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 Modifies Pat Downs/Protests dated for 11/24/10

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


No because again YOU DON'T NEED TO FLY! Is that so hard to understand? Just because we have the right too doesn't mean anyone is forcing you! There are other ways to travel and people used them for thousands of years I'm sure you'll get by.




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


i mearly posed a question to you, there is no need to be quite so aggresive, why do you come to this web site?, you didnt answer the question as far as i could see, do you come here for other topics? or just to argue the governments corner??



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


i mearly posed a question to you, there is no need to be quite so aggresive, why do you come to this web site?, you didnt answer the question as far as i could see, do you come here for other topics? or just to argue the governments corner??


You clearly missed my point, you could take a look at my profile if you'd like to know what it is I enjoy here. Your question is pointless and I did answer it, clearly it went over your head. Why are you here? To jump on every single conspiracy bandwagon that goes by? To be part of whats popular? Since you haven't given anything of value to the thread I'd say that's why.
edit on 24-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by zerbot565
 


I think it does because the airports as far as I know aren't heavily funded by tax dollars but instead work off of profits. So basically I'm pretty damn sure that if you don't follow their rules they don't have to let you fly, kind of like how you can't take pictures in a casino, you have the right too but not on their turf.


The key words in your post are "as far as I know..." It's really obvious you don't. Airports are funded by federal/state/local taxes under the Federal Airport Act of 1946, and since 1983, by the Airport Improvement Act. The fed taxpayers fund 90% while the state usually contributes 5% and whatever locality or localities control or will control the airport contribute the other 5%. The 2010 FAA budget contains $22.5 billion for airports. There is also an Airport and Airway Trust Fund administered by the feds to handle excise taxes levied on tickets, fuel, cargo waybills, passenger segment charges. And the TSA doesn't own the airport. The federal government doesn't even own them, except for DCA and IAD, Look at www.faa.gov... And neither the TSA nor the FAA has any law enforcement authority. Not even a 1 bullet in the pocket Barney Fife authority. They are one step below Mall Cops. Anyway, it's off to MCO to see how hard these Burger King frycook rejects want to enforce TSA MD100.4.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Reused TSA gloves? Yet another reason to refuse pat downs. Think about what they have touched before they touch you. If I ever get a pat down demand they put on a fresh pair of gloves.
www.wnd.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Ok so people not flying and them saying they were losing business after 911 must've been because those tax dollars weren't rolling in? Sorry I believe the money coming into the airports is much greater then the tax dollars.

And from this article, those funds given by the government were for structural uses in the airports, airport planning, and airport maintenance. This has nothing to do with the privately owned airline companies and any business that may be in the airport that both have to pay taxes for everything used to the state and federal government. You should read into what you post more because those taxes do not go to private companies.

www.tcpilots.org...

Also I never said the TSA has actual power, I did although say if you'd like to test it, take a chance and tell us all what happened. I guarantee if you are trying to board a plane and refuse both you will be held. Whether you want to or not, then why not try to run... things would get really interesting then!
edit on 24-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Outofbox
 


Thats a common practice gloves should be removed after use of each person, thats the policy. Much like doctors in the hospital always have to change gloves. This is up to the management to control and if not they could be liable.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Outofbox
Reused TSA gloves? Yet another reason to refuse pat downs. Think about what they have touched before they touch you. If I ever get a pat down demand they put on a fresh pair of gloves.
www.wnd.com...


Its like when you try on clothes in stores, you really should not, and when you buy new clothes you should wash them before wearing. The reason is the same as above, you do not know what person touched them before, or did someone try them on or something.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Thats a common practice gloves should be removed after use of each person, thats the policy. Much like doctors in the hospital always have to change gloves. This is up to the management to control and if not they could be liable.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Also for anyone thinking the Israeli way is better read this article it may change your mind: www.cleveland.com...

