This is America?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: HiveMaster

The planes and airports may actually be private property, but the security forces are now federalized. The guy even mentions Nat'l Guardsmen being in attendance. US Marshalls are also in on the game. There's enough government fingers stuck in the air transit industry to warrent a better writeoff then just saying "It's private, they can do what they want."

I don't like the idea of random searches, and I do not think they save any lives. It seems to me that a would-be terrorist would just as soon play the odds of not getting a random search then give up on his diabolical plan. It might deter small-time wackos, but I don't think it does jack at deterring the ones who will stop at nothing to destroy us.
Security has been used as an excuse to do all sorts of crap. What about that lady who asked if the pilots passed a sobriety check? How is that a threat to security?

I was "randomly" searched in London when I was 14. What you think a 14-year old kid is going to do?

My proposed solution is to stop hiring morons and start using some common sense. Everybody these days just wants to write a "Zero Tolerance" policy that they can simply enforce without ever actually having to give some thought or *GASP* effort.

The kind of people who think that the new security measures make the skies safer are the same kind of "folks" who believe any warm fuzzy BS thrown their way.

Ignorant fools and bumpkins.

You know, the kinds of people that vote Republican.

Riiiight. That's why these policies are fully supported by the Dems as well. I seem to hear a LOT of them saying "what do you have to worry about if you've nothing to hide?" It's the Dems that make searches manditory and arbitrary for fear of "profiling."

Remember that MOST privacy advocates are libertarian or moderate Republican, and maybe you'll not sound so damn ignorant next time you speak

 

[Moonbeam]

The Constitution guarantees against UNREASONABLE searches. I would guess that what is reasonable is fluid depending on circumstance and judicial decision.

 

[F117NightHawk]

JoeyMan wrote:

As time continues I'm sure things will return to normal, but jeeze people it's been less then 1 yr since this all happened. It is also the case that in times of conflict or unrest some liberties are strained, however its been shown that these liberties are again restored during times of peace.

My friend, I'm afraid you're wrong about that. Once freedoms are taken away they're never returned w/o a show of force. That idiot Nixon declared a War on Drugs 30 years ago and we've been loosing freedoms ever since.

We're on a slippery slope toward a police state right now. First people don't have a problem with being searched at airports; now they don't have a problem with police sobriety roadblocks; soon there'll be no problem with house-to-house searches for contraband.

Hey maybe they'll go the extra mile and put everyone in the country under a 24-hour curfew and we'll only be allowed out to go to work/school. That'd sure keep us safe and out of trouble.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Constitution guarantees against UNREASONABLE searches. I would guess that what is reasonable is fluid depending on circumstance and judicial decision.

Exactly

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: HiveMaster

The planes and airports may actually be private property, but the security forces are now federalized. The guy even mentions Nat'l Guardsmen being in attendance. US Marshalls are also in on the game. There's enough government fingers stuck in the air transit industry to warrent a better writeoff then just saying "It's private, they can do what they want."

I don't like the idea of random searches, and I do not think they save any lives. It seems to me that a would-be terrorist would just as soon play the odds of not getting a random search then give up on his diabolical plan. It might deter small-time wackos, but I don't think it does jack at deterring the ones who will stop at nothing to destroy us.
Security has been used as an excuse to do all sorts of crap. What about that lady who asked if the pilots passed a sobriety check? How is that a threat to security?

I was "randomly" searched in London when I was 14. What you think a 14-year old kid is going to do?

My proposed solution is to stop hiring morons and start using some common sense. Everybody these days just wants to write a "Zero Tolerance" policy that they can simply enforce without ever actually having to give some thought or *GASP* effort.

The kind of people who think that the new security measures make the skies safer are the same kind of "folks" who believe any warm fuzzy BS thrown their way.

Ignorant fools and bumpkins.

You know, the kinds of people that vote Republican.

ROFLMAO.............talk about "ignorant fools and bumpkins".................do a little research before you open that pie hole with such drivel................Dems. are the ones pushing for the Gov. to take over the security...............

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Beau6183

Originally posted by: HiveMaster


The kind of people who think that the new security measures make the skies safer are the same kind of "folks" who believe any warm fuzzy BS thrown their way.

Ignorant fools and bumpkins.

You know, the kinds of people that vote Republican.

Funny you say that... as that was the same claim made towards democrats just a little further up the screen.

