Sexurity screening....? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 10-12-2004, 09:19 AM

Hitler was voted into office.

Quote:

Originally stated by Daniel Webster
I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter: from the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government. From their carelessness and negligence I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct, that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent and they will be vigilant. Give them the means of detecting the wrong and they will apply the remedy.

This is already happening and has been for some time.

Glory's Sun · 10-12-2004, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonehed1

Amen to that....take the frikin bus or car...damnit by all means walk your ass to where you have to go. I get tired of listening to people complain about the security now a days. Yeah it isnt the best but atleast its something. If you choose to not fly because of getting pat down then that is your problem but dont complain about it becuase you "DONT LIKE" the fact that you have to be touched now to board a plane. Gawd this whoel "I dont like and I dont feel" crap pisses me off!!!!

calm down bro

some people are naturally going to see things different. You can't get mad at them for it..it's' what makes society unique. Everyone has a different POV. Sure security is a necessary thing.. but as others have pointed out sometimes the line can be crossed and our liberties are trampled on.

bonehed1 · 10-12-2004, 09:44 AM

I know, but when you travel every week of every month of every year and every time you hear someone grumbling in the background it starts to get irritating..LOL

maleficent · 10-12-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonehed1

I know, but when you travel every week of every month of every year and every time you hear someone grumbling in the background it starts to get irritating..LOL

I'll give a hearty AMEN to that... (and it's usually the "amateur" travellers that cause all the lines at security -- but I could rant for hours about that)

SecretMethod70 · 10-12-2004, 09:58 AM

amateur travellers....a.k.a. people who have not yet been desensitized by the loss of their rights preventing unreasonable search and seizure.

maleficent · 10-12-2004, 10:03 AM

OK, so I'm desensitized -- but how is it unreasonable?

I think it's more unreasonable that I have to go thru metal detectors and seperate myself from my bag if I ever want to set foot in the sears tower and walk 10 feet to the Corner Bakery sandwich place.

But to get on an airplane? I don't consider it unreasonable.

SecretMethod70 · 10-12-2004, 10:05 AM

When they can tell me, as the constitution requires, EXACTLY what they expect to seize and why they suspect that I must have this item on my person, then it's reasonable. And the fact that I have metal on my person is not "probable cause."

water_boy1999 · 10-12-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

When they can tell me, as the constitution requires, EXACTLY what they expect to seize and why they suspect that I must have this item on my person, then it's reasonable. And the fact that I have metal on my person is not "probable cause."

SM70, I usually value your opinion, but I can't agree with you on this stance. You are using the Constitution, in particular, Amendment IV to defend a petty nuisance at most. The probably cause exists in EVERY person thay they select for screening. Remember Richard Reid? Remember the shoe bomb that only needed a match or butane lighter to blow the entire plane to pieces? How many lives does it take for people to realize we don't live in 1776 anymore. We need to incorporate laws and amendments into the Constitution to reflect the way we live our lives today. They don't need to tell you EXACTLY what they expect to find, because frankly, no one knows. They know anyone can pose as a threat and they need to treat everyone as such. Or, we will end up having more Nicole Millers. Nicole was a good friend of mine who died on flight 93. If a little extra searching of my person will save just 1 more Nicole Miller, I'll drop my pants at the airport anyday.

SecretMethod70 · 10-12-2004, 10:28 AM

When the Constitution is successfully amended, I'll stop complaining. Until then, the fourth amendment is still there in that very wording. And I don't think anyone's going to get the constitution amended to say that the government has the right to search people arbitrarily because "anyone" can be a threat.

Who's to say it stops at airports? Anyone could be storing stockpiles of chemical warfare in their garage. We just don't know. I guess we should randomly search people's garages as well since anyone could be a terrorist. No particular reason to think they might be, just that ANYONE could be.

It sounds ludicrous, but it's very similar logic. Once rights begin to be violated it starts a very slippery slope.

