DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on November 22, 2010, 01:32:38 PM
-
Young Boy strip searched by TSA (Original w/ Full Story Description) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4#)
-
Obama ISN'T doing this.
It is pretty certain that this was not ordered by the President, and that it would also have happened if McCain were President.
TSA gets to make the decision about who gets searched, and that is how it should be.
-
Yeah, Obama is doing it. By his own words he meets once a week and discusses these requirements and the implementations. He supports it and has done nothing to stop it. And he even has defended doing it.
I really don't blame the TSA agents. They are only doing what they are told to do by the rules Obama has established. They probably aren't very happy about putting their hands down people's pants, and so they are disgruntled about it. And that is one of the reasons you don't see very much compassion on their part for the people they are assaulting.
-
I went through one of these in October in Miami. No big deal.
This YouTube video is deliberately atypical.
The President gives TSA discretionary power to examine specific individuals as they deem fit to assure safety.That is as it should be.
-
Again you are trying to put blame on the TSA agents. They are just doing their jobs. They did not one day all of a sudden want to put their hands down people's pants and fondle them. These are rules that they must follow which was implemented by Obama. There is no discretion; they have to do it, you stupid fucker. And no, this is not how it should be. People should not be going through x-ray machines or being sexually assaulted.
Oh, and stop referring to Obama as "The President." It pisses me off. People will rectify this accident in 2012.
-
Our President is trying to prevent evil Muslims from blowing your sorry ass out of the sky, you ingrate.
I suppose a total ditz like Caribou Barbie, the Wassabilly will enable them to do this just to make you happy.
-
Yeah, right. This isn't about security. It's political correctness running wild.
It has been revealed now that this little boy who was strip searched has autism. Has Obama have no shame?
-
So now Our President Obama knew about the kid being autistic and deliberately strip searched him on specific orders from the White House.
Yeah, sure.
If an autistic or some other kid threw a fit in an airport, would that not tend to cause alarm from a TSA guy who was unfamiliar with autistic kids throwing fits?
I have never seen an autistic kid throw a fit other than on TV programs on PBS, so I deem it is not a usual occurrence.
One lousy YouTube video and you get your tighty whities in a knot, even though hundreds of thousands of people go through scaners and metal detectors without incident. You seem obsessed with hatred for the President.
-
Obama's politically correct policy led to a young autistic boy being strip searched, while the real enemies are laughing at us. This brouhaha at the airports is a joke. It is yet another overreach of government by this administration. These new assaults on our liberties have not captured a single terrorist. And they would not have prevented the underwear bomber. They are just sexually harassing law abiding citizens. The old metal detectors and hand wands were fine, combined with other tools of the government, such as watch lists and real intelligence. I believe these new searches are not constitutional. And you only support them because Obama implemented them. You feigned outrage over rendition, but support this. That's because rendition actually went after a real live terrorist. You feigned outrage over waterboarding a real live terrorist, but support sexually harassing people who have done nothing wrong. You are a pervert.
-
If they declare it unconstitutional, then they will make adjustments.
I am not a pervert. The TSA are not perverts. President Obama is doing his job in a logical and effective way.
Don't tell me my motives. Searching for explosives is not torture, it is not waterboarding.
It is MY privacy I am concerned with, and I am willing to walk through a scanner to avoid being strip searched. If you are not, then don't. I am not the cause of this procedure, as I have never been called on to vote on it, so it is really stupid to claim that I am responsible for it. If McCain were president, I imagine he would be doing the same damn things.
-
Apparently a lot of the x-ray machines were roped off yesterday and were not being used at most airports. People were going around them. This would be a positive development. We'll see how this plays out. If this is a change in policy, Obama should be commended for responding to the public mood -- for once.
-
It is a positive development right up to the moment a plane explodes. Then you will be back to blaming President Obama again.
-
Sorry but we have a constitution in this country. If a plane explodes, I'm sure you will defend Obama no matter how negligent he is, because you have your lips surgically attached to his ass.
-
I am not a pervert. The TSA are not perverts. President Obama is doing his job in a logical and effective way.
Don't tell me my motives. Searching for explosives is not torture, it is not waterboarding.
It is targeting folks who haven't been taken off a battlefield or military engagement. Merely wish to fly with the presumption of being innocent. Sooo typocal from the left. Let's ban all guns instead of focusing on the criminal....oops, wrong amendment being trampled on this time....let's search everyone instead of focusing on potential terrorists
It is MY privacy I am concerned with, and ...
...screw every one else's
-
If I go through a scanner, precisely how does that "screw you" in any way?
No one will ever get to vote on airport scanners, so the only choice I or anyone else has is either to walk through the scanner, get patted down, or not fly. Nothing I do could possibly affect you, and vice versa.
It is simply a personal choice for each and everyone, to be made by him and him alone.
-
If I go through a scanner, precisely how does that "screw you" in any way?
Because I'm being forced to, with the support of folks like yourself. If it were optional, and still be allowed to fly, then there'd be no issue
-
Because I'm being forced to, with the support of folks like yourself.
I truly doubt that CU, XO, or myself have any bearing on the formation of TSA policy.
It's just as likely that this is all your fault because of your ineffective objections to the policy.
-
If you refuse to acknolwedge the point being made, and are trying to ride the xo-like literal train, then you can disembark any time. I support DUI checkpoints. It doesn't mean I'm a member of the legislative branch, or even MADD, but it does mean I support law enforcment's efforts and actions
Then again, you know that as well, which begs the question.....why the tactic? Merely to be confrontational?
-
Perhaps you can explain how you support DUI checkpoints but do not support airport security screening. They are fruit of the same tree.
-
DUI checkpoints are performed when law enforcment SUSPECTS someone of driving under the influence (meaning they are breaking the law). ONLY THEN is a more thorough search initiated
Different fruit, different trees, though I knew you'd try this tactic as well
-
DUI checkpoints are performed when law enforcment SUSPECTS someone of driving under the influence (meaning they are breaking the law). ONLY THEN is a more thorough search initiated
Nonsense. DUI checkpoints are randomly located roadblocks where everyone who drives through that location is stopped, forced to show compliance with state regulations and allowed to proceed if they pass those requirements.
No license , pulled to the side. Not wearing a seatbelt, pulled to the side. No insurance, pulled to the side. No registration, pulled to the side. No car seat, no tail lights, pulled to the side.
Alcohol does not need to be involved.
And just so you know, DUI checkpoints rulings were used as precedent for the Ninth's decision re: airport searches.
Both cases were argued on 4th amendment issues, both were ruled constitutional.
-
DUI checkpoints are performed when law enforcment SUSPECTS someone of driving under the influence (meaning they are breaking the law). ONLY THEN is a more thorough search initiated
Nonsense. DUI checkpoints are randomly located roadblocks where everyone who drives through that location is stopped, forced to show compliance with state regulations and allowed to proceed if they pass those requirements.
And notice nothing is done outside of a stop. No one is arguing passensgers shouldn't be required to wait in a line, or even not show ID. We're talking about the 4th amendment. What pray tell is a DUI checkpoint doing to trample on the 4th?? You are getting so desperate to be confrontational, you are bordering on ludicrous
No license , pulled to the side. Not wearing a seatbelt, pulled to the side. No insurance, pulled to the side. No registration, pulled to the side. No car seat, no tail lights, pulled to the side.
In other words, BREAKING THE LAW, THEN PULLED TO THE SIDE ::)
Both cases were argued on 4th amendment issues, both were ruled constitutional.
1 was a BAD decision. Hopefully to be rectified with RR's recent reference to lawsuits, in the works.
-
The argument against roadblocks was that there was no probable cause to do so. The counter argument was that getting impaired drivers and uninsured drivers off the road for the common good outweighed the the limitations of 4th amendment rights.
The same can be said for airport checkpoints. Being in favor of roadblocks but not in favor of airport security in whatever form it takes is inconsistent.
You are getting so desperate to be confrontational, you are bordering on ludicrous
I'm being confrontational by not agreeing with your position? Hmmm
-
The argument against roadblocks was that there was no probable cause to do so.
Yes, but once again, we're not talking about unreasonable searches there, which is what the argument about the 4th amendment is all about. You're not being groped in the car, for no reason.
No one is claiming you shouldn't be made to wait in a line or not show ID, so your continued to attempt to equate the 2 continues to border on the ludicrous
-
he Supreme Court held that Michigan had a "substantial government interest" to advance in stopping drunk driving, and that this technique was rationally related to achieving that goal (though there was some evidence to the contrary). The Court also held that the impact on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search (implying that any more detailed or invasive searches would be treated differently). Applying a balancing test, then, the Court found that the Constitutionality of the search tilted in favor of the government.
Case opinions
Majority Rehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
Concurrence Blackmun
Dissent Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Laws applied
Fourth Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz)
-
Still waiting for the specifics to where's the unreasonable search in a DUI checkpoint, for merely being stopped. It seems that the conservative justices also agreed with me on this one as well. By all means, continue.
-
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure."
[edit] Background
In the state of Michigan, the state police adopted the practice of using random sobriety checkpoints to catch drunk drivers. A group of Michigan residents sued on the grounds that their Fourth Amendment rights prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure were being violated.
As the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens explains, "a sobriety checkpoint is usually operated at night at an unannounced location. Surprise is crucial to its method. The test operation conducted by the Michigan State Police and the Saginaw County Sheriff's Department began shortly after midnight and lasted until about 1 a.m. During that period, the 19 officers participating in the operation made two arrests and stopped and questioned 124 other unsuspecting and innocent drivers"
During the operation, drivers would be stopped and briefly questioned while in their vehicles. If an officer suspected the driver was intoxicated, the driver would be sent off for a field sobriety test.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that Michigan had a "substantial government interest" to advance in stopping drunk driving, and that this technique was rationally related to achieving that goal (though there was some evidence to the contrary). The Court also held that the impact on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search (implying that any more detailed or invasive searches would be treated differently). Applying a balancing test, then, the Court found that the Constitutionality of the search tilted in favor of the government.
The conservative justices held that the limiting of 4th amendment rights had a negligible effect on the drivers and the common good outweighed the lessening of these rights.
What is interesting is that the liberal justices held for the 4th as written.
Much like your position on the TSA controversy.
-
Sued, and lost, because they were NOT unreasonable. Not sure why we're having this discussion. You serious trying to compare groping with merely being stopped?
-
You serious trying to compare groping with merely being stopped?
Are you seriously trying to say that the 4th is now not absolute?
Perhaps you should shift your argument from the 4th to the same argument that was used to allow for abortions, the expectation of privacy.
-
You serious trying to compare groping with merely being stopped?
Are you seriously trying to say that the 4th is now not absolute?
We apparently have a severe difference in how we define "unreasonable". Gonna have to side with the conservative minded-Constitutionally focused justices on this one. Your mileage may vary
-
Gonna have to side with the conservative minded-Constitutionally focused justices on this one.
You mean the liberal justices who felt limitations of the 4th was wrong?
-
I support the use of scanners if it makes it less likely I get blown up in the air. I am certain I do not want that to happen.
I do not support the use of scanners just to give sirs a hard time. sirs give himself an ample amount of grief with his silly quibbling
But is does not matter one bit whether I support it or not: the decision has been made to use scanners or an alternative pat down and I will never be asked to approve or disapprove in any way.
So I fail to see why sirs or anyone else should hold me to blame for the use of scanners. I did not think up the use of scanners, was not consulted about their use, and simply would personally prefer to spend ten seconds walking through a scanner than enduring a pat down. I do not see how it affects anyone else if I decide to do this.
-
Nobody cares about what you want to do, XO. You've never even been through the new scanners or experienced the groping. So what you want to do or don't want is meaningless. They could take you in the bathroom and go Abner Louima on you and I really could care less. Not that much anyway. I really could care less if you go through the x-ray and somebody sees your penile implant. What I don't want is anybody in my family being looked at nude in a x-ray machine or being fondled by strangers. People that are suspicious are not being taken aside and put through these machines. Everybody is being put through these machines, and that is wrong.
-
I went through scanners on a recent trip from Miami to Honolulu, twice. No problem. No groping.
I resent the dorks who tell me that in some way by tolerating the scanner that I am "supporting" it. But I am no more supporting scanners than those of you who pay income taxes even though they think that the tax or the rates are unfair are supporting the IRS or the tax laws.
When I stop at a stop sign that I deem is unnecessary, I am not supporting its placement: I am simply doing what is required because it is easier than running the sign and risking an accident or a traffic ticket.
I am not supporting or rejecting the use of scanners. I just prefer being safe to being less safe, and I do not believe that anyone looking at my scanner image is doing it for any purpose other than doing their job.
-
I resent the dorks who tell me that in some way by tolerating the scanner that I am "supporting" it.
You are supporting it. You claimed that a bomb would blow up an airplane without it. And that's a ridiculous comment. Most of the people being harassed and pulled aside after going through one of these scanners is a senior citizen with some type of implant. And then the senior gets their private parts touched violating their constitutional rights. It has not stopped a single terrorist. The only reason you vociferously support it is because your precious jackass, Obama, proposed doing this.
-
Gonna have to side with the conservative minded-Constitutionally focused justices on this one.
You mean the liberal justices who felt limitations of the 4th was wrong?
Naaa, the conservative Justices who were able to grasp how this was not anywhere close to unreasonable searches, per the 4th.
-
If I were NOT supporting it, what difference would that make?
None at all.
I merely insist that if a plane were to blow up as a result of NOT using scanners, all the ratbag right would immediately insist that scanners be used, and that anyone who refused to step through the scanner would deserve to be frisked most annoyingly. And then accused of not being a patriot.
You cannot blame me because someone else came up with the scanners and the requirement to use them. I did not invent the scanner, I did not place scanners in airports, and I scan no one.
What do you think I should do? Insist on a pat down, and scream bloody murder at the TSA guy? Throw a tantrum in the airport by hollering the 4th Amendment at all concerned?
I can say that I feel safer if they are used. It has nothing whatever to do with President Obama. I have a right to feel safer. You have no right to say that anyone is being scanned because I say I feel safer, because this is simply not true.
There is not one thing that any of us can do about the use of scanners. We will never be given a vote on this.
-
If I were NOT supporting it, what difference would that make?
None at all. I merely insist that if a plane were to blow up as a result of NOT using scanners, all the ratbag right would immediately insist that scanners be used, and that anyone who refused to step through the scanner would deserve to be frisked most annoyingly.
Bzzzzzz.....WRONG. The Constitution actually means something to the "ratbag right", as opposed to the lunatic left
-
Everyone here has seen the sort of panic 9-11 generated. Another airliner downed by a bomb would do result in no less, and perhaps more.
Again, it makes NO DIFFERENCE to anyone else whether I walk through a scanner or not.
-
What is the best availible alternative?
1.)Kill and cripple as many terrorists as possible?Break the orginisation of terrorists up and imprison , kill or impoverish terrorists into helplessness?
2.)Help and enrich the impoverished and fill them with such satisfaction and love that they refuse to become terrorists?
3.)Improve security so much that it becomes entirely impossible for any wepon or explosive of any sort or amount to be moved onto an airplane , bus or train?
4.) Put up with a certain rate of loss ? There are fewer aircraft of any type lost to terrorist attack any year includeing 2001 than were lost to accident every year before from 1960 to 2000.
You don't need to pick just one, we are more or less doing all of these things more of one sometimes more of another, another time.
-
The attempt is to prevent ALL acts of terrorism, but it really ends up being the fourth option, as it is actually impossible to prevent every conceivable way in which a plane might be blown up.
There are ways that neither the terrorists or the TSA has even thought of yet, after all.
Al Qaeda is not motivated by poverty. Perhaps some Palestinians are. But Al Qaeda are mostly middle class fanatics, just like that wacko Kansas Preacher and his family that picket soldiers' funerals are middle class fanatics, fortunately less dangerous