Airport Pat-downs - people upset

[CivilLiberty]

Are you serious?
If I'm hiding shit in my bra, then I'm sure somebody will find it if they're patting me down. That could save the lives of the passengers and crew.

Oh please. What "dangerous thing" would you have stuffed in your bra that would be found by a pat down? Ricin? Ricin could be contained in a gel pack of a "water bra" and not detected during a pat down. What else? It's a spurious argument - one could far more easily hide a plastic (Polycarbonite) knife in carry on luggage that would go undetected in an Xray or even hand search. A pat down is meaningless, and only serves to unreasonably invade a person's privacy.

Cite one case or instance where an unmotivated pat down search turned up something that would endanger the passengers or crew. And by unmotivated, I mean a search that was done without even the suspicion raised from a set-off metal detector

Doesn't this kind of stuff happen now as it did before 9/11? Racist cops inflicting racism? Mean ass people claiming you did something you didn't?

Yes, of course it has, and this is proof as to why we must INCREASE not DECREASE civil liberties. Without the protections of civil liberties these egregious harms can't be undone.

To throw these rights away for the misguided illusion of greater security would be a most serious crime indeed.

I don't even know how to reply to this. I'm completely dumbfounded!

That's sad to hear. Dumbfounded? It is this nation's tradition of civil liberties that allowed us to grow as a society. To throw them away in the face of adversity is a crime.

I'm dumbfounded that people are so willing to surrender their rights for the illusion of security - because an illusion is all it is.


Regards,



Andy

 

[manu1959]

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh...i would like to have her pat me down

thanks

 

[UsaPride]

What "dangerous thing" would you have stuffed in your bra that would be found by a pat down?

I don't know. My mind doesn't think up things like that so I have no clue what dangerous thing could be used. But if someones hiding something in there, I'm sure it can be found. That makes me safer.
Why does it bother you to be searched? Seriously. How are you being harmed by being patted down before getting on a plane?
If you don't want to be patted down, don't fly. You want your right to fly, I want my right to be safe! Is being safe a right?

A pat down is meaningless, and only serves to unreasonably invade a person's privacy.

Your rants are meaningless, and only serves to bitch and complain!

Without the protections of civil liberties these egregious harms can't be undone.

What about the cop that pulls over someone that gets pissed and claims it's racist? What about the neighbor that's reporting something true, but you claim they've got a grudge?
Shits investigated. This is how it works.

Dumbfounded?

I'm dumbfounded that you're so pissed about pat downs at airports!!!

I'm dumbfounded that people are so willing to surrender their rights for the illusion of security - because an illusion is all it is.

Illusion of security??? I'd rather have a flippin' pat down then die on a plane because people are protesting security!!

 

[Bonnie]

Andy I wouldn't take it so far as to say it's merely an illusion of security, as Tam said if say a woman pats down another woman's bra and finds some kind of wire trigger device, I say job well done (with out sounding too McGuyver) so there needs to be some kind of common sense middle ground here. Yes there is always a price to live in a free society we can accept that, but where do civil liberties end and common good begin? Seriously aside form the absolute horror of another 9/11 can you imagine the wrath Bush and homeland security would face and how they would be blamed endlessly if something like that happened on their watch, the same people crying foul about big government intrusion would be among the first to be screaming Bush didn't do enough for airport security.

 

[musicman]

Andy I wouldn't take it so far as to say it's merely an illusion of security, as Tam said if say a woman pats down another woman's bra and finds some kind of wire trigger device, I say job well done (with out sounding too McGuyver) so there needs to be some kind of common sense middle ground here. Yes there is always a price to live in a free society we can accept that, but where do civil liberties end and common good begin? Seriously aside form the absolute horror of another 9/11 can you imagine the wrath Bush and homeland security would face and how they would be blamed endlessly if something like that happened on their watch, the same people crying foul about big government intrusion would be among the first to be screaming Bush didn't do enough for airport security.