I am not a criminal and I have a right to not be treated as one until they have reason to suspect me of being one.

Cynthetiq · 10-12-2004, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

I am not a criminal and I have a right to not be treated as one until they have reason to suspect me of being one.

It takes just one moron or one asshole to change that.. did you not get recess, art in the afternoon, playtime revoked as a kid? it took just one idiot to ruin it for everyone else. I see no difference here.

bonehed1 · 10-12-2004, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

I am not a criminal and I have a right to not be treated as one until they have reason to suspect me of being one.

That may be true but anyone can say they aren't a criminal and still do something against the law. Shoot, even criminals say they aren't guilty of their crime so what is the difference if an inocent person like yourself saying they aren't a criminal and the next day they have a bad day and go postal on the post office?

If you search one person then search everyone if it means safe traveling for all. The constituation is barely even followed now a days anyways so why stick by something that the court will just manipulate or find loop holes to get around? Justice is a rare thing these days.....

bonehed1 · 10-12-2004, 10:48 AM

I just read I think yesterday that some 10 or 12 year old girl shot her mom in the face while she was sleeping because she didnt like being grounded....WTF is up with that...anyone no matter age/race/etc can be a asshat so if it can start that early why not take every precaution now??

Blackthorn · 10-12-2004, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

I'll give a hearty AMEN to that... (and it's usually the "amateur" travellers that cause all the lines at security -- but I could rant for hours about that)

I've flown 120 segments per year on Delta (Delta gets you there --- eventually) for the last five+ years. This quote is sooooo definitely true. The "amatures" are the absolute worst. The people who think they can still take scissors on a plane in carry on baggage, the people who get indignant because they have to take their shoes off or the ones who get even more indignant when they don't remove them and get selected for the double-sphincter test are horrendous. It's not that hard to get through the line and if you get selected for additional screening -- suck it up and again consider the potential alternative.

/begin official rant
When I get on a plane being operated by a private carrier like Delta I have the right to expect that they in conjunction with the regulators controlling the operation of private commercial aviation have done everything in their power to ensure that I arrive safely at my destination. If you don't like the inconvenience that you must go through to get past the screening, if you feel like you are being looked upon as a criminal, if you feel like you just can't get past the idea that you are UNTRUSTED until screened then please ... do us all a favor and take the damn bus. There are too many ass-hats in that line to begin with so if you are not capable of learning the rules and how to make them work for you instead of against you the by taking the bus you'll make flying easier on all of us.
/end rant

Oh yeah....if you think flying in the US is difficult -- try sneaking your don't wanna be screened whinny ass onto an "El Al" flight out of Israel.

Quote:

EL AL’S RIGHT TO REFUSE TO CARRY YOU OR BAN YOU FROM TRAVEL

7.1. Right to refuse carriage
We may decide to refuse to carry you or your Baggage if, in the exercise of our reasonable discretion, we consider that one or more of the following have occurred or we believe may occur:

7.1.1. refusal to carry is necessary in order to comply with any applicable government laws, regulations, or orders; or

7.1.2. you commit, or have committed a criminal offence during any of the operations of embarkation on your flight, or disembarkation from a connecting flight, or on board the aircraft whether in connection with your current flight or a previous unconnected flight, whether with us or on board another carrier; or

7.1.3. you fail, or have failed, to obey or observe safety or security instructions of, or obstruct or hinder, ground staff or security personnel in the performance of their duty; or

7.1.4. you use, or have used, threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behave, or have behaved, in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner to security personnel, ground staff or flight (cockpit or cabin) crew prior to or during boarding the aircraft or

7.1.5. you have intimidated or deliberately interfered with security personnel or with a member of our staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties; or

7.1.6. you have sat in a seat not assigned to you and refused the request of our staff or crew to move to your assigned seat; or

7.1.7. the carriage of you or your Baggage may endanger or affect, or has endangered or affected, the safety of the aircraft or anyone in the aircraft; or

