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.

 

Former Governer Jesse Ventura now refusing to fly commercial airlines

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by ProvehitoInAltum
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I believe the intent was that the NJ State legislature is that they feel that there are violations of the 4th ammendment taking place with the new procedures. Unfortunately I have as yet been able to sucessfully embed something

Video of the press conference


edit on 19-11-2010 by ProvehitoInAltum because: (no reason given)


Yes, I'm certain that that are arguing that is violates the 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure); however, I don't see it as unreasonable. 80% of America doesn't see it as unreasonable. I don't think these NJ state legislatures have much of an argument here. Only time will tell.


They do in so much as they also feel some of the measures violate New Jersey state law. Which then does make it their job to look into the issues and complaints. Whether or not we, as regular citizens, find something that is unconstitutional to be 'acceptable' or not, it is the duty of our law makers to uphold the Constitution, or amend it to allow such a measure to be allowed withn the framework of constitionality.




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I haven't been on a plane for about 7 years and in my opinion all this "security" stuff is pointless and wastes time and money, although I did think the idea of putting air marshals with rubber bullets on planes was a great idea. But I'm not too thrilled about getting more doses of potentially dangerous radiation, so I think I'll pass.
edit on 19-11-2010 by duke396 because: nit picking myself



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProvehitoInAltum
They do in so much as they also feel some of the measures violate New Jersey state law. Which then does make it their job to look into the issues and complaints. Whether or not we, as regular citizens, find something that is unconstitutional to be 'acceptable' or not, it is the duty of our law makers to uphold the Constitution, or amend it to allow such a measure to be allowed withn the framework of constitionality.


The question here is: who has jurisdiction over any given airport? The state or the Federal government? I say the federal government does, as there is interstate travel (in most cases anyway). Therefore, if NJ has a law that the federal government is "violating" within the airport, then federal law trumps state law. Certainly, it is our lawmakers job to uphold the constitution. However, as I said in my previous post, I do not see these security measures as unreasonable searches. So, who are the law makers going to defend in this case? The 80% that believe the searches are constitutional or the 20% who don't think they are constitutional. the 20% is going to lose every time.

Now, if flying was the only means of transportation, then a stronger argument could possibly be made; however, no one was born with a right to fly. Flying is a privilege that comes with some personal sacrifice (if one believes the security measures are a sacrifice).



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
These security measures are absolutely unconstitutional and violate the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, no matter what the TSA says. At minimum, the government must have "reasonable suspicion" to stop and search anyone. Simply attempting to board an airplane does not constitute reasonable suspicion. If someone causes an airport metal detector to beep, this could be considered reasonable suspicion. But, to simply randomly pull someone out of line and request they go through a body scanner or pat down without any type of reasonable suspicion that they have done something or are about to do something is unconstitutional.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Whether the TSA intrusions are constitutional or not has yet to be weighed by the courts. I would think that the "Video Voyeurism Act" would apply to this also given that these things are done in such a public manner and it seems many images of bodies that were captured through TSA body scanning are running wild out there. This is total disregard for the rights and dignity of citizens. Besides these terror threats are questionable....spoon-feeding the fear needed in order that we submit.

After enough of this kind of image on televisions everywhere I'll bet before too long that 80% approval will drop.
vigilantcitizen.com...



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by ProvehitoInAltum
They do in so much as they also feel some of the measures violate New Jersey state law. Which then does make it their job to look into the issues and complaints. Whether or not we, as regular citizens, find something that is unconstitutional to be 'acceptable' or not, it is the duty of our law makers to uphold the Constitution, or amend it to allow such a measure to be allowed withn the framework of constitionality.


The question here is: who has jurisdiction over any given airport? The state or the Federal government? I say the federal government does, as there is interstate travel (in most cases anyway). Therefore, if NJ has a law that the federal government is "violating" within the airport, then federal law trumps state law. Certainly, it is our lawmakers job to uphold the constitution. However, as I said in my previous post, I do not see these security measures as unreasonable searches. So, who are the law makers going to defend in this case? The 80% that believe the searches are constitutional or the 20% who don't think they are constitutional. the 20% is going to lose every time.

Now, if flying was the only means of transportation, then a stronger argument could possibly be made; however, no one was born with a right to fly. Flying is a privilege that comes with some personal sacrifice (if one believes the security measures are a sacrifice).


Actually based on some things I was reading yesterday about one airport looking into opting out (that is in the original creation of the TSA, airports can elect to hire their own private security) that airports are actually not 'public' or 'federal' institutions. There are a handful of airports that have never had TSA agents, prefering private security firms. They must follow federally mandated screening processes, but from what I've read the private firms go about the procedures in a far more profressional manner than some TSA agents do. After all they would have to in order to compete with rival firms.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


The Federal Government is conducting these searches...their policies, their paid goons. You do realize that state and federal authorities are guided by our constitution in their treatment of us.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


The Federal Government is conducting these searches...their policies, their paid goons. You do realize that state and federal authorities are guided by our constitution in their treatment of us.


