More American Hypocrisy

[LnGrrrR]

If you watched Fox News, you'd see it's the conservatives that are steamed about this.

As is that group that you hate, the ACLU. I guess they're all conservatives now.

[Parker2112]

So we're willing to send our troops out to the deserts of the middle east to die for our "freedoms" and "safety", but we're not willing to go through a full body scan at the airport to protect our "safety".

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither.

Dont be such a chickenhead, DMX. You dont need a Big Brother Big Govt to keep you safe, little buddy. You need to accept the risks that come in life...and keep hold of what little freedom you and yours still have.

Doesnt the mafia charge for "protection" too? Didnt Hitler claim he would make the people safe with a strong military? Sacrificing freedom for safety aint always a good thing.

And I hear you sayin: But Parker....That would never happen in the US!

Man, just wait until some serious goes down...a run on the banks, a mass outbreak, a major terror attack, and you will see just how capable our govt is of trampling the out of the cons ution to make us safe.

You love our country? Then stand up for the Cons ution, because thats the only thing that seperates us from tyrannical govt and third world conditions.

[TheSullyMonster]

Holy , I'm agreeing with WC.

You know something is ed up when everybody across the entire political spectrum is in an uproar.

[DMX7]

Dont be such a chickenhead, DMX. You dont need a Big Brother Big Govt to keep you safe, little buddy. You need to accept the risks that come in life...and keep hold of what little freedom you and yours still have.

Doesnt the mafia charge for "protection" too? Didnt Hitler claim he would make the people safe with a strong military? Sacrificing freedom for safety aint always a good thing.

And I hear you sayin: But Parker....That would never happen in the US!

Man, just wait until some serious goes down...a run on the banks, a mass outbreak, a major terror attack, and you will see just how capable our govt is of trampling the out of the cons ution to make us safe.

You love our country? Then stand up for the Cons ution, because thats the only thing that seperates us from tyrannical govt and third world conditions.

You've just equated CHOOSING to fly and go through an airport scanner with SACRIFICING MY FREEDOM.

You must be kidding.

Maybe you should think about that for a little while longer. Let that sink in.

[Stringer_Bell]

Scanning like they are scanning was never attempted before. This is outrageous. How can you condone such violations of anyone at random without probable cause?

Do you have any concept of what probable cause is?

As if Bush's handlers didn't want to do the same things? I mean seriously, we gotta put liquids in little travel sizes and in plastic bags when the same small amounts could take a 747 out of the sky. It's all about control, always has been, but "conservatives" act like it only got real bad after Obama.

I flew for 24+ hours this week, didn't have a single problem with anything I saw or was instructed to do, and although I didn't get jacked off by the TSA I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's our choice to fly. The time to be outraged was 8 years ago, now I'm just waiting for house to house searches to start so I have a new level of outrage to reach. As for this coming up the last month or so, I'm not sweating this.

[baseline bum]

That's been solved or it just hasn't happened since 9/11? Besides, that's hardly the main threat these days.

You're the one who has lost touched if you think airport scanners are part of an Obama authoritarian bureaucratic conspiracy.

Scanning like they are scanning was never attempted before. This is outrageous. How can you condone such violations of anyone at random without probable cause?

Wrong. This started under Bush's watch.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...cal&id=6086658
New full-body scanner at LAX
Thursday, April 17, 2008
By Amy Powell

LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (KABC) -- Finding hidden weapons and possible explosives just got a little easier for security screeners at Los Angeles International Airport.

On Thursday, LAX will start using a controversial full-body image scanning machine.


Passengers are certainly used to getting screened for security reasons, but the idea of the kind of intimate exposure that comes with this new scanner is just too much for some.

It's a body scanning machine that virtually allows security officials to look underneath the clothing of passengers. The millimeter wave, full-body imaging system produces a 3-dimensional black-and-white image that reveals detailed outlines of every body part.

TSA screeners will view the images from a remote, enclosed area. Transportation Security officials at LAX say the scanner will give screeners another means of searching for weapons and explosives.

Even though the faces of passengers are blurred and the images are immediately deleted, advocates for passenger rights say the body scan could be too revealing and even degrading to travelers. The scanners are drawing some strong reaction.

