Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
http://www[/QUOTE]
:coffeepap
http://www[/QUOTE]
:coffeepap
Sorry, can't view videos on this computer.
Ahh, J-Mac thinks something stupid about me. Let me go worry myself over it now. Sad face
And I'm sure the AMAZING minds at "The Blaze" took the time to stop and think that elderly people are the most likely grouping of individuals to have various types of medical devices that make going through metal detectors worthless and thus have to be searched by hand due to this fact, right?
The only "random searches" I am aware of that would be authorized is I believe at a time they were having every "nth" person selected for additional screening. This is significantly different than randomly and arbitrarily choosing someone on the highway to pull over as the ONLY person to give ANY kind of search to. This is a set number, with the individual not being chosen by the person searching but by an algorithim that predetermines people based on numbers. A far cry different than a cop just pulling someone over at some point and deciding to give them a search for the hell of it. And, here I'm going to shock you, its a practice I actually think is wrong and one that does fall outside the scope of what should be allowable.
Shocker, I know, that some poeple are actually able to look at things objectively and not just in a black and white "good or bad" as a whole type of way.
Wonderful, I disagree with her. They should get the same kind of pat down as everyone else. And by the way, EVERYONE has the right to refuse the full body scan and get a pat down in private. Your point?
Again, you seem to think that everything is black and white and if you dare actually agree with something you must agree with ALL of it.
Which is rather funny since the ACLU was saying the exact same thing about almost identical searches since 2004 and I never heard this much outrage from republicans. On the contrary I often heard defenses of it. Funny that.
That by "Zyph's logic you'd be subject to search without warrant on them", which is a strawman built up from the non-existant attribute you placed on my posts that somehow I was suggesting that the ONLY issue was federal ownership of land and that somehow I was suggesting there's a direct analog between the air transit system and the highway system.
Awww....Too bad, it was a report of a TSA guy being arrested for walking through the airport saying he was God, and he was in charge.
Well, ain't that special? Grandmom trying to board a plane to see the kiddies for Christmas and she gets groped at every boarding....Merry Christmas Grandma, welcome to hell.
Ok, but I guess what gets me, is that one being allowed, leads at some point to the other becoming common practice. Remember Rham's advice to Barry, "Never let a crisis go to waste."
My point is that we are wasting valuable resource treating everyone in America like criminals.
Hmmmm, might you have a quote from me on that from 2004?
Zyphlin said:2004 - ACLU: Airport frisks are invitation to sexual harassment
Funny line in that one:
Even those who pass successfully though metal detectors and appear unsuspicious may be subject to an intrusive pat-down in sensitive body areas, including breasts, genitals, and buttocks.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began allowing full-body frisks when it revamped its screening tests on Sept. 22 to ensure passenger safety. Since then, about a dozen complaints are filed each week regarding screening misconduct, many from women who feel they were groped.
Zyphlin said:Oh, what about 2007, when that Bush guy was still in office. There were these things beginning to roll out and test new airline passenger screening machines called "millimeter-wave passenger imaging technology"....or as people keep calling it now "naked scanners".
Do precedents have unintended consequences ever?
We may be getting close to agreement here. At least I'm glad to see you take the position that the screenings from the courthouse in Florida - you know, the ones where a hundred of the nudie booth images were released along with the security camera clips so you could see who was being screened in spite of the fact that the nudie booths aren't supposed to be able to save the images - were a complete violation of the constitutional rights of the folks being screened.For example, I don't think its "unreasonable" to search people going into a federal court house. I think anything more than a metal detector and maybe a quick x-ray machine of what you're bringing in would likely be "unreasonable" as there's little true nationally severe damage one can do in a local federal court room. If it was a major case of a high ranking terrorist with there being chatter that there may be action taken there, I'd find it "reasonable" to conduct a more intensive search, for instance say having a bomb sniffing dog present at the metal detector. This is because with the media attention and the high profile of such a case mixed with the known potential threat, the potential for damage is far higher and thus the level of search that is reasonable could be escalated.