• 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!

TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

Air travel is as vital to the modern economy as telephones, parcel delivery, and just about anything else you can think of. Why they'd be so ambivalent -- and SNIDE -- about killing, or at least seriously harming, the industry just baffles me.
 
Harshaw said:
Air travel is as vital to the modern economy as telephones, parcel delivery, and just about anything else you can think of. Why they'd be so ambivalent -- and SNIDE -- about killing, or at least seriously harming, the industry just baffles me.
Click to expand...
It's all about enforcing their authority. Same story with drug laws. You will respect the state, peon.
 
Harshaw said:
I guess if you don't like wiretaps, you don't have to use the phone, 'coz no one has the right to use a telephone.
Click to expand...
Excellent analogy!!

We clearly have a number of people here who are willing to surrender their 4th Amendment rights in return for the perception of a little security. One can only wish them well.
 
Diogenes said:
Excellent analogy!!

We clearly have a number of people here who are willing to surrender their 4th Amendment rights in return for the perception of a little security. One can only wish them well.
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less if others would surrender their rights. The part that pisses me off is those people surrendering my rights, then having the audacity to turn around and berate me for objecting to it. **** that.
 
Coronado said:
It's all about enforcing their authority. Same story with drug laws. You will respect the state, peon.
Click to expand...

They're clueless bunglers who think they're smarter than everyone else -- and yes, they do have a Napoleon complex. This is going to have wide-reaching consequences in ways their narrow minds can't conceive.
 
Coronado said:
You avoided my question. I'm not surprised. :roll:
Click to expand...

You asked several silly questions. I answered one. Which other one must I address?

Dr_Patrick said:
Perhaps your definition of fondling is different from mine. However, I consider it inappropriate for a glorified security guard to touch or even go near my crotch. You are aware that this is what they do now, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of that. IF I've chosen to go through the body scanner. And IF I've refused.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. I would say, however, that the success of the airlines relies on how many passengers they get. If enough people are turned off by these new security protocols and don't fly, they will only suffer in the long run. I think eventually they will go back to reasonable security protocols when they see the backlash that this causes.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I say, "Vote with your feet."

Harshaw said:
It will be interesting to see who opposes this.
Click to expand...

:2wave:

Kandahar said:
Wrong. The odds are 100% that she will be manually searched if she doesn't want to go through the Federal Nudie Booth. And it's a lot more than just a "patdown" now.
Click to expand...

That's true. Does calling it the Federal Nudie Booth turn you on?

Who cares? You're OK with someone feeling up kids as long as they aren't turned on by it?
Click to expand...

They are NOT "feeling up."

Hopefully parents tell their kids to scream as loudly as they can and/or make a big scene if the TSA people do anything more than a standard pat-down. And I hope they get it on video and send it to their local TV station.
Click to expand...

Now that's the way to get change!! I'm all for it. But unless and until the system changes, quitcher gripin' and, for God's sake, move along.

So you're OK with the government spying on people at libraries since they don't have a right to be in a library? You're OK with implementing Federal Nudie Booths at the entrance to all shopping malls, since you don't have a right to be there? You're OK with federal agents installing a GPS tracker on your automobile, since you don't have a right to drive?
Click to expand...

Not worth a reply. I do think, though, that the idea of Federal Nudie Booths must turn you on...
 
Harshaw said:
Air travel is as vital to the modern economy as telephones, parcel delivery, and just about anything else you can think of. Why they'd be so ambivalent -- and SNIDE -- about killing, or at least seriously harming, the industry just baffles me.
Click to expand...

No industry has been killed. Again, it is about hyperbolic overexaggeration.
 
MaggieD said:
I agree with you. I say, "Vote with your feet."



:2wave:
Click to expand...

I take it by this wave you oppose the bill which removes exemptions from this search for federal employees?

Tell me -- on what grounds do you oppose it?
 
MaggieD said:
You asked several silly questions. I answered one. Which other one must I address?
Click to expand...
This one:
Coronado said:
Please explain to me exactly how a person travels across the Pacific in a timely manner without being forced to "freakin' fly". Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
"Not going" is not an answer; it is avoidance.

Try again.
 
Boo Radley said:
No industry has been killed. Again, it is about hyperbolic overexaggeration.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it had been. Saying it will be, or at least seriously harmed as long as this continues. When people take the advice of "don't like it? Don't fly!" it will happen. Denying this is just . . . stupid. :shrug:

And if it's "hyperbolic exaggeration" to speculate along these lines, tell me -- what harm have the wiretaps wrought? What libraries have been raided? You oppose those, so surely you can point to some real harm done by them and not just fear.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
I take it by this wave you oppose the bill which removes exemptions from this search for federal employees?
Click to expand...
There's an exemption for federal employees? Does that include military personnel like Hassan at Ft. Hood? And the pilots are not exempted?

Whose idea was this, anyway?
 
Coronado said:
This one:"Not going" is not an answer; it is avoidance.

Try again.
Click to expand...

You don't have a right to fly across the Pacific Ocean, Coronado. The only answer there is is not to fly....as long as those security protocols are in place...and as long as you will not be subject to them. Although, actually, you could just keep going to the checkpoint, refusing, leaving, coming back again, and possibly getting through. Especially if you go early enough and wait for a shift change. ;-)
 
Diogenes said:
There's an exemption for federal employees? Does that include military personnel like Hassan at Ft. Hood? And the pilots are not exempted?

Whose idea was this, anyway?
Click to expand...

Coronado linked this earlier, a measure just introduced in the House:

H.R.6416 -- American Traveller Dignity Act of 2010 (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 6416 IH

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 6416

To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2010

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `American Traveller Dignity Act of 2010'.

SEC. 2. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
Click to expand...