Exactly. If we proceed from the assumption that the Bush administration is wrong no matter what they do, it saves so much time and trouble.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Andy I wouldn't take it so far as to say it's merely an illusion of security, as Tam said if say a woman pats down another woman's bra and finds some kind of wire trigger device, I say job well done (with out sounding too McGuyver) so there needs to be some kind of common sense middle ground here.

Some mythical device stuffed in some alleged bra that does not exist is not a reason to invade someone's personal, private space.

If a person passes through a non intrusive (i.e. metal detector/explosives sniffer) that goes off, creating probable cause for a further search, that's one thing - and that's a line that's easy to draw.

But there is no way that a free society can justify violating a person's most private areas in an indiscriminate and capricious manner.

Yes there is always a price to live in a free society we can accept that, but where do civil liberties end and common good begin? Seriously aside form the absolute horror of another 9/11 can you imagine the wrath Bush and homeland security would face and how they would be blamed endlessly if something like that happened on their watch, the same people crying foul about big government intrusion would be among the first to be screaming Bush didn't do enough for airport security.

Nothing about patting down American citizens while boarding a plane is going to prevent another terrorist attack.

Pilots used to be armed, until 1987 when their guns were banned by the FAA.

Had they been armed, 9/11 would likely not have happened as it did.

Had cockpit doors been strengthened as they are in airlines in other parts of the world, then perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented.

Prior to 9/11, it was legal to bring sharp knifes and screwdrivers up to 6" long on board. If instead, all weapons (even razors) were banned, 9/11 would not have happened as it did.

Had the Bush administration placed air marshals on more flights after learning of the intelligence that a terrorist attack was imminent, then perhaps 9/11 would not have happened.

The point is, the security failings that allowed 9/11 to happen had nothing to do with limiting civil liberties, or infringing rights - the failings were system wide and resulting from myopic policies resultant from both Republican and Democratic parties.

Regardless, 9/11 did happen, and it did happen on Bush's watch.

And the result is this knee-jerk reactionary set of policies that is/are tearing up the framework of a once free and open society. It's wrong at the core, but the administration is using fear mongering tactics to frighten the populace in to accepting these curtailments as "necessary".

There is nothing about throwing civil liberties out the window that will prevent another well planned terrorist attack. Believing that it will is like believing in Santa-Clause. People like UsaPride are buying into this sham hook, line, and sinker. The same kind of people that in 1930 Germany bought into that administration's similar assertions of dire need for homeland security in the wake of the Reichstag fire.



Regards,


Andy

 

[Patriot]

Some mythical device stuffed in some alleged bra that does not exist is not a reason to invade someone's personal, private space.

If a person passes through a non intrusive (i.e. metal detector/explosives sniffer) that goes off, creating probable cause for a further search, that's one thing - and that's a line that's easy to draw.

But there is no way that a free society can justify violating a person's most private areas in an indiscriminate and capricious manner.






Regards,


Andy

Andy you really take the cake on being a dumb ass. Are you a terrorist?

To answer your question YES it is a damn good reason to "invade" a persons personal space. Unless of course you want all the passengers dead. And from the sounds of it since you tend to think this is a mythological piece of shit that could NEVER be manufactured. Jesus Christ did you go to bomb tech school to teach you that bullshit?

Oh and by the way plastic can go thru METAL detectors...

And as far as a free society justifying invasive measures on private parts I gather you think women would be better served NOT getting their annual pap smear?

 

[Shattered]

Bull. It's not a privilege, anymore than buying food at the store is a privilege.

Buying anything at any store is a privledge - not a right. Any merchant has the right to refuse you service for any reason whatsoever.

 

[Doc Holiday]

You might want to read the 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states:

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

And as far as the right to travel, Justice Tolman states:

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.


The right to fly is indeed a personal liberty, encompassed by the right to travel. If I want to go fly my aircraft, I don't have to pass any security check. The thing that allows the government to pass laws regarding security on airlines is that airlines are corporations, and the government has the authority to dictate how corporations are run. Until the TSA, airline security was handled by the various airline corporations, and corporations are not restricted by the bill of rights, in that if they want to make a requirement that to board their equipment you pass a security check, they are free to do so.

