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.

 

Why do so many people have an issue with the TSA?

page: 15
8
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Konduit
 

Contract of Carriage has been around, and has been the same since forever.
We had the same contract of carriage back in the 80's that you can find online now.
They have always had the same rights to search you, there is no defined method of how that search is to be carried out, simply that you must comply with it.


I believe that your personal conjecture is biasing fact to suit a flawed argument. You have not provided any proof to support your claims or assertions. I searched for said Contract of Carriage (CoC) and immediately found two (so far from Delta and Southwest) that clearly indicated that they "may" refuse to transport you and does not explicitly state that you must undergo any particular screening/search.

Delta CoC, Rule 35 states:

Delta may refuse to transport any passenger, and may remove any passenger from its aircraft at any time, for any of the following reasons: . . When a passenger refuses to permit search of his person or property for explosives, weapons, dangerous materials, or other prohibited items.


Southwest CoC, Section 6 states:

General. Carrier may, in its sole discretion, refuse to transport, or may remove from an aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below.
.
.
Any Passenger who refuses to permit the search of his person or property by Carrier or an authorized government agency for explosives, hazardous materials, contraband, or concealed, deadly, or dangerous weapons or articles.


Where I agree that flying on a commercial aircraft or any other mode of transport is a privilege not a right, suggesting that we give up our rights to search simply because of an airlines contract of carriage is ridiculous.

Furthermore, you have not produced any older CoC that would support your assertion that they've always been the same, at least since the 80s. Where if you were to refer to the CoCs (at least the one's that I've looked at) you will find that they have revision dates as recent as March 2012. Unfortunately, it doesn't say what has changed since the last revision nor does it state how many revisions there have been since a CoC has been established. But it is abundantly clear that it has NOT stayed the same and is in fact, constantly changing.

ESV




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by camus154
 


someone could never be a disinfo agent because everyone knows those are like the tooth fairy. We all know disinfo agents can't exists ...


This is the place to discuss things like disinfo agents, conspiracy throeries, and governments encroaching on the rights of its citizens.

It is perfectly legitimate to question why you are defending the TSA. Its obvious why I criticise the TSA. Why do you come here and defend them? Are you afraid we might collectively put enough pressure to be able to kick the TSA out of the airports?

Are you really so scared that a terrorist might kill you that you are willing be treated like a suspect everywhere you go?
edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Life is funny.
So I just found out today that I have to travel back to the states. I am living abroad. I leave in 2 days. I am still debating trying to slip a broken box cutter blade in my shoe like I innocently stepped on it and walking through the scanner.

My friend did this and he went right through.

I´ll post the results.

If you see a guy on the news going ape on some TSA agents, running nude after a full cavity search, that's me.

:edit

any ideas for tests. I am willing.
Oh and can we film while in the airport?
edit on 22-3-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FoxMulder91
 


I have a problem when they're frisking old ladies and little kids, meanwhile middle-eastern men between the age of 18-35 are not being frisked. It wasn't an old lady, a little kid, an Amish person who blew up the planes on 9/11. It was primarily Arabs and 100% of them were Muslim. Focus on the problem, not political correctness. If a white guy robs a store, do you think it makes sense to stop black people? Conversely, if a black man robs a store, should the police be pulling over white people? NO!

So, why is the TSA focusing efforts on little kids and old people who do NOT fit the PROFILE!?!?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by camus154
 





See what you just did there? You rather obviously poisoned the well (look it up if you aren't familiar with that term) on who out of these two groups is "right". Truthers care, others are just "sheep". The very cliche I was pointing out.


I was actually referring to two types of "truthers". Because there are those that act just like the same people they calim to despise.



I disagree. I travel quite frequently, and in all of my travels I've seen exactly ONE person make a stink over being searched. The majority of us have our belts and shoes off before we even get up to security and just want to get through so we can grab a cup of joe and be on our way.

But what you say here is exactly why I say we, as Americans, are spoiled and entitled. Do you want to know why I'm not all indignant about "being treated like a criminal"?

Because I don't take it so personally. I don't look at the TSA agent asking me to step through a scanner and think "My God, this person has a vendetta against me. My own country thinks I'm going to blow up a plane. How. Dare. They."


Maybe you should. Remember that the people that make these decisions usually don't have our best interests in mind. If they did, I think we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now because everything would be just peachy.



