Calls for Full-Body Scanners Re-Ignite Privacy Concerns

[Darkwind]

Just in case people don't know it, it's the Republicans who are against the full body scans.

I don't know why the Republicans or the Democrats would be against full body scans.

No civil liberties are being violated with the full body scans. If you don't want to have them, don't fly. The airline companies own the planes and have every right to set the rules.

No one has a right to fly.

You don't have the right to have a job. Shall we federally mandate strip searches on every single person who walks into every place of employment so we never have another Timothy McVeigh? If you don't want to have them, don't work and starve.

Arguments like the one you make are made by authoritarian police statists who have no respect for civil liberties or anyone's personal freedom, in others words, a neocon.

Hmm....I think you haven't a clue.

Last time I looked, employers have just that right. But the next time a Islamic Extremist grabs a undy bomb and blows up the local screw manufacturer, you may have a point. But I doubt that you would understand the difference.

The only entity that can take liberty and personal freedoms is the government.

Just what this board needs. Another ******* moron.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't know why the Republicans or the Democrats would be against full body scans.

No civil liberties are being violated with the full body scans. If you don't want to have them, don't fly. The airline companies own the planes and have every right to set the rules.

No one has a right to fly.

You don't have the right to have a job. Shall we federally mandate strip searches on every single person who walks into every place of employment so we never have another Timothy McVeigh? If you don't want to have them, don't work and starve.

Arguments like the one you make are made by authoritarian police statists who have no respect for civil liberties or anyone's personal freedom, in others words, a neocon.

Hmm....I think you haven't a clue.

Last time I looked, employers have just that right. But the next time a Islamic Extremist grabs a undy bomb and blows up the local screw manufacturer, you may have a point. But I doubt that you would understand the difference.

The only entity that can take liberty and personal freedoms is the government.

Just what this board needs. Another ******* moron.

Since you're the one so scared shitless that somebody is going to blow up your airplane with an underwear bomb, how about YOU stay home, instead of telling the rest of us that actually give a damn about the freedom we're entitled to not to fly. People like you are the ones who enable the government to continuously chip away at our Constitutional freedoms little by little year after year, all under the guise of keeping us "safe."

 

[kyzr]

Since you're the one so scared shitless that somebody is going to blow up your airplane with an underwear bomb, how about YOU stay home, instead of telling the rest of us that actually give a damn about the freedom we're entitled to not to fly. People like you are the ones who enable the government to continuously chip away at our Constitutional freedoms little by little year after year, all under the guise of keeping us "safe."

The airlines would be well within their rights to preclude muslims from flying based on concerns for public safety. No one has a Constitutional "right" to fly. There probably would be many more people flying if muslims were precluded, or more intense screening of muslims was performed. Do you recall when two Chechyn women brought down two Russian jet liners? Now we have undie bombs and shoe bombs to deal with. It might be simpler & cheaper to just give muslims polygraphs before allowing them to board.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The airlines would be well within their rights to preclude muslims from flying based on concerns for public safety.

Who are you kidding? If any airline tried to ban Muslims from flying on their planes they'd be slapped with a discrimination lawsuit and sued for millions.

 

[kyzr]

The airlines would be well within their rights to preclude muslims from flying based on concerns for public safety.

Who are you kidding? If any airline tried to ban Muslims from flying on their planes they'd be slapped with a discrimination lawsuit and sued for millions.

What if congress passed a law protecting the airlines during the duration of the WOT? I'm sure there is some way to get around the legalities, whether its banning or profiling based on previous terror attacks.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I'm sure there is some way to get around the legalities

Goddamn that pesky constitution.

 

[asaratis]

Dogs would slove the entire problem

I had a dog that salivated every time I rang a bell.

 

[Zona]

While America dithers over the pros and cons of body scanning Muslims in burkas.... al-Qaeda is perfecting techniques for beating the scanners.

A body scanner at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport would not necessarily have detected the explosives which the would-be syringe bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had sewn into his underwear. A Dutch military intelligence source told De Telegraaf newspaper that Al Qaeda has its own security scanners and has been practicing ways of concealing explosives.

The terrorist group has even carried out test runs at smuggling explosives through European airports, the paper reports.

If this is true, then how the hell do you catch them?

 

[Zona]

This from the same folks who bungled cash-for-clunkers and is now experimenting with a socialized health care system? We want these guys "improving" airport security?

You throw that out like its the truth. Cash for clunkers worked.

 

[Zona]

I wouldn't either. Does that make me a terrorist?

I do remember that bit about the 9/11 guys. They spent their last days getting lap dances. That is some sort of really intense religious observance there

It's because everything is forgiven if they blow up innocents...that's the propaganda they receive.