7.1.8. carriage of you and/or your Baggage may endanger or affect the safety or health of other Passengers or members of the crew; or

7.1.9. carriage of you or your Unchecked Baggage may materially affect the comfort of other Passengers; or

7.1.10. your mental or physical state, including your impairment from alcohol or drugs, appears to present a hazard or risk to yourself, to Passengers, to crew, to the aircraft or any person or property in it or represents a likely source of material annoyance or discomfort to other Passengers; or

7.1.11. you have put the safety of the aircraft or any person in it in danger; or

7.1.12. you have refused to submit yourself or your Baggage to a security check or to comply with the requests or directions of security personnel; or

7.1.13. you fail, or have failed, to observe our instructions with respect to safety or security and comfort of other Passengers on matters such as, but not limited to, seating, storage of Unchecked Baggage, smoking, consumption of alcohol or use of drugs, use of electronic equipment including, but not limited to mobile/cellular phones, laptop computers, PDAs, portable recorder, portable radios, CD, DVD and MP3 players, electronic games or transmitting devices; or

7.1.14. you are, or we reasonably suspect you are, in the unlawful possession of drugs; or

7.1.15. you have made a hoax bomb or hijack threat; or

7.1.16. you have not paid the applicable fare, taxes, fees, charges or surcharges; or

7.1.17. you have failed to provide satisfactory positive identification including recent photographs or you have failed to cooperate with us in the use of biometrics.

7.1.18. you do not have, or do not appear to have, valid travel documents, may seek to enter a country through which you may be in transit, or for which you do not have valid travel documents, destroy your travel documents during flight or have refused to allow us to photocopy your travel documents or refuse to surrender your travel documents to the flight crew, against receipt, when so requested; or

7.1.19. you do not appear to be able to meet requisite visa requirements in relation to any country through which you may be in transit or into which you may seek entry; or

7.1.20. we have been informed by the immigration or other authorities of the country to which you are travelling, or for a country in which you have a Stopover planned, that you will not be permitted entry to such country even if you have valid travel documents; or

7.1.21. you have failed to give us information in your possession which a governmental authority has lawfully asked us to give about you; or

7.1.22. you have not presented a valid Ticket or you present a Ticket that has been or appears to have been acquired unlawfully, has been purchased from an entity other than us or our Authorized Agent, or has been reported as being mutilated, lost or stolen, is a counterfeit, or you cannot prove that you are the person named in the Ticket; or

7.1.23. you have failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Article 3.3 above concerning coupon sequence and use, or you present a Ticket which has been issued or altered in any way, other than by us or our Authorized Agent, or the Ticket is mutilated; or

7.1.24. you have not presented a valid Ticket or your boarding pass or your travel documents when reasonably requested to do so; or

7.1.25. you have failed to complete the check-in process by the Check-in Deadline or you have failed to arrive at the boarding gate at the time specified by us when you checked-in; or

7.1.26. we have notified you in writing that we would not at any time after the date of such notice carry you on our flights; or

7.1.27. you do not appear, and cannot reasonably satisfy us otherwise, that you are medically fit to fly, as required by Article 7.4; or

7.1.28. you, or someone who is legally responsible for you if you are a minor, has failed to comply with the requirements of paragraph 7.5; or

7.1.29. you, or someone for whom you are responsible travelling with you (such as, but not limited to, a minor) is not permitted by law or court order from leaving the jurisdiction of the place of departure of the aircraft; or

7.1.30. you failed to disclose to our staff that you have included in your Baggage any item referred to in Article 8.3 below; or

7.1.31. you have deliberately damaged or unlawfully removed any of our equipment or property including telephony and in-flight entertainment equipment; or

7.1.32. by word or by behaviour, you have been unduly aggressive, intimidating, threatening, abusive or insulting, including behaviour which may be described as sexual harassment, towards other Passengers; or

7.1.33. by word or by behaviour, you have behaved in a manner to which other Passengers may reasonably object or have objected or your behaviour is likely to cause discomfort or unnecessary inconvenience to other Passengers; or

7.1.34. you have previously committed one of the acts or omissions referred to above or on a previous flight committed misconduct of the type referred to in Article 11.1; or

7.1.35. we have been notified or we have good reason to believe that you have previously committed one of the acts or omissions referred to in these Conditions prior to or while boarding or disembarking or during flight aboard the aircraft of another Carrier.

