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 36 of 50 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 497

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

  1. #351
    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 Kal'Stang View Post
    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.
    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 by Guy Incognito; 11-22-10 at 05:01 PM.

  2. #352
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    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.
    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/...rplane-35.html
    “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. #353
    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
    You're not quoting from the ruling. You're quoting from the procedural posture.
    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.
    And as it shows in the link I provided previously about this case there are other cases which cited the administrative search doctrine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    So YES, these scans are easily distinguishable from Hartwell. Not the same case at all save for it happening in an airport.
    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.
    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

  4. #354
    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
    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/...rplane-35.html
    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.
    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. #355
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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.
    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.
    “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

  6. #356
    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
    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.
    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.
    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

  7. #357
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Would this quote be any better? (note that it is the ruling and still it is the same as the procedural posture)
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    “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

  8. #358
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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.
    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.
    “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

  9. #359
    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
    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?
    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
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Gosh, I don't know, could it be because it makes my point? That "minimally intrusive" is required?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    This is highly dishonest of you.
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    So what? Do they involve the searches which are in play now?
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    If it's minimally intrusive, yes.
    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    Do tell, mind showing me the relevent parts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    Which is what part? The use of the scanners? Or giving consent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    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.
    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

  10. #360
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

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

    This is the first time I've been cracked up by a poll troll.

    More votes for cavity search than metal detector.
    "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." —John Adams

Page 36 of 50 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •