• 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
You miss my point. If it were harder to get the stuff onto the plane, those cases would not have happened. The more technology can show these materials, the safer we'll be. Respectful pat downs, scanners, searches, whatever. If I live through the flight, I'm happy.

TSA existed then, as did a lot of their regulations and rules. Didn't stop it. You're not going to catch everything either. Thankfully, we aren't dealing with the smartest bunch. Else they would have just corridinated a mass simultaneous attack on the TSA line at several major airports over busy travel holidays. You'd get a lot of folk that way. But with strip searches and aggressive, intrusive "pat downs" all you're doing is pissing into the wind. You're not going to catch more; it's already an insanely low probability to start with.
 
So, your right not to be searched 'unreasonably' is greater than my right not to be killed by the bomb you bring onto the plane... got it.

Given the likelihood of being bombed, yes it is. My rights trump your irrational fears any day of the week.
 
The kind of searches that we are subjected to in airports are, legally, only reasonable if there is probable cause to suspect a person. Yes, airlines are private companies who can screw anyone they want. Why is this a good thing? The measures put in place are mandated by law, in violation of the 4th amendment. You have the right to refuse ANY search of yourself or your property unless there is a warrant.

And it is an entirely false argument to say "you consent to whatever when you buy a ticket". Air travel is a necessary part of our culture. It would analogous to saying "you can't have access to the water main unless you undergo a strip search." Sure, you COULD get water somewhere else, but business does not have the right to impose that kind of restrictions on us. They have a duty to promote the public well-being. We are not served by being made more afraid of boogeymen all around us. Air travel is pretty safe, and always has been.

All of this searching violates the 4th amendment. It's not really negotiable. If the day comes when the supreme court is no longer polarized by political parties, a whole lot of infringements on the 4th amendment will be tossed out.
 
Oh god get a grip would you? The reason they do the pat downs is to scare people into using the body scanners? Are you SERIOUS? They've been doing pat downs longer than you've been alive. Hell longer than anyone on this planet period has been alive. Geeze get a grip why don't ya.

As for the radiation giving an unhealthy dose of radiation....try again.

Experts Say Radiation Fears From Full-Body Scans Unfounded

If you want I can post many many more articles on it that state pretty much the same thing.

Well ya they have always given pat downs but they were never this extreme. But what ever you just go ahead and dont question our overlords im sure there doing it to keep us safe.
 
Ok, I know this has already been said before but I'm going to try and give it one more shot. Maybe it will get through this time.

An airport is run by a private company. As such you have no "right" to fly. You can be denied passage by the airline at any time. Because the airline is a company and not the government the 9th Amendment of the Constitution does not apply. You buy the ticket to ride on this companies planes knowing full well what will happen when you go to get on an airplane. Now the airline is working with the government in order to provide a more secure passage for their customers. One of the requirements to get onto that plane is (or will be) a body scanner. The Airline has agreed to let the use of such technology be allowed.

No, actually they haven't. The government MANDATED the use of these security practices for ALL domestic flights. They don't give a damn whether the airline agrees to it or not.

Kal'Stang said:
Now since you know full well what will happen if you go to fly somewhere and still attempt to fly on their planes you do give your permission to be subjected to a private companies security measures. Giving someone your consent does not have to be done by words. It can be done through actions also. In this case the action of buying the ticket and trying to go through the security check point is the way that you give your consent. Because of this your 4th amendment right is nullified.

And if you don't believe me that airlines are working with the government...well...here ya go....

Second public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States


The notion that this is the AIRLINES - and not the government - subjecting passengers to this ridiculousness is beyond absurd. It is incredibly disingenuous to claim that just because the government passed a law that all the companies affected approve of that law...or that even if they did, that it's therefore the airlines requiring this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
The notion that this is the AIRLINES - and not the government - subjecting passengers to this ridiculousness is beyond absurd. It is incredibly disingenuous to claim that just because the government passed a law that all the companies affected approve of that law...or that even if they did, that it's therefore the airlines requiring this nonsense.