7.1.36. we just don't like the way your whinny ass looks; you are acting like a suspicious boob, you seem like a fool who thinks this process is not needed, did we mention we just don't like the way your whinny ass looks?

SecretMethod70 · 10-12-2004, 10:51 AM

The difference between a criminal who says they are not guilty and me is that there is probable cause to suspect the person of the crime before they are treated as a criminal.

As for the recess, etc example, that's irrelevant because recess is not a right.

And we don't take every precaution now because then we would have a police state and no one would have any rights because we all "might be" criminals.

As a side not, I find it **EXTREMELY** sad that someone is arguing that "the constitution is barely followed these days" anyway so that it shouldn't matter.

I guess I should just give up and start working on the Newspeak dictionary right now if that's the position we're supposed to take.

bonehed1 · 10-12-2004, 10:54 AM

dude your missing the point....it doesnt matter if we are taking every precaution now or not...the fact of the matter is that they are doing something now...they are atleast trying to do something to limit problems.

If you can't take the fact that it is barely followed then you need to open your eyes a little bit more. I deal with criminal cases all day long and I see it so live with it or move IMHO.

ShaniFaye · 10-12-2004, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjroh

I've flown 120 segments per year on Delta (Delta gets you there --- eventually) for the last five+ years. This quote is sooooo definitely true. The "amatures" are the absolute worst. The people who think they can still take scissors on a plane in carry on baggage, the people who get indignant because they have to take their shoes off or even the ones who get more indignant when they don't remove them and get selected for the double-sphincter test are horrendous. It's not that hard to get through the line and if you get selected for additional screening -- again consider the alternative.

I dont fly as often as you or Mal...but I do have the intelligence to have the forethought to check airline websites and the TSA website to see updated lists of procedures and what is and isnt allowed in the airports and security checkpoints Im going to be going thru.

Its so hard for some people to exercise a little common sense......and Im sorry I dont consider it a violation of self to be screened that way when you're going to be sitting in a metal tube with no escape with 100+ people you've never laid eyes on before.

water_boy1999 · 10-12-2004, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

When the Constitution is successfully amended, I'll stop complaining. Until then, the fourth amendment is still there in that very wording. And I don't think anyone's going to get the constitution amended to say that the government has the right to search people arbitrarily because "anyone" can be a threat.

Who's to say it stops at airports? Anyone could be storing stockpiles of chemical warfare in their garage. We just don't know. I guess we should randomly search people's garages as well since anyone could be a terrorist. No particular reason to think they might be, just that ANYONE could be.

It sounds ludicrous, but it's very similar logic. Once rights begin to be violated it starts a very slippery slope.

I am not a criminal and I have a right to not be treated as one until they have reason to suspect me of being one.

I just don't get your reasoning SM70. Would you prefer another 20 planes go down by the hands of terrorists so your rights won't be violated? Because something was added to our constitution in 1776 (when there were no fucking planes in the first place) you are willing to see more Americans die on our own soil? You want everyone to be presumes innocent until the bomb in their shoe goes off and kills everyone on the plane?

You make a comparison to someone's garage? No one's garage blew up and destroyed the WTC, nor did someone's garage fly around the country with targeted sites in mind. My friend Nicole was not in someone's garage when she died in Pennsylvania.

These are modern times with modern terrorists, with modern means to blow every last SOB in America to kingdome come. Can't we apply laws and amendments to fight these people? I am glad you are proud of your constitution and what it stands for, but this is 2004 and we need strong rules and regulations in place to protect us from 2004 dangers.

