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.

 

TSA, does it have the right?

page: 12
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Death_Kron
They are doing mate but people like you seem to have a problem with it....

They're not actually using measures that are effective.
It's not security but security theatre.
Big difference.


As I have mentioned, about one hundred times already in this thread, no system is perfect and with that in mind no matter what policy, principle or protocol you implement will ever be 100% effective.

However, that doesn't change the fact that everyone now and then it will work and stop someone potentially taking away the lives of innocent people, why is that such a bad thing ?




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Although you might find this hard to believe, my home doesn't have thousands of people passing through it on a daily basis.

But malls do have thousands go through.
And grocery stores.
And movie theaters.
And streets.
And restaurants.
etc...
So why aren't they all searched?


People in airports are not being searched for no reason, they are being searched in case they are carrying weapons or other illegal contraband.

Actually 99.9 percent of all people are being searched for no reason.
That being said, your logic dictates that everything, everywhere should be searched to keep people safe.
Your home doesn't have thousands of people going through it but thousands of homes do and they're just as likely to find someone doing something wrong if they search 1000 homes or 1000 people.


If there was reasonable suspicion to search my house then I would happily let the police in to look around.

AHA ! if there is a REASONABLE SUSPICION. Is there a reasonable suspicion to search every passenger? NO there is not.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by jfj123
Then why aren't they using security measures that actually work?
Why won't you answer that question?


I just noticed that Kron is from the UK. They are already a police state and he has already been brainwashed into believing this is ok and normal. It's not his fault because he probably has grown up with this state and hence thinks that it is normal so I don't fault him for believing what he says.

Ah ok that makes sense.
Too bad. I used to like the UK

Sad to see it go down hill so far


Brilliant!

More blanket logic and the stereotypical assumption that because I'm from a particular country then I'll also subscribe to the stereotypical assumption of that countries beliefs.

Just like all americans are fat and live off junk food right?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
However, that doesn't change the fact that everyone now and then it will work and stop someone potentially taking away the lives of innocent people, why is that such a bad thing ?

Well lets make the system even more effective.
Full body xrays
Strip searches
cavity searches
search everyone's homes, cars, work, etc..
Interview everyone's family, friends, co-workers, etc..
"everyone now and then it will work and stop someone potentially taking away the lives of innocent people, why is that such a bad thing ?"



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Ermmm, two things:

1.) Every passenger isn't being searched

2.) Yep, supermarkets, theatres, football stadiums etc are all also places where a terrorist could potentially strike however the maximum damage out of all these locations in an airport and/or an airplane, since it's been proven that terrorists are attempting to use this vehicle as a method of enacting their plans then its more than reasonable to assume these will be the locations where security is strengthened.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Just like all americans are fat and live off junk food right?

Sorry it took so long to respond.
First I got potato chip grease all over the keyboard then it got stuck
under my belly



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Your completely missing the point and acting like a bloody drama queen, random people are not being subjected to cavity searches, neither are innocent people being groped.

If your subjected to a cavity search then there is reason and maybe you should address that problem first before you start declaring that the TSA are evil and want to grope everyone for their members own personal satisfaction.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


Ermmm, two things:

1.) Every passenger isn't being searched

Yes they are.


2.) Yep, supermarkets, theatres, football stadiums etc are all also places where a terrorist could potentially strike however the maximum damage out of all these locations in an airport and/or an airplane, since it's been proven that terrorists are attempting to use this vehicle as a method of enacting their plans then its more than reasonable to assume these will be the locations where security is strengthened.

Well they could just as easily use a moving truck, or an entire building as a weapon.
You have a full stadium and someone plants a bomb or 2 in the right area and the whole place will collapse.
You have a tall building and you park a truck next to it and you can drop an entire building onto the street, people and other buildings.
Terrorists could create MORE terror with other methods.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


Your completely missing the point and acting like a bloody drama queen, random people are not being subjected to cavity searches, neither are innocent people being groped.

I never said anyone was currently being subjected to cavity searches however, keep in mind that tampons and pads do show up on body scanners and the TSA said if they do, those people may be pulled aside for "further inspection". What exactly will that entail??
And yes, innocent people ARE being groped.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Incorrect again....

The people being searched are the ones who refuse to go through the body scanners so therefore everyone is not being searched, not in the physical pat down manner at least.

If it's that much of a problem for people then simply don't fly! Your not arguing about emptying your pockets when attending court, I don't see how the principle is any different, it might be something you don't agree with but its in place to protect your security and you don't have to like it or lump it, but you can agree that its a nescessary evil and compromise.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


Your completely missing the point and acting like a bloody drama queen, random people are not being subjected to cavity searches, neither are innocent people being groped.

