It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by truthseeker1984
You can go across the ocean with a sailboat too.
A lot of people are letting them go for cheap,cuz they can't justify the expense of marina fees anymore.
This economy can work out well for one,if one sees the benefits.
originally posted by Bedlam
If you lived in the northern or southwestern border states, you could drive to a neighboring country and fly from there.
Sounds like a business opportunity. "Take the bus then fly with us!" Canadair!
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
This nation was founded on the principles of free men having inalienable rights.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Those rights were enumerated for us by the founding fathers.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The key words here are "free men" and "inalienable."
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
You cannot "give up" your rights because noone can take your rights as an American.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The only way you can "give up" your rights (barring commision of a crime) is by renouncing your citizenship as an American. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
it is a safe assumption to assume that the TSA is simply considering everyone who's trying to fly is a convicted criminal...
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
4th Amendment - 5th Amendment
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
you cannot be held or processed as a criminal in the United States unless you have been Mirandized.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
needs to be tried in the courts.
Originally posted by 3finjo
But, as they say we have the choice not to travel. Unless you have to travel for your job, or to see a sick relative, or heaven forbid expand your mind!
Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept that the constitutions of numerous states respect. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time. Some immigrants' rights advocates assert that human beings have a fundamental human right to mobility not only within a state but between states.
At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn’t know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents’ supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area. When I asked why, he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined. I told him that I would submit to a walk through the metal detector, but that was it; I would not be groped. He told me that their procedures are on their website, and therefore, I was fully informed before I entered the airport; I had implicitly agreed to whatever screening they deemed appropriate. I told him that San Diego was not listed on the TSA’s website as an airport using Advanced Imaging Technology, and I believed that I would only be subject to the metal detector. He replied that he was not a webmaster, and I asked then why he was referring me to the TSA’s website if he didn’t know anything about it. I again refused to re-enter the screening area. The man asked me to stay put while he walked off to confer with the officer and Mr. Silva. They went about 20 feet away and began talking amongst themselves while I waited. I couldn’t over hear anything, but I got the impression that the police officer was recounting his version of the events that had transpired in the screening area (my initial refusal to be patted down). After a few minutes, I asked loudly across the distance if I was free to leave. The man dismissively held up a finger and said, “hold on”. I waited. After another minute or so, he returned and asked for my name. I asked why he needed it, and reminded him that the female supervisor/agent had already taken a report. He said that he was trying to be friendly and help me out. I asked to what end. He reminded me that I could be sued civilly and face a $10,000 fine and that my cooperation could help mitigate the penalties I was facing. I replied that he already had my information in the report that was taken and I asked if I was free to leave. I reminded him that he was now illegally detaining me and that I would not be subject to screening as a condition of leaving the airport. He told me that he was only trying to help (I should note that his demeanor never suggested that he was trying to help. I was clearly being interrogated.), and that no one was forcing me to stay. I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, “then I’m leaving”. He replied, “then we’ll bring a civil suit against you”, to which I said, “you bring that suit” and walked out of the airport.
Originally posted by MrWendal
I am not so much concerned about the whole "you bought a ticket you gave up your rights" line. IN a certain sense, that is fairly accurate. No matter what you do in life you are subjected to certain rules. If you buy a ticket to get on an airplane, you are going to be subjected to their rules in order to board the plane. If you do not like it, do not fly. Flying as a means of travel is a choice.
Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
Yeah,that's called an "unconscionable contract".
According to The Constitution,those little fellers are unlawful/illegal.
But nobody reads the fine print,in too much of a hurry!.
Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by bozzchem
Respectfully I disagree. The only thing that mentions "the pursuit of happiness" is the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution says you have the right to life, liberty and property. No mention of happiness.
This was addressed very early on by the Supreme Court, which basically ruled that the Declaration was meant to separate the 13 colonies from Britain, not to give legal rights to the people living in the colonies.
Originally posted by 3finjo
reply to post by bozzchem
Vicarious liability means that you would not be able to succefully sue individuals who are lawfully (whether you agree with it or not being lawful, they do) conducting business as they have been directed. It is the governing body who needs to be targeted here i think. But, your laws in the US may differ, you fellas seem to be able to sue anyone for anything!