New Jersey get one right. Takes on TSA.

[Zebo]

Their gun laws are unconstitutional and downright draconian...giving 7 years to a law abiding citizen carrying an unloaded gun in trunk but here they get it right. Whole statehouse is taking on TSA.

"There are violations of New Jersey law taking place."

"When you buy an airline ticket you do not give up your Constitutional rights."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H9HNEtrvEE&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[pcgeek11]

Their gun laws are unconstitutional and downright draconian...giving 7 years to a law abiding citizen carrying an unloaded gun in trunk but here they get it right. Whole statehouse is taking on TSA.

"There are violations of New Jersey law taking place."

"When you buy an airline ticket you do not give up your Constitutional rights."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H9HNEtrvEE&feature=player_embedded#!

Flying is not a constitutional right. You still have the right to refuse the scanner and the search, but you will be driving a car or riding ina bus / train.

 

[Zebo]

Flying is not a constitutional right. You still have the right to refuse the scanner and the search, but you will be driving a car or riding ina bus / train.

Neither is driving a car or riding in a bus or train a constitutional right hell walking on a sidewalk is not a constitutional right but I bet it would not fly if they did full body scans on your way to grocery. where you draw the line in your police state? Can they scan you anywhere? If so constitutions not worth paper it's written on.

 

[jruchko]

Flying is not a constitutional right. You still have the right to refuse the scanner and the search, but you will be driving a car or riding ina bus / train.

That may be true, but it is government officials who are doing the searching.

 

[fskimospy]

Neither is driving a car or riding in a bus or train a constitutional right hell walking on a sidewalk is not a constitutional right but I bet it would not fly if they did full body scans on your way to grocery. where you draw the line in your police state? Can they scan you anywhere? If so constitutions not worth paper it's written on.

Actually freedom of movement is a constitutional right. There's no way they could scan you while walking around, but freedom of movement by airplane is not one. This is why your 4th amendment right against unreasonable search doesn't apply. The slippery slope argument is usually a pretty bad one.

Once again as others have mentioned, it's simply amazing to me that many of the same people who have no problem with warrantless wiretapping, with abuse of national security letters, with endless violations of privacy by the government, have found a bridge too far here. I think it says something about America, and what it says is really sad.

 

[kranky]

Once again as others have mentioned, it's simply amazing to me that many of the same people who have no problem with warrantless wiretapping, with abuse of national security letters, with endless violations of privacy by the government, have found a bridge too far here. I think it says something about America, and what it says is really sad.

The difference I think is that the wiretaps, privacy violations, etc. are seen by the public as something that only affects "bad people". The body scans at airports affect everybody, which is why people are upset.

 

[classy]

Their gun laws are unconstitutional and downright draconian...giving 7 years to a law abiding citizen carrying an unloaded gun in trunk but here they get it right. Whole statehouse is taking on TSA.

"There are violations of New Jersey law taking place."

"When you buy an airline ticket you do not give up your Constitutional rights."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H9HNEtrvEE&feature=player_embedded#!

People are going to far with the one guy and the 7 years. Is that excessive? Yes. Did the judge take it to far? Yes. But the guy put himself in that position. His own mother was afraid of him with his ex wife. And he had already moved, so there was no need for him to have them in his car at that point. Just give it a rest.

 

[GoPackGo]

I think the TSA has moved into Fifth Amendment violations: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

This idea that we have no "right" to travel by air and so on is a something that our oppressors have been feeding us for years.

The concept of liberty in a free country is paramount. There are philosophical discussions about what liberty is as briefly described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

But it is obvious that the founders through the Bill of Rights wanted the people to be protected from the government.

These are people who suffered the tyranny of kings.

If the founders came back they would be in marvel of our technology but they would be pissed as hell at our government.

My guess there would be cause for a new Declaration of Independence and yet another Revolution.

 

[zsdersw]

Too much additional bullsh!t for too little additional safety/security.

(that could be the motto for the entire federal government, actually)

 

[drebo]

Too much additional bullsh!t for absolutely no additional safety/security.

Fixed that for you.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Actually freedom of movement is a constitutional right. There's no way they could scan you while walking around, but freedom of movement by airplane is not one. This is why your 4th amendment right against unreasonable search doesn't apply. The slippery slope argument is usually a pretty bad one.

Once again as others have mentioned, it's simply amazing to me that many of the same people who have no problem with warrantless wiretapping, with abuse of national security letters, with endless violations of privacy by the government, have found a bridge too far here. I think it says something about America, and what it says is really sad.

Oh they would be fine with it if it involved profiling. Lets not kid ourselves.

 

[drebo]

Once again as others have mentioned, it's simply amazing to me that many of the same people who have no problem with warrantless wiretapping, with abuse of national security letters, with endless violations of privacy by the government, have found a bridge too far here. I think it says something about America, and what it says is really sad.

On the contrary, there are a lot of people who think that the government has been going to far for years. These people are both Democrats and Republicans. They are liberal, libertarian, and conservative. Having an "R" by their name does not automatically mean that they support everything that GWB and his cronies shoved on us, and having a "D" by their name does not mean they automatically mean that they support everything that Obama and his cronies are continuing to shove down our throats.

Abhorance in government tyranny is not a partisan issue.

Although, I do find it interesting that most of the people who are OK with taking nude pictures of people and groping them as a condition of flying are people who identify themselves as Democrats.

Both sides of our current government certainly support authoritarian style government. That's not OK, regardless of what the issue is.

He who gives up even one of his liberties for the illusion of security deserves neither liberty nor security, and will eventually have neither.

 

[fskimospy]

On the contrary, there are a lot of people who think that the government has been going to far for years. These people are both Democrats and Republicans. They are liberal, libertarian, and conservative. Having an "R" by their name does not automatically mean that they support everything that GWB and his cronies shoved on us, and having a "D" by their name does not mean they automatically mean that they support everything that Obama and his cronies are continuing to shove down our throats.

Abhorance in government tyranny is not a partisan issue.

Although, I do find it interesting that most of the people who are OK with taking nude pictures of people and groping them as a condition of flying are people who identify themselves as Democrats.

Both sides of our current government certainly support authoritarian style government. That's not OK, regardless of what the issue is.

He who gives up even one of his liberties for the illusion of security deserves neither liberty nor security, and will eventually have neither.

I never said anything about partisanship. I have repeatedly said that I support the vast majority of Obama's policies, but I find his civil liberties stance indefensible.

I just get the sense from the outcry over this that the invasion of privacy only matters because it has to do with dirty dirty wieners. I find that sad because it implies that lingering American puritanicalism towards sex are more to blame for this struggle for civil liberties than actually caring about civil liberties.

 

[drebo]

Oh they would be fine with it if it involved profiling. Lets not kid ourselves.

Why is profiling wrong?

When was the last time a caucasian 6 year old girl or 80 year old man in a wheel chair was involved in a terrorist plot?

Let's not kid ourselves. The current threat of terrorism originates from only one small part of the world, and the people from that part of the world are exceptionally easy to identify, even if they're not wearing turbans and hijabs.

If 5 year old boys eventually start plotting to overthrow the government by shoving plastic explosive up their asses, well, I think we can clearly see how absurd this whole thing is.

 

[drebo]

I never said anything about partisanship. I have repeatedly said that I support the vast majority of Obama's policies, but I find his civil liberties stance indefensible.

I just get the sense from the outcry over this that the invasion of privacy only matters because it has to do with dirty dirty wieners. I find that sad because it implies that lingering American puritanicalism towards sex are more to blame for this struggle for civil liberties than actually caring about civil liberties.

Has nothing to do with prudishness. It has to do with ME determining who is allowed to see and touch my body, and not having people molest my wife and children in full view of both myself and the general public.

Isn't that the cry of pro-choice people? "My body, my rights"?

There's a word for when government declares dominion over my personal being: tyranny.

 

[fskimospy]

Why is profiling wrong?

When was the last time a caucasian 6 year old girl or 80 year old man in a wheel chair was involved in a terrorist plot?

Let's not kid ourselves. The current threat of terrorism originates from only one small part of the world, and the people from that part of the world are exceptionally easy to identify, even if they're not wearing turbans and hijabs.

If 5 year old boys eventually start plotting to overthrow the government by shoving plastic explosive up their asses, well, I think we can clearly see how absurd this whole thing is.

Profiling is wrong because it is discriminatory, but in this case it is also ineffective. If your profile is too large, it overwhelms your resources to check them all. If your profile is too small, your profile becomes known, and easily worked around. Richard Reid was a British citizen,j and John Walker Lindh was as white as they come. Al Qaeda already appears to believe that we are profiling based on race, and so they are deliberately recruiting those who don't look like that. Also, lots of Muslims are simply of African descent. Are you proposing we start profiling for black people? Not only would that not go over well, but there are an awful lot of them here.

Scanning 6 year olds and zillion year old men is almost certainly a waste of time, yes. But the point of a random search is that it is random. Once you start making exceptions, you defeat the whole purpose.

 

[fskimospy]

Has nothing to do with prudishness. It has to do with ME determining who is allowed to see and touch my body, and not having people molest my wife and children in full view of both myself and the general public.

Isn't that the cry of pro-choice people? "My body, my rights"?

There's a word for when government declares dominion over my personal being: tyranny.

Abortion is a federally recognized constitutional right. Getting on an airplane is not.

I personally am against these screenings as well because they are expensive and ineffective in addition to being invasive. Your post sort of proves my point though, people don't have a problem with warrantless searches and huge police powers, but they freak out when someone checks their balls.

The big difference here is that the ability to use unreasonable and warrantless searches has a historical record of being a route to ACTUAL tyranny, but they don't raise an eyebrow.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

 

[alkemyst]

Neither is driving a car or riding in a bus or train a constitutional right hell walking on a sidewalk is not a constitutional right but I bet it would not fly if they did full body scans on your way to grocery. where you draw the line in your police state? Can they scan you anywhere? If so constitutions not worth paper it's written on.

Vehicle checkpoints..../thread.

 

[zsdersw]

Vehicle checkpoints....

Another unjust violation of personal liberty.

 

[drebo]

Abortion is a federally recognized constitutional right. Getting on an airplane is not.

It's not? Really?

I seem to be missing the part of the Constitution that says I'm not allowed to enter in to a private contract with a private entity.

Would you please elighten me?

The big difference here is that the ability to use unreasonable and warrantless searches has a historical record of being a route to ACTUAL tyranny, but they don't raise an eyebrow.

I don't see a difference. The government is telling me that my body is not my own, and that I surrender the right to privacy when I enter into a private contract. That's no better or worse than the government snooping on private contracts.

And, how is a strip search or "enhanced pat down" NOT an unreasonable and warrantless search?

You are so full of doublespeak and bullshit I find it hard not to punch you through my computer screen. The government has no jurisdiction over my personal being. Period. That fact does not change simply because I buy an airplane ticket, drive a car, take a train, buy a house, go to the store, or walk down the street. Period. The fourth amendment exists precisely to protect against just this sort of tyranny.

We're not on the route to tyranny, we're there.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not? Really?

I seem to be missing the part of the Constitution that says I'm not allowed to enter in to a private contract with a private entity.

Would you please elighten me?

Airports are public, governmental facilities, air travel is facilitated by the use of public air traffic control, and safe air travel is a compelling interest of the federal government.

The Constitution of course says nothing about you not being able to enter into a private contract, but it DOES permit for regulation of the terms of contracts, particularly those that utilize public money or facilities. Part of that regulation is getting your junk grabbed in this case. In fact, under the Constitution not only can the government regulate the terms of contracts before they are signed, but in some cases can alter the terms AFTER they are signed. (with compelling interest)

Hope that clears things up.

 

[her209]

Once again as others have mentioned, it's simply amazing to me that many of the same people who have no problem with warrantless wiretapping, with abuse of national security letters, with endless violations of privacy by the government, have found a bridge too far here. I think it says something about America, and what it says is really sad.

That's because when it was being done, they weren't the ones losing "rights".

 

[fskimospy]

It's not? Really?

I seem to be missing the part of the Constitution that says I'm not allowed to enter in to a private contract with a private entity.

Would you please elighten me?



I don't see a difference. The government is telling me that my body is not my own, and that I surrender the right to privacy when I enter into a private contract. That's no better or worse than the government snooping on private contracts.

And, how is a strip search or "enhanced pat down" NOT an unreasonable and warrantless search?

You are so full of doublespeak and bullshit I find it hard not to punch you through my computer screen. The government has no jurisdiction over my personal being. Period. That fact does not change simply because I buy an airplane ticket, drive a car, take a train, buy a house, go to the store, or walk down the street. Period. The fourth amendment exists precisely to protect against just this sort of tyranny.

We're not on the route to tyranny, we're there.

Despite you acting like a douche right now, I for the most part agree with you that we have gone way too far with the unreasonable searches. The thing is though, that the courts don't, and their opinion is what counts. You might not like what is, but that doesn't change it.

My point before was that the hallmark of tyrannical regimes the world over is unrestrained police powers when it comes to the search of homes and persons just going about their day to day business. Since those were the searches I was referring to in previous posts, I assumed you knew what I meant, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. That being said, I am unaware of any tyrannical regime that got to where it was by cupping ballsacks at an airport. So, if you're mad about tyranny, the airport seems like a strange place to start when you consider all the other things going on right now.

Maybe you're mad about all of them. If so, I applaud you and my comments weren't directed towards you. Also, if you know how to punch through computer screens, we need to talk.

 

[Scotteq]

(Off Topic)

Also, if you know how to punch through computer screens, we need to talk.

Make sure you guys Patent it, first...