TSA Modifies Pat Downs/Protests dated for 11/24/10

Originally posted by Masterjaden
If the SCOTUS has any worth, then this will be settled once an argument goes before it and the illegal TSA will be abolished. The reasons that people opt out, i.e. dangerous radiation, fear of being molested etc... don't matter. The only reason that is necessary is that people have the right to be secure in the persons and property as stated in the fourth amendment. PERIOD end of story, no amplifying data needed....

Great post! (Do I know you?)

I'm hoping this goes before the Supreme Court. I'd love to hear their explanation!

reply to post by NoJoker13


If individual airlines implemented the security and put the requirements of this security in their user agreement, without federal mandate, then it would be perfectly legitimate.

As long as there is a federal mandate and federal guidelines requiring this searching and seizure of property without just cause (on an individual basis) then it is and always will be unconstitutional, until and unless 2/.3rds of the houses and 3/4ths of the states ratify an amendment to the bill of rights, which I don't see happening any time soon....

Jaden

They know this... the Federal gov. KNOWS this....THAT is why they don't PROFILE.... They have no reasonable suspicion that the people that they profile have committed a crime. They figure if they just apply it randomly to everyone that everyone will bite their tongue and bend over....

reply to post by Masterjaden


But don't you see your violating my rights as well if I want this? Wow how hard is THAT to understand? Also as I stated by oath or affirmation I have declared this to be fine and so has 71% of America. So your 29% can go along that this is unconstitutional and not fly. It's pretty simple really, and in the end the majority will always win so your fight is pointless anyway. Plus TSA hasn't batted an eye at the sight of any lawsuit, which would tell me their 100% not worried about the 29%'s point of view. Sorry.

reply to post by NoJoker13


How am I violating your rights????

If you want this and the market doesn't provide it, you are FREE to start your own airline that does provide it, I'm not violating your rights by requiring my own to NOT be violated.

Trust me, HIstory is always the best indicator and eventually, people will stand up for their liberties. You agreeing to it does not make it any more constitutional.... AS I've stated. you are FREE to start an airline that does this and more for that matter, the federal governement does not have the ability to do it constitutionally and eventually it will be stopped whether by the SCOTUS or by protest or by lawsuit or by force, the people will not stand by while too many more rights are superceded under the guise of security. Read up on Ben Franklin...Our founding fathers foresaw this very thing.

Jaden

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

Well you didn't read my article so clearly I won't read a shred of what you have to say. I pointed out that yes tax dollars go to the airports but not actually to the airline companies, they even are taxed on fuel just like us. So therefor if these privately owned companies want better security, then they should have it. Especially if the government will pay for that security. End of Story.

You obviously haven't read anything or you wouldn't lie and say the airlines pay taxes on fuel like us. They don't. The 7.5% FET is on non-commercial use fuel. And by your reasoning, if a private corporation like Monsanto wanted to outlaw privatly grown food, they should get their way. I see, anything the corporations want, the corporations get.
On a lighter note, some of my fellow pilots say the airlines, to cut payroll costs, are going to introduce new crews of 1 pilot and a dog, and get rid of the copilot. The pilot is there to feed the dog. And the dog is there to keep the pilot from touching the controls of the automated airplane.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
After 911 the people who were crying for this are now the same crying that this is unconstitutional, to 71% of America it isn't.

71% of America think what Fred Phelps is doing should be illegal, but they're wrong. The opinion of the majority doesn't determine constitutionality. The Supreme Court does.

Paranoia is gripping all of you here acting like these will be in stores next then your house then what else?

They're already in court rooms and coming to buses, trains and ships... It's only logical to think that they'll be coming to the 7/11 or Quickie Mart in the next couple years.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by andrewh7

 

Way to take things out of context, I certainly hope they do all that to you. Since that would be an extremely bigger idea then what we're even discussing, I hope your the first to try it out... clearly you must be fascinated with rectums.

My mistake. I was under the impression that we were discussing the government's desire to see people naked or touch their private parts. What's the proper context for taking a naked picture of someone who law enforcement does not even have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity? I wasn't aware that the US Supreme Court had created a 4th Amendment exception allowing strip searches in an airport. Can you give me the case citation?

reply to post by Masterjaden


Yes you are because my rights say I can also get what I want, this isn't violating MY rights and I as an American am FOR this. So therefor if the majority wants it they can have it and soon enough this argument will be nulled anyway. Lets actually see if ythe 29% outcry does a damn thing, because I'm no prophet but I'd say it won't.

reply to post by andrewh7


Were not unless your actually buying into the sue happy america's "i got touched" campaign. But clearly you have already, so the blinders are on.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter

 

As I stated earlier happy, I've been through the procedure and it didn't bother me at all, both the full body scan and the pat down. Therefor from the point of view of myself there is no problem with this. Also in your video it states all that is bad with the TSA ,which is understandable, but I'm sure if they did an in depth search of every company in America the same problems would arise. Just because their under the microscope their going to look the worst right now if anything bad happens. By the way to quote weezer: the whole worlds on drugs.

edit on 24-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

I understand that it doesnt bother you,
It does bother me though,
and I guess we (all engaged in this debate) will have those differences at the onset,
but why settle?
Why accept the only offering?
There are alternatives, and none were even entertained or presented, only this one, which conveniently provides a profit to an agency insider and capitalizes on protocols and legislation enacted during their time at the helm.
To assume a 'hold' on the introduction of this to be only at airports would be delusional,
this will continue, this will encroach, the 'profits' will not be stopped,
My statement isnt paranoid, it's reached by history in review,
When, have you ever seen a right surrendered, a freedom stripped, ever Given back? Anywhere on this globe at anytime, given back willingly?
I cant think of a time, I can though think of rebellion, and bloodshed that were required to regain them.
So I guess I'm asking, is the treatment and the squeezing and narrowing worth the potential and actual diminished quality of life that it will create upon its continued advancement?
I will answer no, no it is not worth it.
Not worth it to you, me or anyone anywhere.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Unfortunately, the TSA will likely do whatever it has to to avoid this going to the supreme court, they'll modify the procedures or make closed off booths where it is impossible to prove and or illegal to film that what they do is what they do.

