Full body scans / full body pat downs whats your take ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser22575

Actually, yes. I am saying that. How many planes have been blown up?

How many bomb plots have been stopped by the TSA?

What's stopping a guy from sticking a bomb up his bum and getting through?

If a guy DOES stick a bomb up his bum and blows up a plane, will we have to consent to cavity searches to get on a plane?

What's the point where enough is enough to YOU?

Also, I AM one of those passengers. I don't fly THAT frequently, but I NOW fly at least 6 round trips a year give or take. That might go down to 3 times a year, but, I DO fly, the last time was for Thanksgiving. No, I have not been subjected to either the scanner OR the enhanced patdown, though the airports I fly between do have the scanners. I'm opposed to it due to the morality, and what I feel is the violation of our rights due to it.

There is clear cut precedence that your rights end when they effect the safety and well being of others.

For example you have the right of free speech.

However that does not give you the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

You have the right to keep and bear arms.

However in many states that does not mean you can carry them on to school ground, place of work, federal property, etc.

However, in this case since flying is not a necessity since there are other forms of transportation available to you to use your rights are clearly transcended by others right to do so safely.
 

DeletedUser

So my right stops because someone ELSE might do something illegal or to harm others?

By that logic, then no one has the right to talk in a movie theater at all, because someone MIGHT shout fire.

By that logic, no one should be allowed to own a gun, because someone MIGHT use it illegally.

I have absolutely zero intent to do harm to others in general, including on a plane. I use it because it's a lot more convenient than a 2 day drive each way to Florida from Connecticut. Why should I be punished by losing my rights for what someone else might do?

Maybe all the people that obey the laws should just get locked up in prison since one of them MAY someday break a law?

I might not have the right to bring a gun or an explosive on a plane, because doing so might harm others should the explosive detonate, or the gun somehow manage to misfire. However how does my right to the privacy of my effects and person harm anyone else?

Once again, Where do you draw the line?

Is it okay to require cavity searches?

Is it okay to allow TSA like security at grocery stores to get in, or malls, or walmart?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Is it okay to allow TSA like security at grocery stores to get in, or malls, or walmart?

It is if the adversary is more successful at bombing/attacking us.

It's a measured response,the more success the enemy has the less freedom you and I will have for the simple reason that we value life more than we value convenience.

Under more dire circumstances not only would that be ok,the population at large would demand such drastic actions.
 

DeletedUser

I'm afraid I value liberty more than I value security that most likely wont stop someone anyways.

As Benjamin Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The founders of this country thought those rights were important enough to specifically include them in the document that is supposed to be the ultimate law of this country. I personally STILL find those rights just as important, and I'm disturbed that people would willingly give up their rights, just to feel safer.

I seriously want to know where people draw the line. Is it alright to have a Public Security Force out in strength checking papers to be sure you have permission to travel? That would help stop terrorists if they'd be arrested for not getting a permit to move between states and got caught, wouldn't it?

Is it okay to require tracking chips implanted in everyone?

Seriously, Saltin, TJ Tuttle, please, tell me where you two would say that the laws take away too many of your rights in the name of security. At what point would you say enough is enough?
 

DeletedUser

Although not universally accepted or without critics Maslow hiearchy of needs pretty much describe the way a large number of people view their needs.As you can see the need for safety comes practically before anything else but defecation :laugh:

edit_preview.php
 

DeletedUser

I repeat:

"Seriously, Saltin, TJ Tuttle, please, tell me where you two would say that the laws take away too many of your rights in the name of security. At what point would you say enough is enough?"
 

DeletedUser

I repeat:

"Seriously, Saltin, TJ Tuttle, please, tell me where you two would say that the laws take away too many of your rights in the name of security. At what point would you say enough is enough?"

Freedom is overrated.It's a luxury that we can afford most of the time but not always.In all of the major wars that the US fought the citizen have always lost rights only to get them back later during peace time.
Freedom cannot come at the expense of basic human needs such as food,shelter and indeed the ability to stay alive.

The law already takes away many of your most cherish rights for the public good or other,such as the right to hold property or the right of privacy (lol yeah right) or the right to bear arm,or the right of equal justice for all (a good laugh!) or the right to live a healthy productive life (good luck without insurance).

Rights that you speak of are nothing but smoke and mirrors,they are there for as long as circumstances permit and can and will be taken away in a moment notice.
 

DeletedUser

Although not universally accepted or without critics Maslow hiearchy of needs pretty much describe the way a large number of people view their needs.

The perception of safety is another thing. Some people are afraid to ride a motorcycle, others will ride one at 100 MPH without a helmet.

When people are convinced that Osama bin Laden will personally break into their homes and take their family hostage, safety and fear are different perceptions.
 

DeletedUser

Freedom is overrated.It's a luxury that we can afford most of the time but not always.In all of the major wars that the US fought the citizen have always lost rights only to get them back later during peace time.
Freedom cannot come at the expense of basic human needs such as food,shelter and indeed the ability to stay alive.

The law already takes away many of your most cherish rights for the public good or other,such as the right to hold property or the right of privacy (lol yeah right) or the right to bear arm,or the right of equal justice for all (a good laugh!) or the right to live a healthy productive life (good luck without insurance).

Rights that you speak of are nothing but smoke and mirrors,they are there for as long as circumstances permit and can and will be taken away in a moment notice.

You know, you STILL haven't answered the question. You keep dodging it.

What, TO YOU, would mean the government went to far?

To take it to the furthest extreme...

What action would the government of the United States of America have to take to make you want to overtly rebel against it, and attempt a violent replacement of said government?
 

DeletedUser22575

I repeat:

"Seriously, Saltin, TJ Tuttle, please, tell me where you two would say that the laws take away too many of your rights in the name of security. At what point would you say enough is enough?"


I am not even going to discuss this with someone who thinks his need to fly which is a convenience and not a right to fly without being searched out weighs the rights of others to fly and arrive at their destination alive.
 

DeletedUser

So, you refuse to answer a straight forward question, that someone's asked SEVERAL times, while politely disagreeing with your point of view?

Look, all it takes for a terrorist to take down a plane right now, quite honestly, is for them to stick a bomb up their butt. If they do that, the plane will go down.