I don't give a hoot what people might think because of my tone or disposition. People will think whatever is convenient for them to think, which in the majority of cases means whatever will wind up supporting their own crackpot theories. That's why it's a cliche to be called a disinfo agent--isn't it convenient that an opposing voice is not only dispelled but used as more "evidence" that they're right.


I can support that statement because I think it's the most lucid one you've made that I've read. I can always appreciate a dissenting opinion because I know I don't know it all. But there are some observations you have made that don't sit well with me.

Such as everyone having their shoes and belts and whatever at the ready just because they want to get through. Some people would view that as just apathy. "There's nothing I can do about it, so I'll go along with it." It's like we are all being treated like children. The actions of a few do not dictate the actions of the many. I would not be fearful to enter a plane with no security. And I don't want to be patted down, but I'll take it over being sprayed with an X-Ray with no lead vest for my meat and 2 veggies.

You've got your opinions and I have mine. There are much worse things than the TSA like the NDAA and Patriot Act as an example. But still, it is entirely unneccessary and an overdone. Israel claims to be the recipient of the most terror threats, and the citizens there are not subjected to this treatment.

Good luck to you, you seem to have your mind made up and I hope everything works out well for you.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
someone could never be a disinfo agent because everyone knows those are like the tooth fairy. We all know disinfo agents can't exists ...



Dude, frankly I really don't care what you think of me or disinfo agents. I'm saying that it's pathetically cliche, predictable, and a terrible cop out when arguing to label your opponent something that conveniently supports your own stance. It's like a child telling her mother "You're just a big meanie" when they're punished.

Yes, we get it. There are mean mothers out there. And conveniently I'm one of them when I scold you.



It is perfectly legitimate to question why you are defending the TSA. Its obvious why I criticise the TSA. Why do you come here and defend them?

Are you really so scared that a terrorist might kill you that you are willing be treated like a suspect everywhere you go?
edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


I'm not defending the TSA, I'm attacking the fetishism of paranoia that surrounds these types of topics. The incredibly disgusting sense of entitlement of a culture that thinks being patted down is synonymous with some hostile take over by our own government, the enormous ego required to think that one person's sense of indignation should trump the safety of hundreds of others.

It's disgusting to me. That video of the kid in the wheelchair was disgusting to me. Not because the kid got patted down--big friggin' deal--but because his self-righteous father was standing right there to record it all and then go post on YouTube to talk about how horrible the ordeal was and look how bad his poor little kid got treated and OMG I almost had to put my latte down, I was so mad!

It's theater of the absurd--not a kid in a wheelchair getting patted down, but citizens who are more wealthy than any society in history, with more luxuries and freedoms and opportunities than any other time frame EVER, complaining about how indignant they are that they have to walk through security.
edit on 22-3-2012 by camus154 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by camus154
I'm not defending the TSA, I'm attacking the fetishism of paranoia that surrounds these types of topics. The incredibly disgusting sense of entitlement of a culture that thinks being patted down is synonymous with some hostile take over by our own government, the enormous ego required to think that one person's sense of indignation should trump the safety of hundreds of others.


People who think that everywhere there are people willing to kill them to the point where everyone needs to be checked are truly paranoid.

If we were in a theater and you leaned over to me and said I think that woman over there with the little girl should be searched because they may want to kill us. I would say that you need professional help.

But really your paranoia is not rounded out enough. You still think that people only want to kill you while you fly. You should be more rounded in your delusions and consider all crowded places. You should also start preparing all your own food.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS PARANOID.

I am not the one who thinks everyone is out to kill me.


edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlesUTP
You've got your opinions and I have mine. There are much worse things than the TSA like the NDAA and Patriot Act as an example. But still, it is entirely unneccessary and an overdone. Israel claims to be the recipient of the most terror threats, and the citizens there are not subjected to this treatment.

Good luck to you, you seem to have your mind made up and I hope everything works out well for you.


I appreciate your civility and apologize for not having always given it in kind.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS PARANOID.

I am not the one who thinks everyone is out to kill me.


edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


Whoaa, slow down. I just provided you with a rather long-winded reason for why I've been arguing this and what you've taken away from that is it's all because I'm afraid of getting bombed on a plane?

No sir. I didn't say squat about how effective I think TSA is or how likely I think a terrorist will get on board. Straw man. I told you quite plainly why this whole topic irks me.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by camus154

Originally posted by MegaMind
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS PARANOID.