It is quite a different matter, however, to have a GOVERNMENT agency and government officers, searching citizens in an unreasonable manner.



Bull. It's not a privilege, anymore than buying food at the store is a privilege. The right to travel is a fundamental right, one of the rights not excluded by enumeration as noted in the 9th amendment.


Regards


Andy

Andy,
The key word in that passage is unreasonable. Since 9/11 the US Congress, and a majority of Americans, have decided that pat downs at the airports are not unreasonable. And the last I looked, travel is not listed as one of the inalienable rights in the US Constitution.

Until the TSA, private companies handled security and handled it poorly. That is why the US Congress, and a majority of Americans, have decided that the TSA should take over airport security.

If you are so high on civil liberties, you would think that you would know that we live in a democracy where the majority rules. You do have a right to move to another country if this one is not to your liking.

 

[Doc Holiday]

There is nothing about throwing civil liberties out the window that will prevent another well planned terrorist attack. Believing that it will is like believing in Santa-Clause. People like UsaPride are buying into this sham hook, line, and sinker. The same kind of people that in 1930 Germany bought into that administration's similar assertions of dire need for homeland security in the wake of the Reichstag fire.



Regards,


Andy

Andy,
Believing in the Bush administration being the equivalent of Hitler is also like believing in Santa Claus. It's a nice fairy tale to tell gulliable little kids. Do you fit into that category? Seems to me you have fallen hook, line and sinker into the liberal assertions that all we need to do is love the terrorists and they will love us back and the world will be a happy place again.

 

[dilloduck]

Some mythical device stuffed in some alleged bra that does not exist is not a reason to invade someone's personal, private space.

If a person passes through a non intrusive (i.e. metal detector/explosives sniffer) that goes off, creating probable cause for a further search, that's one thing - and that's a line that's easy to draw.

But there is no way that a free society can justify violating a person's most private areas in an indiscriminate and capricious manner.



Nothing about patting down American citizens while boarding a plane is going to prevent another terrorist attack.

Pilots used to be armed, until 1987 when their guns were banned by the FAA.

Had they been armed, 9/11 would likely not have happened as it did.

Had cockpit doors been strengthened as they are in airlines in other parts of the world, then perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented.

Prior to 9/11, it was legal to bring sharp knifes and screwdrivers up to 6" long on board. If instead, all weapons (even razors) were banned, 9/11 would not have happened as it did.

Had the Bush administration placed air marshals on more flights after learning of the intelligence that a terrorist attack was imminent, then perhaps 9/11 would not have happened.

The point is, the security failings that allowed 9/11 to happen had nothing to do with limiting civil liberties, or infringing rights - the failings were system wide and resulting from myopic policies resultant from both Republican and Democratic parties.

Regardless, 9/11 did happen, and it did happen on Bush's watch.

And the result is this knee-jerk reactionary set of policies that is/are tearing up the framework of a once free and open society. It's wrong at the core, but the administration is using fear mongering tactics to frighten the populace in to accepting these curtailments as "necessary".

There is nothing about throwing civil liberties out the window that will prevent another well planned terrorist attack. Believing that it will is like believing in Santa-Clause. People like UsaPride are buying into this sham hook, line, and sinker. The same kind of people that in 1930 Germany bought into that administration's similar assertions of dire need for homeland security in the wake of the Reichstag fire.



Regards,


Andy

Solve this one Andy----5 people are standing comfortably in a square. A person walks by and wants to stand in that square too. What's the soution without infinging on anyones' rights?

 

[UsaPride]

Seriously aside form the absolute horror of another 9/11 can you imagine the wrath Bush and homeland security would face and how they would be blamed endlessly if something like that happened on their watch, the same people crying foul about big government intrusion would be among the first to be screaming Bush didn't do enough for airport security.

Exactly!!