And the 72 virgins....but i still dont understand that one..

after your in heaven, you get your 72 virgins....ok..on the 73rd day, you no longer have virgins...then what?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm sure there is some way to get around the legalities

Goddamn that pesky constitution.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RadiomanATL again.

Bummer, Radioman!

 

[barenakedislam]

This from the same folks who bungled cash-for-clunkers and is now experimenting with a socialized health care system? We want these guys "improving" airport security?

You throw that out like its the truth. Cash for clunkers worked.

Yes, cash for clunkers worked if you don't have a problem with the fact that it cost American taxpayers $24,000 per clunker. Auto sales analysts at Edmunds.com say the pricey program resulted in relatively few additional car sales. Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $24,000 per car - Oct. 28, 2009

And I noticed your sig line about Ronald Reagan and the Civil Rights act. I think you should look at the history of Democrats and racism. Or didn't you know that the Klu Klux Klan was created by the democrats for the express reason of terrorizing blacks and republicans in the south to prevent them from voting, and that every known Klansman that were members of congress have been democrats?

You really should study your history a little: Democrats have ALWAYS been the Party of Slavery and Racism Here are just a few of the many examples which you can find here: ASTONISHING HISTORY OF DEMOCRAT RACISM | Democrats have ALWAYS been the Party of Slavery and Racism

March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party

May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party

July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet

February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

May 22, 1856 For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover

March 6, 1857 Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”

June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks

October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

October 25, 1858 U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation

I suggest you read the rest.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What if congress passed a law protecting the airlines during the duration of the WOT? I'm sure there is some way to get around the legalities, whether its banning or profiling based on previous terror attacks.

You can't pass a law discriminating against someone based on their religion. It's a violation of the First Amendment among others.

 

[barenakedislam]

What if congress passed a law protecting the airlines during the duration of the WOT? I'm sure there is some way to get around the legalities, whether its banning or profiling based on previous terror attacks.

You can't pass a law discriminating against someone based on their religion. It's a violation of the First Amendment among others.

Islam should be re-classified as the death cult it is.

 

[Toome]

This from the same folks who bungled cash-for-clunkers and is now experimenting with a socialized health care system? We want these guys "improving" airport security?

You throw that out like its the truth. Cash for clunkers worked.

Sure it did. Watch what happens to our taxes.

My point is that there is a certain limit to airport security. Throwing more money (correct that: TAX DOLLARS) isn't going to make it any better. The Obama administration is NOT talking about systemic improvements here; it is talking about throwing more money at the problem, soothing our concerns with visible changes such as whole body imagers regardless whether or not they will actually do the job. The issue is about APPEARING to make improvements not ACTUALLY improving the system.

And as I've posted previously, the issue is NOT what happens on an airport checkpoint; the issue IS better communications between governments and their spy agencies.

As for Cash for Clunkers "working," sure it did: it boosted sales for Japanese and Korean manufacturers and did nothing for US car makers. Yeah, that's change you can believe in.

 

[Contumacious]

The Obama administration is NOT talking about systemic improvements here; it is talking about throwing more money at the problem,

Well, that is true.

The right thing to do is ceasing and desisting involvement in the internal affairs of other nations. But the War Party, warmongers, jingoists and neocrazies won't let him.

.

 

[Claudette]

Dogs would slove the entire problem

I think this is a great idea.

I agree. A good dog can be trained to alert on anything. Shelters are full of trainable dogs that could be used. Common sense. Oh wait, there is none in DC.

 

[uscitizen]

So we let our national security go to the dogs?

 

[Toome]

The Obama administration is NOT talking about systemic improvements here; it is talking about throwing more money at the problem,

Well, that is true.

The right thing to do is ceasing and desisting involvement in the internal affairs of other nations. But the War Party, warmongers, jingoists and neocrazies won't let him.

.

Up to a point, you're right. The US has no business directing how a foreign country screens its passengers. There has to be some cooperation between nations on a common acceptable standard. The US always has the option of rejecting entry from nations that do not meet that standard, and I would clearly understand if there were no direct flights from Yemen or North Korea to the US. But when someone flies in from the Netherlands and ends up carrying a dangerous device, I'm not sure there's much we can do to the Dutch for letting it happen. I don't think the Dutch deliberately allowed this guy on board. I think this falls under the "shit happens" category.

Sometimes, the bull wins.

 

[MaggieMae]

Dogs would slove the entire problem

True. Dogs are notorious crotch-sniffers anyway. Seriously, one trained dog aboard all aircraft. They wouldn't need an expensive health care policy, paid retirement, and would work for treats. What a great idea!!