This is America?

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: 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?

Lincoln did suspend the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of?

 

[TNTrulez]

www.aclu.org

 

[Corn]

Well well well...............it must be gettin cold in hell, because I'm finding myself in agreement with Moonie and Busmaster.

Amused, I don't know where you live, but where I do, the county (read: Government) has "owned" out major airport. While the security was "private" up until recently, the fact is that it's been controlled and governed by the rules set forth by the FAA.

While you rail against these so-called "unreasonable" searches, let me ask you, what do *you* deem to be reasonable? What's the difference between having someone go through you bag .vs x-ray? The end result is still the same. How about the metal detectors? They are every bit as invasive as a pat down.

Lets assume that in your "perfect" world no one has to go through a metal detector and place their carry-on luggage through the x-ray machine. Would you fly?

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

Here is the major flaw in that argument: Is the airport your home? How many people fly their homes into buildings? Or hijack their homes to steal the belongings of its passengers? Or bomb their homes outta the sky?




....and for the dim who think that a 80 year old lady is no threat, perhaps on her own she might not be.... But then again, in your perfect little worlds no one is ever coerced or acts against their will by those who might have some leverage over them, perhaps even chemically.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Corn
Well well well...............it must be gettin cold in hell, because I'm finding myself in agreement with Moonie and Busmaster.

Amused, I don't know where you live, but where I do, the county (read: Government) has "owned" out major airport. While the security was "private" up until recently, the fact is that it's been controlled and governed by the rules set forth by the FAA.

While you rail against these so-called "unreasonable" searches, let me ask you, what do *you* deem to be reasonable? What's the difference between having someone go through you bag .vs x-ray? The end result is still the same. How about the metal detectors? They are every bit as invasive as a pat down.

Lets assume that in your "perfect" world no one has to go through a metal detector and place their carry-on luggage through the x-ray machine. Would you fly?

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

Here is the major flaw in that argument: Is the airport your home? How many people fly their homes into buildings? Or hijack their homes to steal the belongings of its passengers? Or bomb their homes outta the sky?




....and for the dim who think that a 80 year old lady is no threat, perhaps on her own she might not be.... But then again, in your perfect little worlds no one is ever coerced or acts against their will by those who might have some leverage over them, perhaps even chemically.

How many people could build bombs in their homes???? They can do just as much damage as a plane flying into a buildings so that argument is weak.

As for your 80 year old lady comment. Take a look at history. How many 80 year old women have hijacked planes? I don't know but I bet ZERO. How many middle easterns have hijacked planes? More than 80 year old women. So instead of concentrating the effort on certain groups we randomly search people without any method really.

Damn that is ingenious. Lets search the Dad with 5 kids but let the single arabic speaking foreigner through because he wasn't chosen for a random search.

Why not look who commits these crimes and concentrate our efforts on them.

Yes, an 80 year old could hi-jack a plane but there in NOTHING to suggest she would but there IS something to suggest young middle eastern men might.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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?

As I pointed out, for over 50 years, no searches were conducted on passangers without probable cause. What changed to have caused 9/11? Not security measures. If anything, they were the tightest they'd been since WWII. No, what changed are our intelligence agencies. My solution is to fix what was changed, not to change something else.

Terror is all about, well, terror. When we become afriad, we throw out freedoms down the toilet. We make our lives that much more miserable. So yes, this was exactly what the terrorists wanted.

I understand that temporary laws must be passed in time of war. However, the new security measures in airports are NOT temporary. The federal takeover of security is NOT temporary.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Corn
Well well well...............it must be gettin cold in hell, because I'm finding myself in agreement with Moonie and Busmaster.

Amused, I don't know where you live, but where I do, the county (read: Government) has "owned" out major airport. While the security was "private" up until recently, the fact is that it's been controlled and governed by the rules set forth by the FAA.

And they were not conducting searches without probable cause.

While you rail against these so-called "unreasonable" searches, let me ask you, what do *you* deem to be reasonable? What's the difference between having someone go through you bag .vs x-ray? The end result is still the same. How about the metal detectors? They are every bit as invasive as a pat down.

No, the result is not the same. One is demeaning, one is not.

Lets assume that in your "perfect" world no one has to go through a metal detector and place their carry-on luggage through the x-ray machine. Would you fly?

My beef is with physical searches.

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

Here is the major flaw in that argument: Is the airport your home? How many people fly their homes into buildings? Or hijack their homes to steal the belongings of its passengers? Or bomb their homes outta the sky?

More people are murdered in their homes each year than died on 9/11.

....and for the dim who think that a 80 year old lady is no threat, perhaps on her own she might not be.... But then again, in your perfect little worlds no one is ever coerced or acts against their will by those who might have some leverage over them, perhaps even chemically.

If we were to react and take away rights for EVERY potential threat, we'd all live in padded cells. Threats must be assessed, and given priority.

 

[Moonbeam]

I just want to say now, since I don't have time to say more, that I am a reluctant disagreer with Amused. The surrender of freedoms is a dangerous thing and I'm open to that point of view. I find it preposterous, however, to go for Amused's mistrust of government in general while at the same time supporting that part of government which I personally fear most, the so called intelligence agencies. Amused trusts that funding the CIA is the answer to this cunundrum. Hehe! Where did those black helecopters come from?

Surely, Amused, there isn't a more dangerous branch of government than the one you trust is there?

Anyway, I ask myself who do I distrust more, an organization, the government, that could become absolutely corrupt, (did somebody say revolution, Constitutionally provided for, of course?) or Islamic Terrorists. At the moment I think terrorists are the bigger threat. So I gotta lean over on the side of dealing with that immediacy without totally disregarding the other. Just because searching bags is kind of pointless because it will force the terrorists to use other tactics doesn't mean you don't get your cavity treated by a dentist because you might die of cancer.

The answer to terrorism, by the way, in my opinion, is to fight the war of ideas all over the world. Terrorism is the result of dead end life. People don't resort to terrorism when they are happy. Working for a really better world and not one better just for us is the way to win friends and influence people.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: AmusedOneIf we were to react and take away rights for EVERY potential threat, we'd all live in padded cells. Threats must be assessed, and given priority.

We did assess the threat and in that threat assesement we compared american airline security to that of the rest of the world where terrorism has been a constant threat and we realized that the people that have been screaming for years that security is to lax were right. Security IS lax and they are attempting to improve it. Much like any right we have we must respect that the constitution gaurantees this right only where it doesn't conflict with the rights of others. Airline security presents a unique problem, a single individual can use an airplane to commit mass murder. Your right to avoid searchs has to be weighed against the rights of the rest of people on the plane to fly without being killed. Because of this we have metal detectors, random bag searches, xray machines. These all serve to try to prevent someone from killing a planefull of people.

The question is are the searchs unreasonable. When the safety of the traveling public is concerned I don't think you can say that they aren't reasonable. It's for this same reason that you are subject to reasonable searches and inspections of your automobiles safety equipment yearly. Any time you are going to engage in an act that could place other people at risk it is reasonable that the safety of those other people may require some verification of the safety of the flight (and the people on it) or the car (and the person driving it) in general. If you can't agree to the reasonableness of these searches you are certainly welcome to engage in a form of travel that doesn't potentially endanger the safety of the public.

These searches are nothing more than a balancing of your rights and my rights.

 

[Corn]

And they were not conducting searches without probable cause.

Every time they asked you to walk through a metal detector and put your bag through the x-ray was a "search" without probable cause.

No, the result is not the same. One is demeaning, one is not.

Well now, here we go. So, its someone's "feelings" that should be considered with regard to everyone's safety. Interesting. Usually I would expect this kind of argument from someone like Moonbeam.

The end result is still the same. A search was performed.

My beef is with physical searches.

Why? What's the difference? Constitutionally they are equal, except maybe for someone's supposed "bruised" feelings that they were singled out for a random search? Where in the constitution does it promise that people won't be offended or feel a false sense of shame because they were randomly selected? Explain the difference to me of someone looking at the contents of your bag via x-ray and someone doing the same thing manually? The contents of your bag are still being scrutinized, are they not?

