Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
12 Pages«<9101112>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline zombieslayer  
#151 Posted : Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:37:53 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

To add to Formo (who just got an applause point), I think when you purchase a computer, the company should get to see your genitals. Same when getting a haircut. It would make the world so much safer.

Of course, if the person refuses to show their genitals, it's their right. Instead, we should have a balding guy in his 50s feels your genitals to make sure you don't have a weapon.

If it could save only one child....

--

For those who didn't get it, an absurdity with an absurdity. It's absurd for a bunch of reasons. Let's not forget that it's still safer, even with terrorists, to fly than it is to drive to the airport.

It's also absurd because the Founding Fathers believed in Rights, including Rights that are assumed. Like the Right to Privacy for instance. They had no idea you could invade people's homes with satellites. Does that make it ok because it wasn't specifically stated that the government cannot invade people's homes with satellites in the Constitution? Hell no. Thus, we got the Right to travel.

It's become pretty f*cking embarrassing defending America's overreaction to 9/11. Europeans think we're nuts. And they're RIGHT. Heck, the freaking Israelis deal with terrorism daily and they think we're idiots. I don't even have a counter to them because they too are RIGHT.

Our overreactions have made it embarrassing to be an American.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Formo  
#152 Posted : Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:37:02 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

ZS, yer right.

With all this 'safety' the hoards of sheeple want the government to provide, I'm reminded of the movie 'Demolition Man' with Snipes and Sly. Yeah sure, that society was probably the safest society one could live in.

But they traded one fundamental right to get that safety. Freedom.

No thanks. You can keep your safety. I'll fight until the last breath for my freedom.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline djcubez  
#153 Posted : Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:39:14 PM(UTC)
djcubez

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 8
Applause Received: 13

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post

But the teeth of this rights argument in my mind are lost when you agree (purchase) an agreement to fly from point A to point B.


I'm curious why you believe this. I understand that in private places, when you purchase a ticket of some kind you have to follow the regulations that that company or venue has setup. For instance the no-camera policies at certain museums, concerts, etc., That is perfectly legal.

However, I think the right to privacy is more fundamental. One of the criteria for privacy law is "expected privacy." Basically whether or not a person should reasonably expect privacy in their current situation. For example a women complained about how a neighbor filmed her having a nude hot tub party in her backyard and tried to file a privacy-based lawsuit. She lost because they determined that she couldn't expect to have that amount of privacy in her backyard. And because the person filming didn't trespass onto private property but merely filmed from their own property.

So in the case of travel, I believe I should expect a certain level of privacy. I think it's reasonable to expect to have the level of privacy where I don't have to admit to a revealing scan before I enter a plane. However that point is still debatable. Of course I rarely fly and have decided not to since the recent scanners have been introduced.

I mainly oppose a lot of the efforts of the TSA because I don't believe they're actually helping keep us safer.
Check out my music webpage - Click Here
Offline Pack93z  
#154 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 4:51:58 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 1,047

I have flown at least 30 times since 9/11 and I have never had my genitals felt, and I have to go into the heightened pool because of my leg. I have to have my knee unit and foot tested for explosives in every pass. I am wanded and patted down every time. Talk about over reactions, one report in the 10's of thousands that fly don't make it the norm. Yet you are screaming from the mountaintops in an over-reaction as well..

But don't mistake that as I agree with the measures taken by our government and the TSA. But I will be damned if I am going to sit here an let you call me Un-American, dim witted or "you don't get it" because my view differs from yours.

I happen to disagree... little else.

Dissolve the TSA for all I care, I have little issue with wiping that agency from the process.

That said, I don't think it logical to allow anyone to board a plane unchecked at all.

So that answer lies somewhere in the middle, but that question has been asked several times in this thread, propose something different and less intrusive and time consuming than the point people enter the terminal.

The location is the most logical in the process.. once your past that check you don't have to worry.. especially in connections.

Now I do believe their measures are overboard and intrusive.. but propose something in place than slinging labels on those that don't agree with your point.

