"Naked body" scanners

[Switchback]

You are right, but wrong argument here. Just what "right" are you referring to in this mater? You have no right to fly. It is a choice you make. If you don't like it, don't fly. The government has every right to regulate thing to protect the majority of the population at teh dislike of a few.


Really, please post such for us to read. Lets clear this up. We can strt saving teh tax payers BILLIONS since public safety is no longer needed and governments (loca/state/federal) can't be helid liable we shoudl close up shop.

You would be better served having this "discussion" with my dog!

[wisco]

You are right, but wrong argument here. Just what "right" are you referring to in this mater? You have no right to fly. It is a choice you make. If you don't like it, don't fly. The government has every right to regulate thing to protect the majority of the population at teh dislike of a few.

My right against unreasonable searches. Please tell me where it becomes reasonable to see every potential paassenger naked.

Really, please post such for us to read.

I did. Post #27.

[Joeyd6]

Ahh, here it is:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html

Ever hear of context? Morons think a SC ruling is suddenly law of the land for all situations. In reality, any SC decision is only for the COMPLETE FACT PATTERN at hand. And don't read the liberal NY Times title and think it is truth. Read the entire decision by the USSC. This was an issue with the 14th Amendment, not the police responsibility/liability to protect. The liberal talking points you got on this are so far are worthless. Read the case facts and read the entire decision. As somebody who finished their JD degree, you might to learn to understand and comprehend case law before you preach it as truth. I love armchair lawyers.

[Switchback]

My right against unreasonable searches. Please tell me where it becomes reasonable to see every potential paassenger naked.

LOL I guess it is all about interpretation of "naked".

I suppose you agree that Clinton didn't have "sex" with Lewinski, huh?

[wisco]

You would be better served having this "discussion" with my dog!

If you're going to try to insult me at least do it directly.

Given the current state of the government and it's past actions in the name of "safety" I think you know as well as I do that you have no argument here. So instead you just lash out at my supposed incompetence.

You called my hypothesis of a possible terrorist working for an airline "grand conspiracy" yet 9/11 clearly demonstrates this is feasible.

You claim these measures are for safety yet there have been 2 terrorist incidents in the U.S. even so.

You accuse me of planning to "lose" yet you yourself imply that there will be another terrorist attack.

Then you agree with the insinuation that I'm a liberal because I disagree with your premises.

You represent a government that is eating this country alive, and has been for some time under a blanket of everything from "safety" to "economic recovery" and when confronted by a dissenting citizen you treat me as some kind of quack.

Look around man. Look at how many pissed off people there are, for a variety of reasons. The system that you serve and advocate for isn't working the way we want it to. You should be just as ticked as me...

[Joeyd6]

My right against unreasonable searches. Please tell me where it becomes reasonable to see every potential passenger naked.

You are only protected from unreasonable searches from the government when you have no choice. You have a choice here. Fly and get searched...or don't and don't get searched. Since you like arm chair lawyer non-sense and ACLU crap, look-up NYC subway searches. The ACLU already tried your line of thought on NYPD searches of passengers. Guess what? 100% legal after court reviews. We are not talking about being stopped and searched after a car stop or cops busting in your house. You are voluntarily consenting when you buy your ticket. Read the terms of passage on it. Take a Constitutional Law class. It is obvious liberal talking points from the ALCU are failing you.

I did. Post #27.

I saw and see above. Arm chair lawyering is bad idea. You are not good at it. And yes, I went and graduated from law school.

[Joeyd6]

Look around man. Look at how many pissed off people there are, for a variety of reasons. The system that you serve and advocate for isn't working the way we want it to. You should be just as ticked as me...

If you don't like it, why do you stay here? Immigrate to Canada....Mexico or some other country that meets your standards, if there is a country that does such. Why stay and complain when you can go somewhere else and be so happy?

[wisco]

LOL I guess it is all about interpretation of "naked".

Hmmm....

I have done both strip searches and these scans... and I DO think they are very similar.

Read your own words. You're contradicting yourself and talking in circles trying to break my argument.

[retdetsgt]

I didn't say I opposed the technology...just saying that I suspect it could be in law enforcement's interest to support some limitations on its use.

It's in their interest if they want to keep it. This isn't a totalitarian government, it's a representative democracy. No control nor limitations and more than a few people are going to get pissed and Congress and the courts will start to listen. Privacy has historically been held in high regard in this country. This is something they better use with discretion or I think it will be taken away to the detriment of everyone.

[wisco]

You are only protected from unreasonable searches from the government when you have no choice. You have a choice here. Fly and get searched...or don't and don't get searched. Since you like arm chair lawyer non-sense and ACLU crap, look-up NYC subway searches. The ACLU already tried your line of thought on NYPD searches of passengers. Guess what? 100% legal after court reviews. We are not talking about being stopped and searched after a car stop or cops busting in your house. You are voluntarily consenting when you buy your ticket. Read the terms of passage on it. Take a Constitutional Law class. It is obvious liberal talking points from the ALCU are failing you.

Oy vey. You'ree missing how deep this issue goes. It is yet another government regulation inside private business. It is another intrusion into the free market that has the added bonus of violating privacy.

I never consented to my government mandating body scanners inside a private sector business. If the business choses to do so, it's different. Or let the government build their own airline and scan to their hearts content.

I saw and see above. Arm chair lawyering is bad idea. You are not good at it. And yes, I went and graduated from law school.

I see. So if there's an intruder in my home and I call the police, but he shoots me before you get here - can I sue you for not getting here fast enough?

Doubtful.

[wisco]

If you don't like it, why do you stay here? Immigrate to Canada....Mexico or some other country that meets your standards, if there is a country that does such. Why stay and complain when you can go somewhere else and be so happy?

Who was it that said "this is the last place for freedom"? I believe in America, it is the best place in the world to be. What I'm pissed about is this socialistic-nanny-state-cradle-to-grave-hand-holding-non-representative farce of a government that's driving it into the ground using every excuse from "safety" to "sanitation" as justification.

[Switchback]

Hmmm....



Read your own words. You're contradicting yourself and talking in circles trying to break my argument.

I didn't address you because my 6 monthold puppy is more capable of a discussion than you.

My OWN words, if you had the reading comprehension that you imply, you'd see that I was referring to the similarities between these scans and strip searches in the sense of that it is more about looking for the objects than people... the IMPERSONAL nature of it. Then again, as we go along in this thread, I see that I should spell things out more clearly for you and have section that I direct you to read 3-4 times in the hopes you can take some of the intended understanding. Were it not that I plan to ignore your future posts (outside of TOS violations), I would keep try to keep that in mind for future use.

[retdetsgt]

I never consented to my government mandating body scanners inside a private sector business. If the business choses to do so, it's different. Or let the government build their own airline and scan to their hearts content.

That's not valid. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, it's in the Constitution. And protection of air travelers falls well within that right.

[wisco]

the IMPERSONAL nature of it.

I cannot believe that you would consider any part of a strip search impersonal. Wow.

[wisco]

Joey, there are plenty of other cases regarding the police and duty to protect (or lackthereof) issue.

This site has a bunch of them: Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals