Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mustaine on August 04, 2005, 04:32:04 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050804/ap_on_re_us/transit_security_lawsuit
all lawyers should be shot.
all people bringing BS lawsuits to trial should be shot
all people who say they have been harmed emotionally by a security search should be shot
-
I like how people sue the department because they feel the searches don't help.
IF YOU SUE FOR MONEY THEN THE STATE DOESN"T HAVE THE MONEY TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE SEARCHES.
People who do this should be beaten!
-
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-
Aw geez, someone's always bringing that dang "Bill of Rights" thing into the conversation. It's so dang inconvenient.
-
Lawyers pfffft
Talking of New york did anyone see that the British govt is a tad P O d with the NYPD. Apparently they've published details of how the bombs in london were made! Doesn't seem a very bright thing to do!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
and were in there does it say they have the RIGHT to ride the subway?
It doesn't. No one is being FORCED, it is strictly volutary. If you do not wish to have your bag searched don't ride the subway.
AND
Dont forget about this little dandy "against unreasonable searches "
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and were in there does it say they have the RIGHT to ride the subway?
It doesn't. No one is being FORCED, it is strictly volutary. If you do not wish to have your bag searched don't ride the subway.
AND
Dont forget about this little dandy "against unreasonable searches "
One could argue that if it is public transportation and subsidized with public funds, you do indeed have a right to use it.
Reasonable or not is subjective.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
One could argue that if it is public transportation and subsidized with public funds, you do indeed have a right to use it.
Reasonable or not is subjective.
and were does it say that in the constitution?
does a person have a RIGHT to carry a bag on a subway train? Couldnt the transportation authority say "no bags allowed" To me that would certainly solve the problem but a volutary bag search wich isn't "unreasonable" at all seems to be a nice little comprimise dont you thing?
-
I think I heard a judge make a ruling on this (a while back).
They can search random bags to try to prevent an attack.
They can't search random bags to try to catch a criminal. I.E. They can't randomly search bags for evidence.
-
Is it unreasonable to search people at the airport? Why is this any different? I belive the crux of the lawsuit centers on the selection of certain ethnic groups for searching--aka profiling. Is profiling per se unreasonable? (the Sup. Ct. sez no) That is the question asked by the law suit. I think that the ACLU will not like the answer, nor the precedent it sets for NY courts.
Oh btw, you do not have a right to ride public transportaion--that is clearly established. So you probably dont have a right to carry a bag full of explosives on the train either.
In other areas, cops generally have to have probable cause to search you or your car without a warrant. However, my experiance has been that if the cops want to know what you got they are going to search you. Truely, the 4th amendment, as it stands now, is only effective when you are sitting at home.
-
Airplanes are private property.
-
Not if my government is paying for them.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Airplanes are private property.
but subsidised by the fed govt while passengers are screened by federal workers and AIRPORTS are in some cases federal property.
Again it does not say in the constitution that one has the right to ride a subway. denying somone subway privilages is not denying them any civil right (unless you did it under fowl circumstances IE race/religion)
what this boils down to is this group and a FEW subway riders don't like the way the NYPD is doing this and want it done differently. I guess they feel lawyers know better than trained profesionals....
EDIT: on their same argument one could say that bag searches and metal detectors at public schools are unconstitutional.
-
Lawsuits like these are a mechanism by which you establish things like the extent of a right. They are a valid, and intergal part of the process. [edit: they add specific clarity, though you may or may not like what that clarity is :) You can bump it up through appeals to get a higher degree of final clarity.]
Charon
-
It is true that most airliners are private property. However, very few airports are. Certainly the airspace above 15,000 is federally managed. All navigation aids with the exception of some NDB's are governmentally owned and maintained. The Controllers in the tower as well as enroute are also not private. So in short you might own the jet but what are you going to do with it if you can't fly in the upper airways and get weather briefs or talk to the tower?
-
Where does it end?
When I was in the Navy, I visited countries where people were routinely stopped and searched simply because they were passing some "checkpoint". It was a stark reminder of the freedom that we had at home.