Sure the numbers support that air travel is safer than a car in the numbers.. but when something does go wrong, those aboard and those in the path of where it lands have little chance for survival.. and the numbers of those effected as demonstrated in metro areas can be significant... where in auto accidents.. the risk for large totals of casualties is far less likely. That is the point of why I don't have qualms with heightened regulations.

But my latest post is a argument against it being a violation of your rights.. which I don't believe it to be.

You know the process before purchasing the ticket.. or at least you should if you have done an ounce of research, and once you agree to purchase, you are agreeing to the regulations of that ticket.

BTW.. for the Shepple comment, what about the other suppression's in that mode of travel.

How dare they tell me I can't make a phone call on the runway.

How dare they tell me I can't go to the restroom when I wish.

How dare they require that I buckle the seatbelt at any time during flight.

How dare they limit the number of drinks I can get on the flight.

How dare they only supply a bag of pretzels and little else for choice.

How dare they require me to sit in the seat number I purchased when I would rather sit in my choice.

None of those lack of freedoms are bitched about, or followed with belittling of others opinions which are trampled on if they disagree with your viewpoint upon..

Reality is that method of travel is restricting and inconvenient.. your normal freedoms are restricted.. and many openly agree to them and pay a premium to travel in the mode.

It sucks.. but you as an American have the freedom to choose alternatives to that method of travel.. let alone that freedom to actually travel anywhere you wish.

So label me because I speak my opinion.. but all I ask is inspect your words and accusations, because you apparently aren't looking at the broad spectrum of my opinion.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#155 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 4:57:01 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 1,047

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post

But the teeth of this rights argument in my mind are lost when you agree (purchase) an agreement to fly from point A to point B.


I'm curious why you believe this. I understand that in private places, when you purchase a ticket of some kind you have to follow the regulations that that company or venue has setup. For instance the no-camera policies at certain museums, concerts, etc., That is perfectly legal.

However, I think the right to privacy is more fundamental. One of the criteria for privacy law is "expected privacy." Basically whether or not a person should reasonably expect privacy in their current situation. For example a women complained about how a neighbor filmed her having a nude hot tub party in her backyard and tried to file a privacy-based lawsuit. She lost because they determined that she couldn't expect to have that amount of privacy in her backyard. And because the person filming didn't trespass onto private property but merely filmed from their own property.

So in the case of travel, I believe I should expect a certain level of privacy. I think it's reasonable to expect to have the level of privacy where I don't have to admit to a revealing scan before I enter a plane. However that point is still debatable. Of course I rarely fly and have decided not to since the recent scanners have been introduced.

I mainly oppose a lot of the efforts of the TSA because I don't believe they're actually helping keep us safer.


To be clear, I disagree vehemently with the scanners and think they are way overboard and too intrusive. However the last couple of years, in flights or waiting for flights all you hear from those in lines is the wait it causes.. I think this scanner is being thought of something that will speed up the process.

Don't mistake my viewpoint on the lack of constitutional rights as an agreement with the process.. just from a legal stance, I don't see the "rights" argument being valid as you as a person are agreeing to the process based on your agreement in purchase.

Your rights are to accept or decline the terms of service to board a flight.. and no one is infringing upon that right of choice.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline djcubez  
#156 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 5:46:35 PM(UTC)
djcubez

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 8
Applause Received: 13

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post

But the teeth of this rights argument in my mind are lost when you agree (purchase) an agreement to fly from point A to point B.


I'm curious why you believe this. I understand that in private places, when you purchase a ticket of some kind you have to follow the regulations that that company or venue has setup. For instance the no-camera policies at certain museums, concerts, etc., That is perfectly legal.

However, I think the right to privacy is more fundamental. One of the criteria for privacy law is "expected privacy." Basically whether or not a person should reasonably expect privacy in their current situation. For example a women complained about how a neighbor filmed her having a nude hot tub party in her backyard and tried to file a privacy-based lawsuit. She lost because they determined that she couldn't expect to have that amount of privacy in her backyard. And because the person filming didn't trespass onto private property but merely filmed from their own property.

So in the case of travel, I believe I should expect a certain level of privacy. I think it's reasonable to expect to have the level of privacy where I don't have to admit to a revealing scan before I enter a plane. However that point is still debatable. Of course I rarely fly and have decided not to since the recent scanners have been introduced.

