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: 15
3
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 

Not at all. I used YOUR own post against you. That's your fault for lying.



Haha, okay sure, what ever you say.

Again, here is YOUR post.
"I actually never said I had a problem with peoples homes being searched would I agree with that? Nope, I wouldn't. "
Your post, not mine.



No it's not so you didn't actually read it. I'll go ahead and repost the part I was referring to.



Wow, you really do have issues if you believe that someone touching you without your consent is assault, I suppose it's down to people like you that we have the current claim culture in todays society.

I posted what the law states, not my opinion of it. If you have issues with the laws, change them.



If you don't agree with having your home randomly searched, don't own a home.



Already pointed out to you that my home isn't a public place and that members of the public do not walk through it on a daily basis

irrelevant.

so therefore I'm causing no potential for a threat. Try again...

We don't know that unless we search it...do we?
We don't know what potential threat to the public you pose unless we search your home and all your belongings and pry into your lifestyle. You may be an al queda sleeper agent. How do we know unless we check? And wouldn't it be safer for everyone if they found bomb making materials at the home as opposed to the bomb at the airport? I mean they're just trying to protect you RIGHT? Surely that is more important then a little privacy RIGHT?
You can't have it both ways. If you're going to allow invasions for public safety in one instance, you must allow them in all instances or the logic of your argument won't hold.




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Ermmm the passenger is still wearing their clothes, no issue here.
edit on 21/11/10 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)

Assuming you're married, you wouldn't mind if someone walked up to your wife and said they were going to fondle her breasts and other area's. The person would be telling her ahead of time so that isn't an issue. She would still be wearing clothes so that isn't an issue. Do you think she would have a problem with that? Would you?



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 




Again, here is YOUR post. "I actually never said I had a problem with peoples homes being searched would I agree with that? Nope, I wouldn't. "


Again, at that point I had never mentioned anything about peoples homes being searched, you implied I did when I hadn't, so who's the one lying?



I posted what the law states, not my opinion of it. If you have issues with the laws, change them.


Nope, you posted your interpretation of that law, someone cannot be charged for assault for touching someone without their permission unless that person makes a complaint, which in my opinion and that of many others is an extremely petty thing to do.



irrelevant.


It's absolutely relevant as it highlights the exact same point your trying to make... and quashes it, there is no reason for public security protocols to be implemented in my home as it's a private residence and there isn't an influx of people passing through who could possibly be subjected to danger.



Surely that is more important then a little privacy RIGHT?


Privacy in my own home is entirely different my my privacy if I'm in an immediate position to potentially cause danger or harm thousands of innocent people. Yes, I could be making the bombs in my house but I'm at no danger of ending anyones life apart from possibly my own, oh and by the way we have measures put into place to catch me making bombs at home so that argument is redundant.



Assuming you're married, you wouldn't mind if someone walked up to your wife and said they were going to fondle her breasts and other area's. The person would be telling her ahead of time so that isn't an issue. She would still be wearing clothes so that isn't an issue. Do you think she would have a problem with that? Would you?


Once again, more blatant over exaggeration and fear mongering. There is a clear cut difference between "fondling" and a pat down search;


fondled past participle; Stroke or caress lovingly or erotically,"the dog came over to have his ears fondled",charges that he fondled a patient during an examination


As I have mentioned countless amount of times in this thread (although you do not seem to listen or even attempt to make a compromise as to the realistic description of what we are actually talking about) no system is perfect and yes of course it's possible that in rare situations a TSA agent maybe actually take their pat down too far; however in that situation they would be dealt with appropriately, lose their job and face criminal charges.

TSA agents do not want to "fondle" people and your mistaking the whole idea of a pat down search; they are designed to detect hidden weapons or other illegal contraband, not designed to give TSA employees a mid morning sexual kick.

Scanners and/or pat downs may make some people uncomfortable, I can fully understand that to a degree, however I'd rather risk upsetting a few people and causing minor emotional discomfort than run the risk of a terrorist smuggling weapons onto a plane.

To compare pat down searches to sexual abuse or sit here quoting and informing me that unwanted touching can be classed as assault is shear over dramatization at it's best and a little pathetic.

As I've already mentioned, time and time again, if your that opposed to undergoing a physical search then you have issues that need dealing with and to "inform" me that you would sue if you was touched without giving your permission is laughable, I'd love to pat you on the back without your permission and see the cops reaction when you try and charge me for assault.

