This is America?

[somethingwitty]

Originally posted by: Beau6183

Originally posted by: Codewiz

We need to stop random searches and search people that are part of the risk factor.

How would we do this? Racial profiling? That's really effective

We also need to implement the scanning of ALL luggage via machines. This is in the process but hasn't been implemented. If we scan everyone's luggage there will no longer be a need to rummage through people's items. There will no longer be a need for strip searches except in extreme circumstances.

I totally agree. No descrimination. No exceptions.

What has been implemented was just done to save face. Do you think that the national guard is actually going to prevent anything from getting on the plane when all they do is stand there?

As you said, other things are in the works right now. And the NG position is to help with airport security, not luggage scanning. If a situation occurs where brute force is needed, they'll step in.

Wake up. ;-) No need to take any of this personally. I am just stating my point of view as the son of an airline employee.
I have actually applied to be a security agent. I hope to help out with some common sense at the security check points.

No offense taken. Just a good debate about a dead horse.

Try flying El Al, where you are required to show up 3 hrs before your flight for check-in AND PROFILING, and tell me you dont feel safe. Ask me how re-assuring it was, when I was flying El Al on a teen trip and was randomly asked to carry-on someone's third bag, to see this person pulled aside and questioned/searched. this person was NOT an arab, but, let me tell you, El Al takes security seriously, and, key point here, their passengers know and accept the fact that they are serious about it.

I agree that ALL baggage should be checked, but i think people need to be interviewed as well. who should we interview-the 90 year old woman, the family of 4, or the two middle-eastern males in their 20's. As the author is (partly) trying to state, a little common sense (and a LOT LESS PC) would be nice. however, I do feel that anyone dumb enough to protest a search, despite it perhaps not being warranted, deserves to be searched more thoroughly. it shouldnt become personal, but it should be done.

is this all 100% reliable? no, of course not. some of these nuts are americans...but we really do need to base our policies on the fact that, while not all arabs are extremists (FAR from it), a significant percentage of extremists are arabs.

The problem is that very few people are willing to show up 3 hrs before their 1 hr flight, and I don't think the logic that "profiling makes sense" will get these people to the airport ontime.

just my two and a half cents.

 

[Moonbeam]

Amused, again the problem I see with your position is that it is black and white, absolutistic to a fault, inflexible and therefore naive. I don't disagree with your precious clinging to personal liberty and I don't want a totalitarian state. What I'm saying is that when one very worthy ideal conflicts with another, when a total right to privacy can lead not just to risk but to extinction and not my extinction but everybody?s extinction, one needs to get down off the absolute horses back and get on another one. You are essentially saying what 1984 is saying. Freedom is slavery or really, freedom is death. I go back to the notion of balance. All existence is a slippery slope. We live on a slippery slope. We have only our judgment, our intelligence our whit and our good intention to rely on. Compared to what may be man's proper state, we may be in a pit rather than on a slippery slope, arguing over bones. It seems to me that where we differ most essentially is in our trust of human nature. I think you see darkness as our essential nature and I see light. I have faith in humanity, that there really is something good in us that cannot be stamped out, that comes afresh with each human birth. Be cautious, yes, be alert, yes, but be stuck in concrete, I don't think so. It seems to me that it is you who seeks safety, the safety of certain absolutes. I'm the one pushing for risk.

 

[Gaard]

*raises hand* A few questions here for the "they're violating my rights" crowd.

You can call me ignorant (it's not neccessarily a bad word) but I'm not studied in the constitution...
1)If the searches were done by airport employees instead of by the government would that still be a violation of our rights? Would that be ok with everyone?

2)If you are against searches at airports does that mean you believe they are unnecessary? You don't feel that searching people who are getting on airplanes is a good idea?

3)If our rights are being violated by being searched wouldn't that mean that if the government decided to focus on searching those of Arab descent (is that right...or should it be MidEastern descent?) that their rights would be violated also? So searching them would be a bad thing?

4)If you are against searches...for whatever reasons - your rights are being violated, you're inconvenienced, you're embarrassed, whatever...do you have any acceptable alternative solutions to help prevent another 9/11?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Gaard
*raises hand* A few questions here for the "they're violating my rights" crowd.

You can call me ignorant (it's not neccessarily a bad word) but I'm not studied in the constitution...
1)If the searches were done by airport employees instead of by the government would that still be a violation of our rights? Would that be ok with everyone?

It would not be unconstitutional. I would still disagree with them, but I would not see it as a government infringement of my rights.

2)If you are against searches at airports does that mean you believe they are unnecessary? You don't feel that searching people who are getting on airplanes is a good idea?

I believe targeted searches with probable cause are fine, and more beneficial. Searching 90 year old ladies is a ridiculous waste of time.

3)If our rights are being violated by being searched wouldn't that mean that if the government decided to focus on searching those of Arab descent (is that right...or should it be MidEastern descent?) that their rights would be violated also? So searching them would be a bad thing?

Again, it's up to probable cause.

4)If you are against searches...for whatever reasons - your rights are being violated, you're inconvenienced, you're embarrassed, whatever...do you have any acceptable alternative solutions to help prevent another 9/11?

Yes. Stop terrorists before they do these things by infiltrating their networks. We destroyed the CIA and took away their ability to infiltrate terrorist networks. Restore that ability, and our homeland will again be free of international terror as it was for 200+ years.

Terorrists are nothing new. Airliners are nothing new. Terrorism is nothing new. What is new are our neutered intellegence agencies.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Amused, again the problem I see with your position is that it is black and white, absolutistic to a fault, inflexible and therefore naive.

Wrong. When dealing with government, rules and limits to power MUST be set. They MUST be black and white. If you give an inch, they WILL take a mile.

There is no fault with this. If history has taught us anything it's that a right given away is seldom returned without bloody revolution. I am not wiloing to give away any more rights. We keep throwing our rights into the wind praying for safety, and are we honestly any safer?

Nope.

As long as alternatives exist that do not violate the rights of American citizens, I will support those first and foremost. Heightened security and violation of privacy rights are nothing but knee-jerk reactionism. They are a REaction to a problem instead of actual action to stop it.

 

[Gaard]

I guess I'm just a sheep. I feel that if searches reduce the chance that we don't have another 9/11 then I'm not against them. Sorry, I'm not a William Wallace type guy. I'll give up my right to not be searched at airport gates in order to help prevent another attack. (The 1 year anniversary is less than a month away, BTW.)

I agree wholeheartedly that searching elderly women and children is downright stupid and bordering on criminal. Policies need to be changed or people need to be canned to prevent those things from happening. However (you knew there was going to be a however, didn't you?) if security pulls aside a group of 4 or 5 Arab looking guys, all in their 20s or 30s, I would think that'd be a good thing. Or would being of Middle Eastern descent be considered probable cause now?

 

[LethalWolfe]

I read the first few posts then skipped to the end to pump my 2 cents into this dead horse...

1. The guy has issues. "Searching my children, my wife, and me does not increase security one iota: as anyone with any common sense could see, we are obviously not a threat." I guess the guards forgot that all bad guys wear black, and have a sinister look in their eye...

2. I've flown a bunch since 9/11 (and will fly even more in my new job) and I've had any trouble anywhere close to this. And considering my appearence I usually catch security's eye more than the "average joe." This guy is bringing up the worst of the worst and trying to sell it off as the norm.

3. Profiling won't work, at least not for long, 'cause if you only start looking for X then terrorists will change and look like Y. If we only scan for Arabic people then these groups will get non-Arabs to do their dirty work. Pretty soon we'll realize that, *anyone* could be a terrorist (wow, what a concept).


4. Please step into reality. This is an imperfect world, w/imperfect people so ideals, while great in theory, don't work out for sh*t in reality.

As soon as someone figures out a way to ID the "good guys" and the "bad guys" just by looking at the person let me know. Then we can simply kill the bad guys on the spot and do away w/all the laws and government. We'll all, as a giant global community, build our own roads, schools, and utilities. All 5 billion people on planet Earth will have an equal say in everything that is done. Aaahhh... paradise.


Lethal

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
I read the first few posts then skipped to the end to pump my 2 cents into this dead horse...

1. The guy has issues. "Searching my children, my wife, and me does not increase security one iota: as anyone with any common sense could see, we are obviously not a threat." I guess the guards forgot that all bad guys wear black, and have a sinister look in their eye...

2. I've flown a bunch since 9/11 (and will fly even more in my new job) and I've had any trouble anywhere close to this. And considering my appearence I usually catch security's eye more than the "average joe." This guy is bringing up the worst of the worst and trying to sell it off as the norm.

3. Profiling won't work, at least not for long, 'cause if you only start looking for X then terrorists will change and look like Y. If we only scan for Arabic people then these groups will get non-Arabs to do their dirty work. Pretty soon we'll realize that, *anyone* could be a terrorist (wow, what a concept).


4. Please step into reality. This is an imperfect world, w/imperfect people so ideals, while great in theory, don't work out for sh*t in reality.

As soon as someone figures out a way to ID the "good guys" and the "bad guys" just by looking at the person let me know. Then we can simply kill the bad guys on the spot and do away w/all the laws and government. We'll all, as a giant global community, build our own roads, schools, and utilities. All 5 billion people on planet Earth will have an equal say in everything that is done. Aaahhh... paradise.


Lethal

Then I suppose you wont object to random or manditory searches of your home, right?

 

[Moonbeam]

Amused, I guess what i said is correct. You pretty much summed up what I said about your underlying assumption. Give them an inch ant they'll take a mile. That is a biased assumption that assumes the worst. Give some people an inch and they'll give you a mile. And there is no 'they' That they is you. What your remarks really imply is a lack of self trust. You can't be trusted so you don't trust others. You need a black and white cage to contain the fear that you, I mean they, will sieze power. You are thinking as if you were a helpless leaf in the breeze instead of part of the wind. Think more in terms of shaping events rather than being shaped by them.

 

[thraashman]

2 things I noticed about the author.

1. He is a professor of Philosophy. In other words he's one of the more uselss people alive.

2. He is a professor at the University of Alabama. One of the more useless universities in existence.

Therefore I take nothing that man says seriously. He can bitch all he wants about unlawful searches and seizure. But legislature makes random searches at airports lawful.


Edit: Upon looking up the Bill of Rights, the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizure. I think that being for the security of our airways, makes it quite reasonable.

 

[SirDante]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Although the author DOES make a good point, he fails to realize that airports and air planes are private property and you're subject to the rule set imposed by the owners of that property.

There's nothing illegal about smoking a cigarrette but you better not do it in my house or car (they stink up the place).

Denny's is private property but they can't exclude blacks even if they set such rules.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: thraashman
2 things I noticed about the author.

1. He is a professor of Philosophy. In other words he's one of the more uselss people alive.

2. He is a professor at the University of Alabama. One of the more useless universities in existence.

Therefore I take nothing that man says seriously. He can bitch all he wants about unlawful searches and seizure. But legislature makes random searches at airports lawful.


Edit: Upon looking up the Bill of Rights, the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizure. I think that being for the security of our airways, makes it quite reasonable.

Normally I would respect your viewpoint but number two is the most asinine things I have seen in a long time. SPSU doesn't exactly qualify as a great University. Maybe you have some facts to back up your allegations that the University of Alabama is useless or is that just the Atlantean in you talking?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Amused, I guess what i said is correct. You pretty much summed up what I said about your underlying assumption. Give them an inch ant they'll take a mile. That is a biased assumption that assumes the worst. Give some people an inch and they'll give you a mile.

Moonie, no, I assume human nature will prevail when it comes to a government. And with human nature, power corrupts. This has happened invariably throughout history. There is no reason, other than your fanciful platitudes, to think this government will become any less corrupt and oppressive given the chance.

And there is no 'they' That they is you. What your remarks really imply is a lack of self trust. You can't be trusted so you don't trust others. You need a black and white cage to contain the fear that you, I mean they, will sieze power. You are thinking as if you were a helpless leaf in the breeze instead of part of the wind. Think more in terms of shaping events rather than being shaped by them.

Moonie, that's a nice bit of dime store psychiatry there, but it's complete BS. I don't trust those in power, because those in power have a nearly perfect track record of becoming corrupt, and taking any right away from the people that they can.

Only a naive idiot blindly trusts his government, Moonie... and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Edit: Upon looking up the Bill of Rights, the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizure. I think that being for the security of our airways, makes it quite reasonable.

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.

Please tell me why there is a mention of probable cause and warrants? Who is to decide what is reasonable, and what is not if the decision is not based on probable cause, and the permission is not gained through the granting of a warrant?

In other words, an unreasonable search is one that occurs without probable cause.

 

[AnyMal]

It's amazing to read how closeminded, but most importantly how hypocritical people like the article author, F117NightHawk and others are. There is so much I want to tell you people, but do not want to waste my time, so just a quick couple of notes.

1) I find it amuzing when someone compares today's airport security to "like in the days of Soviet Union" That comes, of course, from people who never sat foot on Soviet territory and their expertise comes directly from such Hollywood masterpieces as "Spies Like Us".

2) Quote by F117Night Hawk:"As for solutions, I believe that only non-citizens should have to go thru security checkpoints. If you can prove you're a citizen, you should be able to go right on thru".

Hmmm... How are you going to make that distinction? I mean, state-issued drivers licenses make no mentioning of citizenship status. Or are we going to mandate that people bring passports? And if they do not have a passport we will require them to get one? Boy, that sounds familiar?! Oh yes! It was Soviet Union that required its citizens to carry passports at all times! And Nazi Germany too... Sounds like a dillema to me..

And what do you propose we do to legal aliens? I mean the people that have lived here for years, worked and paid taxes, obeyed the law and have the same rights and priviliges as you? What is you "solution" for those people?

3) Someone here said that all known suicide bombers are Arabic males? That is a pretty strong statement; do you have any concrete proof? Ever heard of Kamikaze?

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Amused, I guess what I said is correct. You pretty much summed up what I said about your underlying assumption. Give them an inch ant they'll take a mile. That is a biased assumption that assumes the worst. Give some people an inch and they'll give you a mile.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amused Quote


Moonie, no, I assume human nature will prevail when it comes to a government. And with human nature, power corrupts. This has happened invariably throughout history. There is no reason, other than your fanciful platitudes, to think this government will become any less corrupt and oppressive given the chance.
---------------------------
That's what I mean, an unexamined assumption. Power corrupts but it corrupts those that can be corruptible. Power doesn?t have any affect on people who have risen above temptation. What you have is a failure of faith and a lack of personal development. You could be corrupted by power. There are likely just as many or many more examples where people in power did the right thing. Bad examples get the attention. You do not have personal knowledge of the inner lives of people who have power. You only generalize, assume or guess.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there is no 'they' That they is you. What your remarks really imply is a lack of self trust. You can't be trusted so you don't trust others. You need a black and white cage to contain the fear that you, I mean they, will seize power. You are thinking as if you were a helpless leaf in the breeze instead of part of the wind. Think more in terms of shaping events rather than being shaped by them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amused quote:

Moonie, that's a nice bit of dime store psychiatry there, but it's complete BS. I don't trust those in power, because those in power have a nearly perfect track record of becoming corrupt, and taking any right away from the people that they can.
---------------------------
Whether an analysis is dime store or advanced psychotherapy doesn't make a dimes worth of difference when it comes to the potential truth contained therein. A thing is judged by its internal correctness not its pedigree, unless, that is, you are a superficialist.
-----------------------------------
Amused quote:

Only a naive idiot blindly trusts his government, Moonie... and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
.........................................

Nobody said anything about trusting, although Ronny Raygun was willing to trust and verify. And those who practice inflexibility will have no future. I spoke not of trust, not of ignoring potential danger. I spoke of balancing one danger against another using common sense. That you would distinguish a search by government paid security guards and private ones indicates leads me to think you're suffering some kind of paranoia.

One thing I do trust in though is that my point of view will prevail. People in general aren't such airhead idealists that they'll likely get on planes with un-searched luggage if they keep being blown up that way. That is human nature too.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Amused, I guess what I said is correct. You pretty much summed up what I said about your underlying assumption. Give them an inch ant they'll take a mile. That is a biased assumption that assumes the worst. Give some people an inch and they'll give you a mile.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amused Quote


Moonie, no, I assume human nature will prevail when it comes to a government. And with human nature, power corrupts. This has happened invariably throughout history. There is no reason, other than your fanciful platitudes, to think this government will become any less corrupt and oppressive given the chance.
---------------------------
That's what I mean, an unexamined assumption. Power corrupts but it corrupts those that can be corruptible. Power doesn?t have any affect on people who have risen above temptation. What you have is a failure of faith and a lack of personal development. You could be corrupted by power. There are likely just as many or many more examples where people in power did the right thing. Bad examples get the attention. You do not have personal knowledge of the inner lives of people who have power. You only generalize, assume or guess.

Good gawd, Moonie, what freakin' planet do you live on? Please show me a single government that has not been corrupted. Just one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there is no 'they' That they is you. What your remarks really imply is a lack of self trust. You can't be trusted so you don't trust others. You need a black and white cage to contain the fear that you, I mean they, will seize power. You are thinking as if you were a helpless leaf in the breeze instead of part of the wind. Think more in terms of shaping events rather than being shaped by them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amused quote:

Moonie, that's a nice bit of dime store psychiatry there, but it's complete BS. I don't trust those in power, because those in power have a nearly perfect track record of becoming corrupt, and taking any right away from the people that they can.
---------------------------
Whether an analysis is dime store or advanced psychotherapy doesn't make a dimes worth of difference when it comes to the potential truth contained therein. A thing is judged by its internal correctness not its pedigree, unless, that is, you are a superficialist.

No, just a realist who doesn't deny historical indicators, or basic human nature like you do when it wont fit with your spaced out philosophy.

-----------------------------------
Amused quote:

Only a naive idiot blindly trusts his government, Moonie... and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
.........................................

