soccerboy22
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 10,721
- Reaction score
- 4,120
- Location
- A warm place
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
rof Gravity.
Smartass...
rof Gravity.
Non-responsive answer, but basically what you are saying is you really only have the rights the state decides you have, the Constitution be damned.
Interesting. Sad, but interesting. So what would you do if Congress passed a law saying you could no longer drive a car or use any sort of public transportation? Since you seem to think you have no such right, you'd just shrug and accept it, making smartass remarks to the non-subservient who dare to complain along the way?
What's your point? Do you think you're going to prevent all terrorist attacks everywhere in the country through ridiculous airport security? What's to stop them from blowing up a metro instead where there's no security, or just blowing themselves up while they're waiting to be checked in the security line at an airport?
See, here's the problem with this. If we want to deter murder in general, we have a lot of cops on duty to deter murder, rather than staking out a specific place where the LAST murder occurred. But if we want to deter terrorism in general, we have ridiculous devices that deter a SPECIFIC KIND of terrorism (e.g. smuggling explosives in your underwear) in a SPECIFIC PLACE (e.g. behind the secured line at an airport). Do you really not see the silliness of that? What do you think a terrorist is more concerned with - killing as many people and causing as much carnage as possible, or the specific method and place through which he does it?
This does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deter terrorism in general. It just deters terrorists from loading their underwear with explosives and trying to go through security at an airport. And even THAT isn't a problem that needs deterring, as it's happened a grand total of ONE TIME in the history of air transportation.
Nope. You're using public airwaves, so why shouldn't the government be allowed to listen in to every phone call you make? :roll:
If it's owned by the state and you don't have a right explicitly enumerated in the Constitution to be in a library, why shouldn't the government be allowed to monitor every book you read?
So then you're OK with Minority Report-style sensors being installed in every nook and cranny of sidewalks and streetlights so that the government can keep tabs on you at all times while you're outside?
Since you don't have a right to drive, just like you don't have a right to fly, would you be OK with the government installing a GPS on your automobile without a warrant?
But you don't have a right to surgery, so you're OK if the government mandates that a GPS chip be implanted in your skin whenever you get surgery? You'll be free to remove it at any time, as soon as you get home if you like. Best of luck! :2wave:
So how exactly do you Constitutional scholars interpret the Ninth Amendment? I'd love to hear you weigh in on it.
PUBLIC transportation, if available, is a right.
PRIVATE transportation, such as your own car, is a right.
PRIVATE transportation, such as an airplane you do not own, is NOT a right.
The 9th amendment does not guarantee me the right to fly on any plane I want, if the owner of that plane doesn't want me there. It is not illegal nor un constitutional for me, as an airline, to refuse to allow you to board my plane, unless you're a member of a 'protected' class.
Your 9th amendment argument sucks.
Because the full body scanners give you a very unhealthy dose of radiation that is why pilots are now refusing to go through them, and I wouldnt call feeling up someones "groan" or breasts a professional search. The reason they do the pat downs is to scare the public into using the body scanners.
Tell you what Cor... next time the TSA fails to stop a shoe or underwear bomber on your flight & they go BOOM... come back and tell us how it was their right to fly unimpeded by the TSA.
How does it harm you in any way to have to go through a scanner? How is it a violation of rights to have a professional search you for dangerous materials in a day and age where our safety is threatened? There is nothing wrong with full body scanners and searches.
4th amendment.
4th Amendment does not apply as you gave your permission the moment you tried to go through the security check point to get onto the plane.
No I didn't. That's like saying I can be ass ****ed by TSA because I "gave my permission the moment I tried to go through the security check point". There are still limits on what the government may or may not do.
Yeah, but any issue is between the government and the airline, not between the government and the passenger.
The government can order a full cavity search and it is not a violation of the 4th because you consent to the search when you buy your ticket and get on the plane knowing full well what awaits you. Any 4th amendment right is waived by consent.
No, there are always limitations. It can clearly say on the ticket that people will be randomly subjected to ass rape; but it doesn't mean that they will be able to do it. Government is always limited. There are reasonable proceedures which can occur. Weapon check, XRay luggage, metal detector. If those happen to turn something up, further investigation can occur. But there are still limitations, the government is always limited.
Have you not been reading my posts? I have already stated that we cannot prevent all terrorist attacks. What one man builds another can tear down. One of my favorite sayings. In any case as I have already stated...Just because they can always find a way around security measures does not mean that we give up and stop trying to stop find better ways to stop them.
Kal'Stang said:Actually as I am sure that you know airport security and the measures taken there are just ONE of the ways that is used to stop terrorism. They also have detectives that go out in search of them, just like regular cops go out to find murderers. With that being the case then of course it isn't silly.
Kal'Stang said:As for what a terrorist is more concerned with, the place of their activity or the carnage they cause, the answer is both are equally important to them. Do you really think that the 9/11 hijackers picked the twin towers and the Pentagon out of thin air?
Kal'Stang said:One time? Or are you just saying one time for a group that did us damage? Because there is a BIG difference between that and the amount of hijackings that are committed.
Kal'Stang said:The rest of your post is nothing more than fear mongering. Not worth responding to as both you and I know that none if it will ever come to pass. If it did pass in congress you would be 100% certain that those particular politicians would be voted out ASAP. And politicians are too greedy to want that to happen.
Number of hijackings committed since 9/11 - Zero.
Number of successful terrorist attacks since 9/11 - Zero.
