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.

 

Documents Reveal TSA Plan To Body-Scan Pedestrians, Train Passengers

page: 2
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Protests, not for long. I predict that if the TSA (DHS) deploys the current methods used at our airports or borders that will trigger the beginning of a civil war in the USA. People will not put up with being harassed or bothered just to go about their daily lives. I can't imagine living like the folks do in Gaza.

Eventually they'll do things to make you hate them for taking advantage of you or demeaning you through the use of their power over you.

Just speaking out about it even here and now might get them rifling through your life looking for ways to hoodwink you into doing something illegal so they can throw you in a camp or prison as it only takes one strong leader to wake up others and perhaps turn thousands against them.

edit on 3-3-2011 by verylowfrequency because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Granted there is no expectation of privacy in public...


Bullpoop

I would be walking down the street in my birthday suit in that case (Interestingly that it is AGAINST THE LAW to do so in most places)

I certainly expect privacy under my clothes and when in my vehicle. The whole "no expectation of privacy in public" bit is a typical PTB twisting to get around the 4th Amendment. It is NOT part of the Amendment. If I am walking down the street with papers in my purse or in a brief case, I have every right to expect that I will not be accosted and the papers stolen and read.


This is a small excerpt from FINDLAW for legal professionals. If you bother to read it you can see these searches are completely illegal including the searches at airports and when you walk through the scanners in stores.

Also in the famous English case, Entick v. Carrington a warrant connected with John Wilkes' pamphlets did not allow the government agents to seize anything they wanted "the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person's papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature ''contrary to the genius of the law of England.''"

Think about that for a minute. An English court decision from before the time the US was formed, made it very clear that a warrant is for a specific person and specific crime., yet police will pull someone over for a tail light out, search the car and arrest the person for possession of drugs!

THIS is part of the English Case law upon which the Fourth Amendment sits. It is pretty obvious, at least to me, that a court order for a specific person and a specific crime is all that is allow except for when a person is arrested "during hot pursuit" Yet somehow Congress and the Supreme Court have once again betrayed the people of the United States.

No where do I see anything in the fourth about "Expectation of privacy" qualifying my rights against a warrantless search only "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."


History and Scope of the Amendment

History .--Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment, embodying as it did the protection against the utilization of the ''writs of assistance.'' But while the insistence on freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained expression in the Colonies late and as a result of experience, 1 there was also a rich English experience to draw on. ''Every man's house is his castle'' was a maxim much celebrated in England, as was demonstrated in Semayne's Case, decided in 1603. 2 A civil case of execution of process, Semayne's Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King's agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the King's process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v. Carrington, 3 one of a series of civil actions against state officers who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes' polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the King himself. 4

Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive ''of all the comforts of society,'' and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person's papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature ''contrary to the genius of the law of England.'' 5 Besides its general character, said the court, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a ''great judgment,'' ''one of the landmarks of English liberty,'' ''one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution,'' and a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment....

As noted above, the noteworthy disputes over search and seizure in England and the colonies revolved about the character of warrants. There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment's two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are ''reasonable'' are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are ''reasonable'' searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause. 11 This issue has divided the Court for some time, has seen several reversals of precedents, and is important for the resolution of many cases. It is a dispute which has run most consistently throughout the cases involving the scope of the right to search incident to arrest. 12 While the right to search the person of the arrestee without a warrant is unquestioned, how far afield into areas within and without the control of the arrestee a search may range is an interesting and crucial matter.

The Court has drawn a wavering line. 13 In Harris v. United States, 14 it approved as ''reasonable'' the warrantless search of a four-room apartment pursuant to the arrest of the man found there. A year later, however, a reconstituted Court majority set aside a conviction based on evidence seized by a warrantless search pursuant to an arrest and adopted the ''cardinal rule that, in seizing goods and articles, law enforcement agents must secure and use search warrants wherever reasonably practicable.'' 15 This rule was set aside two years later by another reconstituted majority which adopted the premise that the test ''is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable.'' Whether a search is reasonable, the Court said, ''must find resolution in the facts and circumstances of each case.'' 16 However, the Court soon returned to its emphasis upon the warrant. ''The [Fourth] Amendment was in large part a reaction to the general warrants and warrantless searches that had so alienated the colonists and had helped speed the movement for independence. In the scheme of the Amendment, therefore, the requirement that 'no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,' plays a crucial part.'' 17 Therefore, ''the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through a warrant procedure.'' 18 Exceptions to searches under warrants were to be closely contained by the rationale undergirding the necessity for the exception, and the scope of a search under one of the exceptions was similarly limited.....

