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: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by janon
 


So laws that are passed aren't majority vote? Sanctions, Taxes, Implementing devices are all taken on a vote and the majority has a much bigger say then the minority. Yes, you are protected but from what? Not getting any laws passed because your on the short end of the stick? Or that your able to believe anything you want while you stay in a hole? Is that what the minority fights for?




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by janon
 


So laws that are passed aren't majority vote? Sanctions, Taxes, Implementing devices are all taken on a vote and the majority has a much bigger say then the minority. Yes, you are protected but from what? Not getting any laws passed because your on the short end of the stick? Or that your able to believe anything you want while you stay in a hole? Is that what the minority fights for?


I like that you seem to understand how the Government is suppose to work it's just unfortunately that it doesn't. The representatives, both house and senate, are suppose to vote on legislature not for what best serves them personally but what their constituents desire but that is more oft than not untrue. But that is all beyond the scope of the Bill of Rights and has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment.

The Bill of Rights, by the by, was designed to protect the individual not the group as a whole.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by janon
 


I agree with you but what exactly is the individual being protected from? Themselves? The government? Other people? Because although that is true at the end of the day whether we are all or nothing rests on the shoulders of the government and even though these things were put into place a very long time ago, the world now is much different.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Wow way to take what I said out of context and run with it. I referred to the no shirt, no shoes policy, but if someone would want that then it couldn't be a public shop, it'd have to be a private club and yes they still have those. My point is don't follow the rules on the wall, don't fly.


My comment was not out of context. My point is that you cannot simply put up a sign in your store or create a rule that violates someone's constitutional rights simply because you own the store. Is that so hard to understand? Clearly, in your case it must be very difficult.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Clearly it isn't hard to understand, but you have to first think that these scanners are unconstitutional... To me they aren't neither is a pat down. So at this point to me your arguement is going no where, but clearly in your case that must be difficult to grasp.

edit on 23-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Clearly it isn't hard to stand, but you have to first think that these scanners are unconstitutional... To me they aren't neither is a pat down. So at this point to me your arguement is going no where, but clearly in your case that must be difficult to grasp.

edit on 23-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)


It does not matter what you think. All that matters is what the Constitution says.

I will help you out here:

"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 Warrants shall not be issued, 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."

So where is the warrant, describing the place to be searched, and the things to be seized, supported by Oath or affirmation that there is probable cause, against every single person that decides to buy a plane ticket?

If there is not one, it is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

Pretty cut and dry.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by janon
 


I agree with you but what exactly is the individual being protected from? Themselves? The government? Other people? Because although that is true at the end of the day whether we are all or nothing rests on the shoulders of the government and even though these things were put into place a very long time ago, the world now is much different.


The Government, more or less. It limits the powers of the Government upon the individual. The most relevant is the 10th Amendment (see my signature) which limits Governmental powers to only which is specifically enumerated by the Constitution.

The world is much different, you are very right about that. There are things in existence now that the founders of this Nation couldn't even fathom. And there are mechanisms in place that allow for additional Amendments to be written into the Bill of Rights. Just like we are told when there is a law that we don't agree with. Petition your elected leaders to change the law. The same can be done with the Bill of Rights.

The problem that I have with the TSA are they are an arm of the Government and must abide by the Constitution because they are a part of the Government. If they were a private entity, I would have no problem with their policy (as long as it is within the law) but the fact that they are a Government entity operating within the confines of a private institution while blatantly infringing upon the 4th Amendment is what gets my hackles up.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Clearly it isn't hard to understand, but you have to first think that these scanners are unconstitutional... To me they aren't neither is a pat down. So at this point to me your arguement is going no where, but clearly in your case that must be difficult to grasp.

edit on 23-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)


Ahhh... so you think that these "security procedures" don't violate our constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment? Now I understand where the disconnect in your head is. Let me help you connect the dots.

Man Proves TSA Policies are Unconstitutional

You starting to get the picture yet? No... I didn't thnk so. lol.... Oh well. It doesn't matter to me if you do or don't. When they come for your property, assign you a National ID number and implant a RF chip in your arm, please don't say that you wern't warned.

I'm pretty much done here NoJoker dude... I've made my points and have nothing more to say... enjoy your afternoon.


edit on 23-11-2010 by Blarneystoner because: Added a link to the 4th Amendment for NoJoker13 to get some education.... lol...



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
"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 Warrants shall not be issued, 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."

So where is the warrant, describing the place to be searched, and the things to be seized, supported by Oath or affirmation that there is probable cause, against every single person that decides to buy a plane ticket?


I'm afraid you're mistaken. And here's why. This is just my opinion, so... grain of salt. We don't HAVE to fly. When we enter an airport security area, we are consenting to be searched. Yes, they can't come up to you on the street and demand that you go through a scanner (yet), but they can say, "If you want to fly, you have to submit to this." Just like they can say, "If you want this job, you will take a drug test," or "if you want this high-security job, you must pass a background check."

