[Don Galt]

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/10/29/whackstack_wa.htm

This supports my long suspicion that the reason for TSA was not security--- after all, who's going to take a plane down with fingernail clippers? But an escalation of the drug war. 9/11 just provided an excuse.

(And by the way, does anyone know where the idea that 9/11 planes were hijacked with box cutters came from anyway? Since all the planes were destroyed, how could anyone know?)

Think we'll ever see murder charges as a result of this death? Somehow, I doubt it.

Don

ObRelevance: Civil Liberties, as they are eroded, the erosion supports the justification of the War On Guns. We should have more armed people on planes, not less. The TSA is anti-firearm--- for citizens anyway. Furthermore, this was an illegal search.

[Standing Wolf]

Since all the planes were destroyed, how could anyone know?

Some of the passengers had time to call loved ones on their cellular telephones.

[Justin]

I would imagine that they also would have known from interrogating the so-called '20th hijacker'- Zacarias Moussaoui (spelling corrected.)

[Don Galt]

Well, there's a problem with that. You can't call on a cellphone from a plane.

Near as I can tell, all those supposed calls are made up.

Now, I think the planes have phones, so maybe someone called from one of the in-flight phones. Have to look into that.

Its amazing how little real evidence there is to support 9/11, and yet, the papers had all the names of the hijackers within 48 hours.

[jefmad]

Ummm...Don, you can call on a cell phone from a plane. Its just that you are not allowed to by our friends in the government, since they have only approved those freqs. for ground to ground transmission. Service can actually be quite good since there is no terrain to block the signal.

[Obiwan]

Slow news day huh?

Maybe we need a Tinfoil Hat Forum;)

[Sodbuster]

the papers had all the names of the hijackers within 48 hours
Was it the FBI office in Phoenix (or elsewhere?) that already had suspicions about the hijackers' flight training?

[whoami]

Well, there's a problem with that. You can't call on a cellphone from a plane.

Near as I can tell, all those supposed calls are made up.

Now, I think the planes have phones, so maybe someone called from one of the in-flight phones. Have to look into that.

Its amazing how little real evidence there is to support 9/11, and yet, the papers had all the names of the hijackers within 48 hours.

EEEHHHHHHH!Sorry Hans, wrong guess...would you like to try for double jeopardy, where the scores can REALLY change?

I used to have SprintPCS service with mobile web, and when I'd be heading out to CA from JFK International I'd often be reading news and checking stocks on the internet directly from my phone. Easier than making calls because I could hide the handset much quicker if the attendants did a walkthrough. Even leaving my phone on during the flight I'd notice decent signal strength when over the tristate area.

The whole thing is about cell phone broadcasts possibly interfering with the various systems on the plane.

[geekWithA.45]

"Until every flight over America has a trustworthy armed American on board, all domestic security precautions are posturing, pretense, and BS".

Now as for cell phones, there was even some short lived discussions post 9/11 about dropping the "No cell phone" regulation on airliners.

[Obiwan]

All belongings are subject to search...

So don't be an idiot and carry drugs/drug paraphanalia through screening

If you are being arrested don't resist

A good lawyer probably could have gotten her off if she had gone quietly

But what this has to do with homeland security is really beyond me.

She screwed up.

And yes ...cell phones work on planes....

But the Apollo missions never really happened.....pass it on!!!

[Erik]

The search was not illegal. It was in fact de facto concentual, in that all items one brings or attempts to bring onto an airline are subject to search. Everyone knows this.

The item in question was illegal.

TSA personnel report suspected illegal items to the proper authorities.

Said authorities react accordingly. "Accordingly" is determined by state and local laws in most cases.

Accordingly most certainly includes restraining subjects who resist arrest.

It also includes attempting to revive subjects who choke on whatever it is they have desperately tried to swallow.

Vicitm? Hardly.

[Azrael256]

The whole thing is about cell phone broadcasts possibly interfering with the various systems on the plane. That is an old concern that deals with old cellphones that ran on a different frequency. FAA rules prevent the use of a cellphone even on a small aircraft flying VFR. The problem actually has to do with the fact that a cellphone on a jetliner is line-of-sight to several "cells," and thus can really tie up traffic on the cellular network. The cell companies have come up with solutions to the problem, and obviously a satellite phone wouldn't have such a problem, but the FAA hasn't implemented new rules (and likely won't)

[laynlow]

The problem actually has to do with the fact that a cellphone on a jetliner is line-of-sight to several "cells," and thus can really tie up traffic on the cellular network.

Correct. Oh, and we didn't land on the moon either. :scrutiny:

[El Tejon]

So, what was TSA to do? Give a dugout back to a doper?:confused: "Hey, dude, here ya go. [surfer laugh]"

Here's a little hint that I get from doing my gig, don't bring evidence TO the police.:D

Cell phones work great in planes, but I thought everyone knew that. The cell phone calls on 9/11 were real, but not all have been released.

