CDZ Have the terrorists won when we forsake the nationhood paradigm we provided the rest of the world?

[320 Years of History]

Today the TSA announced new procedures at the airport security checkpoints, specifically that one cannot in the U.S. opt for a pat down instead of going through the scanner. Whether this is a temporary change, I do not know; I just heard about it.

The thing that went through my mind is whether, as some folks have suggested, this, along with other TSA procedures, is a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. At the very least, it seems plausible that it is, and that concerns me. It doesn't concern me as a person, even though I fly somewhere every two to three days. It does concern me as a citizen of the U.S. who has no interest in seeing the Constitution and its Bill of Rights substantively abrogated by executive department fiat rather than by the legislative actions of the states.

The topic of discussion for this thread then is not whether any single act or policy is a violation of one or more of our rights. Little by little we see the TSA and other executive departments/agencies chipping away at the freedoms we've long considered inalienable. Yet, with each passing lustrum we find bits and pieces of them becoming becoming foreign to us. Thus, the topics for this thread are:

• whether the process of gradually chipping away at them results in our becoming a nation not all that different from the ones we decry
• whether by allowing the erosion of bits and pieces of the rights codified by our Constitution the people and groups who/that seek to destroy us will have effectively done so

The simple fact is that groups like ISIS that want to see our demise don't really have to kill all or even most of us. All they really need to do is push us to act such that the free and open nation we long cherished and that was the envy of the rest of the world, indeed a model for the rest of the world, just doesn't exist because we, by "this and that" action have converted it into but a shadow of what the framers meant it to be.

 

[jwoodie]

I'm not sure that this is a good example. What was the purpose of offering a pat down option in the first place?

 

[DarkFury]

You are going into a legally confusing area. While you CAN operate a private automobile on private property {yours} with NO permission once you take it on a public road you are legally expected to follow certain guidelines.

Planes are public transportation using public air space. And public transportation is governed by government.

 

[jwoodie]

A better example, for the sake of discussion, might be GUN REGISTRATION. Despite an understandable desire to keep guns out of the hands of "bad" people, it would necessarily create a government database that could be used in the future to confiscate guns owned by "good" people.

 

[Fishlore]

Today the TSA announced new procedures at the airport security checkpoints, specifically that one cannot in the U.S. opt for a pat down instead of going through the scanner. Whether this is a temporary change, I do not know; I just heard about it.

The thing that went through my mind is whether, as some folks have suggested, this, along with other TSA procedures, is a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. At the very least, it seems plausible that it is, and that concerns me. It doesn't concern me as a person, even though I fly somewhere every two to three days. It does concern me as a citizen of the U.S. who has no interest in seeing the Constitution and its Bill of Rights substantively abrogated by executive department fiat rather than by the legislative actions of the states.

The topic of discussion for this thread then is not whether any single act or policy is a violation of one or more of our rights. Little by little we see the TSA and other executive departments/agencies chipping away at the freedoms we've long considered inalienable. Yet, with each passing lustrum we find bits and pieces of them becoming becoming foreign to us. Thus, the topics for this thread are:

• whether the process of gradually chipping away at them results in our becoming a nation not all that different from the ones we decry
• whether by allowing the erosion of bits and pieces of the rights codified by our Constitution the people and groups who/that seek to destroy us will have effectively done so

The simple fact is that groups like ISIS that want to see our demise don't really have to kill all or even most of us. All they really need to do is push us to act such that the free and open nation we long cherished and that was the envy of the rest of the world, indeed a model for the rest of the world, just doesn't exist because we, by "this and that" action have converted it into but a shadow of what the framers meant it to be.

I understand how you feel about Fourth Amendment rights. The legal answer is that the government does have an over-riding responsibility for public safety and, of course, you aren't being searched at random or on the street but rather pursuant to your purchase of a contract (ticket) on an airplane operating on public property.

There is also the argument that we are, technically, in a state of war with ISIS -- not a formally declared war but an act of Congress. Under these conditions the courts have upheld the power of the government to perform activities that would be otherwise not permitted.

I don't think it is a goal of our Islamic opponents to reduce our constitutional liberties. I think they want us out of Arabia. End of story.

 

[jwoodie]

I don't think it is a goal of our Islamic opponents to reduce our constitutional liberties. I think they want us out of Arabia. End of story.

"End of story" usually indicates a small or closed mind. Which is yours?

 

[Sunni Man]

I don't think it is a goal of our Islamic opponents to reduce our constitutional liberties. I think they want us out of Arabia.

100% correct ....

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't think it is a goal of our Islamic opponents to reduce our constitutional liberties. I think they want us out of Arabia. End of story.

"End of story" usually indicates a small or closed mind. Which is yours?

I cannot speak for Fishlore, but the tone of his comments didn't strike me as indicative of a closed mind with regard to this thread's topic; notwithstanding that, like you, I often find that "end of story" suggests a closed mind on a given topic.

 

[Jeddahite]

Of course we are losing and they are winning. ISIS's goal is massive infiltration and we're still using the mind set that our military will meet the enemy on a battlefield. What can be done about it? I don't know. And I, a liberal and a constitutionalist, believe that internet and phone spying by the government is a good idea for our safety, for the greater good.

 

[jwoodie]

I don't think it is a goal of our Islamic opponents to reduce our constitutional liberties. I think they want us out of Arabia.

100% correct ....

What makes you think they would be satisfied with an "Arabian" caliphate?

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't think it is a goal of our Islamic opponents to reduce our constitutional liberties. I think they want us out of Arabia.

100% correct ....

What makes you think they would be satisfied with an "Arabian" caliphate?

That is a reasonable question given the remark, but not the only one. Do you think they would not be satisfied with an "Arabian" caliphate? And if not, why not?

 

[jwoodie]

I don't think it is a goal of our Islamic opponents to reduce our constitutional liberties. I think they want us out of Arabia.

100% correct ....

What makes you think they would be satisfied with an "Arabian" caliphate?

That is a reasonable question given the remark, but not the only one. Do you think they would not be satisfied with an "Arabian" caliphate? And if not, why not?

History would suggest otherwise: Spain, Persia and the Byzantine Empire are examples. When your religion teaches theocracy, extermination of infidels and heaven for those who participate in the jihad, it is hard to be satisfied with a little patch of desert.