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
heck with the privacy issue!!!
these things haven't been around long enough to know what the long term health effects are.....
WI's medicaid budget supposedly has a one billion dollar increase in medicaid spending in it...
is making people sicker....(just so the elite can feel more secure)....gonna do much more than put our nation into the toilet much faster...as if it isn't there already....maybe it will be more like the flush that gets rid of the crap!!!
whatever....
I'll just hide in my house (or one of the many empty houses the banks have so generously provided for anyone bold enough to claim them....to avoid overexposure, and the idiots can kiss my taxdollars goodbye!!



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


C'mon! The 4th Amendment is out the door.Youre still one that believe you have a choice? Or that an attorney will help you after the fact that you were detained illegally? You will be in court for years and they still will win against you. Its YOUR opinion of what un-reasonable search is...and THEIRS is the one that will get you arrested.

They have any and every right and it will be unheld. They can detain you, keep you and if you CAN get out...great....the damage is done and the law favors them because they are paid to analyze and detain people and make seizures. Sure, you may be let go, of course!

Thats the point. No amount of standing up, bucking the judges and court system and "only-doin-our-job' attitude will you be able to fight...you will lose.

Im disturbed by the amount of people who still think you can fight. Dont you watch the news? The laws now favor INTERPRETATION and EXPECTATION of them doing their jobs. And that keeps the "iffy" in place so they CAN.
You cannot stop them once the cuffs are on. Not any more. All they have to say and swear to is "We suspected they were..." And it will be upheld, and maybe youll get an apology. And then theyll move on to the next person to be stained based on required "suspicion".



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
On a side note, those who wish to stand up the time will come soon.

Those who fear us we will find you.

Those who praise us you will find us.

Just wait, the plan will fall into action soon...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


C'mon! The 4th Amendment is out the door. ...


This may appear to be true, but the cop on the street can be cowed often with the right questions... [smile]

If we ask how the search is considered reasonable, ANY response is likely to sound idiotic, unless that response is, "It isn't." And if they say it isn't, one may then question their adherence to upholding the Constitution...

Just sayin'.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by morder1
I am seriously scared for my Freedoms and liberty anymore... especially since i have "woken up" late last year... Just started reading 1984 myself... its funny all my parents, and people i know in their 50+ age all had to read that book in high school, but i had not even heard of it until a few months ago... Im about 130 pages into it, and holy crap is it scary... the scariest part is how TRUE it really is... heres a quote out of it, its the part i just finished reading... Really hits home

"In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird. "


GOOOD MORNING!"Brother"!

Wonder why the progressives have such a firm grasp on "education" in this country( "nea"; dept of "education"...)? Indoctrinating the youth and insulating them from books like this that expose their "utopias" for what they are. thanks for your post ! Another double plus good book banned by "mintruth" is nobel prize winning author Sinclair Lewis': " It can't happen here" copyrighted 1935( this one a "rightwing" totalitarian "coup").
( qualifies me under the equal time fairness doctrine" and all.)
read it; pass it on; or pass on the online movie versionof "1984" ( john Hurt) to non book friendly friends. Checkout the movie "Brazil" Terry Gilliams' campy takeoff with Robert Deneiro as a monkey wrenching "enemy of the state.



full movie: "bRazil"1of 14:www.youtube.com...
edit on 3-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Besides the violation of privacy & the health issues, what about the damage that can be done to medical devices? If they start using covert Xray & my $7,500 insulin pump/realtime glucose monitor gets zapped and fails, is the TSA(DHS) gonna reimburse me for the cost?

What about other medical devices?

The TSA is one huge fail!
edit on 3-3-2011 by OneisOne because: derr... TYPO!



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
someday they'll scan people to get into sport events/stores/government buildings, pretty much everything



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOIogy
someday they'll scan people to get into sport events/stores/government buildings, pretty much everything


Dear gods, let's hope we revolt before then!

Don't go to any place that scans people coming in, at the very least.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Another troubling bit from the Forbes link.


