Whats the big deal with big govt? Give em all the damn power they want to keep us safe...they can be trusted, right?
Two years after this was alleged?
Thanks, Scoop!
Its relevant because many posters in this forum still wear blinders. We even had posters saying that we should shut up and trust the TSA on the new security measures
Sheepish trust in Big Brother is still a daily occurence around these parts, Chump.
Didn't the HSA just put a watch on Matt Drudge after he pushed for the Opt Out Day? Quite Possibly.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/03/ts...or-watch-list/
http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...quest-with-tsa
http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...e-an-extremist
Still pretty goddamn timely Chump.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/b...a-opt-protest/
Argument that TSA new measures are uncons utional:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112404510.htmlBroadly, U.S. courts have held that “routine” searches of all travelers can be conducted at airports as long as they don’t threaten serious invasions of privacy. By contrast, “non-routine” searches, such as strip-searches or body-cavity searches, require some individualized su ion - that is, some cause to suspect a particular traveler of wrongdoing. Neither virtual strip-searches nor intrusive pat-downs should be considered “routine,” and therefore courts should rule that neither can be used for primary screening.
Will the Supreme Court recognize the uncons utionality of body-scanning machines? It might have ruled against them five years ago, when the balance of power was controlled by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
O’Connor was an eloquent opponent of intrusive group searches that threatened privacy without increasing security. In a 1983 opinion upholding searches by drug-sniffing dogs, she recognized that a search is most likely to be considered cons utionally reasonable if it is very effective at discovering contraband without revealing innocent but embarrassing information. The backscatter machines seem, in O’Connor’s view, to be the an hesis of a reasonable search: They reveal a great deal of innocent but embarrassing information and are remarkably ineffective at revealing low-density contraband.
The Supreme Court might not view the matter differently today, now that O’Connor has been replaced by Alito, who wrote the lower-court opinion insisting that screening technologies had to be both effective and “minimally intrusive.” Last year, the court struck down strip-searches in schools by a vote of 8 to 1.
In many cases, furthermore, Supreme Court justices are influenced by public opinion, consciously or unconsciously, and some polls suggest that opposition to these screening measures has grown in recent months. That reflects a basic truth of the politics of privacy: People are most likely to be outraged over a particular privacy invasion when their own privacy has actually been violated.
Is Griffin barred from flying today?Its relevant because many posters in this forum still wear blinders. We even had posters saying that we should shut up and trust the TSA on the new security measures
Sheepish trust in Big Brother is still a daily occurence around these parts, Chump.
Yes or no.
Surely someone so current on these issues as you would know.
He wasnt barred from flying then. Do you understand what it means to be on a watch list?
Yes or No. Wait....We already know. Know that its No. Why don't you know Chump?
Tell me what being on the watch list means.
Be specific.
And give me a link to the current list.
Thanks.
you sure make a lot of demands for somebody in the dark, lol...
Why dont you start informing yourself here, and then dont stop until you have the answers you need! Glad I could help in advance, Bub!
http://atwonline.com/international-a...st-checks-1201
encouragement chump!
Just say you don't know, bub.
It will save you some embarrassment, bub.
Too late.
I do apologize for implying he wasn't allowed to fly without knowing, but several sites rather breathlessly announced he was on the no-fly list.
I never read that. I was referring to the fact that finding yourself on a "watch" list doesnt = a "no-fly" list.
Dont guess the distinction matters much...either list seems to get er' dun:
http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...irport-screeni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
The No Fly List is a list, created and maintained by the United States government's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC)[1], of people who are not permitted to board a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of the United States.
The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people suspected of some involvement with terrorism.[3] The Terrorist Watch List contained over one million names as of summer 2010, according to the TSC
I'm telling you what I read.
What part of that do you not understand?
So you don't have the current list I can read?Dont guess the distinction matters much...either list seems to get er' dun:
http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...irport-screeni
And you can't tell me what it means?
lol...do you understand I was explaining my error?
do you understand there are two lists?
did you specify which list?
do you understand the difference between the two?
yes or no. yes or no. yes or no.
Do you understand I was explaining my error?
Yes.do you understand there are two lists?
Yes. The list in question is watch list. We had straightened that out.did you specify which list?
Yes.do you understand the difference between the two?
Actually, I'll take either list since you made this a much more general thread..
Thanks in advance.
i looked briefly for the watch list...couldnt find it.
you got anything, bub?
So how does any one person know he's on it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