I am not the one who thinks everyone is out to kill me.


edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


Whoaa, slow down. I just provided you with a rather long-winded reason for why I've been arguing this and what you've taken away from that is it's all because I'm afraid of getting bombed on a plane?

No sir. I didn't say squat about how effective I think TSA is or how likely I think a terrorist will get on board. Straw man. I told you quite plainly why this whole topic irks me.


Yeah and I'm telling you the TSA needs to go. Because the threat is hyped. This is not about security. As many have said they could use dogs and metal detectors. The TSA very existance is based on this irrational fear that everywhere there are terrorist wanting to kill people.

This idea is promoted in the media daily. It is an irrational fear. It is paranoia plain and simple.

You said yourself it is about safety - yeah right



edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by camus154

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Kinda don't have a choice if you have to fly, eh? I don't think 9 out of 10 people can afford a private jet, either.

I haven't flown since before TSA was formed, and I'm not going to. I drive where I need to go.


But you just proved (or rather, disproved) your own point.

No one "has" to fly. Choices, my friend. We always have choices. When people tell you otherwise, what they're really saying is that they aren't willing to deal with the consequences of a particular choice, thus they "have to" make another one.


Not really. I don't HAVE to fly, but some other people do - for work, or whatever. A lot of sales reps and other professionals rack up huge frequent flyer miles.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





Your Constitutional Right do not apply to a contract where you waived your rights to unreasonable search. You do this when you accept the Contract of Carriage of an airline, and purchase their tickets.


That's all well and good when the airline is providing and paying for said security. Their security agency would be covered under the Contract of Carriage. However the TSA is a government agency is it not? Government run and funded, their powers are given by governmental regulation. Powers given by government MUST be limited by the constitution, and any legal precedent you can think of CANNOT be allowed to trump that.

My wife has a prosthetic hip. Every time we've flown she's ended up being groped. (I know its called a pat down, but see what happens if You touch my wife like that). No, I would not fly an airline who said that I needed to let their people put their hands in my crotch. I am not afforded that luxury under the rules of the TSA. In order to fly I have to allow them to fondle me, at their whim, without at the very least a modicum of suspicion that I am engaging in illegal or dangerous activities. So much for my right to free travel. The Government has said I have to do this, they at the very least need to obey the constitution, but then they wouldn't be able to control me would they?

I'm saddened that so few people have figured this out, especially a mod.

peace
edit on 22-3-2012 by RichardA because: to clarify a point.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardA
My wife has a prosthetic hip. Every time we've flown she's ended up being groped. (I know its called a pat down, but see what happens if You touch my wife like that).


Let me guess: "Grr!! Look at my indignant face!!". Even if it's a female security officer, right?

My girlfriend has metal plates throughout one side of her body. She never runs into any problems in security and we're normally in and out in no time at all.

Funny how different of an experience two groups of people can have, isn't it?


No, I would not fly an airline who said that I needed to let their people put their hands in my crotch. I am not afforded that luxury under the rules of the TSA. In order to fly I have to allow them to fondle me, at their whim, without at the very least a modicum of suspicion that I am engaging in illegal or dangerous activities. So much for my right to free travel. The Government has said I have to do this, they at the very least need to obey the constitution, but then they wouldn't be able to control me would they?

I'm saddened that so few people have figured this out, especially a mod.

peace


There's nothing to figure it. Don't like it? Don't fly. "But I have to!", you say. No you don't. You choose to. And the right to free travel does not entitle you to a right to fly. The skies are not public roads and highways.

It's amazing how many people in here are experts on the Constitution and the law, yet manage to fumble the very basics of how the law works.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by camus154
 


the skies are not government property either.

Their regulation, if by the government should be done with consensus from the people since fundamentally the government exists to serve and protect us. Not the other way around. If we don't want that sort of protection it's our call not theirs.

Most Americans respect the constitution and don't like the surrendering of civil liberties. We decide how this country will turn out, not them. We elect them. They don't breed us.

edit on 22-3-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
Most Americans respect the constitution and don't like the surrendering of civil liberties. We decide how this country will turn out, not them. We elect them. They don't breed us.

edit on 22-3-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)


Well, I don't disagree.

And clearly we all hate the TSA and don't want our rights stomped on.

So...err...why isn't this getting changed?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by 31Bravo
 


even easier...put a lock on the cockpit door.....DUH.