Today, I see that freedom slipping away. Sadly, most people will quietly accept it and move on. They will freely trade some freedom for the sense of security.
It's not about safety. It's about covering some bureaucrat's bellybutton just in the off chance that something does indeed happen.
Personally, I'm quite sick and tired of having to prove that I'm neither a criminal or a threat every time I enter an airport. It's inevitable that this type of search and screen will find its way to other means of public travel and public forums, but I do not welcome it.
IMHO, security will destroy this country far more effectively than any terrorist.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Where does it end?
When I was in the Navy, I visited countries where people were routinely stopped and searched simply because they were passing some "checkpoint". It was a stark reminder of the freedom that we had at home.
Today, I see that freedom slipping away. Sadly, most people will quietly accept it and move on. They will freely trade some freedom for the sense of security.
It's not about safety. It's about covering some bureaucrat's bellybutton just in the off chance that something does indeed happen.
Personally, I'm quite sick and tired of having to prove that I'm neither a criminal or a threat every time I enter an airport. It's inevitable that this type of search and screen will find its way to other means of public travel and public forums, but I do not welcome it.
IMHO, security will destroy this country far more effectively than any terrorist.
so as far as increasing security and deterring future attacks you would have us do......nothing?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Airplanes are private property.
Does this mean that, say, United Airlines, in a bid to increase passnegers, can decree that if you fly United you no longer need to be searched? IIRC, airport "screening" is a federal mandated intrusion on our "liberty." Oh, btw, unless you own the airplane, or airport, you have no standing to bring a challenge to the search--if you maintain they are private property. Most large commercial airports in fact are public places owned by municipalites or public corporations. Of course, you could always refuse the search. Note, alot of these seraches are considered consentual. Meaning that you consent to search when you decide to take an airplane somewhere. The same, it seems, now applies to subway passengers. I see very little distinction between the two.
-
The alternative to forcing law abiding citizens to prove their innocence is "nothing"?
-
A quick LEXIS search shows:
Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323, 137 L. Ed. 2d 513, 117 S. Ct. 1295 (1997) ("Where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as 'reasonable'--for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings."); see also United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 500 (2d Cir. 1974) ("When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, the danger alone meets the test of reasonableness, so long as the search is conducted in good faith for the purpose of preventing hijacking or like damage and with reasonable scope and the passenger has been given advance notice of his liability to such a search so that he can avoid it by choosing not to travel by air.") (quoting United States v. Bell, 464 F.2d 667, 675 (2d Cir. 1972) (Friendly, C.J., concurring)).
See also United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir., 2004)--Even the 9th has no prob with these types of searches.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The alternative to forcing law abiding citizens to prove their innocence is "nothing"?
so we should get rid of metal detectors at air ports all together. Same thing with security at sporting events.....schools....politic al events.
Could we fire the secret service?
I'm really not tracking you Sandy, this is extreme even for you.
-
You didn't answer the question. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The alternative to forcing law abiding citizens to prove their innocence is "nothing"?
wel, lessee.. this is one of the big ones.. right after the preamble stuff.
A -I can..surrender to the search, get my bong confiscated
B -run, get dogpiled and ventilated, they still get the bong
C -or I can shoot whoever tries to lay a hand on me.. take down a couple; hold the bong hostage and get us both killed
What's a self respecting freedom loving hippie from the village to do?
-
Assume the bag searches are stopped by this lawsuit.
Assume A-Q mangages to pull off multiple simultaneous bombing of the NYC subways similar to the Madrid and London operations.
What will be the governmental response?
What will the media pundits spout?
Will US rights be more or less secure after that?
-
the response.. Bush will stand in the rubble and we can kiss what little chance we had of retaining any sense of personal privacy or public freedom g'buy.
The media will shout its fool head off about whatever will sell more vaginal creme air time.
rights more secure after? Living in a city becomes living in a public prison. Folks are 'secure', rights will be history.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
One could argue that if it is public transportation and subsidized with public funds, you do indeed have a right to use it.
