DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on November 24, 2010, 12:47:49 AM
-
Touch Your Junk Administration
Seriously though, at what level of outrage do things need to get before the powder keg is lit? Not in some gun violence, as the powder keg is rhetorical.
In this country we have a 4th amendent. In this country we have the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. Why then are so many people pulled and groped and largely handled in such a way that it would be sexual harrassment almost anywhere else. Is it any wonder there's currently such an outrage at the level of fondling that's legally being allowed to be gotten away with?
So just go thru the scanners, right? Yea, that's an option. It almost seems as if its being a forced option, to have your entire body imaged in a pretty blatant black & white image, for all manner of TSA eyes to see, laugh at, ridicule, if not save to share another time. And anyone think who might actually have a vested interest in the scanning machine production. I bet there are some politicians that have investments in companies that make these types of machines. And if they become mandated, is that not a serious conflict of interest, if politicians with such investments are pushing for these scanners??
-
If it is the best alternative then it is the way we should do it.
What is the better choice than to have carefull examination of passengers and luggage?
Should we just accept a certain level of loss as acceptable?
If I have an unpleasant experience with being prodded on my way to a flight I am going to curse at Osama Bin Laden who really bears blame , not the poor sod hired to attempt to improve my safety.
-
If it is the best alternative then it is the way we should do it.
How is it the "best alternative"? What happened to the 4th amendment? Shall we forgo the 1st and 2nd just as easily?
What is the better choice than to have carefull examination of passengers and luggage?
That's just it, we're not. We're being uber PC by manhandling everyone, for fear of focusing on much more likely threats. We're not under attack from 8year old caucasion boys. We're not under attack ny 60+year old caucasion women with prosthectic breasts or knee replacements. It's beyond rediculous to mandate this grotesque assault on the 4th amendment, to supposedly provide more airline security?
Should we just accept a certain level of loss as acceptable?
No....not constitutional loss. Not in my book
-
you mean terrorist are too ethical to use non-middle eastern people to carry stuff on the plane. to say to a 8year old boy "hey kid hold this toy"
or new middle eastern nurse switch a plastic body part.
those scene I don`t if it has happened, but i do recall a irish girl going to isreal who got stop and had explosives on her .
-
Flying is not a right, it is optional.
(http://www.youthlaw.org/uploads/pics/la_times_logo.gif)
PETN: The explosive that airport security is targeting
Full-body scans and aggressive pat-downs now under scrutiny are designed
to seek out the explosive powder that was used in several failed terrorist
bombings recently, officials say.
By Brian Bennett, Tribune Washington Bureau
November 24, 2010
New airport security procedures that have stirred the emotions of air travelers ? full-body scans and aggressive pat-downs ? were largely designed to detect an explosive powder called PETN, which has been a staple of Al Qaeda bomb makers for nearly a decade.
It was PETN that was molded into the sole of Richard Reid's black high-top sneaker when he walked onto American Airlines Flight 63 bound for Miami in December 2001.
It was PETN that was sewn into the underwear of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, authorities say, when he boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 for Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.
And it was PETN that suspected Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen packed inside computer printer cartridges that were shipped Oct. 28, intending to blow up planes en route to Chicago.
None of the plots succeeded in taking down an aircraft, but top U.S. officials are concerned about fresh indications that Al Qaeda remains determined to get PETN on airplanes by trying to exploit vulnerabilities in passenger and cargo screening.
Not only has the terrorist network acknowledged its role in bomb plots, it is also sharing what it knows about building bombs on the Web and elsewhere.
PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, presents some vexing problems for security experts. A powder about the consistency of fine popcorn salt, it will not trigger an alarm on a metal detector. Because of its more stable molecules, PETN gives off less vapor, making it more difficult to detect by bomb-sniffing dogs and the trace swabs used by the Transportation Security Administration.
PETN's stability makes it easy to hide and easily transformed. When mixed with rubber cement or putty, it becomes a rudimentary plastic explosive ? a baseball-sized amount can blow a hole in an airplane fuselage.
"PETN is hard to detect and lends itself to being concealed," said an intelligence official who was not authorized to speak on the record. "It packs a punch."
One way to detect PETN is through its detonator, which typically uses materials that are easier to trace. Reid's shoe bomb combined PETN with a volatile explosive accelerant called TATP that can be made from dime-store nail polish and hydrogen peroxide. The Yemen printer cartridge bombs placed the PETN around small homemade blasting caps containing the chemical lead azide.
The fact that PETN has been the common denominator in all of the bombs is a major reason why the TSA is unlikely to yield substantially in its search for practical ways to prevent the deadly powder from making it aboard a plane.
The new aggressive pat-downs and the increased use of full-body scanners ? there are more than 400 machines in 69 U.S. airports ? were a direct response to last year's alleged bombing attempt on Christmas Day, when Abdulmutallab passed through screening with 80 grams of PETN, authorities say.
Some passengers have objected to the enhanced screening as an invasion of privacy, though several polls show air travelers consider safety far more important.
"I know people want to bomb us," TSA chief John Pistole told reporters Monday. Pistole isn't just worried about terrorists in Yemen. He said he is particularly concerned that home-grown terrorists might "get ahold of a PETN device."
PETN can be made in a rudimentary lab or salvaged from old munitions. It can scraped from old bombs or stripped out of detonator cord, a fast-burning fuse about the diameter of a clothesline that is commonly used in road construction and mining. The amount of PETN in 5 feet of detonator cord has enough explosive power to buckle the roof of a car.
Smuggling explosives onto airplanes is a vulnerability that the TSA has known about since 2005, when covert testing teams run by the Department of Homeland Security inspector general were able to penetrate TSA airport security with explosive-like test devices, Pistole said.
The best technological weapons that the TSA has now are body scans of passengers and X-rays of cargo and baggage. But the scanners can't see anything hidden inside body cavities, and their effectiveness relies on operators identifying something unusual.
The scanners are "just anomaly detectors. Someone has to notice, has to have some expertise," said former Homeland Security Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin, who managed covert testing teams in 2003 and 2004 that were able to get guns, knives and explosives through TSA screening.
There are new techniques available for cargo, baggage and passenger screening that can detect individual explosive molecules using mass spectrometry, a technology that would be better at identifying PETN than the swab machines in use by the TSA.
"There is no question that the technology now deployed can't do it," Ervin said.
Even technology can only detect so much. The printer cartridge bombs from Yemen were sealed in plastic and cleaned with solvents to remove PETN molecules. The packages were discovered because of a tip from Saudi intelligence services.
Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University, said security screening needed to be less predictable, "so Al Qaeda and our [other] adversaries can't simply game the system."
The TSA also should invest in better human intelligence and institute a method of questioning passengers that Israel uses at airport checkpoints, said Edward Luttwak, an expert on security strategy and a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In recent discussions with members of the security services in Israel, Luttwak found "general puzzlement about TSA's enthusiasm for these machines."
The TSA's plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars deploying more than 1,000 full-body scanners by the end of 2011 "is a syndrome of having no budget limits and maybe aggressive salesmanship," Luttwak said.
Israeli screeners, he added, are not looking for people who fit a physical profile, but a behavioral profile of avoidance and inconsistency. In Luttwak's view, it is easier for terrorists to design a bomb that can get past a screening regime than it is to find someone who is both a good actor and willing to be a suicide bomber.
A TSA program to identify suspicious behavior in search lines has deployed about 3,000 agents in more than 160 U.S. airports. Officers are trained to identify suspicious facial expressions and body language by walking up and down the line, initiating conversations and pulling passengers for additional screening.
In a glossy, color magazine released this week by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemeni-based group vowed to continue using PETN. The magazine, written in English, included photos and a detailed description of how the printer cartridge bombs were made and packaged to avoid detection by bomb-sniffing dogs.
The authors encouraged copycat attacks: "Do you think that our research will only be used by Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula and won't be shared with other mujahidin?"
The headline on the magazine was simply "$4,200" ? the amount the group says it spent to build and ship the bombs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-petn-20101124,0,4507183,full.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-petn-20101124,0,4507183,full.story)
-
Will all those who prefer being blown up at 30,000 feet to having some bored TSA guy check out their bods for 20 seconds please raise their hand.
This is reaching a degree of paranoia similar to some neurotic mother worrying about what the ER doctors might think of her son's dirty or torn underwear.
No one CARES about your junk. It is not special to any TSA inspectors who have just seen 300 others just like it.
When you get down to it, it is no more a big deal than your kittycat's asshole.
-
you mean terrorist are too ethical to use non-middle eastern people to carry stuff on the plane. to say to a 8year old boy "hey kid hold this toy"
And your example of this happening will be.................?
Kinds of reminds me of the movie 'A christmas story", where the mom layers her child in so many clothes, that when he falls down, he can't get up, because he can barely move. A TSA agent can simply ask, "So son, where did you get that cool toy? Mom, did you buy your son that toy?" And not one hand touches either the child or the Mom
those scene I don`t if it has happened, but i do recall a irish girl going to isreal who got stop and had explosives on her .
Key word, was stopped. What prompted her to be stopped? This isn't about profiling, this is about intelligence and common sense. If someone is acting strange or out of the ordinary, you focus some attention. If they have 1 way tickets with no luggage, you focus attention. If they have passports that take them thru areas of terrorist activity, you focus attention. You don't grope every other person, regardless of age or ethnicity, for fear you may be labeled a racial profiler
-
No one CARES about your junk. It is not special to any TSA inspectors who have just seen 300 others just like it.
Nobody should be looking at anybody's junk. This is fucking ridiculous.
-
It kinda figures Xo would have no problem with the trampling of the 4th amendment. His disdain of the Constitution is pretty, dare I say, obvious
-
XO has zero credibility. If this were happening under Bush, he would be going ballistic just like he did over the patriot act and the terrorist surveillance program. Now he supports people having their junk touched and looked at because Obama approved it. It's sickening.
Obama should shut the machines down immediately, especially since he would never subject his own family to the x-ray machines or to the groping. I hope somebody does sue the government on 4th amendment grounds to shut these machines down.
-
XO has zero credibility. If this were happening under Bush, he would be going ballistic just like he did over the patriot act and the terrorist surveillance program. Now he supports people having their junk touched and looked at because Obama approved it. It's sickening.
Boy, ain't that the truth. Recall all the vitriole Bush got with the signing of the Patriot Act?, Wiretapping? Rendition? Gitmo? Notice the deafening silence, currently?
-
It is indeed rare....but I pretty much agree with XO on this.
Pretty much the only way you get patted down is rufuse the body scan.
Flying is not a right, it is a choice.
You dont like the rules....ride the freaking bus!
We are at war with a ruthless enemy...they are trying to sneek
explosives in underwear onto planes that kill you.
The TSA employees are just following their orders.
Dont get mad at them.
They are trying to keep you alive.
How do you propose we make sure that doesnt happen this weekend?
Sure sure Israel....but what about this weekend?
And Israel does not have 40,000 flights a day.
Given the choice of being searched or the video below...what do you choose?
Exploding Plane Ruptured Fuselage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy9dyLX4ilc#)
-
It is indeed rare....but I pretty much agree with XO on this.
Pretty much the only way you get patted down is rufuse the body scan. Flying is not a right, it is a choice.
