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.
Originally posted by Advantage
You all do realize that when you buy your ticket and enter the screening area you have agreed to the security measures.. dont you??
www.techdirt.com...
The "dont touch my junk" or Im suing you guy.. what was he told? The TSA supervisor told him, “By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights..."
“What he’s done, he’s violated federal law and federal regulations which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it,” TSA’s San Diego security director told the Fox 5 News.
www.wired.com...
If youre going to argue how tough youre "gunna be when they come an grope yer junk" at the VERY LEAST know the law.. and what you have already agreed to by purchasing the ticket and entering the process.
IN other words.. BOYCOTT IT.. dont fly.. DONT agree to it.
This is bull# because the guy insisting that the non-passenger must be screened or fined is basically implying that ignorance of the rule is no excuse for the non-passenger and therefore he must be fined if he leaves the security area without some agent copping a feel, but he allows the excuse that ignorance of the rule exempts the TSA agents, the local cop, and Mr. Silva from any penalty.
If they escorted him out, they exempted him from the rule, whether they knew there was one or not.
Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by MConnalley
Are you serious? Like.......really serious? Typical manifesto of the sheep " oh it's what you make of it ya know!" I intend no offense....but really! Come on! Why are you even on ATS if you're okay with all of this? (serious question btw, not personal attack) I can honestly say that if some asshole tries to give me the "special pat down" before I get on a bus or a train, I'll bloody deck him. Probably wouldn't work out too well for me in the end but that is what my reaction would be. Yay for anger problems!!!!!!
edit on 22/6/2011 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)edit on 22/6/2011 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Rhebefree
Originally posted by Jepic
Originally posted by Rhebefree
Originally posted by Jepic
A scene? Oh no! The game is simple. Let this be a lesson to all kids. If you consider something as going too far, get the game on.
Besides that would have been an excellent example and lesson from her towards her children. It would have taught them to have some respect for their bodies, not to take it and to basically not let yourself get f***** with...
And what she should have said if she was uncomfortable with her children watching a potential scene is to tell one of the agents to take them to that private room until they are finished with her pat-down.edit on 22-6-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)
For crying out loud, have you not read the horror stories of foster care? Had she been arrested her children would have been immediatly put into a foster care home, I dont know if she has a partner but if so it would take him ages to get the children back, if she does not have a partner then it would be even harder for her to get them back. It doesnt matter what country you live in once the empire has a hold on your children they dont give them up easy, sometimes never at all.
The op was brave to the best of her ability, she refused to let the drone hide the assault and for that the op should be commended. Its her childless fellow travellers that should of stood up to the plate and been a good example to her children on what community and human love and compassion is about, but they did not and that is what should be bothering you!
Uhm hello! It's not up to other people to come to the rescue. It's up to you.
And off they go to foster care then...
It most certainly is up to other people to do something when they witness injustice!
When you see someone being abused, you go to their aid, you dont hold the "holier than thou attitude" that its their fault! My gads man have you no compassion?
If me and my child were being intimidated and assaulted by some pervert in front of heaps of people, I would hope that someone would have the compassion to atleast say something, instead people like you would avert their eyes and say "oh well, if she wont defend herself then I dont have to"
I bet your the kind of person who spits in the general direction of a woman being abused by her husband arent you?
Originally posted by Jepic
Originally posted by Advantage
You all do realize that when you buy your ticket and enter the screening area you have agreed to the security measures.. dont you??
www.techdirt.com...
The "dont touch my junk" or Im suing you guy.. what was he told? The TSA supervisor told him, “By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights..."
“What he’s done, he’s violated federal law and federal regulations which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it,” TSA’s San Diego security director told the Fox 5 News.
www.wired.com...
If youre going to argue how tough youre "gunna be when they come an grope yer junk" at the VERY LEAST know the law.. and what you have already agreed to by purchasing the ticket and entering the process.
IN other words.. BOYCOTT IT.. dont fly.. DONT agree to it.
That's bull**** as this poster I will quote (from your first link) said. When you get escorted out you no longer have to get through the procedures.
This is bull# because the guy insisting that the non-passenger must be screened or fined is basically implying that ignorance of the rule is no excuse for the non-passenger and therefore he must be fined if he leaves the security area without some agent copping a feel, but he allows the excuse that ignorance of the rule exempts the TSA agents, the local cop, and Mr. Silva from any penalty.
