WE MUST START PROFILING MUSLIMS AT AIRPORTS

If 10 dogs bite and 8 of them are pitt bulls, is that profiling? And besides, you said the issue was privacy. So which is it, profiling or privacy?

BOTH!

The terrorists are winning, Aaron. They are celebrating because our freedom, what they loathe most about America, is being diminished. Our privacy, free travel, our acceptance of other cultures and more has all been changed and they LOVE it. This encourages them to commit more terrorist acts.

TerryRC wrote:Terry is 100% wrong and so are you for agreeing with him. You have no guranteed civil libirty to board a plane. If you want privacy, stay home. Or in your car. But you don't get it on public transportation.

The security (TSA) is federally owned and run. The fed is FORBIDDEN to discriminate.

You are wrong, Aaron.

You need to check yourself Terry. I was addressing privacy, not discrimination so no, I'm not wrong.

Stephanie wrote:BOTH!

The terrorists are winning, Aaron. They are celebrating because our freedom, what they loathe most about America, is being diminished. Our privacy, free travel, our acceptance of other cultures and more has all been changed and they LOVE it. This encourages them to commit more terrorist acts.

It wasn't both the other day. Then it was privacy and according to our courts, airport security IS NOT a violation of our 4th Amendment rights so we're not giving away our 4th Amendment rights as you and TRC think. If you don't want to be searched the solution is simple; don't board the plane.

And what's more, these full body scans will ELIMINATE any accuastions of racial profiling so that won't be an issue.

As for free travel, more people will fly if they feel secure. Let a few more planes get hijacked or blown up and see what that does to free travel.

And as I said previously, as soon as Muslim Clerics come out and condemn radical Islamist in full force as mainstreet Christians did Tim McVeigh then their religion will gain more acceptance. But as long as they remain silent, how anyone can expect the main street American to view all Muslims is beyond me.

You think?

How many more people want to fly now that elderly men are being interrogated for packing honey?

How many of those folks crammed in like sardines in Jersey with NO explanation are eager to fly the friendly skies again?

Pat downs have been proven to be ineffective, Aaron. How long do you think it will be until the terrorists avoid international flights and start blowing up planes not leaving the US? How many will board ships to escape detection?

This is outrageous and it does nothing to prevent terrorism. It spurs them on.

I've got news for you, I'm far more afraid of the US government than I am of a Muslim extremist. My life and my liberty are much more likely to be taken by an agent of our government than any terrorist.

Neither your life nor your liberty is in any jepordy because of airport screenings.

And I agree, pat downs are ineffective which is why they should be doing the full body scans on EVERYONE. If that means pulling an elderly man to the side for hiding honey on his person then the only question that raises is what the hell is he doing hiding honey on his person?

And I agree terrorist will find a way if they want to. But we shouldn't make it easy for them over a misguided notion that airport security is violating your rights. That's just silly.

Aaron,

He wasn't hiding honey on his person. He had it in his luggage. He was taking home some honey. They did more than pull him to the side. PLUS, it's NOBODY'S freaking business if somebody wants to bring home some honey in their luggage.

It isnt just the airport security, it's the warrantess wire taps and the real ID and increasing presence of government in our lives and the ever increasing demands upon our money, our time, and our private lives. You go on and fear Muslims. I'll stick to fearing the government and their agents.

You're wrong Stephanie. Every other passenger on that plane has a right to know they are secure and if that requires security checking someone's luggage because a suspect liquid which very well could be an explosive, is hidden then I have no problem with that.

First, he shouldn't have had honey in his carry on and if he did, he should have pulled it out and told them he had it. Either that or he should have placed it in his checked baggage. Of course he could have avoided any trouble at all by simply mailing it to his home.

But to place it in his carry on knowing it would be scanned and cause a stir, he deserved whatever it was he got. It seems to my you thing his right to privacy trumps other passengers right to security and life and to be honest, I think that's not only foolish, I think it's just plain silly.

And I think you know this which is why you keep changing the topic of discussion. First it was privacy, and then it was privacy and profiling. Now it's warrantless wiretaps, Real ID and increased government intervention.

Can you please set a firm topic of what we are discussing here? And just so you know, airport checkpoints is not new as they've been around since the 60's so if that's all you got, that's already been covered.

Oh, bullshit.

Privacy is an issue, but it isn't the only issue. The very topic of the thread is profiling Muslims.