I never said anyone was currently being subjected to cavity searches however, keep in mind that tampons and pads do show up on body scanners and the TSA said if they do, those people may be pulled aside for "further inspection". What exactly will that entail??
And yes, innocent people ARE being groped.



Ridiculous argument, without being an X-Ray machine operative myself I'm still pretty certain the difference between a tampon and an explosive device can be realised pretty quickly, probably takes a few seconds or so, okay it's a moment of slight humiliation to some people but at the the end of the day it's not the massive abuse of rights that your making out.

At the end of the day you should be mad at the islamic nutters who are prepared to stuck explosives up womens vaginas, not at the people checking that their country and airlines are safe...



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Here are some tidbits that everyone should find interesting:


Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security screeners last week began more aggressively patting down airline passengers as a matter of policy across the country.

As a matter of POLICY.


An effective pat down "has to be invasive" and touch both breasts and genitals, says Billie Vincent, a former security director for the Federal Aviation Administration. "It is clearly a technique that most people would consider an invasion of their privacy."

travel.usatoday.com...


There is some debate over whether these procedures are either useful or necessary. There are certainly threats to airliners from bombs that could be carried on a person's body, such as the bomb used in the unsuccessful bombing attempt on a Delta airliner last December. However, it is not at all clear that this new pat-down procedure would have found that explosive device.

The more recent incident involving two bombs sent as cargo from Yemen to the US could indicate renewed efforts to target US airliners. However, there has been no public acknowledgement by the TSA, the US government, or any other government that there is any increased threat to air travel from bombs hidden beneath clothing. Certainly the new pat-down procedure is a very public and very noticeable increase in security, but not one that is directly linked to any immediate threat.



As AirSafe News reports, “The current system of background checks may have allowed those convicted of rape and other sexually based offenses to join TSA.”

Indeed, back in March it emerged that TSA worker Sean Shanahan, who was employed at Boston Logan International Airport to pat down passengers, had been charged with multiple child sex crimes targeting an underage girl.

Gee, gotta love those thorough background checks. Yep they're just trying to keep us safe from bombs...but apparently not rapists and child molesters.....



not only is the TSA employing pedophiles to grope your kids, the agency is giving the green light to illegal aliens to work in airport cargo security and also to fly planes.

The same background check that allowed rapists to slip through the net also enabled illegal immigrants from Central America and Mexico to work in security at Stewart International Airport, a 2,400-acre facility located about 60 miles north of New York City.

Noting that the fiasco was “par for the course for the TSA,” Judicial Watch reported that “The illegal aliens all had security badges approved by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the agency created after the 2001 terrorist attacks mainly to protect airlines. The TSA’s national background check failed to detect the fake Social Security numbers and other bogus documents provided by the illegal immigrants to obtain clearance.”

And those same people could have just as easily been terrorists. Yep they sure are doing a great job, aren't they????


“At a flight school in Stow, a rural community about 25 miles west of Boston, more than 30 illegal aliens were cleared by the TSA to train as pilots. This week three of them said they came to the U.S. from Brazil legally but their visas expired, just like several of the 9/11 hijackers. Each man provided official TSA documents approving pilot lessons through the agency’s alien flight student program. The Brazilians assure the agency never asked them about their immigration status.”

REALLY??? you want me to agree to let a stranger play with my junk for security but this is OK?????
REALLY????????
www.prisonplanet.com...


A Transportation Security Agency worker who pats down members of the flying public was charged with multiple child sex crimes targeting an underage girl yesterday.

The bust outraged privacy and passenger advocates who say it justifies their fears about Logan International Airport’s full-body scanner.

www.bostonherald.com...


A technology website (gizmodo) has published 100 images they said were taken by body scanner machines at the Florida Federal courthouse.
They were images that weren't supposed to be saved.
According to the report in Gizmodo said U.S. Marshals saved 35,000 images on their scanner.
The photos show each person with clothes and the image created by the scanning machine.

www.chicagotribune.com...

Get angry people !
Complain to your congressmen and women.
Complain to the TSA.
Complain to the airports.
Complain to the airlines.
Before you can't !!!!!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Again, more fear mongering....



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
and some additional info


But travelers may have good reason to avoid the scanners. A group of scientists warned Friday that the scanning process may actually be dangerous.

"They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays," Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, told AFP.

www.rawstory.com...


The full-body imaging machines peer through clothing -- showing shapes, folds of fat and other anatomical characteristics -- to identify possible hidden objects.

Even though facial features are blurred to protect privacy, the images reveal breasts, buttocks and other private parts, prompting some civil liberties groups to call the machines an unacceptable intrusion.

www.chicagobreakingnews.com...

This just blows my mind !?!?
I can't believe WE THE PEOPLE continue to allow infringements upon our RIGHTS !?!?!?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Oh no?!?!

Someone might see my folds of fat or my penis for about 10 seconds in order to protect national security!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


Oh no?!?!

Someone might see my folds of fat or my penis for about 10 seconds in order to protect national security!

But it doesn't protect anything or anyone except the big corporation that makes the machines.
And it's an invasion of privacy.
What you simply don't get is that you can't set aside laws in the name of anything including national security.
Once you make an excuse to break a law, it'll happen again, and again, and again. Just ask heir bush and heir chaney ! Zig Heil !



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Your just not getting this are you?

Do you really think that the US Government is simply putting these measures into place so creeps can jerk off at naked, anonymous e-fits and also make a profit?

Have you ever seen a police officer stop a criminal with your own eyes? If so then thats still a rare occurrence, should we stop policing the country and abandon trying to use pre-emptive tactics because they aren't 100% successful?

Or should we continue to do what is needed in the hope we may catch/prevent or put off someone doing something similiar?

I could understand if you would compromise and agreee that security checks are a nescessary evil but you outright class them as wrong, immoral and evil.
edit on 20/11/10 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


Have you ever seen a police officer stop a criminal with your own eyes?

Yes.

If so then thats still a rare occurrence, should we stop policing the country and abandon trying to use pre-emptive tactics because they aren't 100% successful?

What's the percentage you'd agree to stop the extra policing? If it were only 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, 10%, 1% ??


Or should we continue to do what is needed in the hope we may catch/prevent or put off someone doing something similiar?

But what we're doing won't catch anyone except the random dumb pot..


I could understand if you would compromise and agreee that security checks are a nescessary evil but you outright class them as wrong, immoral and evil.
edit on 20/11/10 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)

Why would I agree to give up my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? Why would I "compromise" about illegal activities?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


But do you not see that your argument is counter productive? Okay, so pat down searches may only catch one person a year for the sake of the argument, but that's one person caught who potentially could have killed at the very least one other human being.

If we completely abandon pat down searches and the terrorists/criminal/generally bad people cotton on then we have a situation where more and more people will resort to using weapons such as ceramic knifes and other weapons undetectable to the scanners and thus the possibilty of more lives lost.

Going further, if we stop using the scanners then it's more than likely that we will be in a position where more terrorists are going to attempt to smuggle explosives onto planes and thus the consequences will be disastrous.

So, at this point, what do we do??? Introduce pat downs and scanners again , then we find ourselves sitting back at your original argument.

Safety and freedom are two different concepts, although they go hand in hand; at the end of the day in today's world you need to make compromises to ensure your safety aka not that long ago people used to leave their front doors unlocked, would you personally do that now?

I know for a fact I wouldn't, do I find the fact that I have to lock my door unsettling or an infringement on my rights? HELL NO

Do you see what I'm getting at here or are you that stuck to your beliefs that you will not compromise on any level with the argument I'm presenting?
edit on 20/11/10 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


But do you not see that your argument is counter productive? Okay, so pat down searches may only catch one person a year for the sake of the argument, but that's one person caught who potentially could have killed at the very least one other human being.

If you can justify there, you must also agree that random home, car and person searches would do the same thing. Based on your logic, officials should be able to walk into anyone's home at any time to search because at some point they'll find someone who's going to do something bad.


If we completely abandon pat down searches and the terrorists/criminal/generally bad people cotton on then we have a situation where more and more people will resort to using weapons such as ceramic knifes and other weapons undetectable to the scanners and thus the possibilty of more lives lost.

Let's take away all our rights so we can have a total police state so we can be safe.


Going further, if we stop using the scanners then it's more than likely that we will be in a position where more terrorists are going to attempt to smuggle explosives onto planes and thus the consequences will be disastrous.

Again, living free has risks. The reality is, if a terrorist wants to blow something up bad enough, they'll find a way. Will I live in fear and be willing to give up all my rights for some perceived security? NO. And that's how most Americans feel. You may have already lost your country but we haven't lost ours yet.


not that long ago people used to leave their front doors unlocked, would you personally do that now?

Yep. Do it all the time.


Do you see what I'm getting at here or are you that stuck to your beliefs that you will not compromise on any level with the argument I'm presenting?
edit on 20/11/10 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)

I will not give up the rights that were given to me by our founding fathers.
I will not give up the rights that were protected by our soldiers...many of whom died for our freedoms. To compromise is to spit on their sacrifices. To compromise dishonors their memories.
You'll compromise yourself right out of all YOUR rights if you're not careful. You've been brainwashed to believe it's ok to give up your rights for some perceived security. I genuinely feel sorry for you


Remember these words:
"Those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both." one of the most important persons in American history said it.




top topics



 
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join