Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/19/10 12:39 PM, poxpower wrote: And you can't tell someone that you have to sodomize them or else they can't board the train. No dice.

But you can subject people to semi-invasive security procedures.

If it were me I wouldn't of cared about the body scanner or being fondled by a security guard.

But baring in mind I don't think very highly of my hygiene or appearance, not the worst but certainly room for improvement. So having them look at my body or feel my nut sack will be funnier than embarrassing.

But good on him for disagreeing with security.

At 11/16/10 01:27 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You DO know that the mere act of flying is highly radioactive, right? There is a reason that pilots have a limited number of flights allotted in their career.

Source.

I'm assuming most people don't know that you suspend your Fourth Amendment rights when flying on an airplane; TSA agents do not need any reason to search you, and can search you are thoroughly as needed.

At 11/19/10 06:28 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: I'm assuming most people don't know that you suspend your Fourth Amendment rights when flying on an airplane; TSA agents do not need any reason to search you, and can search you are thoroughly as needed.

;;;
NOT WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT

What part exactly about giving your consent to be searched do you not understand ?
is it them asking you... or you going along with it ?
Where are you getting so confused , that you can't grasp that if you go along with what they want to do to you...YOU ARE CONSENTING.
IF you don't
YOU ARE NOT.

Jesus it isn't rocket surgery ! Surely your not so young you can't figure that out !?!

At 11/20/10 01:53 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/19/10 06:28 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: I'm assuming most people don't know that you suspend your Fourth Amendment rights when flying on an airplane; TSA agents do not need any reason to search you, and can search you are thoroughly as needed.

;;;
NOT WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT

What part exactly about giving your consent to be searched do you not understand ?
is it them asking you... or you going along with it ?
Where are you getting so confused , that you can't grasp that if you go along with what they want to do to you...YOU ARE CONSENTING.
IF you don't
YOU ARE NOT.

Jesus it isn't rocket surgery ! Surely your not so young you can't figure that out !?!

In what instance have you ever need to consent to a search? Police Officers on the street can ask for a stop and frisk with only reasonable suspicion (although technically this is not a search, but it is similar to an airplane pat down). On airplanes you (pretty much unknowingly) suspend your right to personal privacy (very similar to how police officers do not need probable cause to make the driver of a car submit to breathalyser test, by driving you suspend your Fourth Amendment rights and it almost exactly the same as airplane policy; in order fly on an airplane, you automatically consent to subsequent searches.

To make a long story short: Government Officials do not need consent to search you.

I'm aware of that, I'm also aware that all the people we've caught since 9/11 trying to blow up our planes and send us explosives through the mail are brown Muslim people.

I forgot about this one happening earlier this year...

Oh, not true at all.

Statistically speaking, it doesn't make any sense to ignore this fact. Should there be tight screening procedures at airports? HELL YES, but only if they are paired with a fair bit of common sense on the matter. If you want to pick on old ladies, children, and computer nerds, FINE, but don't tell me it's not right to pick on the ethnic Muslims when it's their extremists that are the the ones out to get us.

I'm saying you need to worry about everyone. I didn't say ignore any specific group. That's the differnce so far between my and your argument.

Me: check everyone, especially people who make a scene.
You: Don't check the white people. Check brown people though, that makes sense.

If you can't understand how that makes you look racist and/or bigotted, I can't help you. But, I'm not the only one who thinks you look like a racist. I'm probably just the only one with enough balls to say it on this forum.

In my home state of Tennessee, somebody set fire to the equipment that was being used to break ground on a new Mosque. They hadn't even built the damn thing yet, they've barely broken ground on it, and somebody went and destroyed and damaged hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of construction equipment. And what's more? The TBI (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation) STILL doesn't know who did it! They're still out there! Click.

So, you should give in to vigilantes and crazy people because they might hurt you from the outset, unless you are white, 6'2'' and have short brown hair.

This isn't getting your phone tapped or getting your library checkout records seized by Big Brother, there are people out there who are militantly violent towards Muslims and they are willing to act on their beliefs. And in a city where 19 extremist muslims crashed planes into buildings, killing 3000 people and sending the U.S. econonmic system into a nose-dive for years to come, and you're telling me that the people who are building the mosque should stand up for their right to build it within WALKING DISTANCE from Ground Zero? And you think I'M THE CRAZY ONE?

Yeah I do. Muslims were killed there, same as everyone else. Look what are you? Probably protestant. If a Catholic crazy went and shot up an abortion clinic, you wouldn't take kindly to people calling Christians murderers. Also, if we told you we didn't want you to build churches near doctor's offices, you'd freak out. Same deal.

You're the crazy bigoted one if you can't differentiate between extremists and everyone else. And even if you claim you can, you clearly can't when you claim for their own safety they shouldn't do something. What you should be claiming is that the people who are fucked up enough to harass them shouldn't be harassing them.

I can understand the "don't bring trouble on your own house" argument, but I think its an idiotic one that cedes territory and rights in the long run.

Uh, yeah. 400 years ago. You're really grasping at straws to try and prove a point.

No, I'm really not. Any person of any age, of any background, of any skin color, of any creed has the capability to commit atrocities, so it makes sense to check everyone at an airport.

At 11/20/10 02:54 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I forgot about this one happening earlier this year...

Oh, not true at all.

Do you just not know the difference between "lone psychopath" and "organization that has a specific agenda?" Is that it? He flew a private plane. He took off in it from a public airport known for allowing people to do this kind of thing, he did not hijack a Boing 747 with a bomb strapped to his back and then go crash it into a building, and I'm willing to bet he did not have to go through invasive security procedures to fly his own plane. You cannot take steps to prevent something like this from happening anymore than you could have taken steps to prevent the Oklahoma City Bombing from happening.

The point of this topic was to discuss how invasive TSA procedures have become, and you keep bringing up shit that nobody has any control over, can't possibly have any amount of control over, and isn't very likely to happen AGAIN.

Me: check everyone, especially people who make a scene.
You: Don't check the white people. Check brown people though, that makes sense.

What I said was "he was pretty low on the list of people likely to blow up an airplane," and guess what? I was right. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were all dark complected extremist Muslims, and everyone who has attempted to attack us since then has fit that profile. So yeah, I think paying special attention to ethnic Muslims at airports is a great frickin' idea. I'm not apologizing for that statement, I'm not backing down because of it. Your panties can stay knotted for all I care.

So, you should give in to vigilantes and crazy people because they might hurt you from the outset, unless you are white, 6'2'' and have short brown hair.

I have a serious concern about their ability to ensure their own safety. If I was a true racist, if I truly hated Muslims, do you think I would for one SECOND be sitting here concerned for their safety and not PRAYING that they build the thing so some jingoistic fucktard with a patriotic boner would go and attack them for building their mosque that close to ground zero? Hm, did that thought ever cross your mind?

Did the fact that I'm making the distinction between peaceful Muslims who should be left alone to their worship and extremist Muslims who consider us to be Infidels and want to blow us to fucking kingdom come ever gnaw at your subconscious ever so slightly?

Look what are you? Probably protestant.

Or maybe I don't go to Church at all anymore because my work schedule doesn't allow me to do so, and you're trying to make a straw-man argument against me in an attempt to make me look foolish.

No, I'm really not. Any person of any age, of any background, of any skin color, of any creed has the capability to commit atrocities, so it makes sense to check everyone at an airport.

So? Check everyone at the airport, but be consistent about it. Either consistently give everyone pat downs at the airport and harrass everybody, or don't harass anybody at all.

Oh, and by the way? CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) has issued a travel advisory; Muslim women can be exempt from TSA Patdown and backscatter x-ray security screenings if they object to them, opting for alternative measures. Gotta love poltical correctness and the sensitivity it brings.

At 11/15/10 08:13 PM, fuSEEk wrote: Yes, you shouldn't have to choose between being radiated and having your naked body saved into a database or being molested, in order to protect you from terrorism. It's unfortunate that Big Sis is continuing her agenda to install these machines throughout every major airport in the country by spewing out more propaganda about the safety aspects and disregard for privacy, I feel revolt is imminent though.

Yeah, that's what I've been trying to tell people all along.
Unfortunately if the revolt DOES happen, there is a strong possibility that President Obama will declare martial law.

At 11/17/10 10:58 AM, poxpower wrote: You know what, I think people are way over-protective of their junk.
Yeah, big deal, some guy patted your crotch for 0.5 seconds. BOO FUCKING HOO, GET BACK IN LINE.

It's called modesty. Some of us, especially us women, are required to safeguard our bodies from any form of inappropriate touch or viewing.

At 11/20/10 02:05 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 11/20/10 01:53 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/19/10 06:28 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

NOT WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT

What part exactly about giving your consent to be searched do you not understand ?

In what instance have you ever need to consent to a search? Police Officers on the street can ask for a stop and frisk with only reasonable suspicion (although technically this is not a search, but it is similar to an airplane pat down). On airplanes you (pretty much unknowingly) suspend your right to personal privacy (very similar to how police officers do not need probable cause to make the driver of a car submit to breathalyser test, by driving you suspend your Fourth Amendment rights and it almost exactly the same as airplane policy; in order fly on an airplane, you automatically consent to subsequent searches.

;;;
Maybe that's what you've allowed to happen in your country...it isn't how it is done in this country.

To make a long story short: Government Officials do not need consent to search you.