The honey was in checked baggage.

None of what you have said alters the fact the terrorists have been very successful in getting the government to invade our privacy and diminish our liberty. They have changed our way of life. They know this, they are thrilled and are motivated to commit more terrorist acts.

The only bullshit is that you think airport security is invading your privacy. That issue was SETTLED decades ago so it's time to move on.

As for the honey issue, you're leaving out a few small details

The trouble started when two TSA agents were doing a routine swab of the man's bag, which tested positive for a hazardous substance, Whorf said.

The agents who discovered the substance opened the bag and both became nauseated, Whorf said. They were transported to the hospital and later released.

The preliminary tests using the swabs indicated the presence of the explosives TNT and triacetone triperoxide, known as TATP, Whorf said.

source

So what was TSA supposed to do when the got a positive test for explosives?

Aaron I haven't left anything out. How many flights have been canceled since Christmas? How many flights have been delayed? How many innocent people have been detained, questioned, and kept off flights?

The security measures employed in the 1960's do not compare with the technology and strategies being used today.

Who gets nauseated from the smell of honey? I'll tell you who. People so frightened they're ready to shit themselves, that's who.

I have no idea as I don't fly. But I'll assume that since you ask the questions, you have information that shows it is a disproporniate amount of flights. So how many is it for each of the questions you ask?

And yes you did leave stuff out about the honey incident. It wasn't only that they got nauseated. The mans bag was tested positive for explosives. So what would you have had TSA done.

Stephanie wrote:
The security measures employed in the 1960's do not compare with the technology and strategies being used today.

It doesn't matter, the principal hasn't changed and the measures aren't so invasive that your right to privacy should override the rights of other passengers to life and security.

Oh, Aaron........I'm coming down with something. Hopefully only a cold. Give me a little time to pull up all those articles I opened to make sure I was right about the honey being in a checked bag.

In the NJ incident, flights were canceled. I believe I read there was an incident at an airport in MN today.

You're wrong this isn't a privacy issue. We have a reasonable expectation of privacy even when we travel. We should be compelled to comply with a virtual strip search because of hysteria.

Stephanie wrote:Oh, Aaron........I'm coming down with something. Hopefully only a cold. Give me a little time to pull up all those articles I opened to make sure I was right about the honey being in a checked bag.

In the NJ incident, flights were canceled. I believe I read there was an incident at an airport in MN today.

You're wrong this isn't a privacy issue. We have a reasonable expectation of privacy even when we travel. We should be compelled to comply with a virtual strip search because of hysteria.

You don't have to pull it up. First, it wasn't in NJ, it was in Bakersfield, CA and the honey was in a checked bag. One of the jars of honey busted and was omitting an odor so it was tested. When it was tested, it was positive for TNT and another explosive. At that point, what would you have had TSA do? I've ask you that twice and you've ignored it twice.

As far as 'reasonable' expectation, using Supreme Court guidelines, your reasonable expectation has to meet a two part criteria before your privacy is violated. In Katz v, US, the relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable'."

So you have to ask yourself, first when boarding a plane, is it reasonable for you to expect to not be searched because you have a right to privacy and that answer to that question is, imho, no. But if it were yes and you as an individual felt you had a reasonable expectation to privacy, you would have to meet the second part of the test which is, does society as a whole recognize your right to not be searched as reasonable and that answer is overwhelmingly no.

Like it or not, society does not recognize that your expectation of privacy regarding airport searches. And neither do our court systems. They all think it is reasonable to search individuals boarding airplanes for flight. That has been the overwhelming view of our courts since the mid 60's no matter how many different ways you try to spin it, it’s not going to change.

If you don't want someone searching you, your carry-on or your checked bags, the answer is simple. Don't fly. Don't even approach an airport security checkpoint. Drive, take a bus or stay at home but don't fly. That is your ONLY reasonable expectation of privacy on this subject and there is nothing hysterical about it.

Aaron wrote:As for searching trains, I have no problem with having individuals walking through various detectors including those searching for liquids. you give up your "reasonable" expectation of privacy when you purchase a ticket and attempt to board. If you don't want to subject yourself to the search then simply don't ride the train or fly.

At least that's the way I see it.

Aaron, I think you ought to drive over to DC, catch the train to NYC, hang around until the height of the "evening rush hour", grab a subway ride over to the Long Island RR terminal and buy a ticket to Greenich, Conn., ..... and then return to DC next morning early like.

