What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

Actually yes, you do have a right to fly in an airplane:

Ninth Amendment said:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Click to expand...

Now please try another argument. Thanks.

Kal'Stang said:

I'm sure that people thought that the US wouldn't be attacked again after pearl harbor also. And then 9/11 comes along. So I wouldn't say that it will never happen again. There will always be nutjobs willing to give it a try. And odds are they will eventually succeed.

Click to expand...

So people thought that we wouldn't be attacked after Pearl Harbor...and 60 years later, a completely different group of people use a completely different method to attack a completely different target. Oook.

Yes, you're right. Odds are someone will eventually succeed at attacking us again...most likely through some creative new method. That has what to do with airport security?

Kal'Stang said:

Also just because a determined person will find a way around the security measures or the fact that we can't catch everyone does not mean that we should just give up trying to counter them. To do so would be the equivalent of just stop trying to enforce murder charges.

Click to expand...

No, it's the equivalent of sending the entire police force to stand on guard 24/7 around the house of a recent murder victim, to make sure that no one ELSE is murdered in that same house.

Kal'Stang said:

And you are not forced to give up ANY rights. No one is forcing you to go through all the security measures and get on that plane. There are other options available to you. Options that don't require the use of those security measures. Use em. Flying is not a right. It is a service provided by companies. And strictly regulated by the government because of the dangerous possibilities that are inheirant in planes that are bigger than a house and weighs just as much or more than said house.

Click to expand...

This argument is such bull****. You could make the same argument to justify government snooping in virtually ANY activity that people engage in. You don't explicitly have the right to make phone calls, use the library, walk down a street without being watched, drive an automobile, or to have surgery without having a GPS chip implanted under your skin. :roll:

This is exactly why we have a 9th Amendment. So that people DON'T interpret rights in such a rigid way. Not to mention it's a complete violation of the 4th Amendment.

jamesrage said:

Today its just virtual strip searches tomorrow it could be the real thing, random cavity searches and this being implemented in Bus stations,highways and other places. You may love the idea of getting people used to their rights being forked over and living in a police state, I do not.

Click to expand...

Wow...talk about fear mongering. :roll:

jamesrage said:

So you wouldn't mind if it was your 13 year old daughter(I believe 12 and under are not subjected to the virtual strip searches), niece or little sister's silver anonymous silver junk being seen on a TV screen for 15-20 seconds by a professional TSA officer.

Click to expand...

Nope. For the simple reason that a body is just a body and an officer doing their job is an officer doing their job. 13 year old females are stripped searched when going into juvenile detention centers. Where's your outrage about that if seeing the body of a 13 year old female while working as a security guard is that bad?

Also perhaps you should look into nudist colonies. They might expand your ideas of propriety a bit. I have a friend that goes to em and from what he says they could care less about what another persons body looks like. Young or old, hot or homely.

Also perhaps you should look into nudist colonies. They might expand your ideas of propriety a bit. I have a friend that goes to em and from what he says they could care less about what another persons body looks like. Young or old, hot or homely.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but can you take pictures?

Coronado said:

Actually yes, you do have a right to fly in an airplane:Now please try another argument. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Show me where you have the right to order an airline to take you anywhere. Show me anywhere that we the people have retained that flying is a right. Try again, thanks.

Kal'Stang said:

Show me where you have the right to order an airline to take you anywhere. Show me anywhere that we the people have retained that flying is a right. Try again, thanks.

Click to expand...

Same place it says you have the right to drink Pepsi, watch television, or masturbate to midget porn.

I know you labor under the misapprehension that this is a positive law system, but it isn't. The Ninth Amendment pretty clearly demolishes that argument.

Kandahar said:

So people thought that we wouldn't be attacked after Pearl Harbor...and 60 years later, a completely different group of people use a completely different method to attack a completely different target. Oook.

Yes, you're right. Odds are someone will eventually succeed at attacking us again...most likely through some creative new method. That has what to do with airport security?

Click to expand...

Obviously it does since 9/11 happened. And it doesn't have to be through a creative new method. Sometimes old tricks are better than new tricks. Also I used pearl harbor as an example. Nothing more. There have been attacks since then.

Kandahar said:

No, it's the equivalent of sending the entire police force to stand on guard 24/7 around the house of a recent murder victim, to make sure that no one ELSE is murdered in that same house.

Click to expand...

Your analogy would work better if you expanded on it to include the whole country since there are thousands of planes with thousands of flights going to a thousand different destinations...oh wait don't we have cops that patrol, stand guard and arrest criminals 24/7/365?

