"By buying a ticket, you gave up a lot of your rights." -The TSA

Ugh! Every time I listen it to it, it makes me nauseous.

It is nothing less than unreasonable search and seizure.

While these retards are exerting their "authority" dozens of other passengers are going through the check point unhindered. What's the difference between one or the other? Nothing - Except "say so" by an idiot TSA rent-a-cop.

It's about obedience. Straight up.

You will submit to the police state citizen.

Screw that.

Uh, the TSA was completely independent of the Patriot Act. TSA was apportioned by the Aviation & Transportation Security Act of Congress. In addition, the TSA has gone from an inconvenience to a massive privacy intrusion and rights violation unit as the director of the Homeland Security division has changed. Life under Tom Ridge wasn't bad. Like I said, there were additional inconveniences reported, but the crux of the issue was that safety had been taken from the airlines' hands and was now handled by the TSA. Lines were a bit longer, but there was none of this naked body scanner, pat downs, check your temperature rectally nonsense. Somehwere along the line, Chertoff spawned the ideas and then Nepalitano had the scrote (and I mean that... I suspect a man can be found under that pant suit) to actually implement it.

reply to post by babybunnies



I'm sorry babybunnies, but you keep saying this "we" garbage. Short of a full-on armed revolution, there was nothing that the normal Joe Schmoe American citizen could have done to prevent this bill from becoming law (protesting falls on deaf ears). Don't use the typical "you shouldn't have voted for these people in the first place" response. Well, had we known that the US Government was going to launch an attack against its own citizens, and then use the elected officials to push forward a blatantly unconstitutional law, then perhaps we wouldn't have elected these jackwagons into office in the first place. Many of the American people were sheeple-ized when they re-elected Satan, I mean Bush, back into office. I for one did not vote for him. And besides, the vote was rigged. Gore should have won in the first place.

You want my opinion? The American people should refuse to fly for one month. That would literally bankrupt the airline industry in this country, and that would certainly send a strong message to the powers that be that we are not going to be subjected to sexual assault just to board an airplane. In case you are not aware, if you want to travel overseas, there's no other way to do it than to fly. Unless, of course, you are a strong swimmer or you want to pay a ridiculous sum of money to travel by cruise ship.

The blame does not solely rest on the shoulders of the American people. The greedy, corrupt politicians that let this bill become law are ultimately to blame.



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by truthseeker1984


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!

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.

reply to post by chiponbothshoulders


You have any idea how long it would take to sail from UK to NZ? I see what you are trying to say, and I am all for doing away with all machine-powered forms of travel completely. I mean it, but in order for my partner to see her family in the UK it would take several months to get there, plus run the gauntlet of weather and pirates. International sailing works only if you have the time and money to do it properly. Airlines know they have us by the short and curlies, as do regulation bodies.

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.

This may be true, but how many American citizens are qualified to sail a boat across the ocean? Probably 1/10 of 1% as a conservative estimate. The costs of doing this still outweigh the costs of taking a plane, and it's sickening. You either subject yourself to sexual assault, or you get used to driving long distances or not visiting places overseas.

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!

I lol'd. =) That might be a real possibility, but of course, the closest airport in another country would be Toronto International, and as far as I know, they also use body scanners.




Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
This nation was founded on the principles of free men having inalienable rights.

...no, thats the cya propaganda that most were taught to believe was truth... the real truth is - the usofa was "founded" on genocide, lies, misogyny, religious intolerance, theft and white supremacy...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Those rights were enumerated for us by the founding fathers.

...no... those rights were for white males only... the "founding fathers" (spit) condoned genocide of the indigenous population... some were slave owners who had sex with their black female slaves and sired children who were not considered free or even fully human due to the color of their skin... why would anyone honor scum like that?... answer: you were programmed to...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The key words here are "free men" and "inalienable."

...those were intentionally distractive / flowery words that meant nothing in practical applications that applied to ALL people, not just white men...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
You cannot "give up" your rights because noone can take your rights as an American.

...theres another common pitfall - propaganda promoted by those who KNOW you have no rights to protect you from them and have led you to believe you're an american - but - american is a definition of people who live on two continents sub-divided by many countries, not the definition of one group of people in one specific country...

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.

...not true... a person doesnt even have to be a citizen of the usofa to enjoy the civil rights of a citizen of the usofa... current case in point - a man named cruz, an illegal alien, who is an alleged pedophile and/or fan of sexual violence... when he got to court, he got more considerations than his victim did...

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...

...of course... "presumed innocent until found guilty" has never been a truthful statement - just flowery words used as a distraction to enforce the propaganda that we live in a democratic republic... if that over-glorified phrase were true, you would never have to post bail nor could you be kept in jail awaiting trial...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
4th Amendment - 5th Amendment

...those didnt help anyone who got sent to one of the many concentration camps (here in the usofa) during ww2 - because - it was deemed necessary for the protection of the country AND the protection of those falsely imprisoned due to "being at war"...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
you cannot be held or processed as a criminal in the United States unless you have been Mirandized.

...sure you can... see above...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
needs to be tried in the courts.

...wont do any good... see above...