Sandman, while I agree with you that security searches are intrusions on the way we used to do it, public transportation is a government service, not a right. You have to pay to use it.
It is not a right if you must pay a fee for it, it is a service provided by a vendor. A right is (for the want of a better term) God-given.
I have the right to speak my mind, but I do not have to pay a fee for that right. I have the right to worship as I see fit, but no government fee is levied.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Assume the bag searches are stopped by this lawsuit.
Assume A-Q mangages to pull off multiple simultaneous bombing of the NYC subways similar to the Madrid and London operations.
What will be the governmental response?
What will the media pundits spout?
Will US rights be more or less secure after that?
1. The same as always. The government will take all measures necessary to prevent the last attack.
2. Who cares?
3. Terrorists cannot take away our rights. We have the government for that.
-
Fighting the bag searches is giving the terrorists a win.
When you freely cooperate with your law enforcement guys, and let them perform their job quickly and efficiently then the terrorists lose. Don't look at it as your right to privacy but your right to help combat terror.
In some ways the lawsuit works against the very ideals that those bring it are fighting for. If it wins, then laws will have to be made to make such searches legal, then the can of worms is really opened up big time.
-
If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about?
-
dude.. my bong is like, my precious. I have right's, man.. my bong has rights. You can't do this too me, dude.. I'm callin my layer.. dude... *nmummmpffhhhh!*
[cartmann] 'frikken hippies.. I HATE hippies'[/cartmann]
-
Then:
Teh Boosh is is teh eviul for not preventing 911!!!!
Now:
Teh Boosh it teh evil for triying to prevent new attacks!!!!
:mad:
-
I thought it was Bloomberg...
-
Aye!! Teh republican is teh eval!!!
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Lawyers pfffft
Talking of New york did anyone see that the British govt is a tad P O d with the NYPD. Apparently they've published details of how the bombs in london were made! Doesn't seem a very bright thing to do!
I think HMG's addiction to secrecy a worrying trend in a Democracy; and I'm surprised that you're more irritated with the yanks for telling you details which you have a right to know than you are with HMG wich is intent on keeping you in the dark.
Sometimes; you really push it; Skydancer.
-
ya ain't seen nothing yet ...
wait until a bomb does go off on a train/subway/bus/in a mall/movie theater here in the states ... maybe then the whiners will wake up ... probably not, not until it affects them personally
anyone hear Blair on the news this morning? Told the hate monders to stop preaching death to the brits in England, if not they will be exported.. too bad we don't say the same thing BEFORE we take another hit and not have to wait until afterwards..
-
ya aint seen nothing yet ....
wait until you need your internal security passport to access public transport of facilities of any kind. provide a retina scan to enter the airport and support a detailed background check and track of your purchases and phone history when requesting a government service. I know lets hire the nkvd retirees and show us how to really clamp down on things and keep us safe in our beds. That is if your not to paranoid to open the pressure seal on your plastic wrapped house (in case of that anthrax attack doncha know) and go make that request.
What kind of country are you willing to live in? Honestly
-
I think we need to suspend the Bill of Rights untill this war on terrorism has been won. The security of the majority is more important than the freedom of the minority.
shamus
-
i am curious, all you against bag searches in this heightened time of danger, what is your perfect answer?
let them waltz in and out of wherever with bombs and whatever else they want?
dont even try to say we "should have stopped them years ago" or some other trite thing. you KNOW there is no way to stop all illegal immigrants especially with your thinking.
i really want to hear how you propose to make it remotely safe in public places where terrorists want to maim and kill innocent bystanders.
-
I actually agree with charon and sandie on this one.. I don't know if that is a first or not... probly is in sandies case.
I agree with charon that the lawsuits are a viable and correct way to establish the extent of a law.
I agree with sandie that one measure of freedom is not being unreasonably searched... I won't even get on another plane if I can possibly help it because of the third world armed camp atmosphere that so many of us seem to be willing to put up with.