We know you are not a criminal, but they don't. It is the element of the unknown that justifies their need to search EVERYONE equally.

SecretMethod70 · 10-12-2004, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonehed1

dude your missing the point....it doesnt matter if we are taking every precaution now or not...the fact of the matter is that they are doing something now...they are atleast trying to do something to limit problems.

If you can't take the fact that it is barely followed then you need to open your eyes a little bit more. I deal with criminal cases all day long and I see it so live with it or move IMHO.

Actually, it's the job of the citizens to not live with it and fight for change. Again, hence the right to bear arms - if all else fails, we as citizens have the ability to forcefully effect change. Thomas Jefferson himself believed that revolutions were necessary from time to time to keep government in check. Personally, I'd like to fight for it through non-violent means.

The government only has power in so much as we give it. Demokratia - people power. WE are the government, yet our collective apathy has turned that upside-down. WE have the responsibility to make sure that the government respects our rights, not the responsibility to "live with it or move."

SecretMethod70 · 10-12-2004, 11:04 AM

I have a car. People - many people - have used cars as weapons. Let's ban all cars, or require searches for all people before they enter their cars. Or perhaps lie detector tests installed in cars that you have to state you will not intentionally use the car for a murderous purpose before you can start it? I fail to see the difference.

Innocent until proven guilty. Should we get rid of this too?

The only way to have true security is through the destruction of freedom. Our founding fathers felt freedom was more important than security, and I still do. If you want security, stop letting your government piss off the rest of the world.

Flyguy · 10-12-2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denim

It's not for our protection. It's to make us feel like they're doing something, which they are: they're taking your civil liberties. What if I'm not really a fat man? Maybe it's all make up and I've got a bomb. You let the thin edge of the wedge in, and you'll lose your freedoms next. The terrorists won. I wish people would realize that, when they give up the very freedoms the terrorists were against, in the name of "protection", that they've given in.

Actually, it's perfectly legal and none of our 4th amendment rights are being violated. Why? In the past, the Supreme Court has declared it legal for anyone to be subject to a pat down search without a warrant because of the threat of air piracy. They issued the opinion that the airport security checkpoint is an "emergency search" because of that threat of air piracy.

I totally agree that they're putting on nothing more that a show to give America a warm fuzzy feeling that they’re being made more "secure" when in fact, hundreds if not thousands of people by now have gotten past TSA wonders and nothing is being done about it. As a pilot, I deal with those brainless fuckers every day I go to work and I dread every minute of it.

Cynthetiq · 10-12-2004, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

I have a car. People - many people - have used cars as weapons. Let's ban all cars, or require searches for all people before they enter their cars. Or perhaps lie detector tests installed in cars that you have to state you will not intentionally use the car for a murderous purpose before you can start it? I fail to see the difference.

Innocent until proven guilty. Should we get rid of this too?

they require searches of all cars that park in our parking garage.. here in NYC and in LA.

bonehed1 · 10-12-2004, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

they require searches of all cars that park in our parking garage.. here in NYC and in LA.

Same applies in Kansas City aswell...Anything can be used as a weapon and thats why they invented criminal background checks/drug testing...etc...now a days everyone is guilty till proven inocent. fly same flyguy, I thank you guys/girls each time I fly...great job

water_boy1999 · 10-12-2004, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

I have a car. People - many people - have used cars as weapons. Let's ban all cars, or require searches for all people before they enter their cars. Or perhaps lie detector tests installed in cars that you have to state you will not intentionally use the car for a murderous purpose before you can start it? I fail to see the difference.

Innocent until proven guilty. Should we get rid of this too?

Ok, we have Highway Patrol, City and State police, traffic lights, now cameras at intersections, etc......we have ways to try and effectively patrol the roads and individuals cars. They do what they can with what they have.

You are trying to find examples to compare to the airline industry and you can't equate anything with them, mainly in part because we have not had to deal with such a threat before. They are trying to do what they can with what they have as well.

