ZigmundZag posted:

---

Damn, I'm not sure which side to root for here.

---

Constitution of the United States of America posted:

---

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

He was never detained.

You have no right to fly on a plane.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

He was never detained.

You have no right to fly on a plane.

---

Friarspam posted:

---

In "normal" times I'd say that some flunkie at the TSA would be losing their job. This is a bit of a different deal, however.

Call me cynical, but I can see where partisan politics will turn this into some freak show. (from both sides)

---

Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:

---

ZigmundZag posted:

---

Damn, I'm not sure which side to root for here.

---

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

He was never detained.

You have no right to fly on a plane.

---

you also have the right to due process, immunity from illegal searches without cause or warrant, ,innocent until proven guilty etc


government shouldn't be doing this.

TSA is in clear violation of US citizens rights.

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

He was never detained.

You have no right to fly on a plane.

---

you also have the right to due process, immunity from illegal searches without cause or warrant, ,innocent until proven guilty etc


government shouldn't be doing this.

TSA is in clear violation of US citizens rights.

---

How were any of those violated? I think the TSA is largely a waste of resources, but your argument doesnt work.

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

+

How were any of those violated? I think the TSA is largely a waste of resources, but your argument doesnt work.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

You have no right to fly on a plane.

---

-Espiritu- posted:

---

http://youtu.be/2XhnZlmLGK8

unlawful detention

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

He was never detained.

You have no right to fly on a plane.

---

Sea_of_inK posted:

---

I don't understand why there is so much resentment towards airport security. Do you all not see the purpose? Bowlartz I remember to be a mega fascist when discussing OWS but he's dead on right on this. If a police officer wants to breathalize you, he can, and if the airport security wants to pat you down or scan your breast milk, than they can.

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

+

How were any of those violated? I think the TSA is largely a waste of resources, but your argument doesnt work.

---

the government does not have the right to detain and search you without probable cause or a warrant

you mad?

---

Scarne posted:

---

Sea_of_inK posted:

---

I don't understand why there is so much resentment towards airport security. Do you all not see the purpose? Bowlartz I remember to be a mega fascist when discussing OWS but he's dead on right on this. If a police officer wants to breathalize you, he can, and if the airport security wants to pat you down or scan your breast milk, than they can.

---

TSA agents are not officers of the law.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Don't go over to someones house and expect to play by your rules. The airports have every right to secure themselves from rabid Congressmen.

---

Brother_Tempus posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

He was never detained.

You have no right to fly on a plane.

---

The freedom to travel is an inalienable right. Government has no power to stop you from boarding a plane that you have contracted.

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

I think they have to ask your permission correct? And you can choose to not give them that permission...right? Doing so usually ends up with you foregoing your flight, but there is no constitutional guarantee to plane flights.

I aint mad at cha

---

“Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave” warned Sari Koshetz, a TSA spokesperson. TSA officials say that anyone refusing both the “full body scanners” and the “enhanced pat down” procedures will be taken into custody.

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

It means that no person, company or government agency has the power to make you give them up for any reason.

---

Taliesihne posted:

---

The TSA is on record as saying:

“Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave” warned Sari Koshetz, a TSA spokesperson. TSA officials say that anyone refusing both the “full body scanners” and the “enhanced pat down” procedures will be taken into custody.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

" You have no right to fly on a plane.

It's a good thing then that this has absolutely nothing to do with flying on planes. "


It kinda does when people insist that their rights to unreasonable search are being violated when attempting to...fly on a plane. There is no unreasonable search involved. DUI Check points have been upheld by the SCOTUS more than once and easily mimic what is going on with the TSA and flying on planes.


"The freedom to travel is an inalienable right."

Method of said travel is in no way covered in the US Constitution, therefor it is left up to the legislative branch and has been held up by the US Supreme Court.

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Don't go over to someones house and expect to play by your rules. The airports have every right to secure themselves from rabid Congressmen.

---

If you want to eat at my restaurant then pay my $1000 security fee.
If you dont like it then macDs is down the road.
You'll feel much safer when all tue resthave implemented this.

If you want to shop a my mall you have to do it naked so we can prevent theft.
If you dont like it then find another mall.


Do any of yo understand what it means to have inalienable rights?
It means that no person, company or government agency has the power to make you give them up for any reason.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

So you really have no concept of how the US Constitution or "rights" work.

No right is absolute. Learn it, live it...move on.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

"Maybe not, but it's still not what America is supposed to be about. This is the kind of stuff we make fun of when it happens in other countries. Jokes on us."


You need a license for a car. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Flying is the same way.

The TSA can not walk around the streets or go into people's houses and search or detain them. You are volunteering to use a mode of transportation that has now been deemed with reasonable evidence to require that passengers be checked before boarding.

If you don't want to be searched...don't fly. If you don't want to pay car insurance...don't drive.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Brother_Tempus posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

He was never detained.

You have no right to fly on a plane.

---

The freedom to travel is an inalienable right. Government has no power to stop you from boarding a plane that you have contracted.

---

Your contract with the airliners is contingent on nithung but an agreement between tou and rhem despite the immoral argument about security the government tries to make .