I made that claim. It is being made by both. I just personally think that democrats are the worst of the two. That sure doesn't make republicans much better. I don't like either party and do my best not to vote for anyone in either party unless they have a really good platform

 

[HiveMaster]

Riiiight. That's why these policies are fully supported by the Dems as well. I seem to hear a LOT of them saying "what do you have to worry about if you've nothing to hide?" It's the Dems that make searches manditory and arbitrary for fear of "profiling."

Remember that MOST privacy advocates are libertarian or moderate Republican, and maybe you'll not sound so damn ignorant next time you speak

First, note the smiley. Second, it is mainly from CONSERVATIVES do I hear the "what do you have to worry about" nonsense. Usually in connection with (businesses) trying to pry into the personal lives of others:

Conservative agenda: Making access easier to medical records, mental health records, driving records, financial records.
Liberal agenda: Keeping business out of our private lives.

I would like to see a rule instituted in the forums: every time someone says, "If you have nothing to hide, what do you have to worry about," they should have to provide to everyone their Real name (and the name of their spouse and kids!) home address, phone number, checking account number, and SSN.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: F117NightHawk
JoeyMan wrote:

As time continues I'm sure things will return to normal, but jeeze people it's been less then 1 yr since this all happened. It is also the case that in times of conflict or unrest some liberties are strained, however its been shown that these liberties are again restored during times of peace.

My friend, I'm afraid you're wrong about that. Once freedoms are taken away they're never returned w/o a show of force. That idiot Nixon declared a War on Drugs 30 years ago and we've been loosing freedoms ever since.

We're on a slippery slope toward a police state right now. First people don't have a problem with being searched at airports; now they don't have a problem with police sobriety roadblocks; soon there'll be no problem with house-to-house searches for contraband.

Hey maybe they'll go the extra mile and put everyone in the country under a 24-hour curfew and we'll only be allowed out to go to work/school. That'd sure keep us safe and out of trouble.

Really???? Never given back huh????? Ever read anything about WWI or WWII????? Curfews..........camps............rationing.............still going on today right??????

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: HiveMaster

Riiiight. That's why these policies are fully supported by the Dems as well. I seem to hear a LOT of them saying "what do you have to worry about if you've nothing to hide?" It's the Dems that make searches manditory and arbitrary for fear of "profiling."

Remember that MOST privacy advocates are libertarian or moderate Republican, and maybe you'll not sound so damn ignorant next time you speak

First, note the smiley. Second, it is mainly from CONSERVATIVES do I hear the "what do you have to worry about" nonsense. Usually in connection with (businesses) trying to pry into the personal lives of others:

Conservative agenda: Making access easier to medical records, mental health records, driving records, financial records.
Liberal agenda: Keeping business out of our private lives.

I would like to see a rule instituted in the forums: every time someone says, "If you have nothing to hide, what do you have to worry about," they should have to provide to everyone their Real name (and the name of their spouse and kids!) home address, phone number, checking account number, and SSN.

The Constitution does not protect our privacy from individuals, only the government. Please try to understand the issue here.

 

[HiveMaster]

ROFLMAO.............talk about "ignorant fools and bumpkins".................do a little research before you open that pie hole with such drivel................Dems. are the ones pushing for the Gov. to take over the security...............

Gee, it is so evident that the PRIVATE firms were doing SO WELL that we should change NOTHING. If we have military people with guns going through all of the baggage, then there will be far less problems with terrorists and planes. Everyone talks about how secure the Israeli national airline is...well it got that way because the Israeli ARMY makes sure the passengers are safe.

And the thrust of the post was not the government taking over airport security...it was about people thinking that airports are any safer now because of these random searches.

The way to ensure that weapons are not brought on board is to deploy bomb detectors and x-ray machines for ALL luggage going into an airport...but hey that costs money! GWB and friends were too busy giving Airlines handouts to worry about the safety of airline passengers.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The right of the people to be secure in their person, 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.

I fail to see exceptions here for travel, borders, or cars. Can you point them out, comrade?

Good thing the Supreme Court, not you, is the one with the legal authority to implement the Constitution - the protection is against unreasonable searches and seizures. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967) - the person being searched must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the item to be searched, and nearly every court has upheld airport searches as perfectly legal within a 4th Amendment purvue.

