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.

 

Would You Allow These Two people to Touch Your Junk?

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
This one asks the simple question,” would you allow these 2 people to perform a TSA 'enhanced pat-downs’ on you.



Do you believe this goes against your Constitutional and Bill of Rights?
Do you think that this act is perverted?
Several threads are already started on these illegal searches. But I have to ask this question.
Do you think it’s fair that The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) endorsed the fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law..

cnsnews.com...
www.black-and-right.com...
www.prnewswire.com...



+17 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


Of course it violates our rights.

Since airport security is not privately run and since passengers are not given a choice to reject the screening if things get too invasive, it necessarily constitutes an unlawful search since there is no reasonable cause nor court issued warrant.

Of course, don't tell that to the 9th circuit court, who finds everything is absolutely constitutional.

I'm sure the 9th circuit would also find that locking up all Japanese-American's during a war is perfectly reasonable.

edit on 16-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1

Do you think it’s fair that The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) endorsed the fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law..



This is a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." If the CAIR can help pressure my supposedly elected representatives and assist in ending this outrageous violation of the 4th Amendment, I am all for their help.

I know they arent doing it for my sake, but since so many Americans are ready and willing to just suck it up, I will take any other voices raised in complaint that I can get.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
No, i would never.

2nd line



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


Give me seven beers then we'll talk...

Better make it special brew!



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Depends how much I'm getting paid...



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


I travel multiple times a month. This doesn't bother me one bit. So what, have you ever ridden in a subway in NY during rush hour?

Get over it. There is no other motive here other than to protect us.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

edit on 16-11-2010 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Violater1

Do you think it’s fair that The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) endorsed the fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law..



This is a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." If the CAIR can help pressure my supposedly elected representatives and assist in ending this outrageous violation of the 4th Amendment, I am all for their help.

I know they arent doing it for my sake, but since so many Americans are ready and willing to just suck it up, I will take any other voices raised in complaint that I can get.









I'm not willing to suck it up either. I'll drive from now on when I have to. From Edwards to Wright-Patt, it's 3 days of 10 hour driving. Nobody touches or looks at my Junk unless I Say So!



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I dont like the touchy feely idea or the see through your clothes plan. I have young teen daughters. It should be a crime! I hope they figure this out before we fly to England.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Violater1
 


Of course it violates our rights.

Since airport security is not privately run and since passengers are not given a choice to reject the screening if things get too invasive, it necessarily constitutes an unlawful search since there is no reasonable cause nor court issued warrant.

Of course, don't tell that to the 9th circuit court, who finds everything is absolutely constitutional.

I'm sure the 9th circuit would also find that locking up all Japanese-American's during a war is perfectly reasonable.

edit on 16-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


I suppose you're perfectly able to reject the screening; just don't fly. I've gone to plenty of places that have rules instituted to help keep me and the business safe. If I go swimming they'll typically restrict me from running near the pool. I accept that. If I need to run near a pool I can go do it at another place. I don't complain that they're violating my constitutional right to run.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Violater1
 





I'm sure the 9th circuit would also find that locking up all Japanese-American's during a war is perfectly reasonable.

edit on 16-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


They already did, in U.S. v. Koramatsu and Endo v. US. Endo eventually won in the SCOTUS while Fred Komatsu lost there.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


www.businesswire.com...

So what do you want to tell me here? Do you fly often? Are you from NY? Do you know anyone who died in the 9/11 attacks? I do.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by amc621
reply to post by Violater1
 

I travel multiple times a month. This doesn't bother me one bit. So what, have you ever ridden in a subway in NY during rush hour?
Get over it. There is no other motive here other than to protect us.






I choose not to travel on the subway as well.

However, the next time TSA has their naked picture of you, don't forget to turn towards the panel and bleat!

Baah, bhaaaa, baaaaa


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by amc621
reply to post by Violater1
 


I travel multiple times a month. This doesn't bother me one bit. So what, have you ever ridden in a subway in NY during rush hour?

Get over it. There is no other motive here other than to protect us.


It doesn't bother you because you are government employee and probably work for the TSA.

Either that or you are scared to death of terrists that have less chance of killing you than a lightning strike.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Depends how much I'm getting paid...





Would that be prostitution?

2nd line.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayson

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Violater1
 


Of course it violates our rights.

Since airport security is not privately run and since passengers are not given a choice to reject the screening if things get too invasive, it necessarily constitutes an unlawful search since there is no reasonable cause nor court issued warrant.

Of course, don't tell that to the 9th circuit court, who finds everything is absolutely constitutional.

I'm sure the 9th circuit would also find that locking up all Japanese-American's during a war is perfectly reasonable.

edit on 16-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


I suppose you're perfectly able to reject the screening; just don't fly. I've gone to plenty of places that have rules instituted to help keep me and the business safe. If I go swimming they'll typically restrict me from running near the pool. I accept that. If I need to run near a pool I can go do it at another place. I don't complain that they're violating my constitutional right to run.


So... you're saying that running by the pool is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which amounts to the same thing as my right to privacy? I don't think I'm following your logic here.

Oh wait... you're one of those people who's willing to give up your liberties for the sake of being safe... aren't ya.

edit on 16-11-2010 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I'd rather have then touch my junk then be sitting in a plane with my 4 year old daughter when the fuselage blows out from some terrorist (home grown or not) bomb or having to tell her it is going to be all right as we storm 500 miles an hour toward the Sears Tower.
They do more intense pat downs at high schools in Newark or Camden NJ then they do in the airports every day.

. . . and as for giving up my liberties for being safe. Not all of them but this one the PTB can have!
edit on 11/16/2010 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


I have a personal question. (not) I know some slang words and know about junk but do females have junk or is it called something different. I'm over 25. Just wondering,,



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
This one asks the simple question,” would you allow these 2 people to perform a TSA 'enhanced pat-downs’ on you.


The second one, yeah, she's kinda cute.




Do you believe this goes against your Constitutional and Bill of Rights?
Do you think that this act is perverted?


Yes.
No.



Do you think it’s fair that The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) endorsed the fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law..


CAIR made a recommendation several years ago. They can recommend anything they want. But the TSA rules are clear. There are no exemptions for Muslims.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join