To Clarify this for you...in Canada, you need to be arrested & then they can search you.
IF they have arrested you, for no reason ANYTHING THEY FIND CANNOT BE USED IN THE COURT CASE AGAINST YOU .
We just had a marijuana case where a police officer arrested a man for no reason except he 'thought' he might find something. he did find it. the court threw out the evidence, because there was no reason to arrest & search the man in the first place.

Can you grasp that ?
A police officer in this country cannot just stop you & search you. He can't even ask you a question & make you answer him, if you don't wish to respond.
IF you live in the US & this is how the authorities are permitted to act...you people need to get the "land of the free" edited to the land of the opppressed !
Because you are all slaves of the state with no rights & no privileges except those that they can suspend on a whim...& that means you have nothing !

When driving a car, a police officer can pull over the car & if when speaking to the driver who by law has to be able to present proof of an operators license for the vehicle, as well as proof of ownership, & insurance of the vehicle. In doing so if the officer observes slurred speach, smells alcohol etc. he then has the right to request a breath sample. You do not have to provide one. In refusing to provide one, almost always means you will be arrested, they still cannot force you to provide a breath sample even if you are arrested .
Also they cannot just stop you & search your car. Not without grounds to do so & not without your consent or arresting you first.

I didn't realise what a police state the US has turned into since 9/11.
But if what you say is how it is down there, the terrorists have beaten you. They nave successfully turned a democratic country into a police state !

At 11/21/10 09:19 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/20/10 02:05 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 11/20/10 01:53 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/19/10 06:28 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

NOT WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT

What part exactly about giving your consent to be searched do you not understand ?

The part where your consent is necessary.

;;;
Maybe that's what you've allowed to happen in your country...it isn't how it is done in this country.

I'm not familiar with the Canadian constitution

To make a long story short: Government Officials do not need consent to search you.

To Clarify this for you...in Canada, you need to be arrested & then they can search you.
IF they have arrested you, for no reason ANYTHING THEY FIND CANNOT BE USED IN THE COURT CASE AGAINST YOU .
We just had a marijuana case where a police officer arrested a man for no reason except he 'thought' he might find something. he did find it. the court threw out the evidence, because there was no reason to arrest & search the man in the first place.

Yes, it is true that police do need a reason to believe you are committing a crime to search you, however when you buy a ticket for an airplane, the rights you have regarding unwarranted search and seizure are practically thrown out the window. It's been this way since the 1980's at least.

Can you grasp that ?

Stop making a prick of yourself.

A police officer in this country cannot just stop you & search you. He can't even ask you a question & make you answer him, if you don't wish to respond.

True. The jurisdiction the TSA have is a completely different story entirely however.

IF you live in the US & this is how the authorities are permitted to act...you people need to get the "land of the free" edited to the land of the opppressed !
Because you are all slaves of the state with no rights & no privileges except those that they can suspend on a whim...& that means you have nothing !

I think that's a little far-fetched.

When driving a car, a police officer can pull over the car & if when speaking to the driver who by law has to be able to present proof of an operators license for the vehicle, as well as proof of ownership, & insurance of the vehicle. In doing so if the officer observes slurred speach, smells alcohol etc. he then has the right to request a breath sample. You do not have to provide one. In refusing to provide one, almost always means you will be arrested, they still cannot force you to provide a breath sample even if you are arrested .

Once again, true. An Officer is required to have probable cause to ask for a breathalyser test, however, you must consent to a breathalyser test if the officer has probable cause to believe that you are intoxicated because when the state gives you your driver's license you sign an agreement to legally consent to all breathalyser tests if the police has the proper reasons to ask one of you. However, in the instance that you are the passenger of a car, you do not have to submit to breathalyser test because the police cannot require that of you. The allegory I was trying to make was that the driver signs away his rights in order to drive a car the same way people who travel on airplanes suspend their rights.

Also they cannot just stop you & search your car. Not without grounds to do so & not without your consent or arresting you first.

There needs to be some sort of violation for the police to pull you over.

I didn't realise what a police state the US has turned into since 9/11.
But if what you say is how it is down there, the terrorists have beaten you. They nave successfully turned a democratic country into a police state !

Little far-fetched, perhaps I didn't explain everything properly.

At 11/21/10 11:01 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

Yes, it is true that police do need a reason to believe you are committing a crime to search you, however when you buy a ticket for an airplane, the rights you have regarding unwarranted search and seizure are practically thrown out the window. It's been this way since the 1980's at least.

;;;
Actually the TSa is an organization that went from 11 people to 65,000 AFTER 9/11 ! ! !

Once again, true. An Officer is required to have probable cause to ask for a breathalyser test, however, you must consent to a breathalyser test if the officer has probable cause to believe that you are intoxicated because when the state gives you your driver's license you sign an agreement to legally consent to all breathalyser tests if the police has the proper reasons to ask one of you. However, in the instance that you are the passenger of a car, you do not have to submit to breathalyser test because the police cannot require that of you. The allegory I was trying to make was that the driver signs away his rights in order to drive a car the same way people who travel on airplanes suspend their rights.

