The wiretapping issue is different. they use probable cause. they don't with this. If they used probable cause, I would be OK with it.And this is the same argument I made to you about wiretapping... which you accepted as necessary to prevent terrorists from attacking us.
I wonder if Obstructed View would like to be scanned naked and/or patted down every time he went to the grocery store if some jackass blew himself up at a Wal-Mart? What about at McDonalds? The Spurs games? What about a college class held in a large lecture hall? Every trip to the mall? How about everyday going to work if it's in a big corporate campus or large office building? How about when you go to the DMV? Every one of those places a terrorist could kill a lot of people pretty easily.
That already happened after 9/11 and the previous administration did more to erode civil liberties in this country than any administration before or after.
But I laugh when I hear you talk about tyranny. I literally LOL. As if to think Americans would know the first or the last thing about tyranny. There will never be any tyranny and we're not even close to it in this country.
You can still go down the street and buy your cheeseburgers, play the lottery, and sit on the couch and watch television.
That would probably happen if there was a terrorist attack at one of those places. But there hasn't been. And you know what? If an attack did happen at one of these places, all these conservatives would be in an uproar about why we didn't have better security at said place.
I can see the argument that some people might think it's an intrusion upon their liberties, I guess. But please, the "we're at war" argument is as tired as the slippery slope logic you are trying to make a point about.
That will NEVER happen. They will never install such measures in common places like that. It's about as useful as saying that allowing gay marriage will open the flood gates for people to marry animals. People won't stand to wait an extra 15 minutes so they can get their hamburgers or their cheap plastic crap at Wal-mart.
According to this former TSA administrator, the 4th amendment.
“Nobody likes having their 4th Amendment violated going through a security line. But the truth of the matter is, we’re going to have to do it”.
You mean by the Patriot Act, essentially written by Joe Biden in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing?
You CHOOSE to go into grocery stores to buy food.
You CHOOSE to own a personal computer.
You CHOOSE to attend sporting events.
Your line of reasoning basically gives free reign to the government to do a full body scan of people anytime they are doing something that they are not compelled to do by law. Including going to work.
Biden may have introduced it...but he didn't write the thing. And it's a very big stretch for you to say that the Omnibus bill Biden introduced is directly responsible for the Patriot Act considering that the Patriot Act changed laws to many acts done before Biden.The bill was drafted by the Justice Department with great input from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the White House.
Personally I could care less who wrote it, because the whole thing is an attack on civil liberties. But no politician made a stink about the Patriot Act that is making an issue about the body scans.The Patriot Act made a number of changes to U.S. law. Key acts changed were the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act.
But, as we've gone over before, they don't use probable cause; they just use specific words and pick up random email with those words in it. That's why it's so broad-based. (After all, if it was targeted to a few individuals, then they could easily get the warrants to wiretap/intercept communications, right?)
So your argument doesn't make sense.
I never said I agree with them. I think, for the money and liberties they infringe upon, they're not worth it.
Americans tend to notice the nationalist tint of the federal government when their party is in the minority.
Flying is not a right. There's no two ways about it. If you want to fly, you have to go through security. You wouldn't fly on an airline with no security. You of all people should understand having to make the smallest of sacrifices when there are soldiers overseas dying to protect you from terrorists.
Don't give me an NRA "slippery slope" strawman argument, please. We are at war because people hijacked commercial airliners full of civilians. This isn't about bridges and tunnels, this is about flying on commercial airliners. It couldn't possibly be more relevant, and there is no civil liberty argument to be made. TSA is not some creation by Obama to stomp on your precious civil rights, it was established under the Bush administration in response to September 11. Wake me when they start trying to expand to anything beyond airports and we'll have the discussion then.
If I were using the "We're at War!" card to justify any and all programs, I'd say you had a point. I'm using it to justify added security aimed at catching someone like Abdulmutallab who got onto a plane full of people with a bomb in his pants. If we've decided as a society that we're not going to racially profile, and if we've decided that it costs too much money to interview every single person before they board a plane like El Al does, then what's the alternative? When you come up with it, let the rest of us know.
Strawman argument. Has nothing to do with the conversation. When the TSA camps themselves out at Walmart we'll have that talk. Until then, it's about keeping people safe who choose to fly on airplanes.
That's not correct because there's no legal precedent. Once the courts determine that someone voluntarily walking through airport security has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the scans WILL become a fourth amendment violation under the law. The TSA won't be allowed to search people, and nobody will ever fly again after the first couple of planes are bombed out of the sky.
"We are at war because people hijacked commercial airliners full of civilians"
You Lie
Your fear is unreasonable. There is insufficient danger of terrorists blowing planes out of the sky to justify the kind of security we have for every airline. If we were under such threat of terrorism, they would have found other places to attack by now.
And a violation of the Cons ution either exists or it doesn't. The courts interpret the Cons ution in the end, but just because they haven't decided on a case related to the Amendment yet doesn't mean that these actions aren't a violation. They don't suddenly become violations after a court case rules they are. They are or they aren't.
Last edited by Spurminator; 11-23-2010 at 11:15 PM.
Sounds more like a dodge on your part when your only justification for this garbage is the pre-existence of a bureaucracy.
Christmas day, 2009. Did you forget already?
Technically, we are at "war" because terrorists broke into pits and commandeered planes. Having armed pilots and locking pits eliminates that.
1 failed attempt out of how many people on how many flights? , go ahead and throw in the shoe bomber too.
It's an insufficient threat.
Even you aren't dumb enough to believe that.
You're a pissy little today, huh? Eh, no different than normal.Even you aren't dumb enough to believe that.
Tell that to the people on that plane.
Look, If you think there's an acceptable number of planes that can be bombed out of the sky every year, then write to your congressman and tell them what that number is. You might share it here, too. I'd personally be interested in how many airplanes and lives you want to sacrifice so a bunch of strangers don't look at your wang through a scanner. If we've collectively decided that number is zero, then this is the process until someone comes up with a better idea.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