Unfortunately, it seems like too much of our Federal goverment either doesn't understand the Constution or really couldn't giive two hoots about upholding it. It amazes me daily how much this country has really changed (and not for the better!) in the last 45 years :/



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The Supreme Court has already visited this issue of pat down searches in Terry vs. Ohio. In this decision, the court stated the minimum requirement of reasonable suspicion in order to perform a pat down search of a persons outer clothing. There are reports of TSA officers placing thier hands inside the clothing of people. This constitutes a strip search, whereby a law enforcement officer must have more than reasonable suspicion. Any way you look at it, the TSA is overstepping its authority by subjecting people to searches without any suspicion that the person has done something or is about to do something.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mannie159
 


So there is already SCOTUS precedent in regards to this? Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. That definitely adds an entirely new layer to the dabate. So, in essence, the procedures really ARE painting everyone going through the security checkpoints as having a reasonable suspicion of being terrorists. I had actually thought that was a bit of rhetorical license that people were utilizing in their discussions,



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
17 airports have opted out
so look for a terrorist event eminating from one or more of them shortly.
Wrecking xmass would prolly be about their speed.

JV pointed out on AJ today that like the pilots who pilot the big missles and carry a gun, he is a navy seal, a Vietnam vet, an ex mayor, and an ex governor..he doesn't have to prove his integrity.

I've developed a great deal of respect for Jesse Ventura.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
17 airports have opted out
so look for a terrorist event eminating from one or more of them shortly.
Wrecking xmass would prolly be about their speed.



That would be sick, sad and sorry, and yet, part of me must grudgingly agree with this assesment. Just what we need is another 'false flag' incident.

What I find entirely ironic is that many of the folks who are content with the current status quo and go on and on about the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber, seem to ignore the fact that neither of these incidents constitue a broach of AMERICAN airport security. They both occured at foreign airports. Funny how that works.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ProvehitoInAltum
 

good point about that

yes I read that all the HI jackers came through the same Israeli security company.
the state department had to admit they put the underwear bummer on the plane without a passport or a visa.
I don't know what more needs to be said.


edit on 19-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NoArmsJames
 


Who cares if he is an ego maniac? Show me one leader that doesn't have his own problems and Ill give you a crisp $100 bill.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Jesse is what they call a natural...
Either you like him or hate him, but most people do like him.
Instincts are everything, and Jesse has shown hes got them.
Being successful usually does that...but this guy is all round natural.
As far as the refusal to fly goes, i agree it would be most annoying to have metal body parts that set off detectors, and relegate one to a pat down, but it is also aparent that these machines emit harmful rays....which may or may not react with internal metals.The long term use of these is not exactly safe yet.
Being Jesse, he will undoubtedly have provisions made for this proclivity,but none of us can afford such extravagances.
How many aircraft have gone down lately by the way?
It apears the security measures in place are working fairly well.....
The psychological effect of the people submitting to this scan is going to be far greater than the actual scan, in my opine, they will be really giving up the sanctity of their person, and will never get it back.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by ProvehitoInAltum
They do in so much as they also feel some of the measures violate New Jersey state law. Which then does make it their job to look into the issues and complaints. Whether or not we, as regular citizens, find something that is unconstitutional to be 'acceptable' or not, it is the duty of our law makers to uphold the Constitution, or amend it to allow such a measure to be allowed withn the framework of constitionality.


The question here is: who has jurisdiction over any given airport? The state or the Federal government? I say the federal government does, as there is interstate travel (in most cases anyway). Therefore, if NJ has a law that the federal government is "violating" within the airport, then federal law trumps


The federal government cannot violate federal law or higher law A.KA. the constitution ( the supreme law of the land) Any more than you or I can.

edit on 19-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
yes aggie man genital searching three year olds is acceptable?
really?
you should apply for the job.
someone has to do it and I don't think clinton is a good candidate for the position.

as to Jesse being an "ego maniac..."
its well and good to insult some one who isn't here to defend him self with ad hominim attacks....
ATS considers that a very cheap and disrespectful tactic that usually backfires on the one(s) spouting it.
coming from people who couldn't fill one of his socks.


edit on 19-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Nobody is asking or forcing Ventura to fly, so he can't refuse to fly. Rather, he chooses not to fly. For those thinking the security measures at airports is a violation of your rights, think again. It is merely a condition you must accept if you want the benefit of faster means of travel. Don't like TSA's terms of flight, then do as Ventura is doing: Choose to walk, drive, take a train ride or a boat. 80% of Americans favor the airport security measures and the other 20% are just looking for something to complain about.



So , I guess you are one of the Sheeple in this great Country of ours that think giving up your 4TH Amendment Constitutional Rights for the Allusion of being " Safe " is Exceptible " ? Think Again !
edit on 19-11-2010 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Nobody is asking or forcing Ventura to fly, so he can't refuse to fly. Rather, he chooses not to fly. For those thinking the security measures at airports is a violation of your rights, think again. It is merely a condition you must accept if you want the benefit of faster means of travel. Don't like TSA's terms of flight, then do as Ventura is doing: Choose to walk, drive, take a train ride or a boat. 80% of Americans favor the airport security measures and the other 20% are just looking for something to complain about.


Very well stated. How can someone refuse to do something that they are choosing to do in the first place.
I regularly make trips where I choose to drive, but I am certainly not refusing to fly. If I choose to fly, I am certainly not refusing to drive.

Thank you for posting the links stating that 4 out of 5 Americans are in favor here as well. I knew someone would call you out for sources!

I have a question though. Do we known that 'The Body' actually does not already fly privately?



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
What a "hero"! End his career? LOL!
Here's what will happen; TruTV will pick up the tab for a private plane. This was a well timed power play by this ego maniac.


Why would it make a difference what plane he flew?
ALL passengers still have to go through security first..



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join