|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 5, 2011 18:27:02 GMT -5
Learn your constitutional rights. Fourth Amendment
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 Even if we disregard the fact that the entire procedure is completely against the supreme law of the land, there is still no reason to slam this woman to the ground and arrest her. I'd like to point out that it's not an unreasonable search though... You need to re-read the text. It clearly says that probable cause is needed, as well as a warrant issued that describes the things to be seized. Unless they can prove that there is a reason to believe that I specifically am carrying a weapon, bomb, drugs, etc., then there is no legal right to search me. |
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 5, 2011 22:54:49 GMT -5
I don't know if I think the "enhanced patdown" is really considered an "unreasonable search." To prove that it's unconstitutional, wouldn't you have to prove by definition that it is indeed unreasonable? And I would say that it isn't, considering that part of your contract after buying a ticket is that you must be fully compliant with airport security.
Again, not being snarky at all, just curious what your take on that would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 5, 2011 23:05:41 GMT -5
I don't know if I think the "enhanced patdown" is really considered an "unreasonable search." To prove that it's unconstitutional, wouldn't you have to prove by definition that it is indeed unreasonable? And I would say that it isn't, considering that part of your contract after buying a ticket is that you must be fully compliant with airport security. Again, not being snarky at all, just curious what your take on that would be. It's not unreasonable that they are allowed to see you naked before you fly? Once what they are doing is unconstitutional, that agreement/contract is void. You cannot legally put something into a contract that is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Jan 6, 2011 3:15:15 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that it's not an unreasonable search though... You need to re-read the text. It clearly says that probable cause is needed, as well as a warrant issued that describes the things to be seized. Unless they can prove that there is a reason to believe that I specifically am carrying a weapon, bomb, drugs, etc., then there is no legal right to search me. If they ask you if you would like to submit to a search and you decline then you can't be surprised when they say they have reason to believe you are concealing a weapon... |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 6, 2011 4:24:20 GMT -5
I don't know if I think the "enhanced patdown" is really considered an "unreasonable search." To prove that it's unconstitutional, wouldn't you have to prove by definition that it is indeed unreasonable? And I would say that it isn't, considering that part of your contract after buying a ticket is that you must be fully compliant with airport security. Again, not being snarky at all, just curious what your take on that would be. No, they have to prove that it is reasonable. With a warrant. And if this was a private organization doing the security for their own company, I could understand them having specific rules... But the fact is that this is a Federal Government agency breaking its own rules. If they ask you if you would like to submit to a search and you decline then you can't be surprised when they say they have reason to believe you are concealing a weapon... No, I can be surpised, and I can be outraged. I do not own a gun, I don't own anything more than a set of steak knives. I certainly do not have a bomb on me. Still, I do not want naked photographs of me taken, nor do I want to have my balls touched by some creepy old man with a superiority complex. If they have reason to believe that I have one of those things on me, then by all means, please provide a warrant and I will be willing to concede to a search, which will find nothing but my pocket Bill of Rights. |
|
Dexter Morgan
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 15:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 3,130
|
Post by Dexter Morgan on Jan 6, 2011 6:55:01 GMT -5
Let me just leave a quote from George Carlin who perhaps said it best "Boy everyone in this country is running around yammering about their  ing rights. "I have a right, you have no right, we have a right." Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio, Mother Goose, craplike that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask you this, "where do they come from?" People say, "They come from God. They're God given rights." Awww , here we go again...here we go again. The God excuse, the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, "It came from God." Anything we can't describe must have come from God. Personally folks, I believe that if your rights came from God, he would've given you the right for some food every day, and he would've given you the right to a roof over your head. GOD would've been looking out for ya. You know that. He wouldn't have been worried making sure you have a gun so you can get drunk on Sunday night and kill your girlfriend's parents. But let's say it's true. Let's say that God gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights? The Bill of Rights of this country has 10 stipulations. OK...10 rights. And apparently God was doing sloppy work that week, because we've had to amend the bill of rights an additional 17 times. So God forgot a couple of things, like...SLAVERY. Just in' slipped his mind. But let's say...let's say God gave us the original 10. He gave the British 13. The British Bill of Rights has 13 stipulations. The Germans have 29, the Belgians have 25, the Swedish have only 6, and some people in the world have no rights at all. What kind of a in' god damn god given deal is that!?...NO RIGHTS AT ALL!? Why would God give different people in different countries a different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Do we find out at long last after all this time that God is weak in math skills? Doesn't sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning . Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words...business as usual in America. Now, if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious ing rights. Alright. You know about it. In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps. Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter. Yep, sooner or later the people in this country are going to realize the government doesn't give a about them. the government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. it simply doesn't give a about you. It's interested in it's own power. That's the only thing...keeping it, and expanding wherever possible. Personally when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all." |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 6, 2011 8:35:58 GMT -5
We do have rights.
Those rights can be taken away by Totalitarian regimes. The rights are still there, just the leadership isn't allowing you to have them at that moment.
