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.

 

Obama's TSA pat-downs joke infuriates ACLU

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
This is SIMPLE - To drive a car you are required to wear a seat belt.. You may not like it.. But you MUST!
No one is arguing the TSA can’t do anything, the argument is that, whatever they decide to do, it must be within the Constitutional constraints.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not at all sure that the TSA and airlines agreement is unconstitutional at all. I DON'T like the policy and won't participate, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. Just disliked.
What would make it unconstitutional? Surely you can’t be saying there is no limit to what they can do.

I’d like to know both your opinions on this hypothetical: if a terrorist is caught hiding explosives in his rectum, can the TSA do body cavity searches on everyone?




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 





This is SIMPLE - To drive a car you are required to wear a seat belt.. You may not like it.. But you MUST!


No you are not and if you know how to explain the difference to a judge between U.S. Codes and Common Laws they will not only dismiss the charge but compensate you for the inconvienence of having to respond to the illegal unconstitutional threats of armed henchmen of the state.




When you buy Sudafed at the drug store - You MUST show ID!


You must deal with the counter help's belief you must show ID.

In reality once again by simply refusing and making reasonable and intelligent demands for service you can get around this.




When you go to Chucky Cheese, you get yours, and your children's hands stamped.


Gee I sure hope no one tells you that you don't have to jump off a cliff!

Absurd, and so is the notion that we must abide by and tolerate corporate rules on top of all the unconstitutional codes.




To board a plane, you must go through a search.


Once again absolutely untrue, where there is a will, there is a way.

You my friend, just seem to lack any real will of your own.

Probably for the best I have to tell you!

Your inability to think outside of the box is typical as to why the nation itself has lost it's innovative edge, penchant for independence, and more noble ideals.

In reality you don't have to do one darn thing you don't want to, others may try to force you, but you always have the right to try to outsmart, out manuever, out muscle, or anything else that protects your inalienable rights, rights that can in fact not be alienated by anyone other than you, no matter which collection of fools, tyrants and despots extolls it's a wise idea to give them up.

Not only are herd creatures easy to spook and stampede, but in fact to stampede right off of a cliff.

Do let us know when you hit bottom, it's beyond me why you are so enjoying the fall!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by loam
It truly is remarkable you see shelter, movement and self-sufficiency as "privileges".


Since I didn't say that AT ALL, I can only assume that you are twisting my words to upset me.


Really? I didn't write these words:



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
When we operate in a society, we have to make concessions for certain privileges.

...

I don't HAVE to fly, drive, work or own a home, but if I CHOOSE to, there are things I have to do in return."


*********************************


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Sorry, it's what I expect of you. Following me around trying to irritate me. You bored at work or something? You've been doing it for years now. I expect it. It doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is the apologies and claims of friendship that usually come afterward. You truly baffle me!

And please don't send me a blubbering apologetic U2U, all right? Thanks.


Lame effort to misrepresent the past.


Apologies and claims of friendship come easily from me for posts I beleive come from honest brokers.

You specious posts haven't qualified for a very long time.




But you aren't really baffled, are you? I love how you make this about "us", rather than address the substantive issues I address. You obviously think way too much of yourself...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, Loam, I'm a Nazi. The jig is up. You've found me out.



If your statements quack like a duck...
edit on 26-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   








NONE of what I posted above is really happening, it's all a dream, it's all fake, none of these things have been built or are in place anywhere.
How do I know?
Because they told me, and they would never lie to me.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
Youre tolerant,


I'm really not.


When I walk into the security area of the airport, I am consenting to be searched. Because that is the policy of the Airport and I am aware of that. If someone walks up to me on the street and tries to search me, yes, THAT would be an invasion of my rights.

I'm not at all sure that the TSA and airlines agreement is unconstitutional at all. I DON'T like the policy and won't participate, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. Just disliked.


So what are you going to do when it starts to become policy everywhere you go and every public place you want to walk into?
We can't keep moving our line in the sand can we?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 


Yes....EXACTLY.

And this is where these ever-apathetic excusals of "It's simple, if you don't want to be molested, or have your private parts illuminated and be bombarded by x-rays, just don't fly" are beyond sad.

First it starts with the flying, then as we can see from your post, it moves onto cars, and you best believe that this "train" Obumbler is touting will have the same goons groping folks at their check-ins as well, and the same folks will be singing their praises, "it keeps us all safe from the terrorists, just don't take the trains or drive". lmao



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


I wonder, if Benevolent heretic was ok with the idea, when she decided to travel regardless of the means, that the TSA could take the pat downs a step further....say..taking her to the room and exploring her innards? Wonder then, if she would embrace her rights?
Playing devils advocate here, we have all these, no right infringements arguments, but if we take it a step further like I have in the above statements, ( keeping in mind we see the TSA currently taking a step further ), my above example may not be to far off in the distant future.


