Forum: Arts / Debates

Page:
Page 7 of 10: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By highlandrebelmember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 07:47 PM
For those of you who are okay with these new procedures, how far are you willing to allow the TSA to go for your safety?
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By OkinawaDancing
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 07:56 PM
Edited by OkinawaDancing (223602) on 2010-11-21 20:01:09
Edited by OkinawaDancing (223602) on 2010-11-21 20:02:16
highlandrebel wrote:

For those of you who are okay with these new procedures, how far are you willing to allow the TSA to go for your safety?


I think that THIS is the ultimate question here.

If tomorrow they decided to start cavity searches for all the reasons they say they are doing this what then?



Having flown into and out of the US multiple times yes, screenings are vigorous to go through customs but at no time going through customs have I ever been touched. The process is more intense without being more invasive.

I would also like to know where 78% of americans approving this came from if you don't mind.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By SaraTheGrouchmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:02 PM
As far as they need to go. If you don't like it, DON'T FLY.

I know these aren't the "same pat downs." But a pat down is a pat down. Strangers are still touching you. And as for the quasi-nudeatron opposers - I'm sure some of you let it all hang out in a micro mini bikini at the beach for all to see.

And whomever said that it takes 25 minutes to get through Israeli airport security is a jackwagon and clearly hasn't been in Ben Gurion airport. I was interrogated in that airport as a 15/16 year old, so uh, think again.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By i_am_me
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:05 PM
Heart wrote:

4. If a federal (or state) officer has reasonable suspicion, yes, he can pants you in public and yes, the Court will side with him.


Key word. "reasonable". It is not "reasonable" that a 10 year old is a potential terrorist. Or Grandma. Or the person who sets off the alarm just because they have a prosthesis or an insulin pump.

Heart wrote:

5. Flying is a privilege, not a right. Same with driving. It is an inconvenience not to, but that's your choice. If you fly on an airplane, you agree to the security measures or you don't fly. Period. If you drive on a road in New Jersey, you submit to a breathalyzer. Period. Or else you go to jail. These are the rules. Don't like 'em? Change 'em - 78% of the country isn't with you, so cheers!


Again..."reasonable". Read -

"Under these laws, if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you are driving under the influence, your refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test can result in the suspension or revocation of your license."

Meaning...you probably did something to merit the test.

And blowing into a breathalizer doesn't really compare to genital touching. Hellava lot more drunks on the roads than terrorists in the skies. But we don't all get pulled over, just because we are driving. At least I've never been.

Still not sure how that 10 year old flier still applies as giving "reasonable" grounds as a terrorist.


Heart wrote:

UmmmÂ… really???? In order to set foot on American soil, you have to go through Customs. Where you get checked, searched, the whole nine yards. No one is even allowed in the TERMINAL until their visas have been verified, their passports stamped, their luggage searched, everything. It's even MORE rigorous than it is for natural and naturalized citizens.


The same question regarding the international holes has been posed to the head of TSA. He can't give a clear answer. But glad you can.

Heart wrote:

Obama does not control the TSA. Congress does. Obama doesn't control ANYTHING by himself, except for the military; even then, he must answer to Congress. We the people like to get irate about things AFTER they happen, without realizing that our elected representatives are the ones who put the law in place.


Wha? We were discussing him having Malia and Sasha go ahead and get a vag swipe to show support for the new security measure. Never was there a mention of him controlling the TSA.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:07 PM
Edited by Heart (21721) on 2010-11-21 20:15:32
I'm more interested in the legal arguments than anything else...


I can't find the quote I'm looking for, but anyway, the case is Winston v. Lee. The Supreme Court was ruling on if the police could force surgery on a suspect without a warrant. The answer was HELL NO!, with a quote in there that something along the lines of "that is so crazy inhumane and against society's moral principles" but I can't find it, maybe it was another case.

Basically nobody is going to search your body cavities without probable cause. Nobody wants to stick their hand up there, they need a DAMN good reason to do so. Now, if somebody comes running out of the bathroom shouting "SHE JUST SHOVED SOME ROCK UP HER COOCH!", well ya know, the law is not perfect.

Basically I trust the law, I trust legal precedent, and I trust that I understand the law enough to know when to stop and say "with all due respect, I need to see a lawyer now." Be nice, polite, deferent, and even if you disagree you won't get messed with.

The nice thing about American justice is it can all be remedied within its own system. checks + balances!


EDIT.

Key word. "reasonable". It is not "reasonable" that a 10 year old is a potential terrorist. Or Grandma. Or the person who sets off the alarm just because they have a prosthesis or an insulin pump.
etc.

