It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Violater1
Do you think it’s fair that The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) endorsed the fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law..
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by Violater1
Do you think it’s fair that The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) endorsed the fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law..
This is a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." If the CAIR can help pressure my supposedly elected representatives and assist in ending this outrageous violation of the 4th Amendment, I am all for their help.
I know they arent doing it for my sake, but since so many Americans are ready and willing to just suck it up, I will take any other voices raised in complaint that I can get.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Violater1
Of course it violates our rights.
Since airport security is not privately run and since passengers are not given a choice to reject the screening if things get too invasive, it necessarily constitutes an unlawful search since there is no reasonable cause nor court issued warrant.
Of course, don't tell that to the 9th circuit court, who finds everything is absolutely constitutional.
I'm sure the 9th circuit would also find that locking up all Japanese-American's during a war is perfectly reasonable.
edit on 16-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Violater1
I'm sure the 9th circuit would also find that locking up all Japanese-American's during a war is perfectly reasonable.
edit on 16-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by amc621
reply to post by Violater1
I travel multiple times a month. This doesn't bother me one bit. So what, have you ever ridden in a subway in NY during rush hour?
Get over it. There is no other motive here other than to protect us.
Originally posted by amc621
reply to post by Violater1
I travel multiple times a month. This doesn't bother me one bit. So what, have you ever ridden in a subway in NY during rush hour?
Get over it. There is no other motive here other than to protect us.
Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Depends how much I'm getting paid...
Originally posted by Mayson
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Violater1
Of course it violates our rights.
Since airport security is not privately run and since passengers are not given a choice to reject the screening if things get too invasive, it necessarily constitutes an unlawful search since there is no reasonable cause nor court issued warrant.
Of course, don't tell that to the 9th circuit court, who finds everything is absolutely constitutional.
I'm sure the 9th circuit would also find that locking up all Japanese-American's during a war is perfectly reasonable.
edit on 16-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
I suppose you're perfectly able to reject the screening; just don't fly. I've gone to plenty of places that have rules instituted to help keep me and the business safe. If I go swimming they'll typically restrict me from running near the pool. I accept that. If I need to run near a pool I can go do it at another place. I don't complain that they're violating my constitutional right to run.
Originally posted by Violater1
This one asks the simple question,” would you allow these 2 people to perform a TSA 'enhanced pat-downs’ on you.
Do you believe this goes against your Constitutional and Bill of Rights?
Do you think that this act is perverted?
Do you think it’s fair that The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) endorsed the fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law..