Too bad x-ray and metal detectors don't find explosives in someone's shoes. Had someone been smart enough to try to light his shoebomb in the bathroom instead of in plain sight at his seat, maybe you'd feel a bit differently about people getting their shoes checked manually, eh? No?

If your "libertarian" sensibilities are injured by *any* search where there is no probable cause, you should start lobbying against x-ray, metal and bomb detection against your person and your luggage. Don't be a hypocrite, if one is bad, it's all bad--you know, that whole slippery slope thingie..........

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

If your "libertarian" sensibilities are injured by *any* search where there is no probable cause, you should start lobbying against x-ray, metal and bomb detection against your person and your luggage. Don't be a hypocrite, if one is bad, it's all bad--you know, that whole slippery slope thingie..........

This is my exact feeling as well, and again it strikes me that this "philosophical" objection to one type of search but not another is fundamentally a question of convenience rather than a true constitutional objection. If opening a bag is wrong, surely an X-ray is as well. The problem is, that extreme position is difficult for anyone to maintain with a straight face.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
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.

Unless you can provide some sort of proof that this actually happened, I'm inclined to think you are either mistaken or lying. Taking a 2-year-old away, without her parents accompanying her, and stripped her? Riiiiiight.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Corn

And they were not conducting searches without probable cause.

Every time they asked you to walk through a metal detector and put your bag through the x-ray was a "search" without probable cause.

No, the result is not the same. One is demeaning, one is not.

Well now, here we go. So, its someone's "feelings" that should be considered with regard to everyone's safety. Interesting. Usually I would expect this kind of argument from someone like Moonbeam.

The end result is still the same. A search was performed.

All of our rights are about feelings. If we didn't have emotions, I doubt we'd worry much about rights and freedom. We'd all be worker bees.

My beef is with physical searches.

Why? What's the difference? Constitutionally they are equal, except maybe for someone's supposed "bruised" feelings that they were singled out for a random search? Where in the constitution does it promise that people won't be offended or feel a false sense of shame because they were randomly selected? Explain the difference to me of someone looking at the contents of your bag via x-ray and someone doing the same thing manually? The contents of your bag are still being scrutinized, are they not?

Too bad x-ray and metal detectors don't find explosives in someone's shoes. Had someone been smart enough to try to light his shoebomb in the bathroom instead of in plain sight at his seat, maybe you'd feel a bit differently about people getting their shoes checked manually, eh? No?

If your "libertarian" sensibilities are injured by *any* search where there is no probable cause, you should start lobbying against x-ray, metal and bomb detection against your person and your luggage. Don't be a hypocrite, if one is bad, it's all bad--you know, that whole slippery slope thingie..........

[/quote]

X-rays, bomb siffing, and dog sniffing are non-invasive. They do not violate the space that is my belongings. It's the same as looking through my windows, instead of invading my house.

Again, we had no searches at airports without probable cause for 50 years before 9/11. Why are they needed all of a sudden? What changed to make you feel they are required? Why not change back what changed, instead of making new changes that further violate people's rights?

Can you stop for one second, and think about this?

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I just want to say now, since I don't have time to say more, that I am a reluctant disagreer with Amused. The surrender of freedoms is a dangerous thing and I'm open to that point of view. I find it preposterous, however, to go for Amused's mistrust of government in general while at the same time supporting that part of government which I personally fear most, the so called intelligence agencies. Amused trusts that funding the CIA is the answer to this cunundrum. Hehe! Where did those black helecopters come from?

Surely, Amused, there isn't a more dangerous branch of government than the one you trust is there?

Anyway, I ask myself who do I distrust more, an organization, the government, that could become absolutely corrupt, (did somebody say revolution, Constitutionally provided for, of course?) or Islamic Terrorists. At the moment I think terrorists are the bigger threat. So I gotta lean over on the side of dealing with that immediacy without totally disregarding the other. Just because searching bags is kind of pointless because it will force the terrorists to use other tactics doesn't mean you don't get your cavity treated by a dentist because you might die of cancer.