Right now, a walmart is a bigger, better target regardless. If a terrorist with a bomb vest walked into one on black friday, or if MULTIPLE said attacks happened, far more people would die regardless.

What's going on right now is security theater, it won't actually STOP someone that really wants to bring down a plane, from doing just that. TSA only inconveniences flyers that have no said desire to bring down the plane.

I believe earlier in this thread it was stated that only 60 plane Hijackings have ever even occurred, and that there were about 20,000 flights in the US daily. I have no idea about the truth of that, but, the gist is true.

We're giving up our rights for really, nothing. It isn't even really FOR security, and honestly, no, I personally DON'T believe the theoretical safety of people is worth the cost of my rights, regardless of how you FEEL about those rights.

Now, final time, I'll ask again, before I just completely ignore you, as you seem to have the debate tactics of a skilled politician, you dodge, dodge, and refuse to answer hard questions...

?To take it to the furthest extreme...

What action would the government of the United States of America have to take to make you want to overtly rebel against it, and attempt a violent replacement of said government??
 

DeletedUser

noo3k your convenience rights is meaningless to anyone but a small minority.Reasonable people accept a small sacrifice for the greater good when necessary.Some people will not but it doesn't matter they will be forced to comply or else they can seek other available alternatives (travel by donkey/mules ect..).:laugh:

As to your question we are lucky enough to live in a -mostly-free society that has civilized recourse to citizen grievances.Our government is not some outside entity,it is a representation of the people (although it represent some people more than others lol) and as such can be influenced by legal means,you have the power to vote you know?
 

DeletedUser

noo3k your convenience rights is meaningless to anyone but a small minority.Reasonable people accept a small sacrifice for the greater good when necessary.Some people will not but it doesn't matter they will be forced to comply or else they can seek other available alternatives (travel by donkey/mules ect..).:laugh:

As to your question we are lucky enough to live in a -mostly-free society that has civilized recourse to citizen grievances.Our government is not some outside entity,it is a representation of the people (although it represent some people more than others lol) and as such can be influenced by legal means,you have the power to vote you know?

Yet ANOTHER dodge. Just because you start with "As to your question" doesn't mean anything that follows it will be an answer.

It's a shame too, because I actually ENJOY debating my viewpoints, and the more extreme the opposite party against me, the more enjoyable the debate is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Dodging? No,more like refusing to answer a ridiculous question from an agent provocateur type.

You are wanting to entice others to discuss extreme political acts. It's as if you are deliberately inciting readers to discuss engaging into unlawful acts.

If you need your adrelanile rush go skydive or something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

This topic warrants further discussion, thus this thread will remain open beyond the standard 10 pages.

What action would the government of the United States of America have to take to make you want to overtly rebel against it, and attempt a violent replacement of said government??

Saltin is correct in indicating that your question is problematic. Please review Title 18 USC Sex. 2385 --- Advocating overthrow of Government --- http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt

The only appropriate response would be, "never."

There have been many actions committed by the government of the United States that I stand in stark disagreement, but under no circumstances will I rebel against it or attempt a violent replacement of the U.S. government. It was voted into position by the People of this country, by the electoral majority, and thus my minority views must accept the electoral majority will.

As a U.S. citizen, Instead I would work within the system, either as a voter, litigator, congressman, U.S. President, or in some other "legal" capacity, to encourage changes to the manner in which the government addresses whatever grievances I may presently hold. But violent action is not merely treasonous, seditious, it is counter-productive, in that it will result in the loss of American lives. I.e., contra to security, which is what this entire discussion is about, now isn't it?

So, having addressed that tangent, consider your question answered (legally) and let's return to the topic at hand --- Airport security: i.e., image scanners/pat-downs.

----------------------o----------------------

When I entered this discussion, it was merely to point out the false information propagated on the internet and then shared here with this community. I am a strong proponent of open debate, but only as long as facts and evidence are being presented, not conspiracy theories, faked photos or calls for civil war. Let's get back to open debate.

In response to n003k's arguments, I have a few issues. First, it's a weak argument to take things to extremes and then say, "would you allow this?" C'mon, really --- too much of anything is a bad thing, but most things work in moderation. Same applies to security measures. Indeed, I'm not sure if you thought about this, but laws are security measures, as is financial penalties and imprisonment. Security measures entail not merely the efforts to catch offenders, but to deter. Deterrence is performed in many ways, not the least of which is installation of alarm systems and other "obstacles."

If it is harder to hijack or blow-up a plane, a determined terrorist will look for an easier target. Does that mean they're stopped? No, of course not. But, as you and others have said, the airline industry is essential to many people. Many other industries are dependent upon the rapid travel provided by the airlines. From a terrorist's perspective, it's an inviting weapon, as it not only carries with it hostages, but explosives and rapid transit. As was demonstrated in 9/11, they can be devastating weapons to commerce, to life, to the economy, and to an entire nation's sense of security. So, of course it requires more security measures in place than, say, Walmart.

In response to your question, I first want to address one more point, then will provide an answer. In this day and age, Americans, and those of other nations, have a false sense of freedom, comparable to a false sense of security. You are no more free than you are secure. As it is, you can be accused of a crime and found guilty, with merely the allegation of intent. Worse, you could be intimidated into a plea bargain (the most effective, and grossly overused utility of the district attorney's office), even when you're innocent. Stepping away from criminal law, you don't even own your own property. Everyone paying into a mortgage thinks they're buying their home, but it's a lie. Even after you finished paying for your home, it's a lie. Each and every year you must pay property tax. If you fail to pay, the government can and will take your property. So, really, the government owns your property and charges you rent (in the form of a property tax). And how about personal freedoms? Every male must register for the draft when they reach 18 years old, should such a case be that the government decides to reinstate the draft.

These are merely three obvious examples and there are plenty more to demonstrate that freedom is an illusion, propagated by the respective nation/government. You are, in no uncertain terms, subject to their whims. All that limits those whims are the laws in place that provides a degree of consistency, predictability.

