• 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
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.

Where in ANY of my posts gives you the slightest impression that I said such a thing? You are the one claiming that you have a right to fly on a plane. I want you to prove it. I gave you a way to prove it. Use it. You are the one that is claiming a right where none exists.

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?

Congress does have that ability. Sure I'd be pissed that they took away my license. But guess what.....people have lived on this world for thousands of years long before the car was invented. How do you think they got around? Ask any cop or judge or lawyer in this whole country and they will ALL tell you that driving is a privledge, not a right.
 
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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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.
 
So how exactly do you Constitutional scholars interpret the Ninth Amendment? I'd love to hear you weigh in on it.

While I'm not scholor it is pretty obvious what the Ninth Amendment means. Now, Can you draw up a list of rights that are not in the constitution and yet we are gaurunteed to have because of the 9th Amendment? Just what are those rights? Anything that you say? Or anything the people as a whole say? What are they? I would like the full list please and thank you.

Also answer me this. Since you seem to think that the 9th amendment is the end all be all for law making why is it that we have a congress which has the power to make laws? Surely since you seem to think that the 9th amendment applies to everything that was not talked about in the Constitution (including flying which by the way was never even thought of when the Constitution was first made and therefore could not be considered when making the constitution) you can answer me this.

As I have stated before, every amendment in the Constitution has it's exceptions.
 
PUBLIC transportation, if available, is a right.
PRIVATE transportation, such as your own car, is a right.

Sorry but this is incorrect. The constitution states in Article I Section 8 that the government must provide post offices and roads for the post office...exact wording is...

"To establish post offices and post roads;"

They just have to make roads for the post office and thats it.There is no where in there that states that the government must provide roads for the common people to travel on. But since the government does provide the roads for the common people they can have a say in who can drive on them and who cannot drive on them. There is also no where in the Constitution that states that the government must provide public transportation. They do so as a service. They are free to stop that service at any time. And free to reject someone from that service at any time also.

Now there is nothing saying that you can't own a car. And there is nothing saying that you cannot drive it on your own property. That is as far as it goes for your right to drive. Beyond the borders of your property you have no right to drive.

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.

The rest of your arguement however is spot on. :)
 
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.

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.
 
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.

I'm pretty sure those cases ended with the dudes on the plane...not having been caught by 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Sure it's limited, but the limitations are an issue between the government and the airline. If the airline agrees to a full cavity search for every passenger, then that's something every passenger, by buying a ticket and boarding the plane, is agreeing to. The purchase of the ticket creates a contract and the passenger is held to whatever security measures were predetermined by the airline and government. That's just the way it works. There is no fourth amendment issue here, because the fourth amendment only comes up when it is the government performing the search on an nonconsenting party.
 
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.

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.

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.

Yes it is. It's still a complete waste of money, as terrorists can very easily blow up something else.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Public perception of the value of intensive pre-screening? - Priceless.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. You make an excellent case right there, actually. It is disconcerting to me that the body scanner contracts worth $173 million were awarded to "politically connected" firm Rapiscan. One of Rapiscan's lobbyists includes Susan Carr, former senior legislative aid to Rep. David Price, Chairman of the Homeland Security subcommittee. It's also said that George Soros owns over 10,00shares of OSI, Rapiscan's parent company. It can't help but give one pause... George Soros also profiting off controversial new TSA scanners | Washington Examiner

Still, unless and until the safety protocols used at TSA checkpoints are either found unConstitutional -- or Congress feels the heat of the 15% of people who apparently strenuously object to these procedures - or until passenger numbers are effected negatively by these procedures, we're stuck with 'em. And people who make grandstanding objections against them while in the checkpoint line are a pain in the ass to the rest of us who just want to get on with it.

Personally, I think the emphasis of the public should be on, "Why don't we profile?" Subjecting every single person who is wearing sloppy clothing (like burqas, as an example) to either a body scan or a pat down makes good sense to me. Unravelling a baby's bunting makes good sense to me. Asking a Muslim woman (if she even is Muslim) to remove her facial covering makes good sense to me. Do we do that? I don't know, but I don't think so.

It is impossible to prove that TSA checks have prevented even one incident...just as it is impossible to prove how many casualties were saved by dropping two a-bombs during WWII.