Yup, and the government is always restricted. TSA is a government agency. I think the people kinda pretending that "consent" via purchasing a ticket allows a free for all are being disingenuous at best. The airline industry is some pseudo-private (not really since tax payer dollars support it, the government regulates and runs the security, the courts allow the airline industry to dump pension contracts so CEOs can have millions of dollars, etc.) industry closely entangled with government. Government force against the People is limited and the government must obey the prescribed methods for enacting force against the rights and liberties of the individual. TSA has become a gross breech of said prescribed methods. That's all there is to it. Some people try to use appeal to authority, others emotion. It comes down to some fear about terrorists taking us out. But the data does not support that fear. And I for one don't understand why my rights and liberties should be violated just because the Suzy-pissy-pants over there can't stop wetting themselves at the word "terrorist".
 
I would suggest that there be optional flights for those who do not want security measures to prevent potential threats (assuming you can find flight personnel to operate such flights) and give up any liability should something occur. Personally, I think the only way we can lessen the chance of problems is by incorporating security measures. Having worked in corrections, I know that individuals will use any measures to bring in contraband. I've seen people bring in drugs in balloons in their stomach, drugs & weapons in the diapers of their children, drugs and weapons in their cavities, etc. And these are people who, for the most part, are not wanting to die. I've been trained in both pat searching and strip searching. As such, I've had it done to me. Yes, it's intrusive and embearessing. But when it comes to saving the lives of a plane loaded with people, I would suggest that it's worth the it.
 
I would suggest that there be optional flights for those who do not want security measures to prevent potential threats (assuming you can find flight personnel to operate such flights) and give up any liability should something occur. Personally, I think the only way we can lessen the chance of problems is by incorporating security measures. Having worked in corrections, I know that individuals will use any measures to bring in contraband. I've seen people bring in drugs in balloons in their stomach, drugs & weapons in the diapers of their children, drugs and weapons in their cavities, etc. And these are people who, for the most part, are not wanting to die. I've been trained in both pat searching and strip searching. As such, I've had it done to me. Yes, it's intrusive and embearessing. But when it comes to saving the lives of a plane loaded with people, I would suggest that it's worth the it.

but....someone might see/touch my tiny weiner :2bigcry:
 
I would suggest that there be optional flights for those who do not want security measures to prevent potential threats (assuming you can find flight personnel to operate such flights) and give up any liability should something occur. Personally, I think the only way we can lessen the chance of problems is by incorporating security measures. Having worked in corrections, I know that individuals will use any measures to bring in contraband. I've seen people bring in drugs in balloons in their stomach, drugs & weapons in the diapers of their children, drugs and weapons in their cavities, etc. And these are people who, for the most part, are not wanting to die. I've been trained in both pat searching and strip searching. As such, I've had it done to me. Yes, it's intrusive and embearessing. But when it comes to saving the lives of a plane loaded with people, I would suggest that it's worth the it.

If plane bombings were much more frequent....maybe (well I'd probably never agree with random cavity searches). But they're not. It's just not a high enough probability event to justify the sort of breech of the restrictions on government. Not by a long shot. We don't freak out like this over cars, and cars are WAY more deadly than terrorists. It's all about perspective, and it's about time some of y'all got it.
 
but....someone might see/touch my tiny weiner :2bigcry:

I find it hilarious that the people who are bitching about civil libertarians overreacting actually support the government treating citizens like criminals, just so that they can (theoretically) reduce the risk of you being a victim of a plane bombing from a virtually zero probability to a slightly smaller virtually zero probability...and just shift that infintesimal risk from the plane to the security line.

Yeah, WE'RE the ones overreacting. :roll:
 
I find it hilarious that the people who are bitching about civil libertarians overreacting actually support the government treating citizens like criminals, just so that they can (theoretically) reduce the risk of you being a victim of a plane bombing from a virtually zero probability to a slightly smaller virtually zero probability...and just shift that infintesimal risk from the plane to the security line.

Yeah, WE'RE the ones overreacting. :roll:


how is having to walk through a freakin scanner in anyway being "treated like a criminal"? just what "freedom" does this infringe upon?

why is it that one of the last guys to make such a big deal about it turned out to have a crack pipe in his pocket and that is what set off the metal detector which lead to them wanting to scan him.
 
how is having to walk through a freakin scanner in anyway being "treated like a criminal"? just what "freedom" does this infringe upon?

why is it that one of the last guys to make such a big deal about it turned out to have a crack pipe in his pocket and that is what set off the metal detector which lead to them wanting to scan him.

what about our right to privacy? this is a slippery slope.
 