And about security? At any time, any day, any hour, you can be murdered/assassinated. What keeps that from happening is lack of importance and small windows of opportunity. The less important a person, the less likely they will be targeted (you become more important, as a target, if you flash your cash around, so it's important to understand that importance isn't merely political, it's how important you are to the person who has the intent to kill). Windows of opportunity are created when you fail to make extra steps to ensure your safety. For example, walking through an alleyway at night creates a window of opportunity for an assailant to attack you.

With airlines, the importance can only be marginally diminished, so then the efforts are in diminishing the windows of opportunity. This is performed by installing security measures, such as pat downs, metal detectors, image scanners, rectal thermometers and cold hands (the latter two being a bit of humor, in case you didn't catch that).

Decreasing the windows of opportunity should not be confused with removal of freedoms. It's a mistake to think in such terms because, in doing so, you fail to accept the reality that freedoms are illusory. But, more importantly, because it doesn't actually impact your freedoms.
 

DeletedUser

I'll take this point by point just for everyones ease. I'll offer a final rebuttal of my own on the tangent, partly in my own defense, and I'll drop it beyond that, regardless of any responses.

This topic warrants further discussion, thus this thread will remain open beyond the standard 10 pages.



Saltin is correct in indicating that your question is problematic. Please review Title 18 USC Sex. 2385 --- Advocating overthrow of Government --- http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt

The only appropriate response would be, "never."

There have been many actions committed by the government of the United States that I stand in stark disagreement, but under no circumstances will I rebel against it or attempt a violent replacement of the U.S. government. It was voted into position by the People of this country, by the electoral majority, and thus my minority views must accept the electoral majority will.

Alright, first off, I first kept questioning what would be 'too far' for them. Saltin dodged that question, and refused to answer it.

My original question, at one point was verbatim "What, TO YOU, would mean the government went to far? "

It wasn't until shortly after I questioned, and specified it was taken to, the furthest extreme, JUST to attempt to get an answer out of him. Also, a side note, the point of the whole concept of rebellion is that you no longer respect the laws, I don't think ANYONE believes it'd ever be a legal act, anymore than the US Revolution was a legal act under British law.

I do not now, nor do I have any intent to at any visible point in the future given our government any intent to rebel, however history has shown for a fact that people will only be pushed so far on certain fronts before they do just that.

As a U.S. citizen, Instead I would work within the system, either as a voter, litigator, congressman, U.S. President, or in some other "legal" capacity, to encourage changes to the manner in which the government addresses whatever grievances I may presently hold. But violent action is not merely treasonous, seditious, it is counter-productive, in that it will result in the loss of American lives. I.e., contra to security, which is what this entire discussion is about, now isn't it?

The obvious counter argument seems to be, what if the ability to work within the system is removed from the people? As for the action being XYZ, I think that would be the POINT of it. As for being counter-productive, I'd argue it isn't always, given the fact we reside in a nation formed through a revolution...

As for my tangent being contra to security? My initial question consisted of asking what act for our 'security' would be too much for Saltin and TJTuttle to stomach as actually being in our best interests.

So, having addressed that tangent, consider your question answered (legally) and let's return to the topic at hand --- Airport security: i.e., image scanners/pat-downs.

Lets.

----------------------o----------------------

When I entered this discussion, it was merely to point out the false information propagated on the internet and then shared here with this community. I am a strong proponent of open debate, but only as long as facts and evidence are being presented, not conspiracy theories, faked photos or calls for civil war. Let's get back to open debate.

I entered with the intent of having a pleasant debate, and pointing out how I felt about the situation.

In response to n003k's arguments, I have a few issues. First, it's a weak argument to take things to extremes and then say, "would you allow this?" C'mon, really --- too much of anything is a bad thing,

Exactly, and quite a few people feel that the CURRENT security is too much of it. That's my point, I'm trying to ask WHAT is too much to OTHERS. I feel it already is personally. I don't believe I'm alone in this.

To clarify, I have zero issue with my luggage going through xray machines, nor even passive systems like metal detectors, explosive residue sniffers, trained dogs, etc. I take offense to TSA using a machine that is actively used to view beneath my clothing, and if I chose NOT, them doing a full body open palmed pat down.

I feel that IS too much, and it's even more insulting when one does consider how simply this security can be thwarted.

but most things work in moderation. Same applies to security measures. Indeed, I'm not sure if you thought about this, but laws are security measures, as is financial penalties and imprisonment. Security measures entail not merely the efforts to catch offenders, but to deter. Deterrence is performed in many ways, not the least of which is installation of alarm systems and other "obstacles."

Very true, and like I said before, passive security measures are one thing, I'm NOT okay with the body scanners and the pat down alternative however.


If it is harder to hijack or blow-up a plane, a determined terrorist will look for an easier target. Does that mean they're stopped? No, of course not. But, as you and others have said, the airline industry is essential to many people. Many other industries are dependent upon the rapid travel provided by the airlines. From a terrorist's perspective, it's an inviting weapon, as it not only carries with it hostages, but explosives and rapid transit. As was demonstrated in 9/11, they can be devastating weapons to commerce, to life, to the economy, and to an entire nation's sense of security. So, of course it requires more security measures in place than, say, Walmart.

I think we can agree a terrorists main goal is to create fear, and terror. Yes?

If so, then I'd say a walmart, or similar store, is the best current target. As for a plane, passive measures, such as hardening the cockpit, prevent hijackings and the like. Passive measures, such as bomb sniffing tech, and profile training as for body language cues, will pose a far more difficult challenge to terrorists then the current tech we have, AND it won't infringe on our rights, or so I personally feel as far as the rights bit.

As I said before, if a terrorist wants to just kill a lot of people, then the current debated methods wont stop them.

In response to your question, I first want to address one more point, then will provide an answer. In this day and age, Americans, and those of other nations, have a false sense of freedom, comparable to a false sense of security. You are no more free than you are secure.

I want to point out here however, that I am responsible for my own security in the vast majority of my life, and thats the way I like things.

As for being free, I'm nowhere near as free as I'd like, and I don't feel this one aspect is the only way in which my freedom is being infringed.