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

"My rights are protected by the cinstitution EVERYWHERE within the borders of this country.
They are not only protected when some corporation says they are."


So you are saying you can walk into a private business and start yelling to the customers about how the company sucks and you have an absolute right to not be removed because your right to free speech is ultimate?

Because not only would that make you beyond stupid, it kind of makes you dangerous.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Thank you BT, my post is much more accurate now that there is a bunch of typos in it.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

"Maybe not, but it's still not what America is supposed to be about. This is the kind of stuff we make fun of when it happens in other countries. Jokes on us."


You need a license for a car. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Flying is the same way.

The TSA can not walk around the streets or go into people's houses and search or detain them. You are volunteering to use a mode of transportation that has now been deemed with reasonable evidence to require that passengers be checked before boarding.

If you don't want to be searched...don't fly. If you don't want to pay car insurance...don't drive.

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Don't go over to someones house and expect to play by your rules. The airports have every right to secure themselves from rabid Congressmen.

---

If you want to eat at my restaurant then pay my $1000 security fee.
If you dont like it then macDs is down the road.
You'll feel much safer when all tue resthave implemented this.

If you want to shop a my mall you have to do it naked so we can prevent theft.
If you dont like it then find another mall.


Do any of yo understand what it means to have inalienable rights?
It means that no person, company or government agency has the power to make you give them up for any reason.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Thank you BT, my post is much more accurate now that there is a bunch of typos in it.

That's very true, your contract is "nothing more" than the agreement you have with the airliner. That agreement involves going through their security checkpoints.

---

ZigmundZag posted:

---

Damn, I'm not sure which side to root for here.

---

Brother_Tempus posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Thank you BT, my post is much more accurate now that there is a bunch of typos in it.

That's very true, your contract is "nothing more" than the agreement you have with the airliner. That agreement involves going through their security checkpoints.

---

If it were their security checkpoints, then they would be operated by their employees not government thugs

---

Hsi_Kang posted:

---

Paul also said he didn’t understand why he went through a scanner once and set it off, then after his flight was rebooked, went through the same scanner, which did not go off. “I suspect that the scanner is randomly setting off an alarm that’s not a real alarm so you’re made to feel like you did something wrong and then you get the pat-down,” Paul said, adding that sometimes he is allowed to go through scanners again without being asked to submit to a pat-down. “Does the screener have the ability to push a button and randomly get someone to set off the screener?”

A TSA rep was not immediately available to comment on Paul’s question.

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

you guys are missing the point.

If airlines want to require security to pat you down, that is up to them. Government has no business doing it, or adding another bloated government agency that taxpayers have to front the bill for, especially when they don't even use it.

You may or may not have a right to fly, but you certainly shouldn't be using tax dollars to decide.

---

ZigmundZag posted:

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

you guys are missing the point.

If airlines want to require security to pat you down, that is up to them. Government has no business doing it, or adding another bloated government agency that taxpayers have to front the bill for, especially when they don't even use it.

You may or may not have a right to fly, but you certainly shouldn't be using tax dollars to decide.

---

Yeah, we tried it that way for awhile. Until around 2001 or so, I think.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

The airliners are good for the economy. If the choice is that we pay extra for their security or they should be shut down because their failure to protect their passengers and their equipment from being directly involved in the greatest terrorist attack this country has ever seen, resulting in 5,000 dead, two major skyscrapers brought down, the economy tanking, the government launching two wars which cost trillions in dollars and thousands of American lives... I vote we just beef up the security. The taxes they pay when they're not too busy going bankrupt probably makes up for it.

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

The airliners are good for the economy. If the choice is that we pay extra for their security or they should be shut down because their failure to protect their passengers and their equipment from being directly involved in the greatest terrorist attack this country has ever seen, resulting in 5,000 dead, two major skyscrapers brought down, the economy tanking, the government launching two wars which cost trillions in dollars and thousands of American lives... I vote we just beef up the security. The taxes they pay when they're not too busy going bankrupt probably makes up for it.

---

how many of those pilots were Iraqi again?

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

you guys are missing the point.

If airlines want to require security to pat you down, that is up to them. Government has no business doing it, or adding another bloated government agency that taxpayers have to front the bill for, especially when they don't even use it.

You may or may not have a right to fly, but you certainly shouldn't be using tax dollars to decide.

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

you guys are missing the point.

If airlines want to require security to pat you down, that is up to them. Government has no business doing it, or adding another bloated government agency that taxpayers have to front the bill for, especially when they don't even use it.

You may or may not have a right to fly, but you certainly shouldn't be using tax dollars to decide.

---

Are tax dollars really being used?

When you guy an airline ticket you pay a fee for TSA 'services'.

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

The airliners are good for the economy. If the choice is that we pay extra for their security or they should be shut down because their failure to protect their passengers and their equipment from being directly involved in the greatest terrorist attack this country has ever seen, resulting in 5,000 dead, two major skyscrapers brought down, the economy tanking, the government launching two wars which cost trillions in dollars and thousands of American lives... I vote we just beef up the security. The taxes they pay when they're not too busy going bankrupt probably makes up for it.