MaggieD opposes this, or at least she seemed to indicate that she did. Waiting to find out on what grounds.
 
Harshaw said:
I take it by this wave you oppose the bill which removes exemptions from this search for federal employees?

Tell me -- on what grounds do you oppose it?
Click to expand...

First of all, I don't undertand it. I tend to oppose things that make no sense to me:

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
Click to expand...

Immunity from WHAT? It's a stupid piece of legislation to add to a myriad of other stupid pieces of legislation. Just make it illegal.
 
MaggieD said:
You don't have a right to fly across the Pacific Ocean, Coronado. The only answer there is is not to fly....as long as those security protocols are in place...and as long as you will not be subject to them.
Click to expand...
So waive my Fourth Amendment rights or deny my daughter the chance to visit her family. Gotcha.

Land of the free my ass ...
MaggieD said:
Although, actually, you could just keep going to the checkpoint, refusing, leaving, coming back again, and possibly getting through. Especially if you go early enough and wait for a shift change. ;-)
Click to expand...
As we have seen, attempting to leave a checkpoint costs about $10,000 per occurence. I pay enough in taxes already, thankyouverymuch.
 
MaggieD said:
First of all, I don't undertand it. I tend to oppose things that make no sense to me:



Immunity from WHAT? It's a stupid piece of legislation to add to a myriad of other stupid pieces of legislation. Just make it illegal.
Click to expand...
Immunity from anything, like civil and criminal assault and battery.
 
MaggieD said:
First of all, I don't undertand it. I tend to oppose things that make no sense to me:
Click to expand...

Well, I don't really believe that, but if so, then that's a little frightening.


Immunity from WHAT? It's a stupid piece of legislation to add to a myriad of other stupid pieces of legislation. Just make it illegal.
Click to expand...

Ah. The authority of the state must continue . . . unmolested. Got it.
 
Harshaw said:
Ah. The authority of the state must continue . . . unmolested. Got it.
Click to expand...
If any molesting is going on, better make sure the state is the one doing it.
 
Harshaw said:
Didn't say it had been. Saying it will be, or at least seriously harmed as long as this continues. When people take the advice of "don't like it? Don't fly!" it will happen. Denying this is just . . . stupid. :shrug:

And if it's "hyperbolic exaggeration" to speculate along these lines, tell me -- what harm have the wiretaps wrought? What libraries have been raided? You oppose those, so surely you can point to some real harm done by them and not just fear.
Click to expand...

I don't beleive it will be, and believe that prediction is just a little hyperbolic to say the least.

Wiretaps, espeically the minning ones, sent the FBI off on snipe hunts, wasting manpower. there was an article on that in the NYT some years ago. Jon Stewart did an example were you put three dots together easy to see. Now cover the area with dots, can you now see the three dots and connect them? It's a visual of the problem, and backed by the FBI's complaint of doing more investigating terachers than terrorist.

Also, phones and such are differnt than planes. Planes area public transportion. Phones are more private. There's reason to inspect peoople before boarding a plane, and not good cause to randomly invade a person at home or on the phone. Again, two different things. it is wrong to treat different things as if they were the same.
 
MaggieD said:
You don't have a right to fly across the Pacific Ocean, Coronado.
Click to expand...

That's funny; if you contract with a carrier to take you across the Pacific Ocean, then indeed, you DO have that right. What business is it of yours, and under whose authority do you nullify that contract?
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't beleive it will be, and believe that prediction is just a little hyperbolic to say the least.

Wiretaps, espeically the minning ones, sent the FBI off on snipe hunts, wasting manpower. there was an article on that in the NYT some years ago. Jon Stewart did an example were you put three dots together easy to see. Now cover the area with dots, can you now see the three dots and connect them? It's a visual of the problem, and backed by the FBI's complaint of doing more investigating terachers than terrorist.

Also, phones and such are differnt than planes. Planes area public transportion. Phones are more private. There's reason to inspect peoople before boarding a plane, and not good cause to randomly invade a person at home or on the phone. Again, two different things. it is wrong to treat different things as if they were the same.
Click to expand...

I do believe he's backpedaling so hard he may break something.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not it the same way they don't. Different things treated differently is not a double standard. People are seeking to get on a public transportation that HAS been use in a terrorist activity, where weapons and exposives HAVE either made it on board or been attempted. This is different than minning phone calls which does more to mask patterns than expose actual terrorist. It is actively going into a private ara and not meeting someone in a public areana engaged in a public activity.
Click to expand...

This is the most asinine argument I've yet seen on this subject. So because it's not the exact same privacy that's being infringed upon, one is OK, the other is not? :doh

I'll quote myself again, since you glossed over my point without really addressing it:
Both the Patriot Act and the security procedures of the TSA give the government the ability to infringe upon areas of citizen's rights that they should have no business being involved in. Both are justified using the argument of "National Security."
Click to expand...
 
Coronado said:
So waive my Fourth Amendment rights or deny my daughter the chance to visit her family. Gotcha.

Land of the free my ass ...As we have seen, attempting to leave a checkpoint costs about $10,000 per occurence. I pay enough in taxes already, thankyouverymuch.
Click to expand...

Just let me make this clear. I think you have every right in the whole wide world to object vociferously to current security screening procedures. We live in extraordinary times. We are being beaten to death by our own Constitution....that profiling is illegal. That, to me, is the ridiculous part of the whole debate.
 
Harshaw said:
Coronado linked this earlier, a measure just introduced in the House:

MaggieD opposes this, or at least she seemed to indicate that she did. Waiting to find out on what grounds.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. I misunderstood. I thought it meant that federal employees were exempt from scrutiny. As I read it now, it merely means TSA thugs can't hide their sexual assault behind the "just following orders" excuse. Which is a great idea, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom