DeletedUser
FLYING is a PRIVATE enterprise NOT a goverment one
people that fly on private planes and charter flights arnt even searched or screened at ALL its only on large public flights that that are any checks so agian your WRONG
- Status
FLYING is a PRIVATE enterprise NOT a goverment one
people that fly on private planes and charter flights arnt even searched or screened at ALL its only on large public flights that that are any checks so agian your WRONG
DeletedUser
On domestic flights no, they are not searched, but when they come from outside US, they have to go through security check. Don't think that if you are rich, you are not subject of screening. You are, just not on a regular basis. Plus, a private plane does not carry hundreds of passengers. If a terrorist plans an attack, it won't happen on a private plane with under 10 passengers and 2 pilots. The large public fights are the target, so those will be searched. So I don't see your private plane point.
DeletedUser
funny isreal suffers more terrorist attempts than any other country and yet they dnt use these scanners and enhanced patdowns and yet there flights are far far safer
DeletedUser22575
Typical spider. claim that private security does not have to use the scanners and do pats down. proven wrong you change subject..
claim you have "rights" to fly without following security measures. proven wrong, change subjects.
and once again..change subject to Israel. What does Israel have to do with your previous claims here about your "rights" and "private companies performing security".
And just when was the last time you flew. you avoided that also :laugh:
DeletedUser
you have yet to PROVE anything wrong so agian you talk out your behind
agiant he 4th amendment states
[SIZE=+1]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. [/SIZE]
so these enhanced patdowns are an unreasonable search without probable cause
agiant he 4th amendment states
[SIZE=+1]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. [/SIZE]
so these enhanced patdowns are an unreasonable search without probable cause
DeletedUser22575
If you want to get on the airplane you consent to the search to be able to fly. So if you have consented the 4th does not apply. You don't want to consent...don't go to the airport and maintain your 4th amendment rights or turn around and leave once presented with the choice. And all up to the individual to make the choice. A pretty simple concept actually.
Just like every US military base has a sign advising you that you are subject to search and have consented to it by entering the base. You drive on, you have consented. You don't want to consent..don't enter.
Citizens waive their 4th amendment rights through choices they make on an ongoing basis in this country.
And just so you know, large letters don't make your posts accurate or true.
Next shift in subject?
DeletedUser
no where does anyone consent to illegal searches of there person just to fly , you can try to justify crazy naziesque regulations that NO one agreed to but there still unnessisary and a violation of our rights
people SSCREAMED when bush wiretapped calls to KNOWN TERRORISTS but silence when a minimum wage government employee is iven free riegn to sexualy assult people
people SSCREAMED when bush wiretapped calls to KNOWN TERRORISTS but silence when a minimum wage government employee is iven free riegn to sexualy assult people
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Sexually assault people? Dude, I ask again! Did you go through the experience? Did you have a pat down/scan done? This is addressed to you |spider|, so please answer me for once.
It sure didn't make me feel like they are taking away my rights. And trust me, I have a BS (Bachelor's Degree = graduation of 4 years of university) in political science. I know my rights.
Here's one little thing to think about. The FBI was trying to get a drug dealer for a long time. So they came up with a brilliant plan to plant a chip on his car that was on his driveway and followed him around until they hooked him. You know what happened? He complained that his rights were violated when the FBI got on his property (driveway) and planted a chip on his car. And any evidence that the FBI had against the dude was based on that chip. Now, lawfully, the evidence should be dismissed, but that would mean REALLY no case! Seriously, I couldn't care less about his rights. But if the evidence is not dismissed, that would empower the FBI to plant chips on anybody and say: they looked suspicious.
Now, I didn't give you this example to discuss it, but to reflect on it. In order to catch the bad guys, rules need to be stretched and we need to put some effort in it. The scanners and pat downs slow down the process. I could care less about the pat down since I am not that sensitive and I am not concerned about the effects of the scanner. The thing that bugs me is the slowing down. But I am willing to accept it because it makes me feel safer. Is really no big thing to deal with for me.
If anything, the case I detailed above should tell you that there are really worse things that could happen. And all because of all the bad people around us!
It sure didn't make me feel like they are taking away my rights. And trust me, I have a BS (Bachelor's Degree = graduation of 4 years of university) in political science. I know my rights.