I am not sure why this denial myth about the 9/11 cell phone calls was created. Sort of like THR and bears.

Maybe people cannot bring themselves to imagine the Eloi knowingly going to their doom and not doing anything about it other than whimpering??? Don't know, be a good spinoff thread.

[Don Galt]

Cellphone networks do not support phones moving across cells that quickly. I find it amazing that people are assumign that because the airlines tell you not to use them that THAT is the reason I'm saying they don't work. ITs not, its the technology of the phones. IIRC someone also tried to recreate these 9/11 calls and was unable to make it work. But that makes sense, given the assumptions about the speed a cellphone would be moving built into the cell network.

The search was illegal, and unconstitutional-- no warrent was provided. Just because they do it regularly does not make it constitutional.

Furthermore, I doubt she was carrying drugs.

But this is how the socialists have taken control of the country-- they just have to give a one word expalanation, and people stop holding them accountable. "Terorrists" or "Drugs" and nobody seems to care about the constitution anymore.

Its easier to believe that all cops are honest, and the constitution is really being taken seriously, than to confront the reality that these are not the case and thus your country is not what you were brought up to think it is.

And this is why its going to be so easy to ban guns once and for all.

[Don Galt]

cellphones do not tie up several cells at once... they are engaged with only one cell at a time, and are handed off between them.

There is an assumption in the handoff protocol about how fast the phone is moving. On a jetliner, the phone gets handed off to the next cell network, but is already out of range of it.

Stock quotes and such should work because they are a different protocol... the phone doesn't need to know which cell it got the info from, its just broadcast. Its not an actual connection....

[ahenry]

The search was illegal, and unconstitutional-- no warrent was provided.
What was unconstitutional about it? Keep in mind that the constitution doesn’t say there must be a warrant in order to search or seize. It only says there can be no “unreasonable” searches and seizures.

[Ironbarr]

Well... did I just figure out that if there are recordings of those calls there must be recordings of ALL calls on ALL cell phone conversations?

If not, then how were those conversations (at the very last miniute) recorded or extrapolated or ...??? It must have taken "live monitors" some time to locate and record them... the time window being rather small.

So much for "private" conversations, huh?

[Coronach]

The search was neither illegal nor unconstitutional. It was, in fact, consentual. She consented to the search by offering her bags up for inspection. She also consented to the search of herself by passing the inspection point of the airport. If she wished to not be searched (a perfectly worthy desire) she needs find an alternative means of transportation.

Mike

[Coronach]

And as to all of the phone convos being made up, 9/11 being faked...

Yeah.

Whatever.

Mike :rolleyes:

PS yes, the truth is out there. I'm blind to it. yadda yadda yadda...

[rayra]

ok. after reading Don Galt's made up nonsense in THIS thread, and his equating military service to slavery in another, I know not to bother reading his crap anymore.

[greyhound]

Well... did I just figure out that if there are recordings of those calls there must be recordings of ALL calls on ALL cell phone conversations?

Yikes, and given how fast they found the 9/11 calls it must not be too hard to find. But, judging by the amount of people I see walking around town blabbing into a cell phone, there must be billions of calls each day!

As far as the "9/11 was faked" nonsense, I thought it was only over in the middle east where they thought the Mossad/George Bush/Israel was responsible, but I guess not.

[Don Galt]

There are no recordings of the cellphone calls from the airplanes-- where did you guys get that idea??? There was a recording of someone calling an airline office.. where they have recorders to record the calls. ITs not cellphone calls that were recorded.

By the way, I gave an explanation for the cellphone issue-- and nobody has responded to it, but al ot of people have pooh-poohed it without argument.

So, I should believe that you know I'm wrong because the government told you so, and that's all you have?

The federal government has no authority under the constitution to search every air traveller-- it is an unreasonable search, and thus unconstitutional.

As long as you guys cheer when the constitution is ignored, you don't get to complain when the rights you do care about are ignored.

[Ian]

The idea that it's normal and acceptable for a person to die over a bit of plant matter is totally absurd. Isn't it fascinating how desensitived people can become to complete irrationality? All the issues of whether the search was legal, how it was her fault for having the stuff in the first place, yadda yadda yadda are beside the point. It is absolutely rediculous for anyone to even be put in a situation where they can be killed by the government for having pot. Does this not occur to anyone else?

[Camel]

So somebody with drugs on them walked through a security checkpoint. The drugs got noticed and the "victim" decided to boogey when the police showed up. Police catch her, she resists, she gets taken down and cuffed. It is my personal opinion that if you end up dead as a result of resisting arrest and/or swallowing your drugs, and there was no use of excessive force by the police, its your own fault. No rights are violated if you give up your bag to be searched, she could have turned around and walked away and no search would have taken place.