The percedent is already set from past SCOTUS rulings so that the SCOTUS doesn't have much choice but to rule anything regarding this unconstitutional that comes before them.

As are you, I am hoping that this does go before the SCOTUS and if they were to somehow rule it as valdily constitutional, I would LOVE to hear their explanation considering past scotus rulings on the liberty to freely travel.

This is a fourth and fifth amendment issue.

Nothing can supercede our liberties, especially a mojority of Americans stating that they don't care...

That is the most ridiculous argument I have seen to date. Never have individual liberties been superceded by a majority will of the people..

I love it when people say we are living in a democracy.... NO, we are living in a socialist republic, Our nation was founded as a democratic Republic, but has been a socialist republic since the new deal. Anyone who tries to claim differently is living in a fantasy world of gumdrops and crystal rainbows.

Sure there is still an element of democracy, but it is so corrupt as to be non recognisable as such. When your choices are decaf or superdecaf, democracy doesn't mean much.

Jaden

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


Whoa now happy we've tryed quite a few other alternatives before this one. Heightened security, air marshal, regulations on certain products for carry ons etc., I'm not saying I'm settling for this but I am stating that the majority of the US sees this as progress. To me it's better then a metal detector so it's a start, but there will have to be alot more progress before I'd call anything foolproof. A more sensitive machine will most likely be out soon enough and hopefully for the people who don't want this it won't show a nude image.

reply to post by NoJoker13


You're insane... Point to where ytour rights say that you can get what you want?????

I can point you to where it explicitly states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I can also point to SCOTUS case precedent that states that The right to freely travel was so implicit that they did not believe that it needed to be stated and case precedent that states that the freedom to travel unencumbered by private entity or government intrusion throughout the airways exists.

You can point to nothing to support this claim except your own verbal meanderings....

Jaden

reply to post by Masterjaden


A ridiculous argument? The fact that 71% of America see this as being progress is ridiculous? So what your saying is the 29% have all the say even though the 71% give their affirmation that this is ok? Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous?

reply to post by Masterjaden


Well first off thank you, I really am quite insane. Secondly you stated that yes your free to travel in the skies but it doesn't exactly say how you'd get there. From what is written for you to freely travel the skies of your own will you would need to own your own plane. Otherwise your flying in someone elses aircraft and are subject to anything they see fit. Again you can say if the government is involved its unconstitutional but what if the private airliners want this? If they okayed these procedures wouldn't that deem them rules of the airport? Again by the same 4th amendment you just wrote I gave my affirmation that this is fine, therefor stating that to myself this is constitutionally acceptable. To you it isn't so purchase your own aircraft and make your own rules.

reply to post by NoJoker13

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Joker no we have tried nothing really,
what we have is what chertoff paved the way for, secured installation for, and is making friends and profits from,
we also have an employment opportunity to be a tsa agent in an economy that doesnt produce anything but fear and fear products.
Like I said, I like the passion, and I know youre gonna get mad, but youve been poisoned.

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


Hahahaha I couldn't get mad at you Happy, your rabid raccoon wolf is to pleasant to my eyes! I do agree with you that people are clearly doing this to make money but do you really think this isn't better then a metal detector, well actually let me rephrase, do you think this device can detect more then a metal detector? That's the only question I'd like you to answer, I don't care whos pockets are being lined if it wasn't this it'd be something else but for once its a bit better then what they had in place.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


As do I because I think it will and it may possibly pass, then the out cry's will really start. Especially if the explanation doesn't have much substance.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

But don't you see your violating my rights as well if I want this? Wow how hard is THAT to understand? Also as I stated by oath or affirmation I have declared this to be fine and so has 71% of America. So your 29% can go along that this is unconstitutional and not fly. It's pretty simple really, and in the end the majority will always win so your fight is pointless anyway. Plus TSA hasn't batted an eye at the sight of any lawsuit, which would tell me their 100% not worried about the 29%'s point of view. Sorry.

You are wrong. Do you just make up your numbers?

Poll finds 61% oppose new airport security measures
latimesblogs.latimes.com...

It must be tough to live every day in fear of the terrorist boogie man.
Try growing a spine. The chance of being killed by terrorists in a plane is lower than your chance of being killed by being struck by lightening. The secrutiy measure that we had in place were sufficient.

There is no proof that these scanners make you safer. It's all about being controlled and submissive.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter

 

Hahahaha I couldn't get mad at you Happy, your rabid raccoon wolf is to pleasant to my eyes! I do agree with you that people are clearly doing this to make money but do you really think this isn't better then a metal detector, well actually let me rephrase, do you think this device can detect more then a metal detector? That's the only question I'd like you to answer, I don't care whos pockets are being lined if it wasn't this it'd be something else but for once its a bit better then what they had in place.

edit on 24-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

www.sandia.gov...

I "KNOW" this device (in the link) coupled with a metal detector eliminates alot of troubles that are being made to make others alot of profits at alot of inconvenience and alot of fear at our expense,
I also know that an entire un-needed agency along with its un-needed monetary waste would be cleansed from us.