TSA: Travelers Who Refuse Scanning Can't Leave, Will Be Fined

reply to post by HunkaHunka


kind of like how the TSA's biggest mouthpiece (janet napolitano) came out and said that the hopkins university claims the machines are safe.

when if you actually go look, they said the exact opposite.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

kind of like how the TSA's biggest mouthpiece (janet napolitano) came out and said that the hopkins university claims the machines are safe.

when if you actually go look, they said the exact opposite.

No not like that at all... one is based on findings, the other on policy...

Stop derailing the topic.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


i guess your right, credibility means nothing these days.

second sarcastic line.

reply to post by destination now


It does matter if it is England or the USA. This thread is specifically about the policy of the United States of America Transportation Security Administration. This administration has s strict policy of notexempting people because of religious sensibilities. This is pertinent to the laws of the United States of America which do not apply to England and the other countries in the UK.

When our citizens do not even understand that our laws are only indigenous to us and this in our sovereignty, how can we expect them to defend those rights stated in those laws? Oh...this is going to be a very difficult and frustrating fight, because ignorance (meaning lack of understanding the facts) runs so deep.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

i guess your right,

Thank you!

reply to post by HunkaHunka

i listened to the guy tell his own story
THEY TOLD HIM TO LEAVE THEN THEY TOLD HIM THEY WERE GOING TO FINE HIM FOR LEAVING
I call hoax on the call of hoax....

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

i guess your right,

Thank you for enlightening me!

your very welcome.

and for those of you who still cherish honesty:

DHS claim to safety

DHS's own source claiming otherwise

reply to post by Missing Blue Sky

It does matter if it is England or the USA.

Just so you know, England is a country within the UK, I don't live in England, I live in Scotland, which is also a country within the UK. And I hope for your sake that you are wrong about US policy not discriminating on religious grounds, because if it starts to change, you'll see what I mean. And remember just because there is not a written policy on something, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Even if it took place in the UK, it's going to happen here eventually- that country is all but lost to the muslim encroachment and we're coming up next in line. If the TSA is going to want to grab my package and feel up my wife, they had damn well better start lifting some veils and investigating what's under those robes and headgear.

Racial profiling? You bet. Why not? Normal American citizens are being "profiled", might as well spread the love.

reply to post by Dero


meanwhile at the southern border.

not a one of these machines to be seen for miles....


i guess terrorists prefer frequent flier miles.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Oh yeah, accuse me of having vested interests because I have an opposing opinion and viewpoint of the world. How very mature of you.

I can easily say you have vested interests too, look at yourself, you are supporting chaos and not order. You appear to be a provocateur trying to rile up hatred and fear of government in order to spark outrage and revolt. Well done.

You my commical friend, might actually want to consider that every American has a sacred obligation to defend their liberties and rights and if need be replace a tyranical government who abuses the people in their persons and priveleges.

The tree of Liberty must in fact be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots, despots and tyrants.

Most Americans in fact at this point do hate our government, for not only have they bankrupted us to spurious and questionable debts, but have failed to disclose fully to whom those debts are owed and precisely why. They refuse to give the people who's name those debts are taken out in, a full and accurate accounting.

Most Americans do fear the Government because 600,000 laws, 280,000 attached with criminal penalty are now regulating every aspect of our life, and are enforced through an increasingly larger and larger and more abusive cadre of henchmen employed by the state.

We have the highest per capita prison population in the world, most of them there for non-violent and victimless offenses that simply profit the increasing security industrial complex that you most definately are either a schill for, or the benefactor of a nation, that sees some advantage in keeping Americans blinded and fearflul, and obedient, to our corrupt politicians financial malfeasance and misguided foreign policies.

The people themselves, absent government, have an inherent and natural right to seek and maintain their own security, through tracking and cataloging such people to hold account for their crimes and infractions upon our liberties.

While such agents often operate over long periods with impunity history will show, that in due course, those Masters and Causes that they serve, are eventually brought down and overthrown and the henchmen as well as the leaders in such systems and other conspirators held to account, often with the most extreme measure as can be concieved.

I would highly advise because of the changing political climate, all corporate schills and agent provacatuers engaged by foreign entities to rethink their participation in attempting to perpetuate these frauds and schemes and offenses upon the people of this great land.

Failure to cease and desist in these activities may in fact result in the gravest of consequences for all those involved in such frauds, perjuries, schemes and offenses that infringe on or sully, or otherwise detract and or deminish from the liberties of aforementioned denizens of this land.

Thanks.

Originally posted by watermama
Just more stupid internet rumors being thrown around.

Airport Staff Exposed Woman's Breasts, Laughed,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this one
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And yeah, don't you think the real news stations would be all over this???

Apparently not

Originally posted by harvib
I think what they are saying is that TSA agents fear accusations of religious prosecution and therefore are not treating those of a particular faith the same as everyone else.

