This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
TSA Security Theatre
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Do you understand the difference between backscattering x-rays you get at the airport and the traditional kind you get at your doctor? It's not even close.
Whether the procedure is close is irrelevant. What is relevant is the dosage and risk that the radiation causes.
Consent to search does not mean you give the TSA permission to touch your breasts or genitals. Anyone else, other than a trusted medical doctor that you to give such explicit permission to touch your genitals, that touched your genitals would be immediately guilty of sexual assault. The TSA should not be exempted, and if Congressman Paul's bill passes, they will be criminally liable if they do.
TSA website:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1049.shtm
Pat-Down Inspection
A pat-down inspection complements the hand-wand inspection.
In order to ensure security, this inspection may include sensitive areas of the body.
Security Officers are rigorously trained to maintain the highest levels of professionalism. You may request that your pat-down inspection be conducted in private.
There is your consent. If you can consent to a stranger at a party touching your genitals, you can consent to a stranger at border security touching your genitals.
Post by
Squishalot
you have a point regarding consent but it still wouldn't be the same thing, as say going to a medical checkup, you can't tell me
this in no way does not violate our 4th amendment
You'll need to clarify what the 4th amendment is for me, as a non-American...
There are some people who will cross the line, no matter what policies are. Just like people can abuse the standard metal detectors, people can abuse the pat-down searches too.
Post by
Discolando
There is your consent. If you can consent to a stranger at a party touching your genitals, you can consent to a stranger at border security touching your genitals.
For starters, that does not indicate consent. They're merely describing the procedure. There is a difference between me actually initiating consent for someone to touch my genitals vs. someone else initiating the process.
If I go to a party and say to a complete stranger, "Hey Stranger, you're hot... come touch my junk!" that in no way is the same as the government telling me, "Be prepared because I'm going to touch your junk." I initiated the former, and someone else initiated the latter against my will.
That's the reason that people like Congressman Ron Paul, the ACLU, and countless DAs around the country are quickly moving to strike down the TSAs authority to perform such invasive searches. They've overstepped their boundaries and it's up to the citizenry to step up and demand that things change.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
If I go to a party and say to a complete stranger, "Hey Stranger, you're hot... come touch my junk!" that in no way is the same as the government telling me, "Be prepared because I'm going to touch your junk." I initiated the former, and someone else initiated the latter against my will.
No, what the Government has said is "If you go this way, I'm going to touch your junk." And you chose to go that way.
It may just be explaining procedures, but by choosing to follow their procedures, you are providing consent for those procedures to follow. As I said, you can choose not to fly instead if you prefer, but you're too busy choosing to follow your employer's procedures to think about what other procedures you're following.
the 4th Amendment basically states that we are protected against unjust and involuntary search and seizure, now if your giving consent this would not apply, but I wouldn't say that little girl would approve of that happening to her.
That would be an issue of consent then, and a problem for the mother not stepping in and taking control of her daughter and the situation. Otherwise, reasonably speaking, terrorists will just look for 'patriotic' parents to be their suicide bombers in the same way that they used teenagers and women in the Middle East.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Discolando
No, what the Government has said is "If you go this way, I'm going to touch your junk." And you chose to go that way.
It may just be explaining procedures, but by choosing to follow their procedures, you are providing consent for those procedures to follow. As I said, you can choose not to fly instead if you prefer, but you're too busy choosing to follow your employer's procedures to think about what other procedures you're following.
You don't seem to be grasping the fundamental issue here. Let me just say I'm extremely thankful that reasonable people in the United States are working to bring the current TSA procedures to an end and restore civility and liberty.
Post by
Squishalot
last time I checked, guns, knives, bombs, bullets, etc. were all made out of metal which can be detected via metal detectors and if they wished could put in an x-ray similar to the ones used in hospitals.
I was under the impression that hospital x-rays deliver higher doses of radiation. Happy to be corrected if there's a good source against that though. But no, not all potentially dangerous devices can be detected via metal detectors. A ceramic cooking knife, for example, won't be. And they're a damn lot sharper than conventional stainless steel ones.
You don't seem to be grasping the fundamental issue here. Let me just say I'm extremely thankful that reasonable people in the United States are working to bring the current TSA procedures to an end and restore civility and liberty.
Oh, I do understand it. However, I'm content to be screened via the x-ray.
You're not grasping the point that it's just procedure, at the end of the day. What makes you willing to be such a sheep to your employer who's forcing you to undergo these terrible procedures on threat of termination, but wanting to rail against the evil government who's actually doing it?
I mean, essentially, you're almost saying "I want to get from New York to London really quickly, but I don't want to fly, because it's DANGEROUS, and because the government won't let me use any other modes of transport, it's ALL THEIR FAULT".
Post by
Asylu
If you saw a police officer doing that to a small child in a mall would you call it molestation? I sure as hell would. This is unconstitutional and just wrong. The fact that they have government permission is a sign of the direction that this country is headed. We are turning into a
totalitarian
society, maybe not left leaning but never the less becoming more about the government's rights and less about the individual's.
I am not a paranoid conspiracy nut, just someone who is watching the world change into something out of a
comic book of some note
.
Post by
Discolando
Oh, I do understand it. However, I'm content to be screened via the x-ray.
You're not grasping the point that it's just procedure, at the end of the day. What makes you willing to be such a sheep to your employer who's forcing you to undergo these terrible procedures on threat of termination, but wanting to rail against the evil government who's actually doing it?
At the end of the day, it's a procedure that violates 4th Amendment rights and the right to privacy while simultaneously sexually harassing people under threat of prosecution. That's why I'm so vociferously against it.
I'm not a sheep to my employer because my employer doesn't actually require me to fly. If you didn't catch it earlier I was speaking hypothetically. I specifically choose to not fly because of the draconian policies of the TSA - I hope the entire airline industry goes bankrupt and there is no one to blame but the Great Nanny State.
Post by
Squishalot
If you saw a police officer doing that to a small child in a mall would you call it molestation? I sure as hell would.
Would you change your tune if you knew the child had a bomb strapped to her?
If so, then the severity of the action is dependent on context.
At the end of the day, it's a procedure that violates
4th Amendment rights
and the right to privacy while simultaneously sexually harassing people. That's why I'm so vociferously against it.
4th amendment = involuntary search. This isn't involuntary.
Right to privacy is also dependent on context. Government isn't allowed to track your movements around the town, but is allowed to track when you leave and enter the country. Is your right to bear arms infringed upon when you fly? Is that a problem? Consider that other people have a right to safety too.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I would agree with you regarding the involuntary aspect if you had an alternative to meet a person face to face, with speeds similar to air travel or even across the sea.
It would be as if you wanted to drive but to get your license the DMV does pat downs also and your against it. However if you want your license you must go to through the DMV. Thus if you want your license you need to go through a pat down.
You don't have a 'right' to air travel. The government 'permits' air travel. Therefore, if you want to use it, you follow their rules. I don't see how the government forcing you not to bear arms before flying is any different from forcing you to go through
your choice
of pat down or x-ray.
Post by
Discolando
I would agree with you regarding the involuntary aspect if you had an alternative to meet a person face to face, with speeds similar to air travel or even across the sea.
It would be as if you wanted to drive but to get your license the DMV does pat downs also and your against it. However if you want your license you must go to through the DMV. Thus if you want your license you need to go through a pat down.
You don't have a 'right' to air travel. The government 'permits' air travel.
Wrong. There is Supreme Court Case Law going as far back as 1823 and up to 1999 that specifically states the government can not interfere with travel of citizens within the US. The airline industry is private enterprise, don't forget. The Government does not 'permit' a thing, and I'm appalled that you're willing to grant them such power out of the gate.
Why are you so adamant to defend Big Brother? Are you not American and just don't care? Do you think it's okay to surrender liberty for security?
Post by
Squishalot
Wrong. There is Supreme Court Case Law going as far back as 1823 and up to 1999 that specifically states the government can not interfere with travel of citizens within the US. The airline industry is private enterprise, don't forget. The Government does not 'permit' a thing, and I'm appalled that you're willing to grant them such power out of the gate.
The airline industry is private enterprise, meaning that the Government doesn't own the planes. They do own the airspace though, if I'm not mistaken. Airlines exist because they have licenses issued by Government entities to transport passengers. So yes, the Government still rules it.
Why are you so adamant to defend Big Brother? Are you not American and just don't care? Do you think it's okay to surrender liberty for security?
Because I don't believe in hype and sensationalism. The procedures and processes currently being undertaken by the TSA are not unequivocably bad. In the correct context, such procedures can and should be acceptable.
By submitting to any laws at all, by definition, you surrender liberty for security. As I pointed out to vgk, you already surrender your right to bear arms when you fly, and I don't think you have a problem with that. Your problem with this is that these somehow infringe across the line in the sand that you've drawn about what freedoms you're willing to give up. That line in the sand is subjective between people - there's no 'right' and 'wrong'.
Post by
Discolando
The procedures and processes currently being undertaken by the TSA are not unequivocably bad.
Again, I'm thankful there are people in authority who disagree with you and are working to change how things are operating now, because I believe the current status quo
is
'unequivocably bad'. I'll leave it at that.
Post by
Squishalot
The procedures and processes currently being undertaken by the TSA are not unequivocably bad.
Again, I'm thankful there are people in authority who disagree with you and are working to change how things are operating now, because I believe the current status quo
is
'unequivocably bad'. I'll leave it at that.
Because your 'right to privacy' is breached? Again, why aren't you concerned that your 'right to bear arms' is breached?
Post by
Discolando
The procedures and processes currently being undertaken by the TSA are not unequivocably bad.
Again, I'm thankful there are people in authority who disagree with you and are working to change how things are operating now, because I believe the current status quo
is
'unequivocably bad'. I'll leave it at that.
Because your 'right to privacy' is breached? Again, why aren't you concerned that your 'right to bear arms' is breached?
Who said I wasn't concerned? However, that's not the point of this thread. Nice try poisoning the well, though. :)
Post by
Squishalot
Because your 'right to privacy' is breached? Again, why aren't you concerned that your 'right to bear arms' is breached?
Who said I wasn't concerned? However, that's not the point of this thread. Nice try poisoning the well, though. :)
It's a perfectly legitimate argument. Are you concerned or not?
Post by
Discolando
Because your 'right to privacy' is breached? Again, why aren't you concerned that your 'right to bear arms' is breached?
Who said I wasn't concerned? However, that's not the point of this thread. Nice try poisoning the well, though. :)
It's a perfectly legitimate argument. Are you concerned or not?
Again, nice try. The point of this thread is the TSA and their violation of the 4th Amendment. I've spoken my peace and you've spoken yours... why are you now insisting on changing the subject? I firmly believe you're wrong and you firmly believe I'm wrong. It's probably going to be a moot point because if Congressman Paul's legislature passes next week the TSA will no longer be able to invasively search people and I'll be happy.
In case you're not familiar with Congressman Paul's position and legislature he introduced, I invite you to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwsdq69AHnw
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.