If they escorted him out, they exempted him from the rule, whether they knew there was one or not.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by k21968
reply to post by christine76
I received a super duper pat down in Atlanta and low and behold TYE dIGGS was in the special area with me. I fell in love. It was worth it to me because well..he is a freaking hottie.
I dont mean to minimize what happened to you. I am sorry you had to go through that. I just wished you got to share a pat down with a hottie. It does make it better.
Originally posted by Advantage
Originally posted by Jepic
Originally posted by Advantage
You all do realize that when you buy your ticket and enter the screening area you have agreed to the security measures.. dont you??
www.techdirt.com...
The "dont touch my junk" or Im suing you guy.. what was he told? The TSA supervisor told him, “By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights..."
“What he’s done, he’s violated federal law and federal regulations which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it,” TSA’s San Diego security director told the Fox 5 News.
www.wired.com...
If youre going to argue how tough youre "gunna be when they come an grope yer junk" at the VERY LEAST know the law.. and what you have already agreed to by purchasing the ticket and entering the process.
IN other words.. BOYCOTT IT.. dont fly.. DONT agree to it.
That's bull**** as this poster I will quote (from your first link) said. When you get escorted out you no longer have to get through the procedures.
This is bull# because the guy insisting that the non-passenger must be screened or fined is basically implying that ignorance of the rule is no excuse for the non-passenger and therefore he must be fined if he leaves the security area without some agent copping a feel, but he allows the excuse that ignorance of the rule exempts the TSA agents, the local cop, and Mr. Silva from any penalty.
If they escorted him out, they exempted him from the rule, whether they knew there was one or not.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)
So youre actually going to take the word of a commenter on a news story and not the federal law the person holding the ticket has agreed to? WOW... this just keeps getting better and better!edit on 22-6-2011 by Advantage because: (no reason given)
"Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent."
The Ninth Circuit held that airport searches no longer are dependent upon implied consent; they are now administrative searches because flying on an airplane in a post-9/11 world is now the same as a “highly regulated industry.” Any “implied consent,” thus, cannot be revoked once the passenger elects to enter the secure area. Such searches, however, are not limitless; they are limited by their justification: screening for terrorists. This search was reasonable under the circumstances.
Originally posted by Advantage
reply to post by Jepic
reply to post by Jepic
No I take the word of the director of security and the federal law. Sorta trumps a commenter on a story. If youre going to break a law.. at least know what law youre intending to break and the consequences of doing so. Buy a ticket and enter the process.. you are giving what is called "IMPLIED CONSENT" and thats not even necessary anymore.. now since the 9th Circuit Courts ruling.. you dont even have to give implied consent because since 9-11 and this ruling.. its held under the umbrella of “highly regulated industry.” In other words... you are groped against your will and are obviously ignorant of the law. You have NO right to walk away. You may get away with it.. but it certainly isnt your RIGHT to anymore.
DOnt buy a ticket, dont support unconstitutional BS, and they dry up because the flow of precious money dries up. To fight somethig that you have no idea what you are actually fighting is beyond stupid. There is enough evidence, case reviews, and hard black and white info on the internet.. Im shocked no one grasps any of this and WHY it is unconstitutional. Not only is it NOT a viable method of security, its complete BS.
If you want to have ANY clue about what you are speaking about.. start here:
www.tsa.gov...
ecfr.gpoaccess.gov...:9.1.3.5.10&idno=49
fourthamendment.com...
Then go to here to understand exactly what rights are stripped from you with the now designated "highly regulated industry".
United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007)
United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973);
see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006);
Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.
"Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent."
The Ninth Circuit held that airport searches no longer are dependent upon implied consent; they are now administrative searches because flying on an airplane in a post-9/11 world is now the same as a “highly regulated industry.” Any “implied consent,” thus, cannot be revoked once the passenger elects to enter the secure area. Such searches, however, are not limitless; they are limited by their justification: screening for terrorists. This search was reasonable under the circumstances.
Hopefully someone is getting the clue here....chewing up information and regurgitating it to those who refuse to research anything is interfering with my South Park on Netflix viewing pleasures...
I don't see the point of flying. Technology allows personal and business communication without travel. I'm in Oklahoma. We have loads of options for entertainment here and in surrounding states.
Originally posted by christine76 I won't be flying again anytime soon...