After you complete that trip ....... tell us which way you see it then.


.

Stephanie wrote:Who gets nauseated from the smell of honey? I'll tell you who. People so frightened they're ready to shit themselves, that's who.

HA, didja catch that widdle item on the News yesterday?

They gave some ungodly number for the total number of people taking "Prescription meds for depression" ...... and then cited a Study that was made to determine which of those Psychiatrist/Psychologist prescribed "meds" were the most effective in treating said "depression".

And of course, like all good similar studies, 1/2 of the Study participants were given placebos instead of the actual Depression curing drugs.

And low n' behold, 70% of the Depressed participants that were given the placebos were much better helped in controlling or eliminating their depression than were the Study participants taking the prescribed drugs.

Now I've been telling ya'll those Degreed Psycobabblers are as phony as Obamaboloney.

So, all those seeking Profession help for Depression, or are scared shitless into being depressed by thinking that a terrorist isa gonna blow them up,

They would be better off going to a local Bar and talking to Jack Daniels, Captian Morgan and/or the bartender.



.

You need to check yourself Terry. I was addressing privacy, not discrimination so no, I'm not wrong.

What you said:

Terry is 100% wrong and so are you for agreeing with him. You have no guranteed civil libirty to board a plane. If you want privacy, stay home. Or in your car. But you don't get it on public transportation.

You have a right to freely travel within the US. Just because you leave your home, that doesn't mean your rights depart.

We are CONSTITUTIONALLY protected from illegal search and seizure, meaning to be searched, a person must have a warrant or probable cause.

Being dark-skinned is not probable cause.

As long as the screening agency is federally managed, the only screening that is constitutional is if they do it randomly or if they search EVERYONE.

And I agree, pat downs are ineffective which is why they should be doing the full body scans on EVERYONE. If that means pulling an elderly man to the side for hiding honey on his person then the only question that raises is what the hell is he doing hiding honey on his person?

Perhaps that honey is infected with a disease and he is going to feed it to American bees.

We call that agroterrorism.

Aaron wrote:

Like it or not, society does not recognize that your expectation of privacy regarding airport searches. And neither do our court systems. They all think it is reasonable to search individuals boarding airplanes for flight. That has been the overwhelming view of our courts since the mid 60's no matter how many different ways you try to spin it, it’s not going to change.

If you don't want someone searching you, your carry-on or your checked bags, the answer is simple. Don't fly. Don't even approach an airport security checkpoint. Drive, take a bus or stay at home but don't fly. That is your ONLY reasonable expectation of privacy on this subject and there is nothing hysterical about it.

Aaron, now correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember sometime back we were discussing an incident whereby one (1) in a group of boys did a dastardly deed that involved a Police Officer and you sided on behalf of, ..... not the perpetrator of said dastardly deed, ..... but on behalf of another one (1) of the boys in said group ….. that it would violate their rights to be forcibly detained/searched/queried or etc., by said authorities.

Am I remembering correctly on that?

[quote="TerryRC]You have a right to freely travel within the US. Just because you leave your home, that doesn't mean your rights depart.[/quote]

WRONG, you do not have an unencumbered "right of ingress" to property that you are part owner of that is managed by an entity of a local, State or Federal Government.

WRONG, you do not have an unencumbered "right of ingress" to property that you are part owner of that is managed by an entity of a local, State or Federal Government.

So? For that matter, we are part owners of the TSA. Government agencies and properties still can't discriminate.

TerryRC wrote:
You have a right to freely travel within the US. Just because you leave your home, that doesn't mean your rights depart.

And I never said you weren't allowed to travel freely. In fact, I said that if you don't want to subject yourself to a search, drive meaning you retain your 4th Amendment rights there.

TerryRC wrote:We are CONSTITUTIONALLY protected from illegal search and seizure, meaning to be searched, a person must have a warrant or probable cause.

Except when it comes to boarding a plane. That's the part where you are 100% wrong. Courts ruled more then 30 years ago that my right to security overrides your 4th Amendment right. Feel free to check it but my right is so fundamental that the Supreme Court has never heard a case, they've affirmed lower court cases.

TerryRC wrote:Being dark-skinned is not probable cause.