Here's one little thing to think about. The FBI was trying to get a drug dealer for a long time. So they came up with a brilliant plan to plant a chip on his car that was on his driveway and followed him around until they hooked him. You know what happened? He complained that his rights were violated when the FBI got on his property (driveway) and planted a chip on his car. And any evidence that the FBI had against the dude was based on that chip. Now, lawfully, the evidence should be dismissed, but that would mean REALLY no case! Seriously, I couldn't care less about his rights. But if the evidence is not dismissed, that would empower the FBI to plant chips on anybody and say: they looked suspicious.
Now, I didn't give you this example to discuss it, but to reflect on it. In order to catch the bad guys, rules need to be stretched and we need to put some effort in it. The scanners and pat downs slow down the process. I could care less about the pat down since I am not that sensitive and I am not concerned about the effects of the scanner. The thing that bugs me is the slowing down. But I am willing to accept it because it makes me feel safer. Is really no big thing to deal with for me.
If anything, the case I detailed above should tell you that there are really worse things that could happen. And all because of all the bad people around us!
DeletedUser
all youve done is say that we should ignore the laws and teh constitution when it suits our needs and that couldnt be further fromt he truth
a violation of ones person without any valid reason or probable cause IS an illegal search and a violation of privacy
If a security guard at a building decided to do a random search and perform one of these pat downs at his local job he would be arested and convicted of sexual assult
just because its hte goverment doesnt make it right
a violation of ones person without any valid reason or probable cause IS an illegal search and a violation of privacy
If a security guard at a building decided to do a random search and perform one of these pat downs at his local job he would be arested and convicted of sexual assult
just because its hte goverment doesnt make it right
DeletedUser
I agree that violation of Constitutional rights is not the means to "get the bad guys," however scanners and pat-downs are not violations of those rights.
Let's cut to the chase. Being able to drive on the roads is not a right, it's a privilege. You are required to pass tests, be licensed, insured, and drive a vehicle that is licensed. Same such when it comes to flying. Pilots must be licensed, planes must be licensed, commercial airline companies must be insured, etc and so on.
As it is, commercial flight is not a right, it is a business and it is the airline industry that dictates who their customers are. Licensing requirements, regulation of this industry, dictates that TSA is responsible for security. It is a common misconception to think one means of travel or another is a right, but the only right is that you are allowed to travel, not the means by which you perform said travel.
Let's cut to the chase. Being able to drive on the roads is not a right, it's a privilege. You are required to pass tests, be licensed, insured, and drive a vehicle that is licensed. Same such when it comes to flying. Pilots must be licensed, planes must be licensed, commercial airline companies must be insured, etc and so on.
As it is, commercial flight is not a right, it is a business and it is the airline industry that dictates who their customers are. Licensing requirements, regulation of this industry, dictates that TSA is responsible for security. It is a common misconception to think one means of travel or another is a right, but the only right is that you are allowed to travel, not the means by which you perform said travel.
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
To begin with, your analogy is flawed. At an international, or even national airport, you have thousands of people passing through every day, with all sorts of intents. Aeroplanes are a known common terrorist target, as has been shown multiple times throughout history, and I'm sure I need not name a recent example. Hence, with the vast numbers, diversity and cause for caution combined, extra security measures are necessary. Most importantly -- these are not to infringe your rights, this is to protect your right to safety! By comparison, the chances of such a threat in an insignificant local establishment are practically zero, and as such full body searches would warrant excessive (but not necessarily illegal) use of force.
Secondly, as Hellstromm stated, I dispute the fact that full body searches at least in this context are an infringement of either International or U.S. rights (under the stated amendment). Tj pointed out the search is only undertaken upon consent - you can always turn 180 and walk on out should you wish. Additionally, as if that is not enough, the practise is only used in high alert situations such as airports, where there is legitimate use of this power to protect other rights - ie your safety.
Really, you should be happy your government is pro actively trying to protect you, rather than getting caught up in stupid and irrelevant technicalities of no concern to your average educated citizen.