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!

The freedom of movement and travel is right under common law, observed in the US (only when you force offcials to observe it, that is).

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.

Freedom Of Movement

This story is up on Infowars, which I know many do not care for. However it comes with video. The camera is aimed down so you do not see much, but the audio is very very clear.

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.

What I do find unbelievably alarming is the threat of civil legal action. After this man was instructed to leave the airport, he had his ticket refunded and attempted to leave. He was then stopped and interrogated further and threatened with a civil suit for doing exactly what he was told to do.

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.

Source and yes I realize this is on Infowars, but even they can not spin the audio.







I can promise you, I will not be flying anywhere. Regardless of time, I will drive myself rather than be subjected to these types of actions.

reply to post by MrWendal


Thank you. I tried to find the youtube videos and had absolutely no luck with it.

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.

I think your line of thinking is patently false. The pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right and not one subject to state intervention. The airlines do not make the rules about what the TSA is doing, the criminal government wanting to turn citizens into subjects makes these rules.

Flying as a means of travel is certainly a choice. By your rationale, those who choose to travel by bus, train or even car could be subjected to the same type of molestation since at some point, travel is required whether we want to or don't. What happens if checkpoints are set up to do similar searches merely for getting into your car to go get a loaf of bread? Don't scoff at the notion since tyranny is always done incrementally.

I will not be scanned nor will I be groped. Should I not be allowed to continue on my travel itinerary, a suit will be filed against each individual involved with stopping me from finishing my itinerary. I will not bother suing the TSA. I will file suit against each individual in their personal capacity for violating my rights through color of law. Make no mistake, this infraction of inalienable rights is not law...it is color of law.

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!.

It is unfortunately common. You are forced to give up a lot of rights when you seek medical care most of the time. You either sign all the forms waiving most of your rights or you don't receive "non-emergency" treatment.

This is similar. You either submit to these violations of your rights or you can find another way to fly...

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.

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!

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.

I appreciate your candor. A star for you sir.

I am well aware of where the phrase I mentioned was first coined. What needs to be kept in mind is that the Declaration was a preceding document to the US Constitution. One could also enter into discussion regarding the Articles of Confederation.

Both documents were predecessors to the Constitution and both documents made it quite clear how the people felt regarding tyranny.

Without the Declaration, there would be no Constitution. The point can be relegated as moot since the tenets of both have been trampled upon and both seem to be seen as nothing more than bird cage liner...but I digress.

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!

Hence why I indicate to initiate legal remedy in the State courts. While both the Federal and State judicial systems are corrupted beyond repair, one tends to have a far better chance of dragging a Fed into State court and hoping for some semblance of Justice.

I also believe initiating a suit pro se is the best means of action since I have no more trust for a member of the BAR than I do for well.......a member of the BAR.

You are right regarding the ease of filing suit in this country. Then again, what is the other option? I have that one oiled and tucked away but will save it for later.

reply to post by bozzchem


You are correct, without the Declaration of Independence, there would be no Constitution. However the Declaration itself does not grant any rights. It was meant to separate the 13 colonies from Britain. The Constitution however is regarded as "The Law of the Land" and the Supreme Court has, generally speaking, upheld it as such. Sadly, that means we have no "right" to the "pursuit of happiness" under Federal Law. At least that is the way I understand it.

Here are a couple links you may find of interest from a lawyer's perspective.

legallad.quickanddirtytips.com...

legallad.quickanddirtytips.com...

ETA: In regards to state rights, there are some State Constitutions that do claim the pursuit of happiness as a "right"

To play devil's advocate for a minute here, I would have to say that I cannot blame the TSA officers (they are just "Following orders" in the 'Nuremburg trials' sense). What you have to look at is the bigger picture. There are some amazingly expensive machines involved. Follow the money trail. Who benefits from this?
Keeping the people (a) scared, and (b) compliant, is all part of the bigger plan. Take away rights and (oh, yeah) "privileges" one at a time, and you have the perfectly pliant sheep.

They are, according to Faux news, looking for Brown Muslin Men. That they are targeting everyone is a smokescreen. The 'random' searches, are anything but random. They are hourly to make the public think they are being fair. It's all a matter of knowing that when you travel, you are in the hands of those who are in power.
TSA agents are briefed on their behaviour. They are just doing their jobs. 99% of them have no clue whatsoever of the actual legality of what they are doing. They're not that smart. They are simply following directives. If they don't, they lose their jobs.

I personally think that the ultimate goal is to shut down the airlines. Take that priviledge away from us (not worded correctly maybe) but to stop us from going fast from point A to point B. To confine the masses. After all, they're not stupid. They know that people apparently are beginning to wake up and soon they will stop fliying, in order to protect themselves from Radiation, groping, etc.
IMO they want the airlines gone. The Elite will fly as always in their private jets, so will the government, but the rest of us will look for other ways.
They wil then take it to the trains, buses, random stops with all their see thru invasive gear and as nightmarish as it all sounds, they will keep us rounded up and confined.
One thing is for sure: "They" are not doing this because of paraonia of terrorists. There's a bigger goal here.