However, we have a thing called the Supreme Court which is supposed to stop abuses of our rights. They are supposed to be the ones that, if the leadership starts taking away rights, right and left, they will be the ones to smackdown the leadership and restore those rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 6, 2011 10:33:50 GMT -5
No, they have to prove that it is reasonable. With a warrant. I guess my interpretation of how you interpret a law is different. Considering the term in the Constitution is "unreasonable search" and not "reasonable search," shouldn't you have to prove that the search is unreasonable to prove that the search is Unconstitutional? My ultimate take on this whole TSA "enhanced patdown" is this... they say that the average percentage of people who are subjected to this search is about 3%. Can we agree for the sake of this conversation that this is a reasonable estimate? If I am misunderstanding that please let me know. So if we are searching 3% of people who are going through the security checkpoints, that would mean that of the estimated 1.5 million people, the TSA is searching 45,000 per day. So if these searches are really as perverted as a handful have claimed (and I'm not calling them liars by any stretch), then why haven't we heard millions of people complaining about these searches? Is it possible that there are a couple of TSA agents who are clearly abusing their powers? Yes. But if they do it once, why wouldn't they do it twice, three times, or every time? If they are, again, why haven't we heard more than a handful of stories of this "legalized molestation"? (and BTW, I will be very disappointed with an answer of "the private citizens have been intimidated/threatened by government agents" or things like that) Again, just more food for thought, interested in more takes... |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 6, 2011 10:53:32 GMT -5
But they need a warrant to search. They can't just walk into your home and look for something that may be illegal. They also have to say what they are looking for.
I'd bet it is higher than 3%, but for the sake of the argument, let's just agree that it is 3%. That is 3% more than it should be.
It could very well be that the people who have it done don't know that it is unconstitutional. They just accept it, because they want to get on the plane. They don't want to make a fuss. They think it is ok if they sacrifice liberty for freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 6, 2011 11:14:54 GMT -5
There's a difference between entering someone's home to conduct a search and conducting a search that the airline passenger is contractually obligated to cooperate with.
And if it's higher than 3%, wouldn't that just mean we should hear even MORE people complaining? Because if they really are doing the skin-to-skin searches (which I would like to say I completely disagree with) on that 3% or whatever, I can say with reasonable confidence that the overwhelming majority of people would have a problem with it. Not just a minority. Do you agree with this?
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 6, 2011 11:21:46 GMT -5
You cannot be contractually obligated to surrender your constitutional rights.
No, people are stupid. They think that since this will make them safe from the terrorists, they'll do whatever it takes.
|
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 6, 2011 11:27:15 GMT -5
Well I guess I'll leave it at that...
|
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Jan 6, 2011 12:28:53 GMT -5
14 8 and 5 seem made up. And if they really happened it's a shame. #2 A 49-year-old Queens woman had bruises all over her body after she was handcuffed, arrested and brutally beaten by NYPD officers. So what was her offense? The officers thought that her little dog had left some poop that she didn’t clean up Now with Number 2 it's nice to see the police finally doing there jobs  I hate dogs so much. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 6, 2011 12:31:01 GMT -5
They are all real.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 6, 2011 14:59:59 GMT -5
I guess my interpretation of how you interpret a law is different. Considering the term in the Constitution is "unreasonable search" and not "reasonable search," shouldn't you have to prove that the search is unreasonable to prove that the search is Unconstitutional? No, the burden of proof is on the person or organization doing the otherwise illegal activity. This is the same thing if a police officer pulls you over and asks, "Can I look in your trunk?" You can say, "No" and unless they have a warrant (which would require probable cause -- and not just "he wouldn't open his trunk so he must have something illegal in there") to look in the trunk, they can not do so. My ultimate take on this whole TSA "enhanced patdown" is this... they say that the average percentage of people who are subjected to this search is about 3%. Can we agree for the sake of this conversation that this is a reasonable estimate? If I am misunderstanding that please let me know. I'm not sure what the numbers are exactly. The "enhanced pat down" is only part of the problem. The body scanner machines -- NOT METAL DETECTORS -- are also taking negative-images of individuals' naked bodies. If a person refuses to go through this scanner, which is also sending out potentially dangerous amounts of radiation, they are automatically subject to the enhanced pat down. Then again, you can be subject to both. So if we are searching 3% of people who are going through the security checkpoints, that would mean that of the estimated 1.5 million people, the TSA is searching 45,000 per day. So if these searches are really as perverted as a handful have claimed (and I'm not calling them liars by any stretch), then why haven't we heard millions of people complaining about these searches? People are sheep. Most of them do not understand their rights, and even more of them do not know what these body scanner machines do. Even worse, people are scared. They are embarrassed to stand up for their rights, which only makes things worse. We see these armed men with badges standing at the security check points, telling us "you must do this" and people just close their eyes hope that they don't piss off these thugs. People, for the most part, are going to support the status quo. It's the course of human history. It's how practically every dictatorship is created, and it's how the Nazi's took complete control of Germany. People were scared. Is it possible that there are a couple of TSA agents who are clearly abusing their powers? Yes. But if they do it once, why wouldn't they do it twice, three times, or every time? If they are, again, why haven't we heard more than a handful of stories of this "legalized molestation"? (and BTW, I will be very disappointed with an answer of "the private citizens have been intimidated/threatened by government agents" or things like that) I'm sorry you're disappointed by that, but it's the truth. My sister went through the body scanner machine on her way flying to my house for Christmas. She didn't even know what it was until I told her and showed her the images. She was then outraged. People don't know what this crapis and the government has done an excellent job of making people submit to it for "our own safety." They don't advertise the fact that they, themselves, admit that these machines are not effective. You cannot be contractually obligated to surrender your constitutional rights. No, people are stupid. They think that since this will make them safe from the terrorists, they'll do whatever it takes. Well said. |
|