I mainly oppose a lot of the efforts of the TSA because I don't believe they're actually helping keep us safer.


To be clear, I disagree vehemently with the scanners and think they are way overboard and too intrusive. However the last couple of years, in flights or waiting for flights all you hear from those in lines is the wait it causes.. I think this scanner is being thought of something that will speed up the process.

Don't mistake my viewpoint on the lack of constitutional rights as an agreement with the process.. just from a legal stance, I don't see the "rights" argument being valid as you as a person are agreeing to the process based on your agreement in purchase.

Your rights are to accept or decline the terms of service to board a flight.. and no one is infringing upon that right of choice.


Hmm, but what if it's hurting individual airline businesses? Shouldn't each airline have the right to choose if they want to screen their passengers? I'm sure if there was an airline that proposed a "no new scanners" policy a certain percentage of people would be filling up those flights.
Check out my music webpage - Click Here
Offline Pack93z  
#157 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 5:54:11 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 1,047

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post


Hmm, but what if it's hurting individual airline businesses? Shouldn't each airline have the right to choose if they want to screen their passengers? I'm sure if there was an airline that proposed a "no new scanners" policy a certain percentage of people would be filling up those flights.


But individual airlines don't control and regulate the airspace over this country. They basically use the airways much like we as individuals use the road system.

Both are regulated and have rules governing them.

One of the regulations for use is the security measures that are put in place at the terminals.

Again.. much of the regulations restrict your freedom.. but as illustrated by the very safety numbers that Air travel boasts.. the ATC system is effective... and part of their responsibilities are safety and security. Been that that for decades and decades.

The costs of airtravel are hurting the businesses far more than the inconvenience of the additional security.

I am going to Florida in June.. the cost of roundtrip tickets for 5 and rental car made the choice for me.. I will drive the trip. Security had no role in the choice.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline djcubez  
#158 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 6:09:17 PM(UTC)
djcubez

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 8
Applause Received: 13

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post


Hmm, but what if it's hurting individual airline businesses? Shouldn't each airline have the right to choose if they want to screen their passengers? I'm sure if there was an airline that proposed a "no new scanners" policy a certain percentage of people would be filling up those flights.


But individual airlines don't control and regulate the airspace over this country. They basically use the airways much like we as individuals use the road system.

Both are regulated and have rules governing them.

One of the regulations for use is the security measures that are put in place at the terminals.

Again.. much of the regulations restrict your freedom.. but as illustrated by the very safety numbers that Air travel boasts.. the ATC system is effective... and part of their responsibilities are safety and security. Been that that for decades and decades.

The costs of airtravel are hurting the businesses far more than the inconvenience of the additional security.


It's a given that air travel is a choice and not a right. However, I'm still not sure how much I agree with the idea that you should lose your right to privacy simply because it's privately regulated.

Like Zombie mentioned how would other places hold up with these restrictions? What if high schools started putting in these scanners? Or private venues that put on shows? Could they get away with requesting a naked photo of you before you enjoy the show?

Although air space is federally regulated you can still buy a plane, get your flying license and fly around without anyone scanning your body and rooting through all your belongings. You can even go to a private plane company and pay for a pilot to fly just you and a few other people around without subjecting yourself to any of the TSA security measures.

I do understand that the TSA regulated airlines fly thousands more people daily than private entities. However, if the TSA's reasoning behind their new measures is improved national security it's complete bull. A smokescreen.

I'm also interested in the TSA's privacy policy. Do they know who you are when they scan you? How long are these scanned pictures saved? I'm sure they have to store them and track them in case something does happen. Isn't that the biggest invasion privacy there? I mean, I wouldn't care too much if a couple dudes have to look at my junk before I get on a plane. Yes, I think it's a complete invasion of my moral right to bodily privacy but I could handle the potential embarrassment just to get on a plane. But if they keep the pictures? That's way overboard. I don't want to know that there's a picture of my junk floating around in the governments archives. If anything it's turning us into more of a police state without legitimate reason.
Check out my music webpage - Click Here
Offline Pack93z  
#159 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 6:29:42 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 1,047

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post


It's a given that air travel is a choice and not a right. However, I'm still not sure how much I agree with the idea that you should lose your right to privacy simply because it's privately regulated.