;;;
Here in Canada the "state" doesn't give you fuck all you have to pay for it & earn it !
Secondly you cannot be forced, even after being arrested, to take a breathalyser test.

I have flown without being searched since 9/11.
As I have previously said, IF everyone was treated EXACTLY the same way & that was spelled out to you. Then i would agree the person this thread is about was being an ass.
BUT
The system is arbitrary, & that inconsistancy is where the problem comes from...it should be EVERYONE gets felt up or sucked off or no one does.
It should be Everyone gets scanned or no one does.

IF your country as mines laws state we are all equal under the law, then equal treatment for everyone is the only way that can happen. Anything else is a sham.

At 11/21/10 03:26 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/21/10 11:01 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

;;;
Actually the TSa is an organization that went from 11 people to 65,000 AFTER 9/11 ! ! !

I don't have much knowledge of the TSA, but the airplane policy has been like that for a-while. I believe they have always had this jurisdiction and have been cracking down in the recent years following 9/11.

;;;
Here in Canada the "state" doesn't give you fuck all you have to pay for it & earn it !
Secondly you cannot be forced, even after being arrested, to take a breathalyser test.

Sure, but then you are just going to get arrested for refusing the breathalyser, you're not forced, just threatened with punishment.

I have flown without being searched since 9/11.
As I have previously said, IF everyone was treated EXACTLY the same way & that was spelled out to you. Then i would agree the person this thread is about was being an ass.
BUT
The system is arbitrary, & that inconsistancy is where the problem comes from...it should be EVERYONE gets felt up or sucked off or no one does.
It should be Everyone gets scanned or no one does.

If that were possible to do in a timely manner then we probably would have done it. But since that isn't possible, everyone risks the possibility of being arbitrarily searched, and since the man in question (whether he knew it or not) agreed to fly on an airplane, he agreed to the possibility of being searched.

I find it humorous that it's a widely held belief that a handful of people in the 18th Century set guidelines that could obviously be set in contrast to society then and society now. I can't make the assumption of what George Washington would've wanted the TSA to do nowadays because I doubt he had any clue that one of these days, humanity would be able to fly in the sky, and said ability would be commercialized, and religious extremists would exploit commercial transportation to carry out attacks on innocent people; or that a TSA would even exist.

This country has always overreacted to a posed threat. Look at when we suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, or when we interned Japanese and German citizens during WW2 (I won't even go into current-day atrocities during these latest 2 wars). And now, all we are being asked is to submit to a scan that will expose you to about as much radiation as you'll get when you reach flying altitude for about 2 minutes (which I could see an issue if you have a flight that's less than 10 minutes or something), or if you really think that such a low dosage of radiation will kill you, then you can just submit to being frisked by a trained professional (and keep in mind; this is all at random). Do you think these security guards want to see a virtual image of you nude, or feel your body through your clothes? No. They've just determined that because someone exploited a hole in their system, they should react accordingly.

But of course; America wants 2 completely different things at once. "I want there to not be a bomb on my plane, but I don't want you to search for a bomb!" "I want you to go to war with a mindset in another region in the world, but I won't pay more in taxes to afford it!" "I want to lose weight, but I'll be dammed if they tell me what McDonalds can put into their food!" At some point, people need to realize that they will have to give a little up to get more out of their normal life. If you don't want to be subject to something like a security screening, then drive to your destination. But honestly; none of you put up this much of a fight when airlines determined that they have to charge you per bag checked, or cramp the cabin with more seats. Maybe they should be forced into paying for better ways of combating potential holes in airport security themselves if they need to come up with any other random ways to shaft people out of money. But no! You'd rather scapegoat the government who has obligated themself to not being able to (or caring about) defending their practices that in the long-run, REALLY don't intrude on your civil liberties.

So you would trade privacy for security?

At 11/21/10 06:28 PM, ToddM wrote: So you would trade privacy for security?

You already do.

We always have traded freedom and privacy for security.

The question is: how much privacy/freedom do we want to sacrifice for how much security?

These scanners don't convince me that they'll improve security AT ALL. So then you're trading some privacy ( and money ) for next to no extra security.

That's one hell of a shit deal.

If they could guarantee me that scanning me made sure the plane would never crash, then they can grope and photograph my nuts ALL DAY LONG.

I'll be flying Tuesday. Wonder if I can request a woman grope me? Cause I might opt out of the scanner just for that.....

Understanding that ever since numbnuts decided to hide a bomb in his pants (clearly he had extra room there, ba-dum tish) people checking your balls was going to be inevitable in one form or another.

Whether or not our current set of options are the best set of options is really up for grabs. But planes have been restricted ever since they became weapons (well before 9/11). This idea that we shouldn't trade freedom for safety coming up NOW in the conversation is a bit of a larf. The no-smoking signs in planes: Have they ever been turned off in like....the last 15 years?