In another program, the researchers were asked to develop a system of long range x-ray scanning to determine what metal objects an individual might have on his or her body at distances up to thirty feet.


I think that goes well beyond being scanned entering an event. blogs.forbes.com


edit on 3-3-2011 by Maxmars because: sorry bout that



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 


The inanity never ends with these paranoid fools. In order to be effective at 30 ft I suppose the poor schmuck who happens to walk close to the emitter get 30X the radiation..... (perhaps an exaggeration, but you get my point I think.)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
To be honest I don't know what we're waiting for. What happened in Egypt needs to happen in the U.S. We have to realize that the true enemy is the banking cartel and federal reserve that pull the shadow government's strings.

We're not heading for classical tyranny, it's already here. We gotta get off our lazy asses and start the peaceful revolution of the people just like in Egypt and overthrow these gangsters!

(Sadly I still don't think this will happen until something more drastic FORCES people to do something)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneisOne
Besides the violation of privacy & the health issues, what about the damage that can be done to medical devices? If they start using covert Xray & my $7,500 insulin pump/realtime glucose monitor gets zapped and fails, is the TSA(DHS) gonna reimburse me for the cost?

What about other medical devices?

The TSA is one huge fail!
edit on 3-3-2011 by OneisOne because: derr... TYPO!
Reimburse you? why they think govt paid health care is gonna happen. If you are usefull you will get a warranty replacement...if not you are on your own: we're terribly sorry....



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Topato
To be honest I don't know what we're waiting for. What happened in Egypt needs to happen in the U.S. We have to realize that the true enemy is the banking cartel and federal reserve that pull the shadow government's strings.

We're not heading for classical tyranny, it's already here. We gotta get off our lazy asses and start the peaceful revolution of the people just like in Egypt and overthrow these gangsters!

(Sadly I still don't think this will happen until something more drastic FORCES people to do something)


What happened in Egypt is a military step-in. We need a plan better than having our military take over. I suggest the Ethical Planetarian Party... Link in sig.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I think the realization that you'll be detained is what we all have to understand. You can get detained, put in cuffs, held for a specific amount of time, denied your phone call until just the last minute..and otherwise be inconvenienced and made as uncomfortable as hell....and then laughed at when youre let out. Because it falls under "doing their job"...and they thought you "needed to be checked out" That alone gives them the right. Thats what my point here has been.

Yes there are reasonable search and seizure laws...but they have all the right to implement their version of it. You'll get out in 3 days bit--in' and swearin' you'll SUE them...but they look at you and laugh...shrug their shoulders and say..."Oops! Sorry! We were wrong. We were just doin our jobs!'...and the judges and courts? Theyll side with them
Face it folks. In a free society...the way you keep it safe and free....is to take away the freedoms...to preserve them.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Well as terrible as this news is, at least this makes the absurd idea of ONLY scanning people at airports less absurd. I mean really, how is an airport a higher risk location than anywhere else public? Acting as a fearful citizen, I would honestly feel more at risk to being a terror-attack victim at a mall or something rather than an airport.

But in reality, I just see this as a continuing example of how ridiculous measures are accepted by the public only because they are slowly applied to society. First airports, then bus stations, then public events, then public places.

If it all happened at once, people would be outraged- so they just do it little-by-little so that the mundane distractions of hyper-consumerist society can distract people as to what is happening to their freedom.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by UFOIogy
someday they'll scan people to get into sport events/stores/government buildings, pretty much everything


Dear gods, let's hope we revolt before then!

Don't go to any place that scans people coming in, at the very least.


cool movie and a
great signature quote:
(bit of hope) at 0:53

( bumper sticker and t-shirts)???

edit on 3-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Face it folks. In a free society...the way you keep it safe and free....is to take away the freedoms...to preserve them.


Um, Benny Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Taking away liberty is NEVER a solution - unless you're one of those from whom liberty is NOT taken and in control of those from whom the liberty is.

So in a truly free society, the way you keep it free is to realize the only safety is in vigilance that none of the freedom is taken.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Predator FTW!

But yes, person who replied to my post, we have no idea what to put into the vacuum if we do take down the corrupt government.

My point is most Americans still are living in denial and think this will not affect them and that everything will be all right. We have to realize we have a problem with the people running this world and this country and we need to remove them!



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join