SM70, I am not happy with it either, but I have to accept the fact that we need to change the rules a little to apply what is currently going on in our lives. If I didn't like what they were doing on planes, I would never fly again. That's my choice too.

You make it see like there is a better way to handle the situation. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

SecretMethod70 · 10-12-2004, 11:14 AM

Listen, we have highway patrol, etc, because those are methods to monitor automobile usage without violating rights. When you drive your car, you are assumed to be innocent of wrongdoing until a police office sees you swerving, speeding, or what have you. Find a way to do the same for airplanes. Off the top of my head, air marshalls would help out in this regard - LOTS of them. No sense of security is worth my freedom.

Glory's Sun · 10-12-2004, 11:19 AM

correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like SM and Denim seem to be saying (boy this could be ugly) that when a country is constantly monitoring and for a lack of better terminology "freaking out" over every little thing that could "possibly" happen; then the terrorists have accomplished a huge feat. They have made us forget how strong we are, they've made us forget our freedoms and they've made us scared. I see what both parties are saying so I'll just be content to add that POV. Secret if I'm wrong then feel free to bash it.. we already had our own private debate heh

bonehed1 · 10-12-2004, 11:21 AM

they have air marshalls, maybe not on all flights like they should but they have them....toss out another idea

SecretMethod70 · 10-12-2004, 11:31 AM

Yes, I know we have air marshalls, and they're the only viable option really, so we need more. Get them on every flight. Other than that, there are few options that are not harmful to our individual rights. And, again, my rights trump security, so you gotta work with what you've got. Make planes physically more difficult to hijack, get more air marshalls, arm the pilots. These do not affect my freedoms.

SecretMethod70 · 10-12-2004, 11:42 AM

Another option is privately run security. I should mention that. Then they can set whatever arbitrary rules they want regarding searches.

bonehed1 · 10-12-2004, 11:56 AM

good idea on the private security.....that could be something they could work really well.....well time will tell what happens so lets pray for the best.

denim · 10-12-2004, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The constituion and the bill of rights does not apply to private companies, private groups, or private property.

We're not being "screened" by private companies/groups/property, but by the Federal Government, to which the Fourth Amendment applies specifically. Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynthetiq

I'm quite serious about that statement. If I was to give up my love of traveling, the nation and the world, then I'd be giving up an essential liberty. I don't see it any more invasive than it was in the 70s and 80s. It's just not behind closed doors, it's out in the open.

It wasn't done AT ALL as far as I know in the 70s or 80s except in very unusual circumstances. All they did back then was put people through metal detectors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynthetiq

Colin Ferguson

I was thinking of the white guy who blew some punks away on that same train, who was villified for defending himself. Ah well.

denim · 10-12-2004, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonehed1

Gawd this whoel "I dont like and I dont feel" crap pisses me off!!!!

So why are you reading this thread?

denim · 10-12-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjroh

It's a lot less uncomfortable than HAVING YOUR PLANE SLAMMED INTO THE SIDE OF A BUILDING! maleficent is spot on Get over it...

Yes, and that happens all the time, y'know? Oh sure, there's no pink elephants around now, so I guess the pink elephant repellant is working.

Honestly, this is one of my major reasons for WANTING BUSH OUT OF GOVERNMENT.

denim · 10-12-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by water_boy1999

This is not Germany, and Bush, as much as I dislike some of the decisions he has made, is not Hitler. One "homeland security" was used to cleanse an ethnic population, the other "homeland security" was used to protect our transportation, borders, and people from terrorism. How can you possibly compare the two?

Hitler wasn't Hitler until he was. What's your point?

ShaniFaye · 10-12-2004, 12:38 PM

so having kerry in office is going to stop airport security screening?

denim · 10-12-2004, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by water_boy1999

I agree, except there is a huge difference in a democracy and a dictatorship and the "aspiring person(s)" who run either. We have this little thing called an election where people vote for who they want in power for the next 4 years. If you don't exercise that power, which by the way is one of our civil liberties, then the so called "descent" you talk about will not be the fault of our leaders, but the fault of the people who truly hold the power.