I'll be sure to update everyone with my experience. Since apparently having you nuts massaged is a bad thing now.

At 11/21/10 08:17 PM, Imperator wrote: I'll be sure to update everyone with my experience. Since apparently having you nuts massaged is a bad thing now.

They're checking for any testicular canceer their machines mgith cause...

At 11/20/10 04:00 PM, Proteas wrote: Oh, and by the way? CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) has issued a travel advisory; Muslim women can be exempt from TSA Patdown and backscatter x-ray security screenings if they object to them, opting for alternative measures. Gotta love poltical correctness and the sensitivity it brings.

looking at the article it sounds like they may be one of the groups doing the most to influence the TSA into toning down. they cite pilot and rights concerns as well as Islamic concerns; and the impression that this is a double standard based on PC (which i'm not saying it isn't) will likely do wonders to help us reconsider having our junk jingled.

At 11/20/10 04:00 PM, Proteas wrote: Do you just not know the difference between "lone psychopath" and "organization that has a specific agenda?"

Are you really claiming that it is only possible for an "organization that has a specific agenda" to undermine the security of a plane?

Look, I'm just pointing out that people who aren't Muslim want to do violence in this country as well, and that if you're going to check one person you should check them all.

The point of this topic was to discuss how invasive TSA procedures have become, and you keep bringing up shit that nobody has any control over, can't possibly have any amount of control over, and isn't very likely to happen AGAIN.

You think it isn't very likely, but that's just your opinion. People charged with the security of this nation don't have the luxury of opinions when they choose who to check and who not to because opinions aren't always based on measurable facts.

TSA procedures have become invasive because the methods people who have tried to blow up planes aren't discoverable by non-invasive means. You're arguing they should be less invasive, yes. But you've also argued that it doesn't make sense to check "grandma" or the "white guy;" which really just comes out to, check "THEM" but don't check "ME OR MINE." The reasons you started this topic did not prevent you from wondering into this realm, so I have every right to call you out on it.

Me: check everyone, especially people who make a scene.
You: Don't check the white people. Check brown people though, that makes sense.

What I said was "he was pretty low on the list of people likely to blow up an airplane," and guess what? I was right.

You were right after the fact, with the benefit of not being there at the moment and not being responsible for the lives of those who were to get on that plane. Don't give yourself props for guessing what you were already told.

The people who attacked us on 9/11 were all dark complected extremist Muslims, and everyone who has attempted to attack us since then has fit that profile.

Take a look at this list and you'll find a few fair skinned folks: FBI Terrorist Wanted List
And just generally dangerous people are mostly not Muslim: FBI Most wanted list

And you're wrong. Not all Muslims have a dark complexion. Not all terrorists are Muslims. And not all people who want to attack America fit into your little niche.

I have a serious concern about their ability to ensure their own safety. If I was a true racist, if I truly hated Muslims, do you think I would for one SECOND be sitting here concerned for their safety and not PRAYING that they build the thing so some jingoistic fucktard with a patriotic boner would go and attack them for building their mosque that close to ground zero? Hm, did that thought ever cross your mind?

It just says something about you with where you place the blame. You know its wrong to attack these people, but for their own "safety" they should give up their freedoms. Its like saying that a girl who shows a bit of skin was asking to get raped. Yeah, a rapist is going to get a boner, but its not the woman's fault he knocks her out and drags her into the bushes.

Did the fact that I'm making the distinction between peaceful Muslims who should be left alone to their worship and extremist Muslims who consider us to be Infidels and want to blow us to fucking kingdom come ever gnaw at your subconscious ever so slightly?

You aren't making the distinction though. And you're ignoring the fact that other people, who aren't Muslim are capable of committing the same atrocities.

So? Check everyone at the airport, but be consistent about it. Either consistently give everyone pat downs at the airport and harrass everybody, or don't harass anybody at all.

The pat downs are random because they don't have the time or man power to check everyone, which is why he was selected and others weren't, most likely. But, on the off chance that he was selected because of his fishy behavior, I can't say I blame the TSA agents.

Oh, and by the way? CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) has issued a travel advisory; Muslim women can be exempt from TSA Patdown and backscatter x-ray security screenings if they object to them, opting for alternative measures. Gotta love poltical correctness and the sensitivity it brings.

That says that they are then to be subjected to a pat-down. Which is exactly what the man in question was subjected to. It then offers them guidelines with how to approach it and says that if they want they can choose to be pat down in private, and if the guards say they are pulling them because of a head dress, they can only check the head dress as required by law.

I didn't see a single special exception in that link.