Warrantless border searches were provided for by the first Congress, and have been upheld many times by the USSC (see, e.g., United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985)), and the exemption for car searches, first recognized in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 154 (1925), has seen some changes over the years, but has consistently been upheld by the USSC.

While I am happy to be considered your comrade, that characterization flies in the face of my military commission (or not - you tell me!).

 

[F117NightHawk]

Well the point is govt has no right to tell us what to do. Do you think we have as much freedom as we did even 10 years ago? No, I don't think so. The idiot politicians start a War on Drugs. Now students in public schools can be drug tested, the hell with the 4th Amendment! Then MADD comes along with their war on drunk driving. States raise the drinking age to 21; now in many states people are stopped at sobriety checkpoints, even if they've done no wrong.

Government is growing like a cancer in this country and worms its way more into our private lives a bit at a time by telling us that it's for our own good. It tells us that it's just a temporary measure and nothing more will come of it.

Look at gun control. They pass a few laws here and there, and today it's practically illegal to have a gun anywhere. The hell with the 2nd Amendment. Then there's smoking. They pass a few anti-smoking laws in the 80s and now in the early 21st century, smokers are being persecuted by the govt and the media.

The point is govt always wants more and more power. It will not be happy until it's in every area of our lives. Laugh at me if you want, but wait till 10 years have gone by, then we'll see who was right and who was wrong.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

The right of the people to be secure in their person, 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.

I fail to see exceptions here for travel, borders, or cars. Can you point them out, comrade?

Good thing the Supreme Court, not you, is the one with the legal authority to implement the Constitution - the protection is against unreasonable searches and seizures. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967) - the person being searched must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the item to be searched, and nearly every court has upheld airport searches as perfectly legal within a 4th Amendment purvue.

Warrantless border searches were provided for by the first Congress, and have been upheld many times by the USSC (see, e.g., United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985)), and the exemption for car searches, first recognized in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 154 (1925), has seen some changes over the years, but has consistently been upheld by the USSC.

While I am happy to be considered your comrade, that characterization flies in the face of my military commission (or not - you tell me!).

The Supreme Court also upheld Dred Scott. The fact that the SC, or any court for that matter, finds one way, does not automatically validate an argument.

My suitcases are closed and locked. My person is, well, my person. How ANYONE cannot think I have an expectation of privacy with these items is beyond me.

 

[stevef]

 

[F117NightHawk]

IMO, all searches are unreasonable unless they're the least invasive possible. Wanna put me thru a metal detector, fine. But it better only be sensitive enough to go off if I have a gun or bomb on me. I'd better not be made to remove my biker wallet and my jewelry cause I'll be royally pissed then. Wanna put my bags thru an x-ray, go ahead. But then you have no cause to paw thru my stuff afterward if nothing's found.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: HiveMaster

ROFLMAO.............talk about "ignorant fools and bumpkins".................do a little research before you open that pie hole with such drivel................Dems. are the ones pushing for the Gov. to take over the security...............

Gee, it is so evident that the PRIVATE firms were doing SO WELL that we should change NOTHING. If we have military people with guns going through all of the baggage, then there will be far less problems with terrorists and planes. Everyone talks about how secure the Israeli national airline is...well it got that way because the Israeli ARMY makes sure the passengers are safe.

And the thrust of the post was not the government taking over airport security...it was about people thinking that airports are any safer now because of these random searches.

The way to ensure that weapons are not brought on board is to deploy bomb detectors and x-ray machines for ALL luggage going into an airport...but hey that costs money! GWB and friends were too busy giving Airlines handouts to worry about the safety of airline passengers.

#1, I guess you haven't noticed that air traffic is down over half in the tourism sector...................don't know about you, but I'd say people DON'T think airports are safer according to that...........

As far a GWB and "friends" giving "handouts"..............hmmm, I suppose by "friends" you mean almost every Dem and Rep. then right????? I mean since they both voted on it and passed giving it overwhelmingly....................

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: HiveMaster

Riiiight. That's why these policies are fully supported by the Dems as well. I seem to hear a LOT of them saying "what do you have to worry about if you've nothing to hide?" It's the Dems that make searches manditory and arbitrary for fear of "profiling."

Remember that MOST privacy advocates are libertarian or moderate Republican, and maybe you'll not sound so damn ignorant next time you speak

First, note the smiley. Second, it is mainly from CONSERVATIVES do I hear the "what do you have to worry about" nonsense. Usually in connection with (businesses) trying to pry into the personal lives of others:

Conservative agenda: Making access easier to medical records, mental health records, driving records, financial records.
Liberal agenda: Keeping business out of our private lives.