Security checks make the majority of air travelers feel safer. Right now these security protocols are mandatory. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.
 
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.

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?

Yes it is. It's still a complete waste of money, as terrorists can very easily blow up something else.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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...

Body scanner + airport = no more terrorists trying to blow up planes or hijacking them = safer air travel

I don't know what kind of math you are doing but that sure doesn't seem worthless to me.

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.

Great! Now. How many were there before the increased security that happened after 9/11.



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.

: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.
 
I'm pretty sure those cases ended with the dudes on the plane...not having been caught by TSA.

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.
 
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.

Or we can keep the current security measures or expand the security measures to include body scanners and still tell those that try to claim that flying is a right that it is not? Oh wait...that's already happening.
 
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?

Planning a terrorist attack is a crime. If you think that's unconstitutional, then you have a rather weak grasp on the Constitution.

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?

It's already been explained to you why a repeat of 9/11 is not likely. Passengers are not going to allow planes to be hijacked for a very long time.

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?

See above.

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...

Yes. Just like it would be a worthless security measure to try to prevent murders by guarding the house where the last murder occurred. OK, whatever, a determined murderer will just kill his victim somewhere else.

Kal'Stang said:
Body scanner + airport = no more terrorists trying to blow up planes or hijacking them = safer air travel

Both your premise and your conclusion are incorrect. It doesn't make it impossible for terrorists to blow up planes. Nor would it make air travel safer even if it did, it would just shift the risk from the plane to the security line.

Kal'Stang said:
Great! Now. How many were there before the increased security that happened after 9/11.

Number of hijackings prior to 9/11 - I dunno, a few to Cuba. In any case, not enough to warrant nudie booths.
Number of successful terrorist attacks on aircraft originating in the United States prior to 9/11 - Zero.
Number of failed terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 thwarted by airport security - Zero.
Number of failed terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 thwarted by passengers - None that I am aware of.
Number of flights originating in United States prior to 9/11 - Billions.

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.

The nudie booths are every bit as ridiculous as, say, Minority Report sensors in the sidewalks. The only difference is the government is currently trying to implement the one and not the other. I have no doubt that if any of the other things on my list were on the government agenda, you'd be defending them even while continuing to mock the ridiculousness of all the others. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Kind of negates the 4th amendment argument.

http://volokh.com/2010/11/15/do-new-high-tech-scans-at-the-airport-violate-the-fourth-amendment/
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.
 
Last edited:
don't carry **** in your pockets that will set off the metal detector. don't pack **** in your carry-on that looks like a bomb or a gun on x-ray. don't stroke out about someone seeing the blue outline of your tiny weiner on a body scanner screen.
 
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.

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
[/quote]
 
No she likes to use the correct language that does not confer emotionalism.

She likes language that hides what something it. The fact is those full body scanners are virtual strip searches.

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.

Then why do x-ray technicians were protective clothing?

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.

If you choose to opt out of the virtual strip search you will be submitted to an invasive pat down.

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.

You should not be stripped searched every time you wish to travel by plane. And by allowing the government to do this for airline travelers you are giving the government a black check to strip search you for other modes of travel. After all terrorist happen on trains, buses and anywhere else. And you are opening the door for something even worse that just virtual strip searches.


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.

I am sure criminals will figure out that they can shove stuff up their ass to make explosives. It do not want the government subjecting people to cavity searches.



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.

Being forcefully coerced is not giving them permission.
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.

Terrorist can get more clever. As you said you do not have a right travel so the government can force you to submit to a cavity search because it makes everyone safer.



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.

If you were stripped search then you would be the one taking off your clothers, not the TSA agents unless you refused. You allow the government to be this intrusive you open the door for move invasive ****. Because just like you willfully submitting to virtual strip searches and invasive pat downs there will be idiots who think oh yeah I do not care what the government does as long as it keeps me safe.



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?

A airport is a not a prison. There is no comparison between a prison where you have done something to forfeit your rights and a airport where you have done nothing to forfeit your rights against unreasonable searches.


Who says he hasn't already? Also how do you think they get the pictures that they have for their websites? Magic?

Cameras are small. If someone is busy doing something then they are not going to notice someone snapping photos, unless it is dark and the camera is using a flash.
 
Back
Top Bottom