Random searches make me think of corny old movies of everyone being searched in nazi occupied countries in WWII.
lazs
-
It's a bit of a catch-22. With freedom comes opportunity to do both good and bad. The searches in the subways do reduce freedom and does insert another wedge into the crack of the door that protects personal privacy.
But, when another bomb goes off in a subway, who is going to be held responsible? We all know, from the last elections, that this can't be the fault of the terrorists and must be the fault of the elected body in charge.
Do nothing: get blamed. Do something: Get blamed.
It's a lose-lose situation. I think the democrats should actually be releived they don't have someone in office trying to deal with this. Now, no matter what, they can sit back and criticize.
As for "bush standing on the rubble...": someone doesn't know very much about NYC politics. If this is happening, it's VERY MUCH a bi-partison action. I don't think any mayer with a subway system or a public train system watched the news in regards to London and didn't think the exact same thing.
-
I think we need to suspend the Bill of Rights untill this war on terrorism has been won. The security of the majority is more important than the freedom of the minority.
Hey, it works for North Korea! :) A troll I hope.
I personally don't think the searches are all that unreasonable of an invasion of privacy given their limited scope and the public utility nature and the fact that citizens have alternative, private modes of transportation. I would imagine the courts would agree. Now, there are areas of the Patriot Act that bother me, but that’s been done to death already.
In some ways the lawsuit works against the very ideals that those bring it are fighting for. If it wins, then laws will have to be made to make such searches legal, then the can of worms is really opened up big time.
No, this lawsuit is how democracy works. The judgement can be appealed up to the highest court in the land. That's how we know the specifics of things that are generally stated. The can of worms is opened when a cop riding down the street decides to search my house because he doesn’t like my “looks” and I have no recourse to challenge his actions in the courts.
Freedom isn't easy. You exchange some degree of risk and disorder for -- freedom. Because we live in a free society people will have an easier time blowing us up. I can live with that pretty broadly because I don’t like the alternative. We can live in as secure an environment as we want. North Koreans and the Chinese are, by and large, happy with their security. A friend’s wife is from China, little Red Guard and all, and she is uncomfortable with the messiness we have in our society. Things like being able to demonstrate and disrupt traffic etc. Here parents plan on moving back to her homeland for retirement. Different strokes for different folks. The Germans were more than happy to get back to order and security in the 1930s after the messiness of the Weimar Republic. Can't get the Kaiser back, how about this Hitler chap?
At some point though, when things start to get too secure for my tolerance level, I would be looking pretty hard at emigrating to one of the remaining democratic countries.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Define "Unreasonable".
-
the question is then, if we get rid of those airline searches, and your wife or someone close is killed by a terrorist, the government can say, "oh well at least she died free." and in the line of thinking it is against the terrorists rights to be searched, it is the bill of rights fault your loved one is dead.
i think there is something to be said for national security. this is not an anarchist country, and it is the job of some part of govenrment to defend it's citizens
what is the best way to do that?
as i asked sandman and charon, and oters, what is their magical answer?
-
I guess what it boils down to is that people who ride subways deserve anything that happens to em... being searched or blown up can't be much worse than using public transportation in the first place.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess what it boils down to is that people who ride subways deserve anything that happens to em... being searched or blown up can't be much worse than using public transportation in the first place.
lazs
can't disagree there :rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess what it boils down to is that people who ride subways deserve anything that happens to em... being searched or blown up can't be much worse than using public transportation in the first place.
lazs
I used to feel the same way, until I rode on Puget Sounds new Light Rail transit system. Damn thats first class commuting!
-
I'd like to put a 'shout out' for the Washington DC rail system, top notch. It goes everywhere, it's clean and easy to use, absolutely tremendous.
-
as i asked sandman and charon, and oters, what is their magical answer?
There is no magical answer. As stated I don't believe searching airline or public transportation passengers' bags crosses that line. However, the potential is always there to willingly exchange freedom for security - to take the easy way out. How about, at some point a few years down the road, when your dark skinned wife is detained for 48 hours because of a typographical discrepancy in her "papers" when boarding an airplane, and you are thankful it was cleared up so quickly? Of course you don’t discuss it much, because you never know who’s listening, especially now that your family is on the “class c” watch list. Couldn’t happen here? That's why you have to pay attention to these things because the Government likes nothing better than greater control and greater power, and will use any excuse to get it.