I would like to see a rule instituted in the forums: every time someone says, "If you have nothing to hide, what do you have to worry about," they should have to provide to everyone their Real name (and the name of their spouse and kids!) home address, phone number, checking account number, and SSN.

As I see it the liberal agenda is keep business out of my private life but allow government full access to it.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: HiveMaster

ROFLMAO.............talk about "ignorant fools and bumpkins".................do a little research before you open that pie hole with such drivel................Dems. are the ones pushing for the Gov. to take over the security...............

Gee, it is so evident that the PRIVATE firms were doing SO WELL that we should change NOTHING. If we have military people with guns going through all of the baggage, then there will be far less problems with terrorists and planes. Everyone talks about how secure the Israeli national airline is...well it got that way because the Israeli ARMY makes sure the passengers are safe.

And the thrust of the post was not the government taking over airport security...it was about people thinking that airports are any safer now because of these random searches.

The way to ensure that weapons are not brought on board is to deploy bomb detectors and x-ray machines for ALL luggage going into an airport...but hey that costs money! GWB and friends were too busy giving Airlines handouts to worry about the safety of airline passengers.

The private firms were providing service to the level specified in their contracts. If you want well trained highly paid security people a private firm would be happy to quote you a price but don't expect it to be anywhere close to what was being charged for the minimum wage security folks.

 

[JoeKing]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: F117NightHawk
JoeyMan wrote:

As time continues I'm sure things will return to normal, but jeeze people it's been less then 1 yr since this all happened. It is also the case that in times of conflict or unrest some liberties are strained, however its been shown that these liberties are again restored during times of peace.

My friend, I'm afraid you're wrong about that. Once freedoms are taken away they're never returned w/o a show of force. That idiot Nixon declared a War on Drugs 30 years ago and we've been loosing freedoms ever since.

We're on a slippery slope toward a police state right now. First people don't have a problem with being searched at airports; now they don't have a problem with police sobriety roadblocks; soon there'll be no problem with house-to-house searches for contraband.

Hey maybe they'll go the extra mile and put everyone in the country under a 24-hour curfew and we'll only be allowed out to go to work/school. That'd sure keep us safe and out of trouble.

Really???? Never given back huh????? Ever read anything about WWI or WWII????? Curfews..........camps............rationing.............still going on today right??????

exactly. Also there is such a thing as marshal law that can be placed into effect in the event of a catasrophy. But lets just hope that never happens. And the infamous slippery slope arguement.... just remeber at the heart, this country is run by the people. If the majority doesn't like somthing then it won't happen, if the majority feel like they shouldn't have tolerate somthing, then they won't. We are far from being a communist country or becoming one (as some people seem to feel in this thread), in fact we're one of the most free countries in the world. And maybe the cost of freedom is a little inconvient at the moment. But if it keeps our country on the map then I'll tolerate showing up at the airports 2 hours early.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The Supreme Court also upheld Dred Scott. The fact that the SC, or any court for that matter, finds one way, does not automatically validate an argument.

My suitcases are closed and locked. My person is, well, my person. How ANYONE cannot think I have an expectation of privacy with these items is beyond me.

In all fairness, the Dredd Scott case was decided in 1857, and was overturned later by Brown v. Board of Education. You may not agree with the Supreme Court, but the same founding fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights vested in the Court the authority to decide constitutional questions.

Obviously running a government, with law enforcement capacity, is a balancing test between personal autonomy and the good of society. As far as I can see, you have no inalienable right to travel on a plane, and so it is reasonable for the government to impose conditions on that privilege (namely, that you and your luggage are subject to search) in the interest of the safety of the public.

I do not necessarily feel that random searches are the most effective means of preventing terrorism, but they are still a legitimate tool, and if you don't like them, don't fly.

A common thread through the people I see here and elsewhere proselytizing about the evils of luggage searches (see, e.g., F117's post in which he states an aversion to taking off "my biker wallet and my jewelry" at the risk that he might end up "royally pissed") is selfishness. If you really believe all searches are wrong, why are you only objecting to the ones that are inconvenient to you?