As it is, you can be accused of a crime and found guilty, with merely the allegation of intent. Worse, you could be intimidated into a plea bargain (the most effective, and grossly overused utility of the district attorney's office), even when you're innocent. Stepping away from criminal law, you don't even own your own property. Everyone paying into a mortgage thinks they're buying their home, but it's a lie. Even after you finished paying for your home, it's a lie. Each and every year you must pay property tax. If you fail to pay, the government can and will take your property. So, really, the government owns your property and charges you rent (in the form of a property tax). And how about personal freedoms? Every male must register for the draft when they reach 18 years old, should such a case be that the government decides to reinstate the draft.

I know, and I don't agree with any of THAT really either. I find our justice system to have flaws, and I find plea bargains to be insane.

I know there need to be taxes, but feel OWNED property shouldn't be taxed...really taxes are an arena in which I'm not sure where the line really should be drawn, but, seizure of property to regain it, whether no matter what form of property it is, I definitely disagree with.

The draft? Insane also. I don't agree with it anymore than the above.

Honestly, it sounds like your trying to justify an infringement based on what many would feel are OTHER infringements.

These are merely three obvious examples and there are plenty more to demonstrate that freedom is an illusion, propagated by the respective nation/government. You are, in no uncertain terms, subject to their whims. All that limits those whims are the laws in place that provides a degree of consistency, predictability.

Freedom is not an illusion, freedom is a difficult to obtain state, and we by no means have achieved pure freedom. However, that doesn't make it an illusion anymore than landing a human on Mars is. Just because we haven't yet, doesn't mean we never can.

We haven't reached a perfect nation as far as personal freedom goes, that doesn't mean we cant ever do so however. Nor is such a nation an impossibility, it just requires all its citizenry to have full respect for the nation and the concepts it is founded upon.

As for the rights we have? Well, whether you believe they're natural or not...

They're set down as the supreme law of the land. Whether you believe they exist for everyone or not is irrelevant. Our country has them included as our law, so whether you want to consider them rights or not, is irrelevant. They ARE part of our law system, and they SHOULD be obeyed. The fact that our government doesn't at times shouldn't be shrugged off as something we have to accept, it should be the cause of mass public outrage, it should lead to any that doesn't respect it being thrown out of office, whether by vote or by court, it SHOULD have every citizen of the country inflamed and protesting. The fact that it DOESN'T, doesn't make it right however.

And about security? At any time, any day, any hour, you can be murdered/assassinated. What keeps that from happening is lack of importance and small windows of opportunity. The less important a person, the less likely they will be targeted (you become more important, as a target, if you flash your cash around, so it's important to understand that importance isn't merely political, it's how important you are to the person who has the intent to kill). Windows of opportunity are created when you fail to make extra steps to ensure your safety. For example, walking through an alleyway at night creates a window of opportunity for an assailant to attack you.

Very true. However those windows of opportunity and that security falls to ME to ensure. I choose not to walk down dark alleys at night because I know the risks should I choose to. Living in a state that allows me to, in 3 months when I legally can get my permit to do so at age 21 (Yet another thing I disagree with I'll add, however while I disagree with it I DO obey the law) I shall begin carrying a concealed handgun. I will take classes in self defense to maximize my ability with said handgun should I ever (Any existing divine being forbid...) need to use it.

I choose not to make myself a target by not partaking in crimes or making enemies. I don't give people a REASON to kill me.

Now yes, I understand on a plane I wouldn't be the target, but rather mass terror at the expense of several lives would be. However, should a terrorist get on a plane, I would make any attempts I could to stop said attack personally. I feel like the fact that more people don't feel it would be a personal responsibility is a problem in and of itself, and is a root cause of such social issues. If passengers were allowed effective means of defense on a plane, whether it be a knife or a gun, and the majority of passengers felt such responsibilities, the appeal of a plane as a terror target would be greatly reduced, as the chance of success would so greatly be reduced.

You might not agree that allowing passengers to carry weapons on a plane is a good idea, and it certainly has its pros and cons. However, how about training and arming at least one flight attendant on each flight? The AIT machines cost about $170,000 a piece according to the Christian science monitor. Assuming $1,000 for a good training course, or even $2,000, and $800 for a weapon to be provided, which would allow a good range of handguns, we'll say thats $2,800 a person. That could be 60 flight attendants trained and armed for each machine. According to the TSA's website, in March 2010 they deployed 450 such machines. That could train and arm 27,000 flight attendants.

That's assuming $2,000 for training, which gets a 4 day Handgun Combat Course from Frontsight. There are significantly more courses, at less cost, that will easily fit the bill for a situation on a plane.

Like the machines, it'd be a one time cost, unlike the machines, I don't think anyone would feel it infringes their rights. I think knowing that 27,000 planes have an armed crew member aboard would help to dissuade a terrorist attack using a plane also, no?

With airlines, the importance can only be marginally diminished, so then the efforts are in diminishing the windows of opportunity. This is performed by installing security measures, such as pat downs, metal detectors, image scanners, rectal thermometers and cold hands (the latter two being a bit of humor, in case you didn't catch that).

I did quite well catch the humor :p

And I agree, we SHOULD decrease those windows of opportunity, however there are much BETTER ways to do so, and that DON'T infringe on the law (Our rights).

Decreasing the windows of opportunity should not be confused with removal of freedoms. It's a mistake to think in such terms because, in doing so, you fail to accept the reality that freedoms are illusory. But, more importantly, because it doesn't actually impact your freedoms.

Now you're being contradictory. Either you think freedom is illusory, or you don't.

If you do, than it cant be impacted, as it doesn't actually EXIST.

If you don't, then why are you saying it is?

Either way, yes, decreasing those windows of opportunity CAN be a removal of freedom. Like I said, I have no problem with metal detectors, or xray machines, well, kind of xray machines, but I can accept them, and not feel its really an infringement, however, should I be required to submit to an actual strip search, and cavity exam in the name of security, for ANY reason beyond probable cause of me attempting to, or currently committing a crime, well, then yes, I believe my freedoms, granted if nothing else then by the law itself, are being infringed upon.


TL;DR: I disagree, politely. There are better ways for security, that don't infringe upon freedoms that are provided in the law if nothing else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

The obvious counter argument seems to be, what if the ability to work within the system is removed from the people?
Then it's no longer a Republic. Look, debating "what ifs" is just about the lamest thing we could be doing right now. Not only is it "not" the topic for discussion, it's a useless venture into intellectual masturbation. What if your mother and I married and you're my son? What if Barack Obama decides to grow a mustache? What if Batman was not a fictional character? What if you try providing debate without what if questions and gross exaggerations?