Come here darlin, we need to take you to our search room, where there are no witnesses!
edit on 26-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Heck, I would start flying to the grocery store if that happened!!! Free exams at the airport haaaayyyyyaaa!!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 





Can you say "holier than thou"


Why yes I can, I can also say all of my ABCs, tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, what my phone number and address is in case I get lost at the Mall, and sing about that dog named Bingo!






First of all.. I was speaking of the offense taken by his one single comment about pat downs.. The ACLU really is that upset? That is ridiculous!!!!


Have you spoken with any ACLU Offices or Administrators today by any chance? I am betting no, so what makes your 'pretend' version so alluring?




I am not telling people how to feel, just disappointed and surprised. Am I allowed to have an opinion, without having to be talked down to by you?


Evidently no, no your not!






You have the right to say no.. You have the right to not fly! You know what is expected to get on the plane.... If you don't like it DON'T FLY.. It is that easy. Flying is not your right.. It is a privilege to fly on someone's plane. If it was your plane, you could make the rules, but it is not.


I have the right to determine what I believe is right and right for me and to pursue that in any fashion I believe is right and right for me.

This is what is at the core of what inalienable rights and self determination are all about.

Priveleges which I do not need or seek are based on a performance/reward system determined by others.

You trying to define what anyone's rights or priveleges are is absolutely absurd, the fact that you seek and require persmission in all things simply bespeaks of slavery nothing more nothing less.

Seriously.




It is not as if they are giving you a handy in the airport.. Do you think these people doing the searches are happy they have to touch your junk?


I would assume happier than your mortified and dissapointed English teachers are.

As I have said there are people who really do aspire too and want everyone else to be part of the lowest possible common denominator your choice of verbage does a great job at displaying that.




You made a statement about 100 years of successful travel without these new precautions.. You are either intentionally leaving out important info.. Or are simply ignorant.. Adapt and change with the changing times..


Actually if you knew anything about aviation at all, it has always and will always have inherent dangers since man was not born with wings. Times have not in fact changed the political landscape in the United States has changed for the worst from the "Home of the Free and the Brave" to the "Home of the Cowering and Radiatied".




Why is this hard to grasp? Why is it so unacceptable? If you didn't like the hand stamp at chucky cheese, you would simply not go right? If you didn't want to show your ID for your Sudafed purchase, you would simply not buy it!


Wrong and wrong, I would refuse the handstamp and enter anyway, I would demand that the product be supplied, and yes, in both your examples I have done this, and I have to tell you the Sudafed thing really ticked me off, and had the store not complied with my wishes may have led to an open declaration of war by me on the State!




Things have changed drastically in the last 30 to 40 years. Terrorists and people that are determined to deliver a blow to America, have made it clear that airplanes are a target. If you can't see the need for increased security when it comes to airlines and airline policy, you are naive.


Can you say brain dead, your seat back cushion doubles as a safety and flotation device whose thickness will definately ward off attacks by box cutters.

In your world where people show no personal initiative people would just sit and cower while the strong have there way, in the real world where people take real self responsibility and initiative no, a couple guys with box cutters can't take over multiple planes.

You have a lying, theiving, murdering government and you are in fact complicit in those things by your inability and refusal to think outside of the parameters they tell you that you must in order to get a box of sudafed and into chuckie cheese, how cheaply will some people sell themselves.

Our problem with terrorism is a government using terrorist tactics to cause people who think like you to submit to any absurd thing they wish you too.




ohhh noooo my rights are deteriorating... I have no more rights. I believe in standing up for our rights.. But some folks take it way to far! Jared laughner would be a good example of a American that let paranoia turn into delusion..


I don't care about your rights, only you can and should care about your rights, I am not here to protect your rights, because only you can first define them and protect them. But hey if you want to be scared of some kid who decided to exercise his right to do what ever he wanted with his life, then that's on you.

I don't share that fear, since fears are almost always imagined and seldom if ever come true.

Anyone who is offering you security in a temporal world is simply lying to you. There is no such thing, in life you take your chances, you roll the dice, you either win, or you lose.




I bet there are a bunch more loose screws that are slowly getting more and more paranoid, to the point of delusions.


I am sure too which is why some of us try real hard to help those who suffer no self respect, fear of everything from who's on an airplane to who is on a shopping mall, try to help you find some common sense and courage.

Those who can not think independently and rationally represent a clear and inherent danger to themselves, and the inability of so many Americans unable to think independently and rationally has caused a tremendous amount of damage to this nation.

Damage you want to use slang to describe and joke about, while telling everyone else, roll over like me you will be happy, but the truth is you aren't happy and you did roll over. Now you just are pretending the only reason you are unhappy is because too many people won't roll over like you.

That my friend is the epitome of dellusional.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
I wonder, if Benevolent heretic was ok with the idea, when she decided to travel regardless of the means, that the TSA could take the pat downs a step further....say..taking her to the room and exploring her innards?


You don't need to talk about me in the third person. I'm right here.


