Shovelhead
Member
The problem seems to be that if they choose the "Middle Eastern Looking" man,.....THAT would be "Racial Profiling".:banghead:
Appalling new TSA screening procedure
- Thread starter Tall Man
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
There was a day when a driver license was just that--a license to drive. It's morphed into "ID", just as SSN's have gone from "oh, we promise we'll never use those for anything but social security" to a de facto national ID number.
The stupid thing was to let the problem get this far to begin with.
I have alot more experience working drugs than terrorism, but women with kids and seniors are in high demand as drug mules. Some of the seniors do it for money, others dont even realize what they are involved in.
If you think that the normal profile of a terr looks a certain way, you've already lost.
If you think that the normal profile of a terr looks a certain way, you've already lost.
RevDisk
Member
Bomb dogs, trace particle analysis, X-ray machine, etc. Don't forget metal detectors. You need more than just semtex to make a bomb. You need a mechanism to set it off.
I don't like flying commercial. I take maybe one commercial flight per year, coast to coast. I'm probably going to cut it to zero. It's not worth dealing with the airports and airlines.
America's question is, how much freedom are you willing to give for the illusion of safety? Most of America will say, all of it.
The constitutional arguments about searches, in this instance, are not relevant. Why? Because consent of the person being searched allows the State to skip constitutional safeguards. You can consent to let a cop in your house without a warrant. You can consent to let a TSA guard grope you.
By buying a ticket to fly, you are giving consent.
Don't want to give consent? Don't buy a ticket.
We can argue all day about where this falls on the cost-benefits scale, or whether it is a good idea to do it at all. I'm all on board with that debate. But don't try to make this a constitutional argument. You're consenting to the search.
Mike
By buying a ticket to fly, you are giving consent.
Don't want to give consent? Don't buy a ticket.
We can argue all day about where this falls on the cost-benefits scale, or whether it is a good idea to do it at all. I'm all on board with that debate. But don't try to make this a constitutional argument. You're consenting to the search.
Mike
Coronach:
You seem to have good knowledge of the specific facts relating to this contract with the travelling public...please tell us on what date, exactly, the contract was instituted. When planes were invented? When civilian passenger service began? During the 1970's? After 9/11? When TSA federalized airline security?
You say that all passengers consented. Sounds like it was unanimous. On the day this so-called contract was instituted, how many people did not agree to the provisions suspending the fourth amendment? You see, one of the requirements for a legally binding contract (among others) is that it not be coerced. So, with your knowledge of this subject, please fill in the details.
If such details are not available, sounds to me like its not a legal contract. Oh, you say that airlines are just a private vendors, setting the terms of service? How come violators of this private agreement are being carted off to jail? Is this a case of the government wanting to have it both ways?
Thanks in advance.
You seem to have good knowledge of the specific facts relating to this contract with the travelling public...please tell us on what date, exactly, the contract was instituted. When planes were invented? When civilian passenger service began? During the 1970's? After 9/11? When TSA federalized airline security?
You say that all passengers consented. Sounds like it was unanimous. On the day this so-called contract was instituted, how many people did not agree to the provisions suspending the fourth amendment? You see, one of the requirements for a legally binding contract (among others) is that it not be coerced. So, with your knowledge of this subject, please fill in the details.
If such details are not available, sounds to me like its not a legal contract. Oh, you say that airlines are just a private vendors, setting the terms of service? How come violators of this private agreement are being carted off to jail? Is this a case of the government wanting to have it both ways?
Thanks in advance.
Cellar Dweller
Member
Sometime between the 70's and 9/11. I don't remember airport security being much of a presence in the late 80's, but when I flew regularly 1999-2000 if I wanted to get on the plane, I had to go through the security checkpoint.
There are signs posted that if you wish to enter the secure area, you are consenting to a search. You are implying your consent when your stuff touches the xray belt or you enter the metal detector, if you have no stuff or are too dense to take the $100 in change out of your pockets.
If TSA was re-privatized today, would you have a problem being checked? Or is the real issue being government drones doing security for private industry?
Private security does the same function at sporting events; isn't it unconstitutional because you can't bring in your own beer and food? Don't women get groped? Don't they seize knives and call the cops if you try to carry a weapon in or get unruly with the procedure? (Private security at a public owned facility, specifically Soldier Field which is owned by the Chicago Park District)
As a sometimes contractor Gov't/military security won't allow me to carry weapons on bases, isn't that unconstitutional? And I'm subject to search at any time after I enter, even without PC? I didn't sign anything, nobody told me, waaah waaah...Oh yeah, it's POSTED at the entrance.
- Status