[BTW, previously the War on Drugs has been the most effective tool in reducing our individual freedoms. Bill Clinton used it to great effect, and was generally ignored while doing it because he was getting "tough on crime." That's my beef with him, not his "public" issues.]
Charon
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'd like to put a 'shout out' for the Washington DC rail system, top notch. It goes everywhere, it's clean and easy to use, absolutely tremendous.
Spot on. DC has the best public transportation I've seen in this country or elsewhere.
-
Like I said... if you depend on the government to get you around then you probly got to expect that they will treat you as they please.
lazs
-
Well... in DC, the principle reason for using the Metro isn't transportation. It's parking. Riding the train is far cheaper than paying for a parking space.
-
Sandy, can you define "unreasonable" for me please? TIA.
-
Rip, I'd like to take a stab at this.
The criteria for reasonable searches is traditionally linked with the concept of 'probable cause'. A police officer may search a person who they have probable cause to believe is committing a crime. For example, if the person is stopped right after a bank robbery has taken place in a car that matches description, and the right side of the person is covered with dye, then there's probable cause to believe that this is the person who has committed the crime.
The problem with the subway searches is that the presumption of guilt is in effect. Random people are being searched without probable cause being established. If, on the other hand, they searched people who were being surveilled because of suspected terrorism links, that might be different, but the stated actions by the police is that they are deliberately searching people who are not suspected of anything.
That meets the criteria of 'unreasonable search'.
-
Good reply Chairboy, but I believe "unreasonable" is defined as a personal opinion as to what is reasonable, and what is not. In a time of war, our tolerance rises for what is defined as reasonable. What iss reasonable today was not reasonable yesteryear, due to the circumstances involving terrorism today.
My personal opinion is that it is in my best interest, as well as the nations, to be more tolerant of searches. I know it makes me feel safer than without it.
-
What if terrorists blow up a bomb in a mall, will you guys be okay with being searched there?
Some of you people are being terrorised, terrorised into giving away what terrorists want from you...your freedom.
This thread is so sad. It kind of reminds me of the gun debate.
Pro-gun people make the comment that doctors and cars kill more people than firearms. Well how many people have the terrorists killed in the US?
-
Thrawn, do you think there should be searches at airports? The searches that are already going on?
-
Unreasonable is not an induviduals personal opinion as it pertains to the 4th amendment, Chairboy hit it on the head probable cause is a well defined legal definition.
Now we have procedures to suspend these rights, the government could institute martial law to combat serious threat to the country.
The part that I dont like is the little open ended nibbles at our rights.
When is the war on terror gonna be won Mr. government? "dont worry we'll let you know".
shamus
-
I still find it funny that the government is using fear of terrorist attacks from terrorists as a means to put bills, plans and other means of "security" into action.
Terrorists use fear to get what they want, ironically so does our government.
-SW
-
If you want to read some severe historical improvisions of our 4th amendment I suggest you read some history of our past Former President Wilson. What we are doing today regarding random profiling and bag searches in our public transportation systems is minor in comparison.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I still find it funny that the government is using fear of terrorist attacks from terrorists as a means to put bills, plans and other means of "security" into action.
Terrorists use fear to get what they want, ironically so does our government.
-SW
Do you truly believe that terrorists think they'll win the public support with their ideology (closer to theology) by blowing stuff up? No, you're wrong. Terrorists use fear for a completely different reason.
The Gov't doesn't use fear to get civilians to follow an ideology or specific theology, nor does it practice and pressure the public to combine religion with politics. Quite the opposite, Gov't's job is to separate church from state, and that in itself is the biggest thorn in fanatical muslims ideology.
-
This just in... it's no longer the "War on Terror".
It is now the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism".