As for being counter-productive, I'd argue it isn't always, given the fact we reside in a nation formed through a revolution...
In the context of this discussion, which is about security of the people and/or nation, advocating a rebellion is counter-productive and, frankly, off-topic.

My initial question consisted of asking what act for our 'security' would be too much for Saltin and TJTuttle to stomach as actually being in our best interests.
Which returns us to your motive here. Something they cannot stomach warrants what? A rebellion? You see where you're going here? This is why Saltin didn't provide a response to satisfy your questions, because you're asking him to indicate what would motivate him to rebel against the U.S., with the mere advocacy of such being a crime in the U.S.. So, drop this tangent.

To clarify, I have zero issue with my luggage going through xray machines, nor even passive systems like metal detectors, explosive residue sniffers, trained dogs, etc. I take offense to TSA using a machine that is actively used to view beneath my clothing, and if I chose NOT, them doing a full body open palmed pat down.

I feel that IS too much, and it's even more insulting when one does consider how simply this security can be thwarted.
Let me clarify that "if" something is detected via xray machines, metal detectors, explosive residue sniffers, or trained dogs, do you think they'll just drop the subject? No, of course not, they'll do a more invasive investigation.

By the measure of your arguments, the image scanners are ALSO passive systems (I would tend to argue that anything emitting anything isn't passive and, as such, would contend that x-ray, metal detection, and residue sniffers are not passive, but whatever).

What I would also like to contend is, your argument is sounding a helluva lot like lspiderl's argument, in that he was arguing the image scanners are invasive, intruding upon ones person and showing private parts, and yet I already provided images that show they DO NOT. Are you then going to give the same ridiculous argument lspiderl presented, which is that we can't trust TSA when it comes to their claim, and presentation of evidence, that they installed a privacy protocol to ensure no "privates" are displayed?

Because if you're going to argue that paranoid lunacy, we're done with this discussion.

I think we can agree a terrorists main goal is to create fear, and terror. Yes?
No, it's a means to an end, not the main goal. If you fail to recognize the motivations for their actions you will merely see, and respond to, the superficial results.

As I said before, if a terrorist wants to just kill a lot of people, then the current debated methods wont stop them.
If that were their only agenda, the best targets would be arenas/stadiums. However, the greater agenda is commerce/industry disruption, as those have a greater impact on a governing nation and would result in a larger chance for a nation (such as the U.S.) to review their actions, cease and desist.

Such is the case with Al Qaeida, in that their agenda was/is to encourage the U.S. to remove their military bases from the Middle East (specifically, Saudi Arabia).

I want to point out here however, that I am responsible for my own security in the vast majority of my life, and thats the way I like things.
And the U.S. is responsible for the security of its citizens, the airline industry is responsible for the security of its passengers, the taco stand guy is responsible for ensuring the quality of the food he provides you. What's your point?

Honestly, it sounds like your trying to justify an infringement based on what many would feel are OTHER infringements.
Wow, you really missed the boat, didn't you? No, I was addressing the fact that you think these are freedoms, when in fact there are no actual freedoms, only permissions.


Freedom is not an illusion, freedom is a difficult to obtain state, and we by no means have achieved pure freedom. However, that doesn't make it an illusion anymore than landing a human on Mars is. Just because we haven't yet, doesn't mean we never can.
And, once again, missed the boat. While the "ideal" of freedom is not an illusion (just non-existent under virtually any governance), what you presently deem as freedoms is an illusion.

They're set down as the supreme law of the land. Whether you believe they exist for everyone or not is irrelevant. Our country has them included as our law, so whether you want to consider them rights or not, is irrelevant. They ARE part of our law system, and they SHOULD be obeyed. The fact that our government doesn't at times shouldn't be shrugged off as something we have to accept, it should be the cause of mass public outrage, it should lead to any that doesn't respect it being thrown out of office, whether by vote or by court, it SHOULD have every citizen of the country inflamed and protesting. The fact that it DOESN'T, doesn't make it right however.
Two problems with this argument: One is you are claiming the government isn't obeying the law in this case (image scanners). You have not proven this argument, therefore it is mere hyperbole.

The other is that you state every citizen in this country should hold onto the same hyperbole as you, and come to the same unsubstantiated conclusion. Well gee, I don't agree with that hyperbole because I bothered to research the issue and examined the available evidence. Thus, I came to a substantiated conclusion which, unfortunately for you, doesn't coincide with yours. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that many others have likewise examined the available evidence and come to a nonconforming conclusion.

And yes, I am saying you're a conformist, in that you're running with the crowd of tea party evangelists, finding wrongs where there are none, propagating lies where it suits, and following blindly the fabricated conclusions pushed by so many conspiracy theorists. Being a nonconformist, in this day and age, is actually making the damn effort to find the facts, rather than taking everything that's handed to you. Because, in this day and age, there's a pound of propaganda and only an ounce of truth. And the only way to get to that truth, is through examination of the facts. And those facts aren't going to be handed out to you so readily, unlike that pound of propaganda in the form of false allegations, fake photos, and unsubstantiated anecdotes.

Living in a state that allows me to, in 3 months when I legally can get my permit to do so at age 21 (Yet another thing I disagree with I'll add, however while I disagree with it I DO obey the law) I shall begin carrying a concealed handgun. I will take classes in self defense to maximize my ability with said handgun should I ever (Any existing divine being forbid...) need to use it.
At which point you'll end up either shooting your foot, shooting your friend, or have the weapon taken from you and have yourself shot by it.

Do yourself a favor and take the courses, but don't carry the gun. Not unless you're an expert which, at 21 and still having not taken any courses, you're clearly not. And don't take this personally, I have an extensive background in combat-related studies and am posing expert advice. You touch upon something here that deserves a degree of credibility on my part, so it's a bit out of character for me to toss out creds, but in this case it's warranted.

It is exceedingly unlikely a gun will protect you from a violent crime. Instead, it will only provide you the opportunity to escalate a crime into becoming violent or provide an opportunity for your weapon to end up in the hands of a criminal. A single course, even a series of courses, will not prepare you for a violent altercation, nor will you be able to utilize your gun effectively. Your responses will be dramatically altered by adrenalin, the weapon will be holstered, inside your clothing, and on safety. A gun will not save your life, but poor judgment on your part could very well ruin it. Carrying a gun is not a means of self-protection, it's an opportunity to play hero, which will more than likely result in either your death, a hostage situation, or your imprisonment.

Now yes, I understand on a plane I wouldn't be the target, but rather mass terror at the expense of several lives would be. However, should a terrorist get on a plane, I would make any attempts I could to stop said attack personally. I feel like the fact that more people don't feel it would be a personal responsibility is a problem in and of itself, and is a root cause of such social issues. If passengers were allowed effective means of defense on a plane, whether it be a knife or a gun, and the majority of passengers felt such responsibilities, the appeal of a plane as a terror target would be greatly reduced, as the chance of success would so greatly be reduced.
Oh wow, you are so incredibly wrong. You do realize that a single bullet, from any one of those wannabe heroes, penetrating the hull at 30,000 feet would kill everyone on that plane even before it hits the ground, right?

You might not agree that allowing passengers to carry weapons on a plane is a good idea, and it certainly has its pros and cons. However, how about training and arming at least one flight attendant on each flight? The AIT machines cost about $170,000 a piece according to the Christian science monitor. Assuming $1,000 for a good training course, or even $2,000, and $800 for a weapon to be provided, which would allow a good range of handguns, we'll say thats $2,800 a person. That could be 60 flight attendants trained and armed for each machine. According to the TSA's website, in March 2010 they deployed 450 such machines. That could train and arm 27,000 flight attendants. That's assuming $2,000 for training, which gets a 4 day Handgun Combat Course from Frontsight. There are significantly more courses, at less cost, that will easily fit the bill for a situation on a plane.
Woot, good job! You just provided terrorists 27,000 new ways to obtain a gun on a plane. Or didn't you consider that flight attendants have family that could be compromised, kidnapped, held in hostage? Or perhaps Osama himself could become a flight attendant. Worse is, a flight attendant can easily be knocked unconscious, or their weapon taken from them as they pass through the cramp aisles.

A 4 day course and arming is grossly insufficient. Far more training is required, as well as background checks, routine security checks, etc and so on. Oversimplification will get people killed. It's simply too great a risk, too foolish a notion that creates more opportunities, not less.

Like the machines, it'd be a one time cost, unlike the machines, I don't think anyone would feel it infringes their rights. I think knowing that 27,000 planes have an armed crew member aboard would help to dissuade a terrorist attack using a plane also, no?
No, or did you forget they're trying to die in the cause of Allah? Be it a knife with a hostage, a bomb in the crotch, or a gun from a ditsy flight attendant, additional armed, poorly trained, flight attendants will provide absolutely nothing to this situation.

Now you're being contradictory. Either you think freedom is illusory, or you don't.

If you do, than it cant be impacted, as it doesn't actually EXIST.

If you don't, then why are you saying it is?
Nope, reading comprehension error. I am saying they don't impact your freedoms, specifically because you have none for it to impact. Please reread what I wrote earlier, as there's a hidden meaning in it.
 

DeletedUser

Interesting debate. I would like to bring up some historical points that might be relevant to the differing perspectives.

The American revolution was as much a religious war as a political one. Some of the participants, among them Jefferson, were strong Deist who believed in a natural God; this is where our bill of rights comes from... "If you were alone on the continent, what would you be able to do?" Any activity that would be curtailed by additional population was considered an infringement. Thus there was some hesitation about writing a Bill of Rights, because there was some fear that the population might grow to believe that these were the ONLY rights they had.

"At what point does one rebel?" the Declaration of Independence spells it out: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Now, these rebels had had their fill of a strong central government... thus the National government included a congress that was made up of representatives whose primary duty was to ensure that no national law would infringe upon the traditions and laws or commerce of an individual state.

This all went by the wayside in the 1860's as one of the natural casualties of the Civil War...(please let's not digress into the causes or racism). The Nation that came into being in 1776, passed out of existence in 1865, with a slight name change signaling a change of governmental philosophy. These United States became The United States.

Individual freedom hung on a bit longer, but the "dram of poison" that spelled the beginning of the end was the Social Security Act~ A needed program, that has been since modified to track individual citizens. I'll give away my age, but my card still says "not to be used for identification". It is actually still illegal for ANYONE to ask you for your social security number, for what it's worth :) That and a dollar may still buy a cup of coffee.

Now, again giving away my age, but I grew up in a country that still had a lot of individual freedom. If anyone had stopped us on the street and asked us "show us your papers", we would send the miscreant to the pavement with a socially justified punch in the nose...we still remembered the tyranny that was fought so hard in Europe by our fathers, and it was the "show us your papers" that was as much a symbol of tyranny to them as a swastika.

I will no longer fly on a commercial airline. I believe that if it so dangerous that people are willingly handing over their fourth amendment rights, then you would have to PAY me to brave the dangers that seem to have become so inherent in commercial air travel.
 

DeletedUser

As I said, I'm dropping the whole section about rebellion that I typed prior. I am not admitting I am wrong, just following through with my promise on that matter.

Which returns us to your motive here. Something they cannot stomach warrants what? A rebellion? You see where you're going here? This is why Saltin didn't provide a response to satisfy your questions, because you're asking him to indicate what would motivate him to rebel against the U.S., with the mere advocacy of such being a crime in the U.S.. So, drop this tangent.

No, something you can't stomach would be the point that you START protesting, through legal means, whether picketing, writing letters, running for office. I wanted to know, and still quite well DO want to know what is too much for him. At what point would he start protesting against the governments involvement. What security matter is too much for him. The extreme was just that, the most extreme point to take it, not the first jump.
\

As I said, I personally already feel like it's too much, however, I have absolutely zero intent to take up arms against the government.



Let me clarify that "if" something is detected via xray machines, metal detectors, explosive residue sniffers, or trained dogs, do you think they'll just drop the subject? No, of course not, they'll do a more invasive investigation.

I think should one of those matters get tripped, that it would provide probable cause for further search.

Also, one quick point I want to interject directly on the AIT machines is the claim that they don't save the images... I find that hard to swallow as how else would they use images as evidence to prove they saw something? If nothing else, I get the feeling they're stretching the truth and really probably mean something along the lines of "Not every image is saved, and it can only be saved at the discretion of the operator."

By the measure of your arguments, the image scanners are ALSO passive systems (I would tend to argue that anything emitting anything isn't passive and, as such, would contend that x-ray, metal detection, and residue sniffers are not passive, but whatever).

Metal detectors don't cause you to stop and hold your arms up. The sniffers can be used in ways that are passive. The X-ray, like I said, are iffy. You're right however, the fact that they emit anything does make them a bit more on the active end of the spectrum. My point however is that they aren't a step that requires you to stop in place, and wait while it scans your whole body. The X-rays only require stopping due to the extra requirements of pulling certain things out and putting them in trays now, otherwise you could toss your bags on the belt, and walk forward. It might not be truly passive, however, it's not quite as active of a scan as the AIT machines I'd say.

What I would also like to contend is, your argument is sounding a helluva lot like lspiderl's argument, in that he was arguing the image scanners are invasive, intruding upon ones person and showing private parts, and yet I already provided images that show they DO NOT. Are you then going to give the same ridiculous argument lspiderl presented, which is that we can't trust TSA when it comes to their claim, and presentation of evidence, that they installed a privacy protocol to ensure no "privates" are displayed?

Because if you're going to argue that paranoid lunacy, we're done with this discussion.

Honestly, I never trust a government agency until proven otherwise. However, my argument doesn't center on conspiracy or lunacy, but rather on the fact that I feel it violates my rights, rights that are laid down as law in the Constitution I'll add once more. I'm unsure on just how detailed the images are. I don't fully trust the fact they can't save the image, but honestly, I don't think that they'd be worth ogling even if you could, at least not with the plethora of porn out there, and those really are the only two arguments of spider's that I remember.


No, it's a means to an end, not the main goal. If you fail to recognize the motivations for their actions you will merely see, and respond to, the superficial results.

Alright, fine, you'd be right there, the terror IS a means to an end. However, commerce would be more easily effected by making consumers too terrified to shop also at this point, which comes back to the walmart point, note here that walmart is being used to refer to any major store, not literally JUST walmart.

However the means IS through terror, and hence they attempt to create terror. Whether its the means to the end, or the end goal, its their critical step.

If that were their only agenda, the best targets would be arenas/stadiums. However, the greater agenda is commerce/industry disruption, as those have a greater impact on a governing nation and would result in a larger chance for a nation (such as the U.S.) to review their actions, cease and desist.

Arenas and stadiums, especially during extremely large events have extremely beefed up security now for a reason.

As far as causing a government to stop and consider its actions, I think ANY large amount of deaths would have the same effect, not just targeting commerce and industry. If thousands of US citizens were dieing in domestic terrorist attacks a day, it would have a similar result to economic impacts.

Such is the case with Al Qaeida, in that their agenda was/is to encourage the U.S. to remove their military bases from the Middle East (specifically, Saudi Arabia).


And the U.S. is responsible for the security of its citizens, the airline industry is responsible for the security of its passengers, the taco stand guy is responsible for ensuring the quality of the food he provides you. What's your point?

If the US is responsible for the security of its citizens, why don't the police have a duty to protect individual citizens? The US government is responsible for many things, including the security of the NATION. However, they are NOT responsible for your security, nor mine. My point therefore is, that, as the government is NOT responsible for my protection, I don't like the fact that I am required to submit to security theater, that won't stop a terrorist that wants to get aboard that plane anyways, and that I surrender my 4th Amendment rights in the process.

(Gov't not responsible for our protection, Warren Vs District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1; 1981 D.C. App. LEXIS 412)

Wow, you really missed the boat, didn't you? No, I was addressing the fact that you think these are freedoms, when in fact there are no actual freedoms, only permissions.

Thats a rather pessimistic view honestly. Freedoms exist as long as the people are willing to demand them, just because the government can take them away, doesn't make them any less real, just more difficult to hold on to. They ARE freedoms, and they are provided for by LAW, even if you don't believe they are innate.



And, once again, missed the boat. While the "ideal" of freedom is not an illusion (just non-existent under virtually any governance), what you presently deem as freedoms is an illusion.

Just because they've been denied and taken away, doesn't make them an illusion, I am fully aware of how my freedoms are lacking under the US government, I don't believe I have anymore than what I actually do have. However, I am arguing to curtail the actions that are taking MORE freedom away, and hopefully, some day, we'll have a congress that actually starts to return freedoms that have been taken away.


Two problems with this argument: One is you are claiming the government isn't obeying the law in this case (image scanners). You have not proven this argument, therefore it is mere hyperbole.

"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."

Have warrants been issued to search my person of effects when I go to the airport?

As far as saying it IS reasonable, in Katz Vs United States (389 U.S. 347) The Supreme Court determined that a search occurs when a person expects privacy, and society thinks that said expectation is reasonable... Unfortunately, whether society thinks these searches are reasonable is still up in the air.

The other is that you state every citizen in this country should hold onto the same hyperbole as you, and come to the same unsubstantiated conclusion. Well gee, I don't agree with that hyperbole because I bothered to research the issue and examined the available evidence. Thus, I came to a substantiated conclusion which, unfortunately for you, doesn't coincide with yours. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that many others have likewise examined the available evidence and come to a nonconforming conclusion.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, however I feel my point of view is correct (Doesn't everyone?) And therefore I want the majority to agree with me. My points are no less valid than yours. I've seen the various images that have been released, and read the articles from both sides. I've come to the conclusion that the scanners and patdowns violate the 4th Amendment. Disagree if you wish, that's your right to do so, however it doesn't make my opinion any less valid than your own.

As for conforming, honestly, I know about the tea party, but don't follow it, nor consider myself a member of it. Just because my opinion might coincide with theirs, doesn't mean I'm conforming to them. I'm sure other opinions I hold are different from theirs, just as I'm sure you hold opinions of your own that align with some organizations.


And yes, I am saying you're a conformist, in that you're running with the crowd of tea party evangelists, finding wrongs where there are none, propagating lies where it suits, and following blindly the fabricated conclusions pushed by so many conspiracy theorists. Being a nonconformist, in this day and age, is actually making the damn effort to find the facts, rather than taking everything that's handed to you. Because, in this day and age, there's a pound of propaganda and only an ounce of truth. And the only way to get to that truth, is through examination of the facts. And those facts aren't going to be handed out to you so readily, unlike that pound of propaganda in the form of false allegations, fake photos, and unsubstantiated anecdotes.

Where have I lied? What have I presented as a lie? Almost everything I've stated is an opinion. My wording may not have been the best, calling Xrays and Metal detectors passive security, but, I have not at any point intentionally and knowingly lied. Should I find a lie in anything I said, I apologize for it, and ask you to point it out. Just because I haven't come to the same conclusions as you however, doesn't make a statement a lie.

I covered the tea party above, and as for finding wrongs where there are none? That depends on personal opinion once more. YOU might not find the AIT scanners to be a wrong, that doesn't mean to me they aren't however. I also haven't stated anything on those photos, cited any of the quotes against the scanners, or made any allegations. I've given my opinion that it violates the 4th amendment, and why I feel that way, along with responding to your points.


At which point you'll end up either shooting your foot, shooting your friend, or have the weapon taken from you and have yourself shot by it.

I've made it 12 years handling firearms safely, I don't foresee me putting it in a holster being the point I mess up.

I've been raised with firearms, and respect them for what they are.

Do yourself a favor and take the courses, but don't carry the gun. Not unless you're an expert which, at 21 and still having not taken any courses, you're clearly not. And don't take this personally, I have an extensive background in combat-related studies and am posing expert advice. You touch upon something here that deserves a degree of credibility on my part, so it's a bit out of character for me to toss out creds, but in this case it's warranted.

I don't intend on waiting to be deemed an 'expert'. However I feel having been raised with guns, and given instruction by a US Marine in the safe use of firearms, and taught proper respect and safety WITH firearms, along with having a decent value of my life and those around me, that I can safely carry the firearm.

It is exceedingly unlikely a gun will protect you from a violent crime. Instead, it will only provide you the opportunity to escalate a crime into becoming violent or provide an opportunity for your weapon to end up in the hands of a criminal. A single course, even a series of courses, will not prepare you for a violent altercation, nor will you be able to utilize your gun effectively. Your responses will be dramatically altered by adrenalin, the weapon will be holstered, inside your clothing, and on safety. A gun will not save your life, but poor judgment on your part could very well ruin it. Carrying a gun is not a means of self-protection, it's an opportunity to play hero, which will more than likely result in either your death, a hostage situation, or your imprisonment.

In the event of a violent crime, no matter HOW small the chance the gun can help, I'd rather have some form of defense other than crying out for help. Should the crime not begin as violent, I won't have cause to use the firearm. The firearm is there should I be in fear for my life, if I can't articulate a fear that the encounter could end in either my death, or the death of a non-criminal participant, then I can't morally, or legally, use that firearm.

As far as it serving as a means of playing hero? Maybe to someone delusional, however for me it will serve solely as a means of defending my life should I need it. I'm not here to stop every crime, or ANY crime really. That gun will be on my hip ONLY to protect the lives of myself and those I care for.

Oh wow, you are so incredibly wrong. You do realize that a single bullet, from any one of those wannabe heroes, penetrating the hull at 30,000 feet would kill everyone on that plane even before it hits the ground, right?

Actually, from what I've heard, a modern plane will not complete be destroyed by a bullet hole. If you're referring to explosive decompression, any ways, otherwise that'd be one HUGE handgun...

Heck, you realize the US Military uses pressurized aircraft, including bombers, right?

For further reading on that... http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26481




Woot, good job! You just provided terrorists 27,000 new ways to obtain a gun on a plane. Or didn't you consider that flight attendants have family that could be compromised, kidnapped, held in hostage? Or perhaps Osama himself could become a flight attendant. Worse is, a flight attendant can easily be knocked unconscious, or their weapon taken from them as they pass through the cramp aisles.

And the same could be said about the pilots, and the baggage handlers, and the TSA agents. EVERYONE pretty much has families that can be kidnapped and held hostage and used as leverage. And like I said before, if a terrorist really wants to get to the plane, they can stick a bomb up their butt.

ANY security measure has its flaws. At least having an armed person on the plane allows a response beyond bum rushing the terrorist if they try to hijack the plane if they get something through.

A 4 day course and arming is grossly insufficient. Far more training is required, as well as background checks, routine security checks, etc and so on. Oversimplification will get people killed. It's simply too great a risk, too foolish a notion that creates more opportunities, not less.

I think we have the infrastructure quite well in place for those security checks, and the point is, thats one of the companys most 'advanced' classes, and its $2,000.00. Others are available for longer and more in-depth instruction. However, along the lines of the current security, the point is to provide DETERRENT, however its a deterrent that can ALSO pose to be a defense.



No, or did you forget they're trying to die in the cause of Allah? Be it a knife with a hostage, a bomb in the crotch, or a gun from a ditsy flight attendant, additional armed, poorly trained, flight attendants will provide absolutely nothing to this situation.

So, set up a way to train them even more effectively. We DO have that whole military thing where they train people to fight effectively already going on.


Nope, reading comprehension error. I am saying they don't impact your freedoms, specifically because you have none for it to impact. Please reread what I wrote earlier, as there's a hidden meaning in it.

I do have them to impact actually, whether YOU believe they exist or not.


And with that, it's been fun. I came here to toss in my two cents, and to have a bit of fun in a debate. I've come through it holding my beliefs still as strong as ever, and maybe someone reading my posts will stop and think for a minute about our governments security measures.

While I may disagree with you Hellstromm, I hope you've enjoyed the debate yourself, and wish you the best of luck in your current endeavors. This will (Probably) be my last post on this topic, though I'll read any replies and most likely continue to watch it.
 

DeletedUser

10+ pages, entertaining debate and now everything's gone quiet. Thanks all for your participation, see you in the next heated discussion. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top