Air passengers who refuse a full body scan to be barred from their flights

reply to post by esdad71


I'm sorry to say it, but it sounds like you are one of the sheeple. I thought this website was founded on "denying ignorance" and what you said just sounds ignorant to me.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."---Benjamin Franklin

The people still have the power, and they just don't know it. If even a quarter of the US's population were to march on Washington D.C. today, or if even a quarter of the Citizens of the UK were to march on Parliament, or any citizens from any other country were to march on their Nation's Capitals, there wouldn't be enough soldiers, police officers, etc. to stop it all.

The world we live in is a very f**ked up place, and the only thing that we have is each other and ourselves. We have to stop relying on what the government tells us. This whole terrorism thing is just getting way out of hand. As far as I'm concerned, the terrorists have already won, by INCITING TERROR. That is, if the terrorist threat even really exists to the extend that our respective governments says it does.

These body scanners are a direct violation of human rights, of civil liberties, and I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. For the world to welcome them is only another step in the NWO's plans for takeover.

Let me ask you this esdad71, would you allow your young teenage daughter, or your wife, or your mother go into one of these machines? Would you let them be violated for possibly the whole world to see? What I bet many people don't know is the fact that many of these TSA screeners don't even have proper education, and many are just the lowlifes from the dregs. Not to say that there aren't nice ones...but it was proven that they could store the images for upload to somewhere else. Doesn't that bug you in the least? It certainly bugs me, and I have already written my Congressmen about that fact.

But no matter. The sheeple will continue to be the sheeple, and before you know it, all of our rights and liberties will be gone, or up to the highest bidder.

A little information for those that keep saying the security is worth it.

From the Wall Street Journal

Most of us are horrible assessors of risk. Travelers at American airports are taking extensive steps due to fears of terrorism. But in the decade of the 2000s, only about one passenger for every 25 million was killed in a terrorist attack aboard an American commercial airliner (all of the fatalities were on 9/11). By contrast, a person has about a one in 500,000 chance each year of being struck by lightning.

The usual response I get to these statistics—especially in the wake of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to bring down Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day—is that although terrorist incidents aboard airplanes might never have been common, they are becoming more so. This belief, too, is mistaken. Relative to the number of commercial departures world-wide, passenger deaths resulting from what I term "violent passenger incidents"—bombings, hijackings, and other sabotage—were at least five times less common in the 2000s than in any decade from the 1940s through the 1980s

Overall, academic and governmental databases report, terrorist attacks killed a total of about 5,300 people in the most highly developed nations since the end of the Cold War in 1991, a rate of about 300 per year. The chance of a Westerner being killed by a terrorist is exceedingly low: about a one in three million each year, or the same chance an American will be killed by a tornado. (The Department of Homeland Security's budget is 50 times larger than that of the weather service).

link

Also just to add:

In the US using the body scanners is still optional... one does have the choice of an alternative check in.

Apparently, in the UK the optional has been taken out of the equation.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Add to that that they don't work. Anyone with just a little knowledge of the device can take advantage of their limitations.

If they can get away with this what is their next step. Stripping and body cavity searches?

It has also been quoted that "Freedom is never more then a generation away from extinction." Is that the legacy we want to leave our children?

reply to post by esdad71


I provide my full name and ID if I'm asked. I don't have a problem with security cameras in a business or court house. I do have a problem with security cameras on public streets filming citizens. I have this weird thing I think citizens should be safe from searches, and monitoring when they have not provided reasonable suspicion.

Is it reasonable to assume anyone buying a plane ticket might be a terrorist? Actually given the statistics it is the opposite.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

This falls into the same category as those who feel that they should not provide ID if asked or is worried about surveillance cameras. They will be there anyways and there is still no loss of rights.

This statement is incorrect. Surveillance cameras in public spaces do erode our right to privacy. Few would question cameras in banks or government offices...I have them in my business, but then my business is not a public space.

I wonder how many rights you are prepared to give up in the name of "safety" before you begin to get upset?

The slippery slope is the problem here, even if this one thing is relatively minor, the precedent that it sets is a whopper. Perhaps you're not afraid of your government now, but what if someone were elected or otherwise took power who was worthy of fear?

