implemented the body scanner policy, even if the government forced it to do so, the passenger has not claim against the government. There is no standing! There is no rights violation! Learn the law before you spout off about it, please.
    If there were no standing, then the court in Hartwell would have dismissed Hartwell's case for LACK of standing. Yet, they didn't. You have a rather noxious combination of slobbering, knuckle-draggin ignorance yet profound arrogance.



    Read Hartwell, above, and then try to tell me that.
    Still waiting for you to show where the court in Hartwell mentioned full-body scans at all. But of course, you can't, so you're ignoring the question.


    At the very least distinguish your point from Hartwell (which you can't do, of course), or else you aren't even making an actual argument.
    Easy. It's about "minimally intrusive," a term you've obviously never come across which forms the basis for the ruling in Hartwell.


    Wrong again. The government is taking no action against the passengers, the airline is. The government action is against the airline company.
    What head-banging idiocy. What a truly stupid, deluded raving.


    Do you even read what you write?

    Come back and talk to me when you have read some of the relevant law, which you obviously haven't.
    You are one of the biggest jokes on this board. Without a doubt.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  3. #343
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,271

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Not to mention the people who use the term "nudie booth." Are they afraid their junk just won't stand up to the scrutiny?
    Women are among the biggest protesters of the body scanners.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #344
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    But it's all supported by tax payer money. If I didn't pay for it in the first place, it wouldn't be around to ass rape me when I try to use the service.
    How is this? I keep seeing this being said but no one ever elaborates on it. How exactly are airlines supported by government money? Did they get a bailout like GM did and I didn't hear about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, I am not exercising a right. Nor does that mean that I have no rights. This is where you fail. This assumption that because I'm using a tax payer supported system that automatically I have no rights and anything the government does against me is ok. It's completely false. Our rights still exist, and there are always limitations to how the government can act against the rights and liberties of an individual. As a libertarian, you should understand that.
    How is the airline a "tax payer supported system"?
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #345
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    And he STILL hasn't explained what the court in Hartwell said about these full body scans, nor how the 3rd Circuit sets policy for the entire country. Imagine my surprise . . .
    I really don't know why it needs explaining. I thought that it was pretty obvious. In anycase....

    Hartwell mentions nothing about full body scans. The part that is applicable is this part ...

    The Court next sustained the search under the theory that it was a “consensual administrative search[].” Hartwell, 296 F. Supp. 2d at 602 (citing United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973)). Finally, the Court stated that “by submitting to the screening process, defendant impliedly consented to the search and was lawfully required to complete the search to determine the cause of the alarm.” Hartwell, 296 F. Supp. 2d at 605. On appeal, Hartwell argues that all three rationales are unfounded. We disagree.
    Pretty self explanatory to me. It is what we have been saying from the get go. Way before I ever posted the original link to the hartwell case. And the Hartwell case is not the first case to have the "consensual administrative" bit used.

    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.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #346
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,520

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I really don't know why it needs explaining. I thought that it was pretty obvious. In anycase....

    Hartwell mentions nothing about full body scans. The part that is applicable is this part ...



    Pretty self explanatory to me. It is what we have been saying from the get go. Way before I ever posted the original link to the hartwell case. And the Hartwell case is not the first case to have the "consensual administrative" bit used.

    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.
    You're not quoting from the ruling. You're quoting from the procedural posture.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    So YES, these scans are easily distinguishable from Hartwell. Not the same case at all save for it happening in an airport.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #347
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    It's not just about perception, it is about a very practical difference. Public property isn't "partly owned" by all citizens the way, say, a husband and wife might both own the same bank account. Public property is owned publicly and administered publicly. You can't just demand your share of public property the way one party in a joint tenancy might. It's a very fundamental (and basic) difference.
    True, but being public means you're entitled to use it. Where as if something is strictly private, you have no expectation of use. The airport is public. The TSA is a government organization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Wrong. You agree to whatever the airline's predetermined policies are when you enter into the contract with them.
    What's the contract then? Where are the terms of it? Despite what I can agree to with the airlines, the airport is public land and the TSA is a government agency. Therefore, there are still restrictions on what the government can do. As I said, your argument says that it would be fine for the TSA to randomly shoot people if they made the airlines agree to it. But that's obviously not the case, thus even in "contract" there are limits to what the government is able to do. You're arguing no limits of government force against the rights of the individual, which is a bit odd coming from a "libertarian".

