What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

alfablue said:
While I have not posted on this, I feel compelled to be real devils advocate.

Would it help that the inspectors represent the airlines, and not the TSA? That way we know for sure that the rules are set to protect private coporation- ones that are not funded by the goverment. We've already given up the right to bear arms on a plane- but I also have for work (can't have guns on the property), or fun (can have guns at a hockey game); we've given up rights to drink (can't have those at work), given up rights to privacy- work can do some check to see if we are worthy. Given up a LOT of first amedment rights at work- tons of those.

I honestly don't like what so ever. But I also see that United, Delta, and Southwest are not governmet agencies. Happens that the TSA is.

So I'll go back to the original question- would it be better if the ones doing the searches actually represented the airlines?
Click to expand...

Sure, because then you really could speak with your dollars. If an airliner wanted to save money by not buying these stupid scanners or groping their paying customers, they'd have that choice.

Of course, if the FAA or a castrated TSA still required the same things under the guise of regulations upon the airlines, then we're right back where we started. Cause then there's still no way to get around it, and the Constitutional issues come back into play.
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

We still should look closer at the "Patriot Act" to see the why's in this.

The real people who benefit from this are the ones who make the scanner. they will make oodles of $$.

Still, how many amedment items do we give up as soon as we cross over the threshold onto the plane? Probably a lot more than we think, which doesn't make it right.
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

I get where you guys playing devils advocate are coming from and honestly, I have no idea how to solve this. It's an incredibly complex issue that needs to balance rights public safety. You can't complete get rid of searches, I totally understand and agree with this. I'm just somewhat uncomfortable with the current system. It's not that I'm embarrassed or have anything to hide, it's more of a legal issue for me.
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

Kepler said:
I'll play devil's advocate. The house isn't moving. A car is not just passive property, it's a potential menace. By being a licensed driver, you are giving consent to be checked for being drunk while driving (a violation of your license). You are not a licensed house resident -- you can get as drunk as you want in your living room and nobody will bother you.
Click to expand...

So can cops just stop you at random as you are driving to check to see if you're drunk? You are a licensed driver in that situation as well, are you not?
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

I guess now there are protests at airports. I am typically a believer that protesting is healthy. Even so, if protesters interfere with the airport operations and people trying to fly...this could backfire in their face.

unofan said:
Sure, because then you really could speak with your dollars. If an airliner wanted to save money by not buying these stupid scanners or groping their paying customers, they'd have that choice.
Click to expand...

I would err on the side of flying on the airline with the most invasive security. I don't care about being padded down...I want as few risks as possible when I fly.
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

5mn_Major said:
I would err on the side of flying on the airline with the most invasive security. I don't care about being padded down...I want as few risks as possible when I fly.
Click to expand...

So you'd be all for being handcuffed, sedated, and naked every time you fly? Afterall, that would present the fewest risks possible.
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

The relevant question,IMO, is this kabuki theatre we call "security" the best we can do? Or is there something else that would give us a better chance of stopping terrorists before they board. And at the same time not massively violate the rights of innocent Americans and waste hundreds of millions of dollars. We all know there's a better way. We're just afraid we'll be seen as racist if we provide the traveling public (many of whom are Muslims who surely don't want to die) with real security.

Scanners and pat downs would be a part of an improved security regime, but not the sine qua non. I'll say again: as long as we assume the risk is spread evenly through the public, we're just asking for some clever, dedicated people to figure out a way to take down an airliner. We know they're working the problem, they've told us. And when the day comes that a plane goes down, all of the naked nun pictures in the world won't make a difference. "But, but, how could this have happened? We've been feeling up little girls."
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

unofan said:
So you'd be all for being handcuffed, sedated, and naked every time you fly? Afterall, that would present the fewest risks possible.
Click to expand...

Do you have to pay a fee to fly like that, and if so, do you know how much?
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

unofan said:
So you'd be all for being handcuffed, sedated, and naked every time you fly? Afterall, that would present the fewest risks possible.
Click to expand...

Why are some of our liberal posters, who would scream bloody murder at any denial of rights to the most hideous criminals imaginable, firmly on the side of the unconstitutional invasion of the persons and property of innocent Americans who are merely attempting to get from Point A to Point B in time for Thanksgiving? "No doubt about it Rock, I've gotta get a new hat."
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

SJHovey said:
So can cops just stop you at random as you are driving to check to see if you're drunk? You are a licensed driver in that situation as well, are you not?
Click to expand...

Well in its purest form, that's what a sobriety check point is. They take every nth car and pull it over -- there's no probable cause.

These are complicated issues and they come down to negotiations in the public space -- that's what politics is. Rights as ideals are guaranteed but rights as concrete actions in the real world always have boundary conditions because of infringement on other's rights. Now the cops can't randomly stop you unless there's a law, but the law comes from that negotiation -- that's what Franklin meant by, "a Republic, if you can keep it."

