Are we losing our rights in the name of safety?

[BridgeTroll]

I'm glad you clarified the shoe bomber... because I sure was about to.  The full body scans and or pat downs are a response to the guy who had explosives in his underwear... the liquid limitations is a response to the guy who attempted to mix two non explosive ingredients into one very explosive ingredient.

"Any nation that would give up liberty in the name of security deserves neither."

My response...

"Any nation that would sacrifice security for convenience and expediency should not be surprised at what it gets."

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm glad you clarified the shoe bomber... because I sure was about to.  The full body scans and or pat downs are a response to the guy who had explosives in his underwear... the liquid limitations is a response to the guy who attempted to mix two non explosive ingredients into one very explosive ingredient.

"Any nation that would give up liberty in the name of security deserves neither."

My response...

"Any nation that would sacrifice security for convenience and expediency should not be surprised at what it gets."

I think I'm far more comfortable taking Benjamin Franklin's word on this than yours. Having been a founder of the United States, I would suspect he was in the better position to state what his own intent was when founding the nation and drafting the constitution than BridgeTroll. Just a suspicion. Again, you're the one who claims to be a strict constructionist whenever it's convenient, like the healthcare debate. Where is your strict constructionism here?

[BridgeTroll]

Then just answer this Chris.  Are you willing to sacrifice an airliner or two?

[ChriswUfGator]

Then just answer this Chris.  Are you willing to sacrifice an airliner or two?

That's a false bifurcation. The dick grabbings aren't accomplishing anything that metal detectors and xray machines already weren't. It's a useless procedure that is unconstitutional and personally invasive, and does little or nothing to increase security.

You are trying to make it seem like if the TSA is no longer allowed to touch your junk, 9/11 is going to happen again tomorrow. That is simply overblown rhetoric, and is untrue. These molestation pat downs and naked body scans aren't adding anything we didn't already have, they are simply taking away dignity and rights we already had.

Your position is patently un-American, as Benjamin Franklin has already pointed out for you.

[vicupstate]

It's been awhile since I have been through an airport, but don't the pat downs only occur IF you refuse the scan?  It's one or the other, isn't it? 

Of course if the scan shows something suspicious, then I'm sure a pat down would follow or vice versa.

Frankly, if you don't do one or the other, something will slip through.  Any prison guard will tell you that if they are too embarassed to check the groin area, that is exactly the passageway that the next shank is coming into the prison from. 

We need to do whatever Israel does, because that obviously works.     

[ChriswUfGator]

It's been awhile since I have been through an airport, but don't the pat downs only occur IF you refuse the scan?  It's one or the other, isn't it? 

Of course if the scan shows something suspicious, then I'm sure a pat down would follow or vice versa.

Frankly, if you don't do one or the other, something will slip through.  Any prison guard will tell you that if they are too embarassed to check the groin area, that is exactly the passageway that the next shank is coming into the prison from. 

We need to do whatever Israel does, because that obviously works.     

The rules have changed since you've flown last.

You can now be randomly selected for pat-downs where the TSA is instructed to grab your crotch, and naked body scanners are being installed at most airports. Neither of these things was in place before the past month or so, and if the last time you flew was prior to that then the game has changed, significantly for the worse.

That's what all the fuss is about...

[BridgeTroll]

So you are willing to sacrifice an airliner (and the passengers therin)or two... Got it.  Your precious boobies and junk are safe from those molesters at TSA...

[uptowngirl]

"Any prison guard will tell you that if they are too embarassed to check the groin area, that is exactly the passageway that the next shank is coming into the prison from. "

My point exactly, prisoners

(pris·on·er (prz-nr, prznr)
n.
1. A person held in custody, captivity, or a condition of forcible restraint, especially while on trial or serving a prison sentence.
2. One deprived of freedom of expression or action

not a traveller
trav·el·er or trav·el·ler (trvl-r, trvlr)
n.
1. One who travels or has traveled, as to distant places.
a. A traveling salesperson.

[ChriswUfGator]

So you are willing to sacrifice an airliner (and the passengers therin)or two... Got it.  Your precious boobies and junk are safe from those molesters at TSA...

And you are willing to sacrifice millions of people to disease and poverty....got it.  Your precious billionaires are safe from the evil poor people who worked their whole lives.

Well, naturally, they have private planes so BridgeTroll doesn't have to worry about them being inconvenienced.

Otherwise I'm sure he'd find all this horrifying...

[KenFSU]

Yes. I'm perfectly willing to accept a lost airliner or two, and I'm willing to accept the chances that I may be on one of them as well.

This is the price you pay to live in a free society.

In a free society, traveling within your country is supposed to be a reasonably pleasant experience. Call me old fashioned, but there is nothing pleasant about having my testicles fondled or being looked at nude by TSA officers. Many of them are nice people simply doing their job, but walk into any airport, and you will undoubtedly see egregious bullying as well. There is nothing American about intimidating and humiliating the elderly, and children, and pregnant women like they are convicted criminals. It’s disgusting. And if you dare feel uncomfortable and decide that you aren’t willing to be subject to such violation, you can technically be arrested on the spot. Airports were once a beautiful place, full of the same excitement and wonder that you would see at places like Grand Central Terminal or the old Jacksonville Terminal. Now, they are these creepy human processing centers where everyone is on edge.

I completed understand that there are two distinct sides to the debate. There are people like me. And then there are those of the opinion that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.” These are the people who have no problem with invasive TSA rub downs, warrantless wiretaps, red light cameras, and the federal government having access to their financial, travel, and library records. These are the type of people who often believe that if someone values their privacy and doesn’t want the government in their business, they are obvious doing something illicit.

I completely respect a person’s right to that opinion, but I don’t want anything to do with it. I’d be more than happy to see a new airline pop up that promises complete safety. Before you board, they take you into a back room and probe you every which way. When a person gets on this plane, they know that there is no way they face even the slightest risk. Give it some goofy name like Freedom Air, and let the type of people noted above go nuts with it. But for the rest of us, keep it to a minimum and let us take our chances with the one in a billion shot that we’ll be killed by terrorists.

[JeffreyS]

Yes we are giving up our rights in the name of safety if we chose to use these private businesses. 

We give up the right to not have the line be fifteen minutes longer, to not spend the money to fund the TSA and the right not have the awkward moment when they are checking the awkward places terrorists are willing to hide weapons.

Their will always be a balance between freedoms and safety for me slight inconveniences do not cross that line.

I hope I am not becoming a Republican.

[Dog Walker]

Spain had powerful backpack bombs set off on a train, killing dozens.  London buses were bombed the same way.

Ride a London bus or a Spanish train today and you do not go through metal detectors, luggage searches, x-rays, pat-downs, etc, but they have not had another similar attack.

Why?  They have found effective methods of stopping these attacks BEFORE people come close to a train station or bus stop and have stopped several similar attacks from even getting well organized by good intelligence and police work.

They do what the Israelis do,  they profile intelligently and train their people to do more than pat downs.

[BridgeTroll]

Yes. I'm perfectly willing to accept a lost airliner or two, and I'm willing to accept the chances that I may be on one of them as well.

This is the price you pay to live in a free society.

In a free society, traveling within your country is supposed to be a reasonably pleasant experience. Call me old fashioned, but there is nothing pleasant about having my testicles fondled or being looked at nude by TSA officers. Many of them are nice people simply doing their job, but walk into any airport, and you will undoubtedly see egregious bullying as well. There is nothing American about intimidating and humiliating the elderly, and children, and pregnant women like they are convicted criminals. It’s disgusting. And if you dare feel uncomfortable and decide that you aren’t willing to be subject to such violation, you can technically be arrested on the spot. Airports were once a beautiful place, full of the same excitement and wonder that you would see at places like Grand Central Terminal or the old Jacksonville Terminal. Now, they are these creepy human processing centers where everyone is on edge.

I completed understand that there are two distinct sides to the debate. There are people like me. And then there are those of the opinion that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.” These are the people who have no problem with invasive TSA rub downs, warrantless wiretaps, red light cameras, and the federal government having access to their financial, travel, and library records. These are the type of people who often believe that if someone values their privacy and doesn’t want the government in their business, they are obvious doing something illicit.

I completely respect a person’s right to that opinion, but I don’t want anything to do with it. I’d be more than happy to see a new airline pop up that promises complete safety. Before you board, they take you into a back room and probe you every which way. When a person gets on this plane, they know that there is no way they face even the slightest risk. Give it some goofy name like Freedom Air, and let the type of people noted above go nuts with it. But for the rest of us, keep it to a minimum and let us take our chances with the one in a billion shot that we’ll be killed by terrorists.

I appreciate you are honest enough to say so... Not sure where Stephen is going with his diseases and billionaires rhetoric or Uptown equating herself with a prisoner.

I believe there is a clear and present danger.
I believe efforts to date have deterred or discouraged attacks.

I am with Jeffrey in that I see this as an annoyance, an inconvenience, a hassle.  I was patted down at the football game Sunday.  I get patted down at concerts... some schools have metal detectors to pass through.  These are prudent steps to deter or stop attacks.  Your argument that someone will still sneak something through and kill people is silly and foolish.

Jeffrey... you are not becoming a republican... You are just using common sense.

[BridgeTroll]

I still have no idea what you are talking about. 

[ChriswUfGator]

I still have no idea what you are talking about.  

You browbeat us with your strict constructionist constitutional arguments on every other topic, ranging from healthcare, to taxes, to dealing with the homeless, grasping for arguments supporting your views, and which rest on your interpeting the constitution as rationally as a fundamentalist preacher interprets the bible. You laboriously birth these arguments that the government lacks the constitutional authority to do pretty much anything you don't agree with, even when that position is clearly unsupported by the very language you are citing.

But then, when something finally comes along that is expressly prohibited by the bill of rights, US Cont. Amendment IV, e.g. being subjected by the government to an unreasonable and personally invasive nude / crotch-rubbing search and seizure, just to go through security at an airport, you do a complete flip-flop and all of your prior constitutional arguments go right out the window.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

Seems pretty simple doesn't it?

You made the most convoluted twisted constitutional argument imaginable to say the US Govt lacks the authority to reform healthcare, despite that power having been specifically enumerated in the General Welfare Clause, Art. I ss. 8, but you're fine with a federal agency searching your genitals and conducting nude body scans in violation of the the express prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment? In this case, the language is completely self-explanatory, needing no twisted logic or interpretation. It's clear as day.

This is really a hell of a contradiction, no? Or do you just twist the constitution to suit your political needs?