The answer to terrorism, by the way, in my opinion, is to fight the war of ideas all over the world. Terrorism is the result of dead end life. People don't resort to terrorism when they are happy. Working for a really better world and not one better just for us is the way to win friends and influence people.

Well put, and an excellent application of Amused's correct assertion that threats be assessed and prioritized.

Amused, it is curious that you've decided to put all your eggs into the arguement that the cause of 9/11 is that the US intelligence had been weakened and therefore all we need is to beef it up in the future. I would have thought that you would be most paranoid about the agency with potentially the greatest ability to violate your privacy.

Furthermore, what if this agency sponsored these random searches? Would you still be against them?

What if there were none? If you were a smart terrorist, and you saw that 80 year old ladies always got on the plane with no troubles, wouldn't you look for a way to exploit that?

You look at everything first from the standpoint of our personal freedoms, and while its something I genuinely appreciate, I can't help wondering if you had done what you said - to assess and prioritize the threats. Your assertion that suspendning the writ of habeas corpus was temporary, and that these searches and security measures are not, is not entirely accurate. The war on terrorism is ongoing, and until we reach a point where things have died down such that we can call an official end to the war, these measures should be in place. As of now, that time is indefinite. Sure there is a risk of governmental exploitation, but not much compared to the carnage that would have surely happened, or atleast, the peace of mind that would have been lost if such measures didn't exist.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Again, we had no searches at airports without probable cause for 50 years before 9/11. Why are they needed all of a sudden? What changed to make you feel they are required? Why not change back what changed, instead of making new changes that further violate people's rights?

Can you stop for one second, and think about this?

I don't know what airports you have been going to - this is totally false. I have had my luggage examined while going through routine security on several occasions pre 9/11, and, as I stated above, DEA and FBI regularly search checked luggage without a warrant if the traveler raises red flags (by, e.g., paying with cash, buying a one-way ticket at the counter, or checking in at the last second). Most airlines mark the checked bags to be searched in some way (I have seen them marked with red stickers), then the police and federal agents search them outside the view of the public.

You may not like this, but all that has happened post-9/11 is an increase in the frequency of such searches - they are not a new phenomenon.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I just want to say now, since I don't have time to say more, that I am a reluctant disagreer with Amused. The surrender of freedoms is a dangerous thing and I'm open to that point of view. I find it preposterous, however, to go for Amused's mistrust of government in general while at the same time supporting that part of government which I personally fear most, the so called intelligence agencies. Amused trusts that funding the CIA is the answer to this cunundrum. Hehe! Where did those black helecopters come from?

Surely, Amused, there isn't a more dangerous branch of government than the one you trust is there?

Anyway, I ask myself who do I distrust more, an organization, the government, that could become absolutely corrupt, (did somebody say revolution, Constitutionally provided for, of course?) or Islamic Terrorists. At the moment I think terrorists are the bigger threat. So I gotta lean over on the side of dealing with that immediacy without totally disregarding the other. Just because searching bags is kind of pointless because it will force the terrorists to use other tactics doesn't mean you don't get your cavity treated by a dentist because you might die of cancer.

The answer to terrorism, by the way, in my opinion, is to fight the war of ideas all over the world. Terrorism is the result of dead end life. People don't resort to terrorism when they are happy. Working for a really better world and not one better just for us is the way to win friends and influence people.

Well put, and an excellent application of Amused's correct assertion that threats be assessed and prioritized.

Amused, it is curious that you've decided to put all your eggs into the arguement that the cause of 9/11 is that the US intelligence had been weakened and therefore all we need is to beef it up in the future. I would have thought that you would be most paranoid about the agency with potentially the greatest ability to violate your privacy.

Furthermore, what if this agency sponsored these random searches? Would you still be against them?

The purpose of our intelligence agencies WAS to stop these organizations where they were, not after they got here and set up. In other words, their opporations would be outside the country.

What if there were none? If you were a smart terrorist, and you saw that 80 year old ladies always got on the plane with no troubles, wouldn't you look for a way to exploit that?

The only terrorist group to use women has been the Palestinians. Al Queda has not. As I siad before, if every possible threat, rather than probable threat was addressed, we'd all be living in padded cells.