The world does not revolve around you, or your biker wallet. You do not have unlimited rights in society, and it may be necessary to infringe on your personal autonomy to ensure that we can all remain free, safe, and healthy. No, government is not perfect, but the alternative is lawlessness and the victimization of the weak by the strong. I can live with taking off my shoes at the airport from time to time - why can't you?

 

[johnjohn320]

That guy is an idiot. :| Like the 4th amendment has anything to do with American Airlines, or whatever. If you're gonna use their services, you follow their rules. You'd have to be a fvcking idiot to not recognize that security measures are extremely high now, after 9/11, and to fly commercially is to subject yourself to the possibility of a search. The 4th means the cops can't pull you over and search you for no reason, they can't break into your house and search without a warrant, etc. If a private business wants to search people who use their services, it's their right.

God, what a MORON!!!

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
This author is a crybaby and an idiot. The Supreme Court has consistenly held that an airport, like a border crossing, is an area where we have a lessened expectation of privacy, and in the interest of public safety, all people who choose to travel on planes are subject to search. The FBI, DEA and Customs have for many years used the tactic of employing undercover agents at airports to identify potential smugglers, and designated their checked luggage for inspection. None of this violates the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their person, 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.

I fail to see exceptions here for travel, borders, or cars. Can you point them out, comrade?

Amused One,

You are taking a very extreme view of the 4th Amendment, one that is not backed up by either the Supreme Court which is as laid out in the Consitutiuon the ultimate arbirtrar of the scope, meaning, and application of the Constitution, or by most legal scholars or political parties.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is the expectation of privacy based on the location coupled with compelling government interests that determine when and how the 4th Ammendment is to be applied. By this logic, your home would be the most sacred place with the most protection against searches. The court has consistently backed this up including in recent cases where they ruled that law enforcments use of infrared heat detecting scanners on homes to detect drug activity violated the home owners expectation of privacy. In your home you have a reasonable expectation of freedom from government intervention.

In the cases of the airports, border corssings etc. this situation changes. The government is charged with maintaining the free flow of goods, services, and other commerce as well as the ability of citizens to travel freely and safely. As such, thier is a compelling government interest in airports and border crossings etc. to search for contrband and maintain the safety of the transportation vehicle. This is especially true in light of the increased threats to the air travel system in current times. In addition, being in a specially designated public place such as an airport, border crossing, court house, federal office building etc. lowers your expectation of prvacy. In the Katz case the court ruled that the ''capacity to claim the protection of the Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the area was one in which there was reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.''

I personally, and most of the American legal community find it hard to substantiate the view that the 4th Ammendment prohibits the government from establishing security requirements in Airports.

For Good Information on the 4th Ammendment check out.






4th Ammendment at Findlaw

 

[F117NightHawk]

No it's not selfish to not want to take off my shoes, wallet and jewelry. They don't do these things for the public's good, they do it to harass people. Do you really think it's right to make a mother drink from her baby's bottle and contaminate her baby's only food? What about people whose children are being scared half to death by these bullies with badges? I'm standing up for the true Americans who don't believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply in the airport.

If different airlines were allowed to impliment their own security, that'd be fine. Then people like me could fly on airlines with the least invasive security and people who favor the invasive security could fly on airlines with the more invasive searches. But govt mandates have taken away those free-market options.

 

[Linflas]

You may not agree with the Supreme Court, but the same founding fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights vested in the Court the authority to decide constitutional questions.

Not to nit pick but wasn't that something that came about with the Marshall Court in Marbury Vs Madison? As I understood it from my history classes that was the ground breaking case that set the precedent of the Supreme Court deciding on all things Constitutional.

 

[Mill]

Although typing the following words here scare me, but I have to agree with Moonbeam and disagree with AmuseOne. We are talking about unreasonable searches here, not searches done at random to try to prevent terrorism. I am a privacy advocate, but the view you have of the 4th amendment is way too narrow for even me.

I agree that Ashcroft is raving lunatic, but so was Janet Reno. Why can't we get a mentally stable individual as our AG? Call me an ass but due to the fact that a majority of the terrorists on Sept.11 were Arab, why should we not profile them? That is what I would like answer to. Why not? The evidence that it was an Arab terrorist attack on 9-11 is overwhelming. Not all Arabs are terrorists, but the extremists(like in every group)of their culture and religon are too much of a threat to ignore. You people can wallow in your "privacy" while jets are being flown into bulidings all day long. I will not.