There are also laws that are wrong, like portions of the Patriot Act, and we should work to change them, but while we're in the process of changing them we either obey them or deliberately violate them and then take the consequences. The key moment for Rosa Parks is not her keeping her seat, it's her allowing herself to be arrested -- inviting it -- because that's where the moment of engagement occurs within a democratic system.

Otherwise we're just throwing rocks at some poor s.o.b. who needed an entry level job on the police force or at the TSA counter, and he is neither a just nor a fruitful target.

jb_modern_parks_1_e.jpg

Fig 1. These Essence of Civil Disobedience​
 
Last edited:
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

Kepler said:
Well in its purest form, that's what a sobriety check point is. They take every nth car and pull it over -- there's no probable cause.

These are complicated issues and they come down to negotiations in the public space -- that's what politics is. Rights as ideals are guaranteed but rights as concrete actions in the real world always have boundary conditions because of infringement on other's rights. Now the cops can't randomly stop you unless there's a law, but the law comes from that negotiation -- that's what Franklin meant by, "a Republic, if you can keep it."

There are also laws that are wrong, like portions of the Patriot Act, and we should work to change them, but while we're in the process of changing them we either obey them or deliberately violate them and then take the consequences. The key moment for Rosa Parks is not her keeping her seat, it's her allowing herself to be arrested -- inviting it -- because that's where the moment of engagement occurs within a democratic system.

Otherwise we're just throwing rocks at some poor s.o.b. who needed an entry level job on the police force or at the TSA counter, and he is neither a just nor a fruitful target.

jb_modern_parks_1_e.jpg

Fig 1. These Essence of Civil Disobedience​
Click to expand...

Well said
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

The only problem I have with airlines being able to choose their own screening procedures is that violence on an airplane doesn't necessarily only impact the people on that airplane.
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

Chickens@NU said:
Wow, taking it to the extreme.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. He's the one who said he would err on the side of the most invasive security. I just want to confirm that's what he meant. Otherwise we're simply talking about shades of grey and where the line should be, not whether there should be a line at all.
 
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

Old Pio said:
The relevant question,IMO, is this kabuki theatre we call "security" the best we can do? Or is there something else that would give us a better chance of stopping terrorists before they board. And at the same time not massively violate the rights of innocent Americans and waste hundreds of millions of dollars. We all know there's a better way. We're just afraid we'll be seen as racist if we provide the traveling public (many of whom are Muslims who surely don't want to die) with real security.

Scanners and pat downs would be a part of an improved security regime, but not the sine qua non. I'll say again: as long as we assume the risk is spread evenly through the public, we're just asking for some clever, dedicated people to figure out a way to take down an airliner. We know they're working the problem, they've told us. And when the day comes that a plane goes down, all of the naked nun pictures in the world won't make a difference. "But, but, how could this have happened? We've been feeling up little girls."
Click to expand...

There are few things more irritating than when you are right. ;)

I've told my wife (now with the TSA, and I don't think there's a worse job today) that the better way is covert profiling. It's certainly not foolproof -- they are recruiting blue-eyed devils too -- but it would be a force multiplier. And yes it would absolutely suck and it would (still) be an invasion of civil liberties and it would be a slippery slope and it would be racist when Ma and Pa Kettle got into the act, let's not minimize those things. It's just better than wasting all our resources casting an enormously broad net in the name of racially-blind policy.

The solution to racist Japanese internment camps is not to deport all of us to them. That's called learning the wrong lesson.
 
Last edited:
Re: Take a Stand Against Sexual Assault: Resist the TSA

dxmnkd316 said:
I completely agree. In my opinion, the government shouldn't have any right to search me, my house, or my possessions unless I explicitly give them permission, there is probable cause, or they have a warrant. A roadblock doesn't satisfy these conditions. It would be like cops patrolling the city knocking on the door and telling someone they have to allow them in the house to search for illicit drugs. If they don't comply, it gives them probable cause to search the house. I don't get how anyone doesn't see the problem in that. You don't allow the government to search you, it gives them the right to search you. Backasswards.
Click to expand...

See I disagree. Unless they pull you out of the car and make you take a drunk test I dont see roadblocks as unreasonable searches. If they just stop me and ask me a couple of questions so they can smell my breath or whatever that is not like them forcing themselves into my house to see if they could find something. I have been pulled over quite a few times for ticky tack stuff so cops can find reason to test me. I dont feel it is intrusion, it is a waste of time because I never drive anywhere near the limit but I take the breathalyser and go on my way.

I am a hardcore 4th Amendment guy, but for my safety and for public safety there are things that should be allowed as reasonable. Road blocks are pretty much as far as I go though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top