You look at everything first from the standpoint of our personal freedoms, and while its something I genuinely appreciate, I can't help wondering if you had done what you said - to assess and prioritize the threats. Your assertion that suspendning the writ of habeas corpus was temporary, and that these searches and security measures are not, is not entirely accurate. The war on terrorism is ongoing, and until we reach a point where things have died down such that we can call an official end to the war, these measures should be in place. As of now, that time is indefinite. Sure there is a risk of governmental exploitation, but not much compared to the carnage that would have surely happened, or atleast, the peace of mind that would have been lost if such measures didn't exist.

There is no end date to the laws passed, or the rights suspended.

No one's piece of mind is worth my freedom, not even my own. If we start taking freedoms away to ease people's minds, I fear our future.

Tell me, do you feel any safer today, than you did 30 years ago? I sure as hell don't. Yet we've given away many freedoms in those 30 years. Sure, most are small, and hard to notice indivisdually, but they're gone all the same. The vast majority were given up to make us "safer."

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Again, we had no searches at airports without probable cause for 50 years before 9/11. Why are they needed all of a sudden? What changed to make you feel they are required? Why not change back what changed, instead of making new changes that further violate people's rights?

Can you stop for one second, and think about this?

I don't know what airports you have been going to - this is totally false. I have had my luggage examined while going through routine security on several occasions pre 9/11, and, as I stated above, DEA and FBI regularly search checked luggage without a warrant if the traveler raises red flags (by, e.g., paying with cash, buying a one-way ticket at the counter, or checking in at the last second). Most airlines mark the checked bags to be searched in some way (I have seen them marked with red stickers), then the police and federal agents search them outside the view of the public.

You may not like this, but all that has happened post-9/11 is an increase in the frequency of such searches - they are not a new phenomenon.

Now, while I may not have agreed with their basis for probable cause, at least they WERE claiming probable cause for those searches. WTF do you think a "red flag" is?

And those very lose standards for probable cause came from another failed, oppressive campaign to "make us safer"... the War on Drugs.

 

[Corn]

X-rays, bomb siffing, and dog sniffing are non-invasive.

Now you're just being silly. They are every bit as invasive, if not more so than manual searches. X-ray is not a window.

This is what it boils down for you: you don't like being stopped, you don't mind being searched as long as you don't "feel" like you're being searched. That's fine, just be consistant with regard to your "rights" against searches without probable cause, or be considered a hypocrite.

Why are they needed all of a sudden?

Because someone took an innocent and ordinary business tool and used it to hi-jack planes to fly into buildings. Until someone invents a shoe bomb detector, chemically altered evian bottled water detector, etc., I'm fine with manual searches done at airports, beause I'm submitting myself to being searched anyway, what's the difference? Perhaps it's just my thick skin.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Corn

X-rays, bomb siffing, and dog sniffing are non-invasive.

No you're just being silly. They are every bit as invasive, if not more so than manual searches.

This is what it boils down for you: you don't like being stopped, you don't mind being searched as long as you don't "feel" like you're being searched. That's fine, just be consistant with regard to your "rights" against searches without probable cause, or be considered a hypocrite.

[/quote]

Sorry, but I disagree with your insulting insinuation. We can leave it at that, because this will only lead to a flame war with your attitude.

Why are they needed all of a sudden? [/b]

Because someone took an innocent and ordinary business tool and used it to hi-jack planes to fly into buildings. Until someone invents a shoe bomb detector, chemically altered evian bottled water detector, etc., I'm fine with manual searches done at airports, beause I'm submitting myself to being searched anyway, what's the difference? Perhaps it's just my thick skin.

No, because our intelligence agencies failed to inflitrate and stop terrorist organizations where they started, instead of having to play catch up after the fact. The point here is to stop those who would commision shoe bombers at the source, instead of doing nothing, and punishing everyone by taking away their rights.

You want to treat the cold with cold medication, instead of preventing the cold in the first place. This approach to any threat is too little, too late, and costs us our rights.

If you're happy to have your belongings rifled through, and your body groped, fine. I am not.