As long as the screening agency is federally managed, the only screening that is constitutional is if they do it randomly or if they search EVERYONE.

Well it's not quite that simple. They can search you for probable cause. And believe it or not, they have people specifically trained, some in plain clothes, some behind walls watching monitors, and if they notice odd behavior and such, that's probably cause and they can search those people as well. Some might call that profiling but if a guy is sweating on a day the heat's out and it's 52 degrees in the terminal, that's sufficient reason for a search.

Thing is though, if ALL airports would install these imiaging screens that would eliminate a great deal of profiling, wouldn't it!!!

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Like it or not, society does not recognize that your expectation of privacy regarding airport searches. And neither do our court systems. They all think it is reasonable to search individuals boarding airplanes for flight. That has been the overwhelming view of our courts since the mid 60's no matter how many different ways you try to spin it, it’s not going to change.

If you don't want someone searching you, your carry-on or your checked bags, the answer is simple. Don't fly. Don't even approach an airport security checkpoint. Drive, take a bus or stay at home but don't fly. That is your ONLY reasonable expectation of privacy on this subject and there is nothing hysterical about it.

Aaron, now correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember sometime back we were discussing an incident whereby one (1) in a group of boys did a dastardly deed that involved a Police Officer and you sided on behalf of, ..... not the perpetrator of said dastardly deed, ..... but on behalf of another one (1) of the boys in said group ….. that it would violate their rights to be forcibly detained/searched/queried or etc., by said authorities.

Am I remembering correctly on that?

No Sam, you are right. That was my son in MY car in front of my house, not an airport boarding security area. Seems you highlighted the wrong part of my post Sam. I corrected it for you in your style.

Now what was your point?

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Oh, Aaron........I'm coming down with something. Hopefully only a cold. Give me a little time to pull up all those articles I opened to make sure I was right about the honey being in a checked bag.

In the NJ incident, flights were canceled. I believe I read there was an incident at an airport in MN today.

You're wrong this isn't a privacy issue. We have a reasonable expectation of privacy even when we travel. We should be compelled to comply with a virtual strip search because of hysteria.

You don't have to pull it up. First, it wasn't in NJ, it was in Bakersfield, CA and the honey was in a checked bag. One of the jars of honey busted and was omitting an odor so it was tested. When it was tested, it was positive for TNT and another explosive. At that point, what would you have had TSA do? I've ask you that twice and you've ignored it twice.

Aaron, I know that happened in Bakersfield. I had several articles open earlier to verify the honey was in checked baggage, in one of them I read about all of the flights that were delayed and cancelled in both Bakersfield and Newark.

I would have the TSA not incite widespread panic and hysteria. I would not expect them to close an entire airport because of a swab. I demand better training and higher standards for airport security personel.

Aaron wrote:As far as 'reasonable' expectation, using Supreme Court guidelines, your reasonable expectation has to meet a two part criteria before your privacy is violated. In Katz v, US, the relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable'."

So you have to ask yourself, first when boarding a plane, is it reasonable for you to expect to not be searched because you have a right to privacy and that answer to that question is, imho, no. But if it were yes and you as an individual felt you had a reasonable expectation to privacy, you would have to meet the second part of the test which is, does society as a whole recognize your right to not be searched as reasonable and that answer is overwhelmingly no.

Like it or not, society does not recognize that your expectation of privacy regarding airport searches. And neither do our court systems. They all think it is reasonable to search individuals boarding airplanes for flight. That has been the overwhelming view of our courts since the mid 60's no matter how many different ways you try to spin it, it’s not going to change.

If you don't want someone searching you, your carry-on or your checked bags, the answer is simple. Don't fly. Don't even approach an airport security checkpoint. Drive, take a bus or stay at home but don't fly. That is your ONLY reasonable expectation of privacy on this subject and there is nothing hysterical about it.

Now you're getting down to the root of the problem with your comments above. I certainly agree that it is reasonable to think when you choose to board a commercial airline you and everything you take on that plane may be searched. It is reasonable to expect to pass through a metal detector. It is reasonable to expect your luggage to be x-rayed. It is logical to expect bags you carry on to be inspected. It is reasonable to anticipate you're going to be told to empty your pockets and take your damn hat off. It is not reasonable, nor is it acceptable, to be subjected to a strip search, virtual or otherwise.

What's next? If the government insists on full body cavity searches will that be reasonable too?