It's just more proof that people are making the world a sad, pathetic claim culture where you can sue for having hurt feelings.

Finally, if your really that bothered and opposed to pat down searches then don't fly, reply as much as you want about "don't own a home then", you can find alternative methods of arriving at your destination, it's not that difficult.

You seem to have missed my analogy about personally not liking the fact that I can't smoke inside pubs no longer, but the premise still stands; if I want to enter said pub then I have to abide by the rules, same with flying whether you like it or not.
edit on 21/11/10 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
It's scary to think about what governments have done in the name of "safety and security", and will continue to do. It's all a smokescreen. "Terrorists" are puppets. There are some major games going on behind the scenes and this new TSA protocol is just a symptom.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 



Again, here is YOUR post. "I actually never said I had a problem with peoples homes being searched would I agree with that? Nope, I wouldn't. "



Again, at that point I had never mentioned anything about peoples homes being searched, you implied I did when I hadn't, so who's the one lying?

It's in your post. It's posted right above your response. I'm referring to that post.
How can you not know what YOU wrote?
Do you have a closed head injury or something?



I posted what the law states, not my opinion of it. If you have issues with the laws, change them.



Nope, you posted your interpretation of that law,

I posted EXACTLY what the law states with a source. Not my interpretation of it.
If you don't believe me, look at the source. DUH !!!!


someone cannot be charged for assault for touching someone without their permission unless that person makes a complaint, which in my opinion and that of many others is an extremely petty thing to do.

That's YOUR interpretation of the law. The law states that if someone touches you without permission, IT IS ASSAULT. It's black and white.



Surely that is more important then a little privacy RIGHT?



Privacy in my own home is entirely different my my privacy if I'm in an immediate position to potentially cause danger or harm thousands of innocent people. Yes, I could be making the bombs in my house but I'm at no danger of ending anyones life apart from possibly my own,

and anyone close to your home. What if you're building a bioweapon? then everyone within miles would be in danger. Best use your logic and search your home. You know, to protect us from danger




Assuming you're married, you wouldn't mind if someone walked up to your wife and said they were going to fondle her breasts and other area's. The person would be telling her ahead of time so that isn't an issue. She would still be wearing clothes so that isn't an issue. Do you think she would have a problem with that? Would you?



There is a clear cut difference between "fondling" and a pat down search;

So if someone comes to her and says they're going to "pat her down", you wouldn't have a problem with that...Got it
I'm sure she'll be pleased to find that out



TSA agents do not want to "fondle" people and your mistaking the whole idea of a pat down search; they are designed to detect hidden weapons or other illegal contraband,

And searching your home is designed to find hidden weapons or other illegal contraband



To compare pat down searches to sexual abuse or sit here quoting and informing me that unwanted touching can be classed as assault is shear over dramatization at it's best and a little pathetic.

I posted the letter of the law when it comes to assault. You and agree with the law or not, but it doesn't change that law.


I'd love to pat you on the back without your permission and see the cops reaction when you try and charge me for assault.

Try it and see. Maybe you'll get patted back


edit on 21-11-2010 by jfj123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 




Haha, okay wise guy, I'd love to sit here and post counter quotes to your madness but I neither have the time or the inclination, your allowed to believe what you want old chap and me also, it appears we may need to agree to disagree but your blatent over exaggeration, fear mongering and personal interpretation of the law is more than telling and I don't need to post anything more to ridicule your argument.

Funny though, you would like to "pat me back", I guess we will see each other in court then when you present your counter sue


Oh by the way, make sure your clean from Venereal disease, thats another thing being spread by TSA agents according to one of your cronies.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 




Haha, okay wise guy, I'd love to sit here and post counter quotes to your madness but I neither have the time or the inclination, your allowed to believe what you want old chap and me also, it appears we may need to agree to disagree

YEP



but your blatent over exaggeration, fear mongering and

Your opinion which you are entitled to...because you have your FREEDOM



personal interpretation of the law

I've not interpreted anything my friend. I've posted the law EXACTLY as written. Bummer huh



Funny though, you would like to "pat me back", I guess we will see each other in court then when you present your counter sue

If you pat me first, my return pat would be considered self defense



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Haha


I'd love to see how your justification of me patting you on the back would allow you to react in self defence? Going to punch me because I patted your back? I hope you have a good lawyer.