 

[rahvin]

No, because our intelligence agencies failed to inflitrate and stop terrorist organizations where they started, instead of having to play catch up after the fact. The point here is to stop those who would commision shoe bombers at the source, instead of doing nothing, and punishing everyone by taking away their rights.

And just how exactly do you do that Amused? How do you infiltrate an organization where membership is almost entirely based on blood relationships? How do you gain intelligence on an organization that is so radical islam that the infiltrators would not only be risking their lives they may in fact be forced into commiting crimes against americans to gain the trust? How do you find people that COULD infiltrate these organizations and would be willing to do so?

You act as if we can simply wave a wand and infiltrate Al queda. Intelligence operations are nothing like the movies. As I understand it, before September 11 there were approximately 7 people in the CIA that spoke arabic. Chances are if you speak arabic you are muslim and if you are muslim you are required by the Koran to place your people (muslims) above your nation. So I ask again Amused, how exactly would you inflitrate? Is the CIA allowed to violate the basic rights of men as stated in our constitution to protect our nation?

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
There is no end date to the laws passed, or the rights suspended.

No one's piece of mind is worth my freedom, not even my own. If we start taking freedoms away to ease people's minds, I fear our future.

That's not even tangible, Amused. All along we've been talking about tangible threats, like Al Qaeda, verses intangible ones, like all those "countless diminishing freedoms" and how you "fear for our future"...

Tell me, do you feel any safer today, than you did 30 years ago? I sure as hell don't. Yet we've given away many freedoms in those 30 years. Sure, most are small, and hard to notice indivisdually, but they're gone all the same. The vast majority were given up to make us "safer."

I wasn't around 30 years ago, but comparing the height of the Cold war with peacetime August 2001(prior 9/11) I'd sure bet that most people would feel safer with the latter.

I for one had felt safe up till 9/11. I live in a country that no other country by name, dared to attack. You can be paranoid all you want, but most people know that to be the truth, even if they are a little uneasy about it.

 

[Corn]

Sorry, but I disagree with your insulting insinuation. We can leave it at that, because this will only lead to a flame war with your attitude.

Yeah, you're without attitude.

The difference is that my "attitude" is consistant, you're "feeling" insulted because you're realizing that your's is not.

If you're happy to have your belongings rifled through, and your body groped, fine. I am not.

There's a difference between tolerating something and being happy about it. X-ray is the same as someone "rifling through" my belongings--the end result is still the same: Some stranger knows what I've got in my bag. The only difference with these "random" searches is that now someone knows what I've got hiding in my shoe and asked me to drink my poisoned water.

The point here is to stop those who would commision shoe bombers at the source, instead of doing nothing, and punishing everyone by taking away their rights.

So, the intelligence community is "doing nothing" in your opinion, eh? In your little world, terrorist organizations can be found and decimated overnight.

Yeah, the CIA can snap their fingers and catch all the bad Al-Queda.

Of course the reality is different, they haven't caught them, thus counter measures are required until that time comes to pass.

You keep talking about "rights" but you haven't yet explained why a manual search of your shoes is any different than an x-ray of your bag. Well you did say:

It's the same as looking through my windows, instead of invading my house.

However, it's not the same. You can close your curtains and they can no longer see in. A more proper analogy to the x-ray of your belongings would be if they used infrared scanning of your home to see what you were doing in there, while using ultrasensitive microphones to listed to what you are saying. So, is that "non-invasive"?

 

[Moonbeam]

I guess I'll just emphasize one more time, in case anybody checks back, that as in ones personal affairs with other people and how one successfully or unsuccessfully harmonizes ones personal life with the lives of others, there are skills one can acquire or shun that make that easier or more difficult. Some that come to mind are being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. Man those just sort of flowed out of me like I'd memorized them or something. Anyway, international relations aren't really that different. I don't think we use our resources, our intelligence, our power, or our diplomatic or technical
skills sufficiently, internationally, to garner the kind of international respect we could have. We have a form of government that is a winner, in many ways, at least technically, and especially so if we can reduce the influence of money on the directions we take, but, anyway, we have a democracy based on the notion of inalienable rights that is, or should be, enviable, or desirably immitable. Most of the governments in the Middle East, etc, are dictatorships and they are only too accommodating in using anti American sentimate to deflect attention from their own failings. We should stand with the desire of all people for personal liberty, not with these dictatorships because they provide us with oil, etc. We need to be pro individual freedom, pro democracy, pro economic progress, pro development, pro human life, all over the world so that the people of the world think of us as their friends, not the friends of those who suppress them. Normally people don't blow up their friends. Do these things and the problems of choosing the lesser of two evils regarding liberty will eventually disappear.