Like Zombie mentioned how would other places hold up with these restrictions? What if high schools started putting in these scanners? Or private venues that put on shows? Could they get away with requesting a naked photo of you before you enjoy the show?

Although air space is federally regulated you can still buy a plane, get your flying license and fly around without anyone scanning your body and rooting through all your belongings. You can even go to a private plane company and pay for a pilot to fly just you and a few other people around without subjecting yourself to any of the TSA security measures.

I do understand that the TSA regulated airlines fly thousands more people daily than private entities. However, if the TSA's reasoning behind their new measures is improved national security it's complete bull. A smokescreen.

I'm also interested in the TSA's privacy policy. Do they know who you are when they scan you? How long are these scanned pictures saved? I'm sure they have to store them and track them in case something does happen. Isn't that the biggest invasion privacy there? I mean, I wouldn't care too much if a couple dudes have to look at my junk before I get on a plane. Yes, I think it's a complete invasion of my moral right to bodily privacy but I could handle the potential embarrassment just to get on a plane. But if they keep the pictures? That's way overboard. I don't want to know that there's a picture of my junk floating around in the governments archives. If anything it's turning us into more of a police state without legitimate reason.


I went to Best Buy on Saturday to purchase some AV equipment that were closing out..

Inside Best Buy there are literally close to a what 30 or 40 security cameras, a scanner to get out the door and two guards/associates that stand by the exit. The security center in the store have two full time agents that watch the cameras in the store and outside the store at all times.

Is that the privacy in which you speak?

My point is simply this, there are freedom costs that you sacrifice to enter that store.. or any retail store of its ilk these days.

And there purpose is much less great than an attempt to make a service safer.. it is to protect their interests.

If the scanner at the door goes off.. you will be detained and searched. If you don't believe.. try taking something out the door with a tag on it. lol.

Again..I disagree with the scanners as being overkill and unnecessary.. but that doesn't mean that I think there should be no security measures in place.

The amount and type are the debate... not it if it against your rights, because once again, you know the process before you purchase the ticket. The scanners screens are not made for public viewing so there are levels of privacy taken.. but I too wonder about the policies surrounding the process of those watching the monitors.

Personally I couldn't work for the TSA as I would be uncomfortable with adhering to the policies of the current scanner mentality and the mindset that folks are guilty by default.

Hell I disagree with all forms of monitoring by others of me.. in a perfect world I would love to be free of all of them. But because a portion of my fellow man can't be rightfully trusted, I will have to deal with some of it.

But again.. I choose to live where I live partially because it is a more relaxed life than in others portions of the country.

Back to my freedoms and those that take them away from me, I blame a portion of my fellow man for that, as they are the ones that drive the creation of such monitoring devices.. the freedom I want is to have a system that passes judgment upon those and hands a rightful and lasting sentence to them.. one that would set an example and deter others from even attempting something like such.

Thus rendering the need for such monitoring actions that impose upon my freedoms unnecessary. And I am not talking about incarceration.. something with teeth.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#160 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 6:47:36 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 670
Applause Received: 675

IMO there are two rights being infringed by scanning and whatnot. Not just one.

Shawn, I expect you and I are going to disagree on the right of travel one forever or until I end up in Leavenworth or similar from sassing a TSA drone. So put that one aside.

What about the right against unreasonable search and seizure in our persons and property?

Can any local cop search the trunk of my car when I drive into their town on the theory that it's possible for a terrorist to make a bomb out of there car? On the theory that I've somehow consented to regular search because I'm using a public highway rather than driving without permission through my neighbor's corn fields to work every day?

Can any local cop search my house every day on the theory that there are some people out there, right now, making bombs and planning terrorist activities, in houses somewhere in America?

The fact of the matter is that the TSA searches millions of people and their bags every bloody day. Without a warrant. Without a demonstration of anything remotely resembling probable cause (or even "clear and present danger") against the individual being searched or against the owner of the property being searched.

All they have -- ALL THEY HAVE -- is the likelihood that, somewhere out there, there are bad people who will do bad things that kill people with extreme prejudice.