[Ian]

Take a step back and look at the principle behind the whole thing. Government is banning a plant. A plant! The whole idea is rediculous...yet people are so anaesthetized to it that you sit back a say she had the leaves, so she deserved to die.

As for whether someone's rights were violated by the search, of course they were. If the Feds sent goon to search you every time you got in your car, it would still be a violation of your rights, even though you could always choose not to drive.

[rayra]

another silly line of reasoning to justify a dependence on illegal narcotics. ^^^

"a plant" - trying to make it seem innocent by calling it a "plant" or 'hemp' is disingenuous as hell.
And trying to put 'government is banning a plant' on a protest sign doesn't work, either - 'the gubment' bans a huge variety of plants and other biological compounds - what's your point?

Between the Libertarians railing at ANY exercise of Federal Govt, the Left protesting for any reason they can manufacture, and druggies doing their best to justify their character weaknesses - we are becoming a sad contentious country.

[WvaBill]

As for whether someone's rights were violated by the search, of course they were. If the Feds sent goon to search you every time you got in your car, it would still be a violation of your rights, even though you could always choose not to drive.

No, it would not. It is called "implied consent." I am sure the same applies to airline travelers, "...by using your airport, i consent to the check of baggage and person..." If you don't want searched, charter a plane from a private terminal.

[Ian]

rayra - Heh. I can assure you that I don't indulge myself (though I've had plenty of opportunities to). The first and last time I had any sort of narcotic was years ago in a dentist's chair when I had my wisdom teeth removed. Yeesh, I don't even drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. My objection to US drug policy is based purely on grounds of said policy being expensive (both in dollars and in lives) and based on critically flawed assumptions. If I was smart, I'd demand stricter drug laws and make a pile of money selling the stuff myself.

Wvabill - If the airlines had all decided to do these searches of their own free will, it would be different. ut this policy is handed down by the Feds, and all commercial passenger air services are required to obey it. That is a violation of both the passengers' and the airlines' rights.

[WvaBill]

I diddn't think corporations were afforded constituntional rights guaranteed to "the people"

The state gov't handed down rule that all motorists may be required to submit to a BAC test or have license suspended. All motorists must obey it. Was anyone asked if he consented to submitting to BAC searches when applying for DL?

[Don Galt]

WvaBill--

Yes, corporations have rights under the law.

By the way, your idea of "implied consent" is silly--- you don't automatically consent to being searched when you drive on the roads.

And what you guys are missing from this story is she didn't run, she didn't have drugs, and she didn't try to swallow drugs.

She was killed by cops and they planted drugs on her to justify it.

But you guys goose stepping around in pleasure that a "druggie" has been killed only proves that they merely have to make such a claim, and you won't say squat.

That's what makes you sheeple.

[WvaBill]

By the way, your idea of "implied consent" is silly--- you don't automatically consent to being searched when you drive on the roads.

Refuse to consent to BAC search(BREATAHALYZER)

[NukemJim]

I will keep my mouth shut about the cell phone calls from the planes on 9/11 but at least one of the calls was NOT a cell phone but rather AirFone(SP?), a company that equips airliners with phones for inflight use. Todd Beamers call was recieved in the Chicago suburbs where AirFone is based. Many articles in the newspapers at the time about it. For once the newspapers got something right. My brother works at AirFone and was in the room at the time writing questions to the operator to ask Todd. ( He was interviewsd by the FBI and was not able to talk about it for a short while ).

NukemJim

[Sergeant Bob]

It makes no difference if she had drugs in her luggage or not, or if they should be illegal or not.
The question is, did the cops cause her death, and were they justified in doing so?

[Coronach]

Mr Galt:

Please explain to me how a consentual search, obtained without coercion or duress, is unconstitutional.

-or-

Failing that, explain to me how a search of one's self and belongings at an airport is not consentual, when there are large signs up prior to the security point stating that by passing through the security point one gives the TSA consent to search both person and luggage.

Thank you,
Mike

[Moparmike]

He is no longer a member here.


Personally, I think that the .gov saying you must consent to a search to fly on this private property is absurd and unconstitutional. However, I think that the private airlines doing so is perfectly constitutional and reasonable, as it is their property. Its not the .gov's property. Just my $.02.

[Coronach]

Ah, I missed Mr. Galt's departure.

Fair enough. My point is that, while it might be wrong for the government to ban plants (this is debatable) or to claim authority over air traffic and air traffic security (also debatable), the usage of the term "unconstitutional" in reference to the search is absurd. "Unconstitutional" is the favorite term of anyone opposed to any given government action, and as such is often used incorrectly.

Mike