You see... there was really no way of knowing if we win the former and there's no winning or losing the latter.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do you truly believe that terrorists think they'll win the public support with their ideology (closer to theology) by blowing stuff up? No, you're wrong. Terrorists use fear for a completely different reason.
The Gov't doesn't use fear to get civilians to follow an ideology or specific theology, nor does it practice and pressure the public to combine religion with politics. Quite the opposite, Gov't's job is to separate church from state, and that in itself is the biggest thorn in fanatical muslims ideology.
Yeah, you inserted religion. I am right. The government is using fear to get bills passed, a war started, and to make people more complacent with search and siezures minus a warrant. Etc.
I am right. You just want to argue some other imaginary angle.
-SW
-
The government is using fear
====
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when ...
it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."
-
All they need is what any other government owned property has. A sign that states:
Entry Constitutes consent to search.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Like I said... if you depend on the government to get you around then you probly got to expect that they will treat you as they please.
lazs
so why whine about helmets then?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thrawn, do you think there should be searches at airports? The searches that are already going on?
Thrawn?
-
(http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/media/2FWYplh2aYU6.jpg)
Didn't Benny have something to say about security vs. liberty?
-
Ok torque I'll bite... how are helmets or even seat belts the same as random search?
lazs
-
Sorry for the delay Toad, I don't know. I can't come up with a conclusive answer and I've been thinking about it for days.
-
Okay, I just went out for smoke and had a thought. My answer lies in something that was touch on here briefly, that of public and private property.
If one choses to go on an airplane, I should be searched by government agents. Heck I could be searched by agents of the airport or the airline as I am entering their private property. But I think the bigger issue is the question whether or not some else, or their private property will be damaged in the case of an explosion, and whether or not they had a reasonable opportunity to remove themselves from that threat.
People are free to choose whether or not they wish to use either method of transportation, and to take the risks associated with it.
However in the event of an explosion on the plane, or the plane being used as a weapon, the private citizen has no practical way to not be killed by debris or the plane hitting their building or what not.
While in the case of the subway, knowledge of their routes are readily available, they are underground so debris proably wouldn't be a factor and if the private individual feels that it might be they can move. Where airplanes are much more mobile and one can't predict where it's exact flight path would be. In one case the citizen can in essence protect themselves, in the other the citizen can't.
-
No good Thrawn, IMO.
What practical way do you have to avoid being killed by a suicide bomber in your subway car?
So in truth I think you should stick to your first answer - that of not having an answer. :)
Why? Because the airline searches were only put into place after bad guys started bringing bombs nad weapons into planes in the 1960s and killing loads of people with them.
Subway searches only now arecoming in because of the same.
I'm not ecstatic about either, but the alternatives are worse.
Lets be honest here. Who here would actually feel better about fllying if ALL of the airport searches, exrays, metal detectors, bomb scans etc were removed tommorow. Would that be better?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Lets be honest here. Who here would actually feel better about fllying if ALL of the airport searches, exrays, metal detectors, bomb scans etc were removed tommorow. Would that be better?
Let's be honest. Do you believe that the increase in security and all the hassles that come with it are part of the reason the airlines are going bankrupt?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No good Thrawn, IMO.
What practical way do you have to avoid being killed by a suicide bomber in your subway car?
Simply, by exercising your free choice and not being on a subway car.
I'm not ecstatic about either, but the alternatives are worse.
What's worse than losing freedom?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Simply, by exercising your free choice and not being on a subway car.
And how is that different than airplanes?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Let's be honest. Do you believe that the increase in security and all the hassles that come with it are part of the reason the airlines are going bankrupt?
Irellevabn, dont try to avoid answering the question.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And how is that different than airplanes?
Re-read my post above where I explain it. It's a question of being able to protect yourself from the collateral damage caused by the explosion of the vehicles.
People can choose whether or not they go on the vehicles, people can't know if airplanes will fly over/into thier houses and so can't decide if and how to defend against it.
-
Thats really really streching logic. I look forward to Toads view on your "explanaition."
:rofl
-
Anyway would you think flying on airliners would be better if all the securitty searches, all of them, the visible ones and the behind the screens x-rays and bomb tests were removed tommorow?