Kandahar said:

This argument is such bull****. You could make the same argument to justify government snooping in virtually ANY activity that people engage in. You don't explicitly have the right to make phone calls, use the library, walk down a street without being watched, drive an automobile, or to have surgery without having a GPS chip implanted under your skin. :roll:

This is exactly why we have a 9th Amendment. So that people DON'T interpret rights in such a rigid way. Not to mention it's a complete violation of the 4th Amendment.

Click to expand...

Actually no it's not bull. While you don't have a right to use a phone you do have a right to a private conversation from your home to another persons home. That is where the privacy clause in the Constitution steps in. A phone company can refuse you service at any time that they wish.

A library is a service provided by either normal citizens or the state...in both cases they can refuse to give you any service..or they can just close up shop if they wanted.

And you don't have a right to not be watched while walking down the street. Cops do it all the time without having to get a warrant. Paparazzi do it all the time to any celebrity that they can get a picture of.

You don't have a right to drive an automobile. That is why you are required to get a drivers license. If you don't have one then you can be arrested and charged with driving without one.

Having a GPS put into you would also violate your privacy when you are in your own home, at a private business confrence, or going to any destination as you can keep that private as well. Even if a cop asks you were you are going you do not have to legally tell them.

Sorry but I just countered every single one of your examples. Try again?

Coronado said:

Same place it says you have the right to drink Pepsi, watch television, or masturbate to midget porn.

I know you labor under the misapprehension that this is a positive law system, but it isn't. The Ninth Amendment pretty clearly demolishes that argument.

Click to expand...

Then go to an airport and order them to let you on a plane. Make sure to video tape it and post it on youtube so that I can laugh at how quickly they laughed you out of the building.

Gipper said:

Yeah, but can you take pictures?

Click to expand...

Get on Bing or google and look em up. There are lots of websites dedicated to nudism. And yes they have pictures. I remember one that had children in it even. Can't remember the link but I remember seeing it.

Kal'Stang said:

Get on Bing or google and look em up. There are lots of websites dedicated to nudism. And yes they have pictures. I remember one that had children in it even. Can't remember the link but I remember seeing it.

Click to expand...

Jock Sturges a well known art photographer documented nudist families in Europe. Als Sally mann has documented her children as they were growing up.

winston53660 said:

Jock Sturges a well known art photographer documented nudist families in Europe. Als Sally mann has documented her children as they were growing up.

Click to expand...

Prime examples. Thank you.

I think whatever homeland security and the TSA deem necessary for safety should be enforced. Body scanners, invasive searches, and further methods should be implemented.

Kal'Stang said:

Then go to an airport and order them to let you on a plane. Make sure to video tape it and post it on youtube so that I can laugh at how quickly they laughed you out of the building.

Click to expand...

I should be able to since it's my goddamned tax dollars keeping that stupid ass industry afloat.

digsbe said:

I think whatever homeland security and the TSA deem necessary for safety should be enforced. Body scanners, invasive searches, and further methods should be implemented.

Click to expand...

Yes master, tell me your bidding and I obey!

I find the outright submittal to aggressive authoritative demands to be a bit disconcerting. We are not the entity which is limited. Government is. I mean, how much more till you'd cry foul? Scanners in the street? RFID passively scanned? I mean, it's obvious many seem willing to trade freedom and liberty for "safety"; but that rarely has a good outcome.

Kal'Stang said:

Prime examples. Thank you.

Click to expand...

They're outside nude. If I were outside nude, I couldn't protest to being photographed in the buff. It's a different ball game when I'm not and people use a form of technology or dynamic to make me so.

Kal'Stang said:

MaggieD is correct. Your options are loaded. To the brim.

Click to expand...

MaggieD just likes deceitful language. It makes it easier for her to justify condoning such a blatant violation of your privacy. Are you telling me these full body scanners are not exposing you to radiation, not a virtual strip search and that the pat downs are not invasive?

Ikari said:

I should be able to since it's my goddamned tax dollars keeping that stupid ass industry afloat.

Click to expand...

:roll:

*(requisite 10 characters)*

Ikari said:

Yes master, tell me your bidding and I obey!

I find the outright submittal to aggressive authoritative demands to be a bit disconcerting. We are not the entity which is limited. Government is. I mean, how much more till you'd cry foul? Scanners in the street? RFID passively scanned? I mean, it's obvious many seem willing to trade freedom and liberty for "safety"; but that rarely has a good outcome.

Click to expand...

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.

Kal'Stang said:

Wow...talk about fear mongering. :roll:

Click to expand...