According to history, a warm body democracy is always followed by dictatorship.

Cynthetiq · 10-12-2004, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denim

We're not being "screened" by private companies/groups/property, but by the Federal Government, to which the Fourth Amendment applies specifically. Try again.

It wasn't done AT ALL as far as I know in the 70s or 80s except in very unusual circumstances. All they did back then was put people through metal detectors.

I was thinking of the white guy who blew some punks away on that same train, who was villified for defending himself. Ah well.

Fair enough. When it was private, everyone screamed that it wasn't consistent or good enough, thus the TSA was born, that's the way that I recall it. Maybe federal mandates and guidelines for those private companies to do so, which I understand is starting to happen as smaller airports.

maybe i'm confusing my international travels but I do recall some invasive searches after the Lockerbie incident.

that was Bernard Getz and that was the subway in the middle of the night. Colin was during rush hour on the way home.

denim · 10-12-2004, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

well according to DHS Rail security is coming too....they ran a 30 day pilot program back in may to start preparing for it

Yes, I'm aware of it, but it's a known waste of time. All the terrorists have to do is attack the system outside of the train itself. Trivial. There is no way to secure the rail system.

Glory's Sun · 10-12-2004, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denim

According to history, a warm body democracy is always followed by dictatorship.

that is true but it should be noted (possibly sooner) that the United States is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. now carry on

denim · 10-12-2004, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

amateur travellers....a.k.a. people who have not yet been desensitized by the loss of their rights preventing unreasonable search and seizure.

We see eye-to-eye on this. I haven't been commenting on your posts 'cause it'd just get repetitive.

denim · 10-12-2004, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by water_boy1999

SM70, I usually value your opinion, but I can't agree with you on this stance. You are using the Constitution, in particular, Amendment IV to defend a petty nuisance at most. The probably cause exists in EVERY person thay they select for screening.

I strongly disagree that it's a petty nuisance. After that, we just have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by water_boy1999

Remember Richard Reid?

Yeah, he was a moron who got through security anyway. So, what about the next moron who gets through the security by doing something they're not looking for yet? The actual security was the people on the plane who didn't let him do what he wanted to do: they stood up for themselves. There is no other real security.

10-12-2004, 09:44 AM	#43 (permalink)
bonehed1 Psycho Location: California	I know, but when you travel every week of every month of every year and every time you hear someone grumbling in the background it starts to get irritating..LOL __________________ Stuff is Good

10-12-2004, 09:58 AM	#45 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	amateur travellers....a.k.a. people who have not yet been desensitized by the loss of their rights preventing unreasonable search and seizure. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

10-12-2004, 10:03 AM	#46 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	OK, so I'm desensitized -- but how is it unreasonable? I think it's more unreasonable that I have to go thru metal detectors and seperate myself from my bag if I ever want to set foot in the sears tower and walk 10 feet to the Corner Bakery sandwich place. But to get on an airplane? I don't consider it unreasonable. __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

10-12-2004, 10:05 AM	#47 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	When they can tell me, as the constitution requires, EXACTLY what they expect to seize and why they suspect that I must have this item on my person, then it's reasonable. And the fact that I have metal on my person is not "probable cause." __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

10-12-2004, 10:28 AM	#49 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	When the Constitution is successfully amended, I'll stop complaining. Until then, the fourth amendment is still there in that very wording. And I don't think anyone's going to get the constitution amended to say that the government has the right to search people arbitrarily because "anyone" can be a threat. Who's to say it stops at airports? Anyone could be storing stockpiles of chemical warfare in their garage. We just don't know. I guess we should randomly search people's garages as well since anyone could be a terrorist. No particular reason to think they might be, just that ANYONE could be. It sounds ludicrous, but it's very similar logic. Once rights begin to be violated it starts a very slippery slope. I am not a criminal and I have a right to not be treated as one until they have reason to suspect me of being one. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 10-12-2004 at 10:35 AM..