Would you feel better about flying? More confident?
-
I'd still fly without all the security crap.
-
What do metal detectors in airports have to do with random subway searches?
Its like saying that a speed limit of 70 rather than 80 on I-75 saves lives so it therefore follows that we should change it to 10 to save more lives.
shamus
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Anyway would you think flying on airliners would be better if all the securitty searches, all of them, the visible ones and the behind the screens x-rays and bomb tests were removed tommorow?
Would you feel better about flying? More confident?
As applicable only to the question of actually being on a commerical aircrart, I would probably feel less safer, but I could take that into account when I made a decision whether or not to fly. I would feel even more safe if everyone was strip searched. But is that security worth the loss of freedom? I don't think so.
Remember it's not only agents of the government that can search, but also the airlines themselves. Once again only as applicable to the actual passengers.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Simply, by exercising your free choice and not being on a subway car.
What's worse than losing freedom?
First point, What are you going to do when the first IED on the roadside comes by? Stop driving entirely?
While you may not like the searches they are actually assistinmg you in keeping some freedom. The freedom to travel as you will. If you let them drive you off of the planes, trains you should be able to see what freedoms you have already lost. They have already directed your life and achieved part of their goal.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
First point, What are you going to do when the first IED on the roadside comes by? Stop driving entirely?
While you may not like the searches they are actually assistinmg you in keeping some freedom. The freedom to travel as you will. If you let them drive you off of the planes, trains you should be able to see what freedoms you have already lost. They have already directed your life and achieved part of their goal.
In the last few years including 9/11 exactly how many people died from terrorist attacks in the US, 3,000? How many years to you want to carry it forward or backward?
.001 percent in one year alone?
Yeah, thanks. Thank god that the department of Homeland Security is on the watch.
I'll tell you what Maverick, I will run the same odds through a kino machine and give you 1000 to 1 on any given bet you want to make. Care to take me up on it?
How many freedoms would you be willing to give up on those odds?
-
This is the exact kind of **** that the ACLU does that makes it look retarded.
Carlos Mencina said it right the other night.
He said put a wall of pictures of the 9/11 hijackers on the wall in all airports/ports, etc and then when you are profiling someone and they complain, "why me, you just are after me because I am an arab..." You just point to the wall and say see why *****! lol Sounds good to me.
-
I can understand your rage Raider, Antlanta being such hot bed of terrorist activity, you just have to screw over the Constitutional rights of New Yorkers in order to protect yourselves.
Funny that the New Yorkers voted for the other guy though.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Funny that the New Yorkers voted for the other guy though.
No, most voted for Bloomberg.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I can understand your rage Raider, Antlanta being such hot bed of terrorist activity, you just have to screw over the Constitutional rights of New Yorkers in order to protect yourselves.
Funny that the New Yorkers voted for the other guy though.
I have lived in apartments with nothing but arabs around me. I could care less. If I go to get on MARTA and a cop asks to look in my backpack, I say go right ahead. I dont feel my rights are infringed upon unless it occurs on my own property.
Oh and just so for your own personal info, Atlanta, has a lot of arabic immigration. But hell what would you know about that. Probably think all mexicans live in california and texas too. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Probably think all mexicans live in california and texas too. :rofl
I would think quite a few live in Mexico.
-
We had metal detectors, X-rays and searches at airports long before the WTC incident, or did everyone suddenly forget that?
It didn't work that day.
Does anyone believe that a similar plot using commercial airliners would be on the minds of a terrorist group now? Bad and ingenious people can find a way around todays precautions also, or simply find a softer, different target. We're spending a fortune and making everyone's lives miserable by searching the shoes of 80 year-old grandmothers.
Osama bin Laden and his cronies must still be laughing their butts off at how stupid and gullible we are.
If I had to choose between two evils (random searches or profiling) I'd take profiling. Leave the grandmothers, familes on the way to visit grandma, Boy Scout and softball teams, haggard business people with families and mortgages alone, and focus on the common elements of the UK and WTC participants.