Several years ago it was just metal detectors and to have random people take off their shoes and do a more thorough search through their possessions. Now its up a few more steps with virtual strip searches and invasive pat downs.

Nope. For the simple reason that a body is just a body and an officer doing their job is an officer doing their job.

Click to expand...

So you would have no problem if they went excuse me sir we need to do a real strip search on you and your 13 year old daughter(or niece or little sister) and do a cavity search? After all its just that a body is a body and an officer doing their job.

13 year old females are stripped searched when going into juvenile detention centers.
Where's your outrage about that if seeing the body of a 13 year old female while working as a security guard is that bad?

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that a airport is not a juvenile detention center or prison.

Also perhaps you should look into nudist colonies. They might expand your ideas of propriety a bit. I have a friend that goes to em and from what he says they could care less about what another persons body looks like. Young or old, hot or homely.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps your friend should walk around with a camera and see what they say.

Coronado said:

Same place it says you have the right to drink Pepsi, watch television, or masturbate to midget porn.

I know you labor under the misapprehension that this is a positive law system, but it isn't. The Ninth Amendment pretty clearly demolishes that argument.

Click to expand...

I hate to belabor this point, BUT. You have no inherent right to fly. Even if you own the airplane, own the airport and employ the pilot, you are still subject to regulation. Don't follow those regulations, and you don't fly. In the case of commercial airlines, your "right to fly" is predicated on an airline selling you a ticket, which it may or may not do at its discretion provided it does not discriminate on the basis of anything covered in the Civil Rights Act and as states have further expanded that Act; it's predicated on you following the rules and regs of the airport; it's predicated on you following inflight rules, and, now, the regulations of the TSA. Follow those rules, and you're good to go. Don't follow them? Don't fly.

jamesrage said:

MaggieD just likes deceitful language. It makes it easier for her to justify condoning such a blatant violation of your privacy. Are you telling me these full body scanners are not exposing you to radiation, not a virtual strip search and that the pat downs are not invasive?

Click to expand...

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.

jamesrage said:

Several years ago it was just metal detectors and to have random people take off their shoes and do a more thorough search through their possessions. Now its up a few more steps with virtual strip searches and invasive pat downs.

Click to expand...

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.

jamesrage said:

So you would have no problem if they went excuse me sir we need to do a real strip search on you and your 13 year old daughter(or niece or little sister) and do a cavity search? After all its just that a body is a body and an officer doing their job.

Click to expand...

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.

jamesrage said:

I was under the impression that a airport is not a juvenile detention center or prison.

Click to expand...

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?

jamesrage said:

Then perhaps your friend should walk around with a camera and see what they say.

Click to expand...

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

Coronado said:

Actually yes, you do have a right to fly in an airplane:Now please try another argument. Thanks.

Click to expand...

No, flying is NOT a right. Airlines are not required to allow you on their planes if they don't want to.

TRAVEL, is a right. HOW you travel is a choice or privilege.

Kal'Stang said:

Then go to an airport and order them to let you on a plane. Make sure to video tape it and post it on youtube so that I can laugh at how quickly they laughed you out of the building.

Click to expand...

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?

Kal'Stang said:

Obviously it does since 9/11 happened. And it doesn't have to be through a creative new method. Sometimes old tricks are better than new tricks. Also I used pearl harbor as an example. Nothing more. There have been attacks since then.

Click to expand...

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?

Kal'Stang said:

Your analogy would work better if you expanded on it to include the whole country since there are thousands of planes with thousands of flights going to a thousand different destinations...oh wait don't we have cops that patrol, stand guard and arrest criminals 24/7/365?

Click to expand...

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.

Kal'Stang said:

Actually no it's not bull. While you don't have a right to use a phone you do have a right to a private conversation from your home to another persons home. That is where the privacy clause in the Constitution steps in.

Click to expand...

Nope. You're using public airwaves, so why shouldn't the government be allowed to listen in to every phone call you make? :roll:

Kal'Stang said:

A library is a service provided by either normal citizens or the state...in both cases they can refuse to give you any service..or they can just close up shop if they wanted.

Click to expand...

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?

Kal'Stang said:

And you don't have a right to not be watched while walking down the street. Cops do it all the time without having to get a warrant. Paparazzi do it all the time to any celebrity that they can get a picture of.

Click to expand...

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?

Kal'Stang said:

You don't have a right to drive an automobile. That is why you are required to get a drivers license. If you don't have one then you can be arrested and charged with driving without one.

Click to expand...

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?

Kal'Stang said:

Having a GPS put into you would also violate your privacy when you are in your own home, at a private business confrence, or going to any destination as you can keep that private as well.

Click to expand...

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: