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: 13
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Your just mumbling the same things over and over again now.....

Searching someones house at night, without consent or prior knowledge is nothing similiar to a simple pat down search at an airport, how you can compare the two is beyond me.

I honestly don't understand how you can be opposed to something which is designed to protect you and your fellow human beings.




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


Your just mumbling the same things over and over again now.....

So are you



Searching someones house at night, without consent or prior knowledge is nothing similiar to a simple pat down search at an airport, how you can compare the two is beyond me.

OK then you'd support the government telling you ahead of time.
"from now on, anyone's house can be searched at any time"
Then you'd have prior knowledge. So now there's no difference.


I honestly don't understand how you can be opposed to something which is designed to protect you and your fellow human beings.

Because it violates the 4th amendment. We have privacy laws in the US.
Random house searches would also protect you and your fellow human beings but you seem to be against that??? How odd! Your logic either works in all cases or no cases.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Fundamental difference; terrorists aren't going to use my home to kill people. Fundamental difference; there is no terror risk associated to my house. Fundamental difference; I'm not attempting to travel anywhere or be in a position to harm thousands of people at my house. Fundamental difference; there are measures and laws designed to protect the people in my house and I abide by them....



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


Fundamental difference; terrorists aren't going to use my home to kill people.

No but they need to stay somewhere to plan their attacks. Could you imagine if, on 9/11, they found all the terrorists in their dwellings before they even left? Sounds like a perfect reason to me for house to house searches



Fundamental difference; there is no terror risk associated to my house.

How do we know that unless the government comes in and checks?
There is no terror risk associated with my person but you're advocating having my person searched without a warrant.


Fundamental difference; I'm not attempting to travel anywhere or be in a position to harm thousands of people at my house.

How do we know you're not doing something in your home that would allow you to harm thousands?
Anthrax was probably cooked up in someones dwelling.


Fundamental difference; there are measures and laws designed to protect the people in my house and I abide by them....

There are also laws to protect against illegal search and seizure when you're not in your house...well that is if you're an American.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Once again, completely missing the point.

You have failed to address how you personally would prevent terrorists/criminals bringing ceramic weapons onto planes, you have also failed to answer how pre-emptive policing is a bad thing and also haven't provided a solution which in your opinion would be more beneficial than the current systems in place.

You failed in trying to imply that a pat down search would be classed as assault and also failed to justify how a security protocol that could potentially save a life is a bad thing.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


Once again, completely missing the point.

Yes you are but thanks for playing. Your consolation prize is your loss of freedom



You have failed to address how you personally would prevent terrorists/criminals bringing ceramic weapons onto planes,

The same way we would stop terrorists from inserting bombs into their butts, or bringing ingredients that when mixed, will become explosive. You can't stop everyone unless you take away everyone's rights. You understand that knives, guns, etc.. are still getting on board planes RIGHT NOW, even with these new procedures?


you have also failed to answer how pre-emptive policing is a bad thing and also haven't provided a solution which in your opinion would be more beneficial than the current systems in place.

I gave you a great example of pre-emptive policing but you didn't like it. Find the terrorists where they are living in country. We'll search everyone's houses until we find them all. That way we can get them before they do any damage at all, still in the planning stage....but again you don't like that


Also, I've posted a number of alternatives, a number of times, you've just failed to read them. Your bad.


You failed in trying to imply that a pat down search would be classed as assault and also failed to justify how a security protocol that could potentially save a life is a bad thing.

It could potentially save a life. So could searching your house. But you think that's a bad thing. You can't have it both ways. Surely you wouldn't mind having your house searched on a regular basis to save a life right?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


And again, you still offer the pathetic reasonings which don't mean jack all, I actually never said I had a problem with peoples homes being searched so you must of missed something there, would I agree with that? Nope, I wouldn't.

But as I have already stated countless times in this thread, you can attempt to make the comparision between home searches and pat downs at airports but sorry it doesn't wash with me.

You are patted down because you refuse to go through the scanner, if your that insecure about your body then get to the gym or something, no TSA agent is really sitting there "checking you out"

Again, because you believe there are ways of getting around systems you think we shouldn't bother at all, ermmm all systems can be broken with enough time and/or energy. Do you use a personal firewall on your computer? If so, why? because according to your logic even though I could break through it eventually you might aswell not bother having one, even if it does deter casual snoopers.

If your that opposed to pat downs, don't fly buddy, thats pretty simple aint it? If your going to tell me your rights are being pulled because it's a human right to fly to another country then just accept there is a possibility of an aerial terror threat and measures are being put into place to guard against it.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


And again, you still offer the pathetic reasonings which don't mean jack all, I actually never said I had a problem with peoples homes being searched so you must of missed something there, would I agree with that? Nope, I wouldn't.

Ok so in one breath you say you don't have a problem with peoples homes being searched then you say you wouldn't agree to have yours searched????? HUH???


But as I have already stated countless times in this thread, you can attempt to make the comparision between home searches and pat downs at airports but sorry it doesn't wash with me.

It's because you're not paying attention.


You are patted down because you refuse to go through the scanner, if your that insecure about your body then get to the gym or something, no TSA agent is really sitting there "checking you out"

The 4th amendment. Read it.


If your that opposed to pat downs, don't fly buddy, thats pretty simple aint it? If your going to tell me your rights are being pulled because it's a human right to fly to another country

I've never stated that it's a human right to fly to ANOTHER COUNTRY. I have stated that I do have the right to travel freely within the borders of my own country without being illegally searched.


then just accept there is a possibility of an aerial terror threat and measures are being put into place to guard against it.

I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists. The reality is, you're not going to reason me into giving up my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS because you're scared of al queda.
You can't protect our FREEDOMS by taking them away.
edit on 20-11-2010 by jfj123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


You have a reading problem my friend, I mentioned that I haven't stated once in this thread that I think home searches are fine however I have just told you I wouldn't agree with them, is that hard to understand?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


You have a reading problem my friend, I mentioned that I haven't stated once in this thread that I think home searches are fine however I have just told you I wouldn't agree with them, is that hard to understand?


This is what you wrote:
"I actually never said I had a problem with peoples homes being searched
This means you DON'T have a problem with peoples homes being searched....ehem.


would I agree with that? Nope, I wouldn't.

This means you DO have a problem with peoples homes being searched


Let me know if you need me to help you understand any of your other posts.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Have you ever been to the UK?

It's not a police state in the way your implying, the police over here are a joke and I'll admit that my personal belief is that they are doing everything wrong, however I still wouldn't object to a pat down search.


I've travelled to the UK a lot and I have to admit, the CCTV makes me very twitchy. I actually find myself very hyperaware of them and where they are located because they stick out to me. There's a few things that have happened that I haven't liked, like sitting in a park near Mayfair, taking pictures of the architecture... because, wow, I'm a tourist, and then getting questioned about why I was taking pictures by a bobby. Also, it unsettles me to see the police walking through Stanstead airport with machine guns. I actually love the UK, don't get me wrong! There was a time when I really wanted to live there. There's just a bit of an Orwellian feeling to things over there now, that unsettles me.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Let's put aside the fact that the x-ray scanners take nudie pics for a minute. What about the fact that they could be dangerous? Is it worth being safe on your flight if the cost is cancer or some other health issue? Should you be treated to an invasive pat-down and an attitude that you are the enemy simply because you don't trust the health safety of a device whose long term effects have yet to be established?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
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.





I'm curious if you're aware of an incident which happened last week at an airport here in the US that didn't even have body scanners? A woman who had already cleared the metal detectors was given an enhanced patdown (which was done incorrectly) because she had special baby formula for her infant with her. You may want to look into that story, because it makes this particular statement erroneous.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin wrote that . . . true then, truer now.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


My objection to the patdowns is that we do not know what type of people are patting us down. Is guy feeling my little boy's junk a guy who is just doing his job, or is he some sort of pervert who got a job with TSA so he can grab little boys' private parts? Is the guy patting down my boy's junk because he is strictly following procedure, or is he patting down my boy's junk because he has a crush on my boy or something?

I know that I will allow people like doctors to touch or look at my private parts or the private parts of my family members, and that some of these people may be perverts, too. But at least I have a say in selecting the doctor who gets to see my kid. My wife has a say in choosing her OB/GYN. Not only do we have the right to refuse contact that makes us feel uncomfortable, but we have the right to refuse PEOPLE who make us feel uncomfortable.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This is what you wrote:
"I actually never said I had a problem with peoples homes being searched

This means you DON'T have a problem with peoples homes being searched....ehem.


would I agree with that? Nope, I wouldn't.

This means you DO have a problem with peoples homes being searched


Let me know if you need me to help you understand any of your other posts.


Nope, it means that I didn't say something your saying I did...

Just like I've alluded to the fact that your an over dramatic nancy, I haven't said it though have I?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


It's not just that. You have to consider, how is this affecting my son! He's being told it's ok for an adult to do this. Also what unconscious/semi-traumatic effects might this have for really young children later on.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


My objection to the patdowns is that we do not know what type of people are patting us down. Is guy feeling my little boy's junk a guy who is just doing his job, or is he some sort of pervert who got a job with TSA so he can grab little boys' private parts? Is the guy patting down my boy's junk because he is strictly following procedure, or is he patting down my boy's junk because he has a crush on my boy or something?

I know that I will allow people like doctors to touch or look at my private parts or the private parts of my family members, and that some of these people may be perverts, too. But at least I have a say in selecting the doctor who gets to see my kid. My wife has a say in choosing her OB/GYN. Not only do we have the right to refuse contact that makes us feel uncomfortable, but we have the right to refuse PEOPLE who make us feel uncomfortable.


Oh please!

Have you ever been subjected to a pat down?

There is no special emphasis on the groin region and the whole process is over in less than one minute, to suggest that TSA employees are essentially pedophiles and/or child molesters that have chosen that particular career to legally touch children for their own sexual gratification is ridiculous!

That's like saying police officers have only picked that career field so they can enjoy beating people senseless or that soliders only do the job they do because they have a secret killing fetish, silly blanket logic and stereotypical assumptions at the worst.

Do you know what would really make you feel uncomfortable? A terrorist or criminal pulling a ceramic knife to your kids throat at 30,000 feet in the air, if pat down searches are a method to stop that happening then why are you so against them?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


It's not just that. You have to consider, how is this affecting my son! He's being told it's ok for an adult to do this. Also what unconscious/semi-traumatic effects might this have for really young children later on.


Please show me some sort of evidence that young children in particular are being subjected to physical pat downs. I can imagine the thread title now "I was abused by a TSA agent as a child, still suffering the mental trauma"



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taliesien333
Let's put aside the fact that the x-ray scanners take nudie pics for a minute. What about the fact that they could be dangerous? Is it worth being safe on your flight if the cost is cancer or some other health issue? Should you be treated to an invasive pat-down and an attitude that you are the enemy simply because you don't trust the health safety of a device whose long term effects have yet to be established?


Then don't use a mobile phone, watch the TV, surf the internet, use a microwave, cross the road or eat food thats just come out of the oven,

A pat down doesn't assume you are the enemy, it's a method to prove your not carrying something you shouldn't be and essentiallly a deterent for anyone that might be up to no good.




top topics



 
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join