They are single or living away from their wives, they are recent immigrants or non-native visitors with no visible means of support or long-term jobs, of Arab descent and muslim. Those are the common characteristics and to deny that is lunacy and not very good security or police work.
Victim: "Help! I've been beaten and robbed!"
Police Officer: "Can you describe the assailant?"
Victim: "I can, but it is not politically correct and a violation of his human rights and constutionally guaranteed liberties."
-
Thrawn,
I haven't given up any freedoms because I still travel as I desire. I won't allow the threat of terror activity stop me from traveling. You on the other hand are willing to let them chase you off of a plane because you don't want your bag searched. Now who has given up what here?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You on the other hand are willing to let them chase you off of a plane because you don't want your bag searched.
Nope.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
We had metal detectors, X-rays and searches at airports long before the WTC incident, or did everyone suddenly forget that?
It didn't work that day.
Does anyone believe that a similar plot using commercial airliners would be on the minds of a terrorist group now? Bad and ingenious people can find a way around todays precautions also, or simply find a softer, different target. We're spending a fortune and making everyone's lives miserable by searching the shoes of 80 year-old grandmothers.
Osama bin Laden and his cronies must still be laughing their butts off at how stupid and gullible we are.
If I had to choose between two evils (random searches or profiling) I'd take profiling. Leave the grandmothers, familes on the way to visit grandma, Boy Scout and softball teams, haggard business people with families and mortgages alone, and focus on the common elements of the UK and WTC participants.
They are single or living away from their wives, they are recent immigrants or non-native visitors with no visible means of support or long-term jobs, of Arab descent and muslim. Those are the common characteristics and to deny that is lunacy and not very good security or police work.
Victim: "Help! I've been beaten and robbed!"
Police Officer: "Can you describe the assailant?"
Victim: "I can, but it is not politically correct and a violation of his human rights and constutionally guaranteed liberties."
Rolex, you are usally one of the more intelligent posters on this board.
Unfortunately, this is probably your dumbest post ever.
You say that the X-Ray scanners and other security measures like, random shoe checks are a waste because the bad guys will find another way.
Well, lets say all these wateful search methods were done way with tommorow. No more X-rays, no more bomb scans for luggage, no more bag to passenger maches, no more sahoe searches.
What would stop them from just putting a C4 charge in dozen suitcases or a dozen suicide bomber passengers like Johhny Walker Lindh and blowing up 12 airliners in a guarnteed successful attack since they knew none of the bags or people were to be searched in any way - because Rolex told them all those were wasteful because the terrorists will find another way.
-
Naw, you misunderstood. I never mean't we should stop searches or x-rays of check-in or carry-on luggage. I think we've put too many people and too many resources to checking the wrong people, like Grandma's shoes, instead of distributing some resources to other locations.
A few months ago, I stood in line at the airport in Guam for 2.5 hours while I watched a dweeb check every suitcase of every teenage girl and attractive young woman. He never checked the suitcase of one man or woman over the age of about 25. He would pull out their underwear and hold it up, then leer at them and grin and fondle their stuff. It was disgusting and a waste of time and energy while hundreds of travelers had to wait for hours while biting our lips. That isn't security, its nonsense. ;)
-
sandie said..
"Let's be honest. Do you believe that the increase in security and all the hassles that come with it are part of the reason the airlines are going bankrupt?"
To be honest... I used to like to fly... now... I will do about anything to avoid it. Short trips (1000 miles or less)I don't even consider it. It is like being in some fascist or third world dictatorship..
Mav got it right... soon there will be roadblocks and people pulled out of their cars at night and searched. We need to stop this crap..
Rolex... I agree...the guys who did the 9/11 damage did it with relatively harmless boxcutters. A sky marshall would have taken em out... if the pilots had security doors and guns there would have been no problem... Hell... if we had done nothing at all and boxcutter still got on board... no one would have ever turned over a plane to boxcutter weilding thugs ever again anyway... The only things needed to be done was to bring the marshalls back and beef up the doors and arm the pilots.
lazs