The article states that yes Israel has a better track record for safety but they also only have 2 airports and about 50 flights a day, Compared to the US's 450 airports and thousands of flights a day, thats the first problem. Secondly the Israeli security deals mainly in racial profiling, they also acquire detailed information about you before you fly, a background of your life, any criminal activity, country of origin, credit checks, and even reasons to why your flying. Many of these issues would be fought over here since just about all of them are unconstitutional. So for anyone saying lets embrace the Israeli way I'd think about it a bit more.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
A little more on Israeli Security:

As part of its focus on this so-called "human factor," Israeli security officers interrogate travelers using racial profiling, singling out those who appear to be Arab based on name or physical appearance.[24] Additionally, all passengers, even those who do not appear to be of Arab descent, are questioned as to why they are traveling to Israel, followed by several general questions about the trip in order to search for inconsistencies.[20] Although numerous civil rights groups have demanded an end to the profiling, Israel maintains that it is both effective and unavoidable. As stated by Ariel Merari, an Israeli terrorism expert, "it would be foolish not to use profiling when everyone knows that most terrorists come from certain ethnic groups. They are likely to be Muslim and young, and the potential threat justifies inconveniencing a certain ethnic group."[25]

Passengers leaving Israel are checked against a computerized list. The computers, maintained by the Israeli Ministry of Interior, are connected to the Israeli police and Interpol in order to catch suspects or others leaving the country illegally.[26]



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 

you are sounding like an americant, to use your words, and a hypocrite, bitter and ignorant at the things that have made your america the country that you believe in so passionately, it is your constitution that your forefathers fought for that has created the country that you hold so dear, yet you are so willing and in accord with it being trampled all over,

"So nows the time to get off that band wagon, stop living by the newest American motto that "Ignorance is Bliss!" and go out there and take YOUR country back", who do you think said this?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Ok so people not flying and them saying they were losing business after 911 must've been because those tax dollars weren't rolling in? Sorry I believe the money coming into the airports is much greater then the tax dollars.

And from this article, those funds given by the government were for structural uses in the airports, airport planning, and airport maintenance. This has nothing to do with the privately owned airline companies and any business that may be in the airport that both have to pay taxes for everything used to the state and federal government. You should read into what you post more because those taxes do not go to private companies.

www.tcpilots.org...


You really don't know how airports operate, do you. The people saying they were losing money after 911 were the airlines. The airlines don't own the airports. Let's look in detail at MCO, Orlando International. Prior to the 1970s, the airport was an Air Force Base, known as McCoy AFB, whence the identifier MCO. In 1974, the City of Orlando, using taxpayer dollars, bought the land and improvements. By the mid-1990s, $500 Million more in taxpayer dollars had been spent. By 1999, another $960 Million in taxpayer dollars had been spent on the airport. Not the airlines or private companies. Except that private companies were contracted to do the building, etc. See, www.orlando-mco.airports-guides.com...
The airlines rent their interior space and the jetways and/or ramp space, as do the restuarants, car rental companies, and other vendors. The airport does get a percentage of the parking fees, but the fees themselves go to the parking concessionaire. The total receipts budget for the Greater Orlando Airport Authority for 2011 is $2.8 miliion. blogs.orlandosentinel.com... At that rate it would have taken about 300 years for the airport to have paid for the 1996-1999 improvements. And that is if every penny of income went to that and nothing went to operating expenses.
The tax moneys used for the airport system come from varied sources. For example, there is a 7.5% FET (Federa Excise Tax) on every gallon of jet fuel we put in our aircraft. Jet A at MCO is $6.34/gallon now. The same percentage FET is applied to airline tickets, together with a "head tax" of $3.70 for each domestic passenger and $16.10 for each international arriving or departing passenger. See, www.nbaa.org...
So, the airlines don't run airports. Neither do the bookstores and candy shops and fast food joints who happen to be there. And the TSA doesn't run airports, as much as those power hungry freaks of beaurocracy would like to think they do. With respect to MCO, and Orlando Executive Airport, a public agency supported by tax dollars, the Greater Orlando Airport Authority, does. Orlando Sanford Airport, run by the Sanford Airport Authority, has recently fired the TSA. Some of those screeners are losing their jobs. The screeners at MCO are getting rightfully nervous. I'd like to see them fired by Christmas.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by THELONIO
 