Please refer to my previous post:

"Border searches," which include airport searches, do not even require this standard, allowing for random searches; for case law, see United States v. Flores-Montano. Such searches are exempt of reasonable suspicion simply because they occur at the border (or in an airport, etc).

Wiki on it here. I'd find more cases but I gotta work on homework right now!

In sum: airport searches do NOT require probable cause or reasonable suspicion because they are random. And are at airports.

If you set off the alarm, that is reasonable suspicion. Doesn't matter if you say you're an amputee. You think you'd be the first amputee with a hollow leg stuffed with illegal materials? Puhleeeease.


re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By i_am_me
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:21 PM
SaraTheGrouch wrote:

As far as they need to go. If you don't like it, DON'T FLY.


Seriously? So if a cavity search is next, you would go ahead and submit? Or is that the convenient moment that you would just go ahead and draw the line and not fly.

Would you comply with every inane rule that the government imposed just because it's implemented?

SaraTheGrouch wrote:

I know these aren't the "same pat downs." But a pat down is a pat down. Strangers are still touching you. And as for the quasi-nudeatron opposers - I'm sure some of you let it all hang out in a micro mini bikini at the beach for all to see.


They are not the same. I have had the old pat down. Not an issue. I will have the new pat down. Not a fan, but whatever.

However, there are some people that DO NOT WANT TO BE TOUCHED ON THEIR GENITALS BY STRANGERS. I don't think that they should HAVE to submit to it. They are not "reasonable" suspects.

And, if you'd read the thread, you would see that some oppose the machine for radiation reasons. That's not me.

Others oppose it because it is TOO nude. Not sure why you'd assume that we would be on the beach in a micro bikini. OBVIOUSLY, we aren't or we wouldn't have an issue with it.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By RattyPattymember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:22 PM
OkinawaDancing wrote:

I would also like to know where 78% of americans approving this came from if you don't mind.

I found a poll on CBS the other day. www.cbsnews.com . . .
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By OkinawaDancing
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:30 PM
RattyPatty wrote:

OkinawaDancing wrote:

I would also like to know where 78% of americans approving this came from if you don't mind.

I found a poll on CBS the other day. www.cbsnews.com . . .


Thank you for the link. My question though is how many people approve of the new pat downs. Even if your trigger this x-ray you would be subject to them as well as if you have a condition where you can not go through the xray so I would find it interesting to know how many people approve of this new method. I read the article and didn't see anything about it in there. Sorry if I missed it.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By i_am_me
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:31 PM
Heart wrote:

In sum: airport searches do NOT require probable cause or reasonable suspicion because they are random. And are at airports.


Doesn't matter. The legality isn't being debated here. Nobody has said that this is illegal to do. Unreasonable. Yes. And common sense is not being applied. Therefore, the airlines will suffer in the long haul if the consumer is not happy flying.

Heart wrote:

If you set off the alarm, that is reasonable suspicion. Doesn't matter if you say you're an amputee. You think you'd be the first amputee with a hollow leg stuffed with illegal materials? Puhleeeease.


And the 10 year old who some won't put through the nude-a-tron? Or the woman with a prosthesis? All of these people are reasonable suspects? Seriously?
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By i_am_me
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:39 PM
RattyPatty wrote:

OkinawaDancing wrote:

I would also like to know where 78% of americans approving this came from if you don't mind.

I found a poll on CBS the other day. www.cbsnews.com . . .


I'll bet if that poll was taken today, after people have actually experienced it, it would not look like that.

The TSA wouldn't be backing up already if only a small margin of people objected. This morning there was no room for compromise. This afternoon, the situation was "evolving". The outcry is getting louder daily.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down? (karma: 3)
By SaraTheGrouchmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:43 PM
Don't tell me that some people oppose because of the radiation when you receive 0.3 to 0.7 millirems per hour of during typical flight. A dental x-ray will expose you to approximately 2 millirems of radiation. The radiation dosage of these new body scanners only expose you to .002 millirems or .02 microsierverts. A single chest x-ray exposes you to 100 microsierverts of radiation. A mammogram - 700! And don't even begin to tell me that you won't get mammogram because of the threat. That means you'd have to go through the scanner 5,000 times to receive the same amount of radiation as you would have if you had a chest x-ray. The only people who are at risk medically are the TSA scanners!