So, I'm not at all sure it's unconstitutional...

DON'T MISTAKE MY POST FOR APPROVING OF THESE MEASURES. I DO NOT!



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Those are two different things entirely because the Bill of Rights doesn't have anything to do with employer/employee relationships. That is a private matter and beyond the scope. The interactions between a Government agent and a private citizen are well defined regardless of the other aspects, be it in an airport or on the street.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by janon
 


You may be right, I just don't know.


Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Man Proves TSA Policies are Unconstitutional


He didn't prove anything was unconstitutional. He just proved that he could frustrate the TSA Agents and the Law Enforcement officers enough to let him go.
Remember, he had already flown. He just wanted out of the airport.

I commend him GREATLY and I think he has made a perfect model for people to follow, should they be interested. I think the most important thing he did was be polite and remain calm. But I'll bet you a dollar if he was on his way TO the plane, he'd be in jail right now.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by janon
 


You may be right, I just don't know.


Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Man Proves TSA Policies are Unconstitutional


He didn't prove anything was unconstitutional. He just proved that he could frustrate the TSA Agents and the Law Enforcement officers enough to let him go.
Remember, he had already flown. He just wanted out of the airport.

I commend him GREATLY and I think he has made a perfect model for people to follow, should they be interested. I think the most important thing he did was be polite and remain calm. But I'll bet you a dollar if he was on his way TO the plane, he'd be in jail right now.




Here's a quote from the article:

By simply remaining calm and polite while citing his constitutional rights, Kernan proved that, despite the best efforts of the TSA to intimidate people into submission by threatening $11,000 fines, it is not illegal to refuse to be put through a radiation scanner or be groped by TSA workers.

Kernan proved that the whole procedure is unconstitutional and a violation of rights, and after acknowledging this fact, TSA officials and the airport police had no other choice but to let him go free.



Maybe the writer has it wrong or jumped to the conclusion that the TSO had no choice but to let him go after acknowledging the fact that the procedure is unconstitutional and violated his rights. Granted, the use of of the word "proof" may be incorrect but for all intents and purposes this event seems pretty cut and dry. The TSOs have no real authority and when push comes to shove, LEOs (at least in this case) are not going to provide any assistance to those who would violate our rights.

edit on 23-11-2010 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


I read the whole thing AND listened to it. Yes, it SAYS he proved that it was unconstitutional, but all he proved is that he could get these particular officers to let him go. He didn't take it to court or anything.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


your quick on the responses... lol...

Maybe the writer has it wrong or jumped to the conclusion that the TSO had no choice but to let him go after acknowledging the fact that the procedure is unconstitutional and violated his rights. Granted, the use of of the word "proof" may be incorrect but for all intents and purposes this event seems pretty cut and dry. The TSOs have no real authority and when push comes to shove, LEOs (at least in this case) are not going to provide any assistance to those who would violate our rights.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 





I think this is complete and utter bull, to me these devices stop more harm then they cause


Troll alert... Sigh! Meanwhile millions come across the southern border yearly unchecked while TSA demands to see your wives, daughters, and even your sons naked or be allowed to grope them if you refuse that indignity.... But hey if it makes us safer...


What a nation of disgusting ignorant cowards we have become...



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by janon
 


So laws that are passed aren't majority vote? Sanctions, Taxes, Implementing devices are all taken on a vote and the majority has a much bigger say then the minority. Yes, you are protected but from what? Not getting any laws passed because your on the short end of the stick? Or that your able to believe anything you want while you stay in a hole? Is that what the minority fights for?


So if the majority votes that it is ok to molest and rape your wife or daughter or young son on demand oh well those that object are just on the short end of the stick I guess. By the way there has never been a majority vote in this country since its inception, we are lucky if 40% vote and when they do they divide right down the middle usually so at best you only have 21% deciding the vote and that is just voting some crooks into the oligarchy who decide our fates. So basically you have about 525 tyrants telling the rest of the 300 million people in the country what to do and calling it majority rule.

edit on 23-11-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Ok you tell the government that when they come a knocking. You read them exactly that passage and see if it helps.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Funny how we take something thats making people safer out of context because so many people "claim" to have been felt up a bit. Sorry but have you forgotten we're in sue happy america?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Um TSA is also in control of the border of mexico? You may wanna look up your facts but the Border Patrol is not controlled by the TSA. Also why are we so paranoid of human touch?
edit on 23-11-2010 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
This is a question for everyone here, the mainstream media is backing what many here are saying and have a problem with. That's pretty damn funny to me since people here of ATS never back the MSM but now are rooting for them. I'd like to say that I'm the only true ATS member here the only one on the site going against the tide of the mainstream media and everyone else who is for this like them... are the trolls. TROLL ALERT TONS OF THEM!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join