Last edited:
DeletedUser
flying is not a choice
most people that fly regularly DONT have a choice
when you have to constantly travel for work you cant spend days in transit each time its not a CHOICE its a nessisity so don give me BS and IF it was sooo important then why is it there making it so that senetors and representatives cna skip it and pilots as well
IF it was such a nessecity and IF it was soo safe why not do it for EVERYONE? beuase its NOT safe
theres not been a SINGLE long term effect study of these backscatter xrays not ONE
and NEVER is feeling up and virtualy strip seachin innoccent people NOT a violation of our rights and our persons
FORCED consent is NOT consent
if a man holds a woman hostage and tells her the only way she goes free is if she CONSENTS to be stripped and felt up of coursse shes gonna consent lol your entire logic is flawed
most people that fly regularly DONT have a choice
when you have to constantly travel for work you cant spend days in transit each time its not a CHOICE its a nessisity so don give me BS and IF it was sooo important then why is it there making it so that senetors and representatives cna skip it and pilots as well
IF it was such a nessecity and IF it was soo safe why not do it for EVERYONE? beuase its NOT safe
theres not been a SINGLE long term effect study of these backscatter xrays not ONE
and NEVER is feeling up and virtualy strip seachin innoccent people NOT a violation of our rights and our persons
FORCED consent is NOT consent
if a man holds a woman hostage and tells her the only way she goes free is if she CONSENTS to be stripped and felt up of coursse shes gonna consent lol your entire logic is flawed
DeletedUser22575
No real need to search the pilot who could just fly the plane into the ground if he wanted.
Government officials with security details can skip the process true. But then again they also have had numerous back ground checks. Most do not get to skip it.
As for the rest of your garbage it is just that.
DeletedUser
of course you have no real responce to being shown the true uglyness of the whole thing so you simply dismiss it
DeletedUser22575
No what I have dismissed is your illogical rant about your "rights" and how they are being violated when that is not the case.
Flying or not flying is just like everything else in life, another choice you have to make. So there is no forced consent.
DeletedUser
spider is a troll.
Ignore him.
I refuse to believe that anyone would post that much rubbish unintentionally.
Ignore him.
I refuse to believe that anyone would post that much rubbish unintentionally.
DeletedUser
Not even remotely true. It is indeed a choice. Flying is a convenience. It can get you from point A to point B quicker than any other form of transportation, but it is not a "right" anymore than having the cable internet connection. If a business model has a great dependency to this "choice," then it is up to them, as businessmen, to accept the contract presented by the airline industries (or cable company). Business has dependencies, but do not confuse the necessity of business with the manner of commerce in which they opt. Just as a business may think to fly their representatives from one point to another, so can they opt to have net video feeds for meetings.
If such is the case, then they can move closer to their workplace, oooor they can have their own plane(s), get their own licenses, even hire their own pilot and stewardess. And if they do not have sufficient revenue for that, they can co-op on a similar venture.
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Look, you're showing your ignorance again. It's called radiation and the studies on this are extensive. Backscatter technology measures the reflected x-ray particles, it detects the radiation that reflects off objects and forms images.
The only difference here is "what" you're measuring, not what the person is exposed to. It is a very low-intensity x-ray machine, equal to 1/1000th of a normal x-ray. It is equal to being in an airplane for 3 minutes at 20,000 feet altitude, which EVERY PASSENGER subjects himself to each and every time he CHOOSES to fly.
There you go again, posing a causation fallacy. Exaggeration is a fallacious argument (flawed logic). They are NOT performing strip searches, they are performing pat-downs, which you may CHOOSE to undergo instead of an image scan. Seriously, if you have to exaggerate in order to make your argument, you've already accepted that your argument is invalid and are simply arguing to save face. But let's face it, you have no face to save.
DeletedUser
buiesness people that have to travel back and forth between mulltiple states cannot drive or take a train its IMMPOSSIBLE so yes its a nessecityNot even remotely true. It is indeed a choice. Flying is a convenience. It can get you from point A to point B quicker than any other form of transportation, but it is not a "right" anymore than having the cable internet connection. If a business model has a great dependency to this "choice," then it is up to them, as businessmen, to accept the contract presented by the airline industries (or cable company). Business has dependencies, but do not confuse the necessity of business with the manner of commerce in which they opt. Just as a business may think to fly their representatives from one point to another, so can they opt to have net video feeds for meetings.
If such is the case, then they can move closer to their workplace, oooor they can have their own plane(s), get their own licenses, even hire their own pilot and stewardess. And if they do not have sufficient revenue for that, they can co-op on a similar venture.