Nobody said anything about trusting, although Ronny Raygun was willing to trust and verify. And those who practice inflexibility will have no future. I spoke not of trust, not of ignoring potential danger. I spoke of balancing one danger against another using common sense. That you would distinguish a search by government paid security guards and private ones indicates leads me to think you're suffering some kind of paranoia.

Ah yes, first question my honesty, then my corruptibility, then my sanity.

No paranoia here, Moonie. Airport private security guards don't have unlimited power. A government does.

One thing I do trust in though is that my point of view will prevail. People in general aren't such airhead idealists that they'll likely get on planes with un-searched luggage if they keep being blown up that way. That is human nature too.

Yes, unfortunately people are willing to throw their freedoms to the wind when faced with danger. Not that it's ever done a bit of good. We've thrown countless little freedoms away in the last 30 years. Do you feel any safer? I sure don't.

It's sad, really. For over 50 years there were no searches without probable cause in airports. Now, all of a sudden we think we need it when the danger has not changed, only how we deal with it. Terrorists and rouge states could get no where near the US until we virtually dismantled our intelligence agencies, and left ourselves wide open to their crap. We used to destroy them where they were. Now we cower in our own country, and throw freedoms to the wind in vain attempts to save ourselves.

The terrorists have won, Moonie. And your fear and willingness to throw your rights away is their trophy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hey guys, they are only following orders. This is America now. Get used to it. I understand the need for security, however this is kind if attitude is unnecessary. This sort of goon recently terrified my 2 year old niece because of the metal fasteners on her suspenders. They took her away-without her parents, and removed her clothes to make sure of... I dont know what. That really pisses me off. "Just following orders"
The enemy has won.

 

[F117NightHawk]

In reply to the person who said I'm hypocritical, a person can prove they're a citizen by showing their birth certificate or their voting card. I don't know about the rest of you, but I always carry mine.

 

[Jzero]

1) I find it amuzing when someone compares today's airport security to "like in the days of Soviet Union" That comes, of course, from people who never sat foot on Soviet territory and their expertise comes directly from such Hollywood masterpieces as "Spies Like Us".

I don't think anyone was comparing airport security to the Soviet Union. I think those who made the comparison are pointing out that this seems like the first step in a chain of events that could lead to an era very reminiscent of the Soviet Union.

Although I did hear "Soulfinger" in the airport the other day! *Panics*

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: F117NightHawk
In reply to the person who said I'm hypocritical, a person can prove they're a citizen by showing their birth certificate or their voting card. I don't know about the rest of you, but I always carry mine.

Sorry but being required to carry around my birth certificate or a voter card seems to me to run right smack into the whole debate about the 4th ammendment. I carry my drivers license only when I am driving, if I am walking and am stopped by the authorities it is their problem to prove I am not who I say I am. Thankfully we still (for now anyway) do not have nor are required to carry identification papers or some type of national ID.

 

[F117NightHawk]

Well now I agree 100% with you on that point. However showing an ID at the airport is less of an insult to freedom than being strip searched cause the guards don't like you. I'd be willing to make the small concession of showing proof that I'm a citizen when I flew so I could bypass the security as all citizens should be able to do. Let them put the aliens thru it, but not lawful citizens.

However when you're just walking down the street or whatever, you definitely shouldn't have to carry an ID. I always do however cause I got hassled by a cop once when I was 15 and didn't have an ID on me.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: F117NightHawk
In reply to the person who said I'm hypocritical, a person can prove they're a citizen by showing their birth certificate or their voting card. I don't know about the rest of you, but I always carry mine.

Why would you carry your birth certificate? I have never lived in a state that had a "voting card," (and I have been a registered voter in four different states), but I can't imagine what would possess me to carry that either.

 

[F117NightHawk]

Cuz some ppl won't accept a driver's license alone. They make you have 2 forms of ID and birth certificates and voting cards are almost universally accepted. When you come back into the country at a border crossing, you can show your voting card or birth certificate as proof of citizenship and they usually won't harass you much further.

 

[busmaster11]

So Amused, Exactly what is your solution to this? Should everyone be allowed to board planes indescriminately or only those who look middle-eastern?

And when you say the terrorists have won, are you saying that they crashed four planes, killed 3000 people just ensure we are more inconvenienced while flying? Is that what jihad is all about?

Gosh, I'm so bad at this, but I seem to recall a quote from I think it was either Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt, but it was something to this effect - that in order to ensure America's freedoms in the future we must be willing to relinquish some in the present (time of conflict)... Anyone remember what I'm talking about?