At 11/19/10 02:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/18/10 10:32 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

No. Consent stems from three things when it comes to the airport. First, the airlines are private. They are a private company that has the right to subject to most of whatever they wish if you wish to use their services. Second, it is common knowledge that part of buying a ticket is the high possibility of being searched with varying, and possibly very high, degrees of invasiveness. Finall, flying is an option, not a need. You can go anywhere domestically via other transortation methods and almost anywhere internationally by other methods. Just because you want convenience doesn't exempt you from searches that you know may be used on you.

As a private property owner, it is legitimate for them to place any terms upon using their property, given that it is contractual. But the private company does NOT control the TSA in any direct sense. If the TSA grants itself the power to strip people naked and probe their rectums for explosives it is not necessarily a condition that the airport owners would place upon their passengers if they had sovereignty in the matter of security. It is common for people to conflate the actions of the state with the actions of society in some collective sense, but is it strange that you conflate the airlines with the TSA.

Common knowledge means nothing to me. Common knowledge becomes so only after an institution has persisted through time. House searches without warrants are now common knowledge with nearly a decade of living under the patriot act. The power of the president to assassinate americans in foreign countries will become common knowledge over time.

Home ownership is also optional. You can choose to buy a home, or you can rent an apartment.

If the government grants itself a fiat monopoly over anything, be it security or police or protection, it is inherently NOT optional, or the options granted are so disingenuous that there is an implicit expectation that only a few 'trail blazers' would be willing to endure the intense hardships imposed in order to avoid the government imposed monopoly.

Now I'm no fool, I don't argue against the TSA on the grounds that it violates some quaint conception of rights, but the whereas security scandals on airports are devestating on consumer confidence, the TSA stands to receive increases in budget, personel, and power every time their is a crisis; and so there is a direct conflict of interest between what the TSA wants and what the public wants.

No, there's a direct conflict bewteen what a fringe group wants and what the TSA wants. Most Americans, myself included, don't care what TSA does. We accept bumps like these as part of life and spend our efforts elsewhere. it is only those who have absolutely nothing beter to do that create a mountain out of the TSA molehill.

There **is** a direct conflict of interest between those that run the TSA and what the general public wants. I imagine that the public wants safe airports with reasonable security measures.

The TSA has NO STAKE in the security of the airport. Their personnel are not financially or criminally responsible for the safety of you or the airport property. Their competence and benevolence is PRESUPPOSED and rests upon nothing but FAITH. This is why the TSA fails to foil laughable terror plots even with all their obscene powers and their resources.

Airlines stand to lose everything in the case of even slight terror plots. They want what the public wants; enough security to keep the airlines safe whilst allowing for the smooth and continued flow of passengers.

To put it bluntly, if the airline fails at security, they suffer heavily, even facing bankruptcy. If the TSA fails, they receive increases in budget, resources, and power.

Why do we trust the TSA? Faith.

I imagine, for example, that in a rationally managed security system, there would be some bias in the security measures. Not necessarily racial mind you. My youth orchestra conductor, for example, is a 79 year old travel agent who, i imagine, would receive a special identification that would allow him to pass through a security system lighter and faster than the standard airline procedure. If people like him are taken off the security line this benefits him and also the people who go through the heavier security but face shorter lines.

I don't get the armed robber reference here.

I shouldn't have assumed you would.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTre ason/NoTreason_chap3.html

But it's still laudable for people to record police encounters, audio is good and video is better, it eats away at the fantasy of some cosmic paternalism that leads people to think that the TSA is somehow 'looking out for them'

of course, and good for him. If the TSA wants to harass people, they should harass everyone.

The Television showed the russians how silly the idea of totalitarianism was, hopefully the internet will be the stake driven through the heart of our own police state.

He may have got what he deserved, but I'm still glad he did it.

At 11/20/10 04:00 PM, Proteas wrote: The people who attacked us on 9/11 were all dark complected extremist Muslims, and everyone who has attempted to attack us since then has fit that profile. So yeah, I think paying special attention to ethnic Muslims at airports is a great frickin' idea.

Who the fuck cares about being American when we can be safe?

At 11/23/10 06:56 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Are you really claiming that it is only possible for an "organization that has a specific agenda" to undermine the security of a plane?

No, I'm trying for the umpteenth time to show you that the types of people you keep bringing up do not pose a continuing threat to us. They're threats to our security ended with their capture. Al-Queda and it's operatives continue to pose a threat to us to this day. Guy Fawkes does not still pose a threat to London Parliament, mmkay?

TSA procedures have become invasive because the methods people who have tried to blow up planes aren't discoverable by non-invasive means.

So I guess the guys at El-Al in Israel are just full of shit then in the way they profile people and ensure they're own security, then?

But you've also argued that it doesn't make sense to check "grandma" or the "white guy;" which really just comes out to, check "THEM" but don't check "ME OR MINE." The reasons you started this topic did not prevent you from wondering into this realm, so I have every right to call you out on it.