"This is the United States, and it doesn't feel like freedom to me, so. It's an invasion of privacy. You know, there's no trust anymore," said Keith Dolnick, airline passenger.

"A little bit uncertain, I mean, it is a little bit uneasy feeling to think that they're going to be seeing everything. There should be a better way to do it, but I don't know if it's anymore invasive than getting patted down or anything else really, so yeah. So whatever you need to do to keep us safe," said

LAX will unveil the new body scanning machine at Terminal 5 Thursday afternoon.

[Obstructed_View]

Scanning like they are scanning was never attempted before. This is outrageous. How can you condone such violations of anyone at random without probable cause?

Do you have any concept of what probable cause is?

Do you have any concept of the fact that flying is a privilege, not a right? Furthermore, do you have any concept of the fact that WE ARE AT ING WAR?

289 people and their families dodged a ing bullet on Christmas last year. Did you forget already? You should be on your knees thanking your personal God that the government actually moved with some speed to learn from that mistake and make sure it doesn't happen again.

[Parker2112]

You've just equated CHOOSING to fly and go through an airport scanner with SACRIFICING MY FREEDOM.

You must be kidding.

Maybe you should think about that for a little while longer. Let that sink in.

Did you choose to initiate the advanced screening measures on yourself too?

Lots of people were ready to turn over their civil liberties when 9/11 happened too. Now we know what a HUGE ing mistake that was. wakeda up, sleepy head.

Of course you can CHOOSE to relenquish your freedoms. Does that make it wise? Is it worth it for a small peace of mind? Does that preserve the Cons ution? Does that preserve the American way? Does that KEEP US FREE? ing no. Its not worth it.

While you are ready to turn over your right to be free of tyrannical govt pushing you around like a and telling you whats good for you, think about that quote from Franklin. REAALLLY LET IT SINK IN.

Thats where the thinking needs to be done. You have the right to relent, of course your free to do that. But does it serve America? Does it make you a responsible upstanding American? ing no it doesnt. It makes you a traitor to the freedoms that our founders bestowed you with. You turn your back on those freedoms for a little bit more security...how does that go again? Oh yeah....

[Parker2112]

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither.

[Parker2112]

in other words, you deserve to be the govts

[Parker2112]

You have the right to relent, of course your free to do that. But does it serve America? Does it make you a responsible upstanding American? ing no it doesnt. It makes you a traitor to the freedoms that our founders bestowed you with.

[Obstructed_View]

Which amendment deals with the right to fly on a plane without being searched again? I hope some of you civil libertarians have been railing against those intrusive x-rays on your carry-on baggage and those snoopy metal detectors all these years.

[DMX7]

Did you choose to initiate the advanced screening measures on yourself too?

I chose to allow them to initiate the advanced screening measures on me. Big ing deal.

[boutons_deux]

The ENTIRE JUSTIIFICATION for this is a SINGLE INCOMPETENT underwear bomber ...

from overseas!!

How does xraying and groping AMERICANS in the USA stop underwear bombers from overseas?

Are Europeans and other countries xraying and groping every flyer to the USA?

Americans are ing craven balless chicken s, America is insane.

[DMX7]

You only get groped if you're too much of a pussy to go through the damn scanner.

[boutons_deux]

Answer the question, mofo:

How does xraying and groping AMERICANS in the USA stop underwear bombers from overseas?

Pussies are chicken men who don't have enough balls or sense to refuse to have their s and balls exposed and groped.

[Wild Cobra]

Holy , I'm agreeing with WC.

You know something is ed up when everybody across the entire political spectrum is in an uproar.

We simply agree this is on the wrong side of clear line of lacking probable cause.

[Wild Cobra]

Wrong. This started under Bush's watch.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...cal&id=6086658
New full-body scanner at LAX
Thursday, April 17, 2008
By Amy Powell

LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (KABC) -- Finding hidden weapons and possible explosives just got a little easier for security screeners at Los Angeles International Airport.

On Thursday, LAX will start using a controversial full-body image scanning machine.

If I recall, this wasn't used as a random screening, or requiring the very personal pat downs. It was only used when something else set off the system like a metal detector, as an alternate method. Even then, I think it was shot down and not implemented that Thursday.