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Look, you're showing your ignorance again. It's called radiation and the studies on this are extensive. Backscatter technology measures the reflected x-ray particles, it detects the radiation that reflects off objects and forms images.
The only difference here is "what" you're measuring, not what the person is exposed to. It is a very low-intensity x-ray machine, equal to 1/1000th of a normal x-ray. It is equal to being in an airplane for 3 minutes at 20,000 feet altitude, which EVERY PASSENGER subjects himself to each and every time he CHOOSES to fly.
There you go again, posing a causation fallacy. Exaggeration is a fallacious argument (flawed logic). They are NOT performing strip searches, they are performing pat-downs, which you may CHOOSE to undergo instead of an image scan. Seriously, if you have to exaggerate in order to make your argument, you've already accepted that your argument is invalid and are simply arguing to save face. But let's face it, you have no face to save.
furthermore people that have to travel internationaly like myself
once a year my wife and i have to travel to our property in the phillipines .. you cant DRIVE to an island half way around the WORLD
then theres those that live in 2 differnt states like my cousin and her fiance who can oonly come out once a month from maryland to missouri and back and if he drove he would have to turn around and leave as soon as he arrived
so NO flying is NOT a CHOICE its an NESSESITY for many no matter how you try to play it off
as for the xrays yes the effects of xrays have been studied however they have clearly stated that how the new backscatter xrays work is a very differnt effect on the body and since its NEW no longer term studies on there effects have been done only theorized on and MANY people have been coming out concerned of the potential dangers
lastly a scan that can show you completely nude IS a virtual strip search and a "pat down" where they are grabbing the most intimate areas of your body IS sexual assalt
so no theres no exageration as much as you might like to think and no there is NO falacy other than the one you continue to spew forth in an absurd attempt to defend the undefendable
DeletedUser
hehe, a necessity... which is not the same thing as a "right."
You can go by private charter, by boat, or simply not go at all. It's a choice.
Again, choice.
So you claim radiation somehow works differently in this particular case?
I already very clearly showed you the images created by the imaging scanners used by TSA, so this "nude" claim is bogus. As to this claim of sexual assault, you really need to study law before you continue to embarrass yourself. Intent is a requirement for such a claim. Btw, you do realize municipal, state, and federal police are legally allowed to give you a pat-down each and every time they pull you over, right? Care to argue against that as well?
It's a choice. And while it can be a necessity, based on business model and/or time constraints, it is still not a "right."
Do recall, the world revolved just the same before commercial flight became common-place. And, once again, commercial flight is an industry, a business. You can't shop in a store, be a customer of that store, if the owners of that store do not want you shopping there. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not merely a convenient motto, it's a fundamental right of business.
What you are demonstrating is an overinflated sense of entitlement.
DeletedUser
travel is not a choice
no matter how you try to claim otherwise its obvious you have no clue what its like to have a life that requires it so your input on this matter is irrelevent
private charter or boat rofl a BOAT half way aroudn the world ? not only woud it take WEEKS it would cost an insane amount of money and a private plane to fly 15 hours rofl you MUST have lost your mind
you say I have an over inflated sense of intetilement for saying we have the RIGHT to NOT be abused when we need to fly ? yet you claim other people have the RIGHT to make US pay for THERE healthcare your sense of right is obviously so skewed as to be obsurd
the tsa image agian was clearly proven factual as to what hte machines can do and since no one can see there own image when its scanned theres no way to prove there NOT using it to its full capability
and lastly the way the radiation works in these machines was already explained a few times in this thread so try doing a little reading before posting nonsense
no matter how you try to claim otherwise its obvious you have no clue what its like to have a life that requires it so your input on this matter is irrelevent
private charter or boat rofl a BOAT half way aroudn the world ? not only woud it take WEEKS it would cost an insane amount of money and a private plane to fly 15 hours rofl you MUST have lost your mind
you say I have an over inflated sense of intetilement for saying we have the RIGHT to NOT be abused when we need to fly ? yet you claim other people have the RIGHT to make US pay for THERE healthcare your sense of right is obviously so skewed as to be obsurd
the tsa image agian was clearly proven factual as to what hte machines can do and since no one can see there own image when its scanned theres no way to prove there NOT using it to its full capability
and lastly the way the radiation works in these machines was already explained a few times in this thread so try doing a little reading before posting nonsense
- Status