"Fair skinned" comment notwithstanding, am I the only one here who noticed that almost all those individuals on the FBI's Terrorist wanted list (which is what we're discussing here, terrorism) were ethnic Arabs between the ages of 20 and 40 with distinctive non-European facial features, not white grandmothers and little kids? Hm? Why is that?

Oh, that's right, Al Queda primarily operates out of the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, and that's typically who they're operatives are; males between the ages of 20 and 40. Not grandmothers, not little kids, not white guys from Oklahoma, not business men from Texas, and not computer programmers from California on their way to South Dakota for a hunting trip.

You were right after the fact, with the benefit of not being there at the moment and not being responsible for the lives of those who were to get on that plane. Don't give yourself props for guessing what you were already told.

But I was right, and what's more interesting is that you acknowledge the fact that I was right.

It just says something about you with where you place the blame. You know its wrong to attack these people, but for their own "safety" they should give up their freedoms.

So... I should trade my freedom for security to get on an airplane because there are people out there who pose a threat to my safety, but they shouldn't trade their freedom for the security of being able to worship in peace despite the fact that there are people out there who threaten their security?

Why?

You aren't making the distinction though. And you're ignoring the fact that other people, who aren't Muslim are capable of committing the same atrocities.

I'm acknowledging the fact that other people, who aren't Muslim, are capable of committing the same atrocities by coming out and saying "HEY, maybe it isn't a good idea for them to build a mosque that close to ground zero!"

Or did you think I was afraid Muslims would be attacking their own mosques?

That says that they are then to be subjected to a pat-down.

"Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down."

"Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands. "

Did you catch that? If they object to being invasively patted down, they have alternatives which can work around the woman's objection. They just bypassed going through the backscatter x-ray and the groping pat down in favor of either a chemical swab after handling their own neck scarf, or allowing the TSA Agent to touch the "suspected area" i.e.; neck scarf. The rest of her body is off limits.

The joke's on all of you fuckers, and I am laughing my ass off at you.

At 11/23/10 09:59 PM, Proteas wrote: No, I'm trying for the umpteenth time to show you that the types of people you keep bringing up do not pose a continuing threat to us. They're threats to our security ended with their capture. Al-Queda and it's operatives continue to pose a threat to us to this day. Guy Fawkes does not still pose a threat to London Parliament, mmkay?

And I'll agree that Al Qaeda poses the most serious and likely source of a threat, but that doesn't mean everyone else is safe. You don't just worry about the threats you know about when you worry about security. And besides, as mentioned earlier, we've found recently that some our own citizens have been going to training camps.

So I guess the guys at El-Al in Israel are just full of shit then in the way they profile people and ensure they're own security, then?

Israel is in a very different situation than us due to demographics, population size, mandatory draft, etc. If 50% of the guys on our planes were commandos I'm sure 9/11 would have come out differently. As far as profiling, if Israel is only checking Muslims its opened a security breach. They might be more comfortable with that due to the presence of so many military people on board, but we couldn't afford that here.

"Fair skinned" comment notwithstanding, am I the only one here who noticed that almost all those individuals on the FBI's Terrorist wanted list (which is what we're discussing here, terrorism) were ethnic Arabs between the ages of 20 and 40 with distinctive non-European facial features, not white grandmothers and little kids? Hm? Why is that?

"almost" <- key word. I was providing evidence that not everyone was brown skinned as you claimed. As in, you claimed a universal truth. I proved it wasn't universally true.

A- "All the marbles are red"
B- "But there's a blue one"
A- "Aside from the blue marble, did anyone notice that all the marbles were red?"

Oh, that's right, Al Queda primarily operates out of the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, and that's typically who they're operatives are; males between the ages of 20 and 40. Not grandmothers, not little kids, not white guys from Oklahoma, not business men from Texas, and not computer programmers from California on their way to South Dakota for a hunting trip.

Take a look at ZamZam, when they show the mug shots

But I was right, and what's more interesting is that you acknowledge the fact that I was right.

>_>

Are you really claiming you can just predict who is a threat based on their job, where they live, & what they look like?

And that that was what I was saying you were capable of doing? I said you were a successful backseat predictor of the past. Congratulations. I bet, given any situation that happened in the past and an article or video about what happened, you'd be pretty good at predicting what you were just shown. Congrats. No really, that is a unique trait. You should be proud.

So... I should trade my freedom for security to get on an airplane because there are people out there who pose a threat to my safety, but they shouldn't trade their freedom for the security of being able to worship in peace despite the fact that there are people out there who threaten their security?

You're the one who made the argument that you shouldn't have to trade your freedom, but Muslims should. Which do YOU want?

And on top of this, this is a false equivalency. That's when you compare two situations that are substantially different, but pretend they aren't. You're talking about prohibiting Muslims from building Mosques in certain areas, and I'm talking about allowing everyone to fly as long as they submit to a security check. Key words in that sentence were the limiters "Muslims" & "everyone"

Or did you think I was afraid Muslims would be attacking their own mosques?

