Harvard students challenge TSA

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

Just because you have the right to travel, doesn't mean you have the right to use vehicles that are not yours, and then complain about security measures designed to protect said vehicles that are not yours.

"Just because you are hungy and have the right to seek food, doesn't mean you can sit at a privately owned lunchcounter if you happen to be a member of a racial group that the owner doesn't like. The restaurant is a private business and you can go elsewherew and eat. If no restaurant lets peope of your racial group eat at their lunchcounter, try a different town."

This kind of reasoning was killed by the Civil Rights movement. Yes, it involves...gasp...restrictions on what a private business can and cannot do. But most would agreee it was a change that had to be made. This is also a change that has to be made and yes, its going to infringe on the hollwed ground of the sacred rights of big business. Whether its a change that is made through legislation or the application of common sense frankly doesn't matter to me. THIS IS WRONG. MORALLY, IF NOT LEGALLY. PERIOD. And it must be stopped one way or another. If the law doesn't have room for this kind of change, then let's MAKE room. Its why we have commercial codes that can be -- and are -- altered every day.

It's incredible to me what some people can justify in the name of ideology...

reply to post by silent thunder


Private businesses still have the right to refuse service to anyone, so your post is pointless.

Nice try though, it is sure to get a lot of stars from the clueless people on ATS.

I can predict the future of this topic. If I continue on this topic I will get jumped by the handful of fearful ATS members who fear their rights are being taken away but don't actually understand their rights. So this will be my last post. I'd rather talk to a brick wall.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by silent thunder

 

Private businesses still have the right to refuse service to anyone, so your post is pointless.

Nice try though, it is sure to get a lot of stars from the clueless people on ATS.

Legal right, maybe. Moral right...well, its a subjective call, but I'd say no, a restaurant doesn't have a moral right to refuse people of a given racial group.

The vast majority of people woke up and realized this, and things changed because enough people made enough noise and took to the streets and MADE the cultural shift happen.

We need to do the same with this evil application of technology. As I posted, it doesn't matter to me if the change comes through law or though pressure on business through protest or other means. We need to make it happen one way or the other. And making our voices heard is a good way to start.

There were sit-ins at racist lunch-counters in the 1960s, even if the law was on the side of the owner rather than the protesters. Who are the heroes now? What is the moral norm about this issue now? And would you have it any other way?

I'm usually accused of being "right wing" on this board, but I have a feeling my advocation of any intrusion on the sacred ground of the right of big companies to screw people over will get me labeled "left-wing" in this case. It matters not to me because I am neither. I am a human being who criticizes wrong when I see it. And this TSA stuff just STINKS.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by marg6043

 

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying. You and many others just don't understand simple concepts.

YOU don't need to go to the airport, nor do you need to fly. Just like you don't need to eat at McDonalds. YOU make YOUR SELF need that.

Claiming the TSA is forcing you to be searched because you need to fly is like claiming your Internet Service Provider is forcing you to sign a contract because you need the internet.

You forced yourself to sign the contract because you forced yourself to need the internet.

So a person lives in New York, works 5 days a week (mon-fri), and cannot take any time off in a high paying job... said person finds out their entire family (who lives in california) dies in a car crash, and the funeral is on a Saturday... the only way the person can keep their job, and go to the funeral is flying a plane... they dont NEED to fly?
Not everybody has a CHOICE. Sometimes life throws out the unexpected and you have to do things like use an airplane.. what other choice is there? Are you saying said person has a choice, and they should just say, "eh I dont NEED to go to the funeral, they where only my parents and all my siblings."

"The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers." - from William Shakespeare's King Henry VI


I hope that most people realize that this quote reflects how to enslave a populace and not a comment about a hatred toward lawyers? We have been bombarded for years about frivolous lawsuits, about how Lawyers are lining their pockets and stealing from the common working Joe, etc. This has bothered me for years because of the quote I posted above and the MSM's constant bombardment of what they present as "frivolous lawsuits" without presenting the facts of a case. Lawsuit award caps limit the punitive damages against Corporations.

Anyway, I've been worried that the first thing that would be taken from us is our right to be heard, in a civil court of Law, by this systemic denigration of the reputation of Lawyers. After all, one of the paths to tyranny is to remove the guardians of our Constitution. Another way is dilute these guardians with sub-standard practitioners. In my honest opinion, I have watched both scenarios occur in my lifetime.