Number of failed terrorist attacks since 9/11 thwarted by the TSA - Zero.
Number of failed terrorist attacks since 9/11 thwarted by passengers - Two.
Number of flights originating in United States since 9/11 - About 250 million.
Actually it does. Or more specifically, it means that we should try to identify terrorists, rather than trying to identify terrorists who happen to have explosives in their underwear at the airport.
Yes it is. It's still a complete waste of money, as terrorists can very easily blow up something else.
OK, so what do you think terrorists would achieve by specifically bombing an airplane, as opposed to anything else? They could kill just as many people on a metro. They could shut down air travel just as easily by blowing themselves up in the security line at the airport. Etc, etc.
No terrorist is going to be dissuaded from committing an act of terrorism just because we installed nudie booths at the airport. He'll just change his method/target, making it a completely worthless security measure.
Number of hijackings committed since 9/11 - Zero.
Number of successful terrorist attacks on aircraft since 9/11 - Zero.
Number of failed terrorist attacks since 9/11 thwarted by the TSA - Zero.
Number of failed terrorist attacks since 9/11 thwarted by passengers - Two.
Number of flights originating in United States since 9/11 - About 250 million.
What makes you think they would be voted out? There are people here justifying nudie booths to keep us safe from terrorists. I'm quite sure that there would be a large contingent of people defending these other gross affronts to our civil liberties too, if our government ever wanted to implement them. And you'd probably be among them.
I'm pretty sure those cases ended with the dudes on the plane...not having been caught by TSA.
We need to drop back to the pre 9/11 levels of airline passenger security. If flying isn't a right, why can't we look at it like this: Instead of saying "you must submit to whatever the TSA wishes to use upon you to board a passenger aircraft." Why not say: "We're dropping back the security measures. If you're too afraid to fly, just remember that flying is not a right. You have the right to use other methods of transportation".
The rest of us will proclaim loudly, that the terrorists have in fact not won, and board the damn airplane.
4th amendment.
Oh so instead of catching them in the act you want to catch them before they commit the crime. Gotcha. You seem to be big on the Constitution. Which part of the Constitution did you just violate?
Kal'Stang said:Why yes they can. So tell me. Why did the 9/11 hijackers hijack those planes instead of going for one of those easier ways?
Kal'Stang said:Terrorism isn't about mass carnage. It is about making people afraid. Which do you think would cause more fear? Blowing up the metro or ramming a couple of planes into the twin towers?
Kal'Stang said:You have a funny defination of worthless don't you? So if a "nudie booth" as you call them deter's them enough for them to decide to change their targets and methods then that was a worthless security measure? Hmm.... Let me do the math here...
Kal'Stang said:Body scanner + airport = no more terrorists trying to blow up planes or hijacking them = safer air travel
Kal'Stang said:Great! Now. How many were there before the increased security that happened after 9/11.
Kal'Stang said::roll: If you seriously think that those of us that don't agree with you would agree to most of the silly examples that you attempted to use as a fear tactic you truely haven't been comprehending what we have been saying.
On one hand, the lower courts have recognized that using technology to screen for weapons or explosive devices is a Fourth Amendment “search.” On the other hand, the courts have traditionally permitted the use of such screens for airport security as reasonable (and therefore constitutional) searches in ways that give a lot of deference to the national security interest in avoiding airplane hijackings and terrorist attacks. See, e.g., United States v. Hartwell ‚436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006) (Alito, J.). The basic idea is that screening to stop a terrorist attack is an “administrative search” that is constitutional so long as it is reasonable — and that it is reasonable so long as it it is not overly invasive given the threat that it is designed to deter and stop.
No she likes to use the correct language that does not confer emotionalism.
And yes those full body scanners do expose you to radiation. The same amount that a normal X-ray machine gives you. Which is negligible and in no way effects you. You get more radiation from standing outside in the sun than you do from an X-ray.
Pat downs are only used for certain reasons. They do not give every single person that goes through the check point a pat down. To claim otherwise really is fear mongering.
As for the virtual strip search bit. Sure it is. But you do not have to go through it.
You can always take a train or bus or your own car to go to your destination. It is your choice. You are not subjected to it without your permission. And since if you do go through it because you want to use the plane instead of any other option available to you then you're giving your permission to be scanned with it. Which means you waved any right that you may have had away.
Yeah and those same number of years ago did not have the same, more advanced technology available today. Much of it is just as available to criminals as it is to officers.
As has already been said before, people will continue to think up of ways to get around security measures. Only way to counter that is to think up of new security measures. And since you do not have a right to fly and you have other options of travel then by going to an airport to use their planes you are giving them permission to subject you to their security measures. Especially since you know that they are there.
More fear mongering. They do not randomly take people aside and do a cavity search of them. They must have a reason to do so first. And even then they must first do a cursory search in which if they find nothing suspicious they can go no further. You seem to be under the impression that they will do this to anyone and everyone based upon a whim. There are rules and regulations that they must follow also.
And I have already stated that I wouldn't care if they scanned me or my kids with a full body scanner. I do not see it as invasive. But then there is a big difference between physical strip searches and virtual ones. One is physical. The other is virtual with no laying of hands on the body.
It's not. Never claimed otherwise. But if you want to appeal to emotionalism then I would suggest using something that is not used everyday already in another setting and is already acceptable to the general populace. Or do you think that those 13 year old girls dads would not be just as offended just because thier daughters are in juvenile detention?
Who says he hasn't already? Also how do you think they get the pictures that they have for their websites? Magic?