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: skyking

The problem we face is a society of spineless baby boomers (Non Partisan!), who fear everything, and wish to legislate "SAFETY from all possible harm". Something terrible happens, and there is a cry and hue to try to prevent it from happening again.
This attitude drives the government to seek methods to wrap a protective cocoon around our people, without regard to rights and dignity.
Freedom is not free. There was a heck of a price paid for it along the way, and it is an ongoing lease. It will never be paid up.
Until our society gets a backbone, and accepts that things like Sept. 11 are not only possible, but likely, and don't amount to a blip on the scoreboard of suffering by americans throughout our history, we will be running and cowering, all too happy to give up our freedoms.
Once we give up a freedom, for any excuse, it does not return in full. There are always clever "caveats" that are thought to be acceptable "good ideas" , in light of the prior state of affairs.

You just got a 10. Can I excerpt that for my sig?

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Airline security presents a unique problem, a single individual can use an airplane to commit mass murder. Your right to avoid searchs has to be weighed against the rights of the rest of people on the plane to fly without being killed. Because of this we have metal detectors, random bag searches, xray machines. These all serve to try to prevent someone from killing a planefull of people.

This is where I have a huge problem with a lot of comments in this thread. I consider myself a reasonable person, and in my opinion, there's no way in hell that the terrorists are going to use airplanes in ANY way (besides being transported to the US) in the future (UNLESS it's just to show us how futile our "safety" efforts really are). 9/11 was a SURPRISE ATTACK. I guarantee you that any suspicious-looking Middle Eastern man (or group of Middle Eastern men) who makes a dash for the cockpit on a US domestic flight will be beaten within an inch of his life by his (their) fellow passengers, even at the risk of the other passengers' health and lives (barring that the person(s) in question have automatic weapons capable of keeping 30+ people at bay -- a situation that's long been prevented by simple metal detector screenings). Repeat after me, kids: no more commercial airliners are going to be flown into buildings. They played their Ace early, and we won't let them use it again. And no government intervention is needed; just the action of common citizens to protect their own lives and property.

There are plenty of other methods to fly planes into buildings. Hell, I bet that there's already multiple Al-Qaeda members who have successfully gotten themselves hired by UPS or FedEx. They fly lots of big planes, too, and there's probably a crew of just 2-3 people per flight. It'd be a simple task to slit a copilot's throat and fly a big UPS jet into a big building somewhere. Hell, with a good enough bluff, you might not even have to be an employee of UPS. But do we do anything about that? Do we thoroughly screen every UPS employee? Do we actually do something useful and reasonable? Nooo, we've got to make grandmas take their shoes off.

But FAR more likely than an attack with a UPS plane is a biological or chemical assault on another method of public transportation, or in a mall, school building, or something like that. The same number of people will die as in 9/11 (i.e. hundreds and possibly thousands). I don't understand what the hell it is about air travel that gets peoples' panties in a wad. What, do we want chemical/biological/weapon screenings at every place where more than 100 people gather at one time? In churches, nightclubs, movie theaters, restaurants, bookstores? Where will it all stop?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Several weeks ago in the airport in Traverse City, Michigan, my wife, my children of 8, 5, and 3, and I were all ?randomly? selected for a complete search of all our belongings. I have never been subject to more humiliating treatment in my life. We all?including my three-year-old son?had to take off our shoes, and hand them over for ?inspection.? I had to take off my sport coat and belt as well; and I had to hand over my wallet for it to be?well, who knows?

Geeze, that's the most humiliating thing ever?

Yup...I think dying would be a lot more humiliating...

Heck, I know I'd be embarrassed