I can't help but hope that the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act it rode in on is hit by every frivolous law-suit hungry person and lawyer out there. Seriously, it's the only thing I'm asking for in my letter to Santa this year.

Just for anyone that is curious. I am not a Lawyer, I have no Lawyers in my Family, and I don't know any Lawyers.

Originally posted by ReadyPower
So a person lives in New York, works 5 days a week (mon-fri), and cannot take any time off in a high paying job... said person finds out their entire family (who lives in california) dies in a car crash, and the funeral is on a Saturday... the only way the person can keep their job, and go to the funeral is flying a plane... they dont NEED to fly?

Not everybody has a CHOICE. Sometimes life throws out the unexpected and you have to do things like use an airplane.. what other choice is there? Are you saying said person has a choice, and they should just say, "eh I dont NEED to go to the funeral, they where only my parents and all my siblings."

Nobody is forcing that person to fly to California. That person is forcing their own self.

Nobody is forcing that person to use commercial aircraft. They can fly their own aircraft.

Also, it is illegal for an employer to fire you for taking family leave.



Ok, I'm done here.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective
Unfortunately TPTB will just make sure the cases are handled by judge that in their pockets to get the cases thrown out of court.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Is this your job to post here or do you actually believe what you post?

You just don't get the big picture or you're playing a game. It goes far beyond the airport security line.

You've been told at least a few dozen times in as many threads that the body scanners are incapable of seeing bombs or bomb materials that reside inside body cavities. Therefor that makes them a complete waste of time in regards to stopping bombs or bomb making materials getting on board an aircraft.

FYI - U.S. Prisoners are known to carry both weapons & drugs inside their anus in order to avoid detection by prison guards. They have adapted to the searches as disgusting as it may seem to be.

Anybody who's about to blow themselves up on an aircraft won't be bothered so much by having to carry those materials up their anus or in the case of a woman in their vagina as another option.

Carrying explosives inside body cavities (anuses & vagina) renders both these TSA security measures (full body scans & pat downs) a complete waste of time & resources unless they are there for reasons other than searching for bombs or bomb making materials. (the answer)

Thus your whole argument about body scans or pat downs making anybody safer on an aircraft is Wrong. They make nothing any safer at all. In fact they present a heath hazard themselves by dosing people with radiation.

Those in the TSA & elsewhere that implemented these measures are lying about the purposes of these new measures and using security as a ruse like oppressors have done in the past expecting people will give up their god given rights if they believe it will enhance their safety.

While we can all argue or guess about what the real purposes of these new measures are, that's not what this thread is addressing at the moment.

It is the governments violation of our Fourth Amendment and the beginning of the battle to seek a non-violent remedy. It doesn't really matter that some people would like the government to do these searches because they feel safer and some people don't. What matters is the Constitution is the highest law of the land and everything else be it laws or rules must fit within the scope of the Constitution first.

It is my belief and many others that if we allow these measures in their current form to become acceptable, that DHS, TSA agents & Border patrol will begin to implement such measures near all borders, beaches, train stations, bus stations, any and all public transportation, entrances to national parks etc. until our country resembles a real police state. We have to make a stand and the longer we wait to do that the harder it will be for a non-violent remedy.

There are other ways to address safety issues without such violations, but that's for another discussion.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective
Good for them and us,I hope they are successful in their lawsuit,it's said,"give up your freedom for a little security you end up with neither".

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


And they will win.

Finally a group with balls enough not to just roll over for this unconstitutional, unwarranted search and seizure. If any more planes had gone down in the past 10 years, due to a terrorist sneaking something on his/her person I would say maybe this is warranted. I do not count "attempts" where the individual was caught because for all I know that was a deliberate "plant" to frighten people into this very submission.

I compare this to the deaths by firearms in Washington DC and Chicago where an attempt was made to issue strict gun control and limit who could carry a gun. It was decided by a supreme court that no matter the deaths restricting guns and "controlling" who gets them was against our 2nd amendment constitutional rights and so out of the question regardless of how many lives such an act of "control" would save.