And that's where we'd disagree. Traveling, where ever you wish in this country, is a right. You still have to pay for it, but your paying for someone to "drive you" You can chose to drive yourself, but by car it may take a lot longer, and without an appropriate aviator's license, you'll have to pay for some pilot to drive you. But traveling itself is absolutely a right in this country
So, would you at least advocate that all politicians disclose all investments into companies that make/produce such scanners. I hear that John Kerry is set to rake in millions
You dont like the rules....ride the freaking bus!
Have to pay someone for that too. And from what I hear, scanners are intended to go there as well, not to mention train stations. Putting aside for the moment the assault on the 4th amendment to the Constitution, we can't rely on "technology" Cu4. We had technology in place on 911, and 3000+ people were murdered
The TSA employees are just following their orders.
Dont get mad at them.
I'm not.....I'm livid at this adminstration
How do you propose we make sure that doesnt happen this weekend?
Common sense.....look for the unusal....look for things out of the ordinary....ask questions of those in line. for those that don't want to cooperate, THEY can be led thru the sexual harrassment gauntlet or John Kerry's Investment bonanza
-
Travel is a right, but certainly not the manner of travel.
Try making minimum wage & calling United Airlines for a last minute RT Cali to NY
Tell them you don't have the money, but have "the right to travel".
Travel by airplane is a choice not a right.
Claiming a "right to travel" has ZERO to do with the regulations associated with
flying on airlines when we are at war.
No one claims what the TSA is doing is all we need to do or 100% effective
but almost nothing in life is 100% effective
the stakes are EXTREMELY high
if an IslamoNazi gets the explosives on a plane
there will be lots of arms, legs, and heads to try and match up to one another
sure if corruption exist about the purchase of the machines
enforce the law, throw the book at them
but dont let the distraction allow a plane to blow up
is it any accident that both Richard Reid "the shoe-bomber" and
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallabm "the underwear bomber" both were able
to get on planes outside the United States and were not subject to TSA inspection
-
Boy, ain't that the truth. Recall all the vitriole Bush got with the signing of the Patriot Act?, Wiretapping? Rendition? Gitmo? Notice the deafening silence, currently?
I'm seeing a pattern here. Anything that is designed to go after an actual terrorist is bad in XO's tiny mind. But anything that would subject innocent, law abiding citizens to groping and treat them like criminals is good.
Thanks for the tip on Kerry. It turns out he and his wife own $1 million worth of stock in the company that is producing these x-ray machines. How convenient. I wonder how he knew they would be getting put into airports?
-
So let me get this straight
If Obama gets tough on screening trying to prevent a terrorist from blowing up a plane.
There is outrage!
If Obama doesn't act on intel & doesnt step it up when machines are available & a plane blows up.
There will be outrage!
Nice.
Be honest you're gonna bitch either way!
Also everyone complaining about the current methods please elaborate on exactly how you would prevent the following:
(Remember unlike Israel the US has dozens and dozens of major large airports and 40,000 flights a day)
PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, presents some vexing problems for security experts. A powder about the consistency of fine popcorn salt, it will not trigger an alarm on a metal detector. Because of its more stable molecules, PETN gives off less vapor, making it more difficult to detect by bomb-sniffing dogs and the trace swabs used by the Transportation Security Administration.
PETN's stability makes it easy to hide and easily transformed. When mixed with rubber cement or putty, it becomes a rudimentary plastic explosive, a baseball-sized amount can blow a hole in an airplane fuselage.
"PETN is hard to detect and lends itself to being concealed," said an intelligence official who was not authorized to speak on the record. "It packs a punch."
One way to detect PETN is through its detonator, which typically uses materials that are easier to trace. Reid's shoe bomb combined PETN with a volatile explosive accelerant called TATP that can be made from dime-store nail polish and hydrogen peroxide. The Yemen printer cartridge bombs placed the PETN around small homemade blasting caps containing the chemical lead azide.
The fact that PETN has been the common denominator in all of the bombs is a major reason why the TSA is unlikely to yield substantially in its search for practical ways to prevent the deadly powder from making it aboard a plane.
-
To answer your question about outrage at Obama, that's almost a given, given his track record to date, but your continued focus on the machines is what's clouding your judgement and assault on the 4th amendment. There are other, far more effective and less intrusive means of "cracking down" We're talking about innocent civilian travelers here. Not captured enemy combatants
To answer your question about a hypothetical, you focus your attention on the person who's powder they're carrying, not merely technology. You ask them about where they're going, where they've been. You check their passports and you verify their story. If they don't cooperate, then by all means, grope away. People are waiting in line, so what's a a few minutes out of each person's waiting, to answer some simple questions. Innocent until Proven Guilty. A Constitutional right to unlawful searches and seizures
And no one is claiming someone making minimum wage has a right to fly for free. You have a right to travel. What you're paying for is the advantage to a very fast "car & driver". Should we now expect every chaffeur to manhandle every person that gets in their limo? Just to make sure?
-
Pretty much the only way you get patted down is rufuse the body scan. Flying is not a right, it is a choice. You dont like the rules....ride the freaking bus!
Next step for tight security could be trains, boats, metro
The next step in tightened security could be on U.S. public transportation, trains and boats.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists will continue to look for U.S. vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary.
?[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,? Napolitano said in an interview that aired Monday night on "Charlie Rose."
?I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there??
Napolitano?s comments, made a day before one of the nation?s busiest travel days, come in the wake of a public outcry over newly implemented airport screening measures that have been criticized for being too invasive.
The secretary has defended the new screening methods, which include advanced imaging systems and pat-downs, as necessary to stopping terrorists. During the interview with Rose, Napolitano said her agency is now looking into ways to make other popular means of travel safer for passengers and commuters.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, introduced legislation this past September that would authorize testing of body scanners at some federal buildings.
Napolitano?s comments were in response to the question: ?What will they [terrorists] be thinking in the future?? She gave no details about how soon the public could see changes in security or about what additional safety measures the DHS was entertaining.
The recently implemented airport screening methods have made John Pistole, who heads the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the focus of growing public ire.
On Monday, Pistole said he understood peoples? privacy concerns and that the TSA would consider modifying its screening policies to make them ?as minimally invasive as possible,? but he indicated the advanced-imaging body scans and pat-down methods would remain in place in the short term, including during the high-volume Thanksgiving period of travel.
Lawmakers from both parties have received hundreds of complaints about the new methods ? some have likened the pat-downs to groping ? and have called on Pistole to address the privacy concerns of their constituents, who were not informed about changes ahead of time.
Many lawmakers say the public should have been informed before the pat-downs and body-imaging techniques were put into practice. As a result, any move to implement new security screening measures for rail or water passengers is likely to be met with tough levels of scrutiny from lawmakers.
Pistole, who spent 26 years with the FBI, told reporters Monday that he rejected the advice of media aides who advised him to publicize the revised security measures before they took effect. Terrorist groups have been known to study the TSA?s screening methods in an attempt to circumvent them, he said.
Napolitano said she hoped the U.S. could get to a place in the future where Americans would not have to be as guarded against terrorist attacks as they are and that she was actively promoting research into the psychology of how a terrorist becomes radicalized.
?The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?? she said. ?I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful."
DHS and intelligence officials are not as far along in understanding that process as they would like, Napolitano said, adding that until that goal is reached, steps need to be put in place to ensure the public?s safety.
?We don?t know much,? she said. ?If you were to try and devise a template about what connects this terrorist to this terrorist and how they were raised and what schools they went to and their socioeconomic status, or this or that, it?s all over the map.
?I think there?s some important work that?s being done on that but ? the Secretary of Homeland Security cannot wait for that.?
Buses you say? (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-)
-
No one CARES about your junk. It is not special to any TSA inspectors who have just seen 300 others just like it.
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/11-23-10myjunkRGB20101124032824.jpg)
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk112310dAPR20101123034601.jpg)
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/101123beelertoon_c20101123073926.jpg)
-
There are other, far more effective and less intrusive means of "cracking down"
Like what? Be specific on how you are going to prevent this "easy to conceal",
not detectable by metal detecter substance? How?
Do you know the disaster consequences if you fail?
To answer your question about a hypothetical,
you focus your attention on the person who's powder
they're carrying, not merely technology.
Law enforcement and preventing terrorists from blowing up SIR's family is "hypothetical"
We are at war...do you not get that?
Terror prevention is all "hypothetical" but that makes it no less dangerous.
What are you talking about "powder"....you lost me?
Terrorist have the undectable explosives in their underwear....
tell me how your "interview method" is better at discovery that a scan or
if someone refuses the easy scan...the search?
You ask them about where they're going, where they've been.
You check their passports and you verify their story. If they don't
cooperate, then by all means, grope away. People are waiting in line,
so what's a a few minutes out of each person's waiting, to answer some
simple questions.
You've got to be kidding?
So you are not going to be bitching if Obama orders every airline passenger "interviewed"
and asked questions and if they dont answer.
Can you imagine the lines at airports with a question/answer session with every passenger?
"grope away"?....what happened to the "rights" you were screaming about?
Innocent until Proven Guilty. A Constitutional right to unlawful searches and seizures
The searches are not unlawful. Sometimes police officers when they pull someone over
frisk them and that citizen is still "Innocent until Proven Guilty".
You have a right to travel. What you're paying for is the advantage to a very fast "car & driver".
Should we now expect every chaffeur to manhandle every person that gets in their limo? Just to make sure?
Every person is being "manhandled" by the TSA?
Almost no one is being man-handled by the TSA.
If that is found there should be consequences.
You try to make 40,000 flights a day safe and see if your record of customer happiness is 100%
SIRS...what is soooooo bad about walking thru a scannner?
-
There are other, far more effective and less intrusive means of "cracking down"
Like what? Be specific on how you are going to prevent this "easy to conceal"
I JUST DID. Scroll above. You can not lay all your bets on technonology. The Terrorists will find a way. You don't throw out the Constitution, in the mean time
Do you know the disaster consequences if you fail?
Do you know the Constitutional consequences if we simply ignore it?
Law enforcement and preventing terrorists from blowing up SIR's family is "hypothetical"
We are at war...do not get that?
I get it....I also get the Constitution. I also get the 4th amendment. Did you forget that? We are at war with Islamic Terrorists.....NOT the innocent american populace. Focus
SIRS...what is soooooo bad about walking thru a scannner?
Follow the money. Tax dollars, in particular
-
Airport "Security"?
No country has better airport security than Israel-- and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts.
Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs?
"Security" may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this administration in other areas is all too painfully apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures.
Can you remember a time when a Cabinet member in a free America boasted of having his "foot on the neck" of some business or when the President of the United States threatened on television to put his foot on another part of some citizens' anatomy?
Yet this and more has happened in the current administration, which is not yet two years old. One Cabinet member warned that there would be "zero tolerance" for "misinformation" when an insurance company said the obvious, that the mandates of ObamaCare would raise costs and therefore raise premiums. Zero tolerance for exercising the First Amendment right of free speech?
More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke warned about the dangers of new people with new power. This administration, only halfway through its term, has demonstrated that in many ways.
What other administration has had an Attorney General call the American People "cowards"? And refuse to call terrorists Islamic?
What other administration has had a Secretary of Homeland Security warn law enforcement officials across the country of security threats from people who are anti-abortion, for federalism or are returning military veterans?
If anything good comes out of the airport "security" outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people.
Those who made excuses for all of candidate Barack Obama's long years of alliances with people who expressed their contempt for this country, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, may finally get it when they feel some stranger's hand in their crotch.
As for the excuse of "security," this is one of the least security-minded administrations we have had. When hundreds of illegal immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring countries were captured crossing the border from Mexico-- and then released on their own recognizance within the United States, that tells you all you need to know about this administration's concern for security.
When captured terrorists who are not covered by either the Geneva Convention or the Constitution of the United States are nevertheless put on trial in American civilian courts by the Obama Justice Department, that too tells you all you need to know about how concerned they are about national security.
The rules of criminal justice in American courts were not designed for trying terrorists. For one thing, revealing the evidence against them can reveal how our intelligence services got wind of them in the first place, and thereby endanger the lives of people who helped us nab them.
Not a lot of people in other countries, or perhaps even in this country, are going to help us stop terrorists if their role is revealed and their families are exposed to revenge by the terrorists' bloodthirsty comrades.
What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security do not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter-- and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.
Meanwhile, this administration is so hung up on political correctness that they have turned "profiling" into a bugaboo. They would rather have electronic scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for some questioning.
Will America be undermined from within by an administration obsessed with political correctness and intoxicated with the adolescent thrill of exercising its new-found powers?
Stay tuned (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/11/23/airport_security)
-
Like what? Be specific on how you are going to prevent this "easy to conceal",
not detectable by metal detecter substance? How?
Do you know the disaster consequences if you fail?
If the PETN is hidden in a body cavity, it won't be detected via the backscatter machines, either.
-
Guess that gives new meaning to "blow it out yer ass"
-
D'oh
-
I`m pretty sure you need training to hide anything in your body cavity.
-
It might be relatively easy to cram explosives up one's butt, but probably both uncomfortable and bothersome. This was the traditional way that prisoners at Devil's Island managed to get money with them into the prison, according to the guy who wrote Pa pillion (there was a film made of this as well, wit Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen). They used a small wooden or metal capsule called "UN plan". I guess some really large denomination bills were available in those days. I found it impossible to get more than nine bills in a money belt when I went to Mexico on the train, which had a greater volume than what was described in the novel. That would limit one to $900. But explosives, I do not know how much could fit, or how much one would need to blow up a plane. Not that I have ever had a desire to blow up anything except fireworks.
The difficult part would be to figure out an undetectable way to wire it up to explode. This was the shoe bomber and the underpants bombers' biggest problem, if you recall. You would need wires and something to provide a high voltage spark, I think. Some form of concealable detonator. I bet that hnumpah would know what could be used, but apparently he got bored and went elsewhere.
-
It might be relatively easy to cram explosives up one's butt, but probably both uncomfortable and bothersome.
If its a terrorist bent in killing with the promise of a whole bunch of virgins, after the fact, they're going to manage to put up with the "uncomfortability"
The difficult part would be to figure out an undetectable way to wire it up to explode. This was the shoe bomber and the underpants bombers' biggest problem, if you recall.
Perfect example of a bomber, if folks had managed to connect a few common sense dots, who should have never been allowed to board the plane to begin with. 1 way ticket, no luggage. IIRC, purchased a flight at the last minute, in cash.
-
If the PETN is hidden in a body cavity, it won't be detected via the backscatter machines, either.
Ami wouldn't the detonator and/or pkge holding the PETN show up?
And doesn't the TSA also use other types of imaging technology besides just backscatter?
Also without a detonator doesn't the IslmaoNazi have to rely on a chemical
reaction to generate enough heat to initiate an explosion and with PETN
that is not an easy task.
Of course as with any security measure nothing is 100%, but that doesn't mean
we drop security measures because they are not 100% effective. All of us
rely every single day on safety devices/security devices that protect us
that are not 100% effective.
-
Next step for tight security could be trains, boats, metro
Of course it will!
Bring it on!
Or no no no...lets wait until they blow up a few trains and kill a bunch of people.
Then all the non-proactive people will be outraged and then they will be like
"well hell yeah...why weren't we doing this already?!"
Just like if Bush right before 9/11 would have shut down airports
People would have been OUTRAGED!
"What the hell is Bush doing?!"
"Bush is over-reacting"
"Fly planes into buildings?...hell thats never happened...Bush is an idiot"
Some people can only have 20/20 in hindsight.
They need to be beat over the head to do the right thing.
Problem is IslamoNazis are going to do it.
Just sad somebody's gotta die to get'em to act.
-
opps I just thought a possible ignitor, those chemical hand warmer can be made to give high heat.but it has iron in it,not sure if that can be sneaked in.
-
Of course as with any security measure nothing is 100%, but that doesn't mean
we drop security measures because they are not 100% effective.
Nor does it we mean we trample on the Constitution, in the name of "security"
-
Nor does it we mean we trample on the Constitution, in the name of "security"
There is no trampling of the Constitution.
People are free to choose to purchase airline tickets or not.
No one is forcing anyone to fly.
In fact I heard travel by car is up because of airport congestion.
People are freely choosing to avoid the hassle if that's what they want to do.
It is not a Constitutional Right to be able to refuse scanning, refuse searches & board an airplane.
There is no Constitutional Right to endanger others.
I dont want people not scanned, not searched boarding my airplane.
-
Nor does it we mean we trample on the Constitution, in the name of "security"
There is no trampling of the Constitution.
4th amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) It specifically guards against unreasonable searches and seizures
People are free to choose to purchase airline tickets or not.
Absolutely
No one is forcing anyone to fly.
Absolutely
There is no Constitutional Right to endanger others.
What?? Who's claiming that there is??
I dont want people not scanned, not searched boarding my airplane.
Your apparent limits to how far you want to support the constitution is duely noted. If it has the potential to impact you, then we can "defer the 4th amendment"? So, if Xo feels threatned by anyone that looks shady, we should "defer the 2nd amendment"? If Obama is threated by Fox News, we should defer the 1st?
Remember Cu4, we're talking about run of the mill Americans, merely traveling, and purchasing the opportunity to do it faster than if they were to drive. 95+% of them largely innocent of anything outside of speeding tickets and littering. What possible grounds can you justify such an unconstitutional searching of these people, who have done nothing to you, or anyone else? To make you "feel safer". I'm sure there are many people who would "feel safer" if we banned all firearms. Is that the avenue you wish to drive down?
-
our apparent limits to how far you want to support the constitution is duely noted. If it has the potential to impact you, then we can "defer the 4th amendment"? So, if Xo feels threatned by anyone that looks shady, we should "defer the 2nd amendment"? If Obama is threated by Fox News, we should defer the 1st?
===========================================
This is just a stupid "slippery slope" argument. The first and second amendments are not the issue here and you know it.
I observe that on the news tonight. apparently most people agreed with me and just walked through the scanners. Most said it was worth the effort to be safe.
-
"Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]4th amendment
It specifically guards against unreasonable searches and seizures
And this is not an "unreasonable search".
Your apparent limits to how far you want to support the constitution is duely noted.
If it has the potential to impact you, then we can "defer the 4th amendment"?
So, if Xo feels threatned by anyone that looks shady, we should "defer the 2nd amendment"?
If Obama is threated by Fox News, we should defer the 1st?
We are not deferring anything, because these searches are not unreasonable
and they are constitutional.
What possible grounds can you justify such an unconstitutional
searching of these people, who have done nothing to you, or anyone else?
It is not "unconstitutional searching".
Because you keep repeating it is doesn't make it so.
No final court ruling has found these searches unconstitutional.
And if and when this were ever to be litigated, in the end these searches will not be found unconstitutional.
Btw...SIRS do you think that given the chance, the people who lost their lives on Sept. 11 would have cried foul over
these pat-downs and scans if it meant saving their lives and being here today?
-
"Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]4th amendment
It specifically guards against unreasonable searches and seizures
And this is not an "unreasonable search".
And there's the crux. You realize what you're attempting to rationalize here, don't you? In your eyes, everyone is guilty of being a terrorist. Searching a person is based on a presumption that the person is guilty of something. Without that presumption, the search, as currently being conducted by the TSA, is completely unreasonable
Btw...SIRS do you think that given the chance, the people who lost their lives on Sept. 11 would have cried foul over
these pat-downs and scans if it meant saving their lives and being here today?
For those who wholly supported the Constitution and what it means in freedom to this country, yea, they would. Anti-gun folks can make the same arguement about the 2nd amendment, you're making about the 4th. ... "Cu4, do you think given the chance, the people who lost lives to gun violence, would have cried foul over the repeal of the 2nd amendment, if it meant saving their lives and being here today?"
-
if you step back the subject of the constitution is very much subjective
9-11 also effects the 1st amendment but due to the fact it`s porn very people will care.
not exactly national security,but resources are used to shut down sites and investigate them. ironicly such effort is not even needed since the economy and technology has done more harm to the industry than the government ever has.
-
With all due respect Kimba. The Constitution is pretty clear. The Bill of Rights even clearer, that much more. Limitations of what the Federal Government can impose on its populace, without some due precess or amending procedure
-
my bad
the constituation is clear, but how people go about it is another matter.
I wonder in 40 years will people think of today the sameway as the 50`s
a golden time or terrible time.
maccarthy was right, but he methods really should be questioned. I don`t recall anybody saying his methods worked
-
I think people of today, think differently than they did 5years ago. People's perceptions and thought processes evolve, and there's no denying that.
Let me put it this way, as it relates to the Constitution. Yes, we have more to fear from isolated terrorist attacks. Yes, we have more to fear from islamic radicals intent on murdering anyone that doesn't agree to their version of Islam. That's evolved over the last 2 decades, punctuated by the events of 911
However, the Constitution is what sets this country apart, from nearly the rest of the globe. It's a blueprint, literally a rulebook. Yet within the rulebook is a means to modify the rules, if evolved will wishes it. When you play poker, does 1 of those nights 2 pair beat a straight flush? Of course not, that would be changing the rules. Now, if everyone gets together and decides to change the rules as a group, fine. But intil then, the 4th amendment still protects this country's citizens from unreasonable search and seizures.
And though some may "feel safer' with the added level of groping & sexual harrasment at the hands of the TSA, or pornagraphic images taken and to be oodled by all its members, minus a presumption that every passenger is a suspected terrorist, it is wholly unreasonable for the TSA to be conducting their current level of searches at the mandate of the Federal Government
-
Kimba.... SIRS is talking nonsense.
No final court finding has found the airport screening and searches unconstitutional
NONE, NADA, ZERO......those are the facts.
He can keep whistling past the cemetery if he so chooses.
But reality is what it is....it is constitutional and it is not unreasonable.
-
You realize what you're attempting to rationalize here, don't you?
Yeah facts.
In your eyes, everyone is guilty of being a terrorist.
No myself and the courts do not.
Searching a person is based on a presumption that the person is guilty of something.
Without that presumption, the search, as currently being conducted by the TSA, is completely unreasonable
Obviously the courts agree with me and not you.
The courts have found they are not unreasonable and we live by the rule of law....
Talk's cheap...prove it in court.
Anti-gun folks can make the same argument about the 2nd amendment, you're making about the 4th. ...
"Cu4, do you think given the chance, the people who lost lives to gun violence, would have cried foul over
the repeal of the 2nd amendment, if it meant saving their lives and being here today?
The problem with your analogy is that it makes no sense because no one is calling for "repealing the 4th Amendment"
and the Courts are solidly behind the notion that the searches/screens do not violate the 4th Amendment.
A more proper analogy might have been "would people killed by machine gun fire in gang wars may have
supported some limits on the 2nd Amendment?" like banning machine guns? Sirs you do support limiting the
2nd Amendment where citizens can not own/carry machine guns?
-
Kimba.... SIRS is talking nonsense.
Wow...didn't realize support of the Constitution is now support of nonsense. Live & learn
But reality is what it is....it is constitutional and it is not unreasonable.
Based on................? Please elaborate how
Anti-gun folks can make the same argument about the 2nd amendment, you're making about the 4th. ...
"Cu4, do you think given the chance, the people who lost lives to gun violence, would have cried foul over
the repeal of the 2nd amendment, if it meant saving their lives and being here today?
The problem with your analogy is that it makes no sense because no one is calling for "repealing the 4th Amendment"
No, merely the trampling of it, while trying to ignore the process of doing so. It's the same end result, however. Making you "feel safer" on a flight, isn't a constitutional right, either
-
actually sirs has taught me a very very valuable lesson. He taught to try to listen to several opinions. in many thing I don`t agree with him but his response to me is more valuable than my opinion. I have alot to learn him still. I will never ignore his response. sirs you give great answers. I mean that
-
You're too kind, Kimba. Thank you
-
"But reality is what it is....it is constitutional and it is not unreasonable"
Based on................? Please elaborate how
Based on court cases.
Pretty much the Courts and Congress decide what is "Constitutional".
And they have decided these searches are constitutional ..again Reality is what it is SIRS.
There have been countless court challenges to the TSA airport searches.
The TSA is operating within the law as defined by the courts in the United States.
Do you really think if the courts had found this illegal the TSA would be operating in violation of court orders?
SIRS what court orders are the TSA violating? Are you claiming the TSA is in contempt of court? What court? What case?
Courts weigh the seriousness of the harm the searches are supposed to prevent against the
likelihood that the searches will help, and the degree of intrusion. Courts have consistently
upheld traditional airport security....involving metal detectors and followup pat-downs for weapons
as meeting this test. Weighing the potential deaths of hundreds or thousands, plus the destruction
of millions of dollars of property, against a few minutes of inconvenience, Congress authorizes TSA to
search travelers for weapons and explosives.
If a person goes through a scanner or a metal detector and the alarm sounds, they have the right to investigate
it and that is "reasonable". If a person refuses to enter through the scanner or metal detector then it is "reasonable"
to search them before allowing them on an airplane with other people.
Most people are not aware of is that the 9th Circuit Court of the United States ruled on the search of passengers
in airports back in 1973, which effectively suspends limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport
security screening.
In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the
TSA its power to search. The key wording in this ruling includes ?noting that airport screenings are considered to be
administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential
administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.?
U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state ?[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary,
in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers
may avoid the search by electing not to fly.?
U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling
?To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society?s interest in safe air travel.?
These 9th Circuit Court ruling laid the path for the creation of Public Law 107-71, the Aviation Transportation and Security Act,
which was virtually unopposed by legislators when it was it was signed into law on the 19th of November 2001
by President George W. Bush. This law laid the groundwork for the Transportation Security Administration and the evolution
of its current security procedures.
These laws give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration significant legal latitude to
perform the searches utilizing their current procedures without fear of violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
It is pretty simple, really. Either the country does something that works to protect the public, or it does not. If it doesn't, then no traveler is safe.It si naive in the extreme to say that we need to just pat down and scan people who look like Muslims. None of the 9-11 terrorist were dressed in mufti, were they?
Walking through a scanner is not what I would call a violation of MY privacy: if it is a violation of yours, just don't do it. Then your choices are to let them give you an annoying pat down, or you just do not fly.
I am responsible for MY privacy and how much I value it. Just as I can put an alarm on my car or not, bolt my doors, or not: it is MY privacy and my right. Not yours.
I know damned well that if some terrorist gets on a plane and blows it up or flies it into something, THAT is worse than me going through a stupid scanner. I also know that clowns like sirs will be asking for President Obama's head on a stick if something like that happens. There is no way to satisfy ratbag rightwing loons, so why even try?
Let me decide what MY privacy is. You do what you can to protect yours. I would rather walk through a scanner than be killed.
-
According to this, the searches are constitutional, mission creep is not.
Is Tougher Airport Screening Going Too Far?
By SCOTT MCCARTNEY
The Transportation Security Administration has moved beyond just checking for weapons and explosives. It’s now training airport screeners to spot anything suspicious, and then honoring them when searches lead to arrests for crimes like drug possession and credit-card fraud.
But two court cases in the past month question whether TSA searches—which the agency says have broadened to allow screeners to use more judgment—have been going too far.
A federal judge in June threw out seizure of three fake passports from a traveler, saying that TSA screeners violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Congress authorizes TSA to search travelers for weapons and explosives; beyond that, the agency is overstepping its bounds, U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley said.
Two recent court cases question whether TSA searches have been going too far.
“The extent of the search went beyond the permissible purpose of detecting weapons and explosives and was instead motivated by a desire to uncover contraband evidencing ordinary criminal wrongdoing,” Judge Marbley wrote.
In the second case, Steven Bierfeldt, treasurer for the Campaign for Liberty, a political organization launched from Ron Paul’s presidential run, was detained at the St. Louis airport because he was carrying $4,700 in a lock box from the sale of tickets, T-shirts, bumper stickers and campaign paraphernalia. TSA screeners quizzed him about the cash, his employment and the purpose of his trip to St. Louis, then summoned local police and threatened him with arrest because he responded to their questions with a question of his own: What were his rights and could TSA legally require him to answer?
Mr. Bierfeldt recorded the encounter on his iPhone and the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in June against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, claiming in part that Mr. Bierfeldt’s experience at the airport was not an anomaly.
“Whether as a matter of formal policy or widespread practice, TSA now operates on the belief that airport security screening provides a convenient opportunity to fish for evidence of criminal conduct far removed from the agency’s mandate of ensuring flight safety,” the ACLU said in its suit.
‘Mission Creep’?
TSA said in a statement on the Bierfeldt incident that travelers are required to cooperate with screeners, and while it is legal to carry any amount of money when flying domestically, the agency believes cooperation includes answering questions about property. As a result of the recording, however, TSA determined that “the tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate and proper disciplinary action was taken.”
The cases will likely inflame TSA critics and frequent travelers who believe screeners take a heavy-handed approach and worsen the hassle of getting through airports with layers of rules and sometimes inconsistent policies between different cities.
“TSA agents don’t get to play cops,” says Ben Wizner, an attorney who filed Mr. Bierfeldt’s suit. The ACLU has heard an increasing number of reports of TSA agents involved in what he called “mission creep,” he says.
TSA spokesman Greg Soule says airport screeners are trained to “look for threats to aviation security” and discrepancies in a passenger’s identity. TSA says verifying someone’s identity, or exposing false identity, is a security issue so that names can be checked against terrorism watch lists. Large amounts of cash can be evidence of criminal activity, Mr. Soule says, and so screeners look at the “quantity, packaging, circumstances of discovery or method by which the cash is carried.”
Questioning travelers is part of TSA’s standard procedures, and the agency gives its employees discretion. “TSA security officers are trained to ask questions and assess passenger reactions,” Mr. Soule says. “TSA security officers may use their professional judgment and experience to determine what questions to ask passengers during screening.”
No one questions arrests made after TSA runs into evidence of drugs or other crimes during weapons searches. A bulge in baggy pants can be investigated, for example, because it might be an explosive. If it turns out to be cocaine, TSA is expected to report it to police or Drug Enforcement Agency officials.
But once TSA has determined that someone doesn’t have weapons or explosives, agents sometimes keep searching—leading some legal experts to wonder whether questioning people about how much cash they’re carrying, the number of credit cards they have and even prescription drugs in their bags stretches the intent of airport security law.
Congress charged TSA with protecting passengers and property on an aircraft “against an act of criminal violence or aircraft piracy” and prohibited individuals from carrying a “weapon, explosive or incendiary” onto an airplane. Without search warrants, courts have held that airport security checks are considered reasonable if the search is “no more extensive or intensive than necessary” to detect weapons or explosives.
In testimony to Congress last month, Gale D. Rossides, acting TSA administrator, said the agency had moved past simply trying to intercept guns, knives and razor blades to “physical and behavioral screening to counter constantly changing threats.”
Every screener has completed a 16-hour retraining that “provides the latest information on intelligence, explosives detection and human factors affecting security,” she said. “We have revised our checkpoint Standard Operating Procedures to enable officers to use their judgment appropriately in achieving sensible security results.”
In the fake passport case, a man named Fode Amadou Fofana used a valid driver’s license with his real name at a Columbus, Ohio, TSA checkpoint. Because he had purchased his ticket for a flight at the airport just before departure, he was flagged for secondary screening. He didn’t set off metal detectors and TSA’s X-ray equipment didn’t see anything suspicious, according to court testimony. The bags were swabbed for explosive residue and did not trigger any alarms. TSA agents opened the bags and searched inside because he was selected for extra screening.
According to the judge’s ruling, the TSA agent involved testified that she had been instructed to search for suspicious items beyond weapons and explosives and to “be alert for anything that might be unlawful for him to possess, such as credit cards belonging to other people, illegal drugs or counterfeit money.”
The agent found envelopes with cash, which she considered suspicious. Three other envelopes had something more rigid than dollar bills. She testified she didn’t believe there were weapons inside, but opened them looking for “contraband” and found three fake passports.
Limiting Searches
Judge Marbley said the TSA had no authority to open the envelopes. In his ruling, he said prior cases clearly established that airport security searches should be aimed only at detecting weapons or explosives.
“A checkpoint search tainted by ‘general law enforcement objectives’ such as uncovering contraband evidencing general criminal activity is improper,” the judge wrote.The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Columbus has filed notice that it will appeal the judge’s order.
Mr. Bierfeldt’s suit, filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, seeks to bar TSA from “conducting suspicion-less pre-flight searches of passengers or their belongings for items other than weapons or explosives.”
Mr. Bierfeldt, who was released by TSA after an official in plain clothes saw political materials in his bag and asked if the cash was campaign contributions, said he just wants to save others from harassment by TSA. “It’s the principle of the matter,” he said. “I didn’t break any laws and was no threat.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204556804574261940842372518.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204556804574261940842372518.html)
-
Further Caselaw:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html)
-
A passport is legally the possession of the issuing government. It says so right in the passport. So seizing a bogus passport is not a violation of anyone's rights. A person has no right to carry falsified government documents.
Opening the envelopes would be the offense. Also, if they took the money, THAT would be an offense.
What if this guy were a Nigerian email scammer?
-
"But reality is what it is....it is constitutional and it is not unreasonable"Based on................? Please elaborate how
Based on court cases.
Pretty much the Courts and Congress decide what is "Constitutional".
And they have decided these searches are constitutional ..again Reality is what it is SIRS.
