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.

 

New Hampshire Woman Protests the TSA

page: 3
23
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by maddog99

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
Coming to a road/bus/subway/train checkpoint near you real soon, ya hear!


What do you mean soon? It's already being done my friend!


TSA deploys 'VIPR' teams throughout Tennessee

This is not a fight against the airlines. But many still can't see the bigger picture here. Our freedoms are slowly and methodically being stripped from us.

So I guess I'll need to study contract law...or call my lawyer next time I want to drive the kids to Wally World?


Okay okay! He's a mod, I was trying to be gentle and avoid the wrath of his ban-hammer! I see everyone else has shot him down in flames so I don't feel quite so bad...




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by maddog99
 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

We are starting to cross over into apples and oranges here.

Yes, you have to have some inkling of the law to pick which battles to fight. Basically, if it’s something that you have agreed to via a contract, you have no legal leg to stand on. So for example:

1) Purchasing a ticket of entry.
2) Entering a private establishment.
3) Agreeing to the terms of licensure or certification.

All may hold contractual agreements, or agreements to adhere to rules that violate your personal rights. These are legal because you cannot be forced to waive your rights. You always have the option to leave, do something else, or patronize another place.

Now…

If they set up a checkpoint in a public area, and start restricting your movement in some way that you have not contractually agreed to, then they are violating your rights. So, for example, if they start pulling cars off the road to search them, you can sue them, and you’ll most likely win. You have not agreed to any contract with the government that allows them to make you submit to a search for driving or walking in a public place (airports are not considered public places, they are restricted federal land BTW, which is why you cannot just go wander around on the runways).

A DUI checkpoint is considered legal, as I mention above, because you agreed to DUI checks when you applied for your driver’s license. That is also why you can refuse to take the Dui tests, but then are civilly penalized for breach of contract. That is also why they cannot site you for anything but a DUI at a DUI checkpoint.

I can actually drive into a DUI checkpoint with no drivers license, expired tags, no insurance, and they HAVE to let me go without a citation as long as I am sober.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver

Okay okay! He's a mod, I was trying to be gentle and avoid the wrath of his ban-hammer! I see everyone else has shot him down in flames so I don't feel quite so bad...

First off, mods do not moderate in threads in which they participate as members. It’s in the frames around my posts if you didn’t notice. Also, no moderator is going to ban anyone for disagreeing with them in a thread. If they did, they would not be a mod for very long, and would end up banned themselves. So go ahead and feel free to express your opinion to your hearts content.

Personally I have not seen anyone “shoot me down in flames” yet, because no one here has provided any legal documentation that I am wrong, and legally they cannot.
If you can, I’d like to see it.
I, on the other hand, have backed up my points with actual links and quotes from source material.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




edit on 1/26/2012 by defcon5 because: lost a tag



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

To enter into a legal contract with someone certain "details" must be present. It is not and never a one-sided affair. To be specific, I want an order, a bill of exchange and a receipt. That is legal contract. Unless I am breaking the law of course...

At what point of your driving instruction lessons or exams did YOU submit to (or were informed of) legal, random and wanton checks as to your eligibility to drive a motor vehicle for whatever reason? Yes, I realise we all "understand" LEO may instruct us as they will, but that does not make it lawful.

A checkpoint is exactly something designed to limit "certain persons" freedom of movement.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

I realise that mods do not mod their own threads. I was being humorous.
Well, the stars do count sometimes and I don't see too many agreeing or starring your posts in this thread. See my previous post regarding what a contract is. It's not quite the same as a one-sided enforced service, by a corrupt, power-crazy bat# insane government hell-bent on total civillian control.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Apples & Oranges? This Thread is about the abuses of the TSA, which is a government regulated agency and it's abuses toward our freedoms...not about how the airlines don't have a choice...I understand they don't. And I also understand I sign my rights away when I fly as well as well as when I drive. The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches...period.

You can say or qoute whatever you want about the airlines and I do appreciate your knowledge, but the TSA is violating our 4th Amendment rights and using contract law to get away with it...period.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Look on your drivers license. Somewhere on it, it will state something along the lines of:

Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law. –Florida DL


I don’t know where in the paperwork you agreed to this (I haven’t been to the DVM in years), but I know you legally did. I know its considered a civil contract, and you can ask any police officer about it. That is why you can refuse to take the DUI test and be submitted to civil penalties instead of criminal ones. Its also why the police now have judges writing warrants at DUI checkpoints to force people who refuse to submit.

When you applied for your drivers license it certainly was not a one sided affair. You went there and applied for it, took a test, paid a fee, and they granted you your license. When you paid your fee, you provided legal consideration to them and accepted the contract.

Consideration is the concept of legal value in connection with contracts. It is anything of value promised to another when making a contract. It can take the form of money, physical objects, services, promised actions, abstinence from a future action, and much more. Under the notion of "pre-existing duties," if either the promisor or the promisee already had a legal obligation to render such payment, it cannot be seen as consideration in the legal sense.
In common law it is a prerequisite that both parties offer some consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding.

You provided consideration, and they provided you with your license. A legal contract now exists between you and the state that you will submit to a DUI check at their request.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

I completely agree in the fact that all you are quoting is technically correct and I'm sure nobody here wants drunk, drugged or irresponsible drivers on the line but with all due respect, just because something is legal or lawful does not make it right. Strangers groping strangers because of some paranoid policy that degrades everyone (TSA policy) is just nasty. Good luck with it though, it's a country I'll never be visiting.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by maddog99
Apples & Oranges? This Thread is about the abuses of the TSA, which is a government regulated agency and it's abuses toward our freedoms...