I am not OK with the idea! I have said it many times, but for some reason, people aren't hearing it. I do NOT approve of the policy at airports. My argument is that these pat-downs are not unconstitutional, as far as I know. It is the policy of the airport and because I don't approve of the policy (i.e. it's NOT OK with me) I choose not to fly.
edit on 1/26/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Understood, please refer to Bill of Rights, 4th Amendment...case closed~
edit on 26-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I do NOT approve of the policy at airports. My argument is that these pat-downs are not unconstitutional, as far as I know. It is the policy of the airport and because I don't approve of the policy (i.e. it's NOT OK with me) I choose not to fly.


Now that is some 'Jim Crow' logic that would make the best of oppressors feel loved.


:shk:



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


As if I don't know what the 4th Amendment says.




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.


It is NOT unreasonable to search someone who is going to board an aircraft. We CONSENT to a search when we enter an airport safety area. If you do not consent, then do not enter. It's really simple.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Ok wait a minute? Contradicting yourself much? you claim and I quote:



As if I don't know what the 4th Amendment says


And then this:



The right of the people to be secure in their persons


So how do you go from one end of the spectrum to the other by making comments of fact like above, then stating this?:



It is NOT unreasonable to search someone


Enlighten us readers by explaining how you can claim understanding the 4th, and yet step on your own * SNIP* and say that now, its not unreasonable? Have you flown in the last decade and half? Did you enjoy the blatant disregard of the 4th, did you also enjoy the molestation, in front of the crowd non-the less?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



I have the right to determine what I believe is right and right for me and to pursue that in any fashion I believe is right and right for me.


Would this mean that you have the right to engage in behaviors such as fraud or murder with no regard for what common society feels is undesirable and punishable behavior if you felt it to be right as necessary to support your pursuits?



Wrong and wrong, I would refuse the handstamp and enter anyway, I would demand that the product be supplied, and yes, in both your examples I have done this, and I have to tell you the Sudafed thing really ticked me off, and had the store not complied with my wishes may have led to an open declaration of war by me on the State!


As a retailer I am especially interested in this statement. It would almost seem to be that you feel that you are able to disregard the terms by which I do business in favor of your own idea of what should occur. (The handstamp being a great example of this) Do you honestly feel that if you were to not agree with the way I wish to conduct my business that you would have right or ability to affect a change in the way I do business?

The following are to examples that I would greatly enjoy hearing your opinion of/response to. If I told you that you had to be stamped to gain entry to my place of business and you refused do you honestly feel that you have a place to force me to still allow you entrance? If I told you a sale was final would you feel that you could still return or cancel the sale if my policy was not "right" to you?

I do hope for a reply to my inquiries to you Proto.

Namaste



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Have you flown in the last decade and half?


No.

First of all, take a few minutes to compose yourself so I can understand what you're saying. You post totally confuses me.

1. The fourth Amendment protects against UNREASONABLE search and seizure.

2. It's NOT unreasonable to search someone when they are going to board a plane. The second part of that sentence is necessary.

Now, what's your beef?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Now, what's your beef?


Well, let's start with your definition of search. There's a wide spectrum there-- from a glancing visual once-over to a full body cavity search.

How much 'search' is required in your book before it gets to be unreasonable?
edit on 26-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I simply find the whole administration so offensive that a pat-down joke doesn't even make it onto my radar.

Wonder how he's gonna get high speed rail all over the US.

This bothers me more than the poor attempt at humor.

The last government sponsored rail I saw was in Houston which was city government. It cost half a billion for 7 miles of light rail.

I figure that it being the federal government and high speed rail. The feds can get a rail from DC to New York for just a few trillion or so.....maybe add in about 20% interest to be added annually and all put onto the taxpayers shoulders.

By the way, somewhere in that "stimulus" package, they could have made provisions to hire a decent speech writer. Whoever is doing the job now is pretty bad.
edit on 26-1-2011 by badgerprints because: grammah



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Ok, stepping back and breathing....




2. It's NOT unreasonable to search someone when they are going to board a plane. The second part of that sentence is necessary.



Explain to me how you deem it fit to disregard a persons private business, and not only grope said person, but go into their effects, when the 4th clearly states that the effects of said person are protected? Last time i checked, the Constitution was and is the Supreme law of the land? It supersedes all other laws, regulations..etc...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 



Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Last time i checked, the Constitution was and is the Supreme law of the land? It supersedes all other laws, regulations..etc...


Despite all evidence to the contrary, that is what we keep telling ourselves...


BH, and those like her, will have no problem supporting this kind of ridiculous security theater, even after such requirements start appearing in all manner of public place where large numbers of people congregate. I mean, why stop at airplanes? Why not trains, buses, malls, box stores, public roads and highways???

It's pathetic how Obama supporters roll over for the very things they excoriated the Bush administration for...

It's become a real lesson to me on the hypocritical nature of so many in the electorate.

Good grief.




edit on 26-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join