Anyways my old bean, win some lose some, I know where I stand



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soulshock
It's scary to think about what governments have done in the name of "safety and security", and will continue to do. It's all a smokescreen. "Terrorists" are puppets. There are some major games going on behind the scenes and this new TSA protocol is just a symptom.


for those who think 'safety and security' are overrated, research how people live in places like Mogadishu where the government system breaks down.

it would be nice to live in a world where everybody gets along, but there is always a least common denominator to ruin things for the rest of us.

the puppets are real. they are bad. they want to kill you.
TSA is trying to protect you from the puppets.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
The sole reason Airport Security is being done by the Fed's is because they can get out of liability.

If Airport Security was done by a Company it would not be rubbing down a 5 year old boys genitals or ripping people's pee bags from their bodies.

They would have liability for damages. Since the Fed is doing it, they can get away with it because they can never be found liable for maiming, injuring, or infringing rights.

Welcome to the Police State. There's going to be more to come. 2014 is when we get our RFIDs under ObamaCare along with MANDATORY vaccinations. Because its going to be another Federal jackbooted thug operation.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by jfj123
 


Haha


I'd love to see how your justification of me patting you on the back would allow you to react in self defence? Going to punch me because I patted your back? I hope you have a good lawyer.

Anyways my old bean, win some lose some, I know where I stand

Nope, I'd just pat you on the back

No harm no fowl



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by works4dhs

Originally posted by Soulshock
It's scary to think about what governments have done in the name of "safety and security", and will continue to do. It's all a smokescreen. "Terrorists" are puppets. There are some major games going on behind the scenes and this new TSA protocol is just a symptom.


for those who think 'safety and security' are overrated, research how people live in places like Mogadishu where the government system breaks down.

it would be nice to live in a world where everybody gets along, but there is always a least common denominator to ruin things for the rest of us.

the puppets are real. they are bad. they want to kill you.
TSA is trying to protect you from the puppets.

That's great and all except that it entails losing our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Are you good with that?
I'm not.
Most Americans are not.
The reality is that you cannot be free AND safe. You must pick one.
I pick FREE.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 

Keep in mind that most of the security that has been put in place (ie the body scanners and pat downs) started with approval from the bush administration. Those scanners have been in the works for YEARS.
My point is, I hope you're not trusting the republicans either.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
If you are a Muslim male age 19 - 45 then you get scanned. Leave the rest of us the F alone!
edit on 21-11-2010 by joyride0187 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Read about where the scanners came from and you might learn something.
A lot of it comes down to a man that stands to make a lot of money off of these scanners also being in a position to institute them. Also it is about easing us into a state where these measures are the rule.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by works4dhs

Originally posted by Soulshock
It's scary to think about what governments have done in the name of "safety and security", and will continue to do. It's all a smokescreen. "Terrorists" are puppets. There are some major games going on behind the scenes and this new TSA protocol is just a symptom.


for those who think 'safety and security' are overrated, research how people live in places like Mogadishu where the government system breaks down.

it would be nice to live in a world where everybody gets along, but there is always a least common denominator to ruin things for the rest of us.

the puppets are real. they are bad. they want to kill you.
TSA is trying to protect you from the puppets.

That's great and all except that it entails losing our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Are you good with that?
I'm not.
Most Americans are not.
The reality is that you cannot be free AND safe. You must pick one.
I pick FREE.


as you suggest, we can't have safety w/o security that some will find intrusive. the majority of the flying public has voted with their feet to accept this (they, after all, have the most to lose)
I appreciate your point of view, but this is the world we live in.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


A knife aint ****, how many people would YOU feel you could take on with a brittle ceramic knife. Are they going to cut a hole in the cockpit door with it? No. At most a few people would get cut.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FrancoUn-American
 


Like on 9/11 when those guys only had boxcutters?



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
First it was the airports, now they are working on bus stations. seriously before long it will be checkpoints on every highway at the state line in every state. All in the name of safety.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FrancoUn-American
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


A knife aint ****, how many people would YOU feel you could take on with a brittle ceramic knife. Are they going to cut a hole in the cockpit door with it? No. At most a few people would get cut.


Great!

"at most a few people would get cut" as opposed to none, I know which scenario I'd pick.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join