Well, no, this thread was not actually about that, its about a woman protesting airport searches by running around an airport in her underwear.


Getting into roadblocks is something of another topic all together, and one I would certainly fight against if it begins to occur.


Originally posted by maddog99
not about how the airlines don't have a choice...I understand they don't.

Technically they do have a choice. They have the power to force the FAA into changing the rules if they so desired. The truth is though that when something goes wrong, they lose a lot of money. Families of victims and employees do not go sue the government, and the government is not the one who is out one hell of an expensive piece of equipment. That’s why the airlines used to hire their own security, and make passenger inspections even before the government got involved in it. That’s why that part of the Contract of Carriage has been in there since way before 2001.


Originally posted by maddog99
The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches...period.

But, you see, its not only YOUR personal rights that are involved here. You also have to take into consideration the personal rights of other passengers, the airlines itself, and even civilians on the ground, that may be affected by this.

Other passengers have the right to ensure that you are not carrying something that may cause them harm, airlines have the right to protect their employees and equipment, those on the ground have the right to not have a 100ton aircraft come falling on their house, etc…

So this is not something as clear cut as a simple violation of your personal rights.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Very interesting discussion going on here. I can understand the dilemma in making sure everyone who boards an aircraft is not doing so with items that would do damage or harm in any way.

We have allowed for years having our baggage, ourselves and our carry on items go through x-ray machines.

But there has to be a line drawn somewhere when they can make elderly ladies strip and start groping within a child's diaper.

TSA has been given far to much leeway and taken away far to many of American citizens rights.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


This is exactly the problem with a Fascist government. The corporations have the power to change laws and rules but the people do not.

I have noticed your posts since I came to ATS 6 years ago. You ALWAYS take the corporate main stream path and I have never witnessed you take the side of the people. Yet you were made a moderator? :shk:



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You are so completely missing the point. Nobody is arguing the right of people to enter and create contracts. The contracts have absolutely nothing to do with it. Nobody is attacking the right of an airline to create contracts.

It doesn't matter what contracts people sign as far as this conversation goes. I have flown and I have submitted to being fondled and inspected and you are correct, I signed away my rights when I purchased the tickets. Of course I never said any different and you know that.

What you fail to see is that nobody is arguing that point. People are upset about how the TSA operates. The contract simply gives them the legal standing to operate in the way that they do. That is all it does. It has nothing to do with this conversation that is about the TSA's procedures not the airlines right to create contracts.

If your objective is to frustrate me to the point of ignoring you, you have succeeded. You have proved your complete ignorance and closed mind on this subject. You have proved your unwillingness to actually address the topic at hand. Congratulations!

If your objective is to have a intelligent conversation weighing the pros and cons of the TSA, their procedures and addressing peoples objections to how they operate you have failed miserably I am very sorry to say.

Nobody is arguing that the airlines have not agreed to follow government regulations.

The argument is about the regulations and procedures the government has created. All you want to talk about is private contracts and legality's. This has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. We are talking about how the TSA operates and what the TSA does. Once again, contracts between airlines, customers and the government have nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with that.

The discussion is about TSA procedures and the fact that people are forced to fly on many occasions because of the reality of life.

The sad thing is, with your experience in the industry you have the ability to provide great insight with regards to this subject but sadly you have taken the opposite route. Not sure why I expected otherwise. Good day.



edit on 26-1-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by LoneGunMan
I have noticed your posts since I came to ATS 6 years ago. You ALWAYS take the corporate main stream path and I have never witnessed you take the side of the people. Yet you were made a moderator? :shk:

You have been here long enough to realize that being a mod has nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion on any given topic, and mods are expected to have various opinions and backgrounds to make a well balanced group. There is no official “party line” opinion or stance that any moderator is expected to have.

You should also realize that belonging to a site like ATS is in many ways similar to agreeing to go through airport security. Here you agree to follow certain rules that the owners set to be granted the right to be a member of the board. You actually surrender some of your Constitutional rights to freedom of speech by agreeing to the Terms and Conditions on any privately owned website you belong too. This is very much akin to surrendering some of your personal rights to fly on a privately owned aircraft.

Additionally, if you actually had been aware of many of my posts since I began here, you should realize that I am a skeptic, I am critical of the government and “big business”, I am very critical of the financial sector, I dislike unions, I believe that the US is the “Beast” of Revelation and is becoming a Police State. I have been a big opponent of the REAL ID act, and many of the police state laws here in Florida.

Through learning all of that, fighting some of it, working in certain industries, I have learned to pick my battles, and the way that both your rights and our laws work. I have explained that to you in this thread, but rather then learn from it, many have decided to try and attack me about it. I even went so far as to tell you the correct way to go about getting these laws changed if you so desire.

It seems though that many are more prone to sit an argue their point in an attempt to prove they are right about something they are completely incorrect about, and obviously do not fully understand, rather then learn how it actually works legally and how to really fight it. It seems that what you really want is someone to just sit here whining about the evils of the TSA, and agree with conspiracy theory pseudo-law.

In the “real world”, conspiracy theory pseudo-law has no bearing on the actual law, and none of it stands up in court. All this “Freeman”, “sovereignty”, “right to movement”, “tax objector” type of legal belief only works in the minds of those who write it on the internet, none of it stands up in a real court. If you really want to fight something, I suggest that you learn how it really works, how they get the right to do what they do, and how you surrender your rights without even realizing it.

Lets be honest here, what you want is a TSA bashing thread, not a thread that contains any real facts or truth about anything. Your getting upset because you don't like the real legal fact that you choose to surrender your rights to the TSA voluntarily when you choose to fly.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join