Yes, becuase of course, Social Security is Constitutional, right? Obamacare as well, right? Abortion, right? Just because the Judiciary has frequently allowed the executive & legislative branches to shred the Constitution, in the name of the Commerce Clause, or some non-existant precedent, doesn't equate to it truely being an act our Founders would have been applauding.
But I guess its good to know where your limits of support for the constitution are drawn. Don't worry though, I won't suspect you of being a terrorist, if you're on my flight
-
SIRS if you do not want Congress and the Courts deciding what is Constitutional
who do you propose do it?
Also did you ever answer my question about the Second Amendment?
Do you support that it has been decided that a citizen's Second Amendment
rights are not violated by making it illegal to own a machine-gun?
-
So, in your eyes, you must support Obamacare, right? Abortion, right? Because they are classified as "Constitutional", and since the courts have ruled on them, you obviously support them, and in your eyes, are perfectly and appropriately Constitutional, right?
I never claimed I wanted anyone but the Judiciary deciding the Constitutionality of an issue. I merely wish they'd stick to the Constitution, when making their laws and rulings
-
So, in your eyes, you must support Obamacare, right? Abortion, right? Because they are classified as "Constitutional", and since the courts have ruled on them, you obviously support them, and in your eyes, are perfectly and appropriately Constitutional, right?
That summary is nowhere close to the argument CU4 made.
The ruling as to constitutionality and agreement with that ruling are separate thought processes.
-
That's my point. He's using the "legal" application of it supposedly being Constitutional, merely becasue the courts have ruled. Ok, so it's technically constitutional....that makes it right?, ok?, acceptable? Especially given the examples I've provided that are also technically constitutional. When courts or the legislature or the executive branch, brazenly subvert the clear intentions of the constitution, just because they get away with it doesn't make it right. Nor is claiming that "the courts have ruled" make the subversion any less overt
-
And my point was that just because CU4 can cite court rulings showing the constitutionality of "administrative searches in a regulated industry", does not mean that he personally agrees with that court ruling or any other court ruling that may come up for discussion.
Your if-then logic is faulty.
-
Not at all, since that's currently the legal justification being used in how these wholly unreasonable searches are being supported/advocated
If not, what is the justification?? Because they can? Because they should? Because it makes someone "feel safer"? Ones rights end when they're imposed upon another
-
Again you miss the point.
How can you say that CU should be in favor of abortion because the courts ruled in Roe vs Wade that way. Anyone who has read CU all these years knows damn well he is not in favor of abortion. Nor does he have to be, just because the courts ruled in a way different than his wishes.
The courts rulings are one thing, which he and others cited, when you said that these searches were a trampling of the 4th, agreement or disagreement with the rulings is quite another.
To claim that he must agree with Roe vs Wade is different than him acknowledging that the ruling exists.
-
Again you miss the point. How can you say that CU should be in favor of abortion because the courts ruled in Roe vs Wade that way
No, I'm spot on, since Cu4 supports the current unreasonable searches because to date, the courts have ruled that way
Anyone who has read CU all these years knows damn well he is not in favor of abortion.
PRECISELY. Double standard perhaps. I made that clear already when I referenced his apparent limitations in when and where he, or anyone else that has no problem with this Administrations mandate on the TSA, stops supporting the constitution. Read, not law, but the constitution itself. I've referenced how these searches are unconstitutional, and precisely how with the subversion of the 4th amendment. The defense is "well the courts have ruled". Ergo, it's ok
Abortion was ruled on......ergo, it's ok. If not, we have a blatant double standard in play
-
No, I'm spot on, since Cu4 supports the current unreasonable searches because to date, the courts have ruled that way
Perhaps you can show where CU said the only reason he supports the searches is because the courts ruled that they are constitutional. I think he has given numerous other non-legal reasons why he supports the procedure.
-
Not really. I've seen "we're at war". I've seen the implication that he believes he's safer with the searches. But when it came down to brass tax on why its reasonable searching, the defense was that the courts had ruled that way. Simple as that
His rights don't supercede mine or yours, merely because he feels safer
-
I don't think he is claiming that his "rights" supercede yours.
I think he was challenging your assertion that the TSA was trampling the 4th. The courts disagree.
They have narrowed the scope of TSA authority but left in place the primary function of making sure weapons and explosives do not make it onto aircraft.
When i fly, i go to the pat down line automatically. 5 stents have a tendency to set off all kinds of alarms.
-
I don't think he is claiming that his "rights" supercede yours.
The implication is clear. I'm being forced to be searched, UNREASONABLY, based on.......an apparent presumption that I'm a terrorist, and that he'll feel safer. Otherwise there is no basis. At least not one that's been made any clearer
I think he was challenging your assertion that the TSA was trampling the 4th. The courts disagree.
They are.....just as the Government has trampled on the Commerce Clause, more times that I can count, not to mention an apparent right to an Abortion, all validated by the court. Subverting the clear intentions of the Constitution, by way of the court supporting the subversion, in no way makes the act, "ok". Merely makes it legal
But let's get it on record: How are the current groping, pat downs, and nude imaging performed by the the Federal Government and the TSA, of any and everyone flying, reasonable, under the law?
-
The implication is clear. I'm being forced to be searched
He isn't forcing you to be searched. The law is.
The link i posted earlier is from the 9th District Federal Court of Appeals. The only group with higher authority is SCOTUS.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html)
-
The implication is clear. I'm being forced to be searched
He isn't forcing you to be searched. The law is.
And who is in favor of that law??
The link i posted earlier is from the 9th District Federal Court of Appeals. The only group with higher authority is SCOTUS.
Yea, .......and? Subverting the clear intentions of the Constitution, by way of the court supporting the subversion, in no way makes the act, "ok". Merely makes it legal
-
And who is in favor of that law??
At a minimum the majority of lawmakers who voted for it, vs those few who voted against it.
Subverting the clear intentions of the Constitution, by way of the court supporting the subversion, in no way makes the act, "ok".
Did the US Government have Customs Houses during the time of the founders?
Were they able to board and inspect vessels coming into port?
-
And who is in favor of that law??
At a minimum the majority of lawmakers who voted for it, vs those few who voted against it.
+ those who support the TSA's having been given said authority. This isn't a bubble Bt. Those that whole heartededly support the searching wouldn't be against the law that gives those the authority to search ::)
Subverting the clear intentions of the Constitution, by way of the court supporting the subversion, in no way makes the act, "ok".
Did the US Government have Customs Houses during the time of the founders?
Doubtful. Which is why we have a procedure for amending the Constitution, in the event we need to subvert it properly and legally. The Constitution is in place to LIMIT what the US Government can do. Then again, you know that, which is why it's kind of funny you asking such a question
-
Doubtful.
I suggest you bone up on early US History.
Tariffs and Customs were the chief means of support for the Federal Government.
Not only were they authorized to collect but they were also authorized to enforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Revenue_Cutter_Service) these administrative statutes.
-
Irrelevent to the point being made about the Constitution, and the Government usurping/subverting it, against the clear intentions of it. You asked a largely irrelevent question, to which I guessed at. Thank you for correcting me on the answer
It's still irrevelent
-
I don't see how it is irrelevant to the current situation. You harped on founders intent. The Cutter Revenue Service was established by Alexander Hamilton who either through his essays in the Federalist Papers or his speeches on the floor of the Constitutional Convention had more to do with its passage than any other figure in early US History.
So what we have is the founders willing to search and seize if it met the requirements of the common good, and we have courts of today ruling that the TSA does not trample on the 4th.
What we are left with is your personal dislike for the law.
And i'm not too crazy about it either. But it is what it is and will be what it will be until it is changed.
Because that was the founders intent.
-
I don't see how it is irrelevant to the current situation. You harped on founders intent.
CONSTITUTION....BILL OF RIGHTS....GOVERNMENT LIMITATIONS. If you want to call that harping, so be it. Your use of "common good" was in the government supporting itself, for lack of any income tax at the time. This issue has nothing to do with that, not to mention it's current lack of existance, outside that of the Coast Guard, thus the irrelevency
Or are you going to argue now that the Coast Guard's primary function (or any function for that matter) is to collect tarriffs
-
Your use of "common good" was in the government supporting itself, for lack of any income tax at the time.
You are familiar with tariffs, are you not. Import duties on goods from foreign countries that raises the prices of those goods in favor of locally produced goods?
That was also a part of the levies under the Treasury department of the times. Protecting local producers might be considered by some to be in the interest of the common good.
And though you scoffed at the common good being met by funding the federal government with these tariffs and duties, that funding would have to come from somewhere most likely the various states and by extension the citizens of those states. So i think that Hamilton had a very good idea.
Or are you going to argue now that the Coast Guard's primary function (or any function for that matter) is to collect tariffs
i would suggest you stick to arguing what i have written versus possibly misrepresenting my point. I know you hate when that happens.
-
Your use of "common good" was in the government supporting itself, for lack of any income tax at the time.
You are familiar with tariffs, are you not. Import duties on goods from foreign countries that raises the prices of those goods in favor of locally produced goods?
Yes, and per your own link, you're aware of the function of the Revenue Cutter Service? The taking in of tariffs & duties to PAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO FUNCTION, as there was no other form of income taxes at the time
And you're aware that that function and program no longer exists, correct? What's left is the Coast Guard agency
And you must also be aware of the complete irrelvency this current tangent is taking us as it relates to the function of the Constitution and its clear intentions, by its founders. The Revenue Cutter Service was a good idea, for what it needed to do, at the time. And it had nothing to do with making anyone feel safer
-
Perhaps you missed the part of where the Cutter Revenue Service had the authority to board and search ships at any time. Not much different than the authority TSA has over airplane access at airports.
And perhaps you are unaware that The Customs Department has been rolled into the Customs and Border Protection Agency which is under the Homeland Security Department.
On a Typical Day in Fiscal Year 2009, CBP...
02/16/2010
Processed:
* 989,689 passengers and pedestrians
o 240,407 incoming international air passengers
o 45,735 passengers/crew arriving by ship
o 703,546 incoming land travelers
* 57,761 truck, rail, and sea containers
* 271,278 incoming privately owned vehicles
Executed:
* 2,139 apprehensions at and in between the ports of entry for illegal entry
* 616 refusals of entry at our ports of entry
* 107 arrests of criminals at ports of entry
Intercepted:
* 72 fraudulent documents
Seized:
* 6,643 kilograms of drugs
* $300,582 in undeclared or illicit currency
* 4,291 prohibited plant, meat and animal byproducts, and 454 agricultural pests intercepted
Rescued:
* 488 events with a total of 1281 people
Deployed:
* 21,863 vehicles, 290 aircraft, 225 watercraft, and 280 horse patrols
* 1,419 canine enforcement teams
Protected more than:
* 5,000 miles of border with Canada
* 1,900 miles of border with Mexico
* 95,000 miles of shoreline
Employed approximately:
* 57,519 employees, including:
o 21,058 CBP officers
o 2,394 CBP agriculture specialists
o 20,119 Border Patrol agents
o 1,212 Air and Marine agents including:
+ 47 Air Enforcement officers
+ 823 Air Interdiction agents
+ 342 Marine Interdiction agents
Managed:
* 327 ports of entry within 20 field offices
* 139 Border Patrol stations within 20 Sectors, with 37 permanent checkpoints
http://www.cbp.gov (http://www.cbp.gov)
-
Apples and Oranges. Our military naval vessels (Coast Guard & Navy) are authorized to board any vessel they deem a threat, or acting suspiciously, or way back when, in need of paying their duties, and not in any way close to searching each and every person that wants to fly commercial
The one and largely only thing you have right is yes, I don't support this law. No more than I would support Abortion, or Obamacare. Just because the courts rule, doesn't make it an "ok" ruling. Merely makes it legal to those looking for justification. And in this case, a detestable slap n the face of our founders and the Constitution, most notably, the 4th amendment
-
Actually not apples and oranges. You said administrative searches on regulated industries, whether it be maritime trade or airline travel goes far beyond what the founders intended, yet one of the foremost founders Alexander Hamilton, instituted the enforcement arm of the Customs Department to do just that. Seems there is a conflict between your idealized version of American History and the reality of the actual record, and your distaste for the law doesn't change that.