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    But you're wrong about this. Once you enter into a contractual relationship with the airline, by buying their ticket, you agree to their predetermined safety procedures. Your chance to assert your rights passed after your purchased the ticket and thereby contractually waived those rights.
    Incorrect, the unlimited right to contract is not observed in this country. We have right to contract, sure, but there are things you cannot transfer in contract. Yourself, for instance. You cannot sell yourself into slavery. Thus there is a hard limit on what can contractually be forfeited, meaning that there is always restriction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    This is a non sequitur. Once again, the Constitution doesn't protect the airline passengers from being searched by an airline when they have already consented to the search by buying the ticket. Your argument has already been attempted in the Hartwell case, and it failed. Look it up.
    Whatever the government says it can and cannot do is not the case. Sure, all government can engage in tyranny. Because government does so does not excuse the exercise of tyranny. There is a limitation to the amount of force the government can use against the rights and liberties of the individual. That's all there is to it. The TSA being a militant arm of the government is thus restricted in how it can act against the rights and liberties of the individual. They cannot engage in aggressive, intrusive searches without evidence or reasonable suspicion. Trying to get on a plane is not reasonable suspicion. The people always have the right to secure themselves, their property, their papers, and their effects from unreasonable search and seizure by the authority. And nothing will EVER change that fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I don't think you get the libertarianism thing.
    I'm not the one arguing against the rights of the individual and for infinite force being applied to the people by the government. That would be you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    This is not an issue of statism. I never defended the government's right to impose this restriction on the airlines. That is where a libertarian should be outraged. But once the airline has implemented the body scanner policy, even if the government forced it to do so, the passenger has not claim against the government. There is no standing! There is no rights violation! Learn the law before you spout off about it, please.
    There are violations of rights. The Airlines may be forced to accept government intervention; but that doesn't make this unbridled against the people. There are things which cannot be transferred via contract, the airport is public property, the TSA government agency. It's not part of the airline contract to give away all your rights. You can't even give away all your rights. The ticket gets you onto a plane, that's it. The security isn't private, and not controlled by the airlines; but rather subjected upon everyone by the government in an arbitrary manner. That is not a dynamic which should be allowed to exist. There is no reason for the people to be subjected to this treatment; nor is it proper for government to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Read Hartwell, above, and then try to tell me that. At the very least distinguish your point from Hartwell (which you can't do, of course), or else you aren't even making an actual argument.
    I am making an actual argument, one from fundamental principle as well. The government is limited. The government is always limited. No contract that you sign can ever remove that, it cannot change that. This is hardwired into the Republic itself. Even if government grows, even if it defines for itself more and more power and uses force to keep it; it does not mean it can rightfully and justly act on its own accord for its own interests particularly at the cost of the rights and liberties of the individual. That's the bottom line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Wrong again. The government is taking no action against the passengers, the airline is. The government action is against the airline company. That is where the rights violation is, assuming the airline doesn't consent to implementing the TSA regulations.
    The captin is not the one frisking me. It is the TSA agent, an agent of the government which is taking that action. If you can't see this, then there is no point because you cannot understand reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Do you even read what you write?

    Come back and talk to me when you have read some of the relevant law, which you obviously haven't.
    Why don't you come back when you can defend your own positions. I've seen several questions you seem to ignore. Additionally, one doesn't have to be a law scholar to understand the basics of the Republic and to adhere to an ideology which pushes the rights of the individual above all else. The fact of the matter is that you want to ignore anything which talks about the rightful action of government in defense of this horrible breach of power by the government.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #348
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

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

    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 11-22-10 at 04:36 PM.

  9. #349
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    I think the people who are afraid of pat downs are the ones with irrational fears.
    How so? The pat downs happen 10's of thousands of times a day if not more. The abuse of power and authority by the government is a daily event. How many planes have been bombed recently? None? Thought so. So you're talking about one cautioning against the expanse of government past proper limitiations, with noted examples of frequent abuse and the other freaking out about being blown out of the sky. Who is the more irrational?
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #350
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

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

    posted this question in another thread. Curious to see if anyone has found the information yet... I've not seen aything.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059116069
    Does anyone have a stat showing how many pat-downs there are in a given month, vs how many complaints about those pat-downs?

    I'm just curious to see the percentage of complaints vs. non-complaints.

    I fully expect someone to complain if they feel a particular pat-down was out of line. I'm just curious to see if most pat-downs generate complaints... or a large number... or some...

Page 35 of 50 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... 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
  •