For comparison:
Screening at an airport X-ray scanner: .02 microsieverts
Negligible risk: 10 microsieverts/year
Transcontinental flight: 20 microsieverts
Average yearly radiation exposure from the environment: 3000 microsieverts
Chest X-ray radiation exposure: 100 microsieverts
Mammogram: 700 microsieverts
Abdominal CT scan: 10,000 microsieverts
Enough to cause radiation sickness: 1,000,000 microsieverts
Enough to cause death: 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 microsieverts

Source: NPR
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By YumYumDoughnutPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:49 PM
You honestly don't think that terrorists won't use small children to blow up planes? If everyone knows that children won't be scanned, don't you think terrorists will know that information and use it to their advantage? They already use children as human shields.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By OkinawaDancing
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:51 PM
SaraTheGrouch wrote:

Don't tell me that some people oppose because of the radiation when you receive 0.3 to 0.7 millirems per hour of during typical flight. A dental x-ray will expose you to approximately 2 millirems of radiation. The radiation dosage of these new body scanners only expose you to .002 millirems or .02 microsierverts. A single chest x-ray exposes you to 100 microsierverts of radiation. A mammogram - 700! And don't even begin to tell me that you won't get mammogram because of the threat. That means you'd have to go through the scanner 5,000 times to receive the same amount of radiation as you would have if you had a chest x-ray. The only people who are at risk medically are the TSA scanners!

For comparison:
Screening at an airport X-ray scanner: .02 microsieverts
Negligible risk: 10 microsieverts/year
Transcontinental flight: 20 microsieverts
Average yearly radiation exposure from the environment: 3000 microsieverts
Chest X-ray radiation exposure: 100 microsieverts
Mammogram: 700 microsieverts
Abdominal CT scan: 10,000 microsieverts
Enough to cause radiation sickness: 1,000,000 microsieverts
Enough to cause death: 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 microsieverts

Source: NPR


Some people (including one of my family members) can not receive any more radiation than absolutely necessary. In her case it's because of cancer treatments. This is also true for frequent flyers (the main reason the pilots union spoke against this).
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By SaraTheGrouchmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 08:53 PM
So DON'T FLY.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By i_am_me
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:01 PM
SaraTheGrouch wrote:

Don't tell me that some people oppose because of the radiation when you receive 0.3 to 0.7 millirems per hour of during typical flight. A dental x-ray will expose you to approximately 2 millirems of radiation. The radiation dosage of these new body scanners only expose you to .002 millirems or .02 microsierverts. A single chest x-ray exposes you to 100 microsierverts of radiation. A mammogram - 700! And don't even begin to tell me that you won't get mammogram because of the threat. That means you'd have to go through the scanner 5,000 times to receive the same amount of radiation as you would have if you had a chest x-ray. The only people who are at risk medically are the TSA scanners!

For comparison:
Screening at an airport X-ray scanner: .02 microsieverts
Negligible risk: 10 microsieverts/year
Transcontinental flight: 20 microsieverts
Average yearly radiation exposure from the environment: 3000 microsieverts
Chest X-ray radiation exposure: 100 microsieverts
Mammogram: 700 microsieverts
Abdominal CT scan: 10,000 microsieverts
Enough to cause radiation sickness: 1,000,000 microsieverts
Enough to cause death: 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 microsieverts

Source: NPR


Who are you arguing with? Read the thread so you know who opposes it and for precisely what reasons.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By i_am_me
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:03 PM
jazz_lover wrote:

You honestly don't think that terrorists won't use small children to blow up planes? If everyone knows that children won't be scanned, don't you think terrorists will know that information and use it to their advantage? They already use children as human shields.


Just as they would use a convenient body cavity. And those aren't being searched. Yet. The chances of them using a child is much less than their a$$.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By OkinawaDancing
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:05 PM
SaraTheGrouch wrote:

So DON'T FLY.


It just seems a little insensitive.

Don't like to be touched there? Don't fly!

Medical condition? Don't Fly!

Pilot airplanes and radiation can cause complication for continued exposure? Don't Fly.

PTSD going home for R&R to see family extremely concerned about being touched by someone else might trigger flashbacks? Don't fly!

Have children? Don't fly!
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By SaraTheGrouchmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:05 PM
I don't have to argue with anyone specifically. Anyone who opposes it knows who they are and can counter back with whatever argument they want to present. Why don't you tell me to read the thread for a third time? I can read, pal. And I'm not going to read 7 pages of hypocrisy, so you can stop wasting your energy now.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By i_am_me
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:09 PM
SaraTheGrouch wrote:

So DON'T FLY.


That's your easy answer to a human with a legit concern? To just scream at her not to fly? Life isn't this black and white. But maybe yours is.

Reminder: if this thread disintegrates into anything but a respectful discussion of opinions, I'll lock it.