-
All sirs arguments tend to do this: sirs is wrong, but will not admit that he is wrong, so he he picks some minor nit and eventually the whole debate collapses into a heap of minuscule nitpickeries, in this case about the Coast Guard and the collection of tariffs.
The TSA has the job of preventing explosives on airliners. They would and should do this no mater who the president is. They have the right to do this, because that is how the courts have ruled.
You don't want to be scanned, get patted down. If you don't like that, buy your own damned plane and fly it yourself. Or drive, row, walk or swim.
-
No court has ruled on the latest methods. You are mistaken. When the Rutherford Institute filed suits on behalf of 2 pilots, Obama changed the rules and pilots no longer are subjected to the invasive searches. Now that another suit is going to be filed, we find that a lot of the machines have now been roped off and are not in use. Obama's government is pushing the limit on this, and they probably know what they are doing is not legal and have gotten away with it, until now.
-
Actually not apples and oranges.
Actually yes, as you're trying to use a historical means of an agency that doesn't exist or have the same function any more, that was authorized in collecting $$$ for the government prior to incomes taxes, along with its present manifestation that focuses on immgation and suspicious vessels near our country's borders as somehow analogus to the authorization to unreasonably search each, & potentially every person that merely wishes to fly
There are far more effective methods the TSA can employ in "preventing explosives on airlines". But the PC elites won't stand for that. Everyone needs to be considered a terrorist, since it could be offensive to actually focus attention on those far more likely to be a terrorist, or helping one
And when the next plane is hit by a terrorist attack, following the breakdown of these sexual harrassment tactics, what liberties shall we strip away then, in order to make us "feel safer"?
-
There are far more effective methods the TSA can employ in "preventing explosives on airlines".
But the PC elites won't stand for that. Everyone needs to be considered a terrorist, since it could
be offensive to actually focus attention on those far more likely to be a terrorist, or helping one
So just leave a HUGE gaping hole in security?
Again...do you not realize we are at war with very, very ruthless people.
So we don't screen kids, nuns, old grandma's.
How long will it be until they dress up an IslamoNazi like a Nun and blow our families into what looks like a bowl of grits?
Then we'll hear "well golly gee didn't Obama realize they'd dress somebody up in a Nun's outfit & blow up this 767 with hundreds of people on it"?
So SIRS all your better solutions are specifically what?
Please dont use the "cop out" answer "be like Israel".
You seem sooooo concerned about a citizens Constitutional Rights.
Well do you not support the Constitutional Rights of US Citizens if we were to switch to an Israeli "profiling method"?
What about my friend that is an Arab American?
Are you willing to wave his "Constitutional Rights"?
According to you my Arab American friend is "innocent until proven guilty".
So would we be able to keep him off a plane if he refuses to answer personal questions, refuses pat downs, refuses full scanning?
The Israelis would not allow him on a plane unless he submits, are you saying we should deny this American Citizen like the Israelis?
Where does your constitutional outrage start and stop for Arab Americans SIRS?
BTW Israel has full-body scanners on order.
The US has 30,000-40,000 flights a day, Israel has no where near that number.
The US has dozens of very large international airports, Israel does not.
At any given moment, roughly 5,000 planes are in the skies above the United States dwarfing Israel.
In one year, controllers handle an average of 64 million takeoffs and landings in the US.
It's not all quick and easy in Isreal either:
(http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.313702.1290626144!/image/645792518.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_295/645792518.jpg)
Passengers waiting at Ben Gurion International Airport, September 13, 2010
-
The mention of the historical agency and their mission was to counter your claim that administrative searches were not within the founders vision.
The citing of caselaw shows that throughout this countries history administrative searches have been deemed constitutional, which counters your claim this process isn't.
You can deny the relevancy of those particular truths, but they still remains truths.
Which leads us away from the legality of the searches to the popularity of these searches.
I, like you, am not crazy about them, and i am not surprised that critics of Obama would lay this all at his feet, but the fact remains that the body scanners were first ordered under the Bush Administration and that his Homeland Security Secretary now represents the company that makes them. It is nice to know that John Kerry also got onto the gravy train, which is a rare example of bi- partisan participation in policy profiteering.
I don't fly often enough for this to be of concern to me. I am far more concerned with this governments economic policy and its possible impact on inflation, which seems to be on the rise.
-
Israel has 6 million people in a country so tiny that there are very few national flights. Most flights in Israel are international flights. Israel has no constitutional rights, because it has no constitution at all. The Israeli government can, and dies, arrest people and hold them without charges for as long as it likes. Everyone flying in Israel knows this.
A ten second body scan is not harmful and not inconvenient. No one actually sees anything that should embarrass anyone.
I hardly think that anything that the Founders said or wrote anticipated air travel or suicide bombers. So your opinion of what they might say is irrelevant. You might as well ponder whether Ben Franklin would drive a Porsche, a Cadillac or a Lexus. Hell, he'd be greatly impressed by a 1986 Hyundai Excel.
Whether one chooses to go through a scanner, get patted down or not flay at all is simply a personal decision. None of us will ever get to vote on it.
-
Cu4, with all due respect, I admire your stauch conservative credientials. I admire how you can objectively compliment Obama when he appropriately uses military assets to go after terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and where ever else they're hiding. But I can also objectively deduce how you're allowing your emotions cloud your ususal common sense conservative stances. Whether or not there is this "huge" gap as you say, still doesn't justify the ignoring of the constitution, when it happens to get in the way of this supposed "gap". Your defense that the courts have ruled, ergo it's constitutional, ergo, its ok, is precisely the same tactic the left uses when defending Abortion, Obamacare, Social Security, etc. Just because the Government got away with it, doesn't mean its ok. Just because you would feel safer if everyone is groped or pornagrafically imaged, doesn't make it "reasonable". There are more effective, albeit less politically correct techniques, to plug security gaps that don't impact everyone's freedom. They merely target those who are far more likely, than the 10year old autistic child or the 60+year old female with bilateral total knee replacements
I could produce countless articles from conservatives, that you yourself admire, that demonstrate the error in your judgement. Can you produce more than 1 conservative pundit that sees it your way? (and No Bt, that's isn't advocating that Cu4 needs others to make up his mind for him....I figure that would be something you're looking to try and claim, so I thought it best to nip that in the bud) Point being, it's a staunchly conservative position to support and defend the Constitution. EVEN at the expense of a sense of more security. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
and No Bt, that's isn't advocating that Cu4 needs others to make up his mind for him....I figure that would be something you're looking to try and claim, so I thought it best to nip that in the bud
Clairvoyant too? Your talents simply are amazing.
-
Given your track record, as of late, I aim to please
-
At least your misrepresentations are consistent. Cudo's for that
-
Didn't realize you've now changed the definition of logical deductive reasoning to misrepresentation. Be sure to alert Websters
-
And perhaps you should leave the personal attacks out of your flailing arguments.
-
SIRS when I state the courts and congress have deemed something "Constitutional"
that is because it is in fact presently "constitutonal". I do not support abortion,
but how could I possibly argue that abortion is unconstitutional when the Supreme Court
has ruled that it is? I may think something is wrong, but we have a system where the
courts and congress interpret our constitution. That is reality. Sure things can change
but that doesn't change the present reality. Again, it is what it is.
Survival within reason trumps everything for me SIRS.
If Thomas Sowell wants to drop TSA intense screening...well fine...but I am going with survival.
In my view it's sad that people like you have to be badly burned before taking action instead of being pro-active.
Fine...drop all the new more intense screeening, try to implement the Israeli procedures that wont really work here
And when multiple planes start blowing up....and the public will DEMAND what I support now.
It's just too bad people have to die to force you into more intense action
-
And perhaps you should leave the personal attacks out of your flailing arguments.
That's a presentation of hypersensitivity, since it was neither a "personal attack" or "flailing arguement". If I had left out the reference, you would have erroneously criticized me for advocating that Cu4 can't make up his mind without a conservative pundit telling him what to think. I merely put that to a stop before it got started.
The fact your taking time out of your schedule to "personally attack" me with the misrepresentation garbage, demonstrates the accuracy of my deductions
-
SIRS when I state the courts and congress have deemed something "Constitutional" that is because it is in fact presently "constitutonal".
And so is abortion. Doesn't make it right, does it. So, if it is ruled unconsitutional, you will have then "seen the light"?
Survival within reason trumps everything for me SIRS.
And The Constitution trumps the perception of security for me. I'd even give my life in the defense of this country, its constitution, and its freedom. Its what so many of our fantastic military have done for me. It's the least I can do for them
-
If I had left out the reference, you would have erroneously criticized me for advocating that Cu4 can't make up his mind without a conservative pundit telling him what to think.
All in all, excepting the dekba dispatches, CU pretty much writes his own stuff.
-
I know that. My deduction was on you criticizing me, for supposedly advocating the above. I merely cut that tactic off before it got going. Your continuing to harp on this continues to reinforce the accuracy to my deduction
-
And so is abortion. Doesn't make it right, does it.
No, never said or implied it did....but I am not the one saying it "tramples on the Constitution".
Abortion is constitutional because the Supreme Court says it is.
These searches are not "trampling on the constitution" because the Courts and Congress made that decision.
You are free to have an opinion about it, but your opinion does not determine reality in the way the courts and congress do.
You seem to be constitutional one moment, but then not accept that the constitution itself sets up Congress & the Courts to make these decisions.
So, if it is ruled unconsitutional, you will have then "seen the light"?
Of course if the searches are ruled unconstitutional then I could hardly say they are constitutional.
You on the other hand want to pick and choose what the Supreme Court rules you accept as constitutional.
And The Constitution trumps the perception of security for me.
I'd even give my life in the defense of this country, its constitution, and its freedom.
Its what so many of our fantastic military have done for me. It's the least I can do for them
LOL.....ok SIRS....the guilt trip is killing me!
You're brave & patriotic & people that support security measures that the Courts & Congress say are constitutional are not. ::)
Plus it's a strawman argument anyway....the courts & congress agree with me that the searches are reasonable and Constitutional.
This isn't a case of security "trumping" the constitution, because the searches are constitutional per congress and the courts
-
And so is abortion. Doesn't make it right, does it.
No, never said or implied it did....but I am not the one saying it "tramples on the Constitution".