---

how many of those pilots were Iraqi again?

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

"Free speech doesnt cover libel or slander."


What does that have to do with my example? If a company genuinely serves a really bad product are you saying you have a right to go into their building and tell the current customers to not buy their product and because you have a "right to free speech" you can not be detained and removed?

There are limits to all rights.

We have a set of checks and balances set up via the Constitution to make sure those limits are narrow and defined.

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

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.



The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.






what part of that dont you people understand.
boarding a plane is not probable cause. the airlines DO NOT have the ability to demand a search of all boarding passengers.
nobody has a right to touch me, search me, detain me with out probable cause.

NO contract or agreement can violate this.





writ of assistance:


In general, customs writs of assistance served as general search warrants that did not expire, allowing customs officials to search anywhere for smuggled goods without having to obtain a specific warrant. These writs became controversial when they were issued by courts in British America in the 1760s, especially the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Controversy over these general writs of assistance inspired the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbids general search warrants in the United States. In the United Kingdom, general writs of assistance continued to be issued until 1819.[6]

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

The airliners are good for the economy. If the choice is that we pay extra for their security or they should be shut down because their failure to protect their passengers and their equipment from being directly involved in the greatest terrorist attack this country has ever seen, resulting in 5,000 dead, two major skyscrapers brought down, the economy tanking, the government launching two wars which cost trillions in dollars and thousands of American lives... I vote we just beef up the security. The taxes they pay when they're not too busy going bankrupt probably makes up for it.

---

how many of those pilots were Iraqi again?

---

How many were Afghani? Do you really want to derail this thread?

---

Brother_Tempus posted:

---

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Thank you BT, my post is much more accurate now that there is a bunch of typos in it.

---

Keep in mind he home schools his kids I think he said once before.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Brother_Tempus posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Thank you BT, my post is much more accurate now that there is a bunch of typos in it.

That's very true, your contract is "nothing more" than the agreement you have with the airliner. That agreement involves going through their security checkpoints.

---

If it were their security checkpoints, then they would be operated by their employees not government thugs

---

You come into my house, I ask you to leave, you don't. I call the cops.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Uh, I built up to the private company.

---

Brother_Tempus posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Brother_Tempus posted:

---

[quote=Altra_Shadowstalker]Thank you BT, my post is much more accurate now that there is a bunch of typos in it.

That's very true, your contract is "nothing more" than the agreement you have with the airliner. That agreement involves going through their security checkpoints.

---

If it were their security checkpoints, then they would be operated by their employees not government thugs

---

You come into my house, I ask you to leave, you don't. I call the cops.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Uh, at the very least, the attacks were the excuse needed to drive us into war. This isn't obvious?

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Uh, at the very least, the attacks were the excuse needed to drive us into war. This isn't obvious?

---

so saudi pilots fly planes into our buildings and we attack iraq?

make up your mind doood.


What does iraq have to do with the TSA besides nothing?

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

So if you're against the Iraq war, why wouldn't you be for instituting measures that would prevent giving a corrupt, hawkish, vindictive, pilfering, resource greedy, or war profiteering administration the excuse it needed to persuade the American people into another war?

Without 9/11, there would not have been an Iraq war. If you're unwilling to grasp this simple concept, theres nothing more I can do for you.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

That's really reaching.

The justification used to sell the war to the American people was a post-9/11 world could not tolerate a dictator with WMDs conspiring with terrorists. Everything leading up to the war was linked with 9/11, regardless of whether it was correct or manufactured.

Maybe you weren't alive at this point, if so I can understand your ignorance.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

I cant get my point across because your hung up on your own issues to the point of ignoring what I say.

Let me try one more time: would the US have attacked Iraq without 9/11?

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

I cant get my point across because my logic is flawed and I keep erecting strawmen arguments

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

I don't think you should try fixing anything, as you've shown to be the opposite of accurate.

Your argument stems from a misconception that we'll just have to agree to disagree about. You believe all forms of government are tyrannical in nature and freedom comes from a lack of government. I believe a lack of government is tyrannical in nature and only some forms of government are tyrannical. At the end of the day, theres no reconciling that.

---

TSA posted:

---

No flying for you unless you let us see or touch your junk

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

"boarding a plane is not probable cause. the airlines DO NOT have the ability to demand a search of all boarding passengers."


Sure they do, they are a private entity. They are allowed to tell you to get off their plane if they don't like the way you are dressed or if you are a stupid jack ass. It is private property.

Clubs in the inner city use metal detectors and frisk searches all the time and they are 100% legal because you don't have to be searched...by not going into THEIR club.

You are fully entitled to be protected from unreasonable search and detention in public or in your private residence. Once you make the free choice to engage another party by going on THEIR property...you play by their rules.

When the TSA comes to your house to force you into a body scan...get back to me, otherwise you are just an overly entitled idiot who has no understanding of private property rules as it pertains to rights.

Private clubs can refuse to admit women. They can refuse to admit blacks. They can refuse to admit whites. They can restrict what you say on their property.

And I fully support each example as I don't ever have to do business with any such club or business that takes on such policy.

---