George Bush Jr, after 911 instituted a law that allowed the US government to assassinate US citizens on foreign soil if it was deemed that they may be national security threat.

President Obama's office is looking at the possibility of expanding this law to extend to US soil. By labelling a potential terrorist as an "enemy combatant" the Government would have the right--under the law--to assassinate a US citizen!

This may seem all fine and good now because there is a war on with "terror". But how do you define a terrorist? might it be conceivable to consider what I am writing now to be an act of terrorism? That I might be inciting dissent against the state?

The slippery slope threatens ALL liberties. There are no such things as SMALL freedoms. Freedom, like the truth, is irreparably damaged by erosion and it is for this reason that we must fortify our freedoms and not add caustics to the water.

reply to post by Tamale_214


It has been said by Justice George Sutherland in 1938;

" No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. "

It is not a new endeavor for our government to attempt to eradicate our liberties. We are a nuisance and an impedance to those that wish to rule rather than serve.

They will whittle away at our liberties until there is nothing left; including the shavings on the ground.

Never has the time been better for them to succeed. They have instilled enough fear in people that they can no longer see reason. The have distracted and replaced the interest of our well being
and the well being of our country with the titilations of MSM decoys.

More people know the names of the women that Tiger Woods has supposed to slept with then they do the people that sign the documents that will stripe them of their rights and their future.

Look at the number of people here on ATS alone that believe that there is no harm in a government scanning and videotaping innocent citizens. Their logic is without reason but that is why it works and why I fear they may succeed this time.

Someone else once said;

"The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time. "

I hope this will not be etched on our tombstone.

Originally posted by SpiritoftheNightSky
reply to post by Tamale_214

 

"The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time. "

I hope this will not be etched on our tombstone.

and so "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Thomas Jefferson

I have been through security twice in the last two days (in the US) and not had one body scan.

Same as usual it seemed to me. Luggage through the scanners, shoes off and through the metal detectors.

I've just had another think about this, wondering under what conditions I MIGHT feel comfortable and less violated by participating.

I think you really need someone you can TRUST in situations like this.
And quite frankly, I would only trust someone with a medical background.

That could either be med students, medical trainees like radiologists, pathologists, nursing students, nurses, nursing assistants, .....I could go on, the list is endless.

Just basically someone who has any kind of medical background.

The reason being, is these professionals and students are well versed in privacy issues and I feel would be the most qualified for the job.
Its the kind of work that requires high levels of integrity and accountability.

If this isn't possible, then to have those working scanners trained through a medical school or institution with the power to decertify/deregister if any abuse happens or any strict protocol isn't kept. They would also learn issues like privacy and their responsibilities when operating these scanners too.

Just a thought...

Originally posted by Tamale_214

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

This falls into the same category as those who feel that they should not provide ID if asked or is worried about surveillance cameras. They will be there anyways and there is still no loss of rights.

George Bush Jr, after 911 instituted a law that allowed the US government to assassinate US citizens on foreign soil if it was deemed that they may be national security threat.

President Obama's office is looking at the possibility of expanding this law to extend to US soil. By labelling a potential terrorist as an "enemy combatant" the Government would have the right--under the law--to assassinate a US citizen!

This may seem all fine and good now because there is a war on with "terror". But how do you define a terrorist? might it be conceivable to consider what I am writing now to be an act of terrorism? That I might be inciting dissent against the state?

George W. Bush Jr has already defined a terrorist. It is somebody who isn't "with us" (whatever that means), e.g. somebody who is "against us" (whatever THAT means) as he so clearly stated a couple of years ago.

Using that definition you could say that almost anything is an act of terrorism, which may in fact be exactly the purpose.

The only airport I was body scanned, this past week, was at the Indianapolis International Airport. Sorry to say I forgot what kind of rays they use but was told it was not Xrays. I did not see any pictures just a green light saying I was ok. Not sure if or where they were being looked at.

It was also random and time consuming as they have to calibrate it often. There is no time to do all passengers which seems silly to me. Should be all or nothing if you don't want to miss the terrorists.

reply to post by Blogstalker


It does seem pointless unless they do all the passengers.
So if one wanted to avoid being scanned, from what you've said,
I'd say it could be accomplished by getting to the back of the queue then?

If so, very handy information to know.