That's fine. Let's see some proof that that's happening. That's all I'm asking. But it's kind of off topic to this thread. I didn't mean to take it off topic, I just wanted to stop the spread of untrue information.

BTW I love your signature! It is spot on!

Thanks. I think so, too.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
i think you need to understand that if Muslims are being exempt, its due to TSA discretion.

IF Muslims are being exempted? IF. If Christians are being exempted, then it's due to TSA discretion, too.

Have any proof that either is happening?

I totally disapprove of what's happening in airports under the new TSA rules, but there's enough to criticize without making stuff up! And this is ATS. We're supposed to be BETTER than your average Blog! Get the truth, people. Don't make ATS just another rumor mill that spreads lies. We're better than that!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


i never made any claims that it was happening. so yes "IF" if *IF* -IF- =IF= (IF) [IF] it is happening, its do to agent discretion. point being, it wouldnt matter if the policy read "all those whos name begins with the letter T are hereby exempt from being scanned"

your name could be Timmy Tom Tooter, and an agent via his/her own discretion could still pull you out and force you to use the scanner.

heres a diagram to help you understand.



perhaps they should stick to either policy, or discretion. instead of flip flopping between the 2 creating contradictions in apparent behavior. if its policy then there should be no room for "exceptions". if its discretion then the agent should be held liable for his/her actions..

whenever its discretion, they site policy.

when its outside of policy, they site discretion.

this creates confusion and uncertainty.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
kind of like how the TSA's biggest mouthpiece (janet napolitano) came out and said that the hopkins university claims the machines are safe.

...and for those of you who still cherish honesty:

DHS claim to safety

DHS's own source claiming otherwise

Since when have x-rays become 'safe'? You go to any hospital and they give you lead shielding so you don't get over exposure, especially to your private parts to stop sterility...

So how about a frequent flyer that makes several business flights a week? Has anyone even considered the accumulated dosage of x-rays?

And they x-ray your head as well? And no one is concerned about all this radiation that for decades the medical profession has been taken pains to avoid over exposing people and staff?


I see people saying that the terrorists now rule.. NO it is our FEAR of POTENTIAL terrorists that has done this.

When did America become a nation of WUSSIES?

Okay so I looked... and here it is in TSA's own report



www.tsa.gov...

So how do they determine if a frequent flyer has reached the maximum annual doasge to maintain safety?

At this rate we won't need to worry about the terrorists bombs... because in the interest of safety everyone gets NUKED

No one concerned about this?

When did America become a nation of WUSSIES?

Around the late 80's and 1990's when political correctness became "important".

reply to post by zorgon


your very correct.

most of the people downplaying this issue can count on 1 hand how many times they fly per year.

Jesse ventura says he might not even have a television show next season, because hes decided not to fly. he has a metal plate in his hip so it sets off the metal detector and then hes forced to do the scanner everytime.

for a person flying 4-5 times a week this is a huge deal.

i worked at a dental office and they took the radiation shielding VERY seriously. and im no technician but the machines we used only scanned your mouth....and we needed full on led apron + hide behind led wall.

my problem is that the government has an "acceptable dose limit"

whereas my acceptable dose, is no dose.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
i never made any claims that it was happening. so yes "IF" if *IF* -IF- =IF= (IF) [IF] it is happening, its do to agent discretion.

Bit you don't see the problem in making the suggestion that the TSA is exempting certain people?

IF Ron Paul is a child molester, he's being awfully careful about hiding it from the public...

You don't see a problem with making that statement? I mean, factually, it's true, but is it fair to Ron Paul?

Thanks for the diagram. It's adorable!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Neither does this one... The link that makes that claim, says nothing about people being treated as terror suspects.

Passengers who set off a metal detector at airport security checkpoints must submit to a scan or body search, or face arrest and an $11,000 fine.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Why all the TSA security? Because of the alleged threat of terroism right?
Why face arrest if you refuse to get scanned or groped?
Because you are a terror suspect
Any questions?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

perhaps they should stick to either policy, or discretion. instead of flip flopping between the 2 creating contradictions in apparent behavior. if its policy then there should be no room for "exceptions". if its discretion then the agent should be held liable for his/her actions..

whenever its discretion, they site policy.

when its outside of policy, they site discretion.

this creates confusion and uncertainty.

btw im basing this on the accounts of all the women who felt they were singled out because of their attractiveness/breast size. not accounts of muslims being singled out.

however, in a scenario involving a muslim, they would use the same tactics.

so quite frankly it doesnt matter IF its happening, it matters that it CAN happen.

and before you go spewing some senseless statement along the lines of:

"well Ron Paul COULD go drive his car into a gas station and blow the whole place up"

Ron paul is not entrusted with the duty and obligation of securing my travel. they need to close the door that provides the avenue for this to occur.