You have to first think this is violating constitutional rights to think this is affecting the constitution at all. To me it isn't; the fourth amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Although this may seem like an "illegal" search it isn't, or at least I don't believe it is to me, I have nothing to hide as an AMERICAN so why would I shame at having to go through a scanner to prove that. After 911 the people who were crying for this are now the same crying that this is unconstitutional, to 71% of America it isn't. Two thirds of the country are fine with this, so by Oath or Affirmation that would clearly state that 71% has seen this as okay meaning it isn't unconstitutional. If the other 29% has a problem with it and find it unconstitutional then they haven't given it their oath or affirmation and therefor don't have to go through the scanners but as TSA policy don't need to fly either. Paranoia is gripping all of you here acting like these will be in stores next then your house then what else? At that time I may be singing a different tune but as long as this is localized to airport safety I have absolutely no problem with it as a constitution loving AMERICAN!
edit on 24-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Well you didn't read my article so clearly I won't read a shred of what you have to say. I pointed out that yes tax dollars go to the airports but not actually to the airline companies, they even are taxed on fuel just like us. So therefor if these privately owned companies want better security, then they should have it. Especially if the government will pay for that security. End of Story.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Hey there's alot of wrongs and alot of rights in this world,
and there is no way that this current action will ever be right,
defending the position as I said earlier, without addressing the rooted need will only continue an argumentative chaos,
promote and question alternatives, or when the day and time comes that you are finally reached and feel violated, there will be no one left to hear you!




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 


As I stated earlier happy, I've been through the procedure and it didn't bother me at all, both the full body scan and the pat down. Therefor from the point of view of myself there is no problem with this. Also in your video it states all that is bad with the TSA ,which is understandable, but I'm sure if they did an in depth search of every company in America the same problems would arise. Just because their under the microscope their going to look the worst right now if anything bad happens. By the way to quote weezer: the whole worlds on drugs.
edit on 24-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


It's not even that. Some people just don't get it. I don't care if it would've prevented 9-11. It reminds me of the denzel Washington movie in the late 90s. If we abrdge our freedoms in any way, the terrorists have already won.

Security just does NOT supercede our liberties, in fact, NOTHING supercedes our freedoms and liberties. That's the whole reason that the bill of rights was amended to the constitution, so that there would be no question as to our liberties.

None of the arguments put forward have any logical merit or validity. The only argument that would have any validity is an agreement with the airlines to follow their procedure in order to fly on their privately owned airline, but because it is the government instituting these requirements and not the private airlines, it is unconstitutional.

The supreme court has ruled on several occasions that we have an unquestionable right to travel freely, even through the air unimpeded by private or government sanctions.

If the SCOTUS has any worth, then this will be settled once an argument goes before it and the illegal TSA will be abolished. The reasons that people opt out, i.e. dangerous radiation, fear of being molested etc... don't matter. The only reason that is necessary is that people have the right to be secure in the persons and property as stated in the fourth amendment. PERIOD end of story, no amplifying data needed....

Jaden



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Although I agree that it is the government involvement that makes this "unconstitutional" to some, would it still be the same deal if the privately owned airline companies wanted this security? Just a question. Also a few posts up I stated why this isn't unconstitutional to me.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 



The TSA is NOT a company, it is a federal program instituted illegally searching and seizing property without any cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed.

wow. It doesn't matter if you don't have a problem with the procedures,. your feelings on the matter don't supercede our rights. If you want to go through the procedures more power to you....

If they want it to be constitutional, they will need to allow the airlines to implement the procedures, and those who fly the airlines that implement those precedures can feel safer and those that fly the airlines that don't can be secure in their liberties...

Jaden



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join