More than two years ago... I remember hearing about it, just not the exact details. Still, it was not as they are using them today.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have any concept of the fact that flying is a privilege, not a right? Furthermore, do you have any concept of the fact that WE ARE AT ING WAR?

I've made that same argument on other topics. Thing is, flying is required for some things these days. I take it you agree driving, health care, etc. are not rights?

289 people and their families dodged a ing bullet on Christmas last year. Did you forget already? You should be on your knees thanking your personal God that the government actually moved with some speed to learn from that mistake and make sure it doesn't happen again.

That's why I ask DMX where he draws the line. Still no answer. If we are spend so much money for a possible 200+ people dying in an attack, where do you draw the line?

Subway systems...

Major bridges, tunnels...

Trains...

Malls...

If that is your argument, that 200 or 300 people *might* die, then where do you draw the line? Why not just put everyone who goes into any public place of 100 people or more go through the same screenings?

Please stop being a sheeple, and think of the farther implications if we allow it. They will expand it over other aspects of our lives if we don't stop them.

[LnGrrrR]

We simply agree this is on the wrong side of clear line of lacking probable cause.

As DMX mentioned, probable cause is usually more related to being arrested/law enforcement type function.

The only way it MIGHT play in is that the government controls security for all airlines, and so in order to fly, the American taxpayer MUST submit to being searched. (The whole "well you can drive instead" argument is poor, as it doesn't deal with the underlying cons utionality of the pat-down procedures).

[Wild Cobra]

How does xraying and groping AMERICANS in the USA stop underwear bombers from overseas?

It doesn't. Someone will just hide it up their ass instead. This does no ing good unless we are going to perform body cavity searches on everyone.

[LnGrrrR]

Do you have any concept of the fact that flying is a privilege, not a right? Furthermore, do you have any concept of the fact that WE ARE AT ING WAR?

289 people and their families dodged a ing bullet on Christmas last year. Did you forget already? You should be on your knees thanking your personal God that the government actually moved with some speed to learn from that mistake and make sure it doesn't happen again.

I'm not a big fan of using the "We're at War!" card to justify any and all programs aimed against terrrorism. Same with the "the terrorists are out there!" angle.

Look, we will never be 100% safe and secure. Bad things will happen, no matter how much we try to prevent them.

The question should be, are these scanners useful? Do they work at preventing terrorist threats? And do they work WELL ENOUGH that it is acceptable for Americans to allow government to x-ray them/see them nude?

I don't think that's a crazy argument to be having. Some people are ok with the scanners, some people aren't.

[LnGrrrR]

Please stop being a sheeple, and think of the farther implications if we allow it. They will expand it over other aspects of our lives if we don't stop them.

And this is the same argument I made to you about wiretapping... which you accepted as necessary to prevent terrorists from attacking us.

[Wild Cobra]

As DMX mentioned, probable cause is usually more related to being arrested/law enforcement type function.

The only way it MIGHT play in is that the government controls security for all airlines, and so in order to fly, the American taxpayer MUST submit to being searched. (The whole "well you can drive instead" argument is poor, as it doesn't deal with the underlying cons utionality of the pat-down procedures).

The TSA is an extension of the federal government:

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

Now with civil liberties we acknowledge about disenfranchising people, curtailing activites, etc...

What about the arguments used about not requiring proof of citizenship to vote, because you might disenfranchise someone?

Can we stay consistent with themes, or at least change a reasoniing over reasonable purposes?

I'll ask you the same thing I asked DMX. Where do you draw the line. If you say this screening is OK for the slim chance a plot will kill 200+ people on an airplane, what about subways, malls, buildings, etc. where more than 200 people are at risk of the same thing?

We are letting the terrorists win. We are falling into that trap of being terrorized... We have to let this unfounded fear let go, else we acknowledge victory to them.

[Wild Cobra]

The question should be, are these scanners useful? Do they work at preventing terrorist threats? And do they work WELL ENOUGH that it is acceptable for Americans to allow government to x-ray them/see them nude?

Then you are OK with everyone going into a mall go through these scanners to. You would be all for that in the name of security, wouldn't you?