Yea, that would be THIS CONSERVATIVE, as it is actually an assault on the Bill of Rights, vs merely reading into the Constitution a right that never existed before. Minus a presumtion of guilt, groping people who have done nothing, or taking pornagraphic-like images is wholly unreasonable. I'm surprised at the level of political correctness you're adopting in order to feel safer
These searches are not "trampling on the constitution" because the Courts and Congress made that decision.
Yes, IMHO, they are. Just because the Fed can get away with it, doesn't make it right. Congress & the Courts have trampled on the Constitution for eons, doesn't mean conservatives are going to shut up when they do it again, and again, and again.
You seem to be constitutional one moment, but then not accept that the constitution itself sets up Congress & the Courts to make these decisions.
Example being?
Of course if the searches are ruled unconstitutional then I could hardly say they are constitutional.
But you'd still support them, correct? You just wouldn't have the defense of "the courts said it was ok" to use, any longer. See, that's the difference between our 2 arguments. I'm using the constitution and the clear intentions provided for, by way of the founders, and you're using "the courts said it was ok".
So, if the courts rule that they are constitutional, outside of a SCOTUS ruling, I'm still going to defend the constitution. If SCOTUS rules my way, I will have been vindicated If SCOTUS rules them Constitutional, then we've simply had another RvW moment in this country
So, what will your status be with a SCOTUS decision if:
yes, it's ok-
no, it's unconstitutional-
And if Scalia, Thomas, Alito vote my way....will that open your eyes at all?
This isn't a case of security "trumping" the constitution, because the searches are constitutional per congress and the courts
Yea, because the Congress & the courts never (cough, social security) ever does anything (cough, campaign finance reform) contrary to (cough, abortion) the clear intentions (cough, Obamacare) of the Constitution.
-
Yea, that would be THIS CONSERVATIVE, as it is actually an assault on the Bill of Rights,
vs merely reading into the Constitution a right that never existed before.
The US Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States
which by the way is Conservative agrees with THIS CONSERVATIVE.
Minus a presumption of guilt, groping people who have done nothing,
There is no presumption of guilt, there is a reasonable search to protect the public
from bombs being brought upon airplanes.
or taking pornagraphic-like images is wholly unreasonable
What is unreasonable is allowing bombs on planes.
Given the choice it is clear which is much more unreasonable.
Plus the images are not even close to "pornographic" & do not stand to the test of
the definition of the word "pornographic" or "pornography".
I'm surprised at the level of political correctness you're adopting in order to feel safer
You call it political correctness....I call it sanity. You will too if we go your way
and there are hundreds if not thousands of dead bodies of women and children.
Indirectly you will have "blood on your hands".
And then after a couple of planes explodes you try to sell your "no search" stance to the public that will be angry as hell.
I promise you they wont be buying.
That's the thing...eventually my way is gonna win....the IslamoNazis will blow up some planes.
It's just sad that hundreds maybe thousands will have to die to convince doubters.
Example being?
One moment you are sooooo worried about the Constitution and presumed innocence
but you are being evasive as to how you would secure our airplanes.
I asked you directly if we go the "Israeli route" how could you support
those security measures and not be concerned about the citizens constitutional rights
that would seem to be in the same category as the ones you are outraged about now?
Arab Americans will have their "constitutional rights trampled"..where's your outrage?
Under the Israel profiling people are asked questions, if they refuse to answer they
are "presumed guilty" and other more severe screening is done. How can you be
outraged about "presumed guilt" as you call it now, but OK with "presumed guilt"
under the Israeli system? If you do not support the Israeli methods I will ask
again...what specifically would you do to keep our planes safer from bombs
being brought on board? Interview everybody on 30,000 flights a day?...Sure!
But you'd still support them, correct?
Yes we've already gone over this.
The Supreme Court says abortion is constitutional, but I oppose abortion.
But I don't say abortion is unconstitutional....that would be insane....because it is constitutional.
You just wouldn't have the defense of "the courts said it was OK" to use, any longer.
A defense? I am stating facts of the reality we live in.
See, that's the difference between our 2 arguments.
I'm using the constitution and the clear intentions provided for,
by way of the founders, and you're using "the courts said it was OK".
LOL...yeah sure SIRS.
When the courts side with you they are following the constitution.
When the courts set up by the constitution side against you
They aren't following the constitution.
BTW...did you ever answer if you think it is ok that we don't allow ordinary citizens
to buy/sell machine guns when the Constitution makes no mention of what
type of guns citizens should be allowed to carry?
So, if the courts rule that they are constitutional, outside of a SCOTUS ruling,
I'm still going to defend the constitution.
But you are only "defending the constitution" in your own mind.
My stance is backed by people the Constitution says should decides these matters.
I feel as though I am defending the Constitution as much or more than you.
To you the Constitution appears to be a cafeteria to choose from.
You accept Supreme Court decisions sometimes and then pretend
the body is totally corrupt trampling the Constitution when you dont agree.
So, what will your status be with a SCOTUS decision if:
yes, it's OK-
no, it's unconstitutional-
My status? Whats that mean?
And if Scalar, Thomas, Ali to vote my way....will that open your eyes at all?
I would always be interested in what they say, but if I don't agree logically with them
then I would not agree with them....pretty simple for me...either I would agree or disagree with them.
-
Do you support that it has been decided that a citizen's Second Amendment
rights are not violated by making it illegal to own a machine-gun?
It's not illegal to own a machine gun. My neighbor has a bunch, so do a number of friends. It just requires a special license, which includes a significant background check.
-
Ya know SIRS after doing some reading during this discussion with you I am now
leaning towards dropping the option for passengers to refuse the full body scanner.
The American People overwhelmingly support the use of the full body scanners and
really I don't see not much upside in allowing people to "opt out" and choose the more
problematic body pat-down. Of course there may be a few instances for medical
reasons people would need to opt out of the full body scanner, but the majority
of people refusing the full body scanner should not be allowed to make that choice.
They should be able to choose full body scan or they can't fly. Somehow I think
you wont agree! (lol)
(http://www.hitsville.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/cbs_news.jpg)
Poll: 4 in 5 Support Full-Body Airport Scanners
November 15, 2010
By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.
Americans have differing views on two potentially inconvenient and invasive practices that airports could
implement to uncover potential terrorist attacks, a new CBS News poll shows. Americans overwhelmingly
approve of the use of full-body digital x-ray machines - a new technology in use at some airports in the U.S.
Most, meanwhile, do not approve of racial or ethnic profiling - a practice not in place.
In response to continued security threats, the Transportation and Security Administration recently began introducing
full body scanners with more enhanced technology than past devices into airports nationwide. If a passenger refuses
to pass through the new scanners, TSA agents are now allowed to conduct a very detailed, very personal, body search
on that person.
Althoughsome civil rights groups allege that they represent an unconstitutional invasion of privacy,
Americans overwhelmingly agree that airports should use the digital x-ray machines to electronically
screen passengers in airport security lines, according to the new poll. Eighty-one percent think airports
should use these new machines -- including a majority of both men and women, Americans of all age groups,
and Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. Fifteen percent said airports should not use them.
In an op-ed for USA Today, Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano today urged Americans to be patient in the
face of the heightened airplane security measures.
"Al-Qaeda and those inspired by its ideology are determined to strike our global aviation system and are constantly
adapting their tactics for doing so," she wrote. "Our best defense against such threats remains a risk-based,
layered security approach that utilizes a range of measures, both seen and unseen, including law enforcement,
advanced technology, intelligence, watch-list checks and international collaboration."
While the TSA has implemented new security measures, it does not single out individuals based on their ethnic or
racial backgrounds. (It has since 2003 conducted behavioral profiling.)
Most Americans do not think it would be justified for people of certain racial or ethnic groups to be subject to additional
security checks at airport checkpoints. Fifty-two percent say no, while 37 percent say it would be justified.
Feelings on this may be sensitive to news about terror threats. Back in January 2010 -- after a failed Christmas Day attempt
by a Nigerian citizen to detonate explosives hidden in his underwear on a flight to Detroit - a slight majority of Americans
thought ethnic profiling was justified. In 2006, shortly after British authorities unveiled a potential terror plot using liquid
explosives, 49 percent of Americans supported ethnic profiling at airports.
Some groups of Americans see this issue differently. Republicans are divided on this issue, while Americans over 65 and those
who think a terrorist attack within the next few months is very likely are more apt to think ethnic and racial profiling is justified
than not.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html)
-
It's not illegal to own a machine gun. My neighbor has a bunch, so do a number of friends.
It just requires a special license, which includes a significant background check.
Ok AMI fair enough...it is illegal to own a machine gun in the US unless you get the special govt permit.
(happy now?...lol)
Although AMI I understand that there are several states that do not allow full auto at all. I am pretty sure
DE, HI, IL, KS, NY, RI, WA do not allow full auto. Some states allow for ownership of machine guns only
by dealers and manufacturers: CA, IA, MI, MO, and MI. But you are correct AMI in the other states upon
a showing of good cause, a permit for possession for a fully automatic weapon may be issued by
the Department of Justice / ATF. You have to jump through some hoops, wait months, and then you can
become a part of a tiny percentage of the population that can legally own one of these very expensive guns.
I think it must be made before 1986, and strict rules followed in their use, transportation, and resale. So my
question still is the same to SIRS, does he support some states ability to ban machine guns completely and
does he support the "hoops" and scrutiny the govt has set up with obvious intent to discourage machine
guns among our citizenry?
-
I feel less threatened by individual gun fanciers owning their own machine guns than by terrorists putting bombs on planes.
I don't feel very threatened by either, though. Idiots in traffic on I-95 are a far greater threat to me.
-
I guess that means we now need everyone who wants to operate/drive a car, to also go thru full body cavity searches & pornagrafic imaging. Just to make sure, and make everyone feel safer. I mean, if it saves just 1 life, why wouldn't we?
-
Conservative justices seems to have bent the 4th to allow for roving checkpoints, it's just a matter of technology catching up with the law.
-
Conservative justices seem to know how to define reasonable vs not
-
actually , i got no problem making the drivers test alittle more difficult.
-
Conservative justices seem to know how to define reasonable vs not
Yes they modify the founders intent to match the changing times. Kinda like defining a living breathing document vs the static constitution that many conservatives advocate.
Tell me how roving roadblocks meet the terms of this amendment:
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.
What is the probable cause for a roadblock?
-
Conservative justices seem to know how to define reasonable vs not
Yes they modify the founders intent to match the changing times.
No, they look at reasonable and define what is and isn't. Kinda like black and white. What is and isn't. Merely being stopped is not unreasonable. Nothing living about it. But hey, if they rule on the TSA tactics and make a similar ruling, then you & Cu4 will be deemed right in their modifying the founders intent, and I will be wrong. But if they go my way...
Ball in their court
-
There is a difference between being stopped or pulled over for cause than a dragnet randomly set up to snare possible violators.
The conservative justices rationalized their decision by saying the inconvenience to the public for a 10 minute delay while the police check their papers does not outweigh the public good obtained by getting the drunk drivers off the road.
Now think about that for a minute.
They said the goals of the state are more important than the rights of the individual. And you agree with that?
-
Reasonable vs not. As I said, we apparently have VERY different defintions of unreasonable.
I'll let the Conservative SCOTUS Justices demonstrate my point, when it crosses their desks. Hopefully, it'll be soon
-
Reasonable vs not. As I said, we apparently have VERY different defintions of unreasonable.