10-12-2004, 10:48 AM	#52 (permalink)
bonehed1 Psycho Location: California	I just read I think yesterday that some 10 or 12 year old girl shot her mom in the face while she was sleeping because she didnt like being grounded....WTF is up with that...anyone no matter age/race/etc can be a asshat so if it can start that early why not take every precaution now?? __________________ Stuff is Good

10-12-2004, 10:51 AM	#54 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	The difference between a criminal who says they are not guilty and me is that there is probable cause to suspect the person of the crime before they are treated as a criminal. As for the recess, etc example, that's irrelevant because recess is not a right. And we don't take every precaution now because then we would have a police state and no one would have any rights because we all "might be" criminals. As a side not, I find it EXTREMELY sad that someone is arguing that "the constitution is barely followed these days" anyway so that it shouldn't matter. I guess I should just give up and start working on the Newspeak dictionary right now if that's the position we're supposed to take. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 10-12-2004 at 10:54 AM..

10-12-2004, 10:54 AM	#55 (permalink)
bonehed1 Psycho Location: California	dude your missing the point....it doesnt matter if we are taking every precaution now or not...the fact of the matter is that they are doing something now...they are atleast trying to do something to limit problems. If you can't take the fact that it is barely followed then you need to open your eyes a little bit more. I deal with criminal cases all day long and I see it so live with it or move IMHO. __________________ Stuff is Good

10-12-2004, 11:04 AM	#59 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I have a car. People - many people - have used cars as weapons. Let's ban all cars, or require searches for all people before they enter their cars. Or perhaps lie detector tests installed in cars that you have to state you will not intentionally use the car for a murderous purpose before you can start it? I fail to see the difference. Innocent until proven guilty. Should we get rid of this too? The only way to have true security is through the destruction of freedom. Our founding fathers felt freedom was more important than security, and I still do. If you want security, stop letting your government piss off the rest of the world. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 10-12-2004 at 11:08 AM..

10-12-2004, 11:14 AM	#64 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Listen, we have highway patrol, etc, because those are methods to monitor automobile usage without violating rights. When you drive your car, you are assumed to be innocent of wrongdoing until a police office sees you swerving, speeding, or what have you. Find a way to do the same for airplanes. Off the top of my head, air marshalls would help out in this regard - LOTS of them. No sense of security is worth my freedom. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

10-12-2004, 11:19 AM	#65 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like SM and Denim seem to be saying (boy this could be ugly) that when a country is constantly monitoring and for a lack of better terminology "freaking out" over every little thing that could "possibly" happen; then the terrorists have accomplished a huge feat. They have made us forget how strong we are, they've made us forget our freedoms and they've made us scared. I see what both parties are saying so I'll just be content to add that POV. Secret if I'm wrong then feel free to bash it.. we already had our own private debate heh

10-12-2004, 11:21 AM	#66 (permalink)
bonehed1 Psycho Location: California	they have air marshalls, maybe not on all flights like they should but they have them....toss out another idea __________________ Stuff is Good

10-12-2004, 11:31 AM	#67 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Yes, I know we have air marshalls, and they're the only viable option really, so we need more. Get them on every flight. Other than that, there are few options that are not harmful to our individual rights. And, again, my rights trump security, so you gotta work with what you've got. Make planes physically more difficult to hijack, get more air marshalls, arm the pilots. These do not affect my freedoms. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

10-12-2004, 11:42 AM	#68 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Another option is privately run security. I should mention that. Then they can set whatever arbitrary rules they want regarding searches. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

10-12-2004, 11:56 AM	#69 (permalink)
bonehed1 Psycho Location: California	good idea on the private security.....that could be something they could work really well.....well time will tell what happens so lets pray for the best. __________________ Stuff is Good

10-12-2004, 12:38 PM	#74 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	so having kerry in office is going to stop airport security screening? __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*