You cant be seriously this uneducated. You think a lock on a cabin door will demoralize the demands of terrorists?
tell you what.. when you have an intelligent thought pop in your head towards this debate I will be more than happy to discuss this with you. Until then you need to step out of your house and experience reality because that is not a deterent whatsoever.
edit on 22-3-2012 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 31Bravo

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by 31Bravo
 


even easier...put a lock on the cockpit door.....DUH.

You cant be seriously this uneducated. You think a lock on a cabin door will demoralize the demands of terrorists?
tell you what.. when you have an intelligent thought pop in your head towards this debate I will be more than happy to discuss this with you. Until then you need to step out of your house and experience reality because that is not a deterent whatsoever.
edit on 22-3-2012 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)


It would have been a deterrent on 9/11. All they had were box cutters remember? What were they gonna do cut through a metal door with a razor blade? Grab someone and threaten to kill them?

Let's see oh why sure mister terrorist you can have the control of the whole plane as long as you let that lady go ...


We might not even be here discussing the TSA had the cabin doors been well locked and secured from entry on 9/11.


edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   


You are traveling as a guest of a company
reply to post by defcon5
 

As a guest,

I've never made a guest of mine pay. their my guest.

I've never molested a guest entering my house, car or boat.

i've never subjected any of my guests to harmful radiation either.

Thats a real rude way to treat one of your guests. wouldn't you say.

i've never ever treated someone i couldn't stand to what you have to go through as a guest of the airline.

Airlines and airports would like to opt out but are threatened by the TSA, FAA and other government goons.

The TSA is useless and a huge waste of taxpayers dollars. Airliners and airports need to ban together and phase out the TSA. and begin to treat their "paying" guests with some respect and dignity.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by 31Bravo

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by 31Bravo
 


even easier...put a lock on the cockpit door.....DUH.

You cant be seriously this uneducated. You think a lock on a cabin door will demoralize the demands of terrorists?
tell you what.. when you have an intelligent thought pop in your head towards this debate I will be more than happy to discuss this with you. Until then you need to step out of your house and experience reality because that is not a deterent whatsoever.
edit on 22-3-2012 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)


It would have been a deterrent on 9/11. All they had were box cutters remember? What were they gonna do cut through a metal door with a razor blade? Grab someone and threaten to kill them?

Let's see oh why sure mister terrorist you can have the control of the whole plane as long as you let that lady go ...


We might not even be here discussing the TSA had the cabin doors been well locked and secured from entry on 9/11.


edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

right.. a lock on the cabin door will solve EVERYTHING *smack to forehead* how could we have been so thoughtless? I'm not a TSA agent.. but I do understand the fact that It is NOT a right to fly, it is a privilege. Instead of arguing symantecs how about you tell me what you would do if you were in charge of security for an airline. You are responsible of all the lives you fare from point A to point B. Since the TSA is taking all your rights away as a human being tell me what you would do better and how you would ensure that all planes would be sterile.
edit on 22-3-2012 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 31Bravo

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by 31Bravo

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by 31Bravo
 


even easier...put a lock on the cockpit door.....DUH.

You cant be seriously this uneducated. You think a lock on a cabin door will demoralize the demands of terrorists?
tell you what.. when you have an intelligent thought pop in your head towards this debate I will be more than happy to discuss this with you. Until then you need to step out of your house and experience reality because that is not a deterent whatsoever.
edit on 22-3-2012 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)


It would have been a deterrent on 9/11. All they had were box cutters remember? What were they gonna do cut through a metal door with a razor blade? Grab someone and threaten to kill them?

Let's see oh why sure mister terrorist you can have the control of the whole plane as long as you let that lady go ...


We might not even be here discussing the TSA had the cabin doors been well locked and secured from entry on 9/11.


edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

right.. a lock on the cabin door will solve EVERYTHING *smack to forehead* how could we have been so thoughtless?


While your smacking some sense into your forehead why don't you tell me how locked cabin doors wouldn't have prevented 9/11?

So cabin doors wouldn't have prevented a razor blade take over of the plane but TSA would have stopped the blades from getting on in the first place ... is that about right?

TSA staff jet blew it: Boxcutters taken on JFK airliner

from that article TSA says ....



"There have been a number of additional security layers that have been implemented on aircraft that would prevent someone from causing harm with boxcutters," she insisted.

"They include the possible presence of armed federal air marshals, hardened cockpit doors, flight crews trained in self-defense and a more vigilant traveling public who have demonstrated a willingness to intervene."


Good thing those "other things" are in place huh?
edit on 22-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join