It was on the Teacher's Board for a reason. It was moved by moderators out here to invite more discussion. Not my choice.

I don't post out here for very specific reasons.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By d4jmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:10 PM
Geez stg, I'm not a hypocrite and I think it is totally rude of you to insinuate that everyone on this thread is. Everyone gets a say you know. You're no more of an expert than anyone else. So you fly a lot - whoop-de-doo.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By SaraTheGrouchmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:17 PM
Edited by SaraTheGrouch (63195) on 2010-11-21 21:23:28
Okay, fine, 85% hypocrisy, 15% legitimate concerns. I never said the word everyone, nor did I say they couldn't post. I just said I didn't feel like spending my time reading through 7 pages. Happy now, d4j?
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down? (karma: 2)
By RattyPattymember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:18 PM
i_am_me wrote:

SaraTheGrouch wrote:

So DON'T FLY.


That's your easy answer to a human with a legit concern? To just scream at her not to fly? Life isn't this black and white. But maybe yours is.


Since Sara was replying to someone who cannot fly due to radiation exposure, I think it is important to go back and reread that the amount of radiation by the scanners is equivalent to approximately two minutes of an ACTUAL FLIGHT. If you can't handle the body scan radiation then you should not be flying at all!
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down? (karma: 2)
By highlandrebelmember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:23 PM
Why don't you tell me to read the thread for a third time? I can read, pal.


Why don't you tell us 'DON'T FLY' for a fourth time? We can read too, ya know.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By OkinawaDancing
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:24 PM
I think a lot of people have legitimate concern both for themselves and for others.

Not all situations are black and white. I think that is what got us here in the first place. The US is full of a number of people in a number of different positions and although it might not be an alarming rate of people who, for example, can't go through the xray because of radiation they have had in the past or don't want to be humiliated by taking out a prosthetic breast after going through a difficult time overcoming breast cancer the small percentages of potential issues add up. Goodness forbid next month it's me with the hip replacement or someone discovers that they have cancer and after vigorous radiation now can't return home to see their families without having been subject to an uncomfortable pat down. Our country is supposed to be a wonderful one because we are the land of opportunity. The stance that you and some TSA agents have taken of "then don't fly" is against those things.
re: Full Body Scan or Pat Down?
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Nov 21, 2010 09:25 PM
STOP POSTING FASTER THAN I CAN CITE SOURCES GAHHHH ////

Doesn't matter. The legality isn't being debated here. Nobody has said that this is illegal to do. Unreasonable. Yes. And common sense is not being applied. Therefore, the airlines will suffer in the long haul if the consumer is not happy flying.

Oh, it isn't? So all the people talking about their "rights," "invasion of privacy," and "probable cause" was just a hallucination? Whether or not it's legal is very important, and it's irresponsible to throw around the word "right" unless you know what it means. We're talking about a federal agency implementing a new policy. Its legality is crucial to the discussion, and, in fact, is most people's complaint.


That's your easy answer to a human with a legit concern? To just scream at her not to fly? Life isn't this black and white. But maybe yours is.

It IS that black and whtie. Nobody's FORCING you to fly in an airplane. It is not the only mode of travel out there. The national government has the RIGHT, as the Supreme Law of the Land, to regulate what security measures it wants on its airways. The national government's interest in security far outweighs your inconvenience and your wish to not be searched. If you do not want to be searched, do not fly on a commercial airliner.

Furthermore, don't refer to them as a "consumer." This is not a private company who is concerned with profit margins. This is the Division of Homeland Security. If, as a citizen, you have legitimate complaints with legal standing, feel free to inform your representatives and senators and have them address the matter as you see fit. Beyond that, no, the DHS does not give a crap whether or not you're "happy" with them - nor should they! That's not their job description!


RattyPatty wrote:

OkinawaDancing wrote:

I would also like to know where 78% of americans approving this came from if you don't mind.

I found a poll on CBS the other day. www.cbsnews.com . . .

The poll is from Gallup, without a doubt the most prestigious polling organization in the U.S. Poll.



Reminder: if this thread disintegrates into anything but a respectful discussion of opinions, I'll lock it.

It was on the Teacher's Board for a reason. It was moved by moderators out here to invite more discussion. Not my choice.

I don't post out here for very specific reasons.


You're not a mod and you don't make that call. And thanks, I'm the one that modded it!
Page:
Page 7 of 10: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ReplySendWatch

Powered by XP Experience Server.
Copyright ©1999-2021 XP.COM, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
XL
LG
MD
SM
XS
XL
LG
MD
SM
XS