Where did I even imply that? >_> <_<

"Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down."

"Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands. "

Did you catch that? If they object to being invasively patted down, they have alternatives which can work around the woman's objection. They just bypassed going through the backscatter x-ray and the groping pat down in favor of either a chemical swab after handling their own neck scarf, or allowing the TSA Agent to touch the "suspected area" i.e.; neck scarf. The rest of her body is off limits.

I'm sure the law applies to everyone. If you're not aware of your rights, that's not my fault. I highly doubt there is a law on the books specifically for Muslim women. But if you can find it and show it, not a possibly related press release, let me know.

I'm sure if you wore a headscarf of hat and you refused to remove it and asked if that was the reason you were being pulled aside you could ask them just to check that region. Go on and try it, see how it goes.

If a Muslim woman chooses not to do the full body scan, she goes through the same procedure as everyone else.

At 11/24/10 07:01 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: They might be more comfortable with that due to the presence of so many military people on board, but we couldn't afford that here.

Can't afford it?

That link that Pox supplied earlier shows that the TSA (a government agency) spent $200k on a scanner that produces images no clearer than those purported to be Bigfoot, and we've had to spend money on people trained to read the thing. And this is going to be implemented at airports nationwide.

How many people could you train to read faces and body language for that cost? Hell, how many retired soldiers could you hire to fly on the airplanes as Air Marshals for that cost?

Take a look at ZamZam, when they show the mug shots

Ramy Zamzam, 22 (at the time of his detention), is from an Egyptian family and is a dental student at the historically black Howard University, also having an undergraduate degree in biology and chemistry from the same university. He was active in the Muslim Students Association D.C. Council, and was described by another college student he had met through the Council as "very devout; he wouldn't date women," but not explicitly political.[1] He performed the Hajj in 2007, and returned "even more intensely observant."[3] Pakistani Police described him as the leader of the group of five.[10]

Still an Ethnic Arab, dude. Surely you could have told that from the guy's picture before I hit Wikipedia.

You're the one who made the argument that you shouldn't have to trade your freedom, but Muslims should. Which do YOU want?

My arguments was, and I quote;

"You know, people on here bitched and carried on for days and weeks on end about how the Patriot Act was a violation of our personal freedoms, and they posted that Ben Franklin quote about "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither freedom or Security" to the point that I could have projectile vomited blood, but you're all perfectly fine with be treated like criminals and being groped and prodded at the airport in the name of Security? That's funny."

That was a condemnation of people on these boards who bitched about the Patriot Act yet remain silent on the issue of TSA Screenings. At no point did I argue that Americans shouldn't have go through these security screenings or that there shouldn't be any screening procedures in place. In fact, if you look around in this topic, you'd notice that I agree with you and support tight screening at the airports. I just want the TSA to excercise a bit of common sense on the matter. People like Tom Sawyer, Cathy Bossi and Marlese McCarthy are getting screwed over because of the TSA's current system. That's bullshit.

I've got a cousin in New York who was in a horrific car crash some 20 years ago. She has so much steel holding different parts of her skeleton together that she has to carry a medical card with her from her doctor telling the TSA screeners of her physical condition. I'm just waiting for the day some twit at the TSA tries to hassle her over this because of the new screening procedures. It's going to be interesting, because, in addition to all the steel in her body, she suffered a traumatic brain injury during the crash that has turned her into a modern Phineas Gage, and she has no control over what comes out of her mouth or at what volume it comes out. You think John Tyner was trying to draw attention to himself? You haven't seen anything yet.

The best defense is a good offense.

Bomb detectors, drug dogs and metal detectors is all we REALLY need.
If you want to be bolder and say go for air marshalls on commercial flights be my guest, but I guarentee you that the terrorist
1. Will probably be subdued by passengers.
2. If not cannot get to the pilots cabin (due to it being bullet proof and all)
3. Will be caught before the flight.

There's more fear going onto a public bus than there is into an airplane for me.

At 11/24/10 02:16 PM, SohlTofang wrote: The best defense is a good offense.

Bomb detectors, drug dogs and metal detectors is all we REALLY need.
If you want to be bolder and say go for air marshalls on commercial flights be my guest, but I guarentee you that the terrorist
1. Will probably be subdued by passengers.
2. If not cannot get to the pilots cabin (due to it being bullet proof and all)
3. Will be caught before the flight.

There's more fear going onto a public bus than there is into an airplane for me.

Not trying to rain on your parade here, but number one and two are pretty irrelevant in most cases since terrorists have been taking a liking to conceal bombs rather than weapons in more recent events.

I wonder if there is a reason the TSA won't consider using specially trained dogs? It's been proven for ages that they can be trained to amazing lengths, and probably at a lesser cost than the damn scanners.