I'll let the Conservative SCOTUS Justices demonstrate my point, when it crosses their desks. Hopefully, it'll be soon
I'm sorry, did you answer my question, or simply deflect it.
Let me rephrase.
Do you believe it reasonable to place the interest of the state ahead of the personal liberties of the individual, as the conservatives justices in the case certainly did?
-
Since I don't agree with your premice, the question is moot. As I said, we'll have to wait for the partcular justices to rule on TSA tactics, when it gets to their desks. Then we'll see which one of us is right, in how we believe they're interpreting the Constitution.
-
Since I don't agree with your premice, the question is moot.
If i don't agree with your posts, should i simply delete them?
-
It'd be quite the disappointment, but you're the boss. I guess it would be consistent with the other recent disappointments I've noted and recorded here in the saloon. Be sure to delete the ones that have the Conservative justices agreeing with me, on this one
-
I didn't know any conservative justices were members of this forum, so perhaps you could show me where they agreed with you.
-
Apparently you missed the context (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/tsa-gt-tsg/msg113844/#msg113844) of my comment. I should have been a little clearer I suppose
-
Be sure to delete the ones that have the Conservative justices agreeing with me, on this one
So which posts would those be.
-
"Do you believe it reasonable to place the interest
of the state ahead of the personal liberties of the individual"
SIRS why are you being so evasive?
Why not simply be honest and answer the questions without worry to whether it
damages an earlier stance you took?
Why not just admit the obvious ....
"yeah sometimes the interests of the state champion the personal liberties of the individual"
quit worrying soooo much about "gotcha"
-
Be sure to delete the ones that have the Conservative justices agreeing with me, on this one (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/tsa-gt-tsg/msg113844/#msg113844)
So which posts would those be.
I realize you're purposely being obtuse now. But to be even MORE clear, its in reference to WHEN the conservative justices agree with me, on this one, AFTER the TSA tactices have been brought to them for a ruling, THEN you can delete those posts
sheeeeeesh
-
So the Conservative Justices have not agreed with you, up to this point. You are just certain that they will.
OK. You are just expressing confidence in your certitude.
-
I express confidence that they'll stick to the founding principles of the Constitution, as well as the continued ability to be able to define reasonable vs not, which is part of the Constitution. 4th amendment, in particular (which means, they've still been agreeing with me despite your best efforts to claim they haven't...thus the false premice to your earlier question)
-
I express confidence that they'll stick to the founding principles of the Constitution, as well as the continued ability to be able to define reasonable vs not, which is part of the Constitution. 4th amendment, in particular (which means, they've still been agreeing with me despite your best efforts to claim they haven't...thus the false premice to your earlier question)
If past is prologue i think you may be disappointed in how the conservative members of Scotus vote.
The roadblocks case certainly shows that they favor the state over the individual, though that may not be your take on it, since you thought their past behavior was not germane to the current topic.
-
You can continue to press the false premice, all you want. If/when the TSA tactics fine their way to SCOTUS desks, then we'll see which one of us is correct in how they define reasonable, vs not
-
You can continue to press the false premice, all you want.
How gracious of you.
Why is my premise false?
-
Spinning the notion that the conservative justices are siding with states vs individual liberty, specifically as it related to the DUI stops. They merely have a solid grasp of the Constitution's clear reference to unreasonable, which the founders did place. Nothing "living" about it.
And it all comes back to our apparent huge difference in how we define reasonable and not. I'm siding with the Conservative justices currently. They remain in agreement with me and vice-versa. If the TSA tactics ever reach their desks, then we'll see if my position with them is validated.
When that happens, you may delete away my posts of such, being that you're the boss
-
the Supreme Court Justices will side with protecting the
public from an airline disaster that causes great loss of life
submit to a body scanner or get your ass in a car and drive!
-
We shall see. Ball in their hopefully soon court
-
Spinning the notion that the conservative justices are siding with states vs individual liberty, specifically as it related to the DUI stops.
That is exactly what they did and specifically said that the benefit towards the common good outweighed the inconveniences of lessened personal liberty by abridging the sanctity of the fourth. It's all their in the decision they handed down.
I'm not sure how you could characterize their decision differently.
-
No, what they did was accurately grasp the definition of reasonable vs not. I don't see how you could ignore that, but I understand the need for the spin
-
No, what they did was accurately grasp the definition of reasonable vs not. I don't see how you could ignore that, but I understand the need for the spin
Except the case wasn't about reasonable vs unreasonable.
The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.
Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn?t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States)
-
No, you're arguing the Plaintiff's case. It was determined reasonable, albeit a smallish infringement on the 4th.
Minus any fire, you think they'd rule that people have a consitutional right to yell fire in a crowded theater, without any legal repercussions? A Smallish infringement there, but undestandible, given the potential for massive harm to others. But cudos on the effort.
-
people need to get a grip
people all the time go in for surgery...elective and non-elective
many times the surgeon is not their regular doctor
they probably have never met the surgery staff, nurses, anesthesiologist, ect...
and they get naked to have the surgery
basically they are naked around a bunch of strangers
same thing when you go to a new doctor
this basic "stranger" has a finger up your.......
holds onto your....and tells you to cough
but God forbid walking thru a full body scanner fully clothed for like
60 seconds thats not nearly as invasive that helps prevent a national tragedy!
-
All those examples of "nakeness" Cu4 are at the option of the person involved. And they are specific in that its only involving themselves, i.e their personal health.
Now you're spinning in trying to rationalize unreasonable into reasonable. Let's hope there's a case that gets to SCOTUS soon, to put this issue to rest
-
"All those examples of "nakeness" Cu4 are at the option of the person involved"
And so is flying at the option of the person involved.
And in fact at the airport you dont actually have to get naked
in front of multiple strangers and it is only for a few seconds
that you are not naked vs an extended period nude in front of
really complete strangers while you not even conscious!
Again...get a grip...and look at the big picture...cost vs gain!
"And they are specific in that its only involving themselves, i.e their personal health"
And so is deciding to fly....it involves themselves...i.e. their decision on how to travel
-
You're spinning, but making great treadmarks. Folks are being MADE to endure the nakedness at airports, NOT for their own well being, but to make OTHERS feel safer. Your rights end when they start infringing on mine....so says the Constitution
-
Folks are being MADE to endure the nakedness at airports,
No they are not, they can choose many other ways to travel
NOT for their own well being, but to make OTHERS feel safer.
It is for my own well being to not get blown up at 33,000 feet.
Your rights end when they start infringing on mine....so says the Constitution
Exactly you can not impose danger on my flight by choosing to fly and then
refusing to comply with the standard safety measures. You demanding that
my flight be more dangerous is a violation of my rights.
-
Folks are being MADE to endure the nakedness at airports,
No they are not
Yes, they are
they can choose many other ways to travel.
They're PURCHASING the opportunity to get to their destination faster. This is again a Capitalist country
NOT for their own well being, but to make OTHERS feel safer.
It is for my own well being to not get blown up at 33,000 feet.
Fine then. YOU drive. Leave the rest of us alone
Your rights end when they start infringing on mine....so says the Constitution
Exactly you can not impose danger on my flight by choosing to fly and then
refusing to comply with the standard safety measures.
We already have "standard safety measures" that were not unreasonable. Merely inconvenient
You demanding that
my flight be more dangerous is a violation of my rights.
That doesn't even warrant an explanation of just how crazy a thought process that is. Translated: I don't support global warming --> ergo I must want a completely polluted country/globe. ::) As I said Cu4, this is one of the few issues you're really letting your emotions dictate your thought process vs sticking to conservative principles at the core of the Constitution
-
Yes, they are
Ridiculous. Your lame attempts to pretend the TSA scan is some type of porn
or of a sexual nature just exposes the desperation of your position, along
with your repeated refusals to answer direct questions from myself and BT
that you know if answered would blow holes in your stated positions. So
you either ignore the questions or like with BT pretend the questions are
not relevant so you don't have to answer. It borders on intellectual dishonesty.
They're PURCHASING the opportunity to get to their destination faster.
This is again a Capitalist country
Exactly and by PURCHASING the ticket (which is a contract) they are agreeing to be subject
to safety regulations and procedures. Don't buy/agree to the contract and then bitch about
the rules you agreed to!
Fine then. YOU drive. Leave the rest of us alone
I am not the one buying and agreeing to the contract and then
bitching about what I agreed to. I am fine with current airline
travel regulations...so why should I drive? Logically the ones
that should drive are the ones not ok with current airline travel
procedures. Of course the crybabies will run to the courts
and see if they can get a judge to legislate from the bench
so they can get their way. I am sure Bin Laden hopes their
efforts make his job easier to kill Americans.
We already have "standard safety measures" that were not
unreasonable. Merely inconvenient
Security like the Constitution is not stagnant.
Sorry but the terrorists caught up with the "already" in place measures.
It's exactly like myself and XO said earlier in this thread
You're gonna bitch if they try and keep you alive with scanners
and you're gonna bitch if a plane explodes at 33,000 feet
Translated: I don't support global warming --> ergo I must want a completely polluted country/globe.
No translated...it is people that of free will agree to airline/airport security should not be able to
change the rules in the middle of the game....bitch about what they agreed to...and try to bully
safety measures to be lessened thus making my travel less safe.
As I said Cu4, this is one of the few issues you're really letting your emotions dictate your
thought process vs sticking to conservative principles at the core of the Constitution
My emotions are not involved in my very well thought out position.
You don't decide what is Conservative. I am sticking with conservative principles
and the Constitution. But you can pretend all you want that you are Paul Revere
riding the horse of Conservatism when you are on the same side of this issue as the ACLU.
Go Figure.
-
Yes, you are. As more and more conservative pundits reference my position, you'll see even more so. And if/when the Conservative Justices on SCOTUS echo the same thing, then what will you say? Nvm, no need to answer it. I can already work out the emotional rationalization
-
SIRS I am not opposed to a better idea. I just honestly have not seen a practical better
answer at this time. Like my business partner sometimes reminds me if I want to fire somebody
"before we fire him/her do we already have a better replacement?". It's easy to fire someone,
but who is going to do that job tomorrow morning at 8AM?
SIRS obviously we disagree but I feel the same way about this issue. I see lots of complaining
but not many practical better specific solutions. Like you say we'll see what the Supreme Court
says. But I would think they will be very, very careful on a ruling because there will be "hell to pay"
if for example they rule the full body scanner is unconstitutional and planes full of innocent civilians
start blowing up.
-
SIRS I am not opposed to a better idea. I just honestly have not seen a practical better answer at this time. .... I see lots of complaining but not many practical better specific solutions.
I have, even presented them in this thread, but it's apparently too politically incorrect. It actually requires a pro-active approach, and not a reactive one. It requires the use of intelligence & common sense, vs relying on technology. And it doesn't blatantly disregard the Constitution, though some could argue its a "smallish infringement"
Like you say we'll see what the Supreme Court says. But I would think they will be very, very careful on a ruling because there will be "hell to pay" if for example they rule the full body scanner is unconstitutional and planes full of innocent civilians
start blowing up.
I don't think a Supreme court justice is supposed to allow the emotion of what might interfere with the clear wording of the Constitution, when making rulings