IMO, if Patrick Henry and Tom Paine and Sam Adams heard the rationalizations we give to ourselves in the name of safety, they'd shake their heads with disgust...and double their orders of tar and feathers.

I'm not advocating such.

But I won't be at all surprised when it happens. People where I work like to scoff and sneer and laugh at the tea partiers. All while having no idea just how tame the Sarah Palins and Glenn Becks are compared to the real Tea Partiers of the 1770s. And compared to the real Tea Partiers bubbling underground out there.

There are a hell of a lot more Tories around today than there were in 1776. The revolution that's coming may end with the extermination of the wolves rather than of the sheep -- there's an awful lot of sheep out there -- but its still going to come. And when it comes, it's going to be very messy.

In my opinion the likelihood that we'll see repeated "incidents" at security checkpoints, some of which turn very ugly, even mob-like, is far greater than we'll see repeated "saves" by TSA procedures.

I don't expect to be around them. I've already decided to drive to my only spring conference this year (in Ohio), and I've decided that I'm going to fly as seldom as possible in the future.

And I certainly won't be causing them. I'm too much of a sheep myself to go public with my anger.

But there are wolves out there.

And they're tired of living on diseased rabbits.

Real messiness is coming.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline Pack93z  
#161 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 7:48:50 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 1,047

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post


IMO, if Patrick Henry and Tom Paine and Sam Adams heard the rationalizations we give to ourselves in the name of safety, they'd shake their heads with disgust...and double their orders of tar and feathers.

I'm not advocating such.


Agreed.. they would.

Just as they would shake their heads are many things in this country, such as air travel itself.

This country and the world have changed greatly since they helped pen our freedoms.

One thing I am certain they would shake they head upon is the lack of penalties for those that violate the constitution, those that wish to harm this country and any of its citizens. Those whose actions drive these infringes in life.

Terrorists are the least of my worries in this life, there is only so much we as a country can do about it since they for the most part reside outside of your countries boarders.

I am more worried about those that reside inside of this country and the motives that drive them. Basically there are those in this country that don't see us as an enemy like a terrorist does, they are just in it for themselves and their personal agenda.

They are unpredictable and are far harder to detect in life. If a terrorist is going to take down a plane, they are going to plan it out, plot and set it up for years and regardless of what measures we have in will find a way around it.

It will depend upon those in the fray to minimize the damage than any measure the TSA puts into place. Much like the actions on Flight 93.

But it is the lone wolf types that lurk in the shadows of this country that concern me much more than any terrorist. Those are the cats that make me reluctant to allow unchecked access to our airlines of the country..

Those types aren't chasing rabbits, we have little idea what they chase in their minds.

For as well as our airliners are designed, they are still too fragile to allow folks to freely carry a weapon of choice upon the flights.

Now onto the search and seizure points to your post.

A cop cannot pull you over to randomly check your trunk, however if they pull your over for another violation of some sort, and have a reasonable reason (judgment call by a lone entity) cause they certainly can and will search your vehicle. Probably cause.

Now pre-scanners they same principles were put into place, you walked through a metal detector and if your set it off, probable cause was established for a more detailed search of your person.

Again.. I disagree with these new Body Scanners for the record.. probably the 10 to 15th time in this thread.

But IMO, walking through a metal detector is no different than the scanners on the backside of a retail store.. the purpose for the scan greatly differs and those of air travel have much more noble intentions.

So back to those lone wolf types that reside in our country.. most will not have access, the means or the intelligence to get past the pre-body scanner security checkpoints. But like any process in this world.. it is not fail proof.. and there will be exceptions.

But even that level of security is borderline excessive.. but then again I seem to be in the minority that think there should be some level of security in place before folks get into the terminal.

At least in accordance with societal norms and processes in this country of today.. if we want to revert back to a day were judgment was passed much quicker and harsher than of today..

If that is the case and we can start carrying out judgment and eliminate those looking to do wrong without question upon a lone persons judgment without due process of today.. by all means, allow all passengers to entry sans any measure of security.

Simple fact is this country is far larger than the founding fathers could imagine, far more complex than they could imagine and far more forgiving than could envision.

IMO.. we as a country have done a poor job overall adjusting to society of today with those core principles widespread... but without radical change overall how can we cherry pick this one single measure?

Patriotism has been greatly lost in this country overall.. today, many folks only point at the constitution when if fits their needs.

Let me state again.. I am not in favor of these "body scanners" nor am I insistent on the TSA as an entity being supported going forward.. but I do feel that there should be a layer of security measures of those wishing to fly in the mass transportation that is commercial flights. Nothing more.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#162 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 9:41:23 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 1,047

Now.. on a different topic.. explain to me how air travel is a right again and how it is being violated today?

Not trying to be argumentative here.. I must be missing something along that way.. seriously.

How I see it..

It is a service supplied by another entity if your are flying commercially.. if you want to incur the training and cost of owning your own plane and the cost along with that, I agree it is a right.. but to fly on commercial airline, it is their equipment, your are subject to their rules and regulations.

No different than going to the fair, purchasing a ticket to the ferris wheel and having to buckle in.

You are free to purchase the ticket.. but part of that purchase it to adhere to the policies of the process. Supported by, I believe, the consent provision of the 4th amendment, whereby upon purchase you are waiving your consent to passenger screening.

IMO, your "Rights" have not be imposed upon, you are free to purchase a ticket to any destination of your choosing at any time that your can find a flight going to the destination for an agreed upon amount of compensation. Those rights haven't changed to my knowledge.. not one bit.

This was challenged UNITED STATES v. AUKAI


Quote:

Like the Third Circuit, we find these search procedures to be minimally intrusive. See Hartwell, 436 F.3d at 180(holding similar search procedures to be minimally intrusive, explaining that the procedures are well-tailored to protect personal privacy, escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search).

The duration of the detention associated with this airport screening search was also reasonable. Witnesses testified that Aukai entered the checkpoint area at approximately 9:00 a.m. and that the entire search at issue-starting from when Aukai walked through the checkpoint until the TSA's efforts to rule out the presence of a weapon resulted in the discovery of drug paraphernalia-took no more than 18 minutes. Although longer than detentions approved in other cases, see, e.g., Sitz, 496 U.S. at 448, 110 S.Ct. 2481 (average delay of 25 seconds); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 546-47, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976) (average detention of 3-5 minutes), the length of Aukai's detention was reasonable, especially in light of Aukai's conduct, because it was not prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives.10 See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005) (stating that a seizure can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete [its] mission).

Accordingly, we hold that the airport screening search of Aukai was a constitutionally reasonable administrative search.

AFFIRMED.

I concur in the result and nearly all of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I write separately, however, because I cannot join the majority's irrelevant and distracting references to 9/11 and terrorists. Daniel Aukai is no terrorist and yet, whether in 1997 or 2007, the search that law enforcement personnel conducted of his person falls squarely within the confines of a reasonable administrative search.

The majority holds, and I agree, that once a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public. For decades, nefarious individuals have tried to use commercial aircraft to further a personal or political agenda at the expense of those on board and on the ground.1 And the threat continues to exist that individuals, whether members of an organized group or not, may attempt to do the same. In my view, references to a post-9/11 world, maj. op. at 960, do not advance the analysis. Nor is there any legal significance to whether or not an individual is a terrorist. See maj. op. at 960-61. By relying on those factors, the majority unnecessarily makes its solid holding dependent on the existence of the current terrorist threat, inviting future litigants to retest the viability of that holding.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#163 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 10:45:31 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 1,047

Quote:
THE MENACE of air piracy must be met--immediately and effectively. I am therefore announcing the following actions to deal with this problem:

1. To protect United States citizens and others on U.S. flag carriers, we will place specially trained, armed United States Government personnel on flights of U.S. commercial airliners. A substantial number of such personnel are already available and they will begin their duties immediately. To the extent necessary they will be supplemented by specially trained members of the Armed Forces who will serve until an adequate force of civilian guards has been assembled and trained. We will also make antisabotage training available to airlines personnel.

2. I have directed the Department of Transportation to have American flag carriers extend the use of electronic surveillance equipment and other surveillance techniques to all gateway airports and other appropriate airports in the United States and--wherever possible--in other countries. The Federal Government will provide enforcement officers to work with this equipment, to conduct searches when appropriate, and to make necessary arrests. Such equipment and techniques have already helped to reduce the problem of air piracy in many areas.

3. I have directed the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Science and Technology, and other agencies to accelerate their present efforts to develop security measures, including new methods for detecting weapons and explosive devices. At the same time, the Departments of Defense and Transportation will work with all U.S. airlines in determining whether certain metal detectors and x-ray devices now available to the military could provide immediate improvement in airport surveillance efforts. To facilitate passenger surveillance, appropriate agencies of the Federal Government will intensify their efforts to assemble and evaluate all useful intelligence concerning this matter and to disseminate such information to airlines and law enforcement personnel.

4. I am directing the State Department and other appropriate agencies to consult fully with foreign governments and foreign carriers concerning the full range of techniques which they use to foil hijackers. Some foreign airlines--though they are particularly susceptible to hijacking-have been successful in deterring hijackers and in coping with piracy attempts. We want to learn all we can from their experience.

5. It is imperative that all countries accept the multilateral convention providing for the extradition or punishment of hijackers which will be considered at the International Conference which will be held under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization. I affirm the support of the United States both for this Convention and for the Tokyo Convention, which provides for the prompt return of hijacked aircraft, passengers, and crew. I call upon other governments to become parties to these conventions.

I further call upon the international community to take joint action to suspend airline services with those countries which refuse to punish or extradite hijackers involved in international blackmail. For this purpose and in order to consider other ways and means of meeting this new international menace, I have directed the Secretary of State to ask the President of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization immediately to convene that Council in an emergency meeting.

6. It is the policy of the United States Government to hold the countries in which hijacked planes are landed responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the lives and the property of U.S. citizens.

7. An additional indication of our deep concern with the hijacking menace is the request which the United States and the United Kingdom made earlier this week for an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council to consider this problem. I am gratified by the unanimous action of the Security Council in calling upon the parties concerned immediately to release all hijacked passengers and crews. I am pleased, too, that the Security Council has asked all nations to take all possible legal steps to protect against further hijackings or other interference in international civil aviation.

These are not the only steps we will take in the coming months to meet the threat of airplane hijacking. But they do provide a decisive program for the immediate future. The Secretary of Transportation will direct this program and take responsibility for preparing further proposals. In this capacity he will work closely with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Defense.

Piracy is not a new challenge for the community of nations. Most countries, including the United States, found effective means of dealing with piracy on the high seas a century and a half ago. We can--and we will--deal effectively with piracy in the skies today.



Whom coined this announcement and when?


Richard Nixon, September 11, 1970.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline zombieslayer  
#164 Posted : Wednesday, March 2, 2011 4:45:21 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Pack - I never called you unAmerican or questioned your patriotism. Look back at the previous 8 pages. I don't do that sh*t.

I think you're wrong, really wrong on this issue. But I respect your stances, even when they're wrong.

Just for the record.

FYI - When there is a doubt, ALWAYS err on the side of Freedom and Privacy. This needs to be set in stone, although nowadays it seems like people are more concerned about security than Freedom. I don't think I need to whip out that Ben Franklin quote again, the one we've all read a million times.

And Nixon? Really? That guy's one of the worst scumbag politicians we've had last century. Gerald Ford's going to hell for pardoning Nixon. Nixon was a sociopath - he saw nothing wrong in doing anything he could to get more power, including pissing on the Constitution.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#165 Posted : Sunday, July 17, 2011 9:45:41 AM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 364
Applause Received: 263

UserPostedImage
UserPostedImage
 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
12 Pages«<9101112>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.572 seconds.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
6m / Random Babble / wpr

7m / Random Babble / wpr

25m / Around The NFL / Cheesey

34m / Green Bay Packers Talk / pkrjones

35m / Random Babble / Cheesey

41m / Super Bowl Talk / wpr

47m / Random Babble / wpr

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Yerko

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Yerko

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / hardrocker950

5h / Random Babble / wpr

5h / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Smokey

6h / Welcome to our Community! / Smokey


Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.