If you want a right to privacy, don't leave your house. Outside those four walls, that right does not exist. Period.
 
how is having to walk through a freakin scanner in anyway being "treated like a criminal"? just what "freedom" does this infringe upon?

why is it that one of the last guys to make such a big deal about it turned out to have a crack pipe in his pocket and that is what set off the metal detector which lead to them wanting to scan him.

Because we have rights and the government is restricted on how it can infringe upon them. They cannot strip search for the sake of strip searching. Something that invasive requires proper suspicion and proof of that. Just because people want to regulate government to its proper restraints does not mean that we are in fact criminals.
 
If you want a right to privacy, don't leave your house. Outside those four walls, that right does not exist. Period.

Yes it does. If I'm outside, can some random person photograph me? Sure. But does that mean that the police can randomly strip search me just because I'm outside? No, of course not. I still have reasonable expectation to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Just because I'm outside does not mean that the government is unchained.
 
what about our right to privacy? this is a slippery slope.

ah the old "slippery slope" catch all. If you want privacy don't leave your house. OMG, that dude in the car next to me looked at me...he invaded my privacy. the greeter at Walmart asked to see my receipt...he invaded my privacy. That cop asked to see my license and registration....he invaded my privacy.
 
how is having to walk through a freakin scanner in anyway being "treated like a criminal"? just what "freedom" does this infringe upon?

The right to be secure in our persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, but upon probable cause.

OscarB63 said:
why is it that one of the last guys to make such a big deal about it turned out to have a crack pipe in his pocket and that is what set off the metal detector which lead to them wanting to scan him.

*GASP*
A CRACK PIPE??! Heaven forbid! Then surely this is worth the taxpayer money spent, the passenger time wasted, and the civil liberties violated. There is no more important priority than finding all the crack pipes people try to smuggle onto airplanes, whatever the cost.
 
Yes it does. If I'm outside, can some random person photograph me? Sure. But does that mean that the police can randomly strip search me just because I'm outside? No, of course not. I still have reasonable expectation to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Just because I'm outside does not mean that the government is unchained.

I still see how it is unreasonable to ask you to walk through a damn scanner. It's not like they are asking you to publically stip and do a little dance for them.
 
ah the old "slippery slope" catch all. If you want privacy don't leave your house. OMG, that dude in the car next to me looked at me...he invaded my privacy. the greeter at Walmart asked to see my receipt...he invaded my privacy. That cop asked to see my license and registration....he invaded my privacy.

why don't you try making some sense, oscar, instead of acting like an little boy. you can do it.
 
I still see how it is unreasonable to ask you to walk through a damn scanner. It's not like they are asking you to publically stip and do a little dance for them.

The government may not use such invasive techniques such as strip searching without proof of suspicion. I do not know how to make it any clearer than that. It doesn't matter what other people do or do not see. What matters are the actions of the government against the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
I still see how it is unreasonable to ask you to walk through a damn scanner. It's not like they are asking you to publically stip and do a little dance for them.

They don't need to ask you. They have machines that can virtually strip you.
 
Ikari said:
Yes it does. If I'm outside, can some random person photograph me? Sure. But does that mean that the police can randomly strip search me just because I'm outside? No, of course not. I still have reasonable expectation to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Just because I'm outside does not mean that the government is unchained.

Well, as you've alluded to, a right is not dependent upon situational factors. If you get naked out in public, I can snap pics of you. If you're naked at home, I'm not allowed.

Outside those four walls, I'm free to do many things that many people may consider an "invasion of privacy". However, they have no legal leg to stand on to prevent almost all of it.

liblady said:
since when?

Since ever.

People really need to research what it means to have a "right".
 
Well, as you've alluded to, a right is not dependent upon situational factors. If you get naked out in public, I can snap pics of you. If you're naked at home, I'm not allowed.

Outside those four walls, I'm free to do many things that many people may consider an "invasion of privacy". However, they have no legal leg to stand on to prevent almost all of it.



Since ever.

People really need to research what it means to have a "right".

so why does our gov't have a right to take pictures of us naked when we are fully clothed?
 
Back
Top Bottom