Our 4th amendment right protects us from illegal search and seizure (how many of your personal items have been confiscated?) without probable cause. There is a "border" exception but intercontinental flights do not cross over borders and even the exception prohibits public humiliation without reasonable and probable cause.

Who was it again?...Ben Franklin

He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

As TWILIGHT22 said above...which bears repeating!

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by ReadyPower
So a person lives in New York, works 5 days a week (mon-fri), and cannot take any time off in a high paying job... said person finds out their entire family (who lives in california) dies in a car crash, and the funeral is on a Saturday... the only way the person can keep their job, and go to the funeral is flying a plane... they dont NEED to fly?

Not everybody has a CHOICE. Sometimes life throws out the unexpected and you have to do things like use an airplane.. what other choice is there? Are you saying said person has a choice, and they should just say, "eh I dont NEED to go to the funeral, they where only my parents and all my siblings."

Nobody is forcing that person to fly to California. That person is forcing their own self.

Nobody is forcing that person to use commercial aircraft. They can fly their own aircraft.

Also, it is illegal for an employer to fire you for taking family leave.

Ok, I'm done here.

edit on 2-12-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

Swell. I get your point.

You think all these are good reasons for someone to roll over and abandon their Constitutional Protections.

Without the Constitution to protect our rights, the USA, is just one more communist country.

Anybody got a match?

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

I'm glad to see these lawsuits.

I think the entire idea of airport security is a joke. Terrorism is not a real threat. If terrorists wanted to kill large numbers of people, they could easily do it without getting on a plane. What prevents a terrorist from detonating a weapon before they even get to the security check point? There loads of people standing next to baggage claim. No security access to get to that point.

I have no desire to hurt anyone but I can think of a lot of ways that a potential terrorist could hurt people, without having access to a commercial airliner.

The fact that we treat this non-threat as a huge threat, is evidence that their terrorism is working just as they planned. Terrorism does not require the use of a tangible weapon, only fear itself.

edit on 2-12-2010 by iamcamouflage because: (no reason given)

Got a better scenario for you. They kill themselves anyways (though I dont know if defiling your body with disease is in their religious laws) but honestly its absurd to continue thinking airports are security threats! Why not just infect 100 people with small pox and send them to the super bowl? walk around in week 2 coughing on the crowd to spread the infection and make it viral.

There are many many scenarios that are much more efficient and effective in killing people (though 911 wasnt about fear of murder, it was symbolic regardless of who did it)

This was not invented to kill the masses, as stated above there are much easier and more threatening ways to achieve that goal. This was only created to cause mass panic across what a crackerjack consumer population fears, loss of financial stability through visual destruction. The dollar has been the most worshipped thing in USofA and still is. Attack that and you stir fears i nthe masses as it is untouchable in many eyes. Put fear in the masses and you can put them in control through that fear and here we are.

Systematic control, not systematic collapse. I used to think they wanted collapse, I do not think this anylonger. I believe it is pure control, and if they cant control you, they will then collapse your world whether it be on a individual or community level.

Zombies, they are making social engineered zombies, welcome United Slaves of America.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

Nobody is forcing that person to fly to California. That person is forcing their own self.

Nobody is forcing that person to use commercial aircraft. They can fly their own aircraft.

Also, it is illegal for an employer to fire you for taking family leave.

So are you saying they could set these scanners and pat downs up in say Starbucks??
After all, we don't have to buy their coffee....
Or what if I owned a kindergarden..Could I scan the little kiddies and maybe pat them down??
The parents don't have to put their kids in my centre...

Wrong!!! It's discrimination and it's sexual harrasment no matter how you look at it..
And I would be rightfully arrested within minutes..!!!

Originally posted by silent thunder

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by silent thunder

 

Private businesses still have the right to refuse service to anyone, so your post is pointless.

Nice try though, it is sure to get a lot of stars from the clueless people on ATS.

Love your passion on this subject!your right and I feel the same way sometimes I have

Legal right, maybe. Moral right...well, its a subjective call, but I'd say no, a restaurant doesn't have a moral right to refuse people of a given racial group.

The vast majority of people woke up and realized this, and things changed because enough people made enough noise and took to the streets and MADE the cultural shift happen.

We need to do the same with this evil application of technology. As I posted, it doesn't matter to me if the change comes through law or though pressure on business through protest or other means. We need to make it happen one way or the other. And making our voices heard is a good way to start.

There were sit-ins at racist lunch-counters in the 1960s, even if the law was on the side of the owner rather than the protesters. Who are the heroes now? What is the moral norm about this issue now? And would you have it any other way?

I'm usually accused of being "right wing" on this board, but I have a feeling my advocation of any intrusion on the sacred ground of the right of big companies to screw people over will get me labeled "left-wing" in this case. It matters not to me because I am neither. I am a human being who criticizes wrong when I see it. And this TSA stuff just STINKS.

edit on 12/2/10 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)

I love your passion on this subject,sometimes I have to pass these threads because I get to pissed off on some of the comments,and hearing and seeing the atrocities at the airports and to our fellow Americans.These companies(tsa,viper) are a bunch of criminals they have been given permission to walk all over our rights and the constitution.The tptb have slowly indoctrinated the young people of the U.S into believing this is for our own good,by not teaching them in school the importance of our rights as a free nation,and our constitution.We should all be yellng as loud as possible to stop this madness now!again........"Give up your freedom for security and you end up with neither!"

reply to post by mandella1099


Very nice! I really enjoy your style of writing

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Yeah for sure, you can opt out, and then you are sexually harassed. If you refuse, you are fined. That is where the error lies. If for instance an individual knew nothing of the body scanners, they would walk through them without any knowledge. That should be just as illegal as videotaping someone in their bedroom from a tree limb. Disgusting.

reply to post by sy.gunson

I could not agree more. We have all seen/heard/read about the TSA and their new scanners with the requisite
"pat downs" for those who opt out. So, knowing that these scanners will not detect explosives, and knowing that the "pat downs" are considered a sexual assault in any other context, do they make you feel any safer? Does strip searching a young boy bring real safety? What about the 4th amendment? Does purchasing an airline ticket really allow the government to abrogate our civil liberties? Where is the line?
On the other hand we have Israel. They use a system of profiling. Their are no naked body scanners subjecting citizens to radiation. Yet Israel has not had any sort of hijacking since 1968.

reply to post by silent thunder


I would agree 100%

Big business needs to be humbled!

They need to step back , and realize, no matter how big they get, If we dont buy their product/whatever, where will they be?

OWN! all the planes / scanners you want , I say free country.

But if no one will fly any more . What good are they ?

It's not only in airports,
it's mobile, in bus stations, train stations, it's called viper.
It's not going to stop unless it's made to stop.
Anyone defending it in my opinion is not for your freedoms and liberty.
It's no different than what was done in Nazi Germany with the strip searches, the only thing now is, we have the technology to see you naked with your clothes on.
The illusion of security is an argument for fools, with borders wide open, and laws on the books already not being enforced, how does intimidating grandma, and babies, and families, and citizens accomplish security?
How does vilifying every single possible person and labeling them as a potential terrorist accomplish safety?
The focus on airports is a point of topical erosion,
talk about airports long enough, airports over and over and over, and work in bus stations, but keep talking about airports, wear down the resistance to the argument, cause frustration and abandonment of focus on the issue, and work in train stations, but keep pointing out flying and airports, wear down the collective mind, be combative, argue for arguments sake, and work in toll booths on interstates, and on and on and on.
Seriously, does anyone promoting this believe that it is an example of security, safety, freedom, and liberty?
Perhaps when I have guests over I shall pat them down and squeeze their jingly bits to check for C4 and caps.
The bottom line is, it isnt freedom and it isnt something that can be taken from you by the government because they have not given it to you,
you are born free, sometimes you have to fight to keep that freedom, and if you feel alone and afraid,
youre not alone, there are millions and millions of us right here in the US and billions and billions worldwide that feel the same way.
Do not let the perpetual never ending drone of a few slavery promoting voices frustrate you and wear you down.
They will be silenced soon enough.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

On the other hand we have Israel. They use a system of profiling. Their are no naked body scanners subjecting citizens to radiation. Yet Israel has not had any sort of hijacking since 1968.

The answer is right in your statement,
The scanners are SOLD